Log in

View Full Version : What are the reasons to want Bush re- elected ?



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Silverback
07-02-2004, 09:42 PM
Here's a possible solution to the problem. It wasn't received very well in 1729, but we're so much more advanced now. ::)




A Modest Proposal



For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public


By Jonathan Swift (1729)


About this text.


It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.
I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them as those who demand our charity in the streets.



”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”



As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. It is true, a child just dropped from its dam may be supported by her milk for a solar year, with little other nourishment; at most not above the value of 2s., which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couples who are able to maintain their own children, although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom; but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders. I again subtract fifty thousand for those women who miscarry, or whose children die by accident or disease within the year. There only remains one hundred and twenty thousand children of poor parents annually born. The question therefore is, how this number shall be reared and provided for, which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing, till they arrive at six years old, except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier, during which time, they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers, as I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan, who protested to me that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old is no salable commodity; and even when they come to this age they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half-a-crown at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I have reckoned upon a medium that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, increaseth to 28 pounds.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

Infant's flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolific diet, there are more children born in Roman Catholic countries about nine months after Lent than at any other season; therefore, reckoning a year after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of popish infants is at least three to one in this kingdom: and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of papists among us.

I have already computed the charge of nursing a beggar's child (in which list I reckon all cottagers, laborers, and four-fifths of the farmers) to be about two shillings per annum, rags included; and I believe no gentleman would repine to give ten shillings for the carcass of a good fat child, which, as I have said, will make four dishes of excellent nutritive meat, when he hath only some particular friend or his own family to dine with him. Thus the squire will learn to be a good landlord, and grow popular among his tenants; the mother will have eight shillings net profit, and be fit for work till she produces another child.

Those who are more thrifty (as I must confess the times require) may flay the carcass; the skin of which artificially dressed will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen.

As to our city of Dublin, shambles may be appointed for this purpose in the most convenient parts of it, and butchers we may be assured will not be wanting; although I rather recommend buying the children alive, and dressing them hot from the knife, as we do roasting pigs.

A very worthy person, a true lover of his country, and whose virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased in discoursing on this matter to offer a refinement upon my scheme. He said that many gentlemen of this kingdom, having of late destroyed their deer, he conceived that the want of venison might be well supplied by the bodies of young lads and maidens, not exceeding fourteen years of age nor under twelve; so great a number of both sexes in every country being now ready to starve for want of work and service; and these to be disposed of by their parents, if alive, or otherwise by their nearest relations. But with due deference to so excellent a friend and so deserving a patriot, I cannot be altogether in his sentiments; for as to the males, my American acquaintance assured me, from frequent experience, that their flesh was generally tough and lean, like that of our schoolboys by continual exercise, and their taste disagreeable; and to fatten them would not answer the charge. Then as to the females, it would, I think, with humble submission be a loss to the public, because they soon would become breeders themselves; and besides, it is not improbable that some scrupulous people might be apt to censure such a practice (although indeed very unjustly), as a little bordering upon cruelty; which, I confess, hath always been with me the strongest objection against any project, however so well intended.

But in order to justify my friend, he confessed that this expedient was put into his head by the famous Psalmanazar, a native of the island Formosa, who came from thence to London above twenty years ago, and in conversation told my friend, that in his country when any young person happened to be put to death, the executioner sold the carcass to persons of quality as a prime dainty; and that in his time the body of a plump girl of fifteen, who was crucified for an attempt to poison the emperor, was sold to his imperial majesty's prime minister of state, and other great mandarins of the court, in joints from the gibbet, at four hundred crowns. Neither indeed can I deny, that if the same use were made of several plump young girls in this town, who without one single groat to their fortunes cannot stir abroad without a chair, and appear at playhouse and assemblies in foreign fineries which they never will pay for, the kingdom would not be the worse.

Some persons of a desponding spirit are in great concern about that vast number of poor people, who are aged, diseased, or maimed, and I have been desired to employ my thoughts what course may be taken to ease the nation of so grievous an encumbrance. But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is very well known that they are every day dying and rotting by cold and famine, and filth and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected. And as to the young laborers, they are now in as hopeful a condition; they cannot get work, and consequently pine away for want of nourishment, to a degree that if at any time they are accidentally hired to common labor, they have not strength to perform it; and thus the country and themselves are happily delivered from the evils to come.

I have too long digressed, and therefore shall return to my subject. I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.

For first, as I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the number of papists, with whom we are yearly overrun, being the principal breeders of the nation as well as our most dangerous enemies; and who stay at home on purpose with a design to deliver the kingdom to the Pretender, hoping to take their advantage by the absence of so many good protestants, who have chosen rather to leave their country than stay at home and pay tithes against their conscience to an episcopal curate.

Secondly, The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law may be made liable to distress and help to pay their landlord's rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown.

Thirdly, Whereas the maintenance of an hundred thousand children, from two years old and upward, cannot be computed at less than ten shillings a-piece per annum, the nation's stock will be thereby increased fifty thousand pounds per annum, beside the profit of a new dish introduced to the tables of all gentlemen of fortune in the kingdom who have any refinement in taste. And the money will circulate among ourselves, the goods being entirely of our own growth and manufacture.

Fourthly, The constant breeders, beside the gain of eight shillings sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year.

Fifthly, This food would likewise bring great custom to taverns; where the vintners will certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts for dressing it to perfection, and consequently have their houses frequented by all the fine gentlemen, who justly value themselves upon their knowledge in good eating: and a skilful cook, who understands how to oblige his guests, will contrive to make it as expensive as they please.

Sixthly, This would be a great inducement to marriage, which all wise nations have either encouraged by rewards or enforced by laws and penalties. It would increase the care and tenderness of mothers toward their children, when they were sure of a settlement for life to the poor babes, provided in some sort by the public, to their annual profit instead of expense. We should see an honest emulation among the married women, which of them could bring the fattest child to the market. Men would become as fond of their wives during the time of their pregnancy as they are now of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, their sows when they are ready to farrow; nor offer to beat or kick them (as is too frequent a practice) for fear of a miscarriage.

Many other advantages might be enumerated. For instance, the addition of some thousand carcasses in our exportation of barreled beef, the propagation of swine's flesh, and improvement in the art of making good bacon, so much wanted among us by the great destruction of pigs, too frequent at our tables; which are no way comparable in taste or magnificence to a well-grown, fat, yearling child, which roasted whole will make a considerable figure at a lord mayor's feast or any other public entertainment. But this and many others I omit, being studious of brevity.

Supposing that one thousand families in this city, would be constant customers for infants flesh, besides others who might have it at merry meetings, particularly at weddings and christenings, I compute that Dublin would take off annually about twenty thousand carcasses; and the rest of the kingdom (where probably they will be sold somewhat cheaper) the remaining eighty thousand.

I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged, that the number of people will be thereby much lessened in the kingdom. This I freely own, and 'twas indeed one principal design in offering it to the world. I desire the reader will observe, that I calculate my remedy for this one individual Kingdom of Ireland, and for no other that ever was, is, or, I think, ever can be upon Earth. Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance: Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from Laplanders, and the inhabitants of Topinamboo: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it.

Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, 'till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

But, as to my self, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, which, as it is wholly new, so it hath something solid and real, of no expence and little trouble, full in our own power, and whereby we can incur no danger in disobliging England. For this kind of commodity will not bear exportation, and flesh being of too tender a consistence, to admit a long continuance in salt, although perhaps I could name a country, which would be glad to eat up our whole nation without it.

After all, I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion as to reject any offer proposed by wise men, which shall be found equally innocent, cheap, easy, and effectual. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in contradiction to my scheme, and offering a better, I desire the author or authors will be pleased maturely to consider two points. First, as things now stand, how they will be able to find food and raiment for an hundred thousand useless mouths and backs. And secondly, there being a round million of creatures in human figure throughout this kingdom, whose whole subsistence put into a common stock would leave them in debt two millions of pounds sterling, adding those who are beggars by profession to the bulk of farmers, cottagers, and laborers, with their wives and children who are beggars in effect: I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food, at a year old in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor clothes to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of entailing the like or greater miseries upon their breed for ever.

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing.

