[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

You addressed the issues????

1- Bush was dodging going to the service. He didn't show up for the physical examination. He was getting himself drunk while kerry was in the war.

2- The insurgents are dumb? Would you sit around if someone invades your country? They are being patriotic. There are tons of links between the bush family and black gold. If you want to turn your head the other way just like all bush supporters and not believe all the links that tie the 2 than you are just living in denial.

3- US founded the UN for god's sake. Now they don't do a good job, just cause they were trying to solve the problem peacefully. Nooooo UN is useless. Let's bomb 'em all.

4- Yes we do. This is a global world we live in. We need all the support.

5- Let me ask you this. If bush's daughters or maybe your daughter/son (when you get married) suffer from cancer, wouldn't you want stem cell research. I bet you he'd bend the law the next day.

6- So at least we agree on one point. He is an idiot. If you want an idiot to run our country, than you really have a strong argument

1. This is incorrect unless someone can prove it. Bush did his duty. Please, don't forget that desperate liberals had to FORGE documents to try and fill in the missing gaps to "prove" Bush didn't do his duty. Forging "proof" is sad, and shows a lack of real proof, which is normal for liberals I guess.

2. I'm going to make you work for this if you want to continue. Read through this entire thread. We've gone over this. It was better for you to arrive late as opposed to never, but if you are going to recycle points made on page 3 or so that I've already responded to...I refuse to respond. It's not my job to repeat myself. It's your job to look at what I've already said.

3. See answer #2. In fact, mag already used your EXACT strategy. Sarcastically saying the same thing and "let's bomb them all!" or something along those lines.

4. Ok so what you are saying is that we should conform to what THEY want to "earn" their support? Forget it. Would you wear a dress if a girl you wanted to impress told you that she liked transvestites?

5. I already said I'm not interested in putting these issues "in play" here. Discuss them with someone else if you wish. Arguments on abortion and stem cell research and this kind of moral stuff...or often religious stuff...gets very messy.

6. So the measure of a man's intelligence is how good he is at public speaking? There have been plenty of geniuses over the course of history that would probably FREEZE in front of a crowd of people... I'm not saying Bush is a genius either. I'm just making a point.

Now, do you have anything specific you'd like to discuss here that hasn't already been discussed ten times over in the previous pages on this thread? Let us know.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

1. This is incorrect unless someone can prove it. Bush did his duty. Please, don't forget that desperate liberals had to FORGE documents to try and fill in the missing gaps to "prove" Bush didn't do his duty. Forging "proof" is sad, and shows a lack of real proof, which is normal for liberals I guess.

2. I'm going to make you work for this if you want to continue. Read through this entire thread. We've gone over this. It was better for you to arrive late as opposed to never, but if you are going to recycle points made on page 3 or so that I've already responded to...I refuse to respond. It's not my job to repeat myself. It's your job to look at what I've already said.

3. See answer #2. In fact, mag already used your EXACT strategy. Sarcastically saying the same thing and "let's bomb them all!" or something along those lines.

4. Ok so what you are saying is that we should conform to what THEY want to "earn" their support? Forget it. Would you wear a dress if a girl you wanted to impress told you that she liked transvestites?

5. I already said I'm not interested in putting these issues "in play" here. Discuss them with someone else if you wish. Arguments on abortion and stem cell research and this kind of moral stuff...or often religious stuff...gets very messy.

6. So the measure of a man's intelligence is how good he is at public speaking? There have been plenty of geniuses over the course of history that would probably FREEZE in front of a crowd of people... I'm not saying Bush is a genius either. I'm just making a point.

Now, do you have anything specific you'd like to discuss here that hasn't already been discussed ten times over in the previous pages on this thread? Let us know.

I will read through them and get back to you on these points.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

I will read through them and get back to you on these points.

I appreciate that.

[mag]

Wow. This thread certainly exploded again while I wasn't looking.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Ok so what do you know of technique then? Are you inferring that the "technique" in older films isn't up to par with newer films? That's what it sounds like. I would like to hear some of your evidence of this via examples. It's certainly not true, in any case. The technique of a filmmaker has little to do with advancing technology...I can name silent films that are more cinematic and brilliant than most films made today. Now, again, I'm not saying modern films aren't capable of being terrific. I'm saying that it's not as often that a masterpiece appears as it was pre-80s.

This would be easier if we were talking about a specific film. I'm not the student of film that you are, after all. But I'm not really interested in getting into that particular debate (especially now that the discussion has turned back to politics). I'm just saying that I disagree with critics all the time--in film, in literature, you name it. But I don't think either of us are any more "correct" than the other. It's all opinion.

And I actually wasn't talking about technological advances, although those are nice too.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Ok, well that WOMAN didn't WANT your help "white guy." Respectable people don't want to be artificially propped up by a bunch of white men who think they are helping. What does this do for minorities and women? Show them they NEED white men? That's why I said liberals create dependents.

Well, if that woman wants to continue making less than a man for doing the same job, that's her choice. And that's the point. It should be her choice. Not something she's forced to do.

