A couple, or more, attitudinally frenzied members here have a problem with the United States of America in its present form/expression.

I'd like to hear them herein redefine America in their own image, just to see if their version is actually better, or even feasible, compared to what already exists.

Oh, and your challenge is to offer up more than just gratuitous generallities, guys. Offer up the scholarly details for which you experts are wanting to be known.

The stage is set, the spotlights are on.

Give us the real skinny.

jandt? Adam? et alia?

Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

John Lennon


nothing left for me to say..................

jandt:

You've said nothing, although you've done an admirable job proving yourself to have the mental skills of a lab rat on crack.

Mr.G:

I believe the answer is:

"A nonexistant one"

More environmentally friendly.

Internationally more participatory eg. International criminal court, Kyoto, Small Arms.

p

1) Stop making and selling landmines, and sign on the landmine ban.

2) The state should stop killing its own citizens with chemical weapons.

3) Stop invading/attacking other nations; try to use more civil means of persuasion. Become a responsible member of the international community (exactly as the USA keeps saying it wants Iraq to be) and use military force only when required and initialised by international law.

4) Before spending billions destroying 5,000 year old cities in the Middle East, spend that money finding food, shelter, and good health for the 20 or 30 million homeless people within the USA.

5) Work toward a Kyoto type treaty, rather than simply say "It will cost American jobs, so no".

6) Do us all a favour and move away from religion, please.

7) Move away from such terrible materialism. You are on a dead-end course of class-polarisation, which is gradually screwing your country and your people, and spilling over into other nations.

8) Present to the UN a full accounting of the disarmament of your nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and an end to their development.

9) If you wish to talk free trade, please walk it as well, and stop subsidising your wheat and steel industries and such.

10) Lose this ridiculous idea that the rest of us are just jealous. You know well that you are simply saying that to reassure yourelves, so you can ignore the points I have listed so far.

bump

Adam:

As to (1.):

Currently, "Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 48 (1996) outlines U.S. landmine policy and states "that the United States will unilaterally undertake not to use and to place in inactive stockpile status with intent to demilitarize by the end of 1999, all non-self-destructing anti-personnel landmines not needed for (a) training personnel engaged in demining and countermining operations and (b) defending the United States and its allies from armed aggression across the Korean demilitarized zone" as well as directing the Secretary of Defense to "undertake a program of research, procurement, and other measures need to eliminate the requirement for non-self-destructing anti-personnel landmines for training personnel engaged in demining and countermining operations and to defend the United States and its allies from armed aggression across the Korean demilitarized zone."

Further, the PDD "directs that this program have as an objective permitting both the United States and its allies to end reliance on antipersonnel landmines as soon as possible." PDD 64 "directs the Department of Defense to, among other things, (1) develop anti-personnel landmine alternatives to end the use of all anti-personnel landmines outside Korea, including those that self-destruct by the year 2003; (2) pursue aggressively the objective of having alternatives to anti-personnel landmines ready for Korea by 2006, including those that self-destruct; (3) search aggressively for alternatives to our mixed anti-tank landmine systems; (4) aggressively seek to develop and field alternatives to replace non-self-destructing anti-personnel landmines in Korea with the objective of doing so by 2006; and (5) actively investigate the use of alternatives to existing anti-personnel landmines, as they are developed, in place of the self-destructing/self-deactivating anti-personnel sub-munitions currently used in mixed anti-tank mine systems."

As to (2.):

Say what? Can you be more specific?

As to (3.):

Do you imagine that the US invades/attacks other nations before "more civil means of persuasion" (aka: more affordable means) have failed? And is it your belief that the US is an irresponsible member of the international community because it has the constitutional right to wage war in protection of its interests with no constitutional requirement to first ask the UN for its permission?

As to (4.):

Your are grand-standing. The US is not destroying cities in the middle east. Name a city we've destroyed since Nagasaki? Please provide us the source for your claim of 20-30 million homeless in the US.

We should do more, yes. But, do recall we are not a socialist country wherein everyone gets everything they need from the state for life without having to work for their own personal welfare. Nor are we a socialist state wherein personal and familial responsibility is the State's responsibility. There are always going to be homeless people who make that lifestyle choice, or other lifestyle choices that lead to their being homeless without first asking the state (and the tax payers) for permission to make those choices. Perhaps they can all immigrate to Australia if you are a truly generous society. Do recall that there are homeless still in Australia. Have you sent them your pay checks to house and feed them? It's such a simple problem to solve just by throwing money at it, no?

As to (5.):

We should do more, yes. What makes Kyoto the best and only solution to the problem?

As to (6.):

Being an Atheist, I cannot agree with you more. Religious fundimentalists and fanatics endanger us all.

As to (7.):

Terrible materialism? What is that? How do you propse it be irradicated, if a 'terrible' form of it even exists? Do you mean, impoverish everyone so without money we won't be burdened with material possessions? Do you mean revert to an agricultural economy and kill the manufacturing economy before it kills us?

As to (8.):

Not before all others who possess them do the same.

As to (9.)

At the same time all other countries drop their own pet subsidies.

As to (10.):

It's not something I've ever said. Besides, sanctimony is not unique to the US.

welcome to the killing fields

:D

jandt:
Imagine
Do you recall from the Lee Harris essay Adam linked to in the other thread what even Karl Marx had to say about Utopianism? And Marx is one of your own guys.

See now you know why I have Jandt on block.

I would want a more enviromentally safe america.

I imagine a west coast succession, with California being the centerpoint of any such movement. Jokingly, we should also invade Texas and sell all assets until are losses are recouped from the Energy gouging we took from Enron, Dynergy, etc......

there was a novel written on the west coast leftist succesion, called Ecotopia. While admittingly a far fetched novel in some terms, the actual concept of California leading such a charge is one worth considering.

I live in Los Angeles, so I speak from within......

We have the 7th largest economy in the world.

We have one of the largest metropolitan sprawls in the world.

California is home to the high tech industry.

We share a share a viewpoint of the world that is abysmally different from the rest of the nation.

We have one of the largest port complexes in the world, soon to be even larger. The federal government crapped it pants recently when the ports shut down over labor disputes.

This is just the surface of the issue.

When I imagine even further, I see autonomonous micro-secularization. Want an anarchist enclave, go right ahead. Want a christian police state, go forward. Dream of a whites only world, go live there. The Amish nation. The hippies in their Ecotopia. People would be free to live where they chose, under rules, beliefs, and systems they choose.

Imagine, the IRSM, the Independent Republic of Soccer Moms, all suvs, krispy creme, painted green grass, and coaches who have to listen to MOM!

Soon, soon...........

Voodoo Child:
eg. International criminal court,...
What nation in their right mind would volunteer to answer to the World Court--an entity that answers to no one but itself? Where's the oversight? Where's the accountability?

No thanks. A World Court without accountability is just a bad idea waiting to happen.

tobi23:

Before part of it fault-slips into the Pacific Ocean, California will never leave the US. Why? Because they couldn't afford to buy fresh water from neighboring states at astronomically-inflated prices, before tax. ;)

--Native Oregonian

1) Stop making and selling landmines, and sign on the landmine ban.
Yes, the US should sign the mine ban treaty. However note that the US has been a leader in demining efforts across the globe...

2) The state should stop killing its own citizens with chemical weapons.
Maybe you should stop smoking crack. Please explain.

3) Stop invading/attacking other nations; try to use more civil means of persuasion. Become a responsible member of the international community (exactly as the USA keeps saying it wants Iraq to be) and use military force only when required and initialised by international law.
Afganistan? We were attacked first. Iraq? If we attack I agree with your comment...but we haven't attacked. Only when required by international law? Ha. A country has to be able to defend itself.

