Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on October 05, 2006, 08:57:11 am
-
http://www.worldcantwait.net/
Anyone else doing it? People here are :D
-
What an idiot.
No one should get special treatment. I hope everyone that does this gets fired/suspended from school.
-
What an idiot.
No one should get special treatment. I hope everyone that does this gets fired/suspended from school.
Wow, you have no idea how much you disgust me right now. In all honesty, i've got no strong feelings one way or the other regarding this 'walkout' business, but your attitude towards it just invites me to loathe you. Weird.
But enough of that unsightly business. While their hearts are most certainly in the right place, things like this never gain enough momentum to mean anything. Keep in mind a good portion of Americans don't even have internet access, and even more a too stupid to use it.
-
What an idiot.
No one should get special treatment. I hope everyone that does this gets fired/suspended from school.
Oh well. That's your opinion.
-
see the problem herein lies in the fact that i get paid to work, noones paying me to protest. seriously, you dont see me out there pickeing agains human existance do you. standing on a soap box urging people to burn down their houses and drink the coolaid. ****, bush is one of the few presidents who would actually launch nukes and start ww3, we should be letting him do his thing. i dont like hippies, lest one of them pays me a minimum of $30 an hour to picket.
-
Well some people went, not a lot though. The problem here is that since we're a territory, we can't vote, so it doesn't matter anyway. I'm just going to go through the last few classes of the day, myself.
-
Meh, I have a Nietzsche exam. That's too much fun to walk out of.
-
Well some people went, not a lot though. The problem here is that since we're a territory, we can't vote, so it doesn't matter anyway. I'm just going to go through the last few classes of the day, myself.
Where are you from Guam? Puerto Rico?
-
United States Virgin Islands :)
-
United States Virgin Islands :)
appropriate :D
-
Don't antagonize me Kazan, I don't do it to you (by admin request).
-
Im sorry, but I feel that the best way to counter this government is through education, and I see a "walkout day" as a hinderence to that. Nothing is accomplished by missing school, or work, other than endangering your grades or financial future. Bush certainly doesn't care. And he's on his last term anyway, so it's not like he has reelection to worry about.
I really dont see the point in it.
-
I'm guessing the point of it would be to make the politicians realize that there are a lot of people who don't like Bush and his policies.
The problem is, there's no real "shut them down until we get this" situation, which is what I think it would really take.
-
What an idiot.
No one should get special treatment. I hope everyone that does this gets fired/suspended from school.
Wow, you have no idea how much you disgust me right now. In all honesty, i've got no strong feelings one way or the other regarding this 'walkout' business, but your attitude towards it just invites me to loathe you. Weird.
But enough of that unsightly business. While their hearts are most certainly in the right place, things like this never gain enough momentum to mean anything. Keep in mind a good portion of Americans don't even have internet access, and even more a too stupid to use it.
Civil disobedience is still disobedience.
-
And disobedience is counter-revolutionary!
-
But it isnt disobedience, it's just negligence. And we're only hurting ourselves. Symbolic gestures mean nothing in this society.
-
It's not civil disobediance, it's protesting for crying out loud. About the only people who aren't allowed to participated in protests are miltary personnel and public service workers.
-
Civil disobedience is still disobedience.
That doesn't work unless you have the image to go with it.
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/wcower7.gif)
-
I'm guessing the point of it would be to make the politicians realize that there are a lot of people who don't like Bush and his policies.
I'm pretty sure just about everyone knows that there are a lot of people who don't like Bush and his policies.
-
But, honestly, walk outs is far better than the kooks that descend on IMF Meetings.
But typically, civil dissadence don't force police to beat the **** out of them. if they do they are practicing police brutality.
-
Well, I heard nothing about this until all my classes were over for the day.
-
Don't antagonize me Kazan, I don't do it to you (by admin request).
Perhaps he means you haven't been ****ed by the government yet!
-
Guys, seriously, just get a lone gunman.
I mean if the commun...err...terrorists can turn people into Muslim fanatics, surely it shouldn't be too hard for you guys to go brainwash some trailer-park mook into taking a semi-automatic to Bush.
-
It’s not enough to survive. One has to be worthy of surviving.
-
It’s not enough to survive. One has to be worthy of surviving.
