The Iraq Thread

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 07 2003,18:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(think about it, don't flame me plz., oh and this is still about Bush, not just religion)<span id='postcolor'>

Well, then we can combine your thoughts, religion and flaming and discuss the Burning Bush.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 07 2003,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd say I have no idea what the current opinions are on the streets of Kabul and I bet you don't either.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I don't know any more that I can read from the news, but surely you'll agree that two extra wars can't possibly be a good thing for a country.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 07 2003,17:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush and God, there is something there:

Bush IS playing God in a practical sense, wether justified or not, judging and rearranging nations the way the U.S. is doing is what is said about God in history. I honestly am not a religious person, somehow if God exists I am sure this would be more than interesting to him.     So was God the Bush of solar systems?    (think about it, don't flame me plz., oh and this is still about Bush, not just religion)<span id='postcolor'>

There is a distinct difference between playing God and following God's commands (real or imagined). I'll let you know when I find that difference

Seriously though, Im born and raised (being raised?) in Bush's hometown, I know people he grew up with, I've been to his old church (no, I'm not a Methodist), I know a good deal about evangelical Christianity, and I honestly think that this whole religion thing is being blown entirely out of proportion. He may invoke God more than other presidents, but I am far from being convinced that this is any more than a combination of habit and pandering to his conservative base. Anything else is probably nothing more than secular types who are dealing with the transition back from Clinton-style politics and policy. Face it, you guys were comfortable with Clinton, and now that you suddenly have a real conservative back in office, you're going through something which I can only describe as a n odd form of culture shock; after 8 years of remission, what you consider the ugly side of America (its conservative, relgious, slightly reactionary side) has taken over from what you thought was a decent status-quo. It isn't cataclysmic (FallenPaladin, the quote in your sig is moronic), nor is it a tremendous departure from from anything in recent US policy other than Clinton's schizophrenic efforts. You'll get used to it, but face it: Dubya isn't all that different from Reagan- hell, it even looks like he's on track to match the Gipper in deficit spending.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 07 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 07 2003,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd say I have no idea what the current opinions are on the streets of Kabul and I bet you don't either.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I don't know any more that I can read from the news, but surely you'll agree that two extra wars can't possibly be a good thing for a country.<span id='postcolor'>

How do you measure wars against rampant death sentences, big brother police monitoring the color of your daughter's nails (and pulling them out if colored) and an assortment of other big brother tactics, torture and punishment?

Don't be so sure.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

<span id='postcolor'>

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 07 2003,19:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">John Stuart Mill<span id='postcolor'>

He's not Afghanian. He doesn't count.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 07 2003,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It isn't cataclysmic (FallenPaladin, the quote in your sig is moronic), nor is it a tremendous departure from from anything in recent US policy other than Clinton's schizophrenic efforts.<span id='postcolor'>

Don`t tell me. Tell that to all the writers, artists, poets and philosophers over the world Bush pissed off. That`s a very long list and contains even a lot of american actors.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don`t tell me. Tell that to all the writers, artists, poets and philosophers over the world Bush pissed off. That`s a very long list and contains even a lot of american actors.

<span id='postcolor'>

Just because they say it does not oblige you to put it in your sig, so I can only assume you find some grain of truth within the quote.

And as far as those artists and celebrities go, I don't care a whole lot. They did not achieve their noteworthy status by offering accurate and insightful analysis on geopolitical events, so I see no reason why their opinion should now carry any more merit than John Q. Public out on the street. When Bush starts up Baghdad Birkenau, come and talk to me. Until then, keep your hyperbolic rhetoric to yourself.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 07 2003,18:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How do you measure wars against rampant death sentences, big brother police monitoring the color of your daughter's nails (and pulling them out if colored) and an assortment of other big brother tactics, torture and punishment?

Don't be so sure.<span id='postcolor'>

Grrrr. Avon, the point is that right now it looks like Afghanistan is going to end up under Taliban AFTER going through two wars which would otherwise have not happened. So take all horrible things you just mentioned about Taliban and THEN add the negative effects of two wars. That's what you have after US involvement there. Without the US involvement, the Aghanis would just have to deal with Taliban. See:

US involvement = Taliban in power + 2 wars

No US involvement = Taliban in power

I don't think I can express it any simpler than this

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 07 2003,18:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 07 2003,18:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How do you measure wars against rampant death sentences, big brother police monitoring the color of your daughter's nails (and pulling them out if colored) and an assortment of other big brother tactics, torture and punishment?

