Printable View
i have no problem with people making good arguments... but i'm tired of pseudo politicians who can only repeat information.
i'm no stranger to the college scene... my classes are packed with self-proclaimed political revolutionaries who don't know who this samuel alito fellow is.
and just for the record i think bush is a tool. i think that economically he's retarded and socially he's inept.
Yaaaaaaay!Quote:
Originally posted by spiritofthewolf
look at the heat i started...lol...guess what people...I WENT POOPY...YAY!!!!! :D
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/1407/speced6ga.jpg
....Can you believe this is the best pic of Special Ed I could find on Google?
:|
How could you not be mad? wtf is Bush doing at Ghandis Memorial, this is an insult to Ghandi, a man who fought his life away for the Ideal of independece and non-violence from this kind of people(Bush), and besides insulting Ghandi, insulting the Indian culture to be terrorists at their own founder of peace memorial, WTF does Bush have to do there, he is a fucking killer!.Quote:
Originally posted by korothism
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5...97054063ll.jpg
Uproar scenes were witnessed in Lok Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament) yesterday over the US security personnel taking their sniffer dog close to Father of the nation, Mahatama Gandhi' Samadhi(cemetery) at Rajghat just before US President George W Bush's arrival there yesterday to pay his obeisance.
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2...10888630xk.jpg
What you think ? I dont think it as a problem. But my friends are very angry.[/b]Quote:
US President George W. Bush’s visit to Rajghat generated a controversy today after US secret service agents, who were accompanied by a sniffer dog of the K9 squad, checked the marble structure, leaving the staff of Gandhi Samadhi fuming but helpless.
This took place just before the US President arrived to pay his obeisance at the samadhi of Mahatma Gandhi. The staff was upset when US security personnel took their sniffer dog on the pathway around the memorial of the father of the nation. They said this was the first time a dog was brought so close to the memorial of the venerated figure.
Now I hate him more for insulting Ghandi.
----
Now, what do I think of this thread, first, I'm tired of responding to post of people who don't know what they are talking about and all they do is assume and bash. Second, on the liberal, conservative crap, I think the USs people need a new system of goverment that doesn't follow that crap, a new restructuration of the CIA and FBI, and the whole system, people over there have got to admit, get mad, and revolt that no matter what goverment they have(liberal, conservative) its the same crap on a different day.
What bugs me are people who have no clue what their talking about. That and people who hate bush so much they will accept anything anyone says about him, and there is a ton of them. Why are you so full of hate?
Anyone who calls Bush a nazi or say hes as bad as hitler or that hes a murderer or he eats babies or anything is a moron. The same goes for anyone who can't make an arguement without cursing.
There are clearly legitimate discussions, then there is just hateful bashing. The second only makes you look like a moron.
By the way Sortilegio you should think about what you just said. You hate bush because he went to show his respect to Ghandi? You hate bush because the secret service checked the area for bombs? Is that really a rational line of thought?
show his 'respect' to ghandi?.... he could show his respect for one of the greatest pacifists this world has ever known by desisting from being a murderous war-monger. otherwise he has no right to have a photo-op at the memorial to look good, and associate himself with someone who was a million times hte human being bush has ever been.Quote:
Originally posted by Alric
By the way Sortilegio you should think about what you just said. You hate bush because he went to show his respect to Ghandi? You hate bush because the secret service checked the area for bombs? Is that really a rational line of thought?
and the only reason they had to check the area for bombs is because bush felt the need to intrude somewhere he had no business being. him and his 'war on terror' are the antithesis of everything ghandi stood for.
maybe you should examine your own rationality...
i do not like those who swallow any negative information about bush wholesale regardless of its legitmacy either. however, perhaps they are not full of 'hate' so much as frustration, exasperation, and helplessness at watching a man like bush perpetuate violence and injustice in the world.Quote:
What bugs me are people who have no clue what their talking about. That and people who hate bush so much they will accept anything anyone says about him, and there is a ton of them. Why are you so full of hate? [/b]
if all one can do sometimes is call him a fuckin prick, there's nothing wrong with that...
Who are you to decide that? I didn't know people needed permission to show respect to someone.
A single and simple doubt:
Dont USA have an elctronic machine to detect bomb ? They should have used a machine instead of the dog at Gandhi samadhi.
You people should understand the difference between dog and cow in India.
But from the discussions of this thread I think that the presence Bush at Gandhi samadhi is the problem not the dog.