Philosophical Rhetorical nonsense. Being 'worthy' is entirely subjective and hinges on the situation at hand, and this situation most definintely requires a few hired guns. It wouldn't change much, but it might scare the [rest of the] administration into taking the consequences of their actions into consideration. You've just got to remember to make it as little to do with terrorism as possible, or you're just playing right into their hands.
-
It's not nonsense.
Killing Bush would solve nothing in USA's current political leadership situation. You would just have that another Dick in the throne. You would have to get rid of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice and quite a plethora of other similarly thinking people - in fact if you start on that road, you'll have to take out everyone whose policy does not appeal to you, and it'll never end.
The current leaders of US need to be changed, but the change must come from the people in elections OR as a situation that forces the current leaders to resign.
I could also accept the senate and government being dissolved and new elections taking place sooner than planned, but that's about the most radical thing I would be ready to accept, and even that's on the limits.
Either that, or a cylon agent to shoot the man dead on his/her own incentive.
That said, I'm a little dissapointed that you didn't get the reference.
-
Philosophical nonsense.
I dream of a world where the word "philosophical" is no longer employed willy-nilly to describe anything that sounds platitudinous.
-
What an idiot.
No one should get special treatment. I hope everyone that does this gets fired/suspended from school.
Heaven forbid should anyone, you know, actually use their rights to protest against an obviously corrupt and incompetant government. Wait, as aldo said, that would be counterrevolutionary.
-
Killing Bush would solve nothing in USA's current political leadership situation. You would just have that another Dick in the throne. You would have to get rid of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice and quite a plethora of other similarly thinking people - in fact if you start on that road, you'll have to take out everyone whose policy does not appeal to you, and it'll never end.
Well, if you just wipe out Bush in an unspectacular fashion, of course it'd be pointless. If you did it in a fashion that would inspire fear into the rest of the neocon leadership, it might just be enough to stall their plans long enough for them to get voted out of power.
The current leaders of US need to be changed, but the change must come from the people in elections OR as a situation that forces the current leaders to resign.
But it's pretty damn obvious that the system doesn't work. Given where the US has been heading as of late, it'd be an absolute miracle if someone competent managed to get into power, and even then it'd be nigh-on impossible to overcome the greed and corruption that has seeded itself in the US Government these past years and restore the once-great image of the nation. Thus, the people simply can't wait for "the system" to somehow succeed where it has never succeeded before, and therefore must take matters into their own hands.
Extreme times call for extreme measures, to use an old chestnut.
That said, I'm a little dissapointed that you didn't get the reference.
Yeah, I noticed it was from Galactica. Resurrection Ship Part 2, if i'm not mistaken. Adama choosing not to give Starbuck the order to execute Cain.
I dream of a world where the word "philosophical" is no longer employed willy-nilly to describe anything that sounds platitudinous.
Yeah, I know. I meant to say "rhetorical nonsense", as in expressing my opinion of Herra said, which he expressed with a sci-fi quote, with a sci-fi quote of my own. Alas, I had a memory lapse and cocked up the quote.
-
The consequences of a Bush assasinaton would simply be oppression in the name of 'liberty' and 'security'.
-
Philosophical nonsense.
I dream of a world where the word "philosophical" is no longer employed willy-nilly to describe anything that sounds platitudinous.
You know what you should also dream of?
You should dream of going back to 1950, when "willy-nilly" was last used.
-
Philosophical nonsense.
I dream of a world where the word "philosophical" is no longer employed willy-nilly to describe anything that sounds platitudinous.
You know what you should also dream of?
You should dream of going back to 1950, when "willy-nilly" was last used.
?
-
You know what you should also dream of?
You should dream of going back to 1950, when "willy-nilly" was last used.
lol man u so edgy
-
The consequences of a Bush assasinaton would simply be oppression in the name of 'liberty' and 'security'.
As i'm not an American citizen, that's a risk i'm willing to take!
-
As not an american citizen, Bush doesn't really affect you. [Unless you live in Iraq]
-
:lol: Yeah the most powerful man in the world doesn't effect him...
-
Tell how it does then?
-
as the US economy tanks, it'll have quite the ripple effect actually.
-
Everything affects everything. Our universe is a pulsating stream of interconnected events. Individual cause/effect relationships that we isolate are but tiny windows into the infinite engine of the Eternal Return.
