LowerCaseRepublican

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 07:19 PM) Come on Rex. 27 years, 40 years... it's not that much of a difference. Ever since 1979, perhaps even a little before, they've wanted this technology. Let's not argue semantics. The thing is about the Islamic fundie government there -- between the radical fundies and the US/CIA supported Shah, they did a damn good job at wiping out lots of moderates who were saying "We don't like the Shah or fundie government." (The Shah was imprisoning people who didn't agree with him and the mullahs wanted a stringent fundie government) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution A lot of the history was involvement of foreign powers dictating what government the people could or couldn't have. God forbid they're a bit angry about having English/American fingerprints all over keeping the Shah in power and assistance in the "liquidations" that helped Khomeini get power during the Cold War. In the late 90s, many normal Iranians wanted to become more liberalized (i.e. see the reformist president that preceeded Ahmadinanutjob) Unfortunately for him, the traditionalist religious fundie nuts that grew such a stronghold (hey, thanks CIA! ) stuck their heels in and fought him the whole way. So, it led to A: not as many of his aims being achieved as fast as the people wanted them and B: the fear of Joe Q. Iranian getting killed as collateral damage in a potential US attack. Just like Americans felt "We want to be safe from somebody that's going to kick our ass!", the Iranian public felt that and swung to the fundie conservative Ahmadif***wit. Khatami (the previous leader) was quite into a "dialogue across civilizations" and blunting the hardline agenda as much as he could. Yet the response he got was being added into the "Axis of Evil" which helped to blunt any effective dialogue between the US and Iran leaders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Khatami So I wouldn't say that they've been going gung ho since 1979. Iran's fundie leaders are indeed really out there with conservative nationalist ideas, supporting fundie Muslims that accessorize with dynamite but it isn't all just "Iran = BAD!" There's a lot more of a gray area here than people like to think about.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) I am still waiting for LCR's passionate. lengthy post defending Rush Limbaugh and his right to be a druggie Personally, I think he's got the right to put whatever he wants in his system in the safety of his own home and is responsible in doing it knowing the risks and benefits of it and he isn't harming anyone else. Professionally, it wouldn't be the best for him to do since he has taken such a hardline stance against drugs and is notorious for declaring how forceful we need to be on drugs. It's just funny to see him declaring that addicts are just weak people who need to be thrown in jail -- and now he's a pain pill addict with a limp cock. But I doubt jail is going to help him. No non-violent drug offender comes out of jail wanting to do less drugs.

Thanks SS2k5, I really needed the vision of Rush Limbaugh's flaccid wang in my head.

Ah the glorious smell of partisanship in the morning. Funding Al Qaeda, giving them weapons, money and training = good foreign policy Printing a paper that shows a program that anybody with half a brain could figure out would be in operation (Come on, you mean to tell me that nobody was thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, the government would be tracking money? It's common f***ing sense) = TREASON They've been using the "follow the money" tactic for years to try to nail the major drug cartels (I'm looking at you, Colombia) Why is it so much of a stretch that they'd use it for terror investigations? I fail to see how the knee-jerkers here would be shocked, let alone terrorists who likely have figured that it is a given that their finances are being tracked. And don't tell anybody -- but SWIFT has been around since 1973. Oh s***, I told a secret!

More fearmongering from Mr. Limbaugh. I love the "Well, it might have done this so it may do this and that will lead to this possibility of deaths." regarding the expose because it is such a lame cop-out essentially saying: "Well, I don't have any proof that this is going to harm anybody so here's some smoke to blow up peoples' asses." We're fighting for free speech and the right to a free press -- except when they print things that we don't like. I think I'm getting the hang of it now. /Sit down, shut up and obey.

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 07:42 AM) I'm pretty sure none of the Sox players/personnel would be stupid enough to physically attack Mariotti. But...but...but...Jay said they would!