The End

Silverback
07-02-2004, 09:48 PM
Oh, and Kitana from the parallel universe,

My memory is that the Antichrist is a new testament concept, so I'm confused given that you've indicated that you're Jewish. ???

I like the new avatar, though. :)

Lilith
07-02-2004, 10:41 PM
I am going to agree with Pumkpin Pie. I have two large issues with Kerry, currently. First, I have no idea what his stances are. Back and forth, back and forth. The only thing I've seen him stand by consistently is making everyone love him and gay rights. I need something more. Second, his plans for a possible presidency sound very fine and idealistic. One wonders, however, how he plans to pay for them. I like his plans, they seem foresighted and aimed at the appropriate population segments (with a little revision, but I'm sure that will come). If he announces his wife will be paying for all of it, then by golly all he need to is give some definitive statements on foreign policy, international trading and terrorism and he's got me.

Back to pragmatic reality, however. There have been a few key points in Bush's presidency that I did not agree with. Stem cell research, for one, but then I knew his stance when I voted for him and he was consistent. Do not even get me started on the Patriot Act- in my view, worst legislature since NAFTA (may Clinton rot in hell). I have to concede that the man has not cost me money, though. In my view, he's spent the last four years focusing on international stability (which he did not have much option on) and fiscal responsibility, in that order. Terrorism has absorbed much of his presidency, but he has still found time for small strides in the right direction for health care and education. Small, inexpensive strides well calculated to affect the neediest sections at the greatest cost efficiency. I am curious to see what he can do domestically with a little more elbow room.

Like Pumpkin, I would leap at the chance for someone more representative of my views. I will settle for keeping government as small as possible, however, until something better comes along.

Madcap
07-02-2004, 10:43 PM
Back to pragmatic reality, however. There have been a few key points in Bush's presidency that I did not agree with. Stem cell research, for one


Oh god, me too... I was nuts over that.

Lilith
07-02-2004, 10:59 PM
Yeah, we could all see that one coming but jiminy's sake... On the one hand, his ideals were well known and he ran under the life issue, so he gets brownie points for actually keeping a campaign promise. On the other, would it have killed him to allow just one lab free reign under a five-year time deadline for research results? Was that too much to ask?

If only we could get a candidate with a socially liberal idealogy and at least SOME fiscal responsibility. The Democrats are like televangelists in a way; they have me hook, line and sinker right up to the point at which they ask me to whip out my checkbook. I'll tell you exactly what would get my vote in a heartbeat. The first person to announce that their immediate act upon gaining the presidency would be to hire 3000 of the finest accountants to go through every government department in existence and check their books for fraud, excess money and mishandled finances, with the proceeds going to all the fine upstanding things I want to see happen.

Like that's ever going to happen either.

Tigerlilly
07-02-2004, 11:16 PM
Like Pumpkin, I would leap at the chance for someone more representative of my views. I will settle for keeping government as small as possible, however, until something better comes along.


What are the issues you want addressed by the next President ?

I don't see that Kerry has gone back and forth all that much. No more than Bush. What I see is the Bush team trying in their TV spots to make it look like Kerry is always going back and forth -- I love FactCheck.org for that exact reason, they show how both twist things in their ads and speeches. It does seem that Bush does more twisting but I am a bit biased since I can't stand how he tries to shove his religious beliefs down our throats. Just look at his website, there are several religion based ideas and plans on there and I feel religion should be kept out of goverment , not that I am holding my breath that it will happen anytime soon. One of the things I really like about Kerry is his lack of religious rhetoric. Bush is always preaching God this and God that- bleh!

edited to add- take a look at Bush's front page it FULL of smear tactics. Attacking Kerry is his main campaign tool. Kerry does much less of that negative attack ad stuff and instead tends to focus on issues and what he would like to do for the country.

Lilith
07-03-2004, 12:11 AM
I don't watch TV so I have no idea what commercials are on. I get my news from the internet, so no, my statement was not based on watching some campaign quackery.

I just came from Kerry's site. I saw plenty of "Bush did this! and "Bush did that!" Frankly, I don't care what Bush did. I want to know what Kerry is going to do, besides not be Bush.



What are the issues you want addressed by the next President?

I want NAFTA and the Patriot Act repealed and replaced with something that makes sense.

Other than that, I want a government that 1) ensures proper security and lawfulness 2) educates its citizens 3) cares for the needy 4) protects our rights and 5) keeps us economically and scientifically competitive. And I want it all done through an efficient use of tax dollars. After they have done that, I want them to leave us alone to live as we see fit.

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 12:44 AM
What are the issues you want addressed by the next President ?

1) Wipe out terrorism world-wide. Appeasement didn't work to prevent WWI or WWII. Endless UN resolutions don't work. If a terrorist attack leads back to a nation (next time that very likely being Iran) that supported that terrorist organization, take them down. Get a good measure of international support, but don't try to get everyone onboard because not everyone will be onboard.

All other points are basically libertarian. Smaller restrained government.


...but I am a bit biased since I can't stand how he tries to shove his religious beliefs down our throats.

It is nice to see you can see that you might be biased.


edited to add- take a look at Bush's front page it FULL of smear tactics. Attacking Kerry is his main campaign tool. Kerry does much less of that negative attack ad stuff and instead tends to focus on issues and what he would like to do for the country.

Here in Wisconsin (one of this election year's swing states and thus heavily advertised by both parties), almost all of Kerry's ads are anti-Bush. They're also a bit humorous if you remember what he's run in the past. First, we're in a "recession without hope". Then it was a "jobless recovery". Now it is "not good enough new jobs." And he caps it with "We deserve better!" ... but then he doesn't say what exactly he'll do for the economy that Bush isn't already doing. It reminds me of a political cartoon I saw recently. It shows Bush and Kerry standing in front of a wall. Their shadows are casting against the wall. Bush's caricature has big ears and his shadow does too. Kerry's shadow looks exactly like Bush's shadow.

As for the stem cell debate, I think it is stupid too. However, Bush isn't against using the stem cells already in use by researchers. And since stem cells can endlessly divide, they can provide enough for researchers. I don't think that's totally unacceptable until stem cell research can actually make good on the hopes and dreams the researchers say will come of it.

Djoser
07-03-2004, 01:13 AM
On the other, would it have killed him to allow just one lab free reign under a five-year time deadline for research results? Was that too much to ask?

If only we could get a candidate with a socially liberal idealogy and at least SOME fiscal responsibility...

I'll tell you exactly what would get my vote in a heartbeat. The first person to announce that their immediate act upon gaining the presidency would be to hire 3000 of the finest accountants to go through every government department in existence and check their books for fraud, excess money and mishandled finances...

Well, I couldn't agree more with you, but I also agree it isn't likely to happen.

I am going to manfully restrain myself about Bush here, as the topic won't allow me to answer the question positively. There's plenty of room elsewhere for that.

Madcap
07-03-2004, 03:15 AM
There's really only one candidate that can do the job...

kitana
07-03-2004, 10:54 AM
OMG!!!! Madcap I love it!!!! I totally forgot about him, damn I need to do more research about the candidates again. LOL Pac-man!

Silver back, you are right about the anti-christ and the NT, But I was not always jewish, do I still retain some of the knowledge of my former religion. Btw, nice to see ya again, and tell Kitana I said hi.

Kitana

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 11:13 AM
1) Wipe out terrorism world-wide.


Pumpkin Pie- I am afraid that is an unrealistic expectation. There have been acts of terrorism since the beginning of mankind and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Kitana-- can you tell me why you feel Kerry is the Anti- Christ ? Or is that just some humor or your part ?

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 12:27 PM
1) Wipe out terrorism world-wide.


Pumpkin Pie- I am afraid that is an unrealistic expectation. There have been acts of terrorism since the beginning of mankind and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

You asked what I wanted the US President to address. I took that as what should their goals be and not my "expectations" of what is possible.