Don't be so sure.<span id='postcolor'>

Grrrr. Avon, the point is that right now it looks like Afghanistan is going to end up under Taliban AFTER going through two wars which would otherwise have not happened. So take all horrible things you just mentioned about Taliban and THEN add the negative effects of two wars. That's what you have after US involvement there. Without the US involvement, the Aghanis would just have to deal with Taliban. See:

US involvement = Taliban in power + 2 wars

No US involvement = Taliban in power

I don't think I can express it any simpler than this<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you. But technically, without US involvement, all Afghanistan would have had to worry about would have been the United Soviet Socialist Republics

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 07 2003,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don`t tell me. Tell that to all the writers, artists, poets and philosophers over the world Bush pissed off. That`s a very long list and contains even a lot of american actors.

<span id='postcolor'>

Just because they say it does not oblige you to put it in your sig, so I can only assume you find some grain of truth within the quote.

And as far as those artists and celebrities go, I don't care a whole lot. They did not achieve their noteworthy status by offering accurate and insightful analysis on geopolitical events, so I see no reason why their opinion should now carry any more merit than John Q. Public out on the street. When Bush starts up Baghdad Birkenau, come and talk to me. Until then, keep your hyperbolic rhetoric to yourself.<span id='postcolor'>

In my opinion Pres. Bush is a dangerous, littleminded man in a position that gives him a lot of might and who does what he wants (well, ok, there are still the hawks behind him) . He thinks he stands above anything else and that he`s not responsible to anybody or any institution in the world (UN, Pope, other politicians like Pres. Putin e.g. who is a lot smarter than Pres. Bush as former intelligence man, demonstrations all over the world, ... ) .

It`s a lot easier to support the opinion of persons who saw a lot of the world, traveling around and making up their minds to a Texan (I`m still talking about Pres. Bush) who saw nothing more from the world than maybe a 200 mile radius around his hometown and drank and used narcotics. But now he is a President and has already killed thousands of innocent Iraqis (the iraqi soldiers are innocent in my eyes, too, because they only defend their families and country against an invading force) .

We still live in a free world, even with Pres. Bush as the No. 1 in the USA. At least I do. So I can say and put in my sig what I want (if possible I`d put the complete "Stupid white men" by M. Moore in my sig) . If you don`t like it, come and invade my country, because I seem to harm you with my opinion. There have been less reasons to invade a country lately...

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 07 2003,18:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with you. But technically, without US involvement, all Afghanistan would have had to worry about would have been the United Soviet Socialist Republics  <span id='postcolor'>

OK, first of all it's Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to you.

Second, I understand perfectly well why the US got involved in Afghanistan after 9-11. I'm just tired of all the BS arguments that the Afghanis are all better off because of it...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 07 2003,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm just tired off all the BS arguments that the Afghanis are all better off because of it...<span id='postcolor'>

I'll think about your opinion when the 2nd war in Afghanistan starts.

In the meantime, at present, as things stand, your argument is based on your pure assumption.

[biohaz 0]

wow! is this where all the anti-american anti-bush liberals go to bash on bush or is it just me?

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 07 2003,19:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the meantime, at present, as things stand, your argument is based on your pure assumption.<span id='postcolor'>

Not "pure assumption", but my interpretation of the current situation based on the information presently available. My opinions were clearly labelled as such. I'm not claiming they're the Word of God, or anything . Aaaaanyway, this is the Iraq thread, not the Afghanistan one...

[the_unknown_one 0]

ok this is kinda random but YAY for the kurds! theyre cool, and i think they should get kurdistan!

The_unknown_one

If i have offended any turkish/iraqi people or even kurds or EVEnN anyone in general then i am deply sorry and you may feel free to delet my post. this post is copyright of The_unknown_one

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (biohaz @ April 07 2003,20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wow! is this where all the anti-american anti-bush liberals go to bash on bush or is it just me?<span id='postcolor'>

No, this is the place where everyone is entitled to an opinion.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 06 2003,23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (biohaz @ April 07 2003,20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wow! is this where all the anti-american anti-bush liberals go to bash on bush or is it just me?<span id='postcolor'>

No, this is the place where everyone is entitled to an opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

As long as that opinion is militairy related!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 07 2003,19:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 07 2003,18:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with you. But technically, without US involvement, all Afghanistan would have had to worry about would have been the United Soviet Socialist Republics  <span id='postcolor'>

OK, first of all it's Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to you.

