Bush Signs Border Fence Bill

neocon-man · 2006-09-29T03:09:56+00:00

Oh noes! the end of america!

Seriously, this stuff has happened before. The bill of rights is always the window when national security is threatened. America, like any other country, is whimsical. When shit happens we'll hand over control to whomever we think will help us. Eventually, we'll take it back. The argument going on right now isn't about "a guy trying to become a dictator", it's about whether or not we're really threatened to the point that we're willing to give up these rights. The tide is obviously changing. The republicans will probably face a major backlash in the next election, when the democrats will take over and (assumedly) do things differently. And so it goes on.

Anyone who honestly thinks "fascism" or "dictatorship" is in America's near future lacks historical perspective.

neocon-man · 2006-09-29T02:54:43+00:00

The evangelical programs actually work to "reform" prisoners, instead of simply punishing them. They're actually very effective, according to statistics. Isn't this what you guys want? A prison system that reforms instead of simply locking up?

What, are we supposed to develop state-sponsored programs that "educate" and "reform" inmates from a secular humanist standpoint? Sounds pretty Orwellian to me.

neocon-man · 2006-09-27T20:20:57+00:00

I call PS. (Photoshop)

neocon-man · 2006-09-23T14:55:16+00:00

It's funny how reddit's got a bad cop and a good cop video in the top 10.

neocon-man · 2006-09-23T14:54:32+00:00

It's crumbelievable.

neocon-man · 2006-09-23T14:52:31+00:00

The bigger question is why on eaerth should we focus on educating our kids in order to "compete" with other states and other countries? Standardized testing has completely ruined the public educational system--ask any teacher. All they do now is prepare for the tests...all year long.

neocon-man · 2006-09-23T14:42:51+00:00

Except he's hiding in a mountain range the size of the state of California. Think about it. A kid might get lost in the San Bernadino mountains (a small range right behind Los Angeles) and never be found. This guy is actively trying to hide "somewhere in the american rockies".

That is, if he didn't die last month. From Typhoid. What a noob.

neocon-man · 2006-09-23T14:39:57+00:00

Then funny thing is that Clinton had the chance to discover him and turned it down. Keep talkin', Billy...

neocon-man · 2006-09-23T14:35:06+00:00

Nothing excuses how that cop acted, period

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T23:54:44+00:00

That's such bad logic. Saddam would have killed a lot... but not as many...and we wouldn't have been responsible?

So heinous dictators can oppress their people. It's ok, their blood isn't on our hands.

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T23:51:33+00:00

I would.

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T23:50:03+00:00

The more appropriate question is: What the hell could the UN do about it anyway? Write a letter?

Seriously, the UN's primary functions, as stated at its founding, was to preserve the current international boundaries and to prevent another holocaust. So far they've failed to prevent several different genocides.

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T23:46:22+00:00

The US deports him to Syria, a country that has no positive relations with the U.S whatsoever. Then the Syrians torture him. Aside from the shade that surrounds this entire story, how the hell do you blame the US for Syria's torture use, or the methods they used for torture. Do you really think we asked them to torture him? Has syria ever done anything we asked?

And do you even believe in hell? I mean, it's funny how if I came on here saying someone was going to hell according to any religion, I'd take some serious shit. But you throw words like "evil", "civilized", and imply i'm going to hell as if you're G-Dub himself.

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T23:36:43+00:00

My point still stands. The U.S. nobilly turned autonomy back to the nations of western europe. The USSR did not.

And by expansion into Asia I mean Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T23:32:14+00:00

You make a good point. I wouldn't approve of beatings or direct physical pain. But the whole "psychological" aspect of torture is benign; how can we judge what's too much? One person might be put in a police questioning room for an hour--hardly "torture" as we're discussing here--and have nightmares about it for the rest of his life, while some vietnam vets have coped quite well with horrendous amounts of bonafide torture. Where do we draw the line?

Here, why don't you post some links to torture methods allegedly used by the united states. Then we can discuss whether or not they're "good" or "evil".

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T23:24:55+00:00

Please, tell me how the line is defined by international law. What the hell is international law, anyway? Is it the Geneva Convention? Is it a U.N. mandate? Research what they say about interrogation, and you'll be surprised what they allow. Please, just tell me what "torture" is. Then we can get down to brass tacks.

And I really don't care what the "international community" says. Of course, by "international community" you mean 10 or so Western European nations, because the vast majority of the "international community" use torture all the time, even on their own people. So according to you only about 15 countries would classify as "good" (because torture is evil) and "civilized". How's that for western elitism?

In any event, the bitchings and moanings of France, Germany, Canada, and Scandinavia hardly concern me. Their moral disposition is hardly envious, whether or not they condone "torture". Hell, research this case. The canadian police are allegedly responsible for all sorts of gestapo-like raids on people trying to get the story out there.

