Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: KernelPanic on 3 September 2002, 00:05
-
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has said he hopes Russia will not have to use its UN Security Council veto to head off American military action against Iraq.
-
Bush himself seems to be the only person who wants to go to war with Iraq - I'm against it and everyone I know (personally, online doesn't count) is completely against it.
[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b:
Bush himself seems to be the only person who wants to go to war with Iraq - I'm against it and everyone I know (personally, online doesn't count) is completely against it.
[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b ]
Bush is NOT running the executive branch; Dick Cheney and his cronies are. The ONLY reason that there's war talk is the Enron type scandals; they're hitting too close to home for the ruling elite; a target like Iraq gives them a smokescreen, that way they can do more creative bookkeeping to keep their asses out of the pokey longer.
-
Creedon, you're in my mind. Those are my views on the subject as well. I heard Powell in an interview wondering why they don't let the UN inspectors go back to Iraq? That would definitely solve the problem, for the time being. I agree with you about Cheney also. I think he runs the business safely backstage when they use Bush for coverage.
-
Yeah creedon you are one of the americans i like (ie not the mtv generation). But I don't really think here is the place for polital discusssions. They also have a massive potential to cause unrest in our harmony (http://smile.gif)
-
I highly doubt it that if the inspectors are allowed in, they will have the freedom to search where ever they want.
-
OK, OK, I won't get into politics any more; HEY, how about religion? That's always good for giggles!! My religion sacrifices virgins to a Sun Deity, anybody interested? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
N.B. Notice I didn't say HOW they were sacrificed.
-
hmmm, let me guess, you sacrific their virginity?
on the more serious note, yes, we need to go to war with iraq, yes bush is an ass, yes dick cheney is a dick.
-
not posting
-
I no longer care about US and it's Iraqi war. Iraq is a dickhead, and the US is a dickhead. So many smokescreens and shadows that I really don't know what's going on. Except for one thing, what they talk about on the news is what they want you to hear...
-
I too am pissed off about this Iraq thing, but something i've wondered about how long ago was it that they started this BS about a war with Iraq? I don't think it was too long ago, because I don't remember them making too much of a fuss about it in June. And does he no longer have to go through congress to declare war, or was that a part of the USA PATRIOT act?
:confused: :confused: :confused: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
And why the hell are we always is some kind of war!? It looks like every time the economy is about to turn south, we go to war with someone or something and people always end up being killed just to sustain the financial security of the United States for a little bit longer. I truly believe we are going to invade Iraq soon for nothing more than their oil. All of those lives lost just to increase the oil reserves in the soon to be 51st US state.
I'm done venting for the time being. (http://smile.gif)
-
Hard to do. If the US ever over stepped their bounds, showing that they have gone power hungry, then the rest of the world would realize this and destroy them. (http://smile.gif)
I don't know how you could safely conquer all those oil reserves without finger pointing by everyone else.
Don't worry, very little innocent US personal has died in the most recent conflicts(recent as in after Vietnam). They tend to be armed and trained better then everyone they fight(cuz they fight poor people).
-
Basically it doesnt matter what we think about the US going to Iraq, or anything else for that matter. There is no person or country to stop them and they know this. In fact America tries (covertly) to stop there being another 'power block' in the world. They do it with Europe and to an extent in the middle east.
An example of them hindering europe's independance is our EU rapid reaction force. This is a pool of european soldiers for, as the name suggest, rapid reaction without needing other help. But suprise suprise, before everything was complete it was 'decided' that there would have to be a body to lease with NATO. Effectively this force has now just become Nato's 1st Europe. division.
-
Folks you want to know what's up with the US and Iraq BS?
Read some chomskey, this fucker has it all straight:
Here is a bit on his ideas on US policy, which relates to our current stance with Iraq.
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/chomskyapr98.htm (http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/chomskyapr98.htm)
This is a bit on Iraq.
http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomiraqfor.htm (http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomiraqfor.htm)
This was written in 1998, but is still relevant to this situation.
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/replyiraq.htm (http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/replyiraq.htm)
So there (http://tongue.gif)
Chomsky, for those who don't know, is a plitical thinker and professor of lingustics at MIT. A really smart guy who you may not agree with, but he's hard to argue because of his strong reliance on Facts.
-
Yeah he is getting pretty big over here, I quite like his books. Except 9-11 which was written just for the sdake of it.
-
i think it is a big bunch of bullshit. the US needs to mind its own business. we are all scared of them getting 1 nuke while we have how many thousand or millions? If the US would just stay out of other countries affairs then i dont think we would have this problem. the 9/11 attacks were caused because people were mad that the us meddled in business that was not theirs. When ever the US gets in the way bad things happen to it. i think that we sould go back into isolation and be like fuke off to other countries and let them go about there own business.
-
Ok, what affairs have the US meddled in that piss you and the other terrorists off so much?
So you drive a few airplanes into the World Trade center. Yeah, I see your point. All those people who died that day deserved it as they most surely were meddling in other peoples business. I got news for you, 99.999% of those people never heard of bin laden, the terrorists groups he was associated with, or what his motivations were/are.
Now sure, the US has plenty of nukes. When did they last use them and under what circumstances? Have they not acted responsibly with their possesion of these nukes?
What would Saddam do with nukes if he had them? Well, we know what he will do with chemical/biological weapons, even against his own people. And we know that he wishes to control the entire region (and probably beyond) as witnessed by the invasion of Kuwait.
Now I theorize that the first thing Saddam would do with nuclear weapons is to develop about a dozen backpack nukes, hand them over to bin laden and plant his deciples in 12 major US cities with their watches synchronized to all go off at the same time. Hell, might as well plant one in London and several other major western cities. Far fetched? I think not, it's only a hair away from what happened on 9-11, in fact much easier than what happened on 9-11 in many ways. And with Iraq, bin laden (or any other twisted fuck head) can have their nukes.
I personally don't want to wait to see what will happen. I say either Iraq gets rid of Saddam and cleans up their act or they can become the world's leading supplier of glass.
[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
quote:
Hard to do. If the US ever over stepped their bounds, showing that they have gone power hungry, then the rest of the world would realize this and destroy them.
I can only think of about 3 countries who would be willing to destroy 200 million lives. And they have the power to maybe destroy 3 or so cities. You'd have to be insane to attempt it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
Ok, what affairs have the US meddled in that piss you and the other terrorists off so much?