This isn't artificially propping anybody up. That implies that they're being given something they don't deserve. But this is something that they deserve. They deserve to be able to compete just like anybody else. Women and minorities are at an economic disadvantage. That is a fact. And when this kind of injustice exists in society, it is our responsibility to at least try to make it right.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I gave you the opinion of a woman already, so how about the opinion of a minority then? An African American perhaps?

You can cite all the anecdotes you want. That still doesn't prove anything. I can find just as many women and minorities who are in favor of such policies.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

This is just one of innumerable ways that the political left evades criticisms -- whether of young thugs or schoolteachers or anyone else -- by simply calling the criticism "bashing" and shifting the focus to the supposedly bad motives of those who criticize.

This is absolutely hilarious coming from a conservative considering that it's the Republicans who can put a stop to any debate simply by accusing their opponent of being a "Bush basher."

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Today, how many white schoolteachers are going to chew out some ghetto youth? How many white college students are going to tell a black roommate to stop goofing off?

In today's climate, too many teachers think they are doing black students a favor by feeding them grievances from the past and telling them how they are oppressed in the present -- and how their future is blocked by white racism. These are the kinds of friends who do more damage than enemies.

Teachers don't chew out ghetto youths? Has this guy ever even been in a classroom?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Why endure all the hard work, self-discipline and self-denial that a first-rate education requires if The Man is going to stop you from getting anywhere anyway? People who have been pushing this line for years are now suddenly surprised and dismayed to discover that many black students across the country regard academic striving as "acting white."

Look, I'm not saying that hard work isn't important. But it's not everything. There are people living in the ghetto working ten times harder than any of us and not going anywhere. The system is rigged to make sure that poor people stay poor. Granted, it's a little more flexible in the U.S., but to go from rags to riches is still almost unheard of. And these people have a right to know the challenges they'll be facing.

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

When I say Howard you say Dean, Howard Dean Howard Dean...

That screem really hurt him

Yeah, I guess it would hurt him if you have all the news channels taking it out of context and playing it over and over again for two weeks. So much for our "liberal media."

Originally Posted by jjacob

SoccerDude before you contintue keep in mind that Sanjuro has strict rules about who gets to reply to him and who he deems irrelevant

I guess I'm just one of the lucky ones.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Bush didn't dodge Vietnam. He was on active duty for over a year and a half, was by all accounts a good pilot, and would have gone to the actual war had he been called upon to do so. As for Kerry, yes he served too, but it's mysterious to me why he went and met secretly with the enemy twice. If he was trying to free POWs, why couldn't he tell anyone what he was doing?

Even forgetting the whole AWOL thing, Bush did get out of serving in Vietnam by using his family's influence to get into the National Guard. Kerry could have done the same thing, but he chose to go to Vietnam instead. I think that says something about their character. In his autobiography Colin Powell wrote, "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed
managed to wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National Guard units... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

Kerry met with the enemy because of his position. It was secret because there was a war going on. There's nothing suspicious about this. This wasn't a Jane Fonda moment. And in the future, it would probably be a good idea to take anything you hear from the Swift Boat Veterans for Their Own Bloated Egos with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

When has the UN ever done their job? The UN is great at one thing only: being a joke.

Actually, the UN seems to be a lot more effective ever since this whole Iraq thing started and they stopped being an American puppet.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And Bush hasn't turned his head on North Korea or Iran. He said he will try to solve the matter with diplomacy.

You mean like the "diplomacy" he tried with Iraq?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Please, don't forget that desperate liberals had to FORGE documents to try and fill in the missing gaps to "prove" Bush didn't do his duty. Forging "proof" is sad, and shows a lack of real proof, which is normal for liberals I guess.

That was unfortunate considering that there are enough real memos to show that Bush didn't do his duty that making forgeries was unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Ok so what you are saying is that we should conform to what THEY want to "earn" their support? Forget it. Would you wear a dress if a girl you wanted to impress told you that she liked transvestites?

Yeah. Why should we be restricted by such outrageous demands as not acting like complete assholes?

mag

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

This would be easier if we were talking about a specific film. I'm not the student of film that you are, after all. But I'm not really interested in getting into that particular debate (especially now that the discussion has turned back to politics). I'm just saying that I disagree with critics all the time--in film, in literature, you name it. But I don't think either of us are any more "correct" than the other. It's all opinion.

There is clearly a difference though, beyond just politics, between an educated and uneducated opinion. You admit you're not interested in getting into this particular debate, but there's a reason for that. Lack of interest, possibly. But more likely, in my view, is the fact that you wouldn't know where to begin. Look, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be an ass...you have readily admitted that you are no "student of film", but when you reduce a field of great artistic value (among other values) into which a lot of thought, research, knowledge, and humanism can be applied, to a matter of simple opinion...that just doesn't go over well. If you continue to insist that, "it's all opinion", then yes, in this case, I would like you to defend your "opinion". For instance, we could start very simple:

Which do you think better emulates a dream? Tarkovsky's Mirror, Fellini's 8 1/2, Last Year at Marienbad by Alain Resnais, Bunuel's The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, or Bergman's Persona, and why?

