Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Love it, love it, love it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

Vote Obama, says Brilala. Obey.

I sorta, kinda, get the message.  More of the same ain't any different than what we've got now.  At least that's what they are trying to say.  But I don't think it is even a good effort Bri.

I wish that Barak's campaign hadn't done this.  I really do. He's just not like this.  It's pretty emotional and not terribly logical.  And it is extremely negative.  Big Bummer.

Cindi

Barrak didn't do it Cindy. A fan did.

I still agree with the message. America can't afford a leader as divisive as Hillary Clinton after 8 years of having a war criminal in office. Obama all the way.

Bri

I'm slightly favoring Obama, but this (fan-spawned) ad does not suit him.  Because honestly, Hillary doesn't deserve this.  She hasn't been particularly innovative, but she's not responsible for the catastoph-k that that the Bush administration has created.

Let's keep it objective, please?

Really, any campaign for President is going to be divisive, that is what politics consists of today.  It's, after all, between two mostly opposite points of view, ignoring the middle ground for the polarizing pandering to the extremes. Certainly in the past two decades it has become pretty nasty at times.  I haven't settled on a candidate yet, though I still believe Al Gore won. 

As for Hillary; divisive?  George Wallace was divisive.  George Bush and Dick Cheney are divisive (and worse).  All candidates are going to be divisive to a certain extent, certainly in electioneering, usually followed by the plea to join together for the country's good.

As for candidates video advertising, it's just like all other video advertising - I don't believe a word of it.

Susan Kay   

Quote from: Brianna on March 05, 2007, 05:34:55 PM
Barrak didn't do it Cindy. A fan did.

I still agree with the message. America can't afford a leader as divisive as Hillary Clinton after 8 years of having a war criminal in office. Obama all the way.

Bri

i think she will carry 80% of feminist vote. bill's affair and her staying with him afterward will prohibit her from getting over 80% of the vote. hopefully feminists won't vote for her [because] she is woman. that would be like blacks voting for Barack Obama because he's black. i hope everyone listens and researches each of the candidate's positions and then decide.

I might consider Obama, but there would have to be a reason.  I mean, I don't know anything about him or his positions on any of the issues. I know where Hillary is going to be on the issues. I know who her constintuancy is.

It's a question of whether or not more people will come out to vote against the first woman president or if more will come out to vote against the first African-American president. It's a close call, but let's face it, bigotry is going to play a part whether the media talks about it or not.

To be honest, I will vote for the democratic canidate that I think has the best chance of winning. I just want the Republicans out. Anything would be better than more of this war and the high gas prices, deficit spending and the life of young Americans that goes with it.

It's too easy to spend the lives and limbs of other peoples kids. When anyone says this cause is worth dying for, I wonder if they would be willing to give thier kids? And if so? How sad that is.

No, if we could have the same economy, respect in the world, and use of military that we had under Bill, I would be quite happy with that. I think most others would too.

Love Always,
Elizabeth

Team?

lol. There is no 'I' in team.

I would consider Obama, but I will NOT vote for Hillary. I've seen enough and don't trust her.

So far my favorite is Kucinich. I like Clark, too. And if Feingold threw his hat in the ring, I'd probably vote for him.

Quote from: Brooke NY on March 09, 2007, 10:08:21 AM
...I will NOT vote for Hillary. I've seen enough and don't trust her.

Brooke, I don't trust her either.  Like I said elsewhere, too much zig zag in her.  But I would vote for her in the general election, if she makes it there, against any republican.

Bev

Every presidential election ever has been like Aliens vs. Predator.

Whoever wins, we lose.

~ Blair

Quote from: Blair on March 13, 2007, 02:11:22 AM
Every presidential election ever has been like Aliens vs. Predator.

Whoever wins, we lose.

~ Blair

True... Sadly, the joke that circulate about changing the national symbol to the condom has some merit, after all, you may feel safe, but you're still screwed.

At any rate, I defiantely do not trust Clinton... Look at the health care initiative the woman came up with (and come to Tennessee in the US if you want to see what happens if you try and use it...)... Although, I agree with a previous poster, I have no idea where Obama stands on issues, so, let's hear him spit it out... I'd hate to have to vote Republican because Clinton is the best the Dems can offer (that will be the day we *know* America is dead...)...

