US 2008 Presidential Campaign Thread - Part 2 - Page 29 - 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 10-31-2007, 08:14 PM   #561
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Because Jesus said to bomb your enemies into the Stone Age. He did! Look it up!
Clearly, what was it? "Blessed are the violent for they shall murder the earth"?
__________________

U2isthebest is offline  
Old 10-31-2007, 08:17 PM   #562
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 05:06 PM
I remember, back in high school, reading accounts from people who (miraculously) lived through the Japan bombings. Truly heartwrenching stuff. There was no excuse for these innocent people to suffer the way they did. Absolutely none. I'm sorry, I will never agree to the idea that it's justifiable to punish innocent people because of the actions of a FEW idiots. Never.

Angela
__________________

Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 10-31-2007, 08:19 PM   #563
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Clearly we are misinterpreting the Bible here. Only "true Christians" can effectively quote the Bible. C'mon, guys.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-31-2007, 10:17 PM   #564
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:06 PM
You're right. It's wrong to be gay, but right to bomb the children of your enemies.
martha is offline  
Old 10-31-2007, 10:25 PM   #565
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by unico


Is that what the U.S. chanted before dropping nukes on Japan?? Reread your history book and get back to me
You might want to reread yours and not liberal rewrites.
Here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

Japan wasn't on the verge of surrendering before the bombs were dropped.
Matter of fact, high ranking Japamese officials voted 3-3 after both bombs were dropped to continue the war-they were still undecided.

It wasn't until the emperor cast the deciding vote to surrender, making it 4-3.
Then Japan surrendered-this only after their country was devastated, and Russia was also threatening to enter the mix next.


"Following the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (right), the Japanese government met to consider what to do next. The emperor had been urging since June that Japan find some way to end the war, but the Japanese Minister of War and the heads of both the Army and the Navy held to their position that Japan should wait and see if arbitration via the Soviet Union might still produce something less than a surrender. Military leaders also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement. Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3. For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender. On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state. "

dbs
diamond is offline  
Old 10-31-2007, 10:30 PM   #566
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
You're right. It's wrong to be gay, but right to bomb the children of your enemies.
The Gospel isn't called "Good News" for NOTHING, Martha.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 07:42 AM   #567
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:06 PM
Dropping the bomb on Japan was a terrible thing to do.
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 07:46 AM   #568
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


You might want to reread yours and not liberal rewrites.
Here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

Japan wasn't on the verge of surrendering before the bombs were dropped.
Matter of fact, high ranking Japamese officials voted 3-3 after both bombs were dropped to continue the war-they were still undecided.

It wasn't until the emperor cast the deciding vote to surrender, making it 4-3.
Then Japan surrendered-this only after their country was devastated, and Russia was also threatening to enter the mix next.


"Following the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (right), the Japanese government met to consider what to do next. The emperor had been urging since June that Japan find some way to end the war, but the Japanese Minister of War and the heads of both the Army and the Navy held to their position that Japan should wait and see if arbitration via the Soviet Union might still produce something less than a surrender. Military leaders also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement. Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3. For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender. On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state. "

dbs
What does your response have to do with you quoting me asking if the U.S. chanted "Death to Japan" prior to dropping the bombs?

My point is, people don't need to advertise their intentions for there to be a threat. As with the example of nuking Japan, it is quite clear that anyone who holds nuclear weapons in their custody has the capabilities to use them.

And stop trying to make assumptions about my education sources. You know nothing about me. Knock it off.
unico is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 08:20 AM   #569
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:06 PM
1-
We never chanted "Death to Japan", so why you brought it up is beyond me, however Iran is now chanting "Death To Israel" and Japan attacked us first-that's why they got nuked.
2-
Israel is under constant threat, and now Iran has gone more public with it-by chanting "Death To Israel"
3-
And this exactly the reason why the free world doesn't want Iran to acquire nukes, their intentions are not too well hidden.

dbs
diamond is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 08:32 AM   #570
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
1-
We never chanted "Death to Japan", so why you brought it up is beyond me, however Iran is now chanting "Death To Israel" and Japan attacked us first-that's why they got nuked.

dbs
Japan attacked a military base located in a place that was not even part of the United States at the time. Once again, that is 100% NOT cause for the use of nuclear weapons on 2 cities full of innocent civilians!
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 08:36 AM   #571
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
1-
We never chanted "Death to Japan", so why you brought it up is beyond me
i already addressed why i brought it up, but since it is beyond you i'll quote it again.