And terrorism has just changed and changed for the better. As I said before and I'll now say again: Two terrorist-supporting nations (Afghanistan and Iraq) are no more. This more than anything else sent a message to all nations supporting terrorist groups that their national borders will not shield them from us going after them. They cannot use (or buy off) the UN to protect them from invasion. And they all got the message. Libya cried "Uncle!" and is doing everything it can to show it is no longer in the international terrorism game. North Korea has stopped beating the war drums and is now begging for foreign aid. Iran has even gone mute and their quick turn-over of captured Brit sailors shows they know they cannot get away what they did when Jimmy Carter was president. 70% of Al Qaeda is killed or in prison. And the US government hasn't stopped its attack on the terrorists and nations around the world are working with it towards this goal. State-sponsored international terrorism is no more. That should be something that the world should celebrate. While that should have happened a long time ago and shouldn't have cost the thousands of American lives that were killed on 9/11, I'm just glad it has finally come to pass. There are still terrorists groups but they're weaker without any government giving them safe harbor and with nations hunting them down. We might not ever completely win this second phase of the War on Terrorism but only a head-in-the-sand fool would advocate that we not go after these bastards. And just like criminals, all it takes is them to make one slip for us to get them ... or rather a guided missile to come down their chimney.

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 12:31 PM
State-sponsored international terrorism is no more. .


I am afraid that is just not true on a worldwide level. You might find some of this interesting:

I would like to say that i was disgusted at Bush's retreat of promised support in Liberia. You should do some research on what goes on there, if you can stomach it. It makes the Middle East look like Disney.

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 12:36 PM
State-sponsored international terrorism is no more. .


I am afraid that is just not true on a worldwide level.

I've backed up my statement with facts. Please do so with yours.

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 01:03 PM
Do you know anything about what has gone on in Liberia and how Bush promised help and then didn't follow through.

We are talking about little children being kidnapped and forced to join an Army of sorts then fed cocaine and taught eat their victims. Those that resisted had their own or family memmbers body parts chopped off. This was all state spoced by the countries former American educated President and much of still goes on !

check these out :





And this link shows how Bush abandoned Liberia

also Rolling Stone did an eye opening piece liberia about two years ago- you may want to see if you can find that.

The situation in Liberia is very close to my heart and to see you denying that it exsists makes me cringe and it's a perfect example of why we are viewed as ignorant and self centered internationaly.

Here's some more basic information to get you started on terrorism in Africa :



And what about Cuba. Have you forgotten Cuba ?

The Cuban Government continues to allow at least 20 Basque ETA members to reside in Cuba as privileged guests and provided some degree of safehaven and support to members of the Colombian FARC and ELN groups. In August 2001, a Cuban spokesman revealed that Sinn Fein's official representative for Cuba and Latin America, Niall Connolly, who was one of three Irish Republican Army members arrested in Colombia on suspicion of providing explosives training to the FARC, had been based in Cuba for five years. In addition, the recent arrest in Brazil of the leader of a Chilean terrorist group, the Frente Patriotico Manuel Rodriguez (FPMR), has raised the strong possibility that in the mid-1990s, the Cuban Government harbored FPMR terrorists wanted for murder in Chile. The arrested terrorist told Brazilian authorities he had traveled through Cuba on his way to Brazil. Chilean investigators had traced calls from FPMR relatives in Chile to Cuba following an FPMR prison break in 1996, but the Cuban Government twice denied extradition requests, claiming that the wanted persons were not in Cuba and the phone numbers were incorrect.

People can go around thinking that Bush has saved the world from terror but to that I say BAAAAAAAAAAA ! What a bunch of blind sheep >:(

kitana
07-03-2004, 01:15 PM
Naw, that's just humor on my part to an extent. There is just something about the guy that creeps me out BIG TIME. I always listen to my inner workings, and something inside tells me that guy is just no good. Every time I see him and hear him talk on T.V. I just get this sense of doom and way bad things to come. These images flash in my head(yes I'm crazy but it's ok I take Paxil) of a total dictatorship, and thousands of people, dying and homeless people everewhere. It's just not pleasent stuff. And coupled with the fact that damn near everyone likes him, it's just scarey. But that's just me, I'm wierd like that sometimes.
Kitana

Madcap
07-03-2004, 01:20 PM
I could go on and on about the Antichrist, but this isn't the thread for it.

Suffice it to say that it's not even a New Testament concept... Not what we know of as the Antichrist, anyway. John was most likely refering to Nero.

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 01:39 PM
State-sponsored international terrorism is no more. .


I am afraid that is just not true on a worldwide level. You might find some of this interesting: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2004/31077.htm

I would like to say that i was disgusted at Bush's retreat of promised support in Liberia. You should do some research on what goes on there, if you can stomach it. It makes the Middle East look like Disney.

After one quotes one of your posts, it is bad form to go back and edit the quoted post to make up for its previous shortcomings. That can be viewed as trying to pull one over on other readers. The only sentence in the above reply in your initial reply was the first sentence and which was quoted by me in its entirity in my reply to your initial post.

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 02:22 PM
What the hell was I trying to hide ? I added stuff before I even read your quote, I didn't remove anything !

And by the way editing a post that has been quoted doesn't change the quote so no one can pull anything over on anyone anyway ::)

Is that all you have to prove your ( incorrect) claims of no more state sponsered terrorism in the world ? Please, how weak ! And typical SHEEP behavior-- Baaaaaaaaaaa !

Is that all you have to say about the horrible things that went on in Liberia that Bush promised to help with and then abandoned ?

And what about Cuba ? Do you not think there is state supported terrorism in Cuba?

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 02:43 PM
What the hell was I trying to hide ? I added stuff, I didn't remove anything !

And by the way editing a post that has been quoted doesn't change the quote so no one can pull anything over on anyone anyway ::)

No, my reply pointed out that you didn't back up your statement. That you then go back and edit the post to do so is very poor form. A person that hadn't read your initial post and then read my reply to it would get the impression that I only quoted one sentence of your post and ignored the link and other statements you then made.


Is that all you have to prove your ( incorrect) claims of no more state sponsered terrorism in the world ? Please, how weak ! And typical SHEEP behavior-- Baaaaaaaaaaa !

First, if you continue this insulting behavior, I will stop responding to you in this thread. Have I treated you with such disrespect in this thread?

Second, my reply above was meant to deal with your poor debating tactics separately so the topic we were discussing can be separate.

Third, I am currently working on a reply to you. I've spent time on a lovely Saturday afternoon reading your links and am right now fine-tuning my reply.


Is that all you have to say about the horrible things that went on in Liberia that Bush promised to help with and then abandoned ?

You'll see my comments in the reply I'll be posting soon.

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 02:45 PM
look I wrote it and then went to find some links for you that's all. If you are afraid of people thinking you ignored my link then delete your comment - geez!

By the way I call lots of Bush supporters sheep ;)

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 03:06 PM
look I wrote it and then went to find some links for you that's all. If you are afraid of people thinking you ignored my link then delete your comment - geez!

No, you made an unsubstantiated statement and I called you on it. To go back and revise it is just poor form. You're trying to rewrite history to show that you didn't. Not only that, but, whether intentional or not, it was re-written in such a way that one might view my reply as being ignorant of what you added. Just apologize and let's move on.


By the way I call lots of Bush supporters sheep. ;)

Which is wrong if you want them to listen to you and your positions. If you don't show them any respect, how can you expect them to respect you? I was under the impression that you wanted to listen to those that you disagreed with and, to quote from the post you started this thread with:

"I promise not to bash those that have the guts to explain their point of view in this thread and I hope my other anit-Bush people will refrain fom doing so as well.

Lets give them a chance to explain their side."

Has your position now changed? Do you want the bashing to start? Impress me. Apologize and let's get back to the civilized discussion we had been having.

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 03:12 PM
Do you know anything about what has gone on in Liberia...

Yes, I do, but what does this have to do with the topic we were discussing? That being state-sponsored international terrorism after the start on the War on Terrorism.


The situation in Liberia is very close to my heart and to see you denying that it exsists makes me cringe...

Where have I denied that is exists? We were talking about state-sponsored international terrorism after the War on Terrorism was declared. Liberia doesn't apply to that discussion.


Here's some more basic information to get you started on terrorism in Africa :

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/n06162004_200406163.html

This link doesn't name any African government that is currently supporting terrorism. What it does say is that terrorists are on the run, Africa is where they're running to due to poor border security of some of the African countries, and the US is taking steps to hunt them down in Africa. In fact, it talks about how many African nations are joining the anti-terrorism effort. The article actually supports my contension that state-sponsored international terrorism is now a thing of the past.