Good question. Here's my top 3:
1. Chile
2. Vietnam
3. Palestine
Helping to create and then supporting the Taliban throughout the 80s and 90s is also good though.
-
VoidMain, you say a lot of stuff i agree with, however i think your extrapolations are very wide of the mark. what makes you think Saddam and Bin Laden are in contact or would hand nukes over to each other? the likelihood that they are both muslims? that is the sort of attitude that causes these little fracas' in the first place!
also, you called wild jester a terrorist. that is fucking out of order. sorry for swearing at you VoidMain, i have a lot of respect for you but it is exactly this attitude that makes the rest of the world, rightly or wrongly, suspect of the USA.
USA is very big on seeing terrorists and communists and many other ists that are ready to rise up and threaten society, or democracy or even just to infiltrate our childrens minds. i suppose you are too young (even though you are older than i :D ) to remember the draconian Comics Code Authority in the fifties, and for that matter the ridiculous McCarthy scapegoating trials, designed to make the US seem like it was doing something and in the process ruining the careers and lives of many of its best people.
The US is too concerned with its own chest puffing to actually give a shit about things really should be done. the US has forgotten what "justice" means. After the horrible planes disaster last year, i heard a lot of stories about US citizens. many people offensively emailed me multiple copies of emails designed to let me know that the US would not stand for this sort of treatment. forgive me, but if i want to know that i will find out for myself.
One of these emails told the story of an american guy on a plane later in September going on an international flight somewhere on the other side of the world from the US. Another US guy got up in the aisle before the plane took off and asked all the other US citizens to stand up. After a bit of coaxing, another nine did. For the whole of the journey, these 10 Americans would escort anybody who got up out of their seat to wherever they were going, the toilet, whatever. The email claimed that this made the atmosphere in the plane more relaxing.
This story made me very angry and epitomises the problem. Yes i agree that the US has rarely used its nukes in a stupid way, especially compared with some other nations. Yes i agree that Iraq could do some nasty things with nukes. This is no reason for America to assume the moral high ground. This "America as the world's guardian" does not work unless we assume that we can trust america implicitly. and we cannot. we do not agree with many of its opinions, however it has the most powerful army and the loudest politicians, so what can you do?
the only reason that america thinks it should be the policeman of the world is because it had its nukes first. This is unacceptable.
As i say, no offence to VoidMain, but that is the reality as i see it.
Go on, call me a terrorist, it will only weaken your argument in my opinion.
-
I'm not good at reading minds. Can you explain to me in a little more detail about the three items you list? And I'm not the greatest in World affairs, this is the first I've heard that the US is responsible for the existence of the Taliban and provided support for the Taliban. Hmm, tell me more.
[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
Calum, I would like nothing better than to walk around in a bubble, only being concerned with what happens inside the US. For the most part, that is how the lives of most Americans go. So when 9-11 happened 99% of American's say "why", "how", "I've got nothing against anybody, why do people hate us so much". When you say "Americans" you really don't *mean* Americans. And I just used bin laden as an example. Are you going to now tell me that Iraq never sponsored terrorist organizations and never had terrorist training camps within their borders? I think a little more research needs to be done.
-
This is exactly why I said we shouldnt engage in political discussion....
1) Lesson: Always listen to me (http://smile.gif)
-
The U.S. in 1979 started funding the religious schools that produced the fundamentalists who went on to comprise the Taliban. Many Al-Qaeda members were actually trained by the US - on US soil.
Read this (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11574035&method=full)
quote:
The al-Qaeda training camps are kindergartens compared with the world's leading university of terrorism at Fort Benning in Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, its graduates include almost half the cabinet ministers of the genocidal regimes in Guatemala, two thirds of the El Salvadorean army officers who committed, according to the United Nations, the worst atrocities of that country's civil war, and the head of Pinochet's secret police, who ran Chile's concentration camps.
Go U.S.A!
-
I tried like hell to stay out of this thread and I wish like hell politics would stay out of these forums because it detracts from my main concern of eradicating M$. But you have drawn me into it.
So I suppose what would make you happy is if someone were to invade your country, and you were to ask for help from the US then the US should stand idly by? I tell you, it would suit me just fine if we didn't have to help other countries in need and have the piece of mind to know that other countries wouldn't fuck with the U.S. You know, just build a giant steel bubble that doesn't allow anything in or out. Yeah, sounds like a perfect solution to me. Well sorry, it isn't that easy. People ask for help you help. If security is threatened you have to do something about it.
It's easy to say "stop meddling in other people's business" until you need help yourself. And it's easy to think that people aren't deranged enough to fly an airplane into a building targeting civilians that have absolutely no clue as to why they are being murdered. When the US went in and helped Kuwait out, did they target Iraqi civilians? If I remember correctly (since I was there my memory is pretty good) great pains were taken to minimize civilian casualties.
At least one guy has his head on straight, a clip from the same web site:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12168848&method=full&siteid=50143 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12168848&method=full&siteid=50143)
-
Osama I believe got pissed of because US troops set foot on the holly grounds or whatever.
If the US troops wouldnt set foot, Osama would find something else to be pissed about.
And just think about this. Russia invaded Afghanistan and they leveled the whole place down.
Did you know that the Afganis did not always live on the desert under piss poorcamping tents?
Did you know that before the Russias stormed in, they had a life? Like Fashion shows, theater, music, things that we Western people still have.
If the US refused help when the Afganis asked then it would be the reverse "Ohhhh look at those Big Bad Americanos. They dont help anybody."
And on top of that I would like to add, I am sick and tired of people saying about Vietnam. Have we forgot about Russia's "Vietnam"? Have we forgoten why the whole country went to chaos? Because of the Russian invasion. Thats why.
At least US now is helping Vietnam economicaly (big time)and they have good releationships. Vietnam Vets are visiting Vietnam and they meet with men that fought face to face.
Did Russia did any of this?
I am not trying to downplay the Russian people. As far as I am concerned Russians deserve alot of respect from what they had to put up with during WWII, when they had to fight with the butcher politics of Stalin and the same time they had to fight the Nazis.
I just brought this as an example.
I promise to shutup now since teh Force of the Penguin loves teh harmony (http://smile.gif)
PS: This is just talk. I hope no one will get offended.