Quote from: Jbutler on March 14, 2007, 09:18:44 PM
At any rate, I defiantely do not trust Clinton... Look at the health care initiative the woman came up with (and come to Tennessee in the US if you want to see what happens if you try and use it...)... Although, I agree with a previous poster, I have no idea where Obama stands on issues, so, let's hear him spit it out... I'd hate to have to vote Republican because Clinton is the best the Dems can offer (that will be the day we *know* America is dead...)...

You can do as you please, really.  I never vote for either bipartisan candidate, I consider it a waste of my vote.  I vote green party.  My candidate may never get elected, but at least I know I didn't participate in the fallacy.

Why aren't all political parties allowed at the presidential debates?  Why are candidates allowed to spend money or take donations in campaigns?  Why isn't every candidate, from every party, allowed equal representation and voice?  This is a democracy, right?  Right?  Am I right?  All men and women created equal?  Liberty and justice for all?  Keyword, all?  As in everyone?

I could go on and on, but the fact remains that the system is a steaming pile of goat **** sprayed with expensive cologne.  A corrupted, rotting load of bull dressed up with fancy words.  Washington does not work for anyone but the people with the most Washingtons.  Makes sense, though, right?

Let us continue to watch movies about plucky, unlikely homeless men who become millionares.  Let us continue to justify everything our government does, no matter how close it dances to complete fascism, with the completely convincing argument "at least it's not a dictatorship."

Right.  This guy is killing my children, brothers and sisters in the name of his bank account and disguising it as progress.  Progression?  Progression towards what?  Ultimate mother****ing oblivion?  Pathetic.  Abhorrent.  Disgusting.

You can take your republicans, your democrats, and shove them back into the depraved hole they both crawled out of.

There is no progress with cowardice.

~ Blair

Quote from: Blair on March 15, 2007, 02:38:37 AM
Why aren't all political parties allowed at the presidential debates?  Why are candidates allowed to spend money or take donations in campaigns?  Why isn't every candidate, from every party, allowed equal representation and voice?

Unfortunately it's because the kid who owns the football makes the rules.  And right now, the two major parties own the football.

Quote
This is a democracy, right?  Right?  Am I right?

Actually, no.  This is a republic.  A true democracy, such as ancient Athens, the people gathered and voted directly on the issues.  In a republic, the people elect the people who vote on the issues and therein lies the rub.  Our electoral system has become American Idol.  We elect the people who sound the best, who are the best looking, the tallest without ever really knowing what they stand for.  Or else we vote for someone who reflects our own views on a single issue without even reflecting on what effect that person will have on other issues.  The best example of the latter, single issue voting is Bush.  The religious right voted for him because he's as narrow minded and bigoted as they are and look what that got us.

Bev

Correct, we live in a Republic.  I am not sure when the "we are a Democracy" roots took place but they are inaccurate.  They used to teach the difference in my grade school social studies, guess that longer happens.

If the country ever devolves into a democracy, pack your bags and run.  We are a minority and would be among the first to feel the sting of mob rule.

Quote from: LostInTime on March 15, 2007, 09:23:26 AM
Correct, we live in a Republic.  I am not sure when the "we are a Democracy" roots took place but they are inaccurate.  They used to teach the difference in my grade school social studies, guess that longer happens.

If the country ever devolves into a democracy, pack your bags and run.  We are a minority and would be among the first to feel the sting of mob rule.

It's why I asked the question.  I wasn't exactly sure, nor did I care, to be quite honest.  Whatever it is, it doesn't work.

It's wonderful that you said these things, though.  I think it an amazing thing that "democracy" is the tastiest buzz word of choice when bent politicians want to justify their next big coup or bloodbath.  We're spreading democracy!

But it's a republic!  Amazing!

And I wouldn't really worry so much.  If this was a true democracy, and it was required that everyone vote and obtain an education on every issue at hand, we'd be fine.  The majority of people are sympathetic, actually.  Close-minded stupidity is going out of style.

It's more of a liability for a politician to openly ally with the religious right than with the LGBT community, you know.

This is all just petty to me, though.  People sit around in suits and debate political philosophies and governments and policies while the basic, fundamental rights of most human beings around the globe are being neglected and outright stripped away.  You see to your species, then you get to crunch numbers.

The next fat person driving an SUV that I see is getting their tires slashed.  Probably.

I am underwhelmed and unimpressed.