4) Before spending billions destroying 5,000 year old cities in the Middle East, spend that money finding food, shelter, and good health for the 20 or 30 million homeless people within the USA.
I don't see any cities destroyed :confused: We weren't the ones that blew up the ancient buddist statues. As far as the homeless, there are many programs to help them in the US.

5) Work toward a Kyoto type treaty, rather than simply say "It will cost American jobs, so no".
Best point so far. Yes, we should and the public should be outraged that our administration hasn't.

6) Do us all a favour and move away from religion, please.
Of course nothing would make me happier but...how do you mean? If you mean the population then you aren't talking about a US problem as 90% of the world is religious. If you mean continuing(with the exception of our pres) a sharper separation of church and state then I am in agreement.

7) Move away from such terrible materialism. You are on a dead-end course of class-polarisation, which is gradually screwing your country and your people, and spilling over into other nations.
Bullshit. Look at history. Do you think materialism and class polarization are new things? How do you think the US stacks against empires of the past?

8) Present to the UN a full accounting of the disarmament of your nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and an end to their development.
How about the aussies and everyone else doing this? If every country in the world was mandated then lets do it. Otherwise lets just try and keep the maniacs from getting them for now...

9) If you wish to talk free trade, please walk it as well, and stop subsidising your wheat and steel industries and such.
I am for less subsidising of farming and such...but when it comes to free trade we have a pretty good track record. You are reaching.

10) Lose this ridiculous idea that the rest of us are just jealous. You know well that you are simply saying that to reassure yourelves, so you can ignore the points I have listed so far.
Anyone that has this idea is in the minority and probably not very educated.

Originally posted by Mr. G

What nation in their right mind would volunteer to answer to the World Court--an entity that answers to no one but itself? Where's the oversight? Where's the accountability?

http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp


From the preamble: "Emphasizing in this connection that nothing in this Statute shall be taken as authorizing any State Party to intervene in an armed conflict or in the internal affairs of any State,"


http://www.un.org/law/icc/

http://www.xeni.net/images/warposter.jpg

The U.S. and the ICC (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20020711.shtml)

are you so threatened by a desire for life affirming and progressive change. Redistributive politics, meeting the needs of the many instead of the elite. Without a $40 billion dollar a year american intellegence apparatus to destroy such enlightened goals, the world would already be a much different place.

You call it utopianism and discussion stops

You call it anti semetic and discussion stops

You call it Manderism and discussion stops
-In the Absence of the Sacred
-Four Arguements for the Elimination of Television



The facts remain, allow cultures to develop unhindered by american hegemony and greed, and the world would be unrecognizably changed for the good.

Truth is, if we met everyones basic needs, eliminated socio-economic stresses, people would be more willing to discuss such options. This was discussed in the 1960s, a study group produced a $25 million dollar report called 'the report from iron mountain'. It was formed to discuss what to do if 'peace' were to break out. One of the options studied was to met everyones basic needs for food and shelter, but this was not recommended as it would be accomplished in ten years and then what do you do. Instead, the recommendation was to convince the american people of a threat from space, bad aliens, and pour billions into a bullshit space program.

And you think I'm the screwed up one............

To start off with I think it would be nice to have a democracy.
To have a real democracy of course has proven to be incompatible with capitalism(can anyone realistically argue that the rich and poor have an equal say in our government?), so I guess that'll have to go first.

I think most of the other problesm our country has will not go anywhere until this issue is dealt with.

Currently, "Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 48 (1996) outlines U.S. landmine policy and states "that the United States will unilaterally undertake not to use and to place in inactive stockpile status with intent to demilitarize by the end of 1999, all non-self-destructing anti-personnel landmines not needed for (a) training personnel engaged in demining and countermining operations and (b) defending the United States and its allies from armed aggression across the Korean demilitarized zone" as well as directing the Secretary of Defense to "undertake a program of research, procurement, and other measures need to eliminate the requirement for non-self-destructing anti-personnel landmines for training personnel engaged in demining and countermining operations and to defend the United States and its allies from armed aggression across the Korean demilitarized zone."

Further, the PDD "directs that this program have as an objective permitting both the United States and its allies to end reliance on antipersonnel landmines as soon as possible." PDD 64 "directs the Department of Defense to, among other things, (1) develop anti-personnel landmine alternatives to end the use of all anti-personnel landmines outside Korea, including those that self-destruct by the year 2003; (2) pursue aggressively the objective of having alternatives to anti-personnel landmines ready for Korea by 2006, including those that self-destruct; (3) search aggressively for alternatives to our mixed anti-tank landmine systems; (4) aggressively seek to develop and field alternatives to replace non-self-destructing anti-personnel landmines in Korea with the objective of doing so by 2006; and (5) actively investigate the use of alternatives to existing anti-personnel landmines, as they are developed, in place of the self-destructing/self-deactivating anti-personnel sub-munitions currently used in mixed anti-tank mine systems."

1) You have presented a plan to not produce excess mines to go into storage. It does not limit the number of mines to be deployed

2) They don't reliably self-destruct.

3) So they are forming committees to look at alternatives? Wow. Great.


Say what? Can you be more specific?

I believe you yanks call it "the death penalty".


Do you imagine that the US invades/attacks other nations before "more civil means of persuasion" (aka: more affordable means) have failed? And is it your belief that the US is an irresponsible member of the international community because it has the constitutional right to wage war in protection of its interests with no constitutional requirement to first ask the UN for its permission?

1) Yes.

2) The USA is doing what right now? Moving military forces into the area surrounding Iraq, even though Iraq has complied entirely with UN resolutions.


Your are grand-standing. The US is not destroying cities in the middle east. Name a city we've destroyed since Nagasaki? Please provide us the source for your claim of 20-30 million homeless in the US.

1) The USA has bombed Baghdad. parts of Baghdad are thousands of years old.

2) Okay, make that "poor as piss" rather than homeless. Or even "living in third world conditions".
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/causes.html


We should do more, yes. What makes Kyoto the best and only solution to the problem?

You miss the point. Kyoto was something. The USA opted for nothing, to save "American jobs".


Terrible materialism? What is that? How do you propse it be irradicated, if a 'terrible' form of it even exists? Do you mean, impoverish everyone so without money we won't be burdened with material possessions? Do you mean revert to an agricultural economy and kill the manufacturing economy before it kills us?

I have trouble believing even you are so stupid. Think about it.


Not before all others who possess them do the same.

Iraq has the right to say the exact same thing. It's productive, isn't it?


At the same time all other countries drop their own pet subsidies.

Australia has been campaigning for that for a LOOOOONG time, but the USA screws us over by subsidising industries in which we compete.

From the article you posted:

Because the ICC is a facet of the European elites' agenda of disparaging and diluting the sovereignty of nations...

1) It's some guy's opinion, whereas I have given you the facts.

2) The guy is a militia freak afraid of "those darn blue-caps!"

jps:

Please define what is a "real democracy" and where one can be found.

Adam:
....facts....
The facts as you see them from Mars. ;)

Originally posted by Mr. G
Adam:

The facts as you see them from Mars. ;)
Well, if you think that, I'm happy for you. But as is apparent to all sentient members of this BBS, I posted a link to the actual treaty in question, on the UN website.

A real democracy would be a system where everyone had an equal say, either in creating laws directly or choosing representatives to do so.
I do not believe that any exist right now, but the U.S. is further from a real democracy than many other countries because:
we have a two party system.
we have no meaningful controls on campaign financing
we base the results of our election on arbitrary electoral votes rather than popular votes.
and depending on the region of the country the voting itself is tampered with to prevent one candidate or the other from recieving votes.

Adam:
"that the United States will unilaterally undertake not to use and to place in inactive stockpile status
....with intent to demilitarize by the end of 1999,....
Once again you exhibit atrocious reading comprehension and exemplary mistatements of fact.

Hey mod, what happened to my two posts with jpg attachments. they both made it onto the board. now they're gone!

whats the deal??!!