QUOTE(Finkelstein @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 08:15 AM) Battle Royale. It is Japanese, but has subtitles. It is about a group of 7th graders who are put on an island and each given a weapon. After 3 days only 1 person can leave the island. Pretty entertaining, not a movie that would go over very well in the US. It's an excellent film and a really cool commentary on hyper-capitalism and its problems in Japan. And oh yes -- the US bought the rights to remake it. ::shakes head:: They've butchered every J-Horror film they've gotten their hands on, leave BR alone, New Line. http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=11650

QUOTE(bmags @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:09 PM) fantastic...cue john stossel complaining about how that money should have been reinvested in his own companies... Wait.... Somebody gives a s*** about John Stossel?!

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:39 PM) So you're saying that this isn't treason? It's not what you said it was three pages ago? What is it then? It looks to me like political posturing. Deflecting your shortcomings by scapegoating something printed in a newspaper. I seem to recall someone else doing that a few months ago..... ISN'T THIS A MEDIA WATCH THREAD? C'mon Rex, do your job!

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:19 PM) That is correct Nuke, I believe you have won this debate His book never said it didn't happen. Like all debaters, it is known you can't prove a negative (i.e. I believe there is a nation of invisible squirrels on Soxtalk. Prove otherwise.) It says -- In the historical record -- police reports, news, etc. that there are no known cases of it being detailed. But let's keep misrepresenting it because hey, they're long posts with lots of text to read through. And Nuke -- I'd say the lack of government programs to help them cope with PTSD and other problems (not to mention that 1/3 of the homeless are veterans...or Hell, that the Gulf of Tonkin was quite likely an event that never took place to get us involved in yet another proxy war) is a disgrace to the treatment of veterans much moreso than an anecdotal story about some hippies.

And Nuke, if you're really interested about "Ye Olde" newspapers covering wars, check out newspaper coverage during the French and Indian War (predates the US revolution for the non-history buffs out there...but Jefferson and Co. were alive) http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/newspapers.html Published in the Maryland Gazette on March 21 and 28, Washington's Journal gave newspaper readers a first-person account of his talks with Native American and French military leaders west of the Appalachians. Readers learned of French forts from New Orleans to Canada, a network of Native American alliances with the French, and how difficult moving supplies into the region would be for British fighting units. So, they covered the war pretty damn closely and discussed war tactics/methods. For instance, take the British going after Louisbourg. Newspaper reports revealed the strategy for the taking of Louisbourg. First, British ships, including two hundred sail from Halifax, set up patrols from Boston throughout the North Atlantic to capture French ships or to keep them from reaching Louisbourg. While the ships patrolled the waters, transports carrying approximately eight thousand land troops headed for Halifax to strengthen the colonial militia and British regulars stationed there. The seige of Louisbourg began on May 22, newspapers reported, when 14,500 British regulars and colonial militiamen left Halifax. Following the departure of the troops, letters from citizens in Halifax and from soldiers provided the bulk of the information that newspapers printed about the actual seige. Transports ferried the troops the two hundred miles from Halifax to Louisbourg where they stormed the beaches with fixed bayonets. On June 10, British troops had reached "the very Gates of Louisbourg" and "burnt all the Merchant Ships in the Harbour of Louisbourg," newspaper reports said. By June 24, a letter from an officer explained, Louisbourg was completely shut off from all outside communication and being continually bombarded by cannon and mortars.50 Because news from Louisbourg was so extensive and detailed, the New-York Mercury provided its readers with a woodcut of "the City and Harbour of Louisbourg," which explained the city's location, the location of English gun batteries, and the proximity of Cape Breton Island to Acadia or Nova Scotia. -- The papers told the exact strategy used and guess what -- It still worked and there were no "OMG! WE MUST STOP TEH MEDIA!11!!!1! ELEVENTY!" chants.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:11 PM) Im sorry LCR but nobody has any "right" to know anything about classified battle plans except those who came up with them and those responsible for executing them. If you want to bring Jefferson into this how about we rewind to the Revolutionary War and have Ye Olde New York Times print a leaked copy of the Franco/American battle plans at Yorktown or Saratoga. Methinks Jefferson would not be quite so sympathetic to your opinions. Its also worthy to note that the threat we face is not confined to any national boundary. If it was as cut and dried as Japan attacking us then yes, a declaration of war is appropriate. However since our enemy know no national boundaries what are we to do? Have Congress declare war on a person or an ideology or a group of people? People who wave the "you gotta declare war" card fail to realize this ( or just leave it out as a matter of convienience ) It is amazing how we're supposed to give up our freedoms because of some guerillas. I think the Founders knew about guerilla fighting and the threat it could pose to a state. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE GUERILLAS! Yet, these guys still came out with a Constitution the SCOTUS rules with and ruled in 1971 with the way they did. /Sit, Obey and Let the State Have Its Unquestioned, Unchecked Power

