IknowFeloRamirezIRL

I really hate to say this, but many evangelicals believe stopping gays from getting married is more of a urgent need than saving the environment. :plain 845399[/snapback] Its almost as mind boggling as the so called "culture of life." Save Terri Schiavo! Stop abortion! Life begins at conception! Then turn around support capital punishment, fry someone in the electric chair, ignore all the death and destruction in Africa and bomb the f*k out of Iraq.

I dont think I'll ever get tired of that clip. :rofl

You're absolutely right about Novak - I never understood that either.

It was the kids, tons and tons of kids all wearing matching colored shirts. :wacko

Sell high J/K lol

I must say I admire Miller, in that she is willing to go to jail for what she believes in. 844410[/snapback] Maybe she's afraid Karl Rove will have her "sleeping with the fishes" :lol 844420[/snapback] Well if one of the fishes is Miguel Cabrera, I am sure she won't mind. Girls love that guy. 844486[/snapback] :thumbup

I must say I admire Miller, in that she is willing to go to jail for what she believes in. 844410[/snapback] Maybe she's afraid Karl Rove will have her "sleeping with the fishes" :lol

Since you called for an article - here's one that I found interesting: July 6th, 2005 1:43 pm Save the First Amendment--from Karl Rove By Bill Israel / Editor and Publisher (July 05, 2005) -- In 99.9 percent of cases I know, journalists must not break the bonds of appropriate confidentiality, to protect their ability to report, and to defend the First Amendment. I?ve testified in court to that end, and would do so again. But the Valerie Plame-CIA case that threatens jail time for reporters from Time and The New York Times this week is the exception that shatters the rule. In this case, journalists as a community have been played for patsies by the president?s chief strategist, Karl Rove, and are enabling him to abuse the First Amendment, by their invoking it. To understand why this case is exceptional, one must grasp the extent of Rove?s political mastery, which became clearer to me by working with him. When we taught "Politics and the Press" together at The University of Texas at Austin seven years ago, Rove showed an amazing disdain for Texas political reporters. At the same time, he actively cultivated national reporters who could help him promote a Bush presidency. In teaching with him, I learned Rove assumes command over any political enterprise he engages. He insists on absolute discipline from staff: nothing escapes him; no one who works with him moves without his direction. In Texas, though he was called "the prime minister" to Gov. George W. Bush, it might have been "Lord," as in the divine, for when it came to politics and policy, it was Rove who gave, and Rove who took away. Little has changed since the Bush presidency; all roads still lead to Rove. Consequently, when former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson challenged President Bush?s embrace of the British notion that Saddam Hussein sought to import uranium from Niger to produce nuclear weapons, retaliation by Rove was never in doubt. While it is reporters Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of The New York Times who now face jail time, the retaliation came through Rove-uber-outlet Robert Novak, who blew the cover of Wilson?s wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame. The problem, as always, in dealing with Rove, is establishing a clear chain of culpability. Rove once described himself as a die-hard Nixonite; he is, like the former president, both student and master of plausible deniability. (This past weekend, in confirming that Rove was indeed a source for Matthew Cooper, Rove's lawyer said his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information.") That is precisely why prosecutor Fitzgerald in this case must document the pattern of Rove?s behavior, whether journalists published, or not. For in this case, Rove, improving on Macchiavelli, has bet that reporters won?t rat their relationship with the administration?s most important political source. How better for him to operate without constraint, or to camouflage breaking the law, than under the cover of journalists and journalism, protected by the First Amendment? Karl Rove is in my experience with him the brightest and most affable of companions; perhaps I have been coopted, for I genuinely treasure his friendship. But neither charm nor political power should be permitted to subvert the First Amendment, which is intended to insure that reporters and citizens burrow fully and publicly into government, not insulate its players from felony, or reality. Reporters with a gut fear of breaching confidential sources must fight like tigers to protect them. But neither reporters Cooper nor Miller, nor their publications, nor anyone in journalism should protect the behavior of Rove (or anyone else) through an undiscerning, blanket use of the First Amendment that weakens its protections by its gross misuse.

This has nothing to do with the Olympics - this was planned a long time ago, how would they have known that the Olympic committe was going to give the bid to London?