... to demilitarize by the end of 1999, all non-self-destructing anti-personnel landmines not needed for (a) training personnel engaged in demining and countermining operations and (b) defending the United States and its allies from armed aggression across the Korean demilitarized zone"...

What is being demilitarised are those not being used. The rest will be used. And you know the best bit? This is only referring to those used by the state, by the US military. It doesn't at all touch on those produced by US arms companies and simply sold overseas.

jps:
we have a two party system.
An outgrowth of the founding fathers not wanting a parlimentary system of government and of voters who won't vote for candidates from the other parties besides the Big Two.

we have no meaningful controls on campaign financing
Campaign contributions are protected free speech. I would prefer that only real human beings be able to contribute to campaigns, and not intangible entities such as corporations.

I forget what the Supreme Court has said on the matter except "protected free speech".

we base the results of our election on arbitrary electoral votes rather than popular votes.
The Electoral College exists to give states more equal representation. Take it away and the most populous states will always get what they want and the least populous states never will.

....voting itself is tampered with to prevent one candidate or the other from recieving votes.
This would be no different in a "real democracy" since no current system of casting and tallying of votes is 100% tamper-proof.

Adam:

The point is the US Government is working to eliminate its use of landmines, albeit more slowly than the attitudinally frenzied prefer. Get over it.

As for private companies manufacturering them for export (perhaps you can supply a list), I imagine they remain legal items for sale to nations who want them until international commerce in landmines is made illegal.

The point is the US Government is working to eliminate its use of landmines, albeit more slowly than the attitudinally frenzied prefer. Get over it.

By "attitudinally frenzied" (good grief, even the wrong spelling), I suppose you mean:
- The 26,000 (8,000 kids) people each year killed of mutilated by them?
- The 35,000 Cambodians missing limbs due to them?


As for private companies manufacturering them for export (perhaps you can supply a list), I imagine they remain legal items for sale to nations who want them until international commerce in landmines is made illegal.
1) A list. (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/mines/IV.2.recalcitrant.html)

2) "...until international commerce in landmines is made illegal..." Well guess what?! You know who refused to make it illegal? The USA!


http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/mines/index.html

(good grief, even the wrong spelling), ....killed of mutilated....
Yeah, good grief.

I made a typo. You are blesssed with institutionalised bad spelling.

You're grand-standing again. And using more of your patented "facts" to do so, once again.

Originally posted by Mr. G
And using more of your patented "facts" to do so, once again. [/B]
You mean like:
- My link to the UN Criminal Court treaty?
- The requested list of US companies producing landmines?

Parlimentary systems are better than what we have, the origins of the problems i stated don't have any bearing on this issue

i don't buy the whole "buying elections is free speech" arguement. If you accept that reasoning than outright bribery should be protected too.
but in any case, this is why I said that capitalism is incompatible with democracy

States don't deserve equal representation, states are arbitrary boundries. PEOPLE deserve equal representation

and no under a real democracy there would be no election tampering because I define a real democracy as one in which these problems don't exist.

I made a typo. You are blesssed with institutionalised bad spelling.

It's "institutionalized".

No. Specifically, purporting as fact that "attitudinally frenzied" is misspelled.

IMHO, 2 words: Capital Punishment.

If not...

I'd like to see the spending of national resources done more efficiently. Always with the growing amount of homeless, drug abusers, and welfare people...Who keeps siphoning off all this money??

jds:

Your four opinions are noted. A vote was taken. You lost. ;)

Originally posted by Mr. G
It's "institutionalized".

No. Specifically, purporting as fact that "attitudinally frenzied" is misspelled.
Phrenzied.

Originally posted by Mr. G
jds:

Your four opinions are noted. A vote was taken. You lost. ;)

A more well thought out arguement I have never seen.

please ignore my earlier posts about the missing messages. i was looking in the wrong thread.

i'll be more careful next time....

tobi23:

No problem. I imagined it was a simple error. ;)

jps:
A more well thought out arguement I have never seen.
Pick just your first opinion for analysis:

Name a parlimentary super-power.

Israel.

Name a non-parlimentary super-power.

United States.

Adumb:

Phrenzied.
Only on your planet, Mars.

There are huge differences between the U.S. and Israel which have nothing to do with its being parliamentary...take canada or england instead....
These are somewhat more democratic countries than the United States.
I don't think a parliamentary system is the way to go, but its better than what we have here.

jds:

My point? To counter-point a fanciful notion without merit.

Parlimentary systems are better than what we have....
I don't think a parliamentary system is the way to go,....
What is "the way" to go?

Where does it exist? Where can it realistically exist? Why doesn't it exist?

What can elevate "it" beyond being just your fantasy?

Name a non-parlimentary super-power.

Parliamentary.


Only on your planet, Mars.

Phrenzy. Pears Cyclopedia, 1939, page 424. From the Greek phrenitis = delirium.


Don't let your own lack of education be the standard by which you judge others.

Frenzied: Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, 1959, page 1007.

You still haven't painted why you should be the face of the New America, beyond being just another powerless malcontent.

Phrenzy appears in none of my dictionaries.

None of them are Oz dictionaries.

You still haven't painted why you should be the face of the New America, beyond being just another powerless malcontent.

1) I never said I should be the face of the New America.

2) Thus far you have stepped on every nail and declared the floor clear. In other words, you have not actually read what I have posted.

3) Powerless malcontent? Resorting to insults does nothing for your cause, whatever that is.

4) As for whether I am a powerless malcontent: I have been in the military, have been half way around the world on military business, have worked with Australian, USA, and British intelligence, have been involved in the big bad nasty drug war of ill repute, and am even noew subject to the Official Secrets Act. Probably Fukushi and Wet1 have been further into the mess than I ever was, but I have no doubt that I have been in further than you ever were.

None of which counters your public impression.

Originally posted by Mr. G
Phrenzy appears in none of my dictionaries.

None of them are Oz dictionaries.
Try English dictionaries, rather than American. I've given you the King's English and the Greek roots.

Originally posted by Mr. G
None of which counters your public impression.
My "public impression"? Is that something I am supposed to care about?

Please move away from "I think you look silly", and focus on the material provided.

Posted by jps:

To start off with I think it would be nice to have a democracy.

To have a real democracy of course has proven to be incompatible with capitalism(can anyone realistically argue that the rich and poor have an equal say in our government?), so I guess that'll have to go first.

I think most of the other problesm our country has will not go anywhere until this issue is dealt with.

check HERE (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10188) , I brought up an issue very similiar to what you are saying, you (and others) might be interested in it.

Capitalism with a half-assed type of democracy must have lower, upper, and middle classes. Instead of having the high-class, rich people run the entire government and set laws and enforce them, the middle class is given some power. Also, the middle class as the majority of the population was none existant till a few hundred years ago. There used to be rich people (royalty) and poor people (working class people). America was the first western nation to make a middle class that was successfully part of the government. Some very important laws are made because of the pressure of the public.

Reform of the Constitution will be rejected because it has proved the test of time that it works....but for how long? And that's what your discussing, the reform. There's no denying the government has become more of a force in American's lives than was originally planned. And today, American lives are affected by what happens in other countries....communication has opened open drastically, even in the last 20 years. The government takes a responsibility onto itself to see that American lives are well. And the upper-class runs the government just like it has always since the late 1700's. So, you can say that the upper-class takes the responsibility onto itself to protect American lives and their welfare. With that, you can say that the upper-class invades other countries to keep American lives good.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's where your reform has to be before you tear up the Constitution. Revolutions destroy economies, destroy everything a country has done that has been good for society to mimic. Democracy....a better way of life than having the Kings and Queens decree laws.

The USA is like that kid that hit puberty at age 8. The body developes but the mind (society) doesn't.
Slavery...death penalty...land mines...imperialism...lenient on criminals........most western countries had reformed their policies way earlier than the USA.......YET democracy and the middle class were in the USA first.

