What kind of State of the Union was that?? :evil:

Shinobo · **Shinobo**

Pieces of me are calling to prop up the other point of view, seeing at is misrepresented in these forums....

But alas, I am too lazy. So I'll just say this: Consider the complexity of individuals and our government before comming down to simple blanket statements like "Geogre Bush is a mockery of a leader" or "George Bush is an oil tycoon there he behaves X" Honestly. We're all more intelligent to realize this issue is complicated and can't be described in single sentences except by those attackdog types that both sides keep in their respective wings.

Also, Gary Locke's response was very good, though it did little to counter Bush's Iraq policy. One of my very liberal (not extremist) liberal friends made the comment somewhat along the lines of "The Democrats may actually be growing a backbone." Woo. Good for them. It's the job of the opposition party to be the watchdog and question everything the other does.

On the subject of the State of the Union, I have questions reguarding your analysis. Specfically, "segreating seating". What on earth are you talking about?
And also, get over the fact that he's religious. So are lots of other people in this country. If there is one thing college has taught me it's that just because someone believes in God doesn't make them an automatic crazybitch. If he wants to use religion to set goals and make moral benchmarks for himself, so be it (I won't even mention the fact that one of the reasons we're hated so by some of the Islamic extremists is because we're already too secular of a state). If the people don't like this method of leading, he's gone in two years anyway. And he has some very competent advisors telling him what to do in Iraq. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, he's not stupid enough to disreguard their advice or U.S. intelligence reports. Yay for democracy.

Force-Attuned_Krogoth · **Force-Attuned_Krogoth**

Well, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I don't judge Bush as an Oil Tycoon, I judge him based on the fact that he appears not to consider the consequences of opening his mouth. I believe that we need to have at least two, preferably three, major parties. It is necessary to be able to shoot down the stupid ideas, even when they're proposed by the people in power. However, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the Democrats and Republicans, because they are fighting over the same moderates.

As for the Iraq issue, I did not say anything about what should be done, I merely pointed out Bush's manner of speaking about it. I'm sorry, but a 46-48 split does not constitute a "firm resolve." Also, he merely says that there is conclusive evidence that Iraq has nukes, but has not given any indication of what it is or how credible the source to ANYBODY. Whether he's telling the truth or not, it does sound a little hypocritical.

(As an aside, has anyone thought about Saddam's persective? We're asking him to voluntarily give up the weapons that keep him in power, placing the entire burden on him to prove that he doesn't have anything, and automatically gainsaying any statements he has on the subject. If he complies, and somehow manages (however unlikely) to convince Bush that he really has disarmed, many many people in his country are going to try to kill him. On the other hand, if he does not go along, he has a chance that our actions will be stopped by the UN, and that we might be scared off when he uses his myriad of horrifying weapons in self-defense. Is it really fair to condemn a man for not ACTIVELY seeking his own demise?)

The "segregated seating" was in reference to the fact that several times, Bush received enthusiastic applause from the entire left side of the room, while the right side merely grumbled. You know, the whole fallacy of "thinking along party lines."

Finally, I NEVER consider religion as cause enough for violence. Just as they feel animosity towards our Judeo-Christian government, we might feel threatened by their state-sponsored Islam. We, through our existence, do NOT "suppress" them. Countries are poor because they don't produce anything, not because they got "stuck by the Man." Your laziness/ineptitude is your fault. Razz

_________________
Krogoth uses Berserk.
Attacks are enhanced but defense weakens.
"Wait, that's not the cure button ... "

Shinobo · **Shinobo**

In this post I quote from the above and then provide my response.

Krogath:
I believe that we need to have at least two, preferably three, major parties. It is necessary to be able to shoot down the stupid ideas, even when they're proposed by the people in power. However, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the Democrats and Republicans, because they are fighting over the same moderates.

Shinobo:
Agreed

Krogath:
As for the Iraq issue, I did not say anything about what should be done, I merely pointed out Bush's manner of speaking about it. I'm sorry, but a 46-48 split does not constitute a "firm resolve." Also, he merely says that there is conclusive evidence that Iraq has nukes, but has not given any indication of what it is or how credible the source to ANYBODY. Whether he's telling the truth or not, it does sound a little hypocritical.

Shinobo:
�Firm resolve� at the beginning of the speech referred to the fact that we all still hate terrorism and want to make it go away. Also, I would consider U.S. intelligence and U.N. reports to be �credible sources�. And I don�t care WHAT the evidence is, at least in the general public sense/specific sense (in other words, classified information reports that only those with the highest security clearance get to read). If it�s good enough to convince the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 to act, then I think I�ll take Powell and company on their words.

Krogath:
(As an aside, has anyone thought about Saddam's perspective? We're asking him to voluntarily give up the weapons that keep him in power, placing the entire burden on him to prove that he doesn't have anything, and automatically gainsaying any statements he has on the subject. If he complies, and somehow manages (however unlikely) to convince Bush that he really has disarmed, many many people in his country are going to try to kill him. On the other hand, if he does not go along, he has a chance that our actions will be stopped by the UN, and that we might be scared off when he uses his myriad of horrifying weapons in self-defense. Is it really fair to condemn a man for not ACTIVELY seeking his own demise?)

Shinobo:
Saddam is a clinically insane dictator who has killed his own people and lives in a status of luxury while his entire country starves. He has defied international law and has put to death members of his own family for speaking against him. He has shown no remorse for any of these actions. If you want to leave a clinically insane dictator in power with weapons of mass destruction simply based on the fact that we�re �not considering his perspective� I must disagree with you. Part of your logic is the very same that was debated at Oxford in the months prior to the Nazi bombing of Britain. The topic of discussion? Should Britain intervene and stop Hitler.