Quote:
Originally posted by unico
My point is, people don't need to advertise their intentions for there to be a threat. As with the example of nuking Japan, it is quite clear that anyone who holds nuclear weapons in their custody has the capabilities to use them.
intentions are intentions, whether they are announced or not. there is no justification to use nuclear weapons. there is no justification to HAVE nuclear weapons.

what sort of argument is made when one country (who OWNS THOUSANDS of nukes) is telling another to not?

EVERYONE needs to disarm. period.
unico is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 08:45 AM   #572
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unico


i already addressed why i brought it up, but since it is beyond you i'll quote it again.



intentions are intentions, whether they are announced or not. there is no justification to use nuclear weapons. there is no justification to HAVE nuclear weapons.

what sort of argument is made when one country (who OWNS THOUSANDS of nukes) is telling another to not?

EVERYONE needs to disarm. period.
Exactly! Iran, Isreal, and The United States all have nuclear weapons. We (The United States) and Isreal cannot expect Iran to disarm if we're not willing to do so ourselves. On the same token, Iran could not and should not ask us or Isreal to disarm. All 3 nations (and any others with nuclear weapons) have to reach a concious, deliberate agreement to disarm (which they haven't, to my knowledge. I was just being hypothetical). As Mia stated, just because Iran is creating the most identifiable threats, that doesn't mean other nations are not thinking about attacking with nuclear weapons. The only way to some semblance of safety is to have world disarmament as soon as possible.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 09:57 AM   #573
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,725
Local Time: 12:06 AM
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, yet. So far they are still enriching uranium.

I would say, there are countries that are more likely to use those weapons and others that are less likely to do so, and with Iran I wouldn't be comfortable as well.
But I would also say that Iran actually using nuclear weapons against Israel is rather unlikely, as Israel isn't that large a country so any nuke would do harm to the surrounding countries as well. And I think Amadinejad and his peers are not so naive as to use these weapons against the US because he certainly knows that this would be the end of it all.

I've read that plans in WWII were to use the nukes against the German cities of Mannheim and Wilhelmshaven, but Germany surrendered and a victory was in sight early enough. I don't know how accurate that is, but one has to consider that the development was started because of Germany, and the fear that the Nazis are developing one.

Of course, all countries in the world getting rid of their nuclear weapons would be great, and clearly, everyone with a sane mind would be all for it, but to be realistically it's not likely that we will see this happen in our lifetime.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 12:05 PM   #574
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, yet. So far they are still enriching uranium.

I would say, there are countries that are more likely to use those weapons and others that are less likely to do so, and with Iran I wouldn't be comfortable as well.
But I would also say that Iran actually using nuclear weapons against Israel is rather unlikely, as Israel isn't that large a country so any nuke would do harm to the surrounding countries as well. And I think Amadinejad and his peers are not so naive as to use these weapons against the US because he certainly knows that this would be the end of it all.

I've read that plans in WWII were to use the nukes against the German cities of Mannheim and Wilhelmshaven, but Germany surrendered and a victory was in sight early enough. I don't know how accurate that is, but one has to consider that the development was started because of Germany, and the fear that the Nazis are developing one.

Of course, all countries in the world getting rid of their nuclear weapons would be great, and clearly, everyone with a sane mind would be all for it, but to be realistically it's not likely that we will see this happen in our lifetime.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that we're not entirely sure if Iran has nuclear weapons, but that it's extremely likely that they do. That has usually been the slant in the media I've seen, which isn't surprising, considering how the media is always going for the biggest story. I'd never heard the rumor about the possibility of using nukes on Germany. I wouldn't have put it past the U.S. at that point, but I'm glad nothing ever played out. As for your last paragraph, I sadly have to agree. I was speaking of the best case scenario; which would be total world disarmament, but I'm not naive enough to think it will happen in the near future, unfortunately.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 12:39 PM   #575
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 06:06 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/...s/obit_tibbets


That is too ironic.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 03:20 PM   #576
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Did anyone see Dennis Kucinich on O'Reilly ? Here's what he said, there's video on the Factor site if anyone dares to go there. Kucinich is just a cool customer who knows how to handle himself-from what I have seen usually with dignity and class too. Hey O'Reilly approves of him so he must be super cool.

