Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> HA HA HA. Look who's talking, lol. -- Hierophant, 17:02:07 01/22/04 Thu (adsl-66-142-55-7.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/66.142.55.7)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're a young fool. It's not about terrorism. That's simply the currently most convenient excuse to do what your government wants to do anyway - invade "lesser" countries to get cheap oil - with whatever excuse is handy for that particular year. -- Lethal Larry, 18:34:14 01/22/04 Thu (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)

Notice how great an excuse the world trade center was? Oh, man, some evil, lesser country attacked you - what more could your warmongers want??? The PERFECT excuse to go and blow up people in any country they feel like blaming, which, as it turned out, was several, so far.

THIS is what makes me suspect that the trade center bombing might have been done by some american agency - either "official", as in cia, nsa, something even more covert, or some non-government organization. If someone's agenda was to bring america's goons squads to the middle east, what better motivation? Kinda reminds me of when I was in school... the class bully sat in the fourth row... the kid behind him was hated by the kid in the fifth row... jerk in row 5 shoots a spitball at bully in row 3, kid behind bully in row 4 takes the blame and get beaten on at lunch. The bully was neither smart enough to figure out whether or not his chosen victim was the guilty party, nor discerning enough to care if he was guilty - he had someone to blame. That was enough.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Considering Osama came out PUBLICLY and TOOK CREDIT for the attack!? -- Hierophant, 20:23:36 01/22/04 Thu (adsl-66-142-55-7.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/66.142.55.7)

Saying the WTC attacks were done by any other then Al-Quida is ridiculous. STRAIGHT ridiculous.

The WTC DEMANDED action. If our country sat back and was like "well maybe we should talk this out" I would fucking throw up. Why are we over there? We're taking the war to them. Al-Quida has no concept of negotiations. You know that. We're taking the war to terrorist. Like Bush said in the State of the Union Address. They wanted war and war is what they got. So where does Iraq play into this? Ohhh Saddam APPLAUDED the attacks and is responsible for terrorist funding AND covering.

Alright. Lets try the lefts way. Lets sit back here at home, remove our people from the "Lesser countries" and watch them regenerate.

Keeping steady forces in other countries keeps pressure on them. They'll never get a chance to build another terrorist training camp, have large meetings, etc with our presence.

Argh.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll believe anything that I see on american TV as soon as bush comes out and publicly admits he's retarded. That's not goign to happen, and I'm not going to trust anything your government tells me. I know, I know, it's not at all like the CIA to do anything sneaky like put someone in makeup and an arabic costume to say he's the villain you're looking for, and admit that he did the things you want to blame him for.... noooo.... your governement would never fabricate evidence. They're honest. -- Lethal Larry, 22:27:27 01/22/04 Thu (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Um........yeah. Okedoke. -- Pendraconian What The Fuck?, 14:58:29 01/24/04 Sat (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> By the way... "The WTC DEMANDED action".... that's WHY it was done, by whoever it was. -- Lethal Larry, 22:30:00 01/22/04 Thu (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The administration has the motive... -- Joe Taylor, 20:27:16 01/22/04 Thu (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

...but little else. That's not to say that there're no holes in the official story: there are 48906125.5 different official versions regarding what Bush did when he was told about the attacks, and the passport found in the ruins of one of the towers is just laughable.


Bush, further, is not a "good guy." He represents two contituencies: the far right, particularly the religious right - as seen in his homophobic, anti-choice, and fundamentalistic policies; and his corporate buddies, as seen in his support of Enron and Halliburton (I'm sure that the facts that Ken Lay is a close friend of Bush's and that Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton have nothing to do with that...). He cares about the American people to the same degree he cares about the Papuan people, with the sole difference being that he knows that the American people exist.