And what about Cuba. Have you forgotten Cuba ?

Not at all. But again, what international terrorism has it backed since the US declared a War on Terrorism?


The Cuban Government continues to allow at least 20 Basque ETA members to reside in Cuba as privileged guests and provided some degree of safehaven and support to members of the Colombian FARC and ELN groups. In August 2001, a Cuban spokesman revealed that Sinn Fein's official representative for Cuba and Latin America, Niall Connolly, who was one of three Irish Republican Army members arrested in Colombia on suspicion of providing explosives training to the FARC, had been based in Cuba for five years. In addition, the recent arrest in Brazil of the leader of a Chilean terrorist group, the Frente Patriotico Manuel Rodriguez (FPMR), has raised the strong possibility that in the mid-1990s, the Cuban Government harbored FPMR terrorists wanted for murder in Chile. The arrested terrorist told Brazilian authorities he had traveled through Cuba on his way to Brazil. Chilean investigators had traced calls from FPMR relatives in Chile to Cuba following an FPMR prison break in 1996, but the Cuban Government twice denied extradition requests, claiming that the wanted persons were not in Cuba and the phone numbers were incorrect.

This sounds like a quote from a news article. Please give its source.

Oh, and what it cited is pre-War on Terrorism.


People can go around thinking that Bush has saved the world from terror but to that I say BAAAAAAAAAAA ! What a bunch of blind sheep >:(

By the above, I've shown I'm not blind. I would also appreciate if you would return to your previous polite discourse. I do not care to discuss topics with anyone that continues to throw insults at me.

Devastating Divyne
07-03-2004, 04:10 PM
I was serious. If I was concerned about shock value I'd be writing for the entertainment of others and not just answering a question. I answered honestly b/c that is one of the only reasons that I would ever be alright with him being president for another 4 years. And, as for Kerry being the antichrist, well I don't know about all that. But, he was a little rude when he came to Westminster.

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 04:33 PM
Yes, I do, but what does this have to do with the topic we were discussing? That being state-sponsored international terrorism after the start on the War on Terrorism.

Problems in Liberia were indeed going on long before 9/11 - read the up on Charles Taylor- many of the problems there continue today. Your statements shows you didn't read anything I took the time to look up for you on Liberia.




Where have I denied that is exists? We were talking about state-sponsored international terrorism after the War on Terrorism was declared. Liberia doesn't apply to that discussion.

yes you did- By saying there is no other state supported terrorism in the world now that Bush attacked Afag. and Iraq. There is lots of other places on the planet where it exists !



And what about Cuba. Have you forgotten Cuba ?



Not at all. But again, what international terrorism has it backed since the US declared a War on Terrorism?

This sounds like a quote from a news article. Please give its source.

Oh, and what it cited is pre-War on Terrorism.


- sorry I did so much research for you I forgot to add this link

The terrorism in Cuba has not ended since Bush declared war, it goes on just the same as it did before.




By the above, I've shown I'm not blind. I would also appreciate if you would return to your previous polite discourse. I do not care to discuss topics with anyone that continues to throw insults at me.


Yes you are being blind by continuing to deny that state supported terrorism still exists. Bush chooses to focus his efforts on Iraq for one reason and one reason only- he wants what they have -OIL !!!!!!

By the way plenty of terror acts occur in N. Korea as well- they arrest people up to 3 Generations down from those they consider traitors and put them in jails and practice chem. warfare on them. Look it up !

Bush doesn't offer help to any of these nations because he wouldn't profit much. It's not about terrorism or human rights for him it's about PROFIT!!!!!!!

oh by the way you did insult me by saying I had no facts and then trying to imply that I was intentionaly trying to mislead readers???? Which is a bold face lie.

You have not proven anything of your claims that Bush ended state supported terrorism everywhere in the world. What you have proved is that you aren't well informed and are buying into what Bush preaches.

I'm not wasting anymore time on someone who chooses to stay ignorant despite obvious facts.

Good day to you Mr. SHEEP !

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 06:28 PM
Yes, I do, but what does this have to do with the topic we were discussing? That being state-sponsored international terrorism after the start on the War on Terrorism.

Problems in Liberia were indeed going on long before 9/11 - read the up on Charles Taylor- many of the problems there continue today. Your statements shows you didn't read anything I took the time to look up for you on Liberia.

The topic of discussion was state-sponsored international terrorism after the War on Terrorism was declared. Liberia doesn't apply to that discussion.




Where have I denied that is exists? We were talking about state-sponsored international terrorism after the War on Terrorism was declared. Liberia doesn't apply to that discussion.

yes you did- By saying there is no other state supported terrorism in the world now that Bush attacked Afag. and Iraq. There is lots of other places on the planet where it exists !

We were discussing state-sponsored INTERNATIONAL terrorism AFTER the War on Terrorism was declared by Bush. None of the examples you've so far given (including in the last post) have disproven my assertion ... whereas I've given solid examples that back my assertion.



And what about Cuba. Have you forgotten Cuba ?



Not at all. But again, what international terrorism has it backed since the US declared a War on Terrorism?

This sounds like a quote from a news article. Please give its source.

Oh, and what it cited is pre-War on Terrorism.



http://www.iacsp.com/o2001.html (http://www.iacsp.com/o2001.html)- sorry I did so much research for you I forgot to add this link

When you quote from another person, common decency states that you give them credit for their words. Not to do so is considered plagiarism. When you use another source in a debate, proper form is to tell who you're debating with what source you're using to back up your argument so your opponent can evaluate that source. If they're your own words, you simply say that. These were not your own words so you should have given their source.

However, I can understand why you would like to not give the source since, after reading the article, it supports my assertion.


The terrorism in Cuba has not ended since Bush declared war, it goes on just the same as it did before.n

Another unsubstantiated assertion.




By the above, I've shown I'm not blind. I would also appreciate if you would return to your previous polite discourse. I do not care to discuss topics with anyone that continues to throw insults at me.


Yes you are being blind by continuing to deny that state supported terrorism still exists.

Except that is not what I was saying. I was talking about state-sponsored INTERNATIONAL terrorism. Again, you've yet to prove my assertion false.


Bush chooses to focus his efforts on Iraq for one reason and one reason only- he wants what they have -OIL !!!!!!

Another unsubstantiated assertion.


By the way plenty of terror acts occur in N. Korea as well- they arrest people up to 3 Generations down from those they consider traitors and put them in jails and practice chem. warfare on them. Look it up !

But that isn't state-sponsored INTERNATIONAL terrorism. That was the topic of discussion.


Bush doesn't offer help to any of these nations because he wouldn't profit much. It's not about terrorism or human rights for him it's about PROFIT!!!!!!!

Another unsubstantiated assertion.


oh by the way you did insult me by saying I had no facts and then trying to imply that I was intentionaly trying to mislead readers???? Which is a bold face lie.

No, they're facts.

Fact: You made the following unsubstatiated assertion: "I am afraid that is just not true on a worldwide level." I called you on it and asked you to give facts to back it.

Fact: After reading that I called you on it, you went back and edited your post to add what you felt were facts that back your assertion. That can easily be viewed as potentially misleading readers.

Stating facts isn't throwing insults. However, calling someone a "blind sheep" and such is throwing insults.


You have not proven anything of your claims that Bush ended state supported terrorism everywhere in the world. What you have proved is that you aren't well informed and are buying into what Bush preaches.

Then you need to re-read what I've already posted in response to this and show how I'm wrong in those facts that I use to back my assertions. You haven't. Nor have you given evidence to the contrary. In fact, you've twice given evidence that backs MY assertion.


I'm not wasting anymore time on someone who chooses to stay ignorant despite obvious facts.

Good day to you Mr. SHEEP !

You haven't proven your assertion or disproven the items I've used to back my assertion. On this point, you've lost. Calling me put-down names just indicates a sad state of immaturity and/or desperation on your part.