Ok, ok...look...I don't actually expect you to answer that, but I'm trying to illustrate something. Have you ever seen the film Election from 1999? It's about a teenage girl, played by Reese Witherspoon, who always runs for class president and she always wins because she has no opponent. Matthew Broderick, as a teacher who despises this girl, tries to talk a popular jock into entering the running for class president. His reasoning is simple, there's nothing profound about this or anything, I'm just illustrating a point through this movie... He asks the jock what his favorite fruit is, and he says apples.

The teacher says, "Great, now say that everyday you had an apple. An apple, an apple and more apples. You probably thought that apples were pretty good, even if you got a rotten one every once in awhile. Then one day there was an orange. Now you can choose, do you want an apple or do you want an orange?"

I'm not talking about jocks or goodie goodies. I'm talking about this... Please consider, for a moment, that the movies you've always watched are apples and you've never seen an orange. Can you formulate an "educated" opinion?

Originally Posted by mag

Well, if that woman wants to continue making less than a man for doing the same job, that's her choice. And that's the point. It should be her choice. Not something she's forced to do.

This isn't artificially propping anybody up. That implies that they're being given something they don't deserve. But this is something that they deserve. They deserve to be able to compete just like anybody else. Women and minorities are at an economic disadvantage. That is a fact. And when this kind of injustice exists in society, it is our responsibility to at least try to make it right.

She made a great point. If women and minorities really cost so much less to employ, then why would ANYONE hire white males? No, indeed, this is a bunch of hocus pocus. No one is at a disadvantage in this country. It's a fictional "barrier" put up by liberals to create dependents and voters. What's discrimanatory is when the best person for a job doesn't get hired (whether he or she is white, black, purple, or green), which is caused by this kind of liberal thinking.

Originally Posted by mag

You can cite all the anecdotes you want. That still doesn't prove anything. I can find just as many women and minorities who are in favor of such policies.

Well good God I hope so! It's a hell of a lot harder to be a woman or an African American and say, "Look, I don't need preferential treatment. I can DO for myself," than to be in those same shoes and say, "Well damn, why not rest on the shoulders of these liberal white men to get me where I want to be... I don't need to do anything for myself." You couldn't find "just as many", you could undoubtedly find MORE.

Originally Posted by mag

This is absolutely hilarious coming from a conservative considering that it's the Republicans who can put a stop to any debate simply by accusing their opponent of being a "Bush basher."

Teachers don't chew out ghetto youths? Has this guy ever even been in a classroom?

Look, I'm not saying that hard work isn't important. But it's not everything. There are people living in the ghetto working ten times harder than any of us and not going anywhere. The system is rigged to make sure that poor people stay poor. Granted, it's a little more flexible in the U.S., but to go from rags to riches is still almost unheard of. And these people have a right to know the challenges they'll be facing.

I lumped these three quotes together since they are all referring to Sowell's writing. I would suggest you email him about these issues.

Thomas Sowell email

Originally Posted by mag

I guess I'm just one of the lucky ones.

Well, to let you guys know, the talk between SoccerDude and I began in another thread. It turned to politics, and we were put back here by fov (Emily). So it was only fair that I continue with him.

Originally Posted by mag

Even forgetting the whole AWOL thing, Bush did get out of serving in Vietnam by using his family's influence to get into the National Guard. Kerry could have done the same thing, but he chose to go to Vietnam instead. I think that says something about their character. In his autobiography Colin Powell wrote, "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed
managed to wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National Guard units... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

Kerry met with the enemy because of his position. It was secret because there was a war going on. There's nothing suspicious about this. This wasn't a Jane Fonda moment. And in the future, it would probably be a good idea to take anything you hear from the Swift Boat Veterans for Their Own Bloated Egos with a grain of salt.

Look, if there was enough to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush didn't do his duty and got preferential treatment, it would be everywhere. Why else was it a huge controversy when the 20/20 story aired? That WOULD have been a huge deal, had the documents not been forged. Also, if there was preferential treatment involved, I believe Bush wasn't aware of it, and it's kind of sad that he's being confronted with it now.

As for not taking the Swift Boat Veterans seriously... I keep forgetting mag... You were there fighting alongside them in Vietnam, and I wasn't...

Originally Posted by mag

Actually, the UN seems to be a lot more effective ever since this whole Iraq thing started and they stopped being an American puppet.

I agree they are more effective now. Before they did almost nothing, and now they are even more effective at it, doing precisely nothing...except bitching, moaning, and crying.

Originally Posted by mag

You mean like the "diplomacy" he tried with Iraq?

Most likely. We'll see if those nations continue to defy the UN (easy) and the U.S. (hard).

Originally Posted by mag

That was unfortunate considering that there are enough real memos to show that Bush didn't do his duty that making forgeries was unnecessary.

Maybe in a Michael Moore political sex fantasy.

Originally Posted by mag

Yeah. Why should we be restricted by such outrageous demands as not acting like complete assholes?