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:51 PM) And yea, the press can print whatever they want. Wooo hooo. But they have blood on their hands. That's it. Kap, that's a lame ass cop-out and we both know it. Endangering the freedoms we're fighting for by exercising them! Yay! If you listen closely, you can hear Jefferson doing barrel rolls in his coffin: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." From Times vs US, Some members of the Court, notably Justice Potter Stewart, did believe in this notion of a citizen's right to know, and Stewart put forward the theory of the press serving as a surrogate for the people, ferreting out information for them and securing the material to which they had a right. Not all members of the Court endorsed this "functional" theory of the press, but Chief Justice Burger later commented that despite the split vote, the justices were "actually unanimous." In many ways, this was true. All of the justices did believe in the basic doctrine of no prior restraint, first set out in the Near case, and with the exception of Justices Black and Douglas, who took an absolutist stance against any government censorship of any issue at any time, the entire Court agreed that government should not censor the press, that no prior restraint was the rule except in very unusual circumstances.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:48 PM) Side note, IT DID HAPPEN. I know vets that were in the situation, and that's all I'm going to say about it. It's impossible to prove a negative. The vast preponderance of evidence in the historical record shows that it was not some mass problem (since there's not one case of it being found in the record) The spitting was the vast exception (especially because there were no police reports, etc. in the historical record showing that it was some wide epidemic) And oh yes, Minors -- homecomings take place on military bases, so please explain to me how lines of hippies would gain access and be able to spit all over returning veterans without being arrested first (and wouldn't that make the news or at least a police report?) And minors, you never did respond to the fact that this "f***ing researcher" is a Vietnam veteran himself. How do you square your vitriol towards him with your demands that everybody love the military? QUOTE(minors @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:52 PM) What are you talking about? Anti-war views is one thing lying out of your teeth and spitting a dead veterans is a completely different thing and neither you or any other liberal can say other wise. The writer of the book I was sourcing is a VIETNAM VETERAN. So, that's what I was saying -- funny how your vitriol was okay for sliming some veterans but yet we're supposed to (at the same time since they defended our freedom) hold them up on a pedestal.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:44 PM) So the words "DECLARE WAR" is what meets the standard, and nothing else, such as (paraphrasing) any means necessary to enforce UN Resolution 1444? Nevermind. Why am I even bothering? It's obvious that no one will ever change their minds around here. Screw it. It's just more of a peeve for me that we're "at war" without declaring war. Separation of powers much? But yeah -- jist of this thread is that, like it or not, the SCOTUS declared in 1971 that prior restraint in the case of classified info (in that case, the Pentagon Papers) was un-Constitutional and that papers have a right to print. Link: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case25.htm