Second, I understand perfectly well why the US got involved in Afghanistan after 9-11. I'm just tired of all the BS arguments that the Afghanis are all better off because of it...<span id='postcolor'>

That's 'Afghans' to you an Afghani is their basic monetary unit

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In my opinion Pres. Bush is a dangerous, littleminded man in a position that gives him a lot of might and who does what he wants (well, ok, there are still the hawks behind him) . He thinks he stands above anything else and that he`s not responsible to anybody or any institution in the world (UN, Pope, other politicians like Pres. Putin e.g. who is a lot smarter than Pres. Bush as former intelligence man, demonstrations all over the world, ... ) .

<span id='postcolor'>

Let's be very clear. President Bush is only responsible to one entity. Do you know who it is? It is not the U.N., it is not the Catholic Church, and it is not the Russian president. Give up yet?

It's the American public. And like it or not, the majority of the American public approves of Dubya's current actions. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Does public opinion in France dictate the policy of the German government? I didn't think so. It's the same principle here. Bush is in fact not responsible to the UN, or any other group that does not go by the title 'American citizenry'. You don't like it, and I can appreciate that, but simultaneously I feel I have to let you know that your current situation leaves you SOL. Just because you have absolutely no say in the policies of the American state does not mean that Bush, the arbiter of the current actions, is acting along the lines of the aforementioned infamous criminal-dictator-types. Bush was elected(no, I dont want to hear it; he was in fact elected legitimately, we've gone through this before), and recent polls have affirmed that the American people- who as I pointed out earlier, are the only group that Bush is responsible to- strongly support the President's actions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It`s a lot easier to support the opinion of persons who saw a lot of the world, traveling around and making up their minds to a Texan (I`m still talking about Pres. Bush) who saw nothing more from the world than maybe a 200 mile radius around his hometown and drank and used narcotics. But now he is a President and has already killed thousands of innocent Iraqis (the iraqi soldiers are innocent in my eyes, too, because they only defend their families and country against an invading force) .

<span id='postcolor'>

For the record, Bush waited til' he was at Yale to get into the drugs. And besides, he's sober now so who gives a shit? It's not like he did an 8-ball of crack before he gave the orders to bomb Baghdad. And as for who counts as an innocent Iraqi, you can feel free to spin it any which way you want, but the point is that by and large, anyone who fights to defend a regime as odious as Hussein's does so because they depend on said regime for protection from the citizenry that they have systematically exploited for the past few decades. Or they're just poor stupid kids who've been convinced by propaganda. That's too bad. But the ultimate baseline is that innocent Iraqis are going to die. They'll die if Saddam stays in power, and they'll die in a war. But the entire idea is that in a post-war Iraq, they'll stop dying, and we can get past all this bullshit.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We still live in a free world, even with Pres. Bush as the No. 1 in the USA. At least I do. So I can say and put in my sig what I want (if possible I`d put the complete "Stupid white men" by M. Moore in my sig) . If you don`t like it, come and invade my country, because I seem to harm you with my opinion. There have been less reasons to invade a country lately...

<span id='postcolor'>

Getting a little touchy there, don't you think? I never demanded you remove it, I just pointed that it was moronic considering who Attila, Ghengis, and Hitler are as opposed to who Dubya is and has done. Is that okay with you? Not that it matters, as I too live in the free world, and it really doesn't matter what the hell you think. Contrary to popular (that is, your) belief, America too is a free country, possibly the most free. I could hop a bus to Washington DC tommorrow, pull off the most obscene, offensive act of protest you can imagine right at the White House gates, and you know what is the absolute worst thing that will happen to me? I'll get a free lunch and possibly dinner courtesy of the District of Columbia's penal system. Hell, so long as I don't fight the police that show up to move me along, I won't even get a free lunch. Those dirty fascist oppressor pigs, denying me my God-given prison baloney sandwich!!! Seriously though, I've pointed this out to you before, but I suppose you didn't get the drift: you do not understand America, Americans, or George W. Bush nearly as well as you like to think. When you do, expect to receive something other than derision in my responses. But hey, it's a free world, so bring it on. I bet I have more insults than you have misguided theories on how America works.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 07 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not that it matters, as I too live in the free world, and it really doesn't matter what the hell yout think. Contrary to popular (that is, your) belief, America too is a free country, possibly the most free. I could hop a bus to Washington DC tommorrow, pull off the most obscene, offensive act of protest you can imagine right at the White House gates, and you know what is the absolute worst thing that will happen to me? I'll get a free lunch and possibly dinner courtesy of the District of Columbia's penal system. Hell, so long as I don't fight the police that show up to move me along, I won't even get a free lunch. Those dirty fascist oppressor pigs, denying me my God-given baloney sandwich!!! Seriously though, I've pointed this out to you before, but I suppose you didn't get the drift: you do not understand America, Americans, or George W. Bush nearly as well as you like to think. When you do, expect to receive something other than derision in my responses. But hey, it's a free world, so bring it on. I bet I have more insults than you have misguided theories on how America works.<span id='postcolor'>