Liberal definition of asshole: Someone who doesn't allow another person (Saddam) to walk all over them and continually defy them.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

There is clearly a difference though, beyond just politics, between an educated and uneducated opinion. You admit you're not interested in getting into this particular debate, but there's a reason for that. Lack of interest, possibly.

Touche.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Look, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be an ass...you have readily admitted that you are no "student of film", but when you reduce a field of great artistic value (among other values) into which a lot of thought, research, knowledge, and humanism can be applied, to a matter of simple opinion...that just doesn't go over well. If you continue to insist that, "it's all opinion", then yes, in this case, I would like you to defend your "opinion".

I don't see it as a reduction of anything. Saying that it's opinion isn't putting anybody down. Just because something isn't a hard science doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Film critics are in the business of giving their opinions. Very well informed opinions to be sure, but opinions nonetheless. Just because it's their opinion doesn't make what they do any less respectable or worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

She made a great point. If women and minorities really cost so much less to employ, then why would ANYONE hire white males?

Men make more because they are seen as more valuable employees. Cost effectiveness is about more than getting the cheapest thing out there. It's about getting the best value for what you pay. And there is a perception among many employers that men perform better than women.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

No one is at a disadvantage in this country. It's a fictional "barrier" put up by liberals to create dependents and voters.

That's ridiculous. Black people as a whole are poorer than white people. I'm sure you know that as well as I do. That's because black people in this country started out as slaves. And they're still recovering from that economically. It's only in recent years that black people have started to be accepted for the kinds of high level positions that have historically been held by rich white guys, and those are still few and far between. The playing field isn't level. Black people are starting off at a distinct disadvantage.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I lumped these three quotes together since they are all referring to Sowell's writing. I would suggest you email him about these issues.

Thomas Sowell email

I'm not talking to Sowell. I'm talking to you. I assumed that since you were quoting him you agree with what he is saying. If you do, you should be able to back it up without running back to Sowell for advice.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Look, if there was enough to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush didn't do his duty and got preferential treatment, it would be everywhere. Why else was it a huge controversy when the 20/20 story aired? That WOULD have been a huge deal, had the documents not been forged. Also, if there was preferential treatment involved, I believe Bush wasn't aware of it, and it's kind of sad that he's being confronted with it now.

First of all, I didn't even think that whether or not Bush received preferential treatment was even an issue of debate. If Bush doesn't know that he got preferential treatment then he's the only one who doesn't know. He's one of a slew of other rich kids who got out of going to Vietnam by joining the National Guard.

And I find it amusing that you have so much trust in the ability of the media to put together a cohesive case against Bush based on thirty year old memos, but you don't trust them to find those massive stockpiles of weapons you say we found in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

As for not taking the Swift Boat Veterans seriously... I keep forgetting mag... You were there fighting alongside them in Vietnam, and I wasn't...

The way they tell the story, I could have been.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Maybe in a Michael Moore political sex fantasy.

See post #79.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Liberal definition of asshole: Someone who doesn't allow another person (Saddam) to walk all over them and continually defy them.

I'm sorry, but the phrases "Saddam Hussein" and "walking all over the U.S." just don't sound right in the same sentence. The only question I have is Saddam and what army? No, seriously. What army? He didn't have one. He pretty much did everything we told him to do.

mag

[jjacob]

Well mag if you have enough patience you can easily shut Sanjuro up (just my opinion) but I'm definately done with this republican pitbull act of his, getting everything wrong etc. so my final contribution will be a correction of you

Originally Posted by mag

Granted, it's a little more flexible in the U.S., but to go from rags to riches is still almost unheard of. And these people have a right to know the challenges they'll be facing.

That is factually wrong, the U.S. has extremely bad distribution of wealth, and more importantly; education. I wish I could pull some numbers out of my ass but it is so obvious that Europe has a far better distribution of wealth amongst all types of people, and I don't know of a European country where public schools are bad. Granted, you have Harvard, but Europe has superior high school education. Most countries here boast at least 10+ subjects, over here 14+, a friend of mine in Jacksonville who went to a private school had a mere 4 subjects, consisting of gymnastics, math, English and history (I think), I was shocked. Anyhow, just my last 2 c.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by jjacob

a friend of mine in Jacksonville who went to a private school had a mere 4 subjects, consisting of gymnastics, math, English and history (I think), I was shocked.

I'm glad I didn't go to high school in Jacksonville...damn...

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

I don't see it as a reduction of anything. Saying that it's opinion isn't putting anybody down. Just because something isn't a hard science doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Film critics are in the business of giving their opinions. Very well informed opinions to be sure, but opinions nonetheless. Just because it's their opinion doesn't make what they do any less respectable or worthwhile.

I suppose it's also the "opinion" of a surgeon as to what tools would be best to slice a patient open... lol. Look, if I were you, I might say, "It's all opinion," so that I could easily ignore the fact that I know zilch about the subject. So I understand you.

Originally Posted by mag

Men make more because they are seen as more valuable employees. Cost effectiveness is about more than getting the cheapest thing out there. It's about getting the best value for what you pay. And there is a perception among many employers that men perform better than women.

