DO NOT VOTE JOHN McCain

First of all I have to give you props for the nice cherry picking, I don't think I saw a single whole sentence in your quotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

that is wrong in so many ways i don't even know where to begin with. If you are stating that, than you either value a murderer over a liar, or you say that both are equally bad. Either of which is a lie and that is what i meant with it being morally wrong, because duh lying is wrong.

Frankly I don't want to know which one it is with you, because both are bad.

the result is that you do indeed value Saddam over Bush, because there is no middle ground in what you are doing albeit with only one exception, you posing as a what is called a devil's advocate.

The thing is I don't think that's what you are doing, because I get the feeling you genuinely believe your own wrong is right. And make no mistake you are indeed wrong!

At best that makes you a sceptic of democracy, at worst it makes you a staunch supporter of tyranny. I say either way the latter is irrelevant, because bottomline that makes you not a democrat, because you are not prepared to stand up for democratic values. In some ways those values are prioritized and for example what that means is that yes lies are bad, but murder is far worse.

---

I wonder how this goes from me saying that your opinion on a person's moral is irrelevant to your opinion on that person's actions to me supporting tyranny, that's quite an amazing leap you manage. The fact that I agree with the values of say Mr Bush does not mean that any action he takes is right. Hence your opinion on the moral of a person is irrelevant to whether a war is right or wrong, what should be measured is the action in itself.

A simple example would be this:
Mr GWB says - let's nuke Russia they have oil I need.
Mr Saddam says - don't nuke Russia that will trigger world war 3.

Now in your opinion it would be morally wrong to agree with the second statement, is it possible that this example is radical enough that such a stance seems a bit weird to you?

It would be much easier to argue with you if you could stop assigning opinions to those that disagree with you. Please go find some post (in your case I suppose it should be part of a post) where I say that democracy is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

lol and this is why you are narrowminded, you think what is wrong or right lies in a loyality question and
that is not true

wrong or right lies in ones actions and inactions not ones allegiance to one and other

you see a true democrat and a truly good person knows ways to determine wether ones action is right or wrong. If you state those lies like you do, then you don't know how to do that. It is important that you do have that insight, because one can only act on what ones values are (permitted of course you act with true intent and I will not delve in that matter, because it is a sidetrack). Now loyality to a person or faction can be an action in itself, but pasiveness or non allegiance is also an action or rather an inaction.

---

This shows that you have at least strayed a bit from your initial position that everything that person X does is right (I hope, you're a bit difficult to understand). Now I wish to investigate this tool for determining right and wrong which all peace loving and righteous people apparently possess. Since you have the power to determine that somebody is morally wrong what is morally right must be universal. This would mean that in every case where there is a choice to be made there would be a right and wrong and those who are "truly good" would always make the same pick as you.

This means that as soon as anyone disagrees with you, you play the "if you don't agree with me you are morally wrong" card. Now as I said earlier this is indeed a very handy option but it is of course quite narrow minded and it is also wrong. You can't in every situation determine that something is right or wrong because you do not know all of the facts or all the reactions to your actions.

Take for example this experiment where you are given the choice of killing group A, group B or group C, if you do not choose one of them all will be killed. How do you determine what the "right" choice is and how do you know that all other "good" people would make the same choice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

One cannot make a sound argument for that, only fallacies and you are indeed using such fallacies if you say you shouldn't vote for McCain. Because bottomline is that you are wrong in saying that countries like Iran are no threat and that global warming is man made. The result is that you are impassive at the first account, while that is not what you should you do and you act on the second account and again that is something you shouldn't do.

---

I still await any kind of proof of your claims, you have to excuse me but I have a hard time taking your word over that of scientists who actually know what they are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

Let me describe what you are doing afk.

The situation is this. We have two walls, wall one is blue, wall two is not blue. What I am doing is stating that wall one is blue and wall two isn't blue. What you are doing is stating that both walls are red. You are simply wrong in saying that wall one is red and you are being presumptious in saying that wall two is red.

You are wrong the first time because you do not prioritize in the right way and you are wrong the second time because you are narrowminded (afterall the wall can be green for all you know it).

There is no way for me to argue why your view on this is wrong, because to me you are colorblind.

---

This "walls analogy" is complete BS if I may be so frank. Somewhere in your translation from English to "wallish" it goes wrong. What you've been saying is that the actions of wall 1 are right because wall 2 is a murderer. In the second example you are stating that wall 2 is blue while I state that it is red, you do not in fact know the color of the wall nor do I but on my side I have the vast majority of all "color determining" scientists while on your side you have your own moral superiority and an as of yet unpublished list of experts who probably never will be revealed since they only exist in the minds of you and people of a similar nature.

Then there was some more ranting, the message being that I am wrong because you say so. And somewhere in there I was given an opinion on Iran which was a bit odd since this is the first time I mention Iran in here. Anyway, I chose to ignore all of that since it really made no sense and mostly seemed to consist of bs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

Suppose I have two factions, one who in majority asseses the situation correctly and one who in majority does not. To clarify we will call the first one reps and the latter one dems. Now the situation is as follows, the majority follows party line, which means that not everyone does that.

---

Let me just stop you right there, what we are arguing is how something is determined to be right or wrong. The fact that you think that republicans are right on more occasions than democrats does not (no matter how much you wish it would) make it so.

Now onto your "ways". By saying that someone would be morally wrong for disagreeing with Mr Bush you are in fact following the way which you discard. Anyway, it is amusing to see how you are putting words in my mouth, I can't wait to see what I will think or support next.

Then you ended with some kind of list that seems to have no value at all, mostly it looks like a repetition of the previously stated argument "you are wrong because you disagree with me".


And joy! There was another post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

your inactions would give him the support he needs, since ultimately not to have done anything would have kept him in office

---

Finally a logical argument. I'm afraid it is wrong though, all I was saying in my post was that it would not be morally wrong to take the word of one person over the word of another.