Its a culture thing they should of accounted for but it clearly wasn't meant to offend anyone.
who am i to decide my own opinions (which is all i gave)? why, the only person that matters as far as that is concerned, thank you :lol: .Quote:
Originally posted by Alric
Who are you to decide that? I didn't know people needed permission to show respect to someone.
i only felt the need to respond because your opinion is that sortilego needs to reexamine his 'rationality".
if you yourself were rational, you would realize that ghandi sought peace through non-violence, and bush has made it abundantly clear he seeks 'peace' through violence and killing. i will allow yourself to rationally examine the following quotes by ghandi and bush, and decide whether they were kindred spirits.
any rational person easily real-izes they represent completely different ideals. bush is a fraud for pretending to admire ghandi. he should stand proudly behind his policies of violence, and realize the words of ghandi himself condemn his actions in iraq, and the war on terror.
i will put a quote from ghandi in blue, and then a contradictory quote from bush in red.
"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. "
"Combat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland, and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein - and the people of Iraq are free"
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. "
"Our nation is somewhat sad, but we're angry. There's a certain level of blood lust, but we won't let it drive our reaction. We're steady, clear-eyed and patient, but pretty soon we'll have to start displaying scalps. "
" What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? "
"The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom"
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. "
"We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."
"I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."
"...you can't win a war if you don't believe in fighting."
i don't respect bush one iota, and i don't respect you if you feel that you can rationalize the above...bush and ghandi are polar opposites.
for bush to fraudlently pretend he "respects" ghandi is pathetic. their words are opposed, as well as their actions. for him to do a photo-op and leech off of ghandi's honour is disgraceful and hypocritical. he should proudly and completely stand behind his policies of war, violence, and agression, and not desecrate the memorial of ghandi with his presence.
who am i to decide that bush has no right to 'pay his respects' to ghandi? a rational human being... :roll:
First, I'm not full of hate, I hate Bush.Quote:
Originally posted by Alric
What bugs me are people who have no clue what their talking about. That and people who hate bush so much they will accept anything anyone says about him, and there is a ton of them. Why are you so full of hate?
Anyone who calls Bush a nazi or say hes as bad as hitler or that hes a murderer or he eats babies or anything is a moron. The same goes for anyone who can't make an arguement without cursing.
There are clearly legitimate discussions, then there is just hateful bashing. The second only makes you look like a moron.
By the way Sortilegio you should think about what you just said. You hate bush because he went to show his respect to Ghandi? You hate bush because the secret service checked the area for bombs? Is that really a rational line of thought?
Second, Bush IS a killer, he has started war, you are the one who sounds like a moron for not agreeing with that just for the pourpouse of contradict.
Third, Why does the second make me look like a moron? do I need to go into a whole historical class of the USs to confirm that what I'm saying is true? or do I have to stop assuming that the people who know what I'm refering to don't know?.
Four, Yes, I don't like Bush because of what he did, first off, he has no business doing at that memorial, its an insult to Ghandi and his IDEALS, I am a Ghandist, and I feel very insulted to see a man who makes war, a man who pushes for capitalism, a man who has done many things to the country where I am now , and has done many other things, who by far should be paying respect to Ghandi, if anything he should be apologysing.
It is a very rational thought; you obviously don't know how common sense and Ideological war are at hands at this little act. So if you are going to reply, you better do it with more sense and description than saying I'm a moron, because I can very well, as you have, insult you and leave it at that.
Edit: just saw the above post :P
Well made point, Asher. :goodjob2:
What a way to remeber ghandi, with hate.
I am sure you know a lot more about him than I do. I find it funny that you quoted him though "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. " So what do you do. Bush does something innocent enough as going to pay his respect and you take that as an insult. So the first reaction is to get even, insult him back.
You can get mad about us invading iraq if you want, I wont hold that against you. But why get so mad over something so stupid? In this case did he hurt anyone? Did the dog hurt anyone? I say, just let it go.
