I don't feel quite so mad at Bush anymore.

Post Reply New Topic

nope. just a way of defining "isms", as in racism, sexism, homophobia (please note - for anyone taking this literally - that homophobia has no "ism" at the end of it, which illustrates the use of the suffix "ism" to denote any particular way in which people use stereotypes to oppress a group in order to assume power over them).

is that hysterical? nah - you want to see hysterical? i can do hysterical. haven't done so yet on this board. no extra charge...

edt

LOL Vetivert
If there's no charge, can I still reward you.

The world is neutral.
Good, Bad, Indifferent are all open to individual and social interpretation.

To project one's view point over another, without accounting for another's position is called being biased.

Threating someone with violence if they do not adopt your world view is called terror(ism).

With the above definition, it looks to me as if George W. is one of the biggest terrorists now playing on the world stage. So, if one wants to fight against terrorism, I suggest they attack those who need to be right at all cost, and do so with the control of one of the worlds strongest military forces, not necessary to get them to change their world view, but to get them to change their view that it needs to be their way or die.

yes, YES! i love pressies!

and the rest of your post is spot on, too.

Why is it that I can look at a variety of sites and see people protest at the Padilla decision and yet here in a poitics, etc forum there is no mention?
Example http://www.debianhelp.org/module-pnForu ... -9886.html posted in a Linux help forum.
There are so many people concerned at the excesses of GW that it makes me wonder if most aspies are totally detached from anything but the mainstream news services. Ex FEMA employees sacked to make way for the @war on terror@, the Union of Concerned scientists, uncountable civil liberty groups, even Fortune magazine is getting critical of the way patent law is going, but not too much here.

Last edited by jb814 on 16 Sep 2005, 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Calling yourself a Christian, going to Church, saying you believe in the Bible, does not make you a Christian. Following Jesus makes you a Christian. If you are not a "good" one, you are not one at all.

Peace.

I stand to get criticised either way. I could try harder to act the part and be accused of being a self righteous prick, or don't act the part and be accused of being a hypocrite. There's no winning there so I'm just going to be me, the guy that needs Jesus because he's too big of a screw up to be of benifit to anybody by his own means alone.

Last edited by galatea on 28 Sep 2005, 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Read the desert fathers sean
You're not alone.

Glad you brought up the Padilla decision jb.
Someone definately needed too.

The US is currently at war with al-Qaeda, and if the linked Times article has any relevancy,
Padilla may be regarded as an enemy combatant.
http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0, ... 69,00.html

At times of war, the constitution is suspended.

In conventional war we are being streched but we have the nuclear arsenal "And I mean JUST the US alone" to erase all life on earth several times over.

Next time you look at that cretin we have in the white house, remember, this guy has access to the launch codes of the largest stock of nukes on the planet.

Sleep well, I know I'm not............................


Don't kid yourself, if Bush decides that the voices in his head "god" wants him to end it all, then its over for everyone.

I thought there were at least four other countries with a substantial nuclear arsenal, France, China, Britain and Russia. Though undoutably there are others with a nuclear weapons such as Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Looks like Iran might be joining our cosy little club in the future too.

The USA never took Russia's nuclear weaponry lightly during the cold war with the 1979 Cuban missile crisis and three other close runs to nuclear war, the most recent in 1995.

I dont think it is possible for Bush to start a nuclear attack on his own. He needs backing from other senior figures.

knowing Bush, the senior figures will be Blair (an idiot), Gandalf, St Jude (patron saint of hopeless cases) and Dumbledore, and all the little pixies who tell him what to do.

Actually, as of January 1, 1996, the President has sole control of the Nation's nuclear arsenal. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but supposedly the missile sub captains can't even refuse a launch order.

You must be joking. That is crazy, allowing one person to decide whether to put an end to the world or not. Do you have any links to confirm this madness?

I don't have a link, but I remember it was an Executive Order signed by President Clinton. Bush really does have unilateral and arbitrary contol of the world's largerst nuclear arsenal.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story ... D=10345189
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01156.html

It should be "proposed" not "has been given", basically it would allow Rumsfeld to say to the Pres,"It's a quiet afternoon, nothing else on, lets nuke Iran"
Hopefully it won't be allowed.

Last edited by jb814 on 19 Sep 2005, 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.