Not attacking Saddam would indeed be a sort of passive support, which is given to many other tyrants I might add. One would have to estimate the good and the bad effects of such an action or inaction to come to a conclusion whether it is wrong or right, one cannot just work under the assumption that anything person X says is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

What that means is that getting rid of him is per saldo an improvement for the world. For the first part because on the short run it would mean less iraqis getting killed (yes Saddam has killed a whole lot more than with the Amercian coalition led invasion) and in the long run at least the potential for a better Iraq (and you are indeed either a sceptic of democracy or a favor of tyrants if you state the opposite). For the second part because it eliminates a threat, which he has shown to be because he invaded Kuwait.

---

One does not have to be a skeptic of democracy to question the cost of the supposed democracy that Iraq has today. The monetary costs alone are immense and they could have done a lot more good both for US goodwill and for the world as aid rather than as weapons. Force is not the only way to create democracy.

Quote:

---

The fact that I agree with the values of say Mr Bush does not mean that any action he takes is right.

---

that can be incorrect, because actions have consequences

Quote:

---

I still await any kind of proof of your claims, you have to excuse me but I have a hard time taking your word over that of scientists who actually know what they are talking about.

---

didn't mention before that the burden of proof lies with you?

Oh wait I did mention it
and you can't proof it.

and before you circle back to posting another source (which is an appeal to authority), please don't, because that simply does not work.

Quote:

---

What you've been saying is that the actions of wall 1 are right because wall 2 is a murderer.

---

no i'm not saying that, please look again

Quote:

---

Mr GWB says - let's nuke Russia they have oil I need.
Mr Saddam says - don't nuke Russia that will trigger world war 3.

---

first of all you missed the point and second this is logically incorrect, simply for the fact that none of premisses are right to begin with

look you're circling around the same issue, this is getting nowhere, because you just don't see it

I will only continue, if you can explain why that is incorrect, else it would be me talking to a brick wall (pardon the analogy here) and then this would be pointless to continue.

Basically it comes to a number of steps you'd have to take first (both are sidetracks, but they're sidetracks you'd have to take).

step 1 is what i just mentioned
step 2 is incredibly time consuming, it would mean going through all the supposed arguments of those in favor of man made global warming

Let me give it you straightforward that step 2 is so time consuming, that i'm not going to do that, because hell i'm too lazy for that.

step 3 would be going through why you are incorrect about there being no threat and then going through the possible strategies of how to combat it. This is time consuming, but not as bad as step 2. However you can only take step 3, if you at least see why you were incorrect at step 1, else there would be no point to continue.

Sorry I don't feel the need to discus with someone so full of himself like freemehul. People like that like them selfs far to much. Have fun living in your self made reality. he wants everybody to explain them selfs but freemehul himself does not have to do that since he is so "sensible". He types a lot but but has no arguments just states his own believes as the ultimate truth.

Quote:

---

Sadam was a threat only to his own people, but we don't attack every dictator now do we?

wrong!

---

No, that is RIGHT. You want me to back that statement up? Do I really need to waste my time with that? There are a lot of Dictators that we do not invade. I'll create a list for you if you want.

Quote:

---

fact remains America does not need europe to fight any war "or take any action it deems fit at the time."

wrong!

---

So we need the Europeans to fight a war? Tell that to the Republicans.

Quote:

---

what i really find laughable is someone not knowing the difference between the AIVD and the AVID

I've been to the U.S., I have relatives living in the U.S., I understand it's geography, where as most americans don't even get thaught in that subject anymore

fact is most europeans know the U.S. a whole lot better than most americans know Europe, hell some europeans know the U.S. better than some americans know it themselves

so first of all shut up if you want to blame me on theorizing and second of all shut up, because i'm not theorizing and third of all this is on a internet board so guess what shut up about

---

Want to try me on that one Freemehul? Your statement is purely false. You find me some 'dumb' Americans and I'll find you some 'dumb' Europeans.

Quote:

---

One cannot make a sound argument for that, only fallacies and you are indeed using such fallacies if you say you shouldn't vote for McCain. Because bottomline is that you are wrong in saying that countries like Iran are no threat and that global warming is man made. The result is that you are impassive at the first account, while that is not what you should you do and you act on the second account and again that is something you shouldn't do.

---

Here is Carl Rove on McCain adds. About how the McCain ads have gone beyond the TRUTH.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...nt-truth-test/

And on the Global Warming part? How many Billions of tons of CO2 do we dump into the atmosphere each and every day? I CO2 a greenhouse gas? So it is NOT incorrect about Global Warming. CO2 is just the start. Even a few degrees of warming causes a increase in the amout of water vapor in the atmosphere. So yes, MAN does have a effect on global warming. Combine that with the severe deforestation of the planet and the problem is made worse. Once again a man made problem.

Quote:

---

Because bottomline is that you are wrong in saying that countries like Iran are no threat and that global warming is man made.

---

No, that means you are wrong FM. I like how you always use Global Warming is man-made. That's not the question. The question is are we ACCELERATING Global Warming, not causing it.

And Iran has always been a Thorn in our side due to American foreign policies. And since you see to know so much about Iran I think you missed that they are a DEMOCRATIC country. Not a Dictatorship. As a matter of fact Iranians LOVE western culture. Great diplomacy calling them a part of the 'AXIS OF EVIL'.

And to your earlier question to me about Sadam not being a threat... no, he was no threat to anyone but his own people. There are OTHER ways of dealing with Foreign countries other than invade them. Maybe if we tried diplomacy a little more there wouldn't be terrorists wanting to bomb us.

FM is just like McCain, throw a few lies around and hope some stick.

Quote:

---

No, that is RIGHT. You want me to back that statement up?

---

i was referring to the threat, so that still makes you wrong

Quote:

---

about Iran I think you missed that they are a DEMOCRATIC country

---

seriously you call Iran a democratic nation?