BlackDove: Don't think I'm not onto your funny business, you young whipper-snapper.
-
Tell how it does then?
Empires make the world go round. Any decisions Bush makes effect everyone since they will have ripple effects across borders. From the global conflict against Islamic extremists that he set back by invading Iraq, to the economic effects that Turambar pointed out.
-
Then in that case, someone completely fouling up could be your hero if you are benefitted indirectly.
as the US economy tanks, it'll have quite the ripple effect actually.
That might be related to Bush, but it is also related to long standing trade policies and the dependence upon foreign energy sources.
-
As not an american citizen, Bush doesn't really affect you. [Unless you live in Iraq]
I call bollocks on that statement.
(for example; the woefully useless yet horribly intrusive airport security of the US, that requires facial id and fingerprints yet fails to detect a metal rectangular box sitting in my trouser pocket through 2 pat-down searches)
-
That might be related to Bush, but it is also related to long standing trade policies and the dependence upon foreign energy sources.
His fiscal policies leave much to be desired though.......
-
That might be related to Bush, but it is also related to long standing trade policies and the dependence upon foreign energy sources.
His fiscal policies leave much to be desired though.......
Oh I agree, but the climbing defecit has been going on for decades.
-
BlackDove: Don't think I'm not onto your funny business, you young whipper-snapper.
Henny-Penny I'm in trouble now!
-
Oh I agree, but the climbing defecit has been going on for decades
Yes, but he has done nothing but deliberately make things worse.
"Hey, let's cut taxes on the rich and get into an expensive new war that will drag on for years and years with no end in sight to cut the deficeit"
What the hell kind of logic is that?
-
What kind of logic is involved in a 70% top tax bracket? I completely admit, Bush is a horrible president and possibly the worst ever with LBJ coming in on a close second. Point is that both of these parties wish to take things to an extreme. Clinton and the republican congress had an opportunity to pass a balance budget admendment but did not. They did make progress and the market reacted positively to those changes. But, I would be careful not to simply make what Bush is doing to be deliberate and retarded in the light of what others have done or not done.
Yes the war in Iraq is useless and a waste in resources, but saying it was conducted and started to **** the economy is stupid.
-
It was probably started to rescue your economy actually. Nothing like a boost to the good old arms industry to keep the wheels of industry turning. Unfortunately it's impossible to replace soldiers as easily as Black Hawks and Hummers.
-
Yes the war in Iraq is useless and a waste in resources, but saying it was conducted and started to **** the economy is stupid.
What exactly do you mean by "conducted"?
I never said it was ****ing up the economy, but it does put a huge drag on the governments bottom line, which does effect other things. It won't hurt the economy too much unless large numbers of people need to be sent there who would otherwise be doing their normal jobs.
Clinton and the republican congress had an opportunity to pass a balance budget admendment but did not.
Clinton wanted to use it for something useful like paying down the debt (which hedid to some degree), but the Republican congress just wanted to piss it away on tax cuts.
-
What an idiot.
No one should get special treatment. I hope everyone that does this gets fired/suspended from school.
Wow, you have no idea how much you disgust me right now. In all honesty, i've got no strong feelings one way or the other regarding this 'walkout' business, but your attitude towards it just invites me to loathe you. Weird.
But enough of that unsightly business. While their hearts are most certainly in the right place, things like this never gain enough momentum to mean anything. Keep in mind a good portion of Americans don't even have internet access, and even more a too stupid to use it.
Civil disobedience is still disobedience.
Sure, that's the whole point. If they really think the issue is that important to have to walk out of school or work and are willing to suffer the consequences, then let them. I'm not willing to say that it should be condoned or opposed by the school either.
As not an american citizen, Bush doesn't really affect you. [Unless you live in Iraq]
If it were any other country, I would say yes, but the US is just simply too influential for that statement to be true. What the US administration does has a drastic effect on one area of the world or another.
Yes the war in Iraq is useless and a waste in resources, but saying it was conducted and started to **** the economy is stupid.
I can agree on that. While I believe the war is being mismanaged, I don't believe that even Bush would actually sabotage the American economy intentionally. There's simply no logic at all behind it; a bad economy means no money for Halliburton, and no more money for the war.
What the hell kind of logic is that?