On some tasks, certainly. If a man performs better, he should be hired. If a woman performs better, she should be hired. Going back to the "surgeon" thing. I want the BEST person for the job working on me if I go under the knife. If it's a man, fine. A woman, fine. But they better damn well be the best. It better not be some idiot who bombed on all the tests, but got in there ahead of someone better because of liberal politics.

Originally Posted by mag

That's ridiculous. Black people as a whole are poorer than white people. I'm sure you know that as well as I do. That's because black people in this country started out as slaves. And they're still recovering from that economically. It's only in recent years that black people have started to be accepted for the kinds of high level positions that have historically been held by rich white guys, and those are still few and far between. The playing field isn't level. Black people are starting off at a distinct disadvantage.

That's a myth. A very, very popular liberal myth. However, by the way, it is George Bush who has put African Americans in the highest positions of power (look at Rice, Powell, and others). Anyway, I have some more Sowell wisdom (in the form of various quotes) to impart. Again, the reason I enjoy his wisdom is because he's giving the perspective from a Harvard educated, historian, African American:

"In the United States, for example, the highest unemployment rates are almost invariably among black teenagers. But this was not always the case.

Although the federal minimum wage law was passed in 1938, wartime inflation during the Second World War meant that the minimum wage law had no major effect until a new round of increases in the minimum wage level began in 1950. Unemployment rates among black teenagers before then were a fraction of what they are today -- and no higher than among white teenagers."


"The left has a whole vocabulary devoted to depicting people who do not meet standards as people who have been denied "access."

Whether it is academic standards, job qualifications or credit requirements, those who do not measure up are said to have been deprived of "opportunity," "rights" or "social justice."

"Rights," for example, have become an all-purpose term used for evading both facts and logic by saying that people have a "right" to whatever the left wants to give them by taking from others."


"The anticipated economic benefits (of Brown v. Board), however, lagged far behind. Blacks were already rising out of poverty at a rapid rate that was not accelerated by the civil rights laws and court decisions of the 1950s and 1960s, though of course the progress continued. Yet half a century of political spin has convinced much of the media and the public that black progress began with the civil rights revolution.

It did not. The first two decades after 1940 saw a more rapid rise of blacks out of poverty and into higher paying jobs than the decades following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the affirmative action policies that began in the 1970s. Check out the facts.

The key fallacy underlying the civil rights vision was that all black economic lags were due to racial discrimination. That assumption has survived to this day, in the courts, in the media, in academia, and above all in politics.

No amount of factual evidence can make a dent in that assumption. This means that a now largely futile crusade against discrimination distracts attention from the urgent need to upgrade educational standards and job skills among blacks."

Originally Posted by mag

I'm not talking to Sowell. I'm talking to you. I assumed that since you were quoting him you agree with what he is saying. If you do, you should be able to back it up without running back to Sowell for advice.

Uh, what are you talking about? Some of the things you asked I had no way to answer. "Has this guy ever been in a classroom?" I don't know the full DETAILS of his classroom history, so you would have to ask him. Therefore, I gave you his email.

Originally Posted by mag

First of all, I didn't even think that whether or not Bush received preferential treatment was even an issue of debate. If Bush doesn't know that he got preferential treatment then he's the only one who doesn't know. He's one of a slew of other rich kids who got out of going to Vietnam by joining the National Guard.

And I find it amusing that you have so much trust in the ability of the media to put together a cohesive case against Bush based on thirty year old memos, but you don't trust them to find those massive stockpiles of weapons you say we found in Iraq.

He would have gone to Vietnam has he been called upon to do so. I believe that, you don't. Fine, whatever. And yes, I have more faith in the media to be able to put together a case based on paperwork, sitting in the comfort of an office somewhere, that to be running around in Iraq and finding anything.

Originally Posted by mag

I'm sorry, but the phrases "Saddam Hussein" and "walking all over the U.S." just don't sound right in the same sentence. The only question I have is Saddam and what army? No, seriously. What army? He didn't have one. He pretty much did everything we told him to do.

That's a good question. Why defy the UN (which the U.S. is a part of, that's what I was referring to) when you don't even have the army to back it up. Stupid Saddam...

[log p]

hey sanjuro2...yeah, i wanna be civil and conversational here...umm...i want your opinions on some things...now sadaam is a sunni, right?...and the majority of iraq are shi'ites...and the majority of iran are shi'ites...and the rebels that are mostly against the u.s. and a potential iraqi democracy are the sunnis, although the kurds probably aint too happy either since they are a minority, i dunno...so are the january elections just gonna involve shi'ites?...are the sunnis gonna be forced to go along with it and still lose any representation because they are a goodly minority?...and if shi'ite rule is established in iraq, what is to stop the iranian gov't and the iraqi gov't from joining into one big ass middle east power, since their major qualms/ differences are gone with the sunnis out of the way, and they are shi'ites in one big happy islamic fundamentalist family that should technically get along...is the u.s. gonna prevent this by staying in iraq, to ascertain the sunnis and kurds stay away from the shi'ites' rule, and that iran doesnt send any ambassadors over to spoil the fun?...is the u.s. gonna invade iran and eliminate that regime in favor of a more "democratic" system that would again be shi'ite?...all of this is assuming george once again takes the presidency...the whole thing isnt all about sadaam being an evil asshole that needed to be stopped...there were actual reasons, based on the religious issue, that sadaam was left there in the first place, something the media looks over in there national self-determinism spiels...and after iraq and maybe iran, north korea and the madman?...pretty soon the french may be the u.s.'s number one enemy with the neo-con superstars going onward and upward without regard for religious idiosyncrasies or other nations' equally selfish interests, as fast, fast, fast as they can fly the missiles...IMO