I'm done debating with you, you are evil, plain and simple if you state that

Quote:

---

but has no arguments

---

i did use arguments, you have never used a single argument whatsoever and you mistake fallacies for genuine arguments, which you truly believe in

to a large amount your beliefsystem is based on lies, I really pity you

Quote:

---

Sorry I don't feel the need

---

lol you don't feel the need because you can't reach my level, guess what i am indeed better at making good decisions than you are, if you can't even continue the discussion

I'll grant you one thing 010101, you do at least realize when you've been defeated



so what it comes down to that none are willing to try. Allonons perhaps or are we truly done?

No you were not.

Here let me repost your response to again for your addled brain.

Sadam was a threat only to his own people, but we don't attack every dictator now do we?

wrong!( The wrong part was your answer).

The Center for Public Integrity asserted President Bush's administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States.

So yea, your wrong.

Quote:

---

about Iran I think you missed that they are a DEMOCRATIC country
seriously you call Iran a democratic nation?

I'm done debating with you, you are evil, plain and simple if you state that

---

Yea, just like the US is a democratic nation. You need some Political Geography help it appears. I think along with millions of others here in the US and abroad that Bush is evil. Should somebody invade/ bomb us? The Netherlands maybe?

You have used no arguments based on facts. Just your own convoluted ideas. Not any facts.

that centre has people like Moore affiliated with them, ergo those statistics mean nothing

Iran is not a democratic nation, those elections in Iran are a mockery.


oh and about that socalled friendly Iran as you say it is, do you seriously believe the burning of american flags is a sign of affection?
how retarded are you?

Quote:

---

You have used no arguments based on facts.

---

and that swirvin birds is a lie

truth is you haven't used a single argument whatsoever

you are liar and foolish enough to believe your own fallacies plain and simple and that swirvin birds is the real truth.

You can say that you are veteran, but as soon as I see you utter those lies, I seriously doubt that you are a veteran, afterall it can be just another lie. It sounds like Moore saying he was a member of the NRA, totally not believable.

You have 0 credibility and 0 integrity swirvin bids.


Now as for Bush, I don't like that guy either. I think he is incompent on a vast number of areas and one of the most corrupt presidents the U.S. has seen in a long time. However saying that McCain is anything like him is simply not true, no matter how often Obama would make us seem to think that. McCain has flown in Vietnam, where as Bush has stayed at home. That tells you a great deal about how different those two are. Just because he is a republican doesn't make him Bush.

You lack integrity swirvin birds and I think the reason is that you are a bitter and agry man tired of life. Whatever is wrong with your life now, Obama's quackery might sound believable to you, but isn't going to make it better, McCain on the other hand offers at least that hope.

Do yourself a favor Freemehul. Go look-up Iranian Democracy. Yea they are a democracy whether or not you believe it does not matter. To say that they are not is a pure and simple lie. Here in the US we had allegations of voting machine fraud. Does that mean the US is not a democracy either?

Dude, I'm done with you. I have posted links to and have not lied one time. If that is all you can come up with and not even debate then I have no time for you.

Now you question my status as a veteran... You want me to send you my DD214? Charlie Company 316th Signal Battalion 1st Cavalry Division out of Ft. Hood Texas.

Quote:

---

I think he is incompent on a vast number of areas and one of the most corrupt presidents the U.S. has seen in a long time. However saying that McCain is anything like him is simply not true, no matter how often Obama would make us seem to think that. McCain has flown in Vietnam, where as Bush has stayed at home. That tells you a great deal about how different those two are. Just because he is a republican doesn't make him Bush.

---

Now go look-up McCains voting record. 90+% of the time he voted WITH BUSH. Again you spout lies. Just because 1 flown in Vietnam and the other stayed home in the national guard has absolutely NOTHING to do with running the country. Once again, go check whom the American War Veterans are supporting. Not that hard to do. Apparently for you it is though. McCain has voted down EVERY veterans benefit packages.

Quote:

---

You have 0 credibility and 0 integrity swirvin bids

---

And you do? You haven't given me anything except for your own opinion.

Quote:

---

You lack integrity swirvin birds and I think the reason is that you are a bitter and agry man tired of life. Whatever is wrong with your life now, Obama's quackery might sound believable to you, but isn't going to make it better, McCain on the other hand offers at least that hope.

---

Once AGAIN tell me a lie that I have told? You can't can you. I CAN come-up with all the lies the Republican/McCain campaign has been spouting. Even Carl Rove has admitted as much.

Quote:

---

Now go look-up McCains voting record. 90+% of the time he voted WITH BUSH.

---

that's a non sequitur, again it doesn't say a thing

Quote:

---

have not lied one time.

---

and that's another lie

Quote:

---

Once AGAIN tell me a lie that I have told?

---

look back

Quote:

---

You want me to send you my DD214? Charlie Company 316th Signal Battalion 1st Cavalry Division out of Ft. Hood Texas.

---

if you did, it would be just another antiquatem, again it says nothing

Quote:

---

And you do?

---

other then a short retort no

Quote:

---

that's a non sequitur, again it doesn't say a thing

---

K dude, whatever. Tell me how McCain is going to be different than bush? Show me his voting record that shows how much different from Bush. You've got nothing to back your statement up with. 90+% voting with Bush backs mine up.

Quote:

---

have not lied one time.

and that's another lie

---

Then point out my lie. Otherwise STFU.

Quote:

---

You want me to send you my DD214? Charlie Company 316th Signal Battalion 1st Cavalry Division out of Ft. Hood Texas.

if you did, it would be just another antiquatem, again it says nothing

---

Yes it does. It says your accusations are false.

Quote:

---

K dude, whatever.

---

you didn't get that did you? my gawd you are indeed ignorant

Quote:

---

Yes it does. It says your accusations are false.

---

it is an antiquatem, so saying that is not, which you just did, is yet another lie

I've kind of lost count how often you lied now and anytime you say that I didn't show, that you lied only adds another lie to your long list of lies.

@ Swirvin' Birds

Forget about arguing with freemehul and let him have his delusions. I gave up on him he just calls everyone that doesn't agree with him a lier.

Quote:

---

he just calls everyone that doesn't agree with him a lier.