The fact that you have legal freedom of speech (as we all do in the western world) means very little when you have a country that is largly influenced by economic interest groups. Sure you have freedom of speech. Look just at Al-Jazeera getting kicked out of Nasdaq and Dow. Or Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" show. Are those also shining examples of freedom of speech? I could drag up a lot of historical examples but I won't bother. Good laws only get you so far. The US constitution while beeing a truly great thing when it was written has many flaws now. Small economical interest groups have today very strong influence on the politics. Bush is a politician backed by exactly that type of commercial and industrial interest groups: oil producers, car industry, NRA etc etc and in the end it's not the constitution that dictates your rights but General Motors.

Most European constitutions have been rewritten to counter such threats. We have for instance in Sweden very strict anti-lobbying laws where extrnal financial aid for political causes is in most cases considered as bribery.

You have to change your laws and adapt them to the reality of today, not 1776. And this is not just about invading other countries. It's the American people that are being exploited. Democracy? Heh. Yeah right. Your choice:

1) Mr A financed by company A,B,C,D

2) Mr B financed by company A,B,C,E  

While Mr A and Mr B might have slight different views on some issues, they are still very similar. Mr C never has any chance since he has no economical backing.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 07 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In my opinion Pres. Bush is a dangerous, littleminded man in a position that gives him a lot of might and who does what he wants (well, ok, there are still the hawks behind him) . He thinks he stands above anything else and that he`s not responsible to anybody or any institution in the world (UN, Pope, other politicians like Pres. Putin e.g. who is a lot smarter than Pres. Bush as former intelligence man, demonstrations all over the world, ... ) .

<span id='postcolor'>

Let's be very clear. President Bush is only responsible to one entity. Do you know who it is? It is not the U.N., it is not the Catholic Church, and it is not the Russian president. Give up yet?

It's the American public. And like it or not, the majority of the American public approves of Dubya's current actions. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Does public opinion in France dictate the policy of the German government? I didn't think so. It's the same principle here. Bush is in fact not responsible to the UN, or any other group that does not go by the title 'American citizenry'. You don't like it, and I can appreciate that, but simultaneously I feel I have to let you know that your current situation leaves you SOL. Just because you have absolutely no say in the policies of the American state does not mean that Bush, the arbiter of the current actions, is acting along the lines of the aforementioned infamous criminal-dictator-types. Bush was elected(no, I dont want to hear it; he was in fact elected legitimately, we've gone through this before), and recent polls have affirmed that the American people- who as I pointed out earlier, are the only group that Bush is responsible to- strongly support the President's actions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It`s a lot easier to support the opinion of persons who saw a lot of the world, traveling around and making up their minds to a Texan (I`m still talking about Pres. Bush) who saw nothing more from the world than maybe a 200 mile radius around his hometown and drank and used narcotics. But now he is a President and has already killed thousands of innocent Iraqis (the iraqi soldiers are innocent in my eyes, too, because they only defend their families and country against an invading force) .

<span id='postcolor'>

For the record, Bush waited til' he was at Yale to get into the drugs. And besides, he's sober now so who gives a shit? It's not like he did an 8-ball of crack before he gave the orders to bomb Baghdad. And as for who counts as an innocent Iraqi, you can feel free to spin it any which way you want, but the point is that by and large, anyone who fights to defend a regime as odious as Hussein's does so because they depend on said regime for protection from the citizenry that they have systematically exploited for the past few decades. Or they're just poor stupid kids who've been convinced by propaganda. That's too bad. But the ultimate baseline is that innocent Iraqis are going to die. They'll die if Saddam stays in power, and they'll die in a war. But the entire idea is that in a post-war Iraq, they'll stop dying, and we can get past all this bullshit.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We still live in a free world, even with Pres. Bush as the No. 1 in the USA. At least I do. So I can say and put in my sig what I want (if possible I`d put the complete "Stupid white men" by M. Moore in my sig) . If you don`t like it, come and invade my country, because I seem to harm you with my opinion. There have been less reasons to invade a country lately...