~ Blair

I support Ron Paul for President.  He's in the House of Representatives, a Republican from Texas who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, the "Patriot" Act, the war in Iraq, opposes the "War on Drugs", opposes "gun control", opposes the death penalty, doesn't "bring home the bacon", was opposed by the national Republican party in the last election but won anyway, and is just about the only member of Congress who will vote against a bill just because he believes the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to enact such a bill.

You probably don't agree with everything he believes.  I know I don't.  But I still think he's a much better candidate than any other candidate out there.

Childoflight,

In my opinion, there might once again be a day where voting for a Republican, ANY REPUBLICAN,  could be a conscionable thing. It sure as FRACK is not right now.

There is good in this world, and there is evil. This is a party in the trall of Lucifer.They will tell any lie to seduce you, excuse any crime for their own end and don't give a frack about the soldiers being murdered in the Iraq War Crime.

Bri

That was creepy!   :icon_nervious:

Lucifer.....do you believe in him spacekat?  Ironically, Lucifer means "bringer of light"...not exactly what you'd associate with evil or the devil.  Boo!

tink :icon_chick:

I do beleive in Lucifer, and I believe he likes to shoot people in the face with a shotgun while hunting.

Quote from: Brianna on March 15, 2007, 08:37:23 PM
Childoflight,

In my opinion, there might once again be a day where voting for a Republican, ANY REPUBLICAN,  could be a conscionable thing. It sure as FRACK is not right now.

There is good in this world, and there is evil. This is a party in the trall of Lucifer.They will tell any lie to seduce you, excuse any crime for their own end and don't give a frack about the soldiers being murdered in the Iraq War Crime.

Bri

Do not judge Ron Paul on his party.  He has opposed this war from the start, and continues to say that he would bring the troops home as soon as possible.  His many years of principled voting convince me of his integrity.

Unfortunately, there will be people who cannot or do not read past "Republican from Texas."  That will hurt the best Presidential candidate I have seen in my (admittedly rather short) lifetime.

Don't be one of those people.

I find that sentences with instruction on how to feel and act are generally not condusive to female conversation. In fact, I feel they strongly push me away.

Owning a statement with a phrase like "in my opinion" is a wonderful tool, I think. It lets people with strong ideas claim their ideas as they own, yet brilliantly lets others choose to disagree. :) This is why I try my best to use this function of language.

Bri

Quote from: Brianna on March 15, 2007, 11:31:15 PM
I find that sentences with instruction on how to feel and act are generally not condusive to female conversation. In fact, I feel they strongly push me away.

Owning a statement with a phrase like "in my opinion" is a wonderful tool, I think. It lets people with strong ideas claim their ideas as they own, yet brilliantly lets others choose to disagree. :) This is why I try my best to use this function of language.

Bri

I avoid stating opinion, as it were.  I prefer state observations of reality.  Rather than saying, "Well I think such and such is this" I will say, "This such and such bull*** just ****ed an entire nation out of its independence/dumped toxic waste into a canal/killed massive amounts of civilians/lied to the public and anyone with a speck of common sense can blink twice, rub their eyes and see that this is completely unacceptable."

When you know the difference between right and wrong, 'arguments' become very simple affairs.

~ Blair

Quote from: Brianna on March 15, 2007, 11:31:15 PM
I find that sentences with instruction on how to feel and act are generally not condusive to female conversation. In fact, I feel they strongly push me away.

Owning a statement with a phrase like "in my opinion" is a wonderful tool, I think. It lets people with strong ideas claim their ideas as they own, yet brilliantly lets others choose to disagree. :) This is why I try my best to use this function of language.

Bri

OK then.

It bothers me when people judge a candidate I support not because they disagree with his positions on issues, nor because they dislike the character shown by his actions, but because they don't like the party he belongs to.

In fact, it offends me greatly when people say that other people, thousands or millions of people, are "in the thrall of Lucifer", based solely on a label that they apply to themselves, or that others apply to them.

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 16, 2007, 09:46:41 AM

OK then.

It bothers me when people judge a candidate I support not because they disagree with his positions on issues, nor because they dislike the character shown by his actions, but because they don't like the party he belongs to.

In fact, it offends me greatly when people say that other people, thousands or millions of people, are "in the thrall of Lucifer", based solely on a label that they apply to themselves, or that others apply to them.

Its called a "sweeping generalization".  It makes life a lot easier, since you no longer have to deal with many people individually.  Now you're dealing with a faceless, collective enemy with a single name, effectively requiring you to only have to pass judgement once, and not many times.  Almost everyone is guilty of this at some point in their life; some more than others.