---

I only call people that lie, a liar. There are people I don't agree with that i haven't called a liar.

So that proofs you wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

I only call people that lie, a liar. There are people I don't agree with that i haven't called a liar.

So that proofs you wrong.

---

Whatever dude. Your are so full of it you cannot hear yourself anymore. Bye bye have fun.

whatever troll

Freemehul. Read the definition of a antiquitatem.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem, or appeal to tradition, is a fallacy used to judge an act based entirely on its what was an accepted part of tradition at the time, and not the actual implications thereof. It is often very effective, because it can be cleverly disguised as inference of context. It is, however, an abject fallacy, since traditions have often included witch burnings and human sacrifices - and they are clearly not defendable on mere "context".

Please tell me how that has anything to do with my military service? Your trying to use a big word when you don't even know the definition.

And you need some help with no sequitur apparently. Here you go on that one...

/nɒnˈsɛkwɪtər/) is Latin for "it does not follow". It is most often used to indicate something which does not follow logically, such as a stated conclusion that is not supported by the facts. Non sequitur may refer to:

* Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy
* Non sequitur (humor), a comment that has no relation to the preceding comment or to an ongoing discussion or topic
* Non Sequitur (comic strip), a comic strip by Wiley Miller
* "Non Sequitur" (Star Trek: Voyager), an episode of Star Trek: Voyager

I have given you many facts to follow-up on if you would actually do a little research yourself. And yes it does have to do with the ongoing discussion. And tell me how voting 90+% with Bush is a Non-Sequitur. We always use peoples voting records to get an idea of the policies they are going to follow.

So stop trying to use big words that you obviously can't use properly and actually try a little debating.

I've noticed 010101. He can't debate the issues. He just uses personal attack. Hmmm... now I see why he likes Republicans. lol.

Hm. Republicans. Ignorant. American.
death-triangle.

GLOBAL WARMING is real, here we study them. And science proof them.
McCain is Bush' kagebunshin. Yes, he is. That's why McCain will be Bush all over again for 4 years. And then USA lost in debt to Saudi Arabia! Hooray!

Beside, don't be ignorant. Or acting all-high and mighty. You are not a god!

Are you?

note: to freemehul

if you want to vote for mccain, who is old and frail and has been hit by cancer multiple times, you must ask yourself. are you willing to let Palin take over the hot seat and screw up the world?

obama/biden 08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E

Watch this pure moment of sweetness.

I would like to join this debate with your permission. i only ask not to be attacked and critisized.
first ill introduce myself, im an israeli who served during the second lebanon war and served as a commander later on. Im currently looking for a better place to live than Israel because i believe that Israel is not a safe place to bring up my children and got fed up with the government's corruption that only gets worse with every passing year.

The first issue I would like to talk about is what I believe is the most pressing issue the world is faced with today, and that is not the american economy. we, as western nations dont understand who we are dealing with. Our common enemies do not share our culture, we are facing muslim extremists these are the same people who blow up buses with women and children and hijack planes and crash them into towers and into the pentagon, willing to kill themselves along with hundreds more innocent people who never did anything wrong.
I believe that this threat is the biggest threat we are facing today as a free world, an evil power that wants to take the world 1300 years back to a great Islamic empire, and to do it by force if necessary .
I'm not saying going into Iraq was necessaraly the right thing to do.. but the situation we are facing with today is not wether to go into Iraq, but what to do now that we are there. Iraq was a decision made by the bush administration, I thought everyone knew by now, to try to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil by forcing Iraq to by an ally in inforcing a new gorvernment and having american oil companies established in the region in the process.
Now I do believe some of the evils of the world lie withing Afghanistan and northern Pakistan with taliban and al-quaeda which is a very big terrorist organization that collects money, some of it given to certain countries by the US government to train and recruit its army of martyrs and fuel its Jihad, a holy Islamic war, against the people who dont follow Islam. and what we dont understand is that by taking troops out of Iraq the Islamic front will see it as a victory over America and a victory over the weakening western world. which in turn will only fuel the war against it, and this isnt something we need.
And what happens once we get Osama? is the holy war going to stop? we still have the biggest and most powerful Islamic extremist Achmadinejad the Leader of the Republic of Iran, who openly calls to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and has long arms such as hizbollah (God's army) working under him, being fully supported with weapons and fully trained.
so this is why I think we should pay more attention to whats going on in the world.
I watched an interview with a europian jewish holocaust survivor a couple of years ago and he was asked, whats the biggest lesson you learned from the holocaust, his answer was. If someone tells you he's going to exterminate you, believe him", and that is why we cannot allow Islamic militant regime's to keep on ruling the Islamic world, and this is why why we cannot allow a religious mad Islamic fantasist to rule one of the most powerful arab countries of the world, and that is why we cannot allow Iran to develop Neuclear weapons.

For the economy. I dont think any of the candidates shows a very good solution to the economy. Obama has the Idea of cutting tax for 95% of middle class families, this is good, I dont think it is good that rich people have so many loop holes in the tax system and almost the entire tax system relies upon the middle class who face an economic crisis of their on at the end of each month. but on the other hand I dont think that the increase of 800 billion dollars in spending will help the economy. America already owes china over a trillion dollars in debt, this is a horrible situation especially because china is becoming an economic superpower that is threatening the future of american economical stability.
On the other hand, Mccain, I dont think cutting taxes for businesses and thus creating more businesses who want to invest in the united states and thus creating mroe jobs for americans will help, because the current loop holes in the american business tax system allows businesses to not have to invest their money inside America and thus not helping the economy at all. and also adding taxes on healthcare as Mccain suggested will only add problems and not solve them.

Now I dont think Palin is the perfect candidate for vice president, its true that it was a desperate move done by Mccain in order to sweep votes to his favor, but when people talk again and again about what sarah palin has done in the past and how she was only a mayor and a governor and how you cant 'learn on the job' when it comes to being vice president, they forget about Obama, Obama hasnt even been Mayor. He has no expereince in this kind of management. Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review after finishing Harvard law school. He procticed as a civil rights attorney and from there got to the Illinois senate. He was teacher in Chicago Law School.
Obama also has no experience and president is not a 'learn on the job' either.