[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: bazoukas ]
-
i am not a terrorist just so you know. i do know how to make some nasty things that could be considered terrorism but i dont. I dont personally find hurting (physically) people fun. As i would never intintanally kill someone unless i was forced to. i injoy misslanice things of wrong doing but nothing that i would consider terrorism. ok now back to the subject. All you here in the news now is what or how america is going to do something. How often is canada in the news going to do airstrikes against other countries. Never. I see the fighting in the middle east something that has always been there. Ever since the ottoman (i had byzentine but that was before) empire broke up there has been fighting over land and religion and such. i accept those and i think it is going to stay that way. When america interferes it usally just gets in the way. and makes diffrent people hate us more. i am american and i believe in most things this country stands for. i do not like how they conduct there foriegn pollicy. i believe that should change. and for the whole we are being invaded argument i would not quikly side with you if you ask. i would personally check it out and see what has been happening. maybe your country had been oppersing the other or something like that, then i might go with the other country. and i do think iraq with a nuke is a bad idea but what makes america the one country that gets to control them. since we are the ones that always go in and try to be the good people that makes people hate us. i belive a silent removal of suddam would be much better then an all out attack. lets see yah we are being bomb by america do we launch a nuke at them or suddam is silently taken out of power and we have to large dispute over it. that is the angle i am coming at. some intervention is nessaary but not as much as america does
also thanks calum for defending me and saying i am not a terrorist cause i aint. (besides maybe what they do in fight club but instead of finacial buildings do redmond washington)
[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: wild_jester / BOB ]
[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: wild_jester / BOB ]
-
Much thanks to you Flap. I keep forgetting teh truth I can only learn on the internet. You know you start to despise the US and realize they(not the citizens) are the badguys, but you slowly become accepting of them. Problem is, some of the anti-US info on the internet will be false, how do we know what to believe?
Instead of just labeling US actions as "securing resources", such a document would suggest US as truly a monster(world domination, as this article suggests). I thought this shit only happened on X-files. (http://smile.gif)
Fuck, 40 countries is a little high I think.
PS:I would be totally sticking up for the US right now if I hadn't been taught otherwise by some people I've argued with before on the net.
-
woh hold on, not washington. i live just north of seattle. But i have 2 family members that work in microsoft (they both hate the software, dont support it in any way other than being the receptionist for some high level dude, and cleaning up after lunch) they are innocent. You'd be insane to ask anyone to attack microsoft. sure they are wrong, but not enough to deserve death. what's wrong with you?
-
stryker did you read my comment on that? have you seen fight club? i would do it in the middle of the night and make sure that no one was in the buildings of microsoft that would be blown up. i have no intentions of killing people that way. i personally think it is wrong. But that would be the ultimate way of microsoft eradication
-
quote:
some intervention is nessaary but not as much as america does
also thanks calum for defending me and saying i am not a terrorist cause i aint. (besides maybe what they do in fight club but instead of finacial buildings do redmond washington)
that was how your post ended, i didn't see any comment. But maybe i have a problem or something. I do not think you should be in charge of such an operation though. You can't just destroy (physically) a company you do not like. I mean, if you owned a pornography shop should i go and burn all of your items because i dont agree with the concept? I'm against microsoft also, dont get me wrong. But i'm not going to break in and do anything.
-
Physical damage to buildings WITHOUT hurming anyone for you is not an option.
Consider this though.
If lets say you had the chance to hack into MS and release all their Source Code world wide, all their Memos (we know from the past how dirty those are), all their future plans, would you do it? Knowing of course that you would never get caught simply because you are THE hacker. Best there is in the world.
(Just a note to all possible MS dickheads employees. I am opposed in blowing up buildings and shit like that. So Fuck off with my blessings.)
-
to stryker and bazoukas. i am not saying that i would go and blow up microsoft. if i was going to do it or be incharge of destroying it thats how i probally would go about doing it. actually i would probally use a EMP(Electro Maganetic Pulse) to go about doing it because that would only destroy the electrical parts of microsoft. I do not think it is maybe the best way of getting rid of microsoft i am only voicing my opinions in the subject as thats how i would personally have it done.
I will no longer be posting on this topic because i personal opinions as sparked so much debate. I am sorry for any discomfort i have caused and i did not mean to hurt any one with my opinions. Good Night
-
to stryker and bazoukas. i am not saying that i would go and blow up microsoft. if i was going to do it or be incharge of destroying it thats how i probally would go about doing it. actually i would probally use a EMP(Electro Maganetic Pulse) to go about doing it because that would only destroy the electrical parts of microsoft. I do not think it is maybe the best way of getting rid of microsoft i am only voicing my opinions in the subject as thats how i would personally have it done.
I will no longer be posting on this topic because i personal opinions as sparked so much debate. I am sorry for any discomfort i have caused and i did not mean to hurt any one with my opinions. Good Night
-
No dude. Its all good. I didnt find any of this offensive.
Hell this must be the only Forum so far that I seen that people dont curse at each other when it comes to politics.
Its all good with me manno (http://smile.gif)
-
i never thought of it that way. sort of strange how afgans hate the US more than Russia even though the US saved them from Russia.
-
true, this is a forum where political discussion can happen without descending into namecalling, i would say, even though i was ready yesterday to agree with VoidMain that politics should stay off this board. i changed my mind. so long as the politics stay in one or two threads, then fine.
Also, I must post in reply to VoidMain and to others generally.
VoidMain, once more i hope i did not offend you. i agree with everything you said in your three posts since my last one, however i just think that any US action in foreign countries should be UN approved, unless actual hard copy offensive action has already been taken. the eleventh of september thing is such action, however it has yet to be proved that any particular country was at fault, and as you know, once the US air force had levelled a lot of Afghanistan (unfairly in my opinion, but i do not know much about the USAF, and i am guessing you know a bit more about it than me!), the US did admit that afghanistan itself was not the enemy.
I just think countries should give each other the benefit of the doubt while still being ready to act at any time, rather than blindly acting to make a show of it.
the prime minister of england is now coming out and saying war with iraq is required, even though most people here are of the same opinion i am, they don't want a war, think we should instead be keeping a close eye on iraq, and that the UN should be ready to take action at the drop of a hat.
our ptime minister however claims he will be able to produce documentary evidence, in the next two weeks, that iraq plans to wage war against us. we shall see.