I really don't care if you don't like him or think hes a moron, or even think I am a moron. I just don't like seeing people driven by their hate. Even more so when a lot of it is misguided.
i found it hypocritical moreso than insulting. and it is my opinion you are misled if you think it bush was 'innocently' paying his respects. it was a calculated decision to garner support the way i see it. i wasn't getting even, i was pointing out his hypocrisy.Quote:
I am sure you know a lot more about him than I do. I find it funny that you quoted him though "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. " So what do you do. Bush does something innocent enough as going to pay his respect and you take that as an insult. So the first reaction is to get even, insult him back.[/b]
how could i get even with bush by writing something in a forum he will never read? the main point of my post was to get you to reexamine your assertion that bush is capable of paying his respects.
i was never holding on to anything but my respect for one of my heros, ghandi. he lived his life the way i desire to live mine, and i feel he is the type of man that will lead the world into lasting peace, not those like bush, who have used violence for thousands of years without success.Quote:
You can get mad about us invading iraq if you want, I wont hold that against you. But why get so mad over something so stupid? In this case did he hurt anyone? Did the dog hurt anyone? I say, just let it go.[/b]
i am completely calm as i write this. saddened more than anything else. perhaps you are the one that is mad at realizing you did not think deeply enough before you spoke.
there are forms of violence which are not physical. bush himself is quick to say that terrorism is primarily psychological. well, for bush to associate himself with ghandi is a psychological violence against that great pacifist's memory for me and many others...i am not responding with violence of my own....i am pointing out the violence i see. there is a profound difference.
misguided? i am driven by compassion for my fellow man (including bush and every other person on this earth). i am sure bush is truly sincere in some ways. perhaps he actually believes he can bring peace through violence. but i see that as a delusion that will only frustrate him. if he is truly seeking peace, he has only increased violence. if he is truly seeking to end terrorism, he is only giving fuel for the fires of hatred by using terrorism himself.Quote:
I really don't care if you don't like him or think hes a moron, or even think I am a moron. I just don't like seeing people driven by their hate. Even more so when a lot of it is misguided.[/b]
my main point was that he can show his respects to ghandi by ceasing his army's occupation of iraq, and ceasing to perpetuate violence by force.
otherwise he is a hypocrite, plain and simple.
if i was not frustrated and opposed to actions of a man who started a war which has claimed thousands of lives from many nationalities, i would not be a compassionate human being. and if i stood by without a word while that same man mocks the memory of a man who fought hate with non-violence, i would not be actively continuing in the path which ghandi manifested.
perhaps you should ask yourself what emotion motivates you to write these words? why don't YOU just let it go, when you seem to be defending a man who does not deserve to be defended?Quote:
But why get so mad over something so stupid? In this case did he hurt anyone? Did the dog hurt anyone? I say, just let it go[/b]
and yes, bush did hurt someone by mocking ghandi's memory. myself, who strives to have a compassionate heart...there, i have made myself completely vulnerable...tell me that i am "stupid" for interpeting bush's action in the way i have. i will not hate you.
i will be saddened that deep down you know i am right, and that bush was never really trying to 'pay respects', but only deceive and manipulate, as he has the past years, and continues to do as you read this...
i love you as a human being. i love bush as a human being. i love and respect ghandi as a human being who lived as the type of person all people should emulate in his compassion for ALL humanity...
only you can decide what ideals you will pursue. you obviously do not hold the same as i do, or you would not see my opinions the way you do. i cannot help that, and have done all i feel i can do to speak to the part deep within you which real-izes that all humans are fundamentally equal, and when we use violence we only harm ourselves. when we use deceit, we only deceive ourselves.
peace and love...
The Bush Family are billionaires, and largely because they have been the representatives for Arab Oil Money to the WASP and Masonic Business Community in America.
Really, the Bush's should have been made to register as Agents of a Foreign Power.
You even said it. Isn't it possible that he believes what he is doing is right? Isn't it possible that he took what he thinks are the best course of action for the US? He might be wrong, but does that make him evil? Isn't it possible that just like ghandi he only wants peace in the world, that maybe he has a great deal of respect for ghandi, that maybe he really went there to pay his respect to him? Isn't it possible that he wants to live the way ghandi said, but he is to weak too?Quote:
Originally posted by Asher+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Asher)</div>I guess that would be my main point. That he is capable of paying his respect. I can't say I know his reasons for it, but I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt in cases like that.Quote:
the main point of my post was to get you to reexamine your assertion that bush is capable of paying his respects.
[/b]
Maybe I am wrong but I believe in people. I can't read peoples mind. If someone makes a mistake I would like to believe they really made a mistake and didn't plan it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Asher
" i am sure bush is truly sincere in some ways. perhaps he actually believes he can bring peace through violence.
When your in position of power and you have to defend an entire country, do you think the answer are always simple? When you see someone like Saddam doing horrible things to people and you know you can stop it, is it easy to sit by and do nothing? Not everyone can live like gandhi, But that doesn't make them evil.