Now it is the time for "sex education" for the USA. The mind has started to develop, the body is almost fully developed......time for some ethics teaching and changing the way it see's the world.


does that analogy make sense? :m: :D

No matter your sourcing frenzy, the fact remains "frenzied" is not a misspelling.

It just doesn't comport with your prefered relative reality.

Still, your claim to authority in the matter is proven to be bluster, and no more.

My "public impression"? Is that something I am supposed to care about?
Why should you. It makes you no different than any of us needing to care.

No matter your sourcing frenzy, the fact remains "frenzied" is not a misspelling.

As stated earlier, it is the result of institutionalised bad spelling. As stated earlier, I provided King's English and Greek roots. It has not escaped my notice that American spelling (ie. simple phonetic spelling which is no doubt easier to teach over there) has spread quite far and wide. It's a shame.


It just doesn't comport with your prefered relative reality.

You deny Greek exists?


Still, your claim to authority in the matter is proven to be bluster, and no more.

1) What claim to authority?
2) What proof?

King's English and Greek roots.
Confirmed: you're anal-retentive. Language has evolved, in case you haven't noticed.

If Adumb is anal-retentive, he could sure use a bit of practice on the "sadistic" bit.

Newsflash, Adam, your insults reflect badly on you, not on your opponents.

Adim:

And so this devolved pissing contest is your lead-by-example model for what America should be beyond what you find wrong with it?

Right. :rolleyes:

As I said before I don't believe it exists today. I do believe there are countries that are closer to democracy than we are today.


grazzhoppa- I agree with much of what you say, the constitution was a great improvement on what came before it, however I don't think its the end of the line. Its true revolutions destroy things(at least violent ones do) but would you argue that the american revolution should not have taken place because it destroyed the system of colonial control that the British had?

jds:

You need to leave the country. You haven't a clue and there are illegals who have a better understanding.

Go. Before you have children.

Might I add a "and don't come back" to that?

Originally posted by Mr. G
jds:

You need to leave the country. You haven't a clue and there are illegals who have a better understanding.

Go. Before you have children.

funny how debates with right-wingers tend to end with personal insults.

Actually, I'm a slightly right-of-center Independent.

So much for your powers of estimation.

Originally posted by Xev


Newsflash, Adam, your insults reflect badly on you, not on your opponents.




Might I add a "and don't come back" to that?

Seems you have somewhat of a double standard here.

The revolution I was referring to was the type it would take to reform the Constitution, change the way the government opperates. It can't be anything like the American or Russian revolution. If something that castostrophic happened, the world would be on a stand still for awhile. Reform needs to come before changing an effective government.

I totally agree with you, not all revolutions destroy good things.

Originally posted by Mr. G
Actually, I'm a slightly right-of-center Independent.

So much for your powers of estimation.

As far as I'm concerned thats right-wing

Ignorance is bliss.

I sure don't agree with that. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12773)

I'm a social anarchist and governmental democrat. I worked on Gore's campaign and I hate Dubya Bush.

I think that people should be free to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others.

The only thing I could concievably share with the right-wing is a belief that the government is best when it governs least, and that's only an espoused ideal of the right wing, not a real ideal.

Seems you have somewhat of a double standard here.

How so? My insult had some wit and showed the ability to think on my feet. Adumb's insult's reek of the playground.

I'm suprised that he hasn't tried to hit me or Mr.G with a Tonka truck yet. :)

grazzhoppa:

Not surprised.

Originally posted by grazzhoppa
The revolution I was referring to was the type it would take to reform the Constitution, change the way the government opperates. It can't be anything like the American or Russian revolution. If something that castostrophic happened, the world would be on a stand still for awhile. Reform needs to come before changing an effective government.

I totally agree with you, not all revolutions destroy good things.

I agree, I don't think that type of revolution is necessary, or even possible here.

jps:

Disproving your premise, Xev and I see eye-to-eye on many things, and many more nearly so. Together even less than folks like you, me thinks.

I could be wrong, but I think Xev will play along just to help make the point. And that supports my r.o.c.-I claim, too.

1st Post:
Adam mentioned by name, as a challenge to speak of the USA.

2nd Post:
Actually on topic. Although it contains the classis "I'm not putting down my gun unless he does first!"

3rd Post:
Off topic.

4th Post:
Questions regarding the International Criminal Court.
Questions answered by me, inlcuding links to the ICC Act itself.

5th Post:
An actual response on topic.

6th Post:
A link to a journalist essay.

7th Post:
Question to jps regarding "real democracy".

8th Post:
"The facts as you see them from Mars." Referring to me posting data from the ICC Act in question, a primary source.

9th Post:
Insults and an accusation I misread material.

10th Post:
Opinions of the USA electoral system.

11th Post:
Landmine discussion, although uninformed and no considered. A request for data regarding landmines.
I provided requested data in the following post.

12th Post:
Basically empty.

13th Post:
"And using more of your patented "facts" to do so, once again." This after I posted supporting data for all points. From this we can see that Mr G has no facts, no data, no supported opinions, and must simply rely on trying to discredit others - others who actually do provide data.

14th Post:
Again, empty, except for another example of American spelling.

15th Post:
Meaningless post regarding unreal vote.

16th Post:
Off topic.

17th Post:
Questions for jps.

18th Post:
Nothing but infantile insults.

19th Post:
Questions for jps.

20th Post:
Reference to an American dictionary.

21st Post:
"You still haven't painted why you should be the face of the New America, beyond being just another powerless malcontent." First half having no relation to anything so far posted, second half being countered in my next post.

22nd Post:
Complaint about lacking good English dictionaries.

23rd Post:
Again, attack against user character rather than supplied data. Again indicating a complete lack of anything relevent to say.

24th Post:
Empty post, only thing vaguely rational is something about authority.

25th Post:
Empty post.

26th Post:
Off topic. Personal attacks.

27th Post:
" And so this devolved pissing contest is your lead-by-example model for what America should be beyond what you find wrong with it?"

1) This post provides a good record of the thread, and who has been "pissing".
2) What is wrong with America is actually the topic of the thread.

28th Post:
More personal attacks.

29th Post:
Entirely off topic.

30th Post:
Empty post.

31st Post:
Empty post.

32nd Post:
Entirely off topic.

Mr.G:

That is correct. Not hating our country does not make us right-wingers. Nor does it mean we are ignorent of its history.

It simply means that we have IQs that surpass the level of most nematodes.

*Edit*

Mr.G, I wanted to suggest that we engage in cybersex here just to piss Adumb off. But then I realized that Adam probably hasn't had sex in so long that he'll have forgotten what we're talking about. :(

Inarguably anal-retentive.

Thanks, Adam. You da' man!

Originally posted by Xev
I'm a social anarchist and governmental democrat. I worked on Gore's campaign and I hate Dubya Bush.

I think that people should be free to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others.

The only thing I could concievably share with the right-wing is a belief that the government is best when it governs least, and that's only an espoused ideal of the right wing, not a real ideal.


You think people should be free to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others........and you worked on Gore's campaign.
Do you actually believe that Gore shares this viewpoint?

It seems to me that your social position and your governmental position are in direct conflict with each other.

Mr.G:
Yes, but he makes a piss poor sadist, no? I don't believe any of his insults do much more than prove what an idiot he is.

jps:
It seems to me that your social position and your governmental position are in direct conflict with each other.

Gore would have been better than his alternative.

Am I going to refuse to drink water because fine wine is not available?

Oooo, baby....yes, yes, Yes!

Ah.

;)

Originally posted by Mr. G
jps:

Disproving your premise, Xev and I see eye-to-eye on many things, and many more nearly so. Together even less than folks like you, me thinks.

I could be wrong, but I think Xev will play along just to help make the point. And that supports my r.o.c.-I claim, too.