It's not exactly news that administrations do nonsensical things; why did Clinton, for example, hardly respond to the '93 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, or the Kenya/Tanzania bombings? Not that I'm criticizing Clinton in particular; I just threw that out there for the sake of example.
-
well, if you were a terrorist, how would you feel if when you bombed something, you barely got any response?
-
Yes the war in Iraq is useless and a waste in resources, but saying it was conducted and started to **** the economy is stupid.
What exactly do you mean by "conducted"?
I never said it was ****ing up the economy, but it does put a huge drag on the governments bottom line, which does effect other things. It won't hurt the economy too much unless large numbers of people need to be sent there who would otherwise be doing their normal jobs.
Clinton and the republican congress had an opportunity to pass a balance budget admendment but did not.
Clinton wanted to use it for something useful like paying down the debt (which hedid to some degree), but the Republican congress just wanted to piss it away on tax cuts.
Not quite, clinton had a democractically controlled congress, and it wasn't until the republicans took control that cuts in spending were made. There is nothing wrong with tax cuts so much as they are used properly. But raising taxes on the middle class is kinda disruptive and counter productive. The thing about both parties in this country is that they can't display any fiscal responcibility. They all do earmarks to keep their jobs and accept campaign donations for access.
-
It's not exactly news that administrations do nonsensical things; why did Clinton, for example, hardly respond to the '93 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, or the Kenya/Tanzania bombings?
What makes you so sure that he didn't do anything? Or do you mean that he "hardly did anything" because he did not go off and invade Iraq?
There is nothing wrong with tax cuts so much as they are used properly. But raising taxes on the middle class is kinda disruptive and counter productive.
Considering how large the national debt has gotten, lowering taxes like what Bush did only makes the problem worse.
-
well, if you were a terrorist, how would you feel if when you bombed something, you barely got any response?
Sure, full-on invasions of other countries aren't even what I'm calling for though. All I'm asking is why Clinton didn't attempt to disrupt the terror networks after the first or second attack. There's such a thing as not being shaken by terrorists, but there's also such a thing as bending over and taking it. A few missiles into Afghanistan and the Sudan after the embassy bombings isn't going to disrupt a terror network, nor is arresting a few people responsible for a bombing and investigating no further. I'm not debating whether Clinton did anything; he did, but he just didn't do enough.
-
Somalia, that's why.
-
Sure, full-on invasions of other countries aren't even what I'm calling for though. All I'm asking is why Clinton didn't attempt to disrupt the terror networks after the first or second attack.
What makes you so sure that he didn't?
-
What an idiot.
No one should get special treatment. I hope everyone that does this gets fired/suspended from school.
I'm in total agreement with you on this one. If I pulled a stunt like that, not only would I lose my job, it would keep me from working anywhere else as most places call up your previous employers to get info on you. Even though I'm a hard worker and bust my ass everyday I have to work, doing something as stupid as this would be unacceptable. You call me ignorant all you like, this is what I think and I'm sticking to it.
-
well, if you were a terrorist, how would you feel if when you bombed something, you barely got any response?
Sure, full-on invasions of other countries aren't even what I'm calling for though. All I'm asking is why Clinton didn't attempt to disrupt the terror networks after the first or second attack. There's such a thing as not being shaken by terrorists, but there's also such a thing as bending over and taking it. A few missiles into Afghanistan and the Sudan after the embassy bombings isn't going to disrupt a terror network, nor is arresting a few people responsible for a bombing and investigating no further. I'm not debating whether Clinton did anything; he did, but he just didn't do enough.
Please list all the CIA and other covert government and military agencies anti-terrorism actions up to 2001. Thanks.
-
The consequences of a Bush assasinaton would simply be oppression in the name of 'liberty' and 'security'.
As i'm not an American citizen, that's a risk i'm willing to take!
Yes, lets all assasinate all of the American goverment. That would really help everyone out and not cause large-scale riots and anarchy in the U.S' states and territories. ::)
-
I totally can't see the entire US rioting
-
With what everyone's been saying about us, I can see that. You'd think we would be monkeys or something.
-
Sure, full-on invasions of other countries aren't even what I'm calling for though. All I'm asking is why Clinton didn't attempt to disrupt the terror networks after the first or second attack.
What makes you so sure that he didn't?
Because four commercial airlines were hijacked in 2001, resulting in nearly 3000 deaths.
