The official Election Day 2006 thread! - Page 30 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-12-2006, 09:44 PM   #436
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzledbylight




Listen up 8ui.......................

I don't know how old you are, where you are, and where your various friends & families hail from/live now..............


I AM a born & bred New Yorker. I spent/spend alot of time in Lower Manhattan, for fun & work. Includinga year in the World Trade Towers - South#2 tower yrs before The Atrocity.

On the 73rd floor facing the plaza there in the NorthEast Corner office. [WHAT A gorgoeus 50 mile or more view ~ like being on a little MOUNTAIN//[I've breen in the <USA> Rockies]. The windows went from below the floor to right up past the ceiling.You could look RIGHT DOWN to the central Plaza below-- kind of like standing right at the edge of the glass part of the floor in the big tower in Toronto/Canada.

SO.......between real expereince, the photos/tv footage and my VERY vivid imagination ......... I pretty much KNOW what those people saw in the higher parts of the south tower when they were looking down at the pLAZA after the 1ST PLANE HIT.

I SAW the pulverized cloud of plastic, concrete & metal & bone of the second tower collaspe rising over the buildings FROM about a mile or 2 further away.
LAter in the day that very same cloud and it further part streamed hight above ...which i could see OUT MY livingroom WINDOW.

I SAW my CITY part of it in ruins, MY PEOPLE in ANqUISH/injury & death..

BeTWEEN my 2 closest circles we had TWO DIRECT near-misses that day, one whom WOUld have BEEN dead....b/c they were up on the north tower 100 something floor and had too strong asthma to be able get down the stairs.
One of my dear sister's dearest adult friends. ANDanOTHER stopped for extra coffee.

If the 3rd other one had been in the tower that day[ there off & on} they could have died.A person very close to my mom...MY mom could have had a secere trauma attack over that, possible disability because of the shock/grief.

I cant even finish becAuase my library comp is going to log me out

I did something i normally don't do--- spent the extra money to get a guest pass to library to log on again & finish my post.........

SO.............DON'T. You. Question. MY. anger at the Terorists.


AMERICAN/
PROUD LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.
I'm 39 years old...and...

I DIDN'T QUESTION YOUR ANGER AT TERRORISTS.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 09:47 PM   #437
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint

Let's see, we should believe that the terrorists are speaking the absolute truth when it suits your ideology and are absolutely lying when they serve the other's ideology
Pre-election and post-election are 2 completely different scenarios. They aren't trying to influence an election now, and that's why they are so transparent about their glee that the Dems won. Before an election, if they're trying to influence the American vote, they aren't going to tell the American people who they think will be tougher on them.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 09:50 PM   #438
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Varitek
A response to several pages back where somebody said that raising the min. wage is bad because companies won't hire as many people:

Yeah, you took intro micro in college so you think you know better than people who spend their careers studying this. Let's start with the fact that raising the minimum wage will allow some people to work only 2 jobs insstead of 3, or only 1 instead of 2, thus making it less necessary for companies to hire more people. Couple this with health care reform and the point becomes stronger. Further, if you look at it from a more complex perspective, in some sectors raising the min wage (and thus people cutting back on the hours they work) will raise productivity, which is advantageous to companies and will mean they are getting their money's worth.
I didn't take intro micro in college. In fact, I dropped the only economics course I ever took in college.

Have you spent you entire career studying this? If so or even if not, you do realize that there are other experts who disagree with you, don't you?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 09:52 PM   #439
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I love this post. You recognise the cockiness and disinformation in the first part of the post but then you take their word when it suits your agenda.
BVS, I've answered this already for someone else, but I'll go ahead and post it again for you.

They aren't trying to influence a an election now, and that's why they are so transparent about their glee that the Dems won. Before an election, if they're trying to influence the American vote, they aren't going to tell the American people who they think will be tougher on them. Pre-election and post-election are 2 completely different scenarios.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 11:42 PM   #440
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 09:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


BVS, I've answered this already for someone else, but I'll go ahead and post it again for you.

They aren't trying to influence a an election now, and that's why they are so transparent about their glee that the Dems won. Before an election, if they're trying to influence the American vote, they aren't going to tell the American people who they think will be tougher on them. Pre-election and post-election are 2 completely different scenarios.
They are still trying to influence, they influence fear. This is what they do, the fact that you are buying it, is insane.