I don't see how this disproves anything. I consider "governmental democrats" to be right-wing too, seems perfectly reasonable that you two should get along.

That is correct. Not hating our country does not make us right-wingers. Nor does it mean we are ignorent of its history.

I don't hate this country, I hate many of the things it has done and continues to do here and abroad. What makes you right-wingers is that you either support these things or refuse to acknowledge their existance.

jds:

Please tell us you haven't had children, and that you aren't Adam in drag.

Originally posted by Mr. G
jds:

Please tell us you haven't had children, and that you aren't Adam in drag.

So, having lost the debate you turn to personal attacks?

Yeah, jps, most anarchists are conservatives.

In fact, I have a special membership in the Christian Coalition. Even though I'm an athiest, they let me in!

I don't hate this country, I hate many of the things it has done and continues to do here and abroad. What makes you right-wingers is that you either support these things or refuse to acknowledge their existance.

Support what things? What do I support?

Refuse to aknowledge what past things? Like the genocide of Native Americans? Like the support of fascist dictatorships and ex-Nazis during the Cold War? Like training our allies in torture and interrogation techniques?

Mr.G: You know, the scary thing is that it likely is not Adam in drag, but a real human who actually interacts in the world outside the internet.

Sadly, Mr G has posted more personal attacks than anything else. He is, unfortunately, one of the type responsible for dragging down the level of discussion here at sciforums.

Adumb:

Yes, one of our more intelligent posters, well versed in physics and mathmatics, with a knack for debunking fools, is dragging the level of discussion down.

Wheras you, who have pursued your inane vendetta against me for reasons best known for yourself, are really helping.

Originally posted by Xev

Wheras you, who have pursued your inane vendetta against me for reasons best known for yourself, are really helping.
Um... what vendetta? Please support this accusation.

Originally posted by Xev
Yeah, jps, most anarchists are conservatives.

In fact, I have a special membership in the Christian Coalition. Even though I'm an athiest, they let me in!



Support what things? What do I support?

Refuse to aknowledge what past things? Like the genocide of Native Americans? Like the support of fascist dictatorships and ex-Nazis during the Cold War? Like training our allies in torture and interrogation techniques?

Actually, Most anarchists feel that voting is condoning and legitimizing our government and therefore consider it to be against their political beliefs.
Anarchist groups, by and large, decide things using consensus, meaning they don't do anything until they come to an agreement that is suitable to everyone, so as far as my argument on democracy goes, they're even more extreme.
More basically, anarchy is defined by the OED as "absence of government" or "a state of lawlessness"

jps:
As I said "social anarchist and governmental democrat".

I do not believe in anarchy as a governmental system.

I'd advise you to read my posts. I'd also ask you again:

What US actions do I condone or not know about?

Adam:

Oh, I don't know, the bellicose way you've been with me since fuck knows when. The fact that when I tried to be civil to you, you respond by being annoying and insulting.

I don't think I'm the only one. Warren (chroot), Tyler and Mr.G have also noticed simular behaviour from you.

Originally posted by Xev

Mr.G: You know, the scary thing is that it likely is not Adam in drag, but a real human who actually interacts in the world outside the internet.

Having looked over my posts here, I fail to see what would give an "anarchist" like yourself reason to say such a thing about me.

Y'know the thing that impressed me most about sciforums when I started posting here recently was that their seemed to be real intelligent debate on issues that didn't degenerate into inane insults. I' m sorry to see my impression was incorrect.

Sadly, Mr G has posted more personal attacks than anything else. He is, unfortunately, one of the type responsible for dragging down the level of discussion here at sciforums.

So it would seem.

jps:
Having looked over my posts here, I fail to see what would give an "anarchist" like yourself reason to say such a thing about me.

My social beliefs have nothing to do with the fact that you are a moron.

I'll repeat for the third time:

What US actions do I condone or not know about?

Think you can answer, Wolfgang Pauli?

That there are morons in the muggle world out there is pretty scary, especially since I have to work with them all day.

Originally posted by Xev

Oh, I don't know, the bellicose way you've been with me since fuck knows when. The fact that when I tried to be civil to you, you respond by being annoying and insulting.

I don't think I'm the only one. Warren (chroot), Tyler and Mr.G have also noticed simular behaviour from you.
I post a great deal of raw data, which unfortunately tends not to support many things said here. If people get emotional and upset by that, I can't be held responsible. I suggest you examine posting patterns of the four individuals you mentioned for th past month or so.

Originally posted by Xev
jps:
As I said "social anarchist and governmental democrat".

I do not believe in anarchy as a governmental system.

I'd advise you to read my posts. I'd also ask you again:

What US actions do I condone or not know about?



Ok, so you you're a right-winger governmentally and an "anarchist" socially.
so people should do whatever they want, but it should all be illegal?
whatever, thats beside the point.

I reviewed your posts as you suggested:
You've said nothing, although you've done an admirable job proving yourself to have the mental skills of a lab rat on crack. If Adumb is anal-retentive, he could sure use a bit of practice on the "sadistic" bit. Might I add a "and don't come back" to that? I'm suprised that he hasn't tried to hit me or Mr.G with a Tonka truck yet. Mr.G: You know, the scary thing is that it likely is not Adam in drag, but a real human who actually interacts in the world outside the internet.
etc. etc. etc.
Having reviewed your posts I've found that they consist mostly of insults like the above against those who've posted opinions that are at odds with those of Mr. G
from this it seemed logical to conclude that you agreed with his positions from which it seemed to follow that you would either deny the existance of or condone such things as the genocide of native americans, training allies in torture, etc.
my apologies.

Adam:

Raw data is one thing. Insulting those with contrary veiws is another.

Were it only the four posters I mentioned, I might agree to disagree. But your unnecessarily bellicose attitude towards myself has been noted by people you do not insult or spar with on a regular basis.

So I reiterate, what the fuck is your problem with me?

jps:

Ok, so you you're a right-winger governmentally and an "anarchist" socially.
so people should do whatever they want, but it should all be illegal?

Umm, no. I am a liberal-democrat (in the origional sense of both words) governmentally.

What have I said that is right-wing?

Having reviewed your posts I've found that they consist mostly of insults like the above against those who've posted opinions that are at odds with those of Mr. G

Insulting you was from your idiocy, not from your politics.

from this it seemed logical to conclude that you agreed with his positions from which it seemed to follow that you would either deny the existance of or condone such things as the genocide of native americans, training allies in torture, etc.
my apologies.

Apologies accepted, although I am curious as to where I've said anything even slightly right-wing on this thread.

Xev,
your support of Gore is another thing that gave me that impression, given that he has never taken a stand on any issues outside the mainstream of american politics....
acknowledging these issues but saying that they're inevitable or that nothign can be done about them isn't much better than condoning them.

jps:

Re: Gore:

I'm not going to starve to death because I can't eat sushi.

I don't like any politician with the exception of Jesse Ventura, who I respect for having balls. But sometimes we have to compromise in order to avoid a worse evil.

I'm finding you more intelligent than I origionally gave you credit for. Mayhaps I'll have to eat some of my words.

Originally posted by Xev
jps:

Re: Gore:

I'm not going to starve to death because I can't eat sushi.

I don't like any politician with the exception of Jesse Ventura, who I respect for having balls. But sometimes we have to compromise in order to avoid a worse evil.


Thats reasonable. I'm not one to say there's NO difference between democrats and republicans. I think overall democrats want to keep things the way they are, and republicans want to make things worse(from my perspective)
at the very least, voting can't hurt.


I'm finding you more intelligent than I origionally gave you credit for. Mayhaps I'll have to eat some of my words.