Now, I again ask as I did before. Please dont attack me and dont twist my words. I would like to debate and not have a mindless battle of who doesnt know what he's talking about, giving quates about specific words iv'e used and how they dont fit. please respond about the whole Idea and the message im trying to pass through here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

I believe that this threat is the biggest threat we are facing today as a free world, an evil power that wants to take the world 1300 years back to a great Islamic empire, and to do it by force if necessary .

---

9/11 killed some 3,000 if I'm not mistaken, other terrorist attacks rarely kill more than 50 each.

AIDS killed an estimated number of 2.1 million people in 2007.
The UN estimates that starvation and poverty kill 25000 people every day (that's some 9 million in a year).

What is it that makes the relatively few who die of terrorism so much more important than those who die (mainly) in Africa? You could have one 9/11 every day and still not reach the number of casualties of starvation or aids.

see? this is exactly what I was asking not to do, dont take one quote that I said and start a posting war with me.

What are you trying to say, AFKain?
that 9/11 that killed an estimate of 2800 people, 2106 of them being American is a bad thing but daily attacks on Israeli men women children and babys that are so frequent they dont even bother publishing them in the press anymore are ok because each terrorist attack doesnt kill more 50 people each? did you know that in 2001 2594 israelis were killed in terrorist attacks? and in 2002 2348 israelis were killed in terrorist attacks?

HIV is a big health problem thats true, but its not a religion being practiced by fanatics. its not ruled by people that have to be stopped.
AIDs doesnt have a headquarters, and its not being paraded around the world, gathering massive amounts of support to take over the world. It is an entire different issue that I have no idea what you thought to gain by bringing it up as a reply for my previous message.

What makes the few that die from terrorist attacks so important is that this is the main issue regarding YOUR safety and you children's safety in our lifetime. And its an issue that if not dealt with in the near future will affect your children in a way that you dont understand. your children will live under islamic regime. your daughter will have to walk around wearing a veil to cover her entire body and face. youre children will be fighting a religious war that is not supposed to happen because we are supposed to deal with it now and not let it get to that point.

and do you want me to address the issue as I did on my last post that the foreign money (the money we send) to aid african countries is not going to get them the means to grow their own crops, build their own schools and help create their own militaries.. because the money is funding terrorism.

A dear friend of mine said, the only thing that Yasser Arafat help is his wife in france, with all the money he recieved as aid.
after he died it was discovered that his wife's bank account in france held 300 million dollars.
why isnt there an "Arafat University" in gaza with all that money owned privately by the Arafat family, and do you think that is different with countries in africa?

of course the issue of people dying in africa is important. as any other issue we're facing with today. But as I firmly believe, we should solve our own immediate threats and problems before addressing other's.
If you would find yourself in a situation where somebody is holding a knife to your neck and an old lady is being held across the street at gun point. would you fend off your attacker and then help the old lady or would you just rush of trying to show your chivalry by helping the lady first?

The majority of your post was about how dangerous the terrorist threat is to the world, I took a section from your post that showed this stance and I commented on that. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you you shouldn't really be posting on a political forum, save your post in word instead and you can come back and look at it whenever you want to.

The point that I am trying to get across is that terrorism is much less of an issue than starvation and AIDS and that there are bigger challenges that we face which you have overlooked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

that 9/11 that killed an estimate of 2800 people, 2106 of them being American is a bad thing but daily attacks on Israeli men women children and babys that are so frequent they dont even bother publishing them in the press anymore are ok because each terrorist attack doesnt kill more 50 people each? did you know that in 2001 2594 israelis were killed in terrorist attacks? and in 2002 2348 israelis were killed in terrorist attacks?

---

I never said that the attacks on Israelis are ok, I took the number of 9/11 since that is the biggest terrorist attack that I can recall and apparently it was big enough to go to war over. I also mentioned the smaller attacks in order to show that both the spectacular 3000 and more common 50 are small numbers when compared to millions.

2348 and 2594 every year are 2348 and 2594 too many but it isn't that many when you look at the big picture, more people die from starvation or aids every day (10 times and 2 times as many, respectively). I also would wager that the Israeli military kills more than that every year, but that's a different topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

HIV is a big health problem thats true, but its not a religion being practiced by fanatics. its not ruled by people that have to be stopped.
AIDs doesnt have a headquarters, and its not being paraded around the world, gathering massive amounts of support to take over the world. It is an entire different issue that I have no idea what you thought to gain by bringing it up as a reply for my previous message.

---

There are fanatics in every religion and terrorists aren't taking over the world, I'm sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

What makes the few that die from terrorist attacks so important is that this is the main issue regarding YOUR safety and you children's safety in our lifetime. And its an issue that if not dealt with in the near future will affect your children in a way that you dont understand. your children will live under islamic regime. your daughter will have to walk around wearing a veil to cover her entire body and face. youre children will be fighting a religious war that is not supposed to happen because we are supposed to deal with it now and not let it get to that point.

---

So you're saying that we shouldn't care about people who aren't part of our religion family friends or whatever other parameter you wish to use? I should make the selfish choice to decide that 1 person not dying in my country is worth 1000 people dying in another country? And seriously, there is no threat that any religion is going to "take over the world".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

and do you want me to address the issue as I did on my last post that the foreign money (the money we send) to aid african countries is not going to get them the means to grow their own crops, build their own schools and help create their own militaries.. because the money is funding terrorism.

A dear friend of mine said, the only thing that Yasser Arafat help is his wife in france, with all the money he recieved as aid.
after he died it was discovered that his wife's bank account in france held 300 million dollars.
why isnt there an "Arafat University" in gaza with all that money owned privately by the Arafat family, and do you think that is different with countries in africa?