This is a rush transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," October 30, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the "Top Story" tonight, joining us from Washington, a participant in that Democratic debate, Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

I notice you did not really beat up on Hillary Clinton. Did you think it was fair that the others did?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, she was spun around. It was not her finest moment, but the fact of the matter is, there is a lot about those debates that are totally artificial.

It is almost laughable when you have John Edwards criticizing Hillary for taking money from Washington lobbyists when his campaign is heavily funded from New York hedge funds; or Barack Obama criticizing her for her support of the war when she and Barack Obama have identical positions when it comes to funding the war.

So a lot of this is about nuances and not about a real difference or distinction without a difference.

O'REILLY: OK. But once in a while, something breaks out, as the driver's license thing did, because that is a simple deal. Do you support the governor of New York giving illegals driver's licenses? Yes or no and...

KUCINICH: Here is how would have answered that.

O'REILLY: . why? But wait, wait, wait. But that jumps out, that jumps out, because it is not nuance, there is not a lot of room to wiggle. But wiggle Senator Clinton did. And boy oh boy that is going to hurt her, is it not?

KUCINICH: You know what, though? Look, I don't agree with Hillary Clinton on Iraq, on Iran, on trade, on health care. I have established very strong positions challenging her on every turn. But you have to look at the environment there. That could happen to anybody getting spun around like that.

It is not necessarily the best judge of who is going to be the best leader of the country.

O'REILLY: OK. OK. But why didn't she just answer the question.

KUCINICH: . particularly.

O'REILLY: . though, Congressman? Look, do you support it or not, yes or no?

KUCINICH: Well, let me answer the question.

O'REILLY: No, whoa, whoa, whoa! I want you to answer the question.

(LAUGHTER)

O'REILLY: But I know what your answer is going to be. I do not know what her answer is going to be. And no one else does either. You can't have it both ways.

KUCINICH: You know what? I'm through defending her. I'll just say that she should have answered the question more directly. It would have been better for her if she had. I think that she does have that problem where she tries to please people on both sides of an issue. You can't always do that. And I think she found that out last night.

O'REILLY: All right. Now you want illegals to have driver's licenses.

KUCINICH: I want — in immigration, there should be a pact to legalization and then you help people get their licenses.

O'REILLY: OK. That is reasonable. That is reasonable. Now you are considered a far left guy by many.

KUCINICH: Mainstream.

O'REILLY: I like you — I want to tell the audience, I like you. You are the only Democratic presidential candidate that has got enough guts to come in here, and you don't pander to anybody, and you're not afraid of MoveOn and the other kooks.

But I want your reaction on the trend now. And I'm sure you've seen it, President Clinton interrupted, Bill Maher interrupted, Condoleezza Rice had a kook with fake blood on her hand right by her face. This is what happened last night, Senator (sic).

Roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: She has given the Republicans the biggest issue they have got so far.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All U.S. troops out of Iraq now! No more blood for oil!

MATTHEWS: Well, I agree with the sentiment, at least.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do I.

MATTHEWS: If not the message.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: All right. What a shock, MSNBC agrees with the sentiment. But the bigger question is, the far left loons are running wild, and they've been emboldened. What do you think about that?

KUCINICH: I wouldn't ever want to go along with your characterization. But I would want to say this, that, you know, our political debate sometimes gets out of hand, and I think it is better when — let me back up a minute.

You know, Bill, this is kind of symptomatic of the times. There was a poem written about a hundred years ago called "The Second Coming" that talks about the center not holding and all things falling apart. We are starting to see, you know, symptoms of that in our society. And with the president talking about World War III, with there being a lot of emotion in the air, you know, things are getting out of control. And that is just an example. And I think it could happen.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: All right. But there have been many examples over the past.

KUCINICH: . of any political persuasion.

O'REILLY: All right. But it is all generated by the far left. Now what is wrong with my characterization? Because look, when you have these 9/11 conspirators telling Bill Clinton at a speech that there was an inside job, when you have gay militants invading a church in San Francisco and defiling the Eucharist, and it is all coming from the far left, you can't argue with that. It is right before our eyes here, Senator (sic).

KUCINICH: Well, you know, I mean, I believe in preserving the sacred. And I also believe that if — that former presidents, whatever their politics, deserve respect. So you know, we have to have a certain amount of respect. We also have to have truth-telling too.

In a democratic society, with the First Amendment, there is always going to be a balance to that...