Wow. That may be the first time I've seen someone say something of that nature online where people are safe behind their computers. much respect.

jps:
Thats reasonable. I'm not one to say there's NO difference between democrats and republicans. I think overall democrats want to keep things the way they are, and republicans want to make things worse(from my perspective)

I agree. I think the republicans and democrats are stuck in the same old system of "placate the idiot voters while serving the interests of those who pay for our campaigns", but I also think that the republicans make things worse, while the democrats have a fairly decent stand.

at the very least, voting can't hurt.

If you don't vote, somebody who is worse than your compromise candidate may win.

I believe in democracy, but I'm pretty dissatisfied with the way things are now.

And I'm sorry - my treatment of you was nastier than you warrented. I tend not to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are stupider than they are.

much respect.

Same to you. :m:

Originally posted by Xev
Adam:

Raw data is one thing. Insulting those with contrary veiws is another.

Were it only the four posters I mentioned, I might agree to disagree. But your unnecessarily bellicose attitude towards myself has been noted by people you do not insult or spar with on a regular basis.

So I reiterate, what the fuck is your problem with me?

I think you are imagining things. If not, as previously requested, show me the money. However, be warned that if I have the time and inclination later, I shall respond in kind.

Adam:
I think you are imagining things.

Would, then, be a communal "imagining"

If not, as previously requested, show me the money.

I don't reveal private messages and conversations, sorry.

And frankly, I can't really be bothered with you any longer. You seem to have problems interacting with the opposite sex, as do many male "geeks". Which is nothing in itself, but you take this out on other people.

I rather like you, even if you piss me off a bit. I hope you can face your problems and try to change them, and I wish you luck.

I've seen a lot of intelligent posts from you, and I hope to see that back again.

Oddly enough, Xev, your recent behaviour has indeed been commented upon by many. Likewise, I will not reveal the contents of private conversations; however, these are all on public display.

From: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13762

Although, add an "ostro" and I'm sure you'd fit in well with the Goths.


From: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13882

Adam, no matter how nice you are to the ones on the internet, real women still are not going to fuck you.

Fan boy.

Adam, lay off the crack. It's simply that your obsessive flirtation with anything that has tits gets....tedious.

Having real human males interested in me, I don't actually care about the affections of ones online. Perhaps you'd be a bit less snippy if you could say the converse.

Fanboy.


From: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13949

If Adumb is anal-retentive, he could sure use a bit of practice on the "sadistic" bit.

Mr.G, I wanted to suggest that we engage in cybersex here just to piss Adumb off. But then I realized that Adam probably hasn't had sex in so long that he'll have forgotten what we're talking about.

Yes, but he makes a piss poor sadist, no? I don't believe any of his insults do much more than prove what an idiot he is.

Mr.G: You know, the scary thing is that it likely is not Adam in drag, but a real human who actually interacts in the world outside the internet.

Adumb:

Yes, one of our more intelligent posters, well versed in physics and mathmatics, with a knack for debunking fools, is dragging the level of discussion down.

Wheras you, who have pursued your inane vendetta against me for reasons best known for yourself, are really helping.

So I reiterate, what the fuck is your problem with me? (please view your own words so far quoted...)

You seem to have problems interacting with the opposite sex, as do many male "geeks".


From: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13816

He has a vendetta against everyone, really. It's not restricted to drug users.

I'd give him my pity and not waste another thought on him, if I were you. He's really an insecure young man who makes up for his feelings of inadequecy around women and other people by pretending to be superiour to them. Inside, he knows that he's just another helot swallowing whatever he is told. However, this truth would be painful to aknowledge, thus he attacks anyone who differs in opinion from him. His responses to myself on the subject of sex and morality, and to any thiest or agnostic on the subject of God, are illuminating.

I've been in his shoes.

However, blatent idiocy offends me as much as it does you, so I think I'll be a hypocrite and respond to him:

And the difference is not merely semantic, although it might seem that way to a thick-skulled Visigoth such as yourself.

Have you been smoking dried Elmers, or are you being a bit more stupid than usual?

Tyler, c'mon, stop taking this shit seriously. The only use arrogant twats have is to amuse their superiours - i.e you and I.

It's really more effective just to taunt the silly monkeys than to argue with them.

Moron.

B: They were barbarians. No historian disputes this. Thus, my calling you one is the same thing as my calling you a barbarian.

Which, given your attitude towards women, would not be off target by much.

C: The race card is for pussies. Ergo, you are a pussy.

Tell me, Adam, does this really compensate you for the fact that you can't interact with the opposite sex? Or for the fact that the world doesn't conform to your idea of what it should be?

Yes, Adam, it is getting sad. Tell me, Adam honey, does playing alpha male online help you get over the fact that you aren't one in the mundane world?


Once again, I supply raw data.

The analysis? Well, I've presented the data. I'll leave interpretation to others.

PS: Was it a waste of 15 minutes? I hope not. I attempt to show a teenager her actions as though watching them on video, viewing from outside, for better understanding. It may be helpful.

Adam and Xev,

Ah. My dear friends Xev and Adam... Why cant yall just shut up? You two could try to keep this in PMs. Dont let it spill out into other forums... its not pretty to be reading about how much Jandt hates america and then come across you two fighting.

Your the two biggest posters here. Your not setting a good example for the n00bs blah blah blah.

Whatever it is between you two you need to solve it.

-CounslerCoffee

P.S. Of course Im not one to say anything... Just play nice. Please, for me?:D

I didn't start it and I have carte blanche as long as I didn't start it. :D

Mr. G; Great Thread! “Big brother is watching”

Adam; I like your icon. I wonder in what part (or parts)
of your body you polish it?
…but I like your point!

Jandt; (it’s simple) Let it be, …ohh let it be!

Voodoo Child; ..getting warmer!

Jandt; (Illusion in the…) Now ya cooking!

The America I want will end up looking like Italy. …nice healthy food, nice ladies, vivid temperament and interaction among humans ….life is just tasty!!

Why like Italy? Well, Italy was once a super power, much as we now are. It too had weapons of mass destruction. It conquered the world, or at least influenced all those not under their power. They had more advances and wealth then the other sub-super powers. They, like we, had corruption and the population didn’t care much while they enjoyed the fruits of prosperity.

Since the Italians where were we are now, but thousands years ago. I guess at the end of all of it, I would like us be become the Italy of now days, ….including the Pope!!

release the 12000 pages in its entirety without censorship
stop pushing abstinence (people are dying)

Microzoft:

I, too, have a particular fondness for Italy.

Except for the robber-baron-like papacy, Italy is not an unreasonable model for America in later life's descent toward senility.

=====

As for the utopian socialists amongst us: it's been interesting to watch lofty, if not improbable ideas depreciated by less than lofty comport. How out of place each of you would be in a Utopia of your own making. But then, we'd all be voted out. :D

I personally don't find arising Pheonix-like from the atmospherics of this thread a compelling enough alternative to America in its current form and circumstance, my dear Quixotes.

Certainly no broad consensus for American revolution from within despite the phrenzied [sic] calls from the gallery.

stop pushing abstinence (people are dying)
While I agree, this is a minority teaching. Most sex education in the US teaches safe sex.

In sub-Saharan Africa, where teenage girls are treated as chattel and forced into sexual submission to older men — either by economic necessity or cultural tradition — the U.N. report notes that about 2 million of about 4.2 million new HIV infections are among females. Yet Bush threatened countries with trade and aid reprisals if they didn’t toe the no-condoms, abstinence-only, anti-abortion line in the vote to weaken the U.N.’s commitment to providing life-saving information to those young women.

But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Countries like Cambodia have complained in public that U.S. policies preventing American foreign-aid dollars from being used to purchase, distribute and educate about condoms have crippled their HIV-prevention programs.


*i imagine this is the modus operandi overseas. you are for the most part, correct when you say safe sex is taught here. however.........