I prefer to get to know people on an individual basis, personally.  It takes great personal fortitude for someone raised in a society entrenched in bigotry and ego to be able to do this.  I slip every once and a while, but am quick to correct myself.

Avoid knee-jerk reactions to words and appearances.  Listen and understand human beings on a deeper level than that.  Are there virtuous republicans?  Of course.  Are they the norm?  No, not really, but then again, does it even matter?  What this world needs is less superficial understanding, less labeling and imaginary line-in-the-sand drawing.  What we need to do is strip away all the frivolities of political discourse and get right down to the heart of the issue.  We are all human, the vast majority of us are incapable of wanton cruelty, and all of us just want to be happy, without exception.

I don't know about you, but people make me happy more than anything else.  It's the same for everyone, they just don't know it, or know how to appreciate it.  It's not their fault either, we don't teach human values in today's society.  We teach our children to value slips of paper, official documents and shiny badges.

I'll say it again.  This entire argument is completely asinine.  So long as artificial borders and categories exist, progress will be impeded.

~ Blair

Blair, you said a lot of things I agree with in there, but I disagree that the vast majority of people are incapable of wanton cruelty.  If anything, Milgram's obedience experiments would seem to suggest just the opposite.

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 16, 2007, 12:50:19 PM
Blair, you said a lot of things I agree with in there, but I disagree that the vast majority of people are incapable of wanton cruelty.  If anything, Milgram's obedience experiments would seem to suggest just the opposite.

You're wrong.  During the holocaust, gas chambers were implemented only because the firing squads lost their minds after killing so many rows of people every day.  Human beings cannot handle directly slaughtering their own kind.  It goes against our deeper instincts; species-wide surival, which is linked to compassion and justice.  You have to be literally insane to be able to go against these instincts, and there are very few of these sociopaths in the world, compared to the vast majority.

Americans, for example, can only rally behind a cause if they believe it is just.  Even if only a little.  Americans shout about freedom and democracy, because they want to be good people, but they don't really know how.  There is a Machiavellian minority that constantly deceives the good-intending majority into believing that whatever insidious plot they concoct is in the name of human progress.

In the end, they are just confused and twisted inside.  Most people will not stand for outright acts of aggression.  It takes a lot of detachment and delusion to make this possible.

The royal minority has lived in towers and spawned their successors, completely detached from reality, for thousands of years.  In order to begin true progress, we must bring everyone to the same level, and allow that human spirit to break free, redefining our objectives as a species and truly unlocking our potential.  It is only a matter of time before this occurs; instinct dicates it.

If the majority were wantonly cruel, the corrupt would need no means of deception to act.  In our world today, lies are a necessity in furthering the cause of greed and inhumanity.  Villains must wrap themselves in a false cloak of civility to succeed.  Brutes and dictators fall, ultimately, often at the jaws of a more cunning predator; the deceiver.

~ Blair

Quote from: Blair on March 16, 2007, 01:19:55 PM

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 16, 2007, 12:50:19 PM
Blair, you said a lot of things I agree with in there, but I disagree that the vast majority of people are incapable of wanton cruelty.  If anything, Milgram's obedience experiments would seem to suggest just the opposite.

You're wrong.  During the holocaust, gas chambers were implemented only because the firing squads lost their minds after killing so many rows of people every day.

Do you have a source for this?  It seems quite possible that it was just that gas chambers didn't waste ammunition.  In Rwanda, the Hutus seemed to have no problem using mostly machetes to kill 800,000 Tutsis in three months.

Besides, Milgram's experiments at least show that all that is needed for cruelty is a layer of indirection and an authority figure.  Layers of indirection are easy to add, and the end result is the same.

The Nazi party switched from beatings, mass shootings, and other assorted flavours of extermination to using CO2 and cyanide gasses in order to efficiently kill as many people as possible.  The problem with the shootings is that it took too long, did not allow the full extermination to be in a timely manner, and some people managed to survive.  The goal of the Nazis was total annihilation of the Jewish population and any they saw unfit to live (homosexuals, "useless eaters", etc).