Let me tell you someting, I DO know Felo Ramirez and he would be ashamed of someone like you using his name and image. You sir are a moron and a communist bum. but then again reading your profile I see that nobody should take your opinions seriously, Mr. Death and Metal.... 842911[/snapback] I do know Felo, and out of respect for him I will take his likeness off my sig and avatar, just because I don't want any of this to be associated with him. This is my opinion and my opinion only. And just because someone doesn't agree with your world-view does not mean they are a communist, but feel free to belittle me it makes you feel bigger I really couldn't give a crap. And just who would you give the money to? The UN so they will rip it off like they did in the oil for food deal or to the dictators in the African countries so they will rip it off and build more power while the people starve?842911[/snapback] I would create some sort of international coalition to manage and oversee the rebuilding and restructuring. Anything is better than funneling money to Israel so they can forcefully move Palestinians out of their homes. 842980[/snapback] Studies have been done showing foreign aid does not lead to economic development. In most cases economic development being defined as growth in GDP but other measures were used as well. Throwing money at the nations is not the answer.....one glarring example being Ghana where in the 80's an economic resurgance plan based around the building of a damn failed miserably after an incredible amount of money was supplied to Ghana through foreign aid to cover monetary gap. The idea goes that to reach a certain level of growth countries need to save a specific amount of their income. In this case, savings are equivalent to investment. basically whatever is not consumed is is invested. poor countries have to consume most of their income in order to survive so they cant maintain high savings rate...that's where foreign aid comes in to "fill the gap" of what the country cant save. alas, mostly due to corruption, inexpereience and poor infrastructure, countries waste the foreign aid away.......what poor countries need are honest leaders, educated plannners and incentive for people to want to invest in their country 844007[/snapback] I was just trying to make the point that something needs to be made whether it be Foreign Aid or whatever, but something needs to be done... I suggested investing money in Africa, involving some sort of international task force/coalition to manage it - not just throw money at dictators. I was in no way suggesting that this was the end-all be-all miracle cure for Africa, merely a start and better than anything we are doing with our Foreign Aid money right now. We could definitely accomplish some of your solutions (in bold) investing and managing that Foreign Aid money.

This kind of trash talk about our country makes me regret ever enlisting in the Army. To think that I have put my life on the line against terrorism to defend some of these morons literally makes me sick to my stomach at times. I try so hard to understand liberals, but in the end I have reached the decision that the far left is nothing more than sick in the head. It is exactly why I have to call myself a moderate because the further you go in either direction, the crazier they get. The U.S. needs another 9/11. But then again, everyone would probably just blame Bush and say he wasn't ready for it or something and then next thing you know Bush was the highjacker or something. I'm no big fan of Bush, but I am a fan of common sense. And yes, I voted for Kerry. 843880[/snapback] Other than the fact that I do not bow down and glorify organized mass slaughter, what makes you think anything that I've said is so sick? What's so sick about trying to prevent war and the death of innocent people? I understand that what I said about heroism may have shocked you and some of the other members of this board. I already explained how I was employing hyperbole and sensationalism in order to get the point across that war is wrong, and violence is never the answer. I was also trying to make the point that suicide bombers are heroes to extreme Islamist fundamentalists and the SS and Nazi soldiers were heroes to the Nazi Germans in much the same way that the Sergeant is a hero to us. I do not doubt this man had courage, conviction and honor. I lament his death, as much as all of you; and I deeply regret his loss, feeling especially bad for his family and his son. What has this war in Iraq solved? Absolutely nothing. It has only made things worse. Al-Qaeda is now stronger than ever, since we're recruiting better for them than we are for our own armed forces. The real reasons for us being in Iraq are many and are not discussed openly - but that is a subject for another thread. I understand your frustration though I don't share it, but to say that America needs another 9/11 is foolish and I know you did not really mean it so I'll let it slide.

Yeah, that makes more sense - this was way too coordinated an attack not to be Al-Qaeda. Thanks for the news sandro, I was looking for something like that since they havn't said anything on the news.

This is disgusting. I hope those injured in the blast fully recover. And to those who perished may they rest in peace. I will make sure the US assists the British in finding these cowards. Funny this happened a day after the Olympic announcement. May we consider that maybe the winning city would have been a target? 844017[/snapback] No, this is probably about the G8 meeting which makes me wonder if it was an anarchist group as opposed to an Islamist extremist group. This is awful :confused

Let me tell you someting, I DO know Felo Ramirez and he would be ashamed of someone like you using his name and image. You sir are a moron and a communist bum. but then again reading your profile I see that nobody should take your opinions seriously, Mr. Death and Metal.... 842911[/snapback] I do know Felo, and out of respect for him I will take his likeness off my sig and avatar, just because I don't want any of this to be associated with him. This is my opinion and my opinion only. And just because someone doesn't agree with your world-view does not mean they are a communist, but feel free to belittle me it makes you feel bigger I really couldn't give a crap. And just who would you give the money to? The UN so they will rip it off like they did in the oil for food deal or to the dictators in the African countries so they will rip it off and build more power while the people starve?842911[/snapback] I would create some sort of international coalition to manage and oversee the rebuilding and restructuring. Anything is better than funneling money to Israel so they can forcefully move Palestinians out of their homes.

Especially since the same thing is happening in Sudan right now.