Please list all the CIA and other covert government and military agencies anti-terrorism actions up to 2001. Thanks.
What possible purpose could this serve? Fact is, 9/11 still happened, meaning something went wrong somewhere. Could be that Bush Sr. didn't disarm the Taliban, or that Clinton didn't capitalize enough during his eight years to stop the terror networks that had repeatedly attacked American targets.
The number doesn't matter. The fact is they obviously did nothing, as al-Qaeda still managed to organize one of the attack. Make of that what you will, but I still hold Clinton majorly responsible for not doing enough to prevent it.
-
What exactly did anyone do to "do enough to prevent it"?
-
Please list all the CIA and other covert government and military agencies anti-terrorism actions up to 2001. Thanks.
What possible purpose could this serve? Fact is, 9/11 still happened, meaning something went wrong somewhere. Could be that Bush Sr. didn't disarm the Taliban, or that Clinton didn't capitalize enough during his eight years to stop the terror networks that had repeatedly attacked American targets.
The number doesn't matter. The fact is they obviously did nothing, as al-Qaeda still managed to organize one of the attack. Make of that what you will, but I still hold Clinton majorly responsible for not doing enough to prevent it.
See, you're spouting off that with no justification whatsoever; you have no basis to cite how much was and was not done, cite no 'mistake' to highlight, only use the same of logic as I use to sell my Magic Tiger Deterrent Rock. It's naive to think there's a magic bullet that means no terrorist attack - especially sucide attack - can ever happen, and if you're going to state - accuse, even - that something was done wrong, that some opportunity was missed, you should at least have the common decency to justify that statement with some sort of indication you actually know what was happening the background in order to judge it.
Because I'd wager you're viewing highly visible and equally useless heavy handed military intervention as 'action' whilst not considering that maybe some actions are covert because... well, just look how succesful the overt form of action has been in stimulating Islamic fundmentalism.
-
Fact is, 9/11 still happened, meaning something went wrong somewhere
Clinton warned Bush Jr. about Al-Qaeda and what did the administration do about it? Nothing. He completely ignored it, and that is why 9/11 happened.
-
I'm still not convinced that the Bush administration didn't turn a blind eye to those warnings because they wanted an excuse to go into Iraq.
-
Fact is, 9/11 still happened, meaning something went wrong somewhere
Clinton warned Bush Jr. about Al-Qaeda and what did the administration do about it? Nothing. He completely ignored it, and that is why 9/11 happened.
I think this is the big problem with all sides of the 9/11 debate. Everyone demands there be one singular reason for the failure of US intel. There isn't. It's a combination of factors, both from the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.
-
I'm still not convinced that the Bush administration didn't turn a blind eye to those warnings because they wanted an excuse to go into Iraq.
Since when did the US gov need to have a real reason for going to war? They have Fox News, after all!
-
Fact is, 9/11 still happened, meaning something went wrong somewhere
Clinton warned Bush Jr. about Al-Qaeda and what did the administration do about it? Nothing. He completely ignored it, and that is why 9/11 happened.
For a plot that started back in '92-'93, Clinton should have been able to nip this thing in the bud before Bush Jr. would have ever had to deal with it. There 7 years of Clinton Administration after the '93 bombings--why didn't he just push further and uncover a plot to destroy nine US landmarks with US commercial airliners? I'm not contesting that there's no "stop terror" button or anything, but missing (or, if you want to continue with the "he gave warnings" argument, not fully disarming) a plot of that scale over seven years? That's just embarrassing.
-
During Clinton's administration, the Neoconservatives criticized him for being obsessed with Bin Laden. Then when they took power, they took a **** on Richard Clarke, who was a better authority on the threat of Al Qaeda than just about anyone else, and who was the only one making noise about the threat of a major terrorist attack. Then, to top it all off, after 9/11, they decided that the appropriate method of reprisal was to devote vast quantities of military resources to the invasion and occupation of an unrelated country, while Bin Laden slowly wastes away on kidney dialysis. The Clinton administration failed to preempt 9/11, but the Bush administration didn't even try. Hell, they didn't even want to hear about it. Since 9/11, they have demonstrated that it was not a priority for them in the first place. I don't particularly like involving myself in these kinds of political discussions, but the kind of doublethink that this administration has managed to instill really just boggles my mind.