And calling me a blind follower of Bush is rather ridiculous since I've a long-time libertarian, ran on the LP ticket in 1996 for my state's legislature (http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/politics/lpus/lpwi/campaign96.html ... my name is Scott T. Jensen), and have only identified myself as a libertarian on this forum and others when such a question arises, such as the following SW thread: http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=10468;st art=15 For over the last twenty years, I've voted Libertarian. So I'm anything but a blind follower of Bush or the Republican Party. That I'm now considering voting for Bush should give you pause and wonder how such an important decision for someone so politically active in the LP came about. It was with a great deal of thought and discussion with other fellow libertarians, both big and little "L". One night, I raised the topic and a very serious discussion took place ... and is continuing to take place. It was surprising to me how many of them also leaning towards Bush before or as a result of that discussion.

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 08:56 PM
Ok Pumpkin here's what you are looking for, the only acceptable reply in your mind.

YOU ARE RIGHT THERE IS NO TERRORISM ANYWHERE SINCE BUSH ATTACKED IRAQ. HE HAS ENDED ALL TERRORIST ACTIVITY WORLDWIDE.

YOU ARE ALSO ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. YOU ARE THE SMARTEST PERSON TO EVER WALK THE EARTH-- PAST PRESENT OR FUTURE, WE ALL SHOULD BOW DOWN AND SERVE YOU OH MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE.

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 09:35 PM
Ok Pumpkin here's what you are looking for, the only acceptable reply in your mind.

YOU ARE RIGHT THERE IS NO TERRORISM ANYWHERE SINCE BUSH ATTACKED IRAQ. HE HAS ENDED ALL TERRORIST ACTIVITY WORLDWIDE.

YOU ARE ALSO ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. YOU ARE THE SMARTEST PERSON TO EVER WALK THE EARTH-- PAST PRESENT OR FUTURE, WE ALL SHOULD BOW DOWN AND SERVE YOU OH MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE.

No, an acceptable apology for me would be: "I'm sorry for calling you names. I'm very emotional about this election and I guess I got a bit carried away. I'm very embarrassed for having bashed you ... especially after stating I wouldn't bash any poster that contributed to this thread that I started. Please accept my apologies and let's get back to discussing issues in a respectful polite manner." Note that nowhere in this do you concede to my position.

As for conceding that you cannot substantiate your assertion that there is still state-sponsored international terrorism in the world after the War on Terrorism was declared, you could have just not replied. It's called a silent concession. Since you cannot adequately counter my assertion, you do not continue to counter it to just counter it thus drawing further attention to the weakness of your position.

Unfortunately, your above reply just continues your insulting behavior towards me. It does says quite a bit about you though. Too bad it isn't anything good.

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 09:36 PM
I was under the impression that you wanted to listen to those that you disagreed with and, to quote from the post you started this thread with:

"I promise not to bash those that have the guts to explain their point of view in this thread and I hope my other anit-Bush people will refrain fom doing so as well.

Lets give them a chance to explain their side."

Has your position now changed? Do you want the bashing to start? Impress me. Apologize and let's get back to the civilized discussion we had been having.


oy yeah one last thing I forgot to respond to earlier today- I didn't start this thread Isis did ::) I have nothing to apologize to you for

you're wrong about there being no more state supported terrorism in the world.

Silverback
07-03-2004, 09:41 PM
Ok Pumpkin here's what you are looking for, the only acceptable reply in your mind.

YOU ARE RIGHT THERE IS NO TERRORISM ANYWHERE SINCE BUSH ATTACKED IRAQ. HE HAS ENDED ALL TERRORIST ACTIVITY WORLDWIDE.

YOU ARE ALSO ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. YOU ARE THE SMARTEST PERSON TO EVER WALK THE EARTH-- PAST PRESENT OR FUTURE, WE ALL SHOULD BOW DOWN AND SERVE YOU OH MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE.









Did you edit that post, Tigerlilly? :D

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 09:49 PM
LOL! Yes I did , go ahead and get out the guns and fire away at me for using a site feature ;D

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 09:55 PM
I was under the impression that you wanted to listen to those that you disagreed with and, to quote from the post you started this thread with:

"I promise not to bash those that have the guts to explain their point of view in this thread and I hope my other anit-Bush people will refrain fom doing so as well.

Lets give them a chance to explain their side."

Has your position now changed? Do you want the bashing to start? Impress me. Apologize and let's get back to the civilized discussion we had been having.


oy yeah one last thing I forgot to respond to earlier today- I didn't start this thread Isis did ::)

My mistake. Due accept my apology for attributing Isis's wishes for civilized conduct in this thread to you.


I have nothing to apologize to you for

Sad. Truly sad.


you're wrong about there being no more state supported terrorism in the world.

Sorry, you repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 10:02 PM
Sorry, you repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.


Sure Pumpkin whatever you say I mean like I said you are the smartest person to ever walk the earth, past, present or future. If you say there is no goverment supported terrorist activity in the world since Bush declared war then it must be true right ;)

How silly of me to have ever questioned the master of the universe :dunce:

Pumpkin Pie
07-03-2004, 10:10 PM
Sorry, you repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.


Sure Pumpkin whatever you say I mean like I said you are the smartest person to ever walk the earth, past, present or future. If you say there is no goverment supported terrorist activity in the world since Bush declared war then it must be true right ;)

How silly of me to have ever questioned the master of the universe :dunce:

There's a lot more smart people like me if your only criteria for brilliance is that one substantiates one's assertions with solid facts and requests you substantiate your assertions. You need to get out more. That might also help you learn to be polite and respectful to those you disagree with.

Maturity isn't about age. It's about reflection. Those that never reflect, never mature.

Tigerlilly
07-03-2004, 10:56 PM
I guess these for example are all figments of imagination:


Thomas Janis was murdered by Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia terrorists on 13 February in Colombia. Mr. Janis was the pilot of a plane owned by Southern Command that crashed in the jungle. He and a Colombian army officer were wounded in the crash and shot when the terrorists discovered them. Three American passengers on the plane -- Keith Stansell, Marc D. Gonsalves, and Thomas R. Howes -- were kidnapped and are still being held hostage.


In 2003, the FARC conducted several high profile terrorist attacks, including a February car-bombing of a Bogota nightclub that killed more than 30 persons and wounded more than 160, as well as a November grenade attack in Bogota’s restaurant district that wounded three Americans.


also check out :

Which shows several other attacks that took place after the War on Terror declared as well as who funded these attacks. There several there that are state supported .

Sure seems to be alot of imaginary terror attacks there Pumpkin.

Madcap
07-03-2004, 11:09 PM
Not to mention Hamas and Hezbollah. I'm "sure" the Palestinian Govornment in Exile "Doesn't" sponser them... ::) I'm also "sure" neither group are sponsored by Syria, Lebenon, or Jordan, either. ::) Our cuddly arab allies would never do something like that... right?

Al Q was hardly the only state sponsored terrorist group, and it's arguable that even they are STILL being supported by our supposed allies Saidi Arabia (Not to mention other states, ranging from Indonesian nations, to the middle east).

Pumpkin Pie makes a good show of demanding facts, while supposedly proving his negative statement with facts of his own. However, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. This is why we still have people insisting that the lock ness monster is real, because no-one can prove it isn't or at least wasn't real. You can't say something doesn't exist and then logically prove it's non-existance. This works as well for state sponsored terror as it does faeries.

:twocents:

Pumpkin Pie
07-04-2004, 02:16 AM
Not to mention Hamas and Hezbollah. I'm "sure" the Palestinian Govornment in Exile "Doesn't" sponser them... ::) I'm also "sure" neither group are sponsored by Syria, Lebenon, or Jordan, either. ::) Our cuddly arab allies would never do something like that... right?

I think Palestine is a poor example to counter my assertion with. It ignores the Palestinians' claims to their land and how Israel has taken their land. I view Israel as an occupying land-grabbing military force in Palestine ... as does most of the world. Do I understand why Israel is conducting itself this way? Yes. I'm even sympathetic to their point of view ... but I can also see the other side of the equation as well.


Al Q was hardly the only state sponsored terrorist group, and it's arguable that even they are STILL being supported by our supposed allies Saidi Arabia (Not to mention other states, ranging from Indonesian nations, to the middle east).

Individual Saudi Arabians, yes. Supported by the Saudi Arabian government? I'd like to see evidence of this since the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq ... or, even though it would fall outside of the point I was making, beforehand. Also, look what the Saudis are currently doing against terrorists within their own country. They're now very much going after the terrorists with vengeance.