You said earlier that it wasn't a lie you were sold but actions taken by Dems.

Let me ask you this: in the past 2 decades how many lives have we lost by attacks or war under Republican, and how many have we lost by Dems? For this would be the only way to truthfully say what actions are defending us better, right?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 05:52 AM   #441
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Oh, come on. Do you think the terrorists really thought they were going to influence elections by a little bit of taunting? It doesn't really matter to me who the terrorists want in power. Personally, I think they are more annoyed by his swagger than his competence. Maybe if he were doing well in Iraq....maybe if we had sent in half a million troops like any realistic leader would have done once we decided we were going in anyway. Maybe if he had some freaking plan to protect our ports, our nuclear facilities or otherwise secure this country other than thwarting American law with questionable intelligence activity when apparently we are not really bright about interpreting vague intelligence like BIN LADEN TO ATTACK UNITED STATES. Maybe if we had invested our money and time and blood in going after the people who actually attacked us instead of compromising our troop strength (and our internal security) by occupying a country that didn't attack us and posed no credible threat because we were flying over them all the time and had them fairly successfully boxed in. Perhaps if we hadn't turned a secular, if brutally led, nation not in alliance with the rest of the Middle East into a probable theocracy who will then be ripe for alliance with Iran once we leave, which we will whether we cut and run or cut and saunter. Perhaps if we had taken that huge desire of the soldiers to serve their country after 9/11 and not abused it, maybe recruiters wouldn't have to lie or prey on our young to beef up their forces. Perhaps if we hadn't given the finger to the rest of the world and called Europe "irrelevant" , maybe we could have gotten together a real coalition. Maybe we could have had greater enthusiasm for other countries sharing their intelligence with us if we didn't use it to torture their citizens in error.

Maybe if we understood that we cannot do it alone anymore. Maybe if we understood that 9/11 didn't weaken our standing, but our response to it did. Maybe you don't care about our world standing. That's fine if you are an isolationist nation. Not so fine if you intend on engaging in nation building.

There has not been an attack on American soil in 5 years. There hadn't been an attack on American soil between the first WTC bombing and 9/11 (eight years). Perhaps the strategm is to attack in the year following the installation of any new President.
Or some other timing not of our making. Will they attack again? Probably. I don't think it much matters who is in power.

Sure, I'm afraid of the terrorists. Is the cost of that fight going to be our once perceived moral authority? Is the cost going to be the dismantling of law and checks and balances? Is the choice to be destroyed from without or within? What a fucking choice.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 06:07 AM   #442
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Oh, come on. Do you think the terrorists really thought they were going to influence elections by a little bit of taunting? It doesn't really matter to me who the terrorists want in power. Personally, I think they are more annoyed by his swagger than his competence. Maybe if he were doing well in Iraq....maybe if we had sent in half a million troops like any realistic leader would have done once we decided we were going in anyway. Maybe if he had some freaking plan to protect our ports, our nuclear facilities or otherwise secure this country other than thwarting American law with questionable intelligence activity when apparently we are not really bright about interpreting vague intelligence like BIN LADEN TO ATTACK UNITED STATES. Maybe if we had invested our money and time and blood in going after the people who actually attacked us instead of compromising our troop strength (and our internal security) by occupying a country that didn't attack us and posed no credible threat because we were flying over them all the time and had them fairly successfully boxed in. Perhaps if we hadn't turned a secular, if brutally led, nation not in alliance with the rest of the Middle East into a probable theocracy who will then be ripe for alliance with Iran once we leave, which we will whether we cut and run or cut and saunter. Perhaps if we had taken that huge desire of the soldiers to serve their country after 9/11 and not abused it, maybe recruiters wouldn't have to lie or prey on our young to beef up their forces. Perhaps if we hadn't given the finger to the rest of the world and called Europe "irrelevant" , maybe we could have gotten together a real coalition. Maybe we could have had greater enthusiasm for other countries sharing their intelligence with us if we didn't use it to torture their citizens in error.

Maybe if we understood that we cannot do it alone anymore. Maybe if we understood that 9/11 didn't weaken our standing, but our response to it did. Maybe you don't care about our world standing. That's fine if you are an isolationist nation. Not so fine if you intend on engaging in nation building.