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:24 PM) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554907/ This nation is at war. We are at war and we have the NYT disclosing classified programs which are designed to prosecute this war. This type of behavior is no different than if they had somehow gotten the plans for the D-Day invasion and splashed them across the front page of their newspaper. This rag newspaper is actively undermining the war effort in order to pursue its leftist agenda and it must be stopped NOW. The Attorney General needs to find out who is responsible for leaking this information, and get a list of everyone who wrote this story, every editor who greenlighted this story, the entire board of directors and the president and owners of the NYT and prosecute the whole lot of them. This is treason, cut and dried, and they should be dealt with the exact same way anyone else who commits treason during a time of war is dealt with. The whole lot of them should be stood up in front of a firing squad. Why I do I keep hearing this "We're at war!" "There's a war on!" CONGRESS NEVER DECLARED WAR. So, we're not at war. And yes, we've already gone through this in the SCOTUS case New York Times vs US where the justices ruled that prior restraint of classified documents (in this case, the Pentagon Papers) was un-Constitutional and the press had a right to print stories regarding the information. You should really check out some of the majority opinion in that case. And oh yes, for further discussion, I advise a checkout of the Heller quote in my profile.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 10:00 PM) Having an opinion against the war is one thing. These VVAW people were a bunch of lying cock-suckers. They took people who never saw combat or never served at all and stood them in front of the United States Senate and had them make up fairy tales about atrocities that never happened. That's all I need to know about these scumbags. f*** these guys. Discrediting an organization he happened to join does not mean that his research and methodology is incorrect. If I was to follow your line of logic, I could say "Well Lt. Calley killed a bunch of people in My Lai so that's all I need to know about (your words here --) these scumbags." Its misrepresenting research and a really easy end around legitimate debate. But please -- explain to me how we're all to have reverent respect and be in awe of soldiers ("Spitting hippies = Bad!) yet it is okay to call others "dumb motherf***ers" and "lying cocksuckers". I'm just wondering why there's the double standard when one standard will work just fine.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 09:37 PM) Thats because leftists like you keep throwing up court challenges to any expansion of the death penalty to make it imposed in a uniform manner for certain crimes. "THATS RACIST" Whaa whaa whaa.......thats all we ever hear from you regards to the death penalty, yet its opposition from your side that keeps conditions the way they are. Yeah who needs pesky little things like facts when discussing the distribution of capital punishment in America! Yes, Nuke. I am responsible. It's all me. I don't go to sleep but rather file appeals for death row inmates, give Al Qaeda terrorists intelligence and weaponry and in my spare time take dumps on American flags, drown puppies and throw the carcasses/fecal matter at soldiers. You really got me pinned down. Nuke, what drives up the cost is that the law demands MANDATORY APPEALS for capital cases. Add in the costs of experts for both sides, DNA analysis, forensics etc. and the cost skyrockets comparatively to a regular case. It isn't a choice to fight for appeals -- appeals are mandatory via the law. The law attempts to have a safeguard in place because a person's life is at stake if they f*** up. It's been proven that life without parole costs much less of the precious tax dollars to be spent. Yeah, because the idea that people are innocent on death row completely escapes you. But then I guess nobody has been exonerated, have they? Nuke, a system where 95% of the people receiving the death penalty have no money for lawyers that aren't court appointed (a.k.a. likely have multiple cases at the same time and odds are have not tried a capital case before, let alone have the time to prepare an adequate defense), a system where prosecutors have been nailed for hiding exculpatory evidence, a system where black people accused of killing white victims are more likely to get the death penalty (despite blacks making up more of the murder victims nationwide) and a system where we're the last Western industrial nation performing the procedure is why it is failing (not to mention the moral rights of sanctity of life, etc.) But really -- a fabulous projection on your part.

Nuke, you just said he was a member of VVAW. You never addressed the sources or methodology of his research. I personally just find it more fun that we're told to respect the military yet you and Minors are slandering veterans who develop an anti-war opinion as a result calling them every name in the book because they dare to criticize.

Happiness of the Katakuris, Miike Takashi (2001) If you like Monty Python, I highly, highly, highly, highly suggest it. The only way to describe it is "The Sound of Music" on acid. Hard Boiled or The Killer with Chow Yun Fat if you like action films. Can't go wrong with most of Kurosawa's movies for drama (and some action with Yojimbo, Seven Samurai or Sanjuro. There's also Dr. Strangelove -- another fun, dark little comedy.