Pumpkin Pie makes a good show of demanding facts, while supposedly proving his negative statement with facts of his own. However, it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

I made it exceptionally easy to attack my assertion by making the assertion extremely strong. To disprove, you just need to find one good example to counter it. If instead I lowered the assertion to simply "Since the declaration of a War on Terrorism by Bush and the toppling of Afghanistan and Iraq, state-sponsored international terrorism is dramatically declined worldwide.", there would be no debate. However, I purposely went out on a limb because I was and still am interested to see if such a strong assertion could withstand attack.

As for Tigerlily, I'm not going to spar with her anymore due to her unapologetic disrespectful, impolite, and insulting conduct she has been exhibiting towards me. I like discussing issues, but am only interested in discussing them with mature civilized individuals. Tigerlily has more than proven that she isn't such. Additionally, she's very sloppy in what support evidence she presents and, due to finding two of the links she presented turning out to be backing my assertion, I've been running on the assumption that she doesn't actually fully read the articles she posts links to.


This is why we still have people insisting that the lock ness monster is real, because no-one can prove it isn't or at least wasn't real.

There's always kooks in the world. There are people that still believe that the world is flat and that the whole Moon mission was filmed on a Hollywood set. However, only a fool would state that everyone must agree on everything for it to be considered real. If that was the case, nothing would be considered real. Nothing.


You can't say something doesn't exist and then logically prove it's non-existance.

Yes, you can. The Loch Ness monster is a good example of this. No scientific community or respected scientist asserts that there is a Loch Ness monster. No creditable evidence has been ever presented to prove that there is one. Spinning that to my assertion...

I made a very strong assertion that can be disproved with one solid example. A similar assertion would be that Germany is no longer supporting the Nazi SS. By your reasoning above, I couldn't make that statement since it is a negative. However, both you and I know I'm right on that point. The burden of proof would be on those that say that Germany is still supporting the Nazi's SS. Along those lines...

Let's not forget Tigerlily's positive assertion that there is still state-sponsored international terrorism. When asked to present supporting facts, she couldn't. She did keep repeating her assertion over and over, but you and I both know that doesn't make an assertion true.

Madcap
07-04-2004, 02:56 AM
I think Palestine is a poor example to counter my assertion with. It ignores the Palestinians' claims to their land and how Israel has taken their land. I view Israel as an occupying land-grabbing military force in Palestine ... as does most of the world. Do I understand why Israel is conducting itself this way? Yes. I'm even sympathetic to their point of view ... but I can also see the other side of the equation as well.


Yeah, but the P.G.I.E. is recognized by quite a few people. I think they are allowed as observers at the U.N. (though i'm not sure). My point was that since the Palistinians themselves recognize the P.G.I.E. (It might be known as another name now, as i haven't kept up on it since Arafat 'stepped down').


Individual Saudi Arabians, yes. Supported by the Saudi Arabian government? I'd like to see evidence of this since the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq ... or, even though it would fall outside of the point I was making, beforehand. Also, look what the Saudis are currently doing against terrorists within their own country. They're now very much going after the terrorists with vengeance.

'Going after the terrorists with a vengance' only means so much. After all, the King over there isn't the only one with power and cash. Even if HE wasn't sponsoring Al Q, yet Nephew Ali, Cousin Abu, and so on ARE supporting them, i'd still call that state sponsored, since govornment officials are doing the supporting.


I made it exceptionally easy to attack my assertion by making the assertion extremely strong. To disprove, you just need to find one good example to counter it. If instead I lowered the assertion to simply "Since the declaration of a War on Terrorism by Bush and the toppling of Afghanistan and Iraq, state-sponsored international terrorism is dramatically declined worldwide.", there would be no debate. However, I purposely went out on a limb because I was and still am interested to see if such a strong assertion could withstand attack.

I would have totally agreed with "Dramatically declined" so you are right on that count. But NO state sponsored terrorism has nothing backing it up. Even one example will disprove it, and they are all no doubt laying low at the moment for reasons that will be obvious. I'd say the strongest evidence that the statement is false is that the current administration still has a list of states that sponsor terrorism.



There's always kooks in the world. There are people that still believe that the world is flat and that the whole Moon mission was filmed on a Hollywood set. However, only a fool would state that everyone must agree on everything for it to be considered real. If that was the case, nothing would be considered real. Nothing..

Now we are getting somewhere. Nothing CAN be proven without conclusive evidence. If i tell you there's a rock in my garden and then go get it, you know there was a rock in my garden. If i told you i had a flying, Intangible, invisible, soundless, heatless-fire-breathing dragon in my garage, you would think there was something very strange going on in my head, but you couldn't disprove it. There's no way to. This is why it would be up to ME to prove that there was said Dragon in my Garage.

The burden of proof is on the claiment.

To use another example, In order to prove the negative conclusively that, say, faeries don't exist, you would have to go out and get everything in the universe and bring it to me so i could say "Nope, that's not a faerie, nope that's not one either." This is impossible. Therefore if *I* was to claim faeries existed, it would be up to me to prove it. Even though anyone above the age of 10 knows Queen Mab and Tam Lin are just faerie tales.

This both helps and hurts your argument. See, I can't say "There ARE still state sponsored terrorist groups" without being able to conclusively prove it, BUT even if i was unable to provide such proof you still couldn't say "Aha! So there are NO state sponsored terrorist groups" because in order to do that conclusively you would have to scan the entire surface of the earth and all it's nooks and crannies.

My argument was mainly with the definitive statement. Us Agnostics tend to think about things like *conclusive proof* and *Negative/Positive Statements.* We are just wired that way.


Yes, you can. The Loch Ness monster is a good example of this. No scientific community or respected scientist asserts that there is a Loch Ness monster. No creditable evidence has been ever presented to prove that there is one. Spinning that to my assertion....

But, without scanning the entire lake you couldn't 100% DISprove it. And even then, if there was an underground channel or something to the ocean, that would open another can of worms entirely. And i could also bring up the Coelicanth for the Scientists (Or the megamouth shark), once it was 100% accepted that the Coelicanth died out 300 million years ago, "things change" i could say. But this is just hypothetical, as Nessie is ridiculous.


I made a very strong assertion that can be disproved with one solid example.

Yes, it can. But without Omnipotence it can't be proven, either. Nothing says fifteen countries we don't even know about don't sponsor terrorism. I'd say it's on the low-low at the moment, because the Marines are hot on the tail, but i don't doubt it one bit. NO state sponsored terror means the War on Terror is almost over, since there would only be a few more landless terror groups to asskick. Bush still talks about the WoT, there is still a list of states that 'sponsor' it (LIBYA is still on that list), that's pretty strong evidence to back up the other side, but it doesn't disprove yours.


A similar assertion would be that Germany is no longer supporting the Nazi SS. By your reasoning above, I couldn't make that statement since it is a negative. However, both you and I know I'm right on that point. The burden of proof would be on those that say that Germany is still supporting the Nazi's SS. Along those lines...

Actually, there is pretty good conclusive proof that the Nazi SS is dead and buried. Conclusive proof is possible, but without it nothing can really be said 100% either way.


Let's not forget Tigerlily's positive assertion that there is still state-sponsored international terrorism. When asked to present supporting facts, she couldn't. She did keep repeating her assertion over and over, but you and I both know that doesn't make an assertion true.


No, repetition doesn't make anything true. But i tend to lean towards the idea that there is still state sponsored terror. This is part emotional, since i'd rather not be at at a football game when VX gas is pumped into the STL dome. But part of it is that it just plain seems logical. The list is still there, after all, and the Administration probably knows more about this than we do (An appeal to authority, i know, and also illogical, but probably true).

Anyway, not PROOF per se, but good evidence. Plus it's usually better to err on the side of caution. Hell, i'd love it if you were right, but what i am really saying is this "How do we know that?"

Sitri
07-04-2004, 04:11 AM
I don't have the energy to debate right now,

but here is a link to election stories in the Times.