Take the Patriot Act. There's no proof that it helps combat terrorism. It's so damn easy to blow up a plane that the best the Patriot Act can do is force Al Qaida to blow up planes without any coordination from above. I have no idea about other people, but I just don't give a rat's ass about the name of Big Brother, whether it is the Department of Homeland Security or the Taliban, and I think it idiotic to destroy civil liberties and kill tens of thousands in order to derail soemthing that will in a very low probability destroy civil liberties and kill tens of thousands.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wag the Dog. -- Lethal Larry, 22:35:22 01/22/04 Thu (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> QUICK JOE! NEGATIVITY! NOW!! HURRY!! No positive thoughts, they might cramp your style. -- Hero of Time, 04:50:55 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It would be nice of you to stop being so abusive. -- Joe Taylor, 08:44:45 01/23/04 Fri (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wouldn't it? -- Hero of Time, 12:31:12 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)

It'd be nice if you said something we could all smile about every now and then too.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Guess that's impossible..... -- Robert, 13:58:55 01/23/04 Fri (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

never encountered anything that would make ALL people laugh. I guess you wouldn't have enjoyed the stuff I've read today - maybe you even would have been mad on me for laughing about it.
But for me it was a very funny and relaxing time. :)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> See, you're a positive, happy guy. You say things that make me smile, usually. Joe, however, does not. Everything is wrong, everything is conspiracry. Everything is a stupid cultural convention, etc to him. -- Hero of Time, 14:10:39 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe, but I sorta can understand him..... -- Robert, 11:01:58 01/24/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

after all it's him who lives in the US, not me. *L*

Though living there I'd probably join Moore's team. I'm sure he enjoyes the stuff he makes as much as I do, writing my posts. :)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's all well and good, but the point is Joe is aggravating, and you're not. I can't stand Joe or his whinery, but I have untold amounts of love for you. Hold me. -- Heroic Affection, 13:08:27 01/24/04 Sat (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I guess you're better off with AJ, he's easier to access anyway..... -- Robert, 13:46:20 01/24/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

poor guy, I pitty him. Deeply.

One more reason I'm better off living here. *L*

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> pitty=pity -- Auto-Correct Feature, 14:56:51 01/24/04 Sat (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This was meant to increase the amount of pity, pitty sounds more pityful . *L* -- Robert, 03:36:07 01/27/04 Tue (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> pityful = pitiful -- Auto-Correct Feature, Redux, 18:45:38 01/27/04 Tue (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just the same - 'y' indicates deep compassion. :) -- Robert, 12:12:39 01/28/04 Wed (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Moore is a sellout -- Joe Taylor, 21:23:47 01/24/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

First, the guy is too much of a demagog to my taste. And second, I consider his endorsement of Clark nothing short of selling out. Suddenly he cares about "electability" and "beating Bush," as if either matters. His positions are AFAIK identical to Kucinich's on everything, and yet he endorses someone else.

That's exactly selling out (expect an article on that on my website and on OSP shortly).

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Article up on my site -- Joe Taylor, 08:57:42 01/25/04 Sun (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

http://leftist.i8.com/2003.html

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'When the facts change, I change my mind'..... -- Robert, 05:52:37 01/27/04 Tue (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

about the stuff I'm cronfronted with - not about what I prefer though. I don't see sellout at Moore, and I don't see it at Clark - of course according to what I know.

Dean however IMO is. The 'committed believer' thing of Dean you mention is result of 2/3 of Americans prefering a religious president. So he poses as religious. An article mentioned that the book he named as his favorite one from new testament sadly is a old testament one. *L*

Personally I vote strategically. It depends on what I rate to be the best thing. My personal preference for whatever candidates and parties is only part of the reasons that make up my decision.

Twain mentions in his autobiography a Republican who told him that according to his understanding the parties have to be balanced. To do this he educated his son to prefer Democrats, and he says, 'if his son should ever turn towards Republicans then he would turn towards Democrats - though this would contradict his conviction'. :)

Such stuff is part of it. The BASIC question is what is the best thing for the community you live in, preferably based on long term considerations and considering interaction with the surrounding world. It's no sellout to base your actions on it. Actually it's the only reasonable way to do it.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> About Clark... -- Joe Taylor, 10:20:59 01/27/04 Tue (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

...did he support the war or not? I still have no idea what his *real* position is.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with strategic vote. I do see a lot of wrong things with thinking that "anyone is better than Bush." If you really think that Lieberman is going to be a good president, then vote for him by all means. But don't vote for him because he's "not Bush," because it's idiotic. And this is what the 2003 Sellout is about - the delusion (I dare not say doublethink) that suddenly things will get better if Bush is booted. They won't. They didn't when Clinton was elected (okay, they to some degree were but that's independent of his being elected), and they don't now.