However, making people do the work will eventually get to them.  That is why there were so many assassination attempts carried out by Germans.  I happened to see an interview with one ex-Nazi soldier who said once they found out what was going on (they had been fighting far away from home) they took steps to stop the war.  This particular person was chosen to be fully loaded up with explosives and when Adolf came around to see the new uniforms, he would detonate himself.  Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the Americans bombed an ammunition plant and Hitler was diverted from inspecting the new uniforms to the site of the bombing.  It was a very interesting interview.

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 16, 2007, 01:36:53 PM

Quote from: Blair on March 16, 2007, 01:19:55 PM

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 16, 2007, 12:50:19 PM
Blair, you said a lot of things I agree with in there, but I disagree that the vast majority of people are incapable of wanton cruelty.  If anything, Milgram's obedience experiments would seem to suggest just the opposite.

You're wrong.  During the holocaust, gas chambers were implemented only because the firing squads lost their minds after killing so many rows of people every day.

Do you have a source for this?  It seems quite possible that it was just that gas chambers didn't waste ammunition.  In Rwanda, the Hutus seemed to have no problem using mostly machetes to kill 800,000 Tutsis in three months.

Besides, Milgram's experiments at least show that all that is needed for cruelty is a layer of indirection and an authority figure.  Layers of indirection are easy to add, and the end result is the same.

Exactly.  That's not cruelty, though.  That's obedience to authority.  Wanton cruelty is killing and bringing pain to others for the mere sake of destruction.  Human beings cannot murder eachother without some manner of delusion.  You cannot have a species that is innately self-destructive; it doesn't make natural sense.  I see the goodness in so many hearts around me, but many of them have lost hope, and buy into the ridiculous notion that human beings are innately neutral or evil.  No, most human beings want to live and let live.  They want to do the right thing.

My proof?  My proof is reality.

As for my statement about the gas chambers, it was completely true.  The construction of large, impersonal death factories fragmented and detached the responsibility of the Germans involved.  "I didn't kill anyone, I just guarded the door."  "I didn't kill anyone, I just flipped the switch!"  We may be able to convince ourselves that ethnic cleansing or this sort of genocide might be for a 'greater good', but doing so renders us numb and empty, constantly questioning our own integrity.

I do not even see why you would argue about something like this.  It makes me ill.

I think I've derailed this thread far enough.  Human beings are innately good and compassionate, because we require delusions of morality to do terrible things.  That's all that needs to be understood.

~ Blair

Great!

Son of Satan is in office, and the Dems are cutting into each other already. So, the one time the Dems get to run against a non-incumbent, and they will screw it up ripping each other apart.

Just great!

If they were smart, they could have run Hillary and Obama together. Yeah, that sounds crazy, but it would have balanced the male against female, and the white against minority votes.

With the Dems in control of congress, electing a Dem pres. is the single best chance to get vital civil rights legislation passed in the next one to two presidential terms.

If the Dems cut each other up in the primaries, they will be easy pickings in the election.

Blair, I like the way you think.  I do believe that most people are good. Somehow we (as a society) get led by the nose into doing things that any single person would not do.

As for Hillary... I'm still taking a wait and see attitude.  I like Hillary. I really do. Whether she can pull it off or not is still up for grabs. whether I'll vote for her or not is still unknown.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on March 20, 2007, 07:44:51 PM
Blair, I like the way you think.  I do believe that most people are good. Somehow we (as a society) get led by the nose into doing things that any single person would not do.

Cindi

A person is smart.  People are stupid.

Here come the Men in Black!

Thank you for the acknowlegement, Cindi.  <3


~ Blair

Quote from: Blair on March 13, 2007, 02:11:22 AM
Every presidential election ever has been like Aliens vs. Predator.

Whoever wins, we lose.

~ Blair

I feel the U.S. election system is rigged to keep out any more than the two parties.  And I don't see how a choice between only two alternatives is any kind of a choice -- the possibilities are too limited, and choosing one of the two offered choices only reinforces the system.

I'd really like to see Instant Runoff Voting (http://www.instantrunoff.com/) implemented for national elections.  One neat effect is it puts a disincentive on mudslinging attack campaigning (such as this 'fan-created' mashup,) lest your antics get you ranked last on too many people's ballots and, even if you would have been close in the present system, you end up getting nudged out by another candidate who was ranked second on many more ballots because he or she left a bad taste in far fewer mouths.

Another nice feature of IRV is that you can have multiple candidates without anyone being a 'spoiler' and 'stealing' votes away from a higher-ranked candidate.  No one's vote for a spoiler is 'thrown away'.