Pumpkin Pie
07-04-2004, 12:15 PM
I think Palestine is a poor example to counter my assertion with. It ignores the Palestinians' claims to their land and how Israel has taken their land. I view Israel as an occupying land-grabbing military force in Palestine ... as does most of the world. Do I understand why Israel is conducting itself this way? Yes. I'm even sympathetic to their point of view ... but I can also see the other side of the equation as well.


Yeah, but the P.G.I.E. is recognized by quite a few people. I think they are allowed as observers at the U.N. (though i'm not sure). My point was that since the Palistinians themselves recognize the P.G.I.E. (It might be known as another name now, as i haven't kept up on it since Arafat 'stepped down').

That P.G.I.E. has some recognition around the world doesn't really counter my argument that using Palestine isn't a good counter-argument to my assertion. Not all Palistinians recognize P.G.I.E. or think they're doing the job that needs to be done.

By the way, whoever came up with that organization's name was a PR moron. The abbreviation is horrible ... especially when you consider that the pig is considered a filthy creature in the Arabic world.



Individual Saudi Arabians, yes. Supported by the Saudi Arabian government? I'd like to see evidence of this since the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq ... or, even though it would fall outside of the point I was making, beforehand. Also, look what the Saudis are currently doing against terrorists within their own country. They're now very much going after the terrorists with vengeance.

'Going after the terrorists with a vengance' only means so much.

But is an important development and shouldn't be lightly tossed out of hand.


After all, the King over there isn't the only one with power and cash. Even if HE wasn't sponsoring Al Q, yet Nephew Ali, Cousin Abu, and so on ARE supporting them, i'd still call that state sponsored, since govornment officials are doing the supporting.

No, you cannot say that because members of a government privately support terrorism that it means that government supports terrorism. Also realize that the Saudi monarchy isn't a figurehead monarchy like the royal family in Britain. It controls and runs that country. It is an absolute monarchy and if the king isn't behind something, you cannot say that his government is when a prince or so privately does.



I made it exceptionally easy to attack my assertion by making the assertion extremely strong. To disprove, you just need to find one good example to counter it. If instead I lowered the assertion to simply "Since the declaration of a War on Terrorism by Bush and the toppling of Afghanistan and Iraq, state-sponsored international terrorism is dramatically declined worldwide.", there would be no debate. However, I purposely went out on a limb because I was and still am interested to see if such a strong assertion could withstand attack.

I would have totally agreed with "Dramatically declined" so you are right on that count.

Nice to have a civilized person to debate with. Acknowledging a good point made by one's debating opponent is a mark of civilized discourse.


But NO state sponsored terrorism has nothing backing it up.

I'd appreciate if focus was on what I was specifically talking about. That being state-sponsored international terrorism. It is an important distinguish (the international aspect) and is what my assertion is about. I'm not saying you're not meaning this, but did want to raise this issue with you as it was a problem elsewhere in this thread.


Even one example will disprove it...

But the example has to be a good one. It is a double-edge sword. On the one hand, those opposing the assertion only have to find one example to disprove the assertion. On the other hand, the example has to be one acceptable by both parties. This is where reasoned discourse comes into play and shows the caliber of those debating.


...and they are all no doubt laying low at the moment for reasons that will be obvious.

Again, what my assertion was about was state-sponsored international terrorism. No activity can mean they're laying low. It can also mean they're ceasing such operations. They longer the time period that they do, the more it is ceasing than laying low. They might mumble that they're just waiting for the right moment, but if they never act, such words are only for show.


I'd say the strongest evidence that the statement is false is that the current administration still has a list of states that sponsor terrorism.

No, that doesn't disprove my assertion. It can just as easily be a tactic ... and it VERY likely is ... to scare the crap out of those nations and put them on notice. "We know what you are and what you're doing so if something goes down and if the trail leads back to you, you'll be the next nation to go down." That tactic worked excellently well against Libya. They shit their pants when Afghanistan was taken down and started whimpering when Iraq was brought down. They screamed "Uncle!" and now they're actively trying to prove to the world they're out of the international terrorism game.

The way to disprove my assertion is to show that there has been a state-sponsored international terrorism attack.




There's always kooks in the world. There are people that still believe that the world is flat and that the whole Moon mission was filmed on a Hollywood set. However, only a fool would state that everyone must agree on everything for it to be considered real. If that was the case, nothing would be considered real. Nothing..

Now we are getting somewhere. Nothing CAN be proven without conclusive evidence.

No, you can prove something by lack of evidence to the contrary. What we're debating is what level of evidence (or lack thereof) is necessarily to make a reasonable judgment.


The burden of proof is on the claiment.

Two assertions were made. One by me and one by Tigerlily. Hers was positive and mine negative. A clear example that proves hers disproves mine. No clear example that proves hers strengthens my argument and I win by default. In such a debate scenario, the burden of proof is on the one advocating the positive statement. Tigerlily wasn't able to and, in fact, gave evidence that strengthened my assertion.


To use another example, In order to prove the negative conclusively that, say, faeries don't exist, you would have to go out and get everything in the universe and bring it to me so i could say "Nope, that's not a faerie, nope that's not one either." This is impossible. Therefore if *I* was to claim faeries existed, it would be up to me to prove it. Even though anyone above the age of 10 knows Queen Mab and Tam Lin are just faerie tales.

However, if one person makes the statement "There are no faeries." and another person makes the statement that "There are faeries.", the burden of proof is on the advocate of the positive.


This both helps and hurts your argument. See, I can't say "There ARE still state sponsored terrorist groups" without being able to conclusively prove it, BUT even if i was unable to provide such proof you still couldn't say "Aha! So there are NO state sponsored terrorist groups" because in order to do that conclusively you would have to scan the entire surface of the earth and all it's nooks and crannies.

No, that's exactly what can be done. The burden of proof is on the advocate of the positive when there are advocates of both positive and negative. The negative wins the argument if the positive cannot make their case.


My argument was mainly with the definitive statement. Us Agnostics tend to think about things like *conclusive proof* and *Negative/Positive Statements.* We are just wired that way.

There is also the issue of what's a reasonable level of proof or lack of proof. If I made my statement immediately after Bush declared War on Terrorism, that wouldn't be a reasonable level. The point in discussion would need time before a negative can be reasonably placed forward. It is my contention that such a reasonable period of time has now pass. With everyday that now passes and with no examples to counter it, my assertion gains further validity.



Yes, you can. The Loch Ness monster is a good example of this. No scientific community or respected scientist asserts that there is a Loch Ness monster. No creditable evidence has been ever presented to prove that there is one. Spinning that to my assertion....

But, without scanning the entire lake you couldn't 100% DISprove it.

No, that's being unreasonable in such a debate and rather childish if advocated by the side that opposes the negative. Civilized debate requires no such absolutes but an agreement of what is reasonable for a negative conclusion to be made.


But this is just hypothetical, as Nessie is ridiculous.

Thus why it is a good example to use when discussing this since both sides agree that it is ridiculous thus neither side takes offense when their side is challenged.



I made a very strong assertion that can be disproved with one solid example.

Yes, it can. But without Omnipotence it can't be proven, either.

If you're splitting hairs in a debate club, I'd agree. If you're making a reasonable real world argument, I'd disagree.


Nothing says fifteen countries we don't even know about don't sponsor terrorism.

If you're advocating the positive, the burden of proof would be on you, not the negative.


I'd say it's on the low-low at the moment, because the Marines are hot on the tail, but i don't doubt it one bit. NO state sponsored terror means the War on Terror is almost over, since there would only be a few more landless terror groups to asskick. Bush still talks about the WoT, there is still a list of states that 'sponsor' it (LIBYA is still on that list), that's pretty strong evidence to back up the other side, but it doesn't disprove yours.

First, I'm not advocating that anti-terrorism activity be ceased. Nowhere in this entire discussion did I advocate that.

What I am saying is that the actions of Bush has brought about my assertion as far as state-sponsored international terrorism. Privately-sponsored international terrorism is likely to always be with us and thus the War on Terrorism will likely never be over, should never cease, and we should always be vigilant. The same logic applies to having standing armies. Just because there isn't a country currently attacking one's country, it doesn't mean one shouldn't have a standing military. However, one can say we've not had WWIII since WWII. That is a negative statement. Can it be proven? Yes. Can someone say that the possibility of WWIII is no more? Yes. It has been over sixty years since any major power attacked another major power. Is there logic behind this statement? Yes, and that would be the unacceptable use of nukes by both sides. There was still tension, but it was defensive in nature on both sides.