-
Look, nobody wants a war (well, people like bin laden appear to like it but no sane person) but I don't forsee a world without them any time soon, one could certainly hope/dream. And yes I happen to know a lot about the USAF, especially since I served for 15 years with them. And no you didn't offend me at all. But we do seem to be miles apart on our perception of things and the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
Now there are some things that I think you are a little farther off than I. For instance "leveled most of Afghanistan", nope, not even close to being true. "Admiting that Afghanistan was not the enemy" makes it sounds like this came about after we went in to get bin laden and the Taliban. Well it was stated emphatically up front that Afghanistan was not the enemy. It was bin laden and al-quada.
Now normally I would agree with you about the "first strike" thing, except if that first strike would be delivered by terrorists using nuclear weapons. I do agree with you that we would need proof that the nuclear weapons exist (or close to being in existence) and that there is a real threat of them being deployed. Now this wouldn't be an issue if Saddam would not have kicked out the UN inspectors. The US and Russia have inspectors to keep tabs on each others nuclear arsenals.
But I do believe we need to see more proof (and the poles agree). And I believe before anything drastic happens we will have the proof. I believe both the U.S. and the U.K. (and other western countries) are currently in good hands and they are going to great pains to gain support for and to justify anything that they do.
-
i agree, once more with you.
my inaccuracies there can be blamed entirely on the media (TV, radio and newspapers) in both Australia and britain, all that stuff you said was inaccurate is second, third, fourth hand reports i have got from those sources.
The media was quite clear in Australia in the month of Sept last year that the US was striking against Afghanistan (and also that it was a good idea! there were quite a few racist attacks on people of middle eastern origin reported around that time).
also, those media are still confusing the issue. i read in the london evening standard yesterday that iraq will allow any UN inspectors to go anywhere they choose so long as they provide evidence that those places contain nuclear development facilities. (note this is not reasonable suspicion, they say evidence)They also said iraq is hesitant to cooperate fully because it is pissed off about the sanctions since 1991, but then a couple of hours later, a speculator on Newsnight was saying that iraq will not allow any inspectors anywhere and this is why sanctions are still in place. who to believe?
also, re our premiers gathering support, i do think they are doing that, and doing it in the right way too, however i do not think we will get an unbiased view of the whole truth from something like a government, which by definition has too high an invested interest in the issues to remain objective.
-
quote:
But I do believe we need to see more proof (and the poles agree). And I believe before anything drastic happens we will have the proof. I believe both the U.S. and the U.K. (and other western countries) are currently in good hands and they are going to great pains to gain support for and to justify anything that they do.
I'm sorry Voidman but the UK is not in good hands.
*Prepare for a UK politics rant*
Look at our public sevices:
Teachers are leaving due to poor pay, condiditons and stress due to ridiculous bureaucracy.
Firemen (and women) are onthe verge of national strike due to poor pay. These guys go into burnigng buildings everyday and use some very modern equipment. Give them a proffesional pay packet.
Our military spending is so high that things have to be bought just to use surplus money.
Our nurses and other health staff are treated like crap.
The states of our roads is unbelievable. I've only seen worse in America (whose roads are bad). Germany has perfect roads and they don't ewven pay road tax. In fact the average german spends less tax per month than us, full stop.
That is just part of the problem. Sorry for that off-topic rant but it really does annoy me. Problem is, it just gets accepted like it should happen!
-
germany is closer to the ruhr, and so can make more money out of the same thing than the UK which is further away and seperated by the sea.
the only main export the UK has is Scotland's oil, which is mined for England by Americans.
The UK's main mistake economically is attempting to sustain the NHS, however i do not have any solution to the mess this has been allowed to run into. action should have been started about 1953 to stop what has happened happening.
roads: the UK is not big. how many roads can we fit in? "road widening scheme"? country narrowing sheme i say!
also, US citizens likely hear a lot less of what goes on in the UK than UK citizens hear about what goes on in the USA, so it is kind of okay for US citizens to say things like 'the uk is in good hands'.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
germany is closer to the ruhr, and so can make more money out of the same thing than the UK which is further away and seperated by the sea.
the only main export the UK has is Scotland's oil, which is mined for England by Americans.
The UK's main mistake economically is attempting to sustain the NHS, however i do not have any solution to the mess this has been allowed to run into. action should have been started about 1953 to stop what has happened happening.
roads: the UK is not big. how many roads can we fit in? "road widening scheme"? country narrowing sheme i say!
also, US citizens likely hear a lot less of what goes on in the UK than UK citizens hear about what goes on in the USA, so it is kind of okay for US citizens to say things like 'the uk is in good hands'.
I understand.
and about your last paragraph, that is partly the reason I made this post. I wasn't getting at Voidman for not knowing either.
ps. are you on your lunch break now?
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Tux ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
I believe both the U.S. and the U.K. (and other western countries) are currently in good hands and they are going to great pains to gain support for and to justify anything that they do.
The U.S. in good hands? Huh?
-
Now I didn't say that none of the countries have some serious and difficult internal issues. Some of which are very complex. We certainly have a big gripes about many things in the US. However, do any of the people have a reasonable and easy solution to any of the problems or accurately understand how the problems got to the point they are? I say the number of complainers FAR outweigh the number of problem solvers. Sure there may be a fairly easy fix to one problem but does it adversely effect another issue?
It's very easy to name call, it's very difficult to solve all the problems. And yes, generally speaking I think our countries are in very good hands by people who seriously mean to do well. I don't have the answers, and certainly know the answers are not easy, and they very possibly may be painful. But if some of these issues that can be painful to address are not addressed they could very well turn out to be far more than merely painful.
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
And yes, generally speaking I think our countries are in very good hands by people who seriously mean to do well.
Yeah, and Bill Gates donates software to schools out of the goodness of his heart.
-
Lecture time!
People ask "Why does everyone hate us?" a lot in these days, you may have asked that yourself, and the answer is quite simple.
People hate US citezens because of the acts the US Government does in US's name.
The US Government backed Osama Bin Laden against the Russian onslaught in their "Vietnam." Afterwards the USG drops the funding and denies any help to Afghanistan (Sp?) after the war is over. If a foriegn country enabled your military to fight against a better equiped enemy then dumped all lines of communication after it was said and done wouldnt you be pissed? Your left cleaning up the mess that the foriegn country made possible.