I'm having trouble following the logic that we must respect the military yet some are ready to "beat the s*** out of his pathetic ass" with other ones so respectfully called "little motherf***er(s)". Which is it? Respect the military or just kick the s*** out of the ones whose research we don't happen to agree with?

You guys should see what this looks like to somebody who hasn't read Harry Potter at all. It's a bunch of gibberish. /snape kills dumbledore?

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 06:36 PM) That is the way it should be every town should have a parade to welcome back there soliders. That was how it use to be in the good ole days. But of course all of that stopped with the hippies during Vietnam all they did was treat our soliders like s*** and it has continued ever since. That is was really the start of the downfall of society. Actually I was talking about the claims the administration made regarding our soldiers going to Iraq being showered with flowers and candy. But nice try, now to dive headlong into the thorns. (check out the bold portions especially) The hippies during Vietnam thing is really tired out. While it is impossible to prove that something never happened, there is no historical record (police reports, news accounts, etc.) proving that these "spitting incidents" in specific took place. According to Vietnam veteran and author Jerry Lembcke: There is nothing in the historical record — news or police reports, for example — suggesting the spitting incidents really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers. Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men — some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of." So...yeah. He couldn't find a single shred of evidence in the historical record for the urban myth of spat upon soldiers. And oh yes...John Llewelyn from Wake Forest: I have studied urban legends for nearly 20 years and have been certified as an expert on the subject in the federal courts. Nonetheless, it dawned on me only recently that the spitting story was a rumor that has grown into an urban legend. I never wanted to believe the story but I was afraid to investigate it for fear that it could be true. Why could I not identify this fiction sooner? The power of the story and the passion of its advocates offer a powerful alchemy of guilt and fear -- emotions not associated with clearheadedness. Labeling the spitting story an urban legend does not mean that something of this sort did not happen to someone somewhere. You cannot prove the negative -- that something never happened. However, most accounts of spitting emerged in the mid-1980s only after a newspaper columnist asked his readers who were Vietnam vets if they had been spit upon after the war (an odd and leading question to ask a decade after the war's end). The framing of the question seemed to beg for an affirmative answer. In 1998 sociologist and Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke published "The Spitting Image: Myth, Media and the Legacy of Viet Nam." He recounts a study of 495 news stories on returning veterans published from 1965 to 1971. That study shows only a handful (32) of instances were presented as in any way antagonistic to the soldiers. There were no instances of spitting on soldiers; what spitting was reported was done by citizens expressing displeasure with protesters. Opinion polls of the time show no animosity between soldiers and opponents of the war. Only 3 percent of returning soldiers recounted any unfriendly experiences upon their return. So records from that era offer no support for the spitting stories. Lembcke's research does show that similar spitting rumors arose in Germany after World War I and in France after its Indochina war. One of the persistent markers of urban legends is the re-emergence of certain themes across time and space. There is also a common-sense method for debunking this urban legend. One frequent test is the story's plausibility: how likely is it that the incident could have happened as described? Do we really believe that a "dirty hippie" would spit upon a fit and trained soldier? If such a confrontation had occurred, would that combat-hardened soldier have just ignored the insult? Would there not be pictures, arrest reports, a trial record or a coroner's report after such an event? Years of research have produced no such records.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hWCJetVdaWo&sea...Westmoreland%20 Stephen Colbert and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) discuss the 10 Commandments.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) But is spending 50 years and the rest of your life in prison any better is dying in prison any better than to be executed? I do not think it is. I do think I would error on the side of caution but in cases like this where there was tons of damaging evidence and many confessions I actually sleep better when they are killed. Now we're getting into hypotheticals. But hey, here's something: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clin...ions/States.htm -- Wrongful convictions that were exonerations by state...It's a problem with the system that this many innocent people are being put away. Erring on the side of caution necessitates habeas corpus being maximized instead of limiting appeals. You can easily see the problems with the system of capital punishment where a group of college kids on a class assignment at Northwestern is one of the last checks against a legal system in exonerating people.