A similar assertion would be that Germany is no longer supporting the Nazi SS. By your reasoning above, I couldn't make that statement since it is a negative. However, both you and I know I'm right on that point. The burden of proof would be on those that say that Germany is still supporting the Nazi's SS. Along those lines...

Actually, there is pretty good conclusive proof that the Nazi SS is dead and buried. Conclusive proof is possible, but without it nothing can really be said 100% either way.

No, by your line of reasoning, you cannot say that the Nazi SS is not being sponsored by the German government. All I have to say is that it is a super-secret operation that the Germans don't want people to know about. As counter arguments, I can point to the top-secret military research projects (i.e., the Manhattan Project, the stealth fighter, etc.) that governments have kept buried to show that it is possible to keep such buried. Now if that reasonable? Of course not.



Let's not forget Tigerlily's positive assertion that there is still state-sponsored international terrorism. When asked to present supporting facts, she couldn't. She did keep repeating her assertion over and over, but you and I both know that doesn't make an assertion true.


No, repetition doesn't make anything true.

Except to little children. ;) And their "winning" debating strategy is holding their hands over their ears and loudly singing to themselves so they cannot hear you. :rotfl:


But i tend to lean towards the idea that there is still state sponsored terror. This is part emotional, since i'd rather not be at at a football game when VX gas is pumped into the STL dome. But part of it is that it just plain seems logical. The list is still there, after all, and the Administration probably knows more about this than we do (An appeal to authority, i know, and also illogical, but probably true).

My assertion wasn't that there are not government actively working to conduct state-sponsored international terrorism, but only that none has been committed since the War on Terrorism has begun and that it is reasonable that none will ever happen due to assured destruction of those that do it. With each passing day, my assertion gains strength. It doesn't advocate a ceasing of anti-terrorism efforts. If anything, it advocates the opposite since that is what I'm stating makes my assertion possible.


Anyway, not PROOF per se, but good evidence. Plus it's usually better to err on the side of caution. Hell, i'd love it if you were right, but what i am really saying is this "How do we know that?"

Again, I'm not advocating a ceasing of anti-terrorism efforts, but just the opposite. All I am saying is that such efforts have proven themselves fruitful and thus my assertion.

Djoser
07-04-2004, 01:55 PM
Time for this thread to die.

Pumpkin Pie
07-04-2004, 02:03 PM
Time for this thread to die.

Ah, it is so nice to hear the voice of censorship on Independence Day. ;)

Djoser
07-04-2004, 02:22 PM
Censorship? I can't stop you, PP--knock yourself out...

But how much longer do you think anyone is going to waste their time reading your interminable screeds? Soon one of your replies will take an entire page all by itself, at the rate you are going.

This 'point-by-point mutual dissection and rebuttal' style of debate generally is seen for what it is by everyone else, a form of mental masturbation.

Give it up, go find yourself a girlfriend or something, you will be much happier.

Pumpkin Pie
07-04-2004, 02:39 PM
Censorship? I can't stop you, PP--knock yourself out...

But how much longer do you think anyone is going to waste their time reading your interminable screeds? Soon one of your replies will take an entire page all by itself, at the rate you are going.

This 'point-by-point mutual dissection and rebuttal' style of debate generally is seen for what it is by everyone else, a form of mental masturbation.

Give it up, go find yourself a girlfriend or something, you will be much happier.

If you do not like a thread, I'll tell you a top-secret way to deal with it. *whispers* Do not read it. Yes, it is really that simple. I do it all the time on this forum and others. You do not have to read all threads or contribute to all. Trust me, we will be able to get along without you. Yes, yes, I know that's almost impossible to believe but it nevertheless true.

And to come onto any thread and to tell those participating in it that they shouldn't anymore is just being a cad. Even more so since we know you are not for Bush and this thread is for those that are to express themselves. That's nothing less than trying to censor them.

And your above insults simply underscores just how much of a cad you are.

Tigerlilly
07-04-2004, 08:49 PM
But the example has to be a good one. It is a double-edge sword. On the one hand, those opposing the assertion only have to find one example to disprove the assertion. On the other hand, the example has to be one acceptable by both parties.

And the fact of the matter is there will never be an example you will find acceptable no matter how logical or factual it may be because you don't think you are ever wrong about anything ever and would never in a zillion years admit it even in the off chance you did consider it a possibilty. So when it comes down to it there is no point in debating with you on any subject.


Tigerlily wasn't able to and, in fact, gave evidence that strengthened my assertion
Nope, sorry, Wrong.



With everyday that now passes and with no examples to counter it, my assertion gains further validity.
In your mind and your mind only, I see no one here backing your up your ridiculous claim of no more state supported terrorism since Bush declared war.



Except to little children. ;) And their "winning" debating strategy is holding their hands over their ears and loudly singing to themselves so they cannot hear you. :rotfl:


Which is exaclty what you do and have done on other subjects as well.

I agree state supported terror attacks have lessened but groups do still exist and attacks have occured since Bush's declaration of war . It's not a war on terror however, if it were then he would have gone into Liberia instead of withdrawing his promised support.

Liberia is the perfect example as Charles Taylor was still the President of Liberia after Bush declared war and Taylor directly supported and created his Army of children and continued to do so after Bush declared war his so called War on Terror. Taylor did not step down as President untill August of 2003.

That conclusivly disproves your riduclous statement. Now kindly excuse yourself and don't forget to tuck your tiny tail between your legs ;D

Djoser
07-04-2004, 09:11 PM
If you do not like a thread, I'll tell you a top-secret way to deal with it. *whispers* Do not read it.

I didn't fucking read it, are you kidding me? I had things to do today, like hang out with my girl.

BTW, I have seen many a post requesting a thread be terminated, having long degenerated into tedious arguments that noone will ever win or lose, because noone is listening to each other. On more than one occasion I was involved in the argument. But I never took offense to such requests, nor did I scream "censorship".

Chill out, man--it's just not that important.

Pumpkin Pie
07-04-2004, 10:32 PM
If you do not like a thread, I'll tell you a top-secret way to deal with it. *whispers* Do not read it.

I didn't fucking read it, are you kidding me? I had things to do today, like hang out with my girl.

You didn't read the thread and yet wanted to end a thread that participants were involved in because what? You thought we had discussed it enough? Your arrogance is quite remarkable.


BTW, I have seen many a post requesting a thread be terminated, having long degenerated into tedious arguments that noone will ever win or lose, because noone is listening to each other.

If you had read the thread instead of casting judgment out of ignorance (you've admitted that above), you would have seen that Madcap and I were listening to each other. It is true that I'm no longer discussing things with Tigerlily, but that's due to her uncivilized conduct towards me. But Tigerlily isn't the only one participating in this thread.


On more than one occasion I was involved in the argument. But I never took offense to such requests, nor did I scream "censorship".

Because others do wrong doesnt' excuse you when you do it.


Chill out, man--it's just not that important.

Then why do you tell us to end it if it isn't that important? Think about it. Again, if you don't like a thread, don't read it and don't participate in it. Calling for a thread to end is nothing other than trying to censor speech. So take your own advice and chill out. Don't read this thread. It isn't hurting you. We can discuss things here without you.

montythegeek
07-05-2004, 08:05 AM
I would like to echo DJ's sentiments. This thread has deteriorated to the point of pointless bickering. Call it a draw and agree to disagree. Neither side is going to convince the other of diddly-squat. This is not an attempt to censor since I have no control whatsover over the situation. I do not even know who is on what side anymore!

Pumpkin Pie
07-05-2004, 08:16 AM
This thread has deteriorated to the point of pointless bickering.

Madcap and I weren't. It was even looking like we were actually arriving at concensus ... until someone came along and tried to censor us.


Neither side is going to convince the other of diddly-squat.

Again, that wasn't the case between Madcap and I.


This is not an attempt to censor since I have no control whatsover over the situation.

To call an end to a discussion which one was not part of is trying to censor that discussion.


I do not even know who is on what side anymore!

Then you weren't reading the discussion.