As stated in posts ahead of me the USG is very nosy, so nosy that they act as if their in charge of the world and they have to be the "Police." The plan for a regime change in Iraq is more of a joke in my opinion. USG sets up puppet government in Iraq so it doesnt look like they're in control of Iraq's government. Then again, I'm not the type who listens to all the misinformation thrown around on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC (Yuck!) or any other mass media glory hound.
As far as the whole 9-11/Wtc/Terror attacks go I'm not stating my opinion on it. The last time I did that was a week after it happened, I was banned from three different forums, kicked out of a Yahoo group and physically ejected from a Legion Hall in the downtown area.
I really think this post is a bit raw and it takes me a bit to get everything laid out correctly so this wont be my last post.
Dang, I thought I wouldnt get into a political discussion here of all places! :rolleyes:
EDIT: To bazoukas and Stryker.
Someone has plans being finetuned as we speak so stop with your public discussion. PM me if you wish but dont expect anything big.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron-V2.3 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Yeah, and Bill Gates donates software to schools out of the goodness of his heart.
Your last name wouldn't be Clinton by any chance would it?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron-V2.3:
Then again, I'm not the type who listens to all the misinformation thrown around on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC (Yuck!) or any other mass media glory hound.
Good! You should be watching FOX News and listening to Rush Limbaugh. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
Your last name wouldn't be Clinton by any chance would it?
I don't understand the inference.
-
he's saying you're a lily livered liberal.
this is quite interesting because VoidMain talks a lot of sense, however many right wingers i hear talk horseshit that is poorly thought through and from a skewed perspective. On the other hand left wingers tend to be a lot more radical and have good ideas... which will never get put into practice.
Maybe it's a cultural thing, VoidMain;s opinions remind me of that rarest of things, a realist socialist!
I agree with Aaron by and large as well, just wanted to mention that.
hey, maybe some of you can satisfy my curiosity, do the yanks still all think that Europe is full of "commies"?
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
Good! You should be watching FOX News and listening to Rush Limbaugh. (http://smile.gif)
I'm not a fan of eather. Weather you lean to the right, or lean to the left you should get your news from Reuters, or the AP.
They are probably the last remaining unbiased news sources out there.
I mean, FOX news is soooo slanted it's sick. It's like I'm watching a Right Wing white bread back scratching party.
CNN is a bunch of shit, it' so sensational now adays, they don't have any slant except for that which ups their rateings.
MSNBC is pure crap. Nothing good comes from there.
I get my news on the AP.
-
Well flap is only 15 (from what I remember of his profile before he closed it up). But that doesn't mean there aren't smart 15 year olds, heck my daughter is a smart 14 year old. But they have the disadvantage of not experiencing first hand events that many of the rest of us have experienced. And because of that they get what they know from history lessons taught in school.
Now from what I have seen many schools tend to be more liberal than conservative and there has been a lot of extremely idiotic liberal thing happening in a lot of schools in the news that just go against all of my morals. However, I won't get into that, schools are great but I wonder if they are teaching the "impartial" history as well as they could.
Now having said that I don't claim to be a member of any party. But in the last 20 years if I had to choose it would be today's republican party. Mainly because my beliefs fall in line with what today's republican party "claim" to believe in and care about (more than 20-30+ years ago I would probably claimed to be a Democrat as the parties have nearly flip flopped in that amount of time). I come from a background of high morals and high family values. If the Democrats start making sense and say things I agree with them I'll go with them.
I thought Reagan was a great president. I thought Bush(1) really cared and tried to do the right things. Then when it came time for reelection Clinton and Perot entered the race. Now I thought Bush(1) was good (and I went to war with him) but economics appeared to be the bigger issue at the moment and I am going to make myself look really stupid here but I liked what I heard from Perot when it came to economics. Who would know more about bringing the country out of debt than a Billionaire?
I absolutely despised Clinton and every time he talked I couldn't help but think he was lying through his teeth (little did I know he would be accused of that more than once, and in court). And being admitted draft dodger didn't give me great assurance that he would be an acceptable "Commander in Chief" (I don't know if I could have gone to war with him as the leader as I *would* have been suspicious of the reasons with him in charge).
So I was left with a decision between Bush(1) and Perot. Now many of us got together and did much discussion about Perot and Bush(1) and convinced each other to vote for him. Turned out it was a big mistake. I believe if Perot had not run, Bush(1) would have been a two term president. Instead, Clinton was elected as what has to be one of the most embarrassing presidents I have ever seen. Then I began to wonder if I was insane when he was reelected. I didn't think it was remotely possible. Somebody isn't getting the same information I am or I'm just a complete fucking idiot (many of you might think the latter).
Now Bush(2) is much like his father when it comes to morals and patriotism. I like that. I do believe that his father was a better president to this point, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and see how the rest of his term goes. I can say that I believe we are in far better shape with him than we would have been with Clinton or Gore. You can speculate all you want but there's not much of a way to prove anything.
Now, obviously I am wasting my time typing this because everyone gets their information from different places, has their own views, their own beliefs, their own values, etc etc etc. Some of you are going to call me ignorant, some may even agree with me. So what's the point? I'm just giving you some of what *I* believe in and what is important to *me*, and it makes me feel better. It certainly won't change anyone's minds..
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax:
I'm not a fan of eather. Weather you lean to the right, or lean to the left you should get your news from Reuters, or the AP.
They are probably the last remaining unbiased news sources out there.
I mean, FOX news is soooo slanted it's sick. It's like I'm watching a Right Wing white bread back scratching party.
CNN is a bunch of shit, it' so sensational now adays, they don't have any slant except for that which ups their rateings.
MSNBC is pure crap. Nothing good comes from there.
I get my news on the AP.
I do agree with you. I also happen to like FOX and Limbaugh for pure entertainment. Some things they say I really disagree with and their extreme bias in some areas almost make me sick, but I do slant more toward the right now so I like most of what they have to say. They are *heavily* right wing slanted. I also believe CNN is somewhat left wing slanted and MSNBC is heavily left wing slanted. AP is nuetral as you say, but boring. Still best for facts. The networks just put their biased spin on things.
Now one thing that blew my mind was when Geraldo Rivera switched to FOX. It was like being invaded by the anti-christ. I still don't understand how that one came about. He was *extremely* liberally biased on his previous show, and then to switch to FOX was beyond belief. I think he has been noticably neutral since the move and may just be a better news person than he ever has been because of it.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
I'm 21 actually, and deeply disturbed by the content of that last post.