---

I won't comment on what your dear friend told you since I don't know what facts there are, show some unbiased report that supports your claims. Anyway, if you really think that there is no way that aid given in any form will help the people who are in need you are quite cynic and cold hearted. Although to me it sounds more like a poor argument to support your ideas about the value of human lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

of course the issue of people dying in africa is important. as any other issue we're facing with today. But as I firmly believe, we should solve our own immediate threats and problems before addressing other's.
If you would find yourself in a situation where somebody is holding a knife to your neck and an old lady is being held across the street at gun point. would you fend off your attacker and then help the old lady or would you just rush of trying to show your chivalry by helping the lady first?

---

The situation you invented isn't entirely correct if you attempt to describe the current situation in the world. You make it sound like the two threats would be equally threatening. A more accurate description might be that the guy holding the knife is sitting in a wheelchair and that the knife is actually a banana.

There is one threat that is imminent (this would be other stuff than terrorism, since you didn't invent more than one other threat :p) and one threat that is quite small and not so harmful.

You are very wise, AFKain. But again you fail to see my point.
Im not saying you should forget about finding a cure for AIDs and letting people around the world die from starvation and let a holocaust happen to the people of africa. This is the last thing I want.
You said Im against aid to struggling countries in any form, that is not true at all. I am agaisnt corruption and that is what we are fueling. We keep sending money to those countries. Money is the wrong commodity to send, and I hope you agree with me there.
There are some private organizations that send food and clean water. they help build schools, and not fund them but build them. This is what I believe in, I hope we are together there.

I get all my Information from research, and this 300 million is the lowest estimate of how much money exactly Suah Arafat held at her bank account in france after Yasser Arafat died. And the fact that money from this form of aid has not been used to help the people of the Gaza strip, the people Arafat fought for and represented throughout his entire career, but to fuel his war machine and his pocket stands as testament that money corrupts weak mind.

Do you know what the main difference between Achmadinejad and Hitler is?
It is that Hitler started a war and only then started creating and developing his weapons of mass destruction. Achmadinejad is going the other way around it, he is developing his neuclear capabilities before he starts his Jihad, and this is what I want you to understand. I go back to my quote, When a man tells you he's going to exterminate you, believe him.
and Achmadinejad is saying openly that he is going to exterminate me. He is using words that mean Holy war and Ethnic cleansing.
This is what I mean by fight agaisnt terrorism.
Once Iran has a Neuclear bomb, it will give legitimacy for all arab countries in the region to start a neuclear race. Are you willing to have all muslim countries hold atomic bombs?
This is what im talking about..
and the very ends of this war machine is al-quaeda, taliban, hammas and hizbollah. In 2001 we understood that the fact there is an ocean on either side of the USA doesnt mean american citizens are safe at home. And now in 2008 people are starting to forget that fact. If we dont want 9/11 times 100 we have to stop Achmadinejad and his holy war.

If we go back to our issue, neither Obama nor Mccain talk about eradicating AIDs, because you cant fight AIDs. you can only research and try to find a cure, and this is happening fundings are being invested in this issue as we speak.
starvation and holocausts in third wold countries are horrible, but sending money over is not the way to solve, build schools, build irrigation systems, send over food, send medicine and doctors.
Im sure that it will be a big issue in a few years that there was a second holocaust in the world and not one helped, I do believe this is terrible and that we should help. but I also believe that
1: We should do it in a different way
2: We should make ourselves safe before we make other people safe.
once we are safe, send all the help we can, invest all the money you can to help the needy. But you have to make sure that your people are safe first.

And if you want to talk about the Israeli military and they way that military is dealing with the Gaza strip im willing to open another thread and not do that here.

Again you are making a good argument about how terrorism is important but not as important as other challenges we are facing with, and I agree that other Issues are also important to deal with. But Im trying to show what will happen to our nation's safety if you turn a blind eye to this issue. Im trying to show how critical this issue is to what will happen to us in the future and how we cant take our eye off the ball now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

You are very wise, AFKain. But again you fail to see my point.
Im not saying you should forget about finding a cure for AIDs and letting people around the world die from starvation and let a holocaust happen to the people of africa. This is the last thing I want.

---

Good to hear, you had me worried there for a while :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

You said Im against aid to struggling countries in any form, that is not true at all. I am agaisnt corruption and that is what we are fueling. We keep sending money to those countries. Money is the wrong commodity to send, and I hope you agree with me there.
There are some private organizations that send food and clean water. they help build schools, and not fund them but build them. This is what I believe in, I hope we are together there.

---

Sure, it depends who you're giving the money to, in some cases (many perhaps) goods and construction etc can be more appropriate. IMO establishing companies that are devoted to humanitarian aid in the country is a good solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

Do you know what the main difference between Achmadinejad and Hitler is?
It is that Hitler started a war and only then started creating and developing his weapons of mass destruction. Achmadinejad is going the other way around it, he is developing his neuclear capabilities before he starts his Jihad, and this is what I want you to understand. I go back to my quote, When a man tells you he's going to exterminate you, believe him.
and Achmadinejad is saying openly that he is going to exterminate me. He is using words that mean Holy war and Ethnic cleansing.
(...) [had to cut it somewhere]

---

I'll testify that I don't know all that much about the Iranian leadership, there has not been too much in-dept reporting about Iran in our news. I don't feel that I can make any judgment about the character of Achmadinejad, so as far as I know it might well be that he is serious about what he's saying and not just trying to capitalize on the antagonism against Israel. However I doubt that anyone who becomes leader of a nation is an idiot (with the possible exception of some inbred royalty somewhere). The difference between Iran and Germany is that Germany had a military force that could match any nation in the world. If Iran ever got "the bomb" and tried to use it they would be obliterated by the US. Not to mention that Israel likely already has nukes of its own which could be used against Iran. Mutually Assured Destruction has always worked so far, I expect that that's what Iran would use a bomb for if they got one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

This is what I mean by fight agaisnt terrorism.
Once Iran has a Neuclear bomb, it will give legitimacy for all arab countries in the region to start a neuclear race. Are you willing to have all muslim countries hold atomic bombs?
This is what im talking about..
and the very ends of this war machine is al-qaeda, taliban, hammas and hizbollah. In 2001 we understood that the fact there is an ocean on either side of the USA doesnt mean american citizens are safe at home. And now in 2008 people are starting to forget that fact. If we dont want 9/11 times 100 we have to stop Achmadinejad and his holy war.