We do agree on some things. Such as believing that all people are fundamentally equal. Unlike you however, I can't judge what is in Bush's heart. I can't assume the worse that he was only there to mock ghandi. I might not agree with Bush, but I have never seen anything which would lead me to believe he is an evil man. That's why I said I don't care if you call him stupid, or misguided, you can even try to argue he is arrogant or stubborn. I don't think he is evil though.
Maybe I am misguided, but like I said in the top of my post. I have to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think everyone has good in them, so its wrong to assume to the worse because you dont like them.
and my main point is that he is NOT capable of paying his respect as he is now. if he respected ghandi, he would respect the ideal which defined ghandi-non-violence. and thus cease using violence himself.Quote:
I guess that would be my main point. That he is capable of paying his respect. I can't say I know his reasons for it, but I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt in cases like that.
Maybe I am wrong but I believe in people. I can't read peoples mind. If someone makes a mistake I would like to believe they really made a mistake and didn't plan it. [/b]
however, he respects his ideal more than he respects ghandi's.
to me using violence is "evil". thus, bush is evil. ghandi sought peace in non-violence, and thus is "good".
to respect is to honour. to feel a kinship. to recognize a quality in another that we believe is better than that quality's opposite.
if ghandi was alive and opposed the war in iraq (which he certainly would) bush would not 'pay his respects'.
ghandi would be included in this statement bush made concerning the (violent) war on terror..."whoever is not with us, is against us".
i guess you have a pretty loose definition of 'paying one's respects'. i do not. and i do not pretend to respect bush, or yourself for trying to 'rationally' argue that bush is presently someone other than a violent (evil) killer. i do respect you for believing he can potentially become a non-violent human being.
semantics are really insurmountable in conversations at points such as this.
nothing you can say will change my mind, and i can say nothing more to prompt you to examine your own opinion in this matter. we should both spend our time doing somethig besides banging our heads against the wall? :wink:
Does anyone take into consideration the people who represented our country the term and a half before the current president.? Think about that.
I would bet most of you liked our current president prior to the current national security issues.
These issues were present long before Mr. George Bush got into office.
Because there were no current threats at the time ( that were publicly known) as there are today, people become spineless and jump on the band wagon and point the finger at the figure head.
What are you implying? That it's stupid to hate bush? There are enough reasons. Just about everything he does is a good reason to hate him.Quote:
Originally posted by Alric
What bugs me are people who have no clue what their talking about. That and people who hate bush so much they will accept anything anyone says about him, and there is a ton of them. Why are you so full of hate?
Anyone who calls Bush a nazi or say hes as bad as hitler or that hes a murderer or he eats babies or anything is a moron. The same goes for anyone who can't make an arguement without cursing.
There are clearly legitimate discussions, then there is just hateful bashing. The second only makes you look like a moron.
By the way Sortilegio you should think about what you just said. You hate bush because he went to show his respect to Ghandi? You hate bush because the secret service checked the area for bombs? Is that really a rational line of thought?
I'll just stick with 'He started a war -with no real/the wrong reason- that killed thousands and brought chaos to a country, pretending to bring freedom. '
I could give you a list of other things wrong about bush, but If I am done, some one else, hopefully not another stupid republican, will be in office.
Unless Bush uses article 39, like hitler, and takes power. Good think a part of america is not That stupid, and they see that bush sucks hairy donkey balls.
EDN. <3
Edit: Clinton fucking rocks. Now that was a president to be proud of. And yes, the president has a penis and balls aswell. Wow. Like every fucking man (and some woman) in america. Clinton > bush.
I believe in the Clinton administration it was considered the national SUCKurity.
Now whether you want to apply that to his personal life or his political one, they are both corresponding.
[quote]I believe in the Clinton administration it was considered the national SUCKurity.
Now whether you want to apply that to his personal life or his political one, they are both corresponding.
What did clinton did wrong? There sure as hell where alot more jobs when clinton was in office. Bush only brought more work in 2 sectors: The amry, and the body-bag making sector.
The only jobs he created were blow jobs.Quote:
Originally posted by Neruo
What did clinton did wrong? There sure as hell where alot more jobs when clinton was in office. Bush only brought more work in 2 sectors: The amry, and the body-bag making sector.
He did nothing!! That is the problem. He road the high of the economy. And like any economy it will not last for long. Not at that rate.