Bush a good president? Reagan?? Sorry if I missed the joke somewhere.
Although I have one question - if you're such a fan of these right-wing 'values' what are you doing supporting free software; an entirely left wing idea?
-
If you think OSS is a "left wing idea" you are surely disturbed. Ah, 21, college age, even *more* likely to be exposed to left wing bias. Do you have your escape route to Canada planned? You could use the same one Clinton used if you like...
-
No I think *Free Software* is a left wing idea. GNU certainly is. You do know what an evil, immoral, leftist liberal Richard Stallman is, don't you?
-
Maybe he is, and I can also tell you there are a lot of things about RMS that I don't like. I do like the OSS idea and I do like GNU. And I believe I also said I am not tied to everything right and hate everything left. I like what makes sense (the best of both worlds). It just so happens that there are more right wing things that I agree with than left. Maybe this time next year the opposite will be true.
I can also tell you that during my later years in the military (that has to be a right wing operation if there ever was one) that we used *much* open source software. In fact I had Linux on every one of our PCs for free access to our graphical UNIX servers (several years ago now). And GNU software was VERY popular.
Now, this is precisely why I don't like to see politics on this site. We can argue all day long and both of us will continue to think we are right. Neither of us has much of a chance of changing each other's minds and it does no more than get one's blood pressure up. I would surely vote in favor of a ban on politcal discussion so we can combine forces in the better good of wiping out Microsoft and spreading the word of OSS.
-
Point noted; blood pressure dropping.
To be honest I had gained the general impression that you were right leaning but always imagined you to be something like a Libertarian. That is, as far as I can gather from what I know about them (not much), basically right wing but less populist and more individualist than traditional right parties, and placing more importance on personal freedom.
I'm just really surprised at you supporting an institution like the Republican Party and people like Bush, who are a massive reason why big businesses like Microsoft, and all the other giants who are in bed with that party, continue to get away with screwing everyone over.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: flap ]
-
i agree. and i would not be in favour of stopping politics on this site because look! the political discussions are some of the most eloquent and interesting threads here! :D
-
to tell the truth, i haven't seen one news article about the US/Iraq thing. nor do i know anyone online or offline talking about it. i guess it's not too important?
anyways, i doubt we will go to war with anyone, americans are cheap. and war is expensive.
-
ummm, im here cuase alot of things piss me off. ms is a small problem with whats getting ready to go down. i mean i heard someone say, "wow one nuke, big deal, we have thousands", must i remind you of the damage done to hiroshima and nagasakie with a fairly primative atom-bomb?/*can't spell*/, BOOM, there goes the rest of new york, or maybe washington d.c., or whatever major city they wanted to. and you think it would be hard to get a nuke in here? we are FUCKED. and for the u.s. no empire lasts for ever, look at the romans, the most powerful empire in the world at the time, and they fell. so you think the u.s. will last forever, NO. so enjoy it while you can.
-
The 'american empire' is indeed in it's closing stages. It happens to them all...
-
quote:
Originally posted by eradicator:
to tell the truth, i haven't seen one news article about the US/Iraq thing. nor do i know anyone online or offline talking about it. i guess it's not too important?
anyways, i doubt we will go to war with anyone, americans are cheap. and war is expensive.
*SLAP*
Wake up!
-
Uhm, to elaborate on what news I watch...
I watch none. I barely watch television as is. Now I do read reports off of the news websites and FOX news is a joke.
Examples...
Lightbulb Bombs (Yeah right!) (http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59869,00.html)
ACB & BBoM are lies! Pure lies! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59480,00.html) Although the THB has some real synthesis'.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Point noted; blood pressure dropping.
To be honest I had gained the general impression that you were right leaning but always imagined you to be something like a Libertarian. That is, as far as I can gather from what I know about them (not much), basically right wing but less populist and more individualist than traditional right parties, and placing more importance on personal freedom.
I'm just really surprised at you supporting an institution like the Republican Party and people like Bush, who are a massive reason why big businesses like Microsoft, and all the other giants who are in bed with that party, continue to get away with screwing everyone over.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: flap ]
You are probably more right about me than you think and I'm sorry for the off color attempts at humor at your expense. I personally wish there were ways to take the good things out of each party and create a super-party. And I agree with some of the things in your last post.
Hey we all get on each other's case once in a while. Question is, can we move on (Calum and I have had a few knock down drag outs, then we go have a beer at the pub). But if it were possible I would rather avoid polital discussions (as well as religious discussions even though they can be quite humorous). Problem is, someone always starts one, and no matter how hard I try to stay out of the, I have to put my 6% in...
-
If the US does go to war with Iraq, I'm goin to Sweden...fuck this...the odds of me being spontaneously killed are too fucking high here. Crime + Terrorism + Misc countries US pissed off. The odds of me being in the direct vicinity of the WTC on that Tuesday were extremely high...too high for comfort.
-"Muffin"
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:
The 'american empire' is indeed in it's closing stages. It happens to them all...
Romans lasted for more than 1000 years. America has been around 200, it's still got some life left in it.
Livy said that the downfall of Roman society was it;s abandonment of it's founders ideals and the embrace of a hedonistic and decadent lifestyle.
Live lived a few centuries before Romes colapse, and the society was so decadent that it partied for about 350 days out of the year. No one had to work, it was all slave labor and indulgance. Heck, after 10 years even the slaves didn't have to do shit.
Anyway, I don't think the USA has gotten to that point quite yet. Some people would acuse us of such (and sometimes I even belive it) but the fact is, that we embrace all of the ideals which Livy recognisied as those which keped a society alive. We have our ups and downs, but we'll survive for a good long while.
Hell, listend to me, and I don't even consider myself a total patriot :D
-
The thing that will cripple USA is if they close their borders.
No i dont believe that every immigrant that comes here is a Saint. But the majority of immigrants work their ass so hard, that in their life time they achieve so much that it just drops your jaw.
And most of all, since USA is The SuperPower, it needs immigrants, so it wont lose track of reality on whats going on around the world. Immigrants help this country to keep its feet grounded and not wonder up in the clouds like an L.A supermodel.
And I also strongly believe that USA will close the show on what is so far known as "Empire."
We are not that far from earth being ONE country. Look what is going on. Europe has the Euro which almost has the same value as the Dollar. Global economy (internet and so on). English is the Universal language. Period.