And, here at home, Bush — under the direction of political commissar Karl Rove — has been systematically placing HIV- prevention efforts into the hands of the Christian right — which ä is pushing the censorious line that abstinence before heterosexual marriage is the only permissible form of HIV-prevention education — and putting condom opponents in charge of AIDS education.

For example, Rove engineered the appointment of Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn as co-chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS (PACHA). A former congressman and Baptist deacon, condom critic Coburn — a board member of the far-right Family Research Council — was considered the AIDS community’s Enemy Number One in his years in the House. He earned this dishonor because this notorious homophobe, after having called safer sex a “lie,” tried to have the head of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) fired for advocating condom use to prevent AIDS; wrote unsuccessful legislation to replace anonymous HIV testing with mandatory reporting of the names of the HIV-infected (which AIDS educators say drives people away from being tested for the virus and forces the problem underground); and spurred intimidating investigations of nonprofit AIDS agencies.

For the position of PACHA’s executive director, Rove picked Patricia Funderburk Ware, a former actress who has made a career out of promoting abstinence until marriage as the only acceptable guideline for sexual conduct. As the education head of Americans for a Sound AIDS Policy, a group funded by the Christian right, Ware not only lobbied against any efforts that promoted education and protection over abstinence but also against including HIV and AIDS in the Americans With Disabilities Act and its protections against discrimination. Moreover, Bush’s appointees to the advisory council included no scientists and not a single person with HIV, while at the same time he stacked it with campaign contributors and Christian-right condom opponents — including Joe McIlhaney Jr., director of the Texas-based Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which provides condom-debunking information to abstinence educators across the country. McIlhaney, who was Bush’s AIDS-prevention guru when Dubya was governor.
At the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Rove recruited conservative Claude Allen, a former top aide to Jesse Helms, to keep an eye on Secretary Tommy Thompson (who has an exaggerated reputation as a “moderate”). As Secretary of Health and Human Resources for right-wing Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, Allen bent public-health priorities to the religious right’s agenda and led a state-sponsored anti-safe-sex crusade he cooked up with the abstinence-only Institute for Youth Development, whose mission is to teach children to fear rather than understand sex. Allen says of condom use: “It’s like telling your child, ‘Don’t use the car,’ but then leaving the keys in the Lamborghini and saying, ‘But if you do, buckle up.’” As deputy health secretary, Allen has been placed in charge of a censorious audit of AIDS groups designed to crack down on science-based safe-sex education.

Not only has Allen made explicit sex ed aimed at gay men his favorite target (despite soaring infection rates among under-25 gay males), but when Thompson was criticized by vociferous protests against Bush’s AIDS betrayals during the secretary’s speech at the international AIDS conference in Barcelona earlier this year, influential Indiana Representative Mark Souder — an evangelical Christian who says all gay sex is “immoral,” and who chairs the House’s oversight subcommittee on HHS — sparked a witch-hunt against a dozen respected AIDS service organizations (including San Francisco’s Stop AIDS Project) because some of their members participated in the demonstration. Now being conducted by Allen, the HHS witch-hunting audit is designed to intimidate all of the 3,500 local AIDS service groups, which are dependent on federal funding for their existence, into staying silent on Bush’s disastrous AIDS policies.

In October, a dozen congressmen led by L.A.’s Henry Waxman denounced the Bush administration’s removal of medical information on condoms and sex from government Web sites, including those of the CDC and HHS. And Human Rights Watch recently issued a damning report on how Bush’s pushing of abstinence-only has undermined prevention education about AIDS and other STDs (check it out (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/09/us0918.htm)).

While flat-lining domestic AIDS funding for the Ryan White Care Act and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (which provides anti-AIDS drugs to the poor) — both of which are now facing crisis shortfalls in their budgets — Bush has added tens of millions to his 2003 budget for abstinence-only education, now up to $135 million. Rove’s evil genius: The money is used as political patronage for religious-sponsored abstinence programs, particularly in the black and Latino communities — where new AIDS infections are soaring, and where churches are being enrolled to support Bush’s 2004 re-election. (A coalition of 50 organizations — including the American Jewish Congress Commission for Women’s Equality, chapters of Planned Parenthood, a United Church of Christ ministry, the Unitarians and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League — has initiated a campaign to have Congress stop funding abstinence-only programs. Its Web site — nonewmoney (www.nonewmoney.org) — gives you a simple, clickable way to e-mail your Congress members.)

So, by politicizing AIDS education and prevention both globally and domestically, the Bush administration, in its macabre dance, is helping to push the numbers of new AIDS infections upward. Future generations will judge this for what it is: stomach-turning criminal negligence. (doug ireland)

Spookz,
I wasn't aware of any of that in the article. Another reason bush and his administration have to go. Let's hope we do not continue the downward spiral...I concede this is a worrying trend that needs to stop.

which is why we have elections once in a while


slogans

you can make a difference

you get the govt you deserve

:D

I saw this article (http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=20398) linked elsewhere: the fundies are taking quite a public relations hit these days for a lot of the stupid stuff they say and do.

We should be giving out the money with demands for financial accountability and leave the morality issue at the water's edge until the hiv morbidity rate declines, then we can talk with folks about their lifestyle choices.

Originally posted by Mr. G


I personally don't find arising Pheonix-like from the atmospherics of this thread a compelling enough alternative to America in its current form and circumstance, my dear Quixotes.

Certainly no broad consensus for American revolution from within despite the phrenzied [sic] calls from the gallery.

Throughout history, governments have risen and fallen. I am sure that in all of them there were people like yourself who felt that they had reached the epitomy of government and that critics of said government were idealistic fools, and like today, these people formed the majority of the population.
As you have not actually addressed the points raised by the critics here in any serious manner, and instead resorted to name-calling, I will assume that you are unable to. Changing the minds of people who are set in their ways is very difficult, moreso in an online forum. I am content in having taken the debate to a point where you were no longer able to respond intelligently.

jds:

Assume what you will as it suits you. I'm comfortable with that.

I play to the larger audience rather than to the players because that's where experience has taught me the message is less likely to get lost than in the noisome frenzy of invariant opinionitis.

The "players" wrongly assume it's all about them; as do you.

Originally posted by Mr. G
jds:

The "players" wrongly assume it's all about them; as do you.

I'm not sure what gives you this impression. It is certainly incorrect

jds:
I'm not sure what gives you this impression. It is certainly incorrect
Is it?

Take Adam as an example. Here's a guy who openingly states, "Screw you all!" I'm the stud here. My facts rule. What I say goes. Prove me and my "facts" wrong, if you can. Your opinions aren't worth jack sh*t to me. Last man standing wins.

Well, everyone's got facts--facts commenting on the very same issues but that don't originate with Adam.

What is it that makes Adam's "facts" more significant than anyone else's from other sources?

To hear Adam, it's because they're Adam's facts and they're superior to your's because they're 'Adam-processed'. And screw you for thinking anything different.

Well, that's Adam's schtick.

Adam is a tactical thinker--mano a mano; nose to nose; Here I am; Here's my "facts"; Take 'em on, if you dare withstand the force of my bombastic personality. I'm Adam. I'm me. And you ain't.

Well, okay. That works for some--the tacticals who think the world is measured against themselves.

What about the strategic perspective wherein facts are measured against the real world?

e.g.: Adam has his motives. Adam has his prefered sources for "facts". Adam has his personal preferences and prejudices. Adam wants people to play his game on his terms. But are Adam's "facts" the only facts available? Is his game the only game in town?

If it isn't, what motivates Adam to attempt to get everyone else to thinking his game actually is the only game in town?

Is the best test of an idea's mettle the personality presuming to interpret it for you because you aren't likely to make sense of it yourself--because "you suck", compared to him; or, is an idea better tested by its innate ability to speak to you with an intuitive clairty sans self-appointed, interpretive interventionist?

Must discourse always be tactical--conducted in-your-face? Or can discourse be strategic--indirect, probative, commentative, dissatisfied?