I don't know if Clark's a real 2003 Sellout - in fact, I'm not so sure that Dean is, anymore; when I developed the concept, I thought he was a secular moderate-liberal who actually believed in what he said. The quote at the beginning of my article says it all. The 2003 Sellout is the Anyone But Bush movement; Dean just personifies it.

Moore is one of the main culprits because he doesn't oppose Kucinich for "making a bad president" but for not being able to win. And that's abhorrent, considering that Clark may well win the election, but if nothing changes then there's very little point to winning. If I want Team A vs. Team B, I'll watch a Yankees vs. Red Sox game, or Liverpool vs. Manchester, or whatever. Moore never said something like "Kucinich will be a bad president because he supports canceling international agreements unilaterally, which I find a bad foreign policy." This is one of the reasons I oppose Kucinich; Moore, however, never gives it or any other similar substantiative reason, and rather talks solely about "beating Bush."

If you ask me, the parties don't need to be balanced - they need to be broken up into at least two factions each. With a multiparty system I might be able to vote for candidates who can win and who aren't 12 units to my upper-right on the Political Compass (scores range from -10 to 10 on two scales: economic, on which socialist is left and capitalist is right, and on which I score -5; and social, on which liberal is down and conservative is up, and on which I score -9; Bush's scores are +9 and +4 respectively, which means he's 19 units from me).

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Clark is Moore's decision, and if I'd be american, he would be my decision too.... -- Robert, 12:55:46 01/28/04 Wed (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

what the hell is wrong with chosing among the candidates? And doing it of course has to be based on some stuff. THe ability to beat Bush is one of them. Don't you recall what Moore wrote in one of his former messages? - most of the candidates aren't bad.
To defeat Bush is important. Foul more years will cause a lot of shit for many people who are affected by it, in Amarica and outside. Actually I don't mind much who will - hopefully - replace him. Whether it's Clark, Dean or Kerry.
My choice is Clark, but I'm ok with Dean or Kerry. And I'm sure, that's Moore's position too. To be pro Clark doen't mean to be against the others.

It's impossible to change basic stuff in a sudden. Evolution works bit by bit. It's already quite a bit to move stepwise towards the right direction. And you can't get all at once either.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> See, I don't bash you for supporting Clark -- Joe Taylor, 20:46:20 01/28/04 Wed (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

I bash Moore for supporting someone when there's another candidate who a) could use his endorsement and b) agrees with him on everything.

Didn't Moore lament how the Democrats acted like Republicans and how Clinton was all words and no action? There's no proof or evidence that Clark will be better.

Four more years will hardly be worse than four years of a Clintonesque Democrat with the spine of an earthworm.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nor do I bash you for bashing Moore.... :) -- Robert, 05:19:24 01/29/04 Thu (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

IMO Clark is Moores honest choice. That's where I disagree with you.

Of course you can't have any proof that Clark would act different from Clinton - sadly proofs pertaining the future still aren't available. *L*
However IMO there would be difference. Enough difference to justify supporting him.

Be assured, four more years of Bush will be worse. It's possible though that there are some few positive effects - boosting european unity for example, or it may wake up some more Americans. But I don't think such stuff is worth the bill to pay for another period. I deny to take any responsibility for it.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whether he's a sellout or not - depends quite a bit on your understanding of 'sellout' - I like him. :)..... -- Robert, 03:49:08 01/27/04 Tue (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

Same thing applys to 'demagog'. And additionally I enjoy it. And Clark still is the candidate I'd prefer too. Kucinich may be not bad, but I don't think he'd be a good president.