I think in about 100 years earth will be on the same stage as Europe is right now. Droping down its borders and trying to be one.
-
ummm, light bulb bomb, discredit that one?. ever taken a wet napkin and put it on a blacklight, or just spit on a hot one?. POP, and it glows and smoke pours out for 2 seconds before it burns out. thats why i only have one blacklight left.
as for voidmain talking about age, comeone, im only 15. and i try to learn about past mistakes, i mean, having a dad that worked in mumitions during veitnam/*no he didn't kill people, he loaded bombs onto planes so the plane could go kill people*/ i hear alot about the kinda shit that the US government trys to pull. and since he works for the government now, i here alot from him. and for fox news, better then cnn, atleast there funny in the morning.
-
You are correct about there being many political mistakes in Vietnam and you are lucky to have a dad who can tell you the "true" story. Have you ever been taught things in school about it that maybe your dad would disagree with? I was fortunate enough to have been part of a war where we were able to take the lessons learned in Vietnam and not make the same ones twice.
I also happened to work with some people there who also served in Vietnam and they had me scared shitless before the shit hit the fan and things actually started happening on Jan 17th. And I was scared shitless for quite some time after that day. Scuds coming in, planes coming in shot up and crashing around us, etc... I knew a couple of the pilots that we lost and a couple who were taken POW. But it certainly could have been much worse.
Fortunately because of the mistakes learned from Vietnam we didn't have the political strings tied to us like in Vietnam (except for maybe taking that one last step that may have prevented the problem that we have today).
I can tell you that I deeply admire your dad and everyone else who had to go through that ordeal, and you should too. In a way, he saved my ass. It wasn't the greatest time in our history but hopefully we can continue to learn great lessons from it.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
did you ever serve in utapo/*i think thats how its spelled*/ thailand?
as for this new war, well, once we go after iraq, ever country over thier is probably giong to jion the attack america bandwagon
-
No I did not serve in Tailand. I didn't join the AF until 1981. And I am not ready to say that we are going to go to "war" with Iraq. I really hope it doesn't come to this. I almost think it could be a little "Sabre rattling" to try and scare Saddam into letting the inspectors back in unimpeded. Or to hope for a coup but I seriously doubt that will happen or it would have already happened. He must be a little nervous because he already said he would let the inspectors back in "with conditions" (unacceptable conditions of course, typical).
People seem to forget that the Gulf war ended under certain conditions with Iraq as the loser and having agreed to those conditions. They consistently break those conditions and agreements. These conditions and agreements are not peanuts. They *must* be followed for good reason. Now people get all bent out of shape because those conditions need to be enforced. Iraq with a nuke is a very scary thought in my book. They consistenly do not want to play by the rules.
And I certainly hope that the one lesson we have learned is not to go into anything like this without full support. Sure there is harsh talk right now but until something actually happens there is a big gap between bark and bite. There is no doubt that it *could* happen. I just don't think it will, unless there is proof that national security depends on it. And if proof exists that national security depends on it, then the "having support" thing doesn't really matter any more, it will have to be done regardless. It certainly would be better with support but it isn't necessary in the case of seriously threatened national security.
Of course I'm sure I am opening myself up to some more harsh debate here but that's the way I see things...
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
Uhm, choasforges, I think that a few of the Mods and regulars on the forum can vouch that I know my stuff when it comes to explosives and the ilk. So let's please end it at that. I'm known for steering threads offtopic like this...
-
On a related note, I happened to be flipping through the channels and decided to stop on MSNBC to see what the opposition has to say. I happened to catch the Donahue program. Talk about a man who doesn't have two single brain cells to rub together (Donahue). And he even uses a "D" in a diamond for the logo on the show. It certainly has more than one meaning. Donahue of course, and surely Democrat, but most fittingly "Dummy".
I had heard him on a radio talk show as well (not Limbaugh, a non biased news show actually and I don't remember which one it was at the moment) and he just about made me want to puke. And to think I used to watch his talk show when I was a kid and actually liked him. Maybe because at that time I had no clue. He was talking about this precise subject with a republican congressman. The debate went pretty much like our little debate here, scary.
The first thing he brought up was "sending in hundreds of thousands of troops" which I don't believe will be necessary and the congressmen pointed out it could be as simple as strategically taking out a nuclear development center with little or no casualties (as was done by Isreal previously with only one death).
The second thing he brought up is "America doesn't strike first, the big kid in the schoolyard doesn't go around punching people because he is afraid the smaller kids are going to punch him first". Of course if the deranged smaller kid had a nuke those rules might not apply.
Third thing "how are you going to stop them from getting them into the country with the thousands of cargo containers coming in daily? It's like trying to stop drugs from coming into the country". I about fell out of my chair on this one. The congressman replied, "that's precisely my point, and why we must not allow them to get to the stage of having nuclear weapons".
And it isn't just America who should be concerned about this. There are any number of countries this guy could plant one just for thrills. Of course he would have to be extremely insane to do something like this as it would certainly be his demise but I believe he has well proven himself to be insane.
Now I wish the transcripts were available as this surely isn't verbatim but the transcripts are not available yet. Hopefully they will be and I will post a link.
In the mean time, here is a link to an article I found interesting. It seems to slam both the left and the right equally heavy and I don't know the background of the site, whether it is left, right, middle, other:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2138 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2138)
By the way, my own house seems to be broken down the middle on this left/right thing. My wife and daughter were pulling heavily for Gore in the last election. My son and I were pulling heavily for Bush. Makes life interesting being split among party lines even within the family (actually it's not a problem at all, we're also split along religious lines).
-
And here is another interesting reader feedback from another article on the same site I linked above. It resembles the view of another post I saw in this thread (near the end). But it is much longer and much more descriptive. Also interesting:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=2637&commentID=11125 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=2637&commentID=11125)
Looks like I really need to stay out of the political debates. These people are way outta my league... Linux anyone?
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
psyjax:- why compare the US to the roman empire in particular? empires are widely different. thousands of years ago, the chinese conquered most of the known world. they had a working empire, but they decided that it was too much administration to keep up with for what technology they had at the time... and they pushed off home! amazing. i can't see the US doing that.
also, the british so called empire making deals with the dodgiest natives of any country you wish to conquer and then helping them kill each other off until only the passive ones are left, and i don't think the british empire has lasted anything like the thousand years that the roman one did, so where's the precedent?
bazoukas:- chinese is actually a more prolific language on the internet at the moment and i think it has a faster growing number of speakers than english does too. i suspect japanese might be coming up there too.