Anyway, that's what I strongly feel.  And you may have an opinion which strongly disagrees with that >:D

Karen

Karen, that is a very interesting idea.  Hmmm... I'll have to roll that one around for a little while.

Ultimately, we still have the vote. So it is still possible to elect people we want. The trick is to get in at the base level to get people posted to lower level positions. That's where the candidates come from.

I'm glad that California has finally decided to have their primaries earlier.  In earlier years, our primaries had absolutely no bearing on the elections. Now, perhaps, that will change.

Cindi

Hi,

   I know this thread is winding down. I just want to say that I liked reading everyone's point of view.

   I vote for 3rd, 4th, or 5th party people when I have a chance to. I usually do it because they are trying to present solid ideas in most cases.

   I know I'll be busted for this, but, Brianna, did you mean to say that [republicans are a party] in the entrails of Lucifer?

   Now I run away. :icon_flower:
   

Obama > Clinton. Because Obama actually seems to be able to talk to people at a personal level that Hillary seems to miss. :(

[Ron] Paul > Giuliani. Because Paul is a strict constitutionalist, which means less government interference in personal and public life. And an end to unconstitutional war acts.

-- Bridget

Quote from: RebeccaFog on March 27, 2007, 01:46:18 PM
Brianna, did you mean to say that [republicans are a party] in the entrails of Lucifer?

No. I mean that the Republican party and the people that vote for them are, in my own opinion, serving at the behest of actual, swear to gods malevolent evil. As in, more people get genocided because of this vile and courupt party.

Bri

Brianna, remember, The Democratic Party has had more Presidents preside over the initiation of more wars than Republicans in US History. So I don't consider Brand Y to be better than Brand X. They're both crooks with a handful of exceptions in each party.

-- Bridget

That's fine. We respect all views here at Susans. I read a lot about people like you, and why you come to the conclusion both parties are equally bad while getting my polisci degree - so I won't try to argue.

I will say no Democrat ever started a war crime based off a pack of lies.

Bri

FDR lied about not knowing the attack on Pearl Harbor. The same when he was Secretary of the Navy during WW1 and claimed the he didn't know about the Luestania[sp?] having weapons aboard. Then we can compare that to Lincoln [first Republican President], who lied that he wasn't going to start a war with the southern states on his campaign, when he had one of his men approach then Colonel Robert Lee for a position in the army he was amassing.

My point on these comparisons? Both parties tripe, and it's best to abandon them for a better alternative. :3

-- Bridget

RID class 4. MILI.

Bri

Translation, please.  :o

-- Bridget

Quote from: Brianna on March 27, 2007, 05:08:30 PM
That's fine. We respect all views here at Susans. I read a lot about people like you, and why you come to the conclusion both parties are equally bad while getting my polisci degree - so I won't try to argue.

I will say no Democrat ever started a war crime based off a pack of lies.

Bri

Hi,

    Isn't every war a crime?   Honestly, to me, just the act of holding a weapon is a crime against humanity. I'm not joking. This is how I feel.


Regards,

Rebecca

I supose that depends on if you beleive in Just War Theory - which is just a theory. I don't, especially - but many wars are worse than others.

In my opinion there is no justification, no historical analogy, no play on words, no minimization, no convinient delusion, NOTHING that can remotly justify what the American Republicans have done in Iraq. I hope the genocided souls of the 650,000 visit every single Republican and make them feel what their hubris has caused.

Bri

Quote from: Brianna on March 27, 2007, 07:04:07 PM
I supose that depends on if you beleive in Just War Theory - which is just a theory. I don't, especially - but many wars are worse than others.

In my opinion there is no justification, no historical analogy, no play on words, no minimization, no convinient delusion, NOTHING that can remotly justify what the American Republicans have done in Iraq. I hope the genocided souls of the 650,000 visit every single Republican and make them feel what their hubris has caused.

Bri

   I agree with that.
   The republicans are backed by war machine corporations. They are making blood money from this disgusting war. I can't separate the corporations from the war anymore. It really does matter how you spend your money because it is all connected. I can't wait until corporate criminals have to pay thier dues just like the street rapists and murderers do.


Rebecca

Quote from: RebeccaFog on March 28, 2007, 08:09:22 AM
I can't wait until corporate criminals have to pay thier dues just like the street rapists and murderers do.

I could not agree more passionately or more strongly. You go go. ;)

Bri

Double true.

~ Blair

Blair,

what happs to the other avatar?