Has the employment rate not gone up? They have implemented changes that were necessary to keep our economy strong.
I do not agree with a lot of the current administration's decisions. But at least give me a reason to think it would have been different had democrats been in office.
Remember...It was a unanimous decision from both parties to use force in Iraq.
War always helps the economy as well as tax cuts. I hate to even think where the economy would be if Mr. Clinton were still in office.
[quote]
The only jobs he created were blow jobs.
He did nothing!! That is the problem. He road the high of the economy. And like any economy it will not last for long. Not at that rate.
Has the employment rate not gone up? They have implemented changes that were necessary to keep our economy strong.
I do not agree with a lot of the current administration's decisions. But at least give me a reason to think it would have been different had democrats been in office.
Remember...It was a unanimous decision from both parties to use force in Iraq.
War always helps the economy as well as tax cuts. I hate to even think where the economy would be if Mr. Clinton were still in office.
I think it would be better. I don't even think there would be a war if clinton was still in office. If the president starts talking about how saddam is evil, and ties him to 9/11, what he had nothing to do with, most americans follow that thought.
Opposing the war would be political suicide. I mean they fucking renamed french fries to freedom fries when france was against the war. When the war started, most people did want a war, at least the media did.
Allso, it's a fact republicans rape poor people. Democrats too, but a bit less. Black people voting for bush is ironic. Bush cuts taxes on rich people too. The only solution to the increasing number of poor people is to distribute the wealth. Bush doesn't do that, bush bans canadian medicine so american companies can make more money. Framacutic companies spend 2 times more money on advertising then on developement of new medicine. And big companies don't care about a medicine against aids. They care about a fucking little pill that makes emo kids happy.
But even then, fucking ' land of the free' if you can vote on 2 parties, controlled by the rich elite of america. It's impossible for a normal person to ellect as president. America isn't a demecraty, america can make a choise what dictator they want every 4 years.
They choose the one that looks best and acts cool. Becouse America is so Fucking Awsome.
Okay, Neuro, I agree with most of what you said, though perhaps not the cynical and rather apathetic tone of your diatribe... But yeah, good points, so I'll make a rant of my own... hehehehe...Quote:
Originally posted by Neruo
I think it would be better. I don't even think there would be a war if clinton was still in office. If the president starts talking about how saddam is evil, and ties him to 9/11, what he had nothing to do with, most americans follow that thought.
Opposing the war would be political suicide. I mean they fucking renamed french fries to freedom fries when france was against the war. When the war started, most people did want a war, at least the media did.
Allso, it's a fact republicans rape poor people. Democrats too, but a bit less. Black people voting for bush is ironic. Bush cuts taxes on rich people too. The only solution to the increasing number of poor people is to distribute the wealth. Bush doesn't do that, bush bans canadian medicine so american companies can make more money. Framacutic companies spend 2 times more money on advertising then on developement of new medicine. And big companies don't care about a medicine against aids. They care about a fucking little pill that makes emo kids happy.
But even then, fucking ' land of the free' if you can vote on 2 parties, controlled by the rich elite of america. It's impossible for a normal person to ellect as president. America isn't a demecraty, america can make a choise what dictator they want every 4 years.
They choose the one that looks best and acts cool. Becouse America is so Fucking Awsome.
The two-party system in America, at the very most, only keeps up the appearance of democracy... but then again, other democratic systems do not fare much better.
For instance, in New Zealand, we have MMP (basically, multi-party coalitions tend to form most of our governments). In this system, the doctrine of the mandate (ie, that a party is "obliged" to keep its election promises wherever reasonably practiceable) is paid lip-service at best, and at worst, is openly flouted. Examples of parties going back on their word over specific or general policy issues, or even forming coalitions in direct violation of election promises to the contrary, are so numerous I won't even bother going into them.
Democracy, unfortunately, is a lot like communism. It is a system created and maintained by idealists, where the reality and practice of the concept rearely comes close to the ideal. The result is a grossly inefficient system, with a top-heavy and often in-fighting beaurocracy, which only ever very broadly can be seen to represent the desires of its citizens.
Similarly to Tsarist Russia, where "Autocracy" was seen to be the natural culmination of civilised human political society, modern western Democratic societies likewise see "democracy" as the ultimate and superior form of government.
In my opinion, however, Democracy is just another step in the evolution of political culture...
I hope you forgive me my rant! :) But yeah, that's my thoughts on this issue.