VoidMain, you are one of the best political debaters here! a bit hard headed maybe, but that's a survival characteristic...
anyway, one exception i have to what you said:- 'no casualties'? do you mean no civilian casualties? do you mean no american casualties? do you mean that hundreds of iraqi deaths are okay? (i think that casualties are casualties even if they are noncivilian 'enemies').
This is like those animal rights activists who plant a bomb in a research lab because they test on animals there, but then the bomb kills a security guard. they may say they were justified, and i agree entirely with their cause however in that instance i think they were very very wrong to resort to a destructive form of action, and the death of the guard proves it. those activists might not have felt satisfied to protest peacefully and through the normal channels (which is something you still have the right to do in america i think) but their impatience has ruined the public credibility of peaceful people who feel the same way as they do.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
VoidMain, you are one of the best political debaters here! a bit hard headed maybe, but that's a survival characteristic...
Thanks (I think), but I really would rather debate Windows vs Linux. (http://smile.gif)
quote:
anyway, one exception i have to what you said:- 'no casualties'? do you mean no civilian casualties? do you mean no american casualties? do you mean that hundreds of iraqi deaths are okay? (i think that casualties are casualties even if they are noncivilian 'enemies').
No, I meant little or no casualties counting all human beings equally. I believe the Isreal example had only one death (total). If I recall it was an extremely late evening or early morning surgical strike of a nuclear plant using F-16s. The plant was under development and was "suspected" of being used or at least dual used as a nuclear weapons plant if I recall but I would have to check my facts. It's been a fews years but I do recall it happening and to tell you the truth I had forgotten about it until it was brought up by the congressman in that one sentence.
Now it's hard to believe that even at that early morning hour for such an important item as this that there would have only been a single guard in the place. I would have to check my facts on this as well (and I probably should have done that before posting this), but you would have to agree that in a case like this casualties would be small right?
quote:
This is like those animal rights activists who plant a bomb in a research lab because they test on animals there, but then the bomb kills a security guard. they may say they were justified, and i agree entirely with their cause however in that instance i think they were very very wrong to resort to a destructive form of action, and the death of the guard proves it. those activists might not have felt satisfied to protest peacefully and through the normal channels (which is something you still have the right to do in america i think) but their impatience has ruined the public credibility of peaceful people who feel the same way as they do.
I believe this comparison is about as far from what we are discussing as Mercury and Pluto. I agree with your assessment of the situation in your example (well not really) but a nuclear blast in the middle of London is a "little" more serious than keeping hamburger out of McDonalds. Of course there are going to be pissed off people. There will be pissed off people no matter what action is taken, or even if no action is taken at all. And there may be a few deaths. Which action, or which non-action will result in the most deaths? That is the real question.
And we lose more and more rights every day in America, unfortunately at the hands of both parties. It sure would be fun to meet in a pub somewhere and discuss this shit over a good wheat beer! Many good debates happen over good brew, but of course many are also forgotten by sunrise.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
very true! :D
my comparison was intended metaphorically, i was just saying that perhaps the means doesn't always justify the ends, depending on what the ends are or who is in charge of deciding the means. also, it is often difficult to figure out how things will pan out in the long run, and mistakes get made.
also, re: rights, you know it has been illegal since 1994 in the UK for citizens to gather peacefully? i think your constitution in the US guarantees you that right, however any group of peaceful protestors, here, or even a group of nine or more people all listening to the same music (would you believe!) can be given one verbal warning from any policeman and if they do not immediately leave the area (private or public) then they can be arrested and thrown in jail for six months.
that's what comes of having a legal system that is older than the idea of a constitution. in many cases, our legal system is older than our actual country, hence the total lack of checks and balances here.
whose round is it? i'll buy you a Schoefferhofer!
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
Wow, I don't recall the law being made to ban peaceful gatherings. That is getting sort of harsh. Yes, according to the first amendment of our constitution we are allowed to "freely assemble". Now I suppose that could be interpereted to mean we have the right to use our GNU assembler to turn our source ASM code into object code but I'm sure that's not what the founding fathers meant.
For the most part, we continue to have that right although I have seen restrictions put on this right or at least brought up. But for the most part we can still rally/demonstrate "peacefully" as long as we are not infringing on other people's rights and as long as it is done on public property (there are tresspassing issues of course involved with such demonstrations on private property so you could be cuffed and taken away in those cases).
It is very scary how fast our rights are being eaten up by new law just in recent history though. This is probably my second bigest concern next to national security issues in the last 10 years.
Ok, this round is on me. It'll be from a local micro brewery and one I find much like the true German beer (non-import) taste. It'll be a couple of cold draft Schlaflys right from "The Tap Room". Take your pick on the one you would like to try:
http://www.schlafly.com/brewery.shtml (http://www.schlafly.com/brewery.shtml)
http://www.schlafly.com/ (http://www.schlafly.com/)
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
yep, for some reason there wasn't a lot of publicity about this law when it came in. here's the full transcript of the law in question, the criminal justice and public order act 1994 (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940033_en_1.htm) it's very long winded but it gets very interesting around points fifty and sixty.
note that all the language is deliberately vague, it's all 'if a policeman believes this then he can...' or 'when a superintendent has reasonable suspicion that...'.
Basically this document makes everything illegal, the intention is obviously so that if the police want to prosecute somebody for something, they can arrest him, and basically pick something out of this document with which to charge him.
Thankfully the police here have enough on their hands, and many choose not to allow this law to influence them in their duties much, from what i have gathered.
btw, nice assemler quip there, i wondered if you were going to try to deftly twist this political discussion around towards linux again! ;)
-
I think the US is a bit of an empire. Not in the traditional sense but in the political/economic sense.
Instead of having to impose it's rule by force or direct presence, it can do so thrugh economic sanctions, or seting up governments, keeping the man down (cliche) etc.
This country enjoys much privalege, at the expense of many others. Many countries in the third world are basicaly indentured servants to US economic interests.
But that is another thread.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]
-
You're not going to buy a round psyjax?
-
hey ya! it's okay, psyjax, i've had enough beer already.
just thought i should post this link (http://honeybug.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5687#5687) to show you what a breathtaking opinion i saw on this very topic at another forum which i frequent.