---

Sure spreading nuclear technology is never good, I'd prefer if no nation had nukes. I doubt the Iranian government would be handing out their nuclear technology though, flooding the middle east with nukes would be disastrous and it wouldn't be so difficult to guess who'd be held responsible for that. But I agree, we must make sure that Iran is not developing nukes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

If we go back to our issue, neither Obama nor Mccain talk about eradicating AIDs, because you cant fight AIDs. you can only research and try to find a cure, and this is happening fundings are being invested in this issue as we speak.

---

Of course you can fight AIDS, I'd say the reason they aren't talking about it is that the American voters don't want to hear about increased public spending. There is always room for more money to be put into this industry, you make it sound like there is a finite need for money and that this is already being filled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oded

starvation and holocausts in third wold countries are horrible, but sending money over is not the way to solve, build schools, build irrigation systems, send over food, send medicine and doctors.
Im sure that it will be a big issue in a few years that there was a second holocaust in the world and not one helped, I do believe this is terrible and that we should help. but I also believe that
1: We should do it in a different way
2: We should make ourselves safe before we make other people safe.
once we are safe, send all the help we can, invest all the money you can to help the needy. But you have to make sure that your people are safe first.

---

This brings us back to the seriousness of the two threats and the value of lives... Many nations who put big money into anti terrorism are hardly exposed to any threat at all. Take the US for example, the war in Iraq has cost what now is it 500 billion $? That's a whole lot of food and a lot of reasearch which would do a whole lot more good than what the war has done. Insane amounts of money have been spent to combat terrorism which is a small threat to US citizens. Spending this money on aid would have given a much better "bang per buck" in terms of lives saved.

what AFK is saying with his downright evil fallacy, is a recipe for inaction

yeah Malaria has killed more people than any other disease and all the wars combined

but if you state what you are saying and you are indeed saying just that, than you would agree not to interfere in any war, including WW2.

That AFKain is suicide!


Obama was saying the same in the first U.S. presidential debate. At first I figured Obama was just a big gullable and naive fool, now I'm thinking it is worse than that. Not only is he pisspoor strategist (he doesn't even know the difference between a strategy and a tactic), he genuinely believes in Wright's nonsense. He isn't just stupid, he believes in the wrong. McCain was using a euphemism when he described Obama as not ready for office, not only is he ill prepared, he is a National Security Risk.

I don't get it why people call him the Black Kennedy. Kennedy was not that stupid and that bad a strategist and Kennedy would never leave both his people and his allies behind. Obama on the other hand is stupid, is a bad strategist and Obama will leave both the American people and his allies behind.

No what both AFKain and Obama are proposing is let people die in concentration camps, what AFKain and Obama are proposing is to let people die of starvation, what AFKain and Obama are proposing is letting people get raped, shot, murdered, mutilated, drowned, suffocated

that is what AFKain and Obama propose

and make no mistake, that is beyond stupid, that is evil

Freemehul dont you think you are a bit harsh?
I dont think Obama is stupid and I dont think AFKain is dumb.
Obama is a very intelligent person who thinks differently to the way you do, there's no reason to go accusing Obama and AFKain of letting people die and be killed in concentration camps, because they never said that.
you can take people's views and twist them to such a degree to make them sound evil.
we all understand the problems we're facing in the world, but we dont agree on how to deal with the problems.

Quote:

---

No what both AFKain and Obama are proposing is let people die in concentration camps, what AFKain and Obama are proposing is to let people die of starvation, what AFKain and Obama are proposing is letting people get raped, shot, murdered, mutilated, drowned, suffocated

---

that is just not true, non of them ever said anything remotely close to this, AFKain opposed to this... he talks about it in his posts

AFKain, Iran is not Iraq. Iran is a power in the middle east, they have an army they have technology. they gave Syria 700 T72 russian tanks only 4 months ago (thats a fact, im not making that up). You dont just go handing out tanks and weapons to other countries.
Iran has power, it has technology, and most importantly they have many fanatics who believe they are fighting for a just cause.
now, im not saying Achmadinejad is an inbred with no brain. he is a very smart person who manipulates other nations and plays with the world. It doesnt mean he isnt a madman. A lot of world leaders throughout history are known today to be crazy, this is what drives them to achieve what they believe in.

I dont believe Obama doesnt know the difference between strategy and tactics.
I think this is was a good way to show him is less intelligent by Mccain.

Quote:

---

but if you state what you are saying and you are indeed saying just that, than you would agree not to interfere in any war, including WW2.

---

Freemehul showing all once more how dumb he is.

Give us more than just your opinion Freemehul. Back up with what you have said with facts and links. If you can't then guess what... your wrong. :)

"What do you see in McCain? I see 4 more years of Bush."

i actually see any efforts to relate mccain to bush as vain

they arent very close on the political spectrum, they just happen to associate themselves in the same party

i hardly expect 4 more years of bush if mccain was president, in fact, i expect mccain to be more like clinton in a lot of ways. (except adultery of course)

that said, bush's faults are what he is known for, much like most presidents while they are in office. if you looked at the entirety of what he has done these 8 years, you would find rather good work in many places, along with the tragic mistakes

ya, we were better off with gore...but still, bush wasnt 'all' bad lol

im not supporting him, im just saying that you should look at everything, not just what makes headlines, as what makes headlines in todays media is usually only the exaggerated shocking events, things that if read, would cause arguments, and raise support and money and fame for those who paid dearly for it to be written

you should look more closely at the big picture, not just what the particular interest group that catches your attention has to say

Quote:

---

i actually see any efforts to relate mccain to bush as vain

they arent very close on the political spectrum, they just happen to associate themselves in the same party

---

Check the voting records. Over 90% of the time he voted in line with Bush. I believe the actual % is 94% or the time... Seems pretty lock-step with Bush. Even want's to continue Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Not much different than Bush... except for maybe a worse temper.