<span id='postcolor'>

Getting a little touchy there, don't you think? I never demanded you remove it, I just pointed that it was moronic considering who Attila, Ghengis, and Hitler are as opposed to who Dubya is and has done. Is that okay with you? Not that it matters, as I too live in the free world, and it really doesn't matter what the hell you think. Contrary to popular (that is, your) belief, America too is a free country, possibly the most free. I could hop a bus to Washington DC tommorrow, pull off the most obscene, offensive act of protest you can imagine right at the White House gates, and you know what is the absolute worst thing that will happen to me? I'll get a free lunch and possibly dinner courtesy of the District of Columbia's penal system. Hell, so long as I don't fight the police that show up to move me along, I won't even get a free lunch. Those dirty fascist oppressor pigs, denying me my God-given prison baloney sandwich!!! Seriously though, I've pointed this out to you before, but I suppose you didn't get the drift: you do not understand America, Americans, or George W. Bush nearly as well as you like to think. When you do, expect to receive something other than derision in my responses. But hey, it's a free world, so bring it on. I bet I have more insults than you have misguided theories on how America works.<span id='postcolor'>

[FallenPaladin 0]

/me hugs denoir and invites him for a beer

"I`m not alone in this large world with my point of view. I`m not alone in this large world with my point of view. Now we are already 2 (two! )!!! Hurray!!!"  

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact that you have legal freedom of speech (as we all do in the western world) means very little when you have a country that is largly influenced by economic interest groups. Sure you have freedom of speech. Look just at Al-Jazeera getting kicked out of Nasdaq and Dow. Or Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" show. Are those also shining examples of freedom of speech?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know what happened in the Al-Jazeera situation so I won't comment on that. Bill Maher, on the other hand, not only maintains his free speech, but he has a new show. Remember it was not the US government that cancelled his show; it was ABC, which is a traditionally squeamish organization. Maher wasn't imprisoned; in fact, the most he got from the government was an oblong answer from the Press Secretary. And, I'd like to point out, he has a new job at a network that enjoys being controversial. Maher isn't a victim of a double-standard on free-speech, he's a victim of network television ratings games.

edit: I'd also like to point out that if anything, the whole episode increased Maher's freedom of speech. Before, he was an obscure host of a low-rated show where he asked quasi-celebrities what they thought about current events and issues. Afterwards, he gets worldwide coverage (be honest, had you even heard of Maher before this?), plus a better timeslot. Sounds like the American dream to me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US constitution while beeing a truly great thing when it was written has many flaws now. Small economical interest groups have today very strong influence on the politics. Bush is a politician backed by exactly that type of commercial and industrial interest groups: oil producers, car industry, NRA etc etc and in the end it's not the constitution that dictates your rights but General Motors.

Most European constitutions have been rewritten to counter such threats. We have for instance in Sweden very strict anti-lobbying laws where extrnal financial aid for political causes is in most cases considered as bribery.

You have to change your laws and adapt them to the reality of today, not 1776. And this is not just about invading other countries. It's the American people that are being exploited. Democracy? Heh. Yeah right. Your choice:

1) Mr A financed by company A,B,C,D

2) Mr B financed by company A,B,C,E  

While  Mr A and Mr B might have slight different views on some issues, they are still very similar. Mr C never has any chance since he has no economical backing.<span id='postcolor'>

Did I say we were perfect? Besides, we've made steps toward minimizing the effects of money in our political system. And this is the place where I like to point out that the European darling, Mr. Clinton, did the corporation soft-money system one better: he actually took money from a [unnofficial] representative of the Chinese Government. I mean, jesus! But we are fixing it. Soft money (that is, virtually unsupervised donations to a party's general slush fund) has been almost completely banned in favor of hard money (that is, highly supervised and regulated donations to specific candidate's campaigns. It's not perfect (yet), but it is definitely a start.

And for the two party system, it has worked fine so far, hasn't it? And if Candidates A & B are so similar, how come I hear so much pining for a Democratic president right now? The way I see it, if things get really, truly bad, we'll fix it, but I don't see it as being a huge problem at the moment. Maybe it will become more accute in the future, but not currently.

And Paladin, what the fuck, man? You want to talk, let's talk. But I didn't waste several minutes of my life typing that stuff just so you can pull an FSPilot on me. But at least I know where it's at now.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 07 2003,23:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure you have freedom of speech. Look just at Al-Jazeera getting kicked out of Nasdaq and Dow. Or Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" show. Are those also shining examples of freedom of speech?<span id='postcolor'>

Maher's freedom of speech was never infringed -- after cancellation he remained free to say whatever he liked.  The Bill of Rights, however, does not guarantee a person the right to host a television show.  Unfortunately for some celebrities, one person's freedom of speech is another person's freedom to ignore.

EDIT:  Nevermind, I think Tex covered it.  

Semper Fi