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: But truth-telling does not mean that you have a right to go up to the secretary of state and get right in her face with a bloody hand. And that is dangerous. So I want responsible politicians, and I believe you are one, to speak out against this.

KUCINICH: I think it is — was it Justice Holmes — you know, there was one of the justices said that your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. So there is a point at which you can cross the line. I think that the conditions that are existing today in our politics, Bill, where people feel that Washington is not responsive in any way, Democrats or Republicans...

O'REILLY: Then elect new people.

KUCINICH: Democrats and Republicans alike. I think it is driving people to be a little bit more desperate. I'm not justifying it...

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: You can't have anarchy, though, anarchy is dangerous, as you know. Hey, Congressman.

KUCINICH: I wish.

O'REILLY: Go ahead, last word.

KUCINICH: I wish we had — I wish the Democrats here did have a firm hand on governance. They told the American people a year ago they were going to get out of Iraq. They haven't done it. I mean, I'm take issue with my own party, Bill.

O'REILLY: All right. We are going to have you back. I want to talk about the UFO deal that you apparently saw. That's very interesting. But you are always welcome, Congressman, you are a standup guy, and we appreciate it.

KUCINICH: Thank you, Bill.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 03:38 PM   #577
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 05:06 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! HOW DID I MISS HIM ON O'REILLY???!!!!?!?!?!?!

Thank you SO MUCH for posting this. I think that says a lot that he showed up. He's such an awesome guy. I think that is his first appearance there. He didn't make an appearance last time around.

We can call people we disagree with all the names we want. But you gotta admit, there is a lot to be said about those who have earned the respect of people on opposing sides without pandering them. He inspires me to be a better person.

unico is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 04:46 PM   #578
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 06:06 PM
zogby.com

Oct 29

Most see Clinton as the presidential candidate best equipped to deal with Iran, followed by Giuliani and McCain—but many express uncertainty

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.

Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35% saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17% would prefer Obama and 7% view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28%), followed by McCain (21%) and Fred Thompson (9%). One in five independents chose Clinton (21%) over McCain (16%) and Giuliani (11%). Clinton was the top choice among women (24%), while 14% would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11% would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18%) to Clinton (17%) on this issue, while 15% said Giuliani is best equipped to deal with Iran. The survey also shows there is a significant amount of uncertainty if any of the long list of declared candidates would be best equipped to deal the Iran – 19% overall said they weren’t sure which candidate to choose.

There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place – if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23% would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29% said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20% were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37%) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15%) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28%).

As the possibility the U.S. may strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68%) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – of those, 27% believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31%) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22% said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15% said they don’t think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9% believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.

For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1226
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 04:55 PM   #579
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 05:06 PM
I never watch O'Reilly, so sadly, no, I did not see this. But it sounds like Kucinich kept his cool, so good on him for that. And honestly, I'm glad he didn't beat up on Clinton and didn't try to bash her or anything. It's so easy to sit there and claim that other candidates are wrong and say why, but I much prefer hearing a politician talk about themselves and why they think the way they do instead of discuss those they're up against.

And he's also right regarding the reason why some people are resorting to desperate measures. It's true, they just want to be heard, and they're not. That doesn't necessarily make their actions right, no, but at the same time, you know, the government really does have to wake up and realize that they answer to us. Not the other way around.

As for this latest article:

Quote:
A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon,
If that's truly representative of voters, then that...really depresses me. For the love of god, we don't need to be involved in any more military strikes! We can't afford it, for one thing, and for another, I think we should work on cleaning up the mess with Iraq before we go around making any more messes (or we could, you know, try that diplomacy thing, too...).

Angela
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 11-01-2007, 04:59 PM   #580
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 06:06 PM

I was curious about that poem Dennis was talking about, it's a Yeats poem

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


The Second Coming" is a poem by William Butler Yeats first printed in The Dial (November 1920) and afterwards included in his 1921 verse collection Michael Robartes and the Dancer. The poem uses religious symbolism to illustrate Yeats' anguish over the apparent decline of Europe's ruling class, and his occult belief that Western civilization (if not the whole world) was nearing the terminal point of a 2000-year historical cycle.

The poem was written in 1919 in the aftermath of the First World War. The various manuscript revisions of the poem also have references to the French and Irish Revolutions as well as to Germany and Russia. It is highly doubtful that the poem was solely inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917, which some claim Yeats viewed as a threat to the aristocratic class he favored.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen 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 05:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×