Quote:

---

that said, bush's faults are what he is known for, much like most presidents while they are in office. if you looked at the entirety of what he has done these 8 years, you would find rather good work in many places, along with the tragic mistakes

---

19% Aproval rating for Bush... better look very hard for the good things. Can you name even a couple of good things? I can't.

Quote:

---

you should look more closely at the big picture, not just what the particular interest group that catches your attention has to say

---

I don't have a party affiliation, I've voted for Republicans, Democrats and Independents. I believe I am looking at the big picture.

bush's voting record isnt his problem, so i dont see what the problem there is

in regard to his beliefs, mccain is definitely out of range of bush, and the majority of his party

to be more clear, bush's mistakes were how he managed his obligations, not how he voted

if mccain voted similarly to bush, i can honestly tell you that i dont care

and even if i did care, i could also ask you what you value in mentioning percentages, while what is important are the issues that they voted similarly on

and more importantly, what they did not vote similarly on

Quote:

---

to be more clear, bush's mistakes were how he managed his obligations, not how he voted

---

No it's not. It's failed policies, It is Bush policies that McCain voted on. It has nothing to do with not managing obligations.

Quote:

---

while what is important are the issues that they voted similarly on

---

Exactly...

they voted similarly on several things that the majority of the country would agree with, as many of them are things that he mentioned while running for office, and were reasons why he was elected

you try to infer that 94% agreement means 94% wrong, as if bush never made a good decision or policy

you arent seeing the fact that politics, government, foreign policy, and economics have a curve to them, a rotation of good to bad, and back to good again

while bush has been in, it has gone from good, to bad, to good, to bad, and now its getting good again

i doubt bush had any real control over public approval, given that public approval largely fluctuates along with those curves, a dynamic that is for the most part unrelated to his actions

another reality, is that neither bush or mccain is very far to the right on the political spectrum, in fact mccain is almost centered. i would rather see a moderate than obama, a man who is probably the most liberal canidate in the history of the u.s., and would be a better match for sweden

Quote:

---

they voted similarly on several things that the majority of the country would agree with, as many of them are things that he mentioned while running for office, and were reasons why he was elected

---

Ok then, name me 1. And in case you forget the president does not vote on his own policy decisions. McCain does vote on Bush policies. I think your a little confused. If you want to dispute it here is the Fact Check link for you... His lowest point was 77% voting yes on Bush policies.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...oted_with.html

Quote:

---

you arent seeing the fact that politics, government, foreign policy, and economics have a curve to them, a rotation of good to bad, and back to good again

---

If it is a fact then I suppose you could show me the facts? And what does that have to do with anything we are talking about...

Quote:

---

while bush has been in, it has gone from good, to bad, to good, to bad, and now its getting good again

---

It's getting good again? Are you locked in some closet somewhere?

Quote:

---

i doubt bush had any real control over public approval, given that public approval largely fluctuates along with those curves, a dynamic that is for the most part unrelated to his actions

---

Public approval is so low because of Bush's failed policies. How can that be unrelated to his actions? Starting to sound a little like Freemehul there...

Quote:

---

another reality, is that neither bush or mccain is very far to the right on the political spectrum, in fact mccain is almost centered. i would rather see a moderate than obama, a man who is probably the most liberal canidate in the history of the u.s., and would be a better match for sweden

---

I realize that about them. I never said anything about Bush and McCain being on the far right. Although Bush saying he talks to god might push him a little more to the right. lol.

Show me how Obama is 'the most liberal' canidate don't just say it. That adds no substance to anything.

Sweden seems to do alright and you don't see other countries wanting to wipe them off the face of the planet do you.

youve made it obvious that your level of liberal-ness keeps you from understanding anything that your political affiliation hasnt told you to believe

im not required to prove anything, as this isnt the venue for proof. this is a political thread, in which case, all things are based on opinion

hence the word politics

Quote:

---

I dont believe Obama doesnt know the difference between strategy and tactics.

---

the presidential debate showed he doesn't know the difference

Quote:

---

youve made it obvious that your level of liberal-ness keeps you from understanding anything that your political affiliation hasnt told you to believe

im not required to prove anything, as this isnt the venue for proof. this is a political thread, in which case, all things are based on opinion

hence the word politics

---

So like freemehul here you don't want to show facts, just your opinion. That's fine... opinions can be wrong. Facts have no bias... opinions do.

not quite, but you're almost there.

i was more hinting at the fact that your judgment is based upon a scale which is formed from one side of the political spectrum. i view it as a flaw that you deem yourself a person that bases their actions upon fact, when in politics, theory is the ground you walk on. i also find it hard to appreciate someone who associates themselves with an agenda of theories that aren't necessarily related on a rational level. i would like to hope that intelligent people don't see 'party lines', but that they might be able to stand in the middle and discern policies equidistantly.

What most of you kids here dont understand is how little our President has to do with world economic issues our even our own.
His number one job is commander and cheif of the armed forces.
He votes and such on issues same as all the other swinging dicks in washington.
But he does nothing on his own except to run the armed forces and even at that he does not have a free hand.
The dems have had the majority of the con and sen for the majority of my life and im 52yo.Thats who has installed most of our laws,the dems.
It was the dems and Bill Clinton that deregulated wall street and the big morgatage firms.
Our system altough I think the best awround is indeed broken.
Broken becuse all not some but all of our laws are made by give and take by our washington dickheads,give me this and ill give you that.
Nothing is voted on by the meirits of the bill proposed on its own.
G.W. didnt break anything on his own,not even the war in Irac as most of washington was fully behind it at start and only came to slam it for their possible gains at election time.
I beleave Irac is better off now then before the war altough I dont think we should help the whole world to become a better place.
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archi...7/1560582.aspx
Its working there.

But to think our President is all so powerfull on his own is a realy sad mystake.

i kinda already said that