There has not been an attack on American soil in 5 years. There hadn't been an attack on American soil between the first WTC bombing and 9/11 (eight years). Perhaps the strategm is to attack in the year following the installation of any new President.
Or some other timing not of our making. Will they attack again? Probably. I don't think it much matters who is in power.

Sure, I'm afraid of the terrorists. Is the cost of that fight going to be our once perceived moral authority? Is the cost going to be the dismantling of law and checks and balances? Is the choice to be destroyed from without or within? What a fucking choice.
Dang.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 06:18 AM   #443
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Perhaps governments are run by politicans who don't care and will compromise the fight for political goals. Perhaps only non-state actors can ever deal with terrorists properly engaging in the assassination and disruption by ruthless means that people will not (and should not) accept from their governments. Just stick the bounties out there and pay out for the bodies, a good deal cheaper than fully fledged goverment run programs.

The bipartisan push towards abandoning any Iraqi democratic self-determination and sending them to the wolves (again - see the apathy towards the Anfal campaign of genocide against the Kurds, the stretching out of the Iraq/Iran war and the abandoning of the Shiites to the attack helicopters) vindicates the terrorists (America cannot handle casualties and can be defeated if the perception of a quagmire can be established), it will also condemn all those innocents both within Iraq and beyond who will die because of the swing towards realist isolationism (was it a coincidence that the Rwandan Genocide occured after the firefight in Mogadishu, that no great power was willing to just stop it, just like nobody is stepping in to stop the genocide in Darfur today).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 06:25 AM   #444
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Perhaps governments are run by politicans who don't care and will compromise the fight for political goals. Perhaps only non-state actors can ever deal with terrorists properly engaging in the assassination and disruption by ruthless means that people will not (and should not) accept from their governments. Just stick the bounties out there and pay out for the bodies, a good deal cheaper than fully fledged goverment run programs.

The bipartisan push towards abandoning any Iraqi democratic self-determination and sending them to the wolves (again - see the apathy towards the Anfal campaign of genocide against the Kurds, the stretching out of the Iraq/Iran war and the abandoning of the Shiites to the attack helicopters) vindicates the terrorists (America cannot handle casualties and can be defeated if the perception of a quagmire can be established), it will also condemn all those innocents both within Iraq and beyond who will die because of the swing towards realist isolationism (was it a coincidence that the Rwandan Genocide occured after the firefight in Mogadishu, that no great power was willing to just stop it, just like nobody is stepping in to stop the genocide in Darfur today).
Lot a good points here.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 06:46 AM   #445
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Perhaps only non-state actors can ever deal with terrorists properly engaging in the assassination and disruption by ruthless means that people will not (and should not) accept from their governments. Just stick the bounties out there and pay out for the bodies, a good deal cheaper than fully fledged goverment run programs.
Problem is, then you risk winding up with a government beholden to or comprised of said bounty hunters.
Quote:
The bipartisan push towards abandoning any Iraqi democratic self-determination and sending them to the wolves (again - see the apathy towards the Anfal campaign of genocide against the Kurds, the stretching out of the Iraq/Iran war and the abandoning of the Shiites to the attack helicopters) vindicates the terrorists (America cannot handle casualties and can be defeated if the perception of a quagmire can be established), it will also condemn all those innocents both within Iraq and beyond who will die because of the swing towards realist isolationism (was it a coincidence that the Rwandan Genocide occured after the firefight in Mogadishu, that no great power was willing to just stop it, just like nobody is stepping in to stop the genocide in Darfur today).
To be extremely cynical though--the situation in Iraq is different in that we're (arguably) likely to wind up needing to go back in again if, as some scenarios predict, a US withdrawal paves the way for Iranian expansionism. Which may in the end be a risk we'll just have to live with, but...

Unfortunately, it's very rare historically for anyone to intervene anywhere "just" to prevent genocide.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 06:50 AM   #446
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


If he considered Bush and the Republicans a failure in the war on terror, he would want them to remain in office. He wouldn't be rejoicing that they had been replaced.
The question is who are they mocking? If they felt the American public was foolish for choosing the Democrats, they would be mocking them, not congratulating them. The following quotes are clearly meant to mock and denigrate our president. They are making fun of his "loss" and any congratulations to the American public is actually a jab directed at president.

Consider these quotes from your article below:
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

President Bush as a coward whose conduct of the war was rejected at the polls, challenging him to keep U.S. troops in the country to face more bloodshed.


Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Al-Muhajir praised the American people for handing victory to the Democrats, saying: "They voted for something reasonable in the last elections."
The second quote provides the strongest support for your conclusion that the terrorists support the Democrats, but understood in context of the rest of the article (which I appreicate your integrity in posting. I wouldn't have been able to mount this argument without the rest of the article. The sound bite alone would have served your argument much better, but I appreciate you werent' willing to do that) it's seems clear that is not what was intended. Note the sentence that immediately followed the above quote.

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
He also said Bush was "the most stupid president" in U.S. history
As you said, the terrorists hate America, and in their bravado they would never suggest that any American leader or leaders is capable of defeating them,no matter which party. So any "congratulations" can only be considered additional mockery of the president and not an endorsement of his opponents.

If you want to argue that the Republican party is stronger on national security, that's fine, but this statement by the terrorists is not the best way to make your point, in my opinion.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 06:56 AM   #447
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Well heck, excuse me for calling the killing of babies "murder". Perhaps it would make you feel better if I used the more generic and sterile term "termination of pregnancy".

In the end, it still means the same thing. An innocent human life is ended. How can anyone look at a detailed fetal development timeline, maycocksean, seeing how early vital systems and organs are developed in a fetus, and still say that fetus is not a human life?



If you don't think I do that, you have not been paying attention to me at all in reference to this subject. Almost every time I argue against abortion, I tell people to have a look at a detailed fetal development timeline to see that the fetus is a human life. I have also on occasions pointed out that the vast majority of embryologists say that human life begins at conception, and have even quoted some of them.
Ah, 80's, I have the utmost respect for you, I really do. I'm not sure why we're always at loggerheads. . .perhaps we're kind of like Paul and Barnabas. . .

I'm not necessarily challenging your right to call abortion murder if that is indeed what you believe it to be. I'm simply saying that calling your opponents murderers will probably do little to encourage them to come around to your way of thinking. I'm not personally offended by your use of the term murder, but I'm suggesting that if you want to change people's views on abortion you may need to be less confrontational since most of your opponents are not intending to advocate murder (If they were you could be as harsh as you like, I suppose).

For the record, I agree with you. I do think the fetus represents a human life. Talk to any first-time parent pinning their kid's ultrasound on the fridge, and they'll tell you: this is a living human being.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 07:55 PM   #448
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,002
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I'm 39 years old...and...

I DIDN'T QUESTION YOUR ANGER AT TERRORISTS.
your previous
statement

most of the world loves the election results.... Esp the terrorists

such a blanket statement could esily be construed to mean...

the world the loves the election results.

well, I LOVE the lection resultds.


So do the terrorists...

therefore ....a very possible interpetation / extrapolation is....i am agreeing with the terrorists.....


it's not such a far fetched assumption ESP when Bush was trying to equate democrates practally with OR supporting terrrosrisrs.

IF you ARE NOT equating domcrats with terrorists or supporting terrorists, then I shouldn't have flared up.

but if you are..

then my staement stands.
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 09:44 PM   #449
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,002
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I don't doubt that they called him "The Great Satan". They call America in general the "Great Satan" all the time. And if you don't know that, you are the clueless one.

I don't see how that proves they were happy Reagan became President.

And it also does nothing to disprove what I said about the current election; Al Qaeda is happy the Dems are in power because they feel it will benefit them.
Reagan sent his peole to negoatiate with the Iranians before the election to try and get them to NOT release the hostages before the election back then.

ANd why you don't give any credence to is that A LOT of Democrats can handle intellenbence in a smarter way.

How smart is it that Team Bush fired a whole bunch of Arabic Translaters in the INtell or similar depts several months back, because they were gay. Real smart, yeah. because the defict of Translaotrs is STILL there!

PLus they also VERY quietly closed the special sub-dept for hunting Bin-laden a bout a year ago.. Oh yeah el busho really wants to catch the 6 ft plus guy w the dialysis machine dragging behind him.

do you know why at least once why CLINTON DIDN'T go after him? B/c he was with a WHOLE bunch of OTHER MAJOR heads of State in the Arab world. The INtel was spot-on! How smart would it havew been to kill all those OTHER peole then. NG.
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 11-14-2006, 12:16 PM   #450
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:32 AM
That's so dumb about them firing the gay Arabic translators.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com