She is hot.  Reminds me of a gal I used to work with several years ago.

I look forward to seeing her pic. Could you bring 'er back??

But I really, really like this drawing, Thundra.

~ Blair

Quote from: Brianna on March 27, 2007, 05:08:30 PM
That's fine. We respect all views here at Susans. I read a lot about people like you, and why you come to the conclusion both parties are equally bad while getting my polisci degree - so I won't try to argue.

I will say no Democrat ever started a war crime based off a pack of lies.

Bri

Lyndon Johnson did, certainly.  And Vietnam killed many more on both sides than Mr. Bush's war in Iraq -- not that this justifies either of them.

As I have pointed out, Paul has opposed this war from the beginning and at every step.  I don't understand how you can lump him in with Bush and his kind.

I don't know how Attis feels, but I don't feel very respected when I'm accused of being "in the thrall of Lucifer" and dismissed as "people like you."  Have you been there, perhaps?

I respect all people in the forums. But my opinions don't include much symapthy for the party that gets elected by denying gay people rights.

Really, ChildofLight. It's cool. Vote for who you want. Hail Republicans, I'll give you a cheery mazel tov. I'm really not going to try to change your mind. My polisci degree has shown me science to prove it's useless to even try.

But I have no tolerance, no acceptance, no compassion, nothing for the republican party right now. Conservative estimates show that Republicans have enabled the genocide of 650,000. It's not partisanship, it's mass murder for a drunkard former cocaine adict and sociopath.

And it's not just Bush that has led to this mess. It's the ideas of that party. I really do think they're evil and their philosophy is murderous and selfish. And I really do think the people that vote for them are enabling a war crime. It gets me so angry to think about what they are doing.

If you can't agree with me on that, it's cool. But let's not try to debate it, either - because I'm not going to have my mind changed.

Bri

Ps- The reason I feel so strongly about this is I used to be one of you - and then it hit me one day that I was supporting something very evil.

We're arguing about nothing as far as the undeclared war in Iraq goes -- it looks to me like we're on the same side.  I agree that it needs to end, and I do not want those who started it to continue to govern.  No one of any party, as far as I have seen, wants to try to establish a democratic and limited government in Iraq -- if they want to keep the military there, they want to make a puppet government with a puppet dictator, no better than Saddam Hussein, but nominally on the side of the US, just like Hussein was for a long time. 

I don't know why I ever thought that it would be any other way, but I haven't thought that for a long time.

As for Ron Paul, I do not support him because he is a Republican -- in fact, I support him precisely because he is not like other Republicans.  I do not know of another Republican politican that I would vote for.  If not for him, I would probably be supporting some third-party candidate, most likely a Libertarian, in this election.

That is all.

Ron Paul is a former Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and party member. He selected Republican, I believe, to get elected. So that's just what the R is for, to get included into the little circle of D and R.

-- Bridget

Quote from: Attis on March 28, 2007, 10:34:14 PM
Ron Paul is a former Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and party member. He selected Republican, I believe, to get elected. So that's just what the R is for, to get included into the little circle of D and R.

-- Bridget

Correct.

    My opinion on why the Republican party seems so cruel and evil is that they are ruled by their fears and other irrationalities. For some reason, they attract a lot of people who have fears of one kind or another.

    Fear that brown people coming in from mexico are going to hurt us.
    Fear of other people's sexuality
    Fear of their own sexuality
    Fear of other people's gender identification
    Fear that they will 'lose' all they have to the forementioned people.
    Fear that they will have no say or power.
    Fear of social change within the world.
    Fear of economical change.
    Fear of other religions
    Fear of tolerance
    Fear of mederation
    Fear of being 'unsuccessful'
    Fear of redefining themselves in a meaningful way
    Fear of losing their european roots even though they shout "we're Americans"
    Fear of foreign ideas
    Fear of the God they worship
    Fear that all gains for other groups means that they will obtain some kind of loss
    Fear that if they don't collect money that they are worthless
    Fear that they will be redefined by others or become irrelevent as a group

   My personal belief is that there is a deficit within the personal evolution of a number of people's characters or minds.   These people react to most problems with irrational and unjustified actions that are fueled by fear and insecurity.  They will become brutal and cruel not only when they are cornered, but if they feel that they can get away with it.