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by log p

there were actual reasons, based on the religious issue, that sadaam was left there in the first place

Not to simplify what you said, sincerely. But does THIS mean that you were in favor of the FORMER President Bush not finishing the job in the early 90s?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Not to simplify what you said, sincerely. But does THIS mean that you were in favor of the FORMER President Bush not finishing the job in the early 90s?

I still owe you going through all the thread and getting back to the argument. Just didn't have time

Anywho I think I can give my opinion here coz it's fairly fresh. I personally am in favor of keeping Saddam in power whether it was in the early 90's or today. Leaving Saddam back then avoided what we are seeing today. As Log has said Iraq is a fairly complex place right now. You have the Shiite in the south, the minority Sunni and then the Kurds in the north. Me personally I don't think handing power to a shiite goverment will transform it into an Shiite Islamic state like Iran. Saudi Arabia and Egypt(both Sunni dominant) will not want that and they will entice terrorist activities within Iraq to disrupt the peace. Plus there are the Sunni already in Iraq who want a piece of the pie. I foresee a civil war in the near future of Iraq. Now Saddam, with all his evil doing kept the country together and kept the diverse array of religions and beliefs checked.

[log p]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Not to simplify what you said, sincerely. But does THIS mean that you were in favor of the FORMER President Bush not finishing the job in the early 90s?

well...that certainly ISN"T the big point i was striving to make and i think its detracting from the other questions i asked, which you should seriously consider trying to answer, but yes...at the time i knew little about anything, as i was a teenager and naturally disinterested...i think that is the chief reason he wasnt removed back then and i think it was the right decision at the time because its too big of a task trying not to step on toes when religious differences are the central issue in iraq and our leaders dont seem to give a damn, grouping all islamic sects into one giant generic box

[log p]

Originally Posted by log p

well...that certainly ISN"T the big point i was striving to make and i think its detracting from the other questions i asked, which you should seriously consider trying to answer, but yes...at the time i knew little about anything, as i was a teenager and naturally disinterested...i think that is the chief reason he wasnt removed back then and i think it was the right decision at the time because its too big of a task trying not to step on toes when religious differences are the central issue in iraq and our leaders dont seem to give a damn, grouping all islamic sects into one giant generic box

sorry for the run-on non-sentence, no punctuation style...im a pioneer in lazy writing

[Sanjuro2]

Bottom line guys, in my view, I'm one of those guys that believes Bush's saying that "people yearn to be free". I'm not saying there aren't other dangers. I'm not saying there won't be religious issues in play. I'm not saying it won't be messy for a while. But what I'm saying is, I believe in the long run those people being free is better than them being under the thumb of a dictator. I don't think their fate should be decided by people who view this as some sort of chess match. "We shouldn't take Saddam out of there because he maintains balance!" Things will balance out again in the long run. There are some good Iraqis running the country right now. I have faith things will be ok. And the Iraqis are free.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by log p

sorry for the run-on non-sentence, no punctuation style...im a pioneer in lazy writing

forget about the run-on sentences. What I want to know is what happend to my Data?

[jjacob]

Sanjuro, Iraq won't be a democracy for a long, long time, most likely alot longer than when it wouldn't have been invaded by the U.S. You can't possibly believe that, unless ofcourse you're one of thse people who think Afghanistan has become a democracy (ruled by a former Unocal advisor and friend of W)

[mag]

Originally Posted by jjacob

That is factually wrong, the U.S. has extremely bad distribution of wealth, and more importantly; education. I wish I could pull some numbers out of my ass but it is so obvious that Europe has a far better distribution of wealth amongst all types of people, and I don't know of a European country where public schools are bad.

I know the distribution of wealth is bad in America. That was my point. But sadly, it's still better than the vast majority of the planet. When I say it's more flexible in the U.S., I mean as compared to places like Africa, the Middle East, or Asia. Here it's at least conceivable that with hard work and a lot of luck you could move into a higher class of society. Not likely, but possible.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

I suppose it's also the "opinion" of a surgeon as to what tools would be best to slice a patient open... lol.

Well, for the most part that's something you can actually measure objectively. Show me an objective measure of "greatness," and I'll back down.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Look, if I were you, I might say, "It's all opinion," so that I could easily ignore the fact that I know zilch about the subject. So I understand you.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about my level of knowledge. I'd be careful with that if I were you. Pride goeth before a fall.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

On some tasks, certainly. If a man performs better, he should be hired. If a woman performs better, she should be hired. Going back to the "surgeon" thing. I want the BEST person for the job working on me if I go under the knife. If it's a man, fine. A woman, fine. But they better damn well be the best. It better not be some idiot who bombed on all the tests, but got in there ahead of someone better because of liberal politics.