BTW - Moore ALWAYS was into beating Bush. Past election, though he endorsed Nader, he later for example in Florida told people that voting for Nader may be the wrong thing because it supports Bush.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me too. -- Lethal Larry, 17:06:15 01/27/04 Tue (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Um....Larry? After all that fighting we did before, and taking so much Goddamn effort to patch it up, don't you think that's being a little insultive? "You're a young fool" is hardly fair. But that's just me. This isn't my arguement. I won't feed these flames this time - burn yourself alive if you want. I just thought I'd provide a heads-up. -- Heroic Heads-Up, 04:53:43 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I ignored it as long as I could. And my comment wasn't stated as an insult, just as an observation - it was a foolish thing for him to say. -- Lethal Larry, 14:13:39 01/23/04 Fri (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, maybe. However, I remember you saying back on the old RCC in regard to me calling Joe and idiot for something he posted "I support his right to say that." -- Hero of Time, 14:53:46 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Right.......... -- Hierophant, 17:42:06 01/23/04 Fri (adsl-65-66-154-237.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/65.66.154.237)

Well. I may be foolish but your concept of 9/11 has definitly ranked as my "Most Ridiculous Item Of The Decade"
I should send it to Bill O'Reilly so he can share in the good laugh.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You called HIM a fool. You did not say that his statement was foolish. -- Pendragon, 19:48:17 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> *L* - maybe look up the facts.... -- Robert, 11:23:34 01/23/04 Fri (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

Iraq wasn't about terrorism. Saddam was a secular bastard. He and Osama hated each other. As long as Saddam was in control, religious fundamentalist were persecuted in Iraq.
Now he's gone, Iraq is swarming with al Quaida. Funny, isn't it? *L*

And ya wanna know why other counties aren't very much into aiding the US there? I'll tell ya: As long as the US are occupied in Iraq, it's unlikely they'll cause trouble elsewhere. And, be assured, this will last as long as the current administration continues. Until you'll manage to elect a somewhat more trustworthy administration, the opposition will remain, or rather increase.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not Al Qaida -- Joe Taylor, 21:28:10 01/24/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

Terrorism in Iraq is mostly homegrown - there're terrorist organizations that have operated since the 1970s and worked to replace Saddam's secular dictatorship with their religious dictatorship; and now they're on the Governing Council, although they're still terrorizing women who go out unaccompanied by men or go out in jeans.

Andrew Sullivan is now advancing the the theory that Iraq will draw many terrorists so the USA will have an easy time tracking and killing/catching all. Now that is funny.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Indeed a nice concept..... -- Robert, 06:42:50 01/27/04 Tue (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

it works with sugar and wasps - why shouldn't it work with Iraq and terorists. *LOL*

But al Quaida is contained there too, only part of it of course.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe you should reconsidering your opinion...... -- Robert, 13:47:40 01/23/04 Fri (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

If you really like fun, then Moore is awesome. Whenever I'm in need of some fun, I just read a some of his stuff. Never fails! The term 'hateful' doesn't match a bit - that's just the opinion of the guys who are mad on him, because he makes fun of them. And I don't know anyone who's better in making fun of someone. If I'd be one of the guys he's after, I'd never would let him come close to me - Moore's coming, everyone hide! *L*
And pertaining what he says - don't you think he would be sued if these guys would find any lie in his books and movies? Nothing happened. Makes his opponents look a wee bit stupid. Actually since he's aware of the danger, he has hired a lot of people to check and recheck what he writes. Easiest way to avoid troubles anyway.

Of course guns don't kill people, but if the US per capita has more than ten times the amount of gunkills than comparable countries, then obviously something is wrong. About 90% could be avoided, that's about 10.000 a year. But of course if you're fond of having 10 times the chance of being shot than me - I don't deny anyone any fun. *L*

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm invincible!! -- Heroic Stoneskin, 14:58:58 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And yeah, I forgot to mention - I too have weapons stored at home.... -- Rbert, 10:50:41 01/24/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

- virtual ones, my savegames contain HUGE stockpiles of neat stuff!

The only RL weapons are in the kitchen, they're great to assault ham, sausages and other such evildoers though - and I always win!!! *L*

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rbert = Robert -- Auto-Correct Feature, 16:30:30 01/24/04 Sat (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rbert is just the first step of shorting Robert.... -- R, 05:55:34 01/27/04 Tue (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)


[ Edit | View ]