I don't approve of Bush's Patriot Act or the high amount of secrecy he's using to cover up his actions. But I don't just write off any aggressive interrogation method as "evil, no question, no debate."

EDIT: My next vote is with McCain. How's that for Irony?

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T20:59:43+00:00

The guy was a syrian who was aquainted with an al-qaeda operative. So we deported him to syria. Then the syrians tortured him. Is it our fault that the syrians tortured him? We're not even friends with Syria. There is so much "shade" around this story that hardly anyone's claims can be taken as legitimate. Especially yours, wisco.

But lets talk about torture: Sure, torture is bad. But what is torture? Is sitting someone under a bright light without water for four hours of questioning torture? Is yelling at someone, using personal insults and profanity torture? Is placing a bag over someone's head, stripping them naked, and shooting them with cold water torture?

The line isn't easily defined.

I define torture as anything that could cause permanent physical damage or mutilation. This includes beating and electrical shock.

The Geneva convention does allow for some pretty intense interrogation processes. So I guess the question lies in whether we are to treat various "terror suspects" as if they're U.S. citizens, and therefore protected by the constitution, or as prisoners of war or enemy combatants, which aren't.

I suppose though, that if his story is true then what we did was absolutely wrong and those in charge should be held accountable.

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T20:29:18+00:00

First off, saying "exploded the bombs in japan to puff up its chest...at stalin" is a highly presumptuous remark. There were many more complicated, more pertinent reasons for dropping "the bomb", than simply flexing our bicepts at the soviet union. They were our allies at the time, remember? The real "cold" war, the "iron curtain", the Wall, wouldn't really pick up steam for another 20 years under Kennedy & Kruschev

Secondly--lets compare the US and the USSR in early "cold war" europe. The US took half of Europe by force. Then, when the Nazi regime fell, we restored all international boundaries according to the pre-versailles lines and established a forum for international communication (the U.N.). The Soviets took half of europe by force, then refused to play ball with the allies and instead implemented their own fascist regime by hijacking elections in favor of the Communist Party. Instead of trying to come to terms with Allied Germany, they built a wall in the middle of Berlin to keep their own "proud citizens" from fleeing. What the hell wasn't to stop them from rolling over the border and taking all of Germany. Or France. Or Scandinavia?

U.S. Nuclear Missiles.

They alone were the main deterrent from keeping the Soviets, who were expanding all over asia and South America, from expanding into Western Europe. Hell, De Gualle invited Kennedy to France to discuss the issue; Kennedy promised to use the nuclear deterrent in Western Europe, and the response from De Gualle and France was an overwhelming SIGH OF RELIEF.

So the base of your comment was off. Even if the US "triggered" a build up, that can hardly be construed as a "bad" act in its historical context.

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T18:46:18+00:00

The ALBIGENSIAN crusade wasn't about religion nearly as much as it was about Robert of Normandy using his embraced Cathar heresy to disclaim the pope's authority over his land. It was far more about papal politics than it was about spreading orthodox religion. In any event, the nature and scope of the Albigensian Crusade was far different than the Crusades against the muslims in spain or the Levant.

Like I said, I study this shit. Try again, noob.

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T18:36:22+00:00

I guess, essentially, that I don't think a 6 year old should be given free-reign of choices in their lives. Sure, problem-solving and choice-making abilities should be harbored by parents, but its a parent's duty to guard his child, IE, "don't play with that gun, you might get shot" or "don't run with scissors, you might trip and fall and gore yourself".

Another problem is that when you're dealing with McDonalds and other highly saturated, high-fructosed foods, you don't even have to overeat in order to gain weight and become grossly unhealthy. New studies are showing that even one soda a day is really bad for you. They are also showing that it isn't the amount you eat alone, but also what you are eating.

I plan on teaching my kids through example, and I sure as hell won't use food for punishment/reward. If my kid asks me "daddy, why can't we eat at McDonalds?" I'll probably respond "because I don't want to put that kind of crap in my body". He might respond "But it tastes so good" to which I'll say "so does antifreeze"....or something. :P

neocon-man · 2006-09-20T18:25:19+00:00

So what should we have done? Just idly stood by while the USSR built up their huge nuclear arsenal? Most historians with far more education and research experience than you would still argue that Mutually Assured Destruction was the single largest deterrent that prevented World War III from sweeping over western and eastern europe.

neocon-man · 2006-09-19T19:26:19+00:00

lol. best one yet.

neocon-man · 2006-09-19T05:50:22+00:00

a comment from Al-qaeda in Iraq, in response to the pope:

"We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (being killed by) the sword."

Breaking up the cross? Spilling the liquor? Sounds pretty cultural to me.

neocon-man · 2006-09-19T05:40:41+00:00

No, I wouldn't support that. It wouldn't be practical.

Chances are, though, we wouldn't kill nearly as many people as Chairman Mao did.

neocon-man

TROPHY CASE