The truth is that nobody is trying to make that happen. You still have to be qualified for the job. Equal employment opportunity laws simply make it possible for minorities to compete.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

However, by the way, it is George Bush who has put African Americans in the highest positions of power (look at Rice, Powell, and others).

Wow. I wasn't aware that Bush was the one who promoted Powell to the rank of general. Thank you for enlightening me.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

"In the United States, for example, the highest unemployment rates are almost invariably among black teenagers. But this was not always the case.

Although the federal minimum wage law was passed in 1938, wartime inflation during the Second World War meant that the minimum wage law had no major effect until a new round of increases in the minimum wage level began in 1950. Unemployment rates among black teenagers before then were a fraction of what they are today -- and no higher than among white teenagers."

Okay. So he's shown that they had jobs. But the issue isn't unemployment. It's wealth. How much did the average black person make prior to 1950 compared to the average white person?

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

The key fallacy underlying the civil rights vision was that all black economic lags were due to racial discrimination. That assumption has survived to this day, in the courts, in the media, in academia, and above all in politics.

It has little to do with racism. It has to do with money. Again, black people were starting out at the bottom. Just because the government says you're free doesn't change that, and it doesn't mean you're going to be on an equal footing with everybody else overnight.

Black people started out poor not because of their race, but because of their positions. They were coming out of slavery, about as low as you can get on the social ladder. And our society is built to keep poor people, whatever race they might be, in their place.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

Uh, what are you talking about? Some of the things you asked I had no way to answer. "Has this guy ever been in a classroom?" I don't know the full DETAILS of his classroom history, so you would have to ask him. Therefore, I gave you his email.

My point is that to suggest that teachers aren't hard enough on kids from the ghetto is absolutely ludicrous. They get it harder than anybody.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

He would have gone to Vietnam has he been called upon to do so. I believe that, you don't. Fine, whatever.

Of course he would have gone if he had been called up. It's not like they give you a choice in the matter. The point is that he joined the Guard so that he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam, and he knew they weren't going to send the Guard over to Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

And yes, I have more faith in the media to be able to put together a case based on paperwork, sitting in the comfort of an office somewhere, that to be running around in Iraq and finding anything.

Two problems with what you've said. The paperwork isn't in their office, and Iraq is crawling with journalists now. If the U.S. had found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction, they would know about it.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro2

That's a good question. Why defy the UN (which the U.S. is a part of, that's what I was referring to) when you don't even have the army to back it up. Stupid Saddam...

Except that he wasn't defying anybody. The inspectors were already there. Saddam was completely contained. If Bush had simply allowed the UN to finish doing its job, he could have avoided a whole lot of bloodshed.

Originally Posted by log p

now sadaam is a sunni, right?...and the majority of iraq are shi'ites...and the majority of iran are shi'ites...and the rebels that are mostly against the u.s. and a potential iraqi democracy are the sunnis, although the kurds probably aint too happy either since they are a minority, i dunno...so are the january elections just gonna involve shi'ites?...are the sunnis gonna be forced to go along with it and still lose any representation because they are a goodly minority?...and if shi'ite rule is established in iraq, what is to stop the iranian gov't and the iraqi gov't from joining into one big ass middle east power, since their major qualms/ differences are gone with the sunnis out of the way, and they are shi'ites in one big happy islamic fundamentalist family that should technically get along

As I've said before, the only way this can end is with a Shiite theocracy in Iraq. Either the Iraqis will use their newfound democratic powers to vote one in (since that's what the vast majority of Iraqis want), or they will learn that this new government we've established isn't that democratic at all which will result in an Iraqi civil war which will ultimately result in a Shiite theocracy.

And I wouldn't exactly call Hussein a devout Muslim. He had a Koran written in blood. That's blasphemy to a Muslim.

mag

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by mag

As I've said before, the only way this can end is with a Shiite theocracy in Iraq. Either the Iraqis will use their newfound democratic powers to vote one in (since that's what the vast majority of Iraqis want), or they will learn that this new government we've established isn't that democratic at all which will result in an Iraqi civil war which will ultimately result in a Shiite theocracy.

Yep. And Saddam was bad for the iraqis, but not a true menace for us western country, while a shiite theocracy would be bad for the iraqis too (albeit probably better than Saddam... I guess. Remember the Talibans?) but also a menace for us, and, more immediately, to Israel. Most historians and strategists are still scratching their heads, trying to figure out the goal Bush and Co were/are trying to achieve by this whole Iraq war. Apart from gaining profit and helping Saudi Arabia extends his influence (ok, I'm far from sure about this one, that's my mooresque influence speaking), that is.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by mag

Well, for the most part that's something you can actually measure objectively. Show me an objective measure of "greatness," and I'll back down.