Krogath:
The "segregated seating" was in reference to the fact that several times, Bush received enthusiastic applause from the entire left side of the room, while the right side merely grumbled. You know, the whole fallacy of "thinking along party lines."

Shinobo:
Ok. I�m sorry. I though you were referencing some kind of split between races.

Krogath:
Finally, I NEVER consider religion as cause enough for violence. Just as they feel animosity towards our Judeo-Christian government, we might feel threatened by their state-sponsored Islam. We, through our existence, do NOT "suppress" them. Countries are poor because they don't produce anything, not because they got "stuck by the Man." Your laziness/ineptitude is your fault. Razz

[/quote]

Shinobo:
I�m not sure I understand what you�re getting at. My point was that bashing him simply because he believes in God and mentions it frequently is dumb. Moreover, the end of your argument sounds like a part of a �the poor are lazy because they don�t work� argument, which I�m pretty sure none of us believe.

Force-Attuned_Krogoth · **Force-Attuned_Krogoth**

Shinobo · **Shinobo**

funkymunky · **funkymunky**

Taking saddams perspective i agree, it would be a poor decision to hand over what he sees as his only means of self defence. If he was holding on to these weapons in order to protect his own people, this would be a different situation entirely and one where i believe taking his perspective would be easier. for example if he felt threatened by a neighbouring power and he wanted to ensure the safty of his citizens. However, the reality is somewhat different, he is trying to hold onto his power by threatening the use of devastatingly powerfull and inhumane chemical weapons. THIS is why i think seeing it from his perspective is a waste of time, as most reasonable people wouldnt have his motivations to start with

Goldfinger2K · **Goldfinger2K**

that was a given...
_________________
"one time yug!-Steve O Fuss
Y.U.G.
"If I threw a stick would you go away?"-a shirt
"Toonami, better than getting kicked in the nuts!"-me
"If I was so inclined, I would have groped you five times!"^O^hohohohoho!-Vash

counterparadox · **counterparadox**

Beatdiggga · **Beatdiggga**

The nerd doesn't usually gas his own people.

counterparadox · **counterparadox**

I'm aware. But Saddam doesn't readiy agree to our demands and people fail to realize that they would do the same thing if they were thrust into his position. Whenever someone starts to piss me off, the LAST thing I will do is what they want me to do. I'll do everything in my power to go against that person. It's a matter of principle and dignity.
_________________
anime is teh s uck

Play City of Heroes/Villians? Look me up, Pinnacle server, @C Paradox

Shinobo · **Shinobo**

Your argument also supports the guilty conscience theory.

What he isn't doing this out of self defesne, but out of guilt that he broke the law?

Force-Attuned_Krogoth · **Force-Attuned_Krogoth**

What I'm most worried about Saddam is that we have backed him into a corner. There is no way in Hell that he will give up his weapons, as can be easily deducted. However, he's also not going to give up the fight. If we invade, what's to stop him from using his weapons on our soldiers? He almost certainly will, unless he wants to play the tormented nerd.

And Shin, which do you think is more prevalent: reppression of citizens, or personal laziness?

Bring it on, I can take an Awful lot of discussion . . .
_________________
Krogoth uses Berserk.
Attacks are enhanced but defense weakens.
"Wait, that's not the cure button ... "

Shinobo · **Shinobo**

Yippie. I just so happen to have my sociology book on hand....

This is the idea behind social inequalities: Most of them are socially constructed. They are not "natural" or "the way things have always been". They are created by our society whether we realize it or not. Therefore, I woud answer your question with repression, though not repression of the citizentry (as the words "repression of the citizentry" bring up ideas of governmental supression). Instead, it is a repression by our culture, which is made up of the sum of everything around us. This is not to say that there are not lazy people: there are lazy people in the upper classes, the middle class, AND the lower class. It is simply to say that the trend is that most of those who are poor didn't become that way through lazyness. They either started that way or became that way through living their lives. To say that the poor are poor simply because they are lazy is to negate the complexity of a life. Does that make the divorced housewife with 3 kids who is considered "poor" by Census standards if she works a 60 hour week at two jobs trying to get by lazy?
What's that you say? She should have worked harder in school?

What if she didn't go to college because her family couldn't afford it?

What? She didn't get scholarships because she didn't work hard enouh in school?

What happens if she finished high school with a 2.8 because she had to work all the time to make sure her family made ends meet?

Her parents should have worked harder? What happens if her parents parents were poor, and they went through the same thing?

It's a cycle of inequality, and though it is possible to make a class change, it is not commonplace. Those who fail to make a class change far outnumber those who do (and there are those who do).

Thoughts?

counterparadox · **counterparadox**

We were talking about this cycle of poverty in school today, so it's ironic you brought it up. Although, most people fell asleep, and it's something I've already realized in the past.

Every way I look at it, there is no simple solution. I'll write something else when I think of something intelligent.
_________________
anime is teh s uck

Play City of Heroes/Villians? Look me up, Pinnacle server, @C Paradox


	Disclaimer: Toonami Infolink, its creators and their kin are not owned by, affiliated with, or bossed around by Williams Street, Cartoon Network, Turner Broadcasting, AOL Time Warner, Long John Silvers, Tremont Corp (they do something with titanium), or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. All opinions expressed on Toonami Infolink are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of Dave Coulier, George Stephanopoulos, Selma Hayak, Mark Mothersbaugh, or Ron Santos. PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license. Page Generation: 0.14 Seconds