That doesnt negate the fact that war has had positive results. I see no one responded to my post about General Dallaire in Rwanda. Its very easy to regurgitate what you hear on the news about Iraq, but its too hard to read up on the actual events that occured in Rwanda. watching the movie isnt enough. So someone please answer this question, in rwanda, violence by daalire would have saved lives. Would it have been justified, or should we always manage a peaceful solution even at the expense of lives? I will not argue any longer if you feel that those 800,000 lives were worth the sacrifice b/c the western world did not resort to violence. Whats better 500 dead Hutu extremists and 100 Europeans or 800,000 innocent rwandans? Thats an easy choice for me to make, war would have been the best solution. 842687[/snapback] It's a dilemma, hindsight is 20/20, and like I responded earlier the problem is not as one-dimensional as you describe it. Let's hypothetically say that they do attack the weapons cache - who's to say that ends the rebellion? The rebels would more than likely just have gone out and gotten more weapons and probably hidden them better. If the U.N. was to take action right then and there, they would have not only had to face the rebels at their base, but face retaliation in a larger scale from the rest of the Hutu forces. Something they thought they were not prepared to do at the time. Had they captured the cache it would have probably delayed the genocide, but who's to say it would have stopped it? In order to have stopped the genocide it would have involved a long term engagement in Rwanda - something the U.N. and the U.S. were not willing to do at the time. However they were willing to do it in Kosovo, a couple years later. Interesting... As to your question whether war would have saved lives in this case, I suppose it would have. For a little while at least... The truth is, the problem should have never reached that point. It was negligency that let it escalate and reach that point. I'll probably get called a communist hippie again, but instead of giving all our foreign aid money away to Israel so they can create more war, we should invest that money and try to get Africa out of the Middle Ages. But that's just me.

:sleeping Keep drinking the neo-con Kool Aid, and saluting the flag :patriot while the crooks in the Oval Office make themselves richer off the blood of the Iraqi and American people.

Truly excellent post.

842211[/snapback] Neither slavery, fascism, nazism or communism has been ended... So yea, you're absolutely right - War has never solved anything. 842230[/snapback] Slavery has ended in america, there is no soviet union, and Hitler is no more. 842232[/snapback] Slavery has ended in America? What about the exploitation of illegal aliens here in the States - not to mention the way 80% of the products we use are made by slaves overseas. Some of them children. Just because we outsource our slaves doesn't mean slavery has ended. No Soviet Union, true true... Too bad China's still around and spreading its influence, and Cuba has survived right under the nose of the U.S. imagine that? Hitler might be gone, so might the 3rd Reich, of all of the things you mentioned this one might be the one that has died the most, but its definitely making a comeback. There's a ton of Neo-nazis here in the U.S. especially in the Pacific NW, and there is a resurgence in Europe as well. Fringe group - yea, but still around. Fascism? HA HA HA.

842211[/snapback] Neither slavery, fascism, nazism or communism has been ended...

STEINBRENNER'S WATCHING!!!

I think it is interesting how the liberal, anti-war people are the most likely to be skeptical about religion, while the conservative, pro-war people are more "religious" than any. It would make more sense if it was the other way around... 841962[/snapback] I like to think that it has a lot to do with the fact that since we are skeptical about religion and god in general, we tend to look at things differently. In stark contrast to religious people who are faced with a "do this, or suffer the consequences" mentality, skeptics do things more out of respect and love for humanity and their fellow human beings than from fear of reprisal from some unknown, invisible entity. Therefore it is important to take great responsibility for our own fate, not only as individuals but as a species, instead of say, delegating it to said entity.

So why not let the Iraqis do it themselves and be strong? They did not live in a democratic system like ours. However, if you ask me, they should have done it themselves. But we need our economy to produce, and what better way than going to war and producing weapons? 841953[/snapback] Are you for real?

What you fail to realize is that Hubbard himself has admitted that its a crock. Like I said he believes the philosophy, but the mythology behind it was created by him and him alone. This is like people who believe the jedi's are real. The histrocial religions have a basis in history, whether it be the greeks, romans, hebrews etc. Hubbard sat down one day and felt that in order for people to accept his philosophy he would also intertwine a ficitonal story that he himself made a bet declaring that no matter how absurd people will follow it. Thats why i mock that belief, b/c the creator acknowledges its illegitimacy. I was looking for the quote on the net earlier, but i could only find it on anti-scientology sites, who people here would see as illegitimate. I'm going to try to find his personal writings and dig it up from there. 841931[/snapback] I don't care about the quote, that's not the point of anything I've said or talked about. I don't care if Hubbard made it up, thats not the issue. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy involved in making fun of someone elses beliefs when yours might be equally if not more unbelievable, whether it be Scientology, Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or any other religion.

There have been little to no stats on how many Iraqis have died from the media. So its just not fair to blame the media because the American people are making their own conclusions. 841895[/snapback] Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq: Min 22787 Max 25814 http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ American Military Deaths 841896[/snapback] I doubt that is the amount of civilians killed. That number is probably in the uppoer 40's to 50's. 841906[/snapback] Well I'm guessing that its probably a conservative estimate, but it really is impossible to tell. I wouldn't be surprised if its as much as you say.