Obviously any "objective measure of greatness," as you say, would differ in terms of criteria depending on the art form. I have no idea whatsoever what it is with paintings or sculptures or what have you...and I'm no expert on music, though film music serves quite a different purpose than music in general, so it is judged differently. With films it's quite a mixture of various things. One element could be fantastic, and another could be pitiful, etc. I'm talking about camerawork, editing, music, etc.

A quick example on music... It is considered a poor use of music if it attempts to force (as opposed to compliment) emotion in a film. A film must earn emotion on its own, through the characters and the story. The writing, the visuals, and so forth. Granted, not everyone will emote over the same things, but that is irrelevant. This style of trying to beat the audience over the head with a roaring orchestral crescendo at the height of "emotion" onscreen is the style made popular (and pitiful) by Hollywood. Don't get me wrong. Hollywood has made great movies, even recently. But generally, especially these days, they embody everything that is wrong with film.

Anyway, back to my point, if the dialogue, the relationships between the characters, the acting, etc. If all of that is well done, then music shouldn't be required to pummel the audience. It's a good sign that you are watching a poorly made movie if say...two people hug each other or someone dives into a pool and there's an explosive clash on the soundtrack. It's like Woody Allen says in Annie Hall when Diane Keaton can't get aroused without smoking marijuana. He tells her that, as a comedian, a laugh from someone who is high, doesn't count. So how would he know if he's REALLY performing well in the bedroom, if she has to smoke weed every time? It's the same with music used incorrectly and artificially like this. The director is hoping for a gift from the audience that the content hasn't earned. In America, we've gotten used to this, but it's WRONG. Yes...it's wrong. The great French critic Andre Bazin has written some fine stuff on all that is wrong with the artificiality of movies (particularly Hollywood movies). I recommend his stuff.

Look, not to be lazy (though it is late), if you want to get into a full discussion on this I will elaborate further...but since I can talk about movies A LOT longer than I can about politics, and this is for the most part, as you said, a political discussion...I'm going to leave it up to you where and when (or if) we continue this.

Originally Posted by mag

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about my level of knowledge. I'd be careful with that if I were you. Pride goeth before a fall.

I assume nothing. You clearly (and admittedly if I recall) have no vast knowledge of the subject. If you care to prove me wrong, there's NOTHING I would enjoy more than a good debate on this subject. I'm drooling over here...

Originally Posted by mag

The truth is that nobody is trying to make that happen. You still have to be qualified for the job. Equal employment opportunity laws simply make it possible for minorities to compete.

Is that so?

BOSTON (AP) - Four white men passed over for firefighting jobs in favor of minority candidates who scored lower on civil service tests must be hired as soon as possible, a federal judge has ruled.

The men had sued the Boston Fire Department for discrimination. They must also be awarded back pay and seniority they would have earned since October 2000, the date they were denied employment, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Stearns ordered Monday.

``I think hopefully we're just going back to normal, the way it was meant to be, so that now they are just hiring the best person, regardless of race or color,'' said Harold Lichten, the attorney for all five men.

Originally Posted by mag

Wow. I wasn't aware that Bush was the one who promoted Powell to the rank of general. Thank you for enlightening me.

I was referring to the Secretary of State nomination and you know it.

Originally Posted by mag

Okay. So he's shown that they had jobs. But the issue isn't unemployment. It's wealth. How much did the average black person make prior to 1950 compared to the average white person?

It has little to do with racism. It has to do with money. Again, black people were starting out at the bottom. Just because the government says you're free doesn't change that, and it doesn't mean you're going to be on an equal footing with everybody else overnight.

Black people started out poor not because of their race, but because of their positions. They were coming out of slavery, about as low as you can get on the social ladder. And our society is built to keep poor people, whatever race they might be, in their place.

Well, Sowell's point is that African Americans were rising on their OWN, even before civil rights or affirmative action. His point is that the numbers don't add up. Liberals always say the 60s and 70s were great decades for African American advancement, but the FACT is, they were advancing much more before ANY of this "help" from white liberals. Now, I hesitate to suggest Sowell's email again, since you flipped out last time, but you would have to ask him about exact figures for African American income prior to 1950 compared to white income...because I'm not the historian in that area, he is.

However, the liberal rhetoric usually has to do with poverty levels and what not, and how African Americans make up a greater number of those in poverty, etc. Well, Sowell goes into more detail on his former points here...

"One of the things I have been falsely accused of many times over the years is advising blacks to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. But you can look through the 21 books, dozens of articles and hundreds of newspaper columns I have written without finding any such statement. That is because I am not in the business of giving advice to individuals and groups, but rather in the business of discussing public policy and trying to show where one policy is better than another.

It is considered the height of callousness to tell blacks to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. But the cold historical fact is that most blacks did lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps -- before their political rescuers arrived on the scene with civil rights legislation in the 1960s or affirmative action policies in the 1970s.

As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much.

The fact that an entirely different picture has been cultivated and spread throughout the media cannot change the historical facts. What it can do -- and has done -- is make blacks look like passive recipients of government beneficence, causing many whites to wonder why blacks can't advance on their own, like other groups. Worse, it has convinced many blacks themselves that their economic progress depends on government programs in general and affirmative action in particular."