   I swear that I can sense many types of souls in people. The ones most mystifying are those of republicans and republican types. I sense scared animals in them. Either a part of thier brains do not work or they never attempt to use the part that is rational and loving. Most people have souls that yearn to grow, but a lot of these 'people' who are in government positions now, are seriously stunted.

   And now, for the list that makes me believe what I wrote above.

   Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fires a bunch of people and lies about it. Why. What's wrong with truth?

   Bush lies about Iraq.

   Bush lies about his own integrity before the 1999 election

   Karl Rove can't just sit if front of the Senate and speak the truth.  Why?

   Gays are forced out of the Military.

   Bush still thinks the world revolves around "taxes"

   Arnold Swharzenegger owns Humvees

   Enron steals from its own employees. Why?

   Halliburton thrives from the war.

   The auto companies which refuse to adapt or change help fund the ghastly war machine, but are laying people off and talking about shutting down as if the whole entire world revolves around them.




   Innovation is a swear word to to people who have the condition that I described above.


Sorry for the length, hope I was on topic in some way, I have to run,


Peace,


Rebecca

I don\'t really know much about her, but mind you I\'m not american. Personally I don\'t care who the next president of America is as long as they leave Britain and Denmark alone!!

Fer, you can't even get the EUcrats to leave member states alone. So I wouldn't worry about the next Prez, I got a feeling there won't be a next one...  >:(

-- Bridget

Quote from: Fer on March 29, 2007, 08:39:20 AM
I don\'t really know much about her, but mind you I\'m not american. Personally I don\'t care who the next president of America is as long as they leave Britain and Denmark alone!!

   Maybe Hillary and Obama and McCain, and all of the other Major Politicians in America can run in Europe. At least then Americans could have some peace and the odd people who run for office can see how they play in a foreign land.

   Oh, and we wouldn't allow any of them back into the U.S.A. because we'll have become a utopian socialist paradise  ;D 

Groovy

Quote from: RebeccaFog on March 29, 2007, 08:14:47 AM

    My opinion on why the Republican party seems so cruel and evil is that they are ruled by their fears and other irrationalities. For some reason, they attract a lot of people who have fears of one kind or another.

    Fear that brown people coming in from mexico are going to hurt us.
    Fear of other people's sexuality
    Fear of their own sexuality
    Fear of other people's gender identification
    Fear that they will 'lose' all they have to the forementioned people.
    Fear that they will have no say or power.
    Fear of social change within the world.
    Fear of economical change.
    Fear of other religions
    Fear of tolerance
    Fear of mederation
    Fear of being 'unsuccessful'
    Fear of redefining themselves in a meaningful way
    Fear of losing their european roots even though they shout "we're Americans"
    Fear of foreign ideas
    Fear of the God they worship
    Fear that all gains for other groups means that they will obtain some kind of loss
    Fear that if they don't collect money that they are worthless
    Fear that they will be redefined by others or become irrelevent as a group

   My personal belief is that there is a deficit within the personal evolution of a number of people's characters or minds.   These people react to most problems with irrational and unjustified actions that are fueled by fear and insecurity.  They will become brutal and cruel not only when they are cornered, but if they feel that they can get away with it.

   I swear that I can sense many types of souls in people. The ones most mystifying are those of republicans and republican types. I sense scared animals in them. Either a part of thier brains do not work or they never attempt to use the part that is rational and loving. Most people have souls that yearn to grow, but a lot of these 'people' who are in government positions now, are seriously stunted.

   And now, for the list that makes me believe what I wrote above.

   Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fires a bunch of people and lies about it. Why. What's wrong with truth?

   Bush lies about Iraq.

   Bush lies about his own integrity before the 1999 election

   Karl Rove can't just sit if front of the Senate and speak the truth.  Why?

   Gays are forced out of the Military.

   Bush still thinks the world revolves around "taxes"

   Arnold Swharzenegger owns Humvees

   Enron steals from its own employees. Why?

   Halliburton thrives from the war.

   The auto companies which refuse to adapt or change help fund the ghastly war machine, but are laying people off and talking about shutting down as if the whole entire world revolves around them.




   Innovation is a swear word to to people who have the condition that I described above.


Sorry for the length, hope I was on topic in some way, I have to run,


Peace,


Rebecca

You are right on.

Humanity is currently a teenager approaching adulthood.  This teenager has a very large knife in its hands, and is dominated by conflicting emotions. 

Fear, however, is always our greatest enemy.  I intend to do something about it.

~ Blair