Must ultimate relevence be defined by the tactical cult-of-personality, in-your-face, take-me-on-if-you-dare, you-suck, last-man-standing credo?

Or is there room in reasoned discource for a more aloof show-me-the-goods, last-man-trusted-wins approach?

You more often than not side with, and identify with, Adam's "it's all about me" approach. So, what am I to think about you other than you think it's all about yourself, too?

Last man standing or last man trusted?

I've decided for which I'd rather be known.

Originally posted by Mr. G

You more often than not side with, and identify with, Adam's "it's all about me" approach. So, what am I to think about you other than you think it's all about yourself, too?

Last man standing or last man trusted?


How do I do this? I simply presented my opinions, much as you did, does the fact that my opinions differ from your own make me self-centered somehow?

You "do it" by not confronting folks like Adam with as much zeal as you confront folks like me.

We're all self-centered--it's human genetic predisposition. It's to our collective benefit to remind one another that the world revolves around none of us.

As you have not actually addressed the points raised by the critics here in any serious manner, and instead resorted to name-calling, I will assume that you are unable to.
Maybe I have other things to address.

Originally posted by Mr. G
You "do it" by not confronting folks like Adam with as much zeal as you confront folks like me.


It seems that if I've been taking the "its all about me approach" then so has everyone else here. Do you confront people who you largely agree with with zeal? You certainly haven't here.

Do you confront people who you largely agree with with zeal? You certainly haven't here.
If I'm in their thread that entertains their questionable premise(s) supported by questionable argument(s) from authority. Sure.

I see you have a problem. Very well.


Take Adam as an example. Here's a guy who openingly states, "Screw you all!" I'm the stud here. My facts rule. What I say goes. Prove me and my "facts" wrong, if you can. Your opinions aren't worth jack sh*t to me. Last man standing wins.

Are you referring to the fact that when you questioned my mention of the ICC, I provided a link to the Act of international law in question? Are you referring to the fact that when you questioned which nations would sign on to the ICC, I provided a list of such nations? Are you referring to the fact that when you questioned the ICC's rights and responsibilties, I provided precisely that informaion from the ICC website? Are you referring to the fact that when you queried homeslessness and poverty in the USA, I provided statistics? I could go on. I post the facts, from the sources.

And your opinions will be worth "jack" when you cease these ridiculous juvenile personal crusades and start using solid information, as I do.


Well, everyone's got facts--facts commenting on the very same issues but that don't originate with Adam.

I have yet to see any from you.


What is it that makes Adam's "facts" more significant than anyone else's from other sources?

I get them from the appropriate sources, as stated above. Such as the ICC website. All you have to do is put in some effort, read, and learn.


To hear Adam, it's because they're Adam's facts and they're superior to your's because they're 'Adam-processed'. And screw you for thinking anything different.

My facts are the only ones presented, much of the time. I get them from the sources, such as the ICC website. Many other people do not supply facts at all, merely personal attacks.


Adam is a tactical thinker--mano a mano; nose to nose; Here I am; Here's my "facts"; Take 'em on, if you dare withstand the force of my bombastic personality. I'm Adam. I'm me. And you ain't.

I merely provided facts, from the original sources. And as this paragraph of yours shows, you are inferiour when it comes to gathering and supplying facts and simply prefer personal attacks.


Well, okay. That works for some--the tacticals who think the world is measured against themselves.

The world is measured against every one of us. Nobody is immune. Nobody is free of responsibility.


What about the strategic perspective wherein facts are measured against the real world?

As I do. I supply facts from the real world, such as those listed above. I measure them against humans, and judge accordingly. For example: If anyone brings up Iraq's past performance, it must be compared with the USA's past performance, resulting in discussion of real world facts and responsibility.


e.g.: Adam has his motives.

Indeed. Everyone has motives. And I guarantee you don't know what mine are.


Adam has his prefered sources for "facts".

Such as my use of the actual ICC Act when the ICC was brought into discussion? Absolutely. My preferred facts are those from original or peer-reviewed sources.


Adam has his personal preferences and prejudices.

Can you name them?


Adam wants people to play his game on his terms. But are Adam's "facts" the only facts available? Is his game the only game in town?

Again, I provide facts from the original sources or peer-reviewed sources. This is better than providing material from America First Free Militia! magazine.


If it isn't, what motivates Adam to attempt to get everyone else to thinking his game actually is the only game in town?

Actually I know my game isn;t the only game in town. My game is data from the sources I said. Other peoples' games include: posting info from those with a vested one-sided interest, or simply making personal attacks. My game is better than many others, by any standard.


Is the best test of an idea's mettle the personality presuming to interpret it for you because you aren't likely to make sense of it yourself--because "you suck", compared to him; or, is an idea better tested by its innate ability to speak to you with an intuitive clairty sans self-appointed, interpretive interventionist?

The best test is actual real-world results.


Must discourse always be tactical--conducted in-your-face? Or can discourse be strategic--indirect, probative, commentative, dissatisfied?

Tactics and strategies both involve direct and indirect measures.


Must ultimate relevence be defined by the tactical cult-of-personality, in-your-face, take-me-on-if-you-dare, you-suck, last-man-standing credo?

Relevence is determined by links of logic.


Or is there room in reasoned discource for a more aloof show-me-the-goods, last-man-trusted-wins approach?

Again, I provided raw data, from original sources. This post of yours I am responding to clearly indicates your own posting preferences.


You more often than not side with, and identify with, Adam's "it's all about me" approach.

My approach is "it's all about the facts".


So, what am I to think about you other than you think it's all about yourself, too?

What you are to think is: "Maybe I should actually read the data Adam supplies, and consider his words without emotional bias".


Last man standing or last man trusted?

Regarding who is trusted: I posted facts from original sources. You posted this whopping great personal attack. Think about it.

Originally posted by Mr. G
jds:

Is it?

Take Adam as an example. Here's a guy who openingly states, "Screw you all!" I'm the stud here. My facts rule. What I say goes. Prove me and my "facts" wrong, if you can. Your opinions aren't worth jack sh*t to me. Last man standing wins.

Well, everyone's got facts--facts commenting on the very same issues but that don't originate with Adam.

What is it that makes Adam's "facts" more significant than anyone else's from other sources?

To hear Adam, it's because they're Adam's facts and they're superior to your's because they're 'Adam-processed'. And screw you for thinking anything different.

Well, that's Adam's schtick.

Adam is a tactical thinker--mano a mano; nose to nose; Here I am; Here's my "facts"; Take 'em on, if you dare withstand the force of my bombastic personality. I'm Adam. I'm me. And you ain't.

Well, okay. That works for some--the tacticals who think the world is measured against themselves.

What about the strategic perspective wherein facts are measured against the real world?

e.g.: Adam has his motives. Adam has his prefered sources for "facts". Adam has his personal preferences and prejudices. Adam wants people to play his game on his terms. But are Adam's "facts" the only facts available? Is his game the only game in town?

If it isn't, what motivates Adam to attempt to get everyone else to thinking his game actually is the only game in town?

Is the best test of an idea's mettle the personality presuming to interpret it for you because you aren't likely to make sense of it yourself--because "you suck", compared to him; or, is an idea better tested by its innate ability to speak to you with an intuitive clairty sans self-appointed, interpretive interventionist?

Must discourse always be tactical--conducted in-your-face? Or can discourse be strategic--indirect, probative, commentative, dissatisfied?

Must ultimate relevence be defined by the tactical cult-of-personality, in-your-face, take-me-on-if-you-dare, you-suck, last-man-standing credo?

Or is there room in reasoned discource for a more aloof show-me-the-goods, last-man-trusted-wins approach?

You more often than not side with, and identify with, Adam's "it's all about me" approach. So, what am I to think about you other than you think it's all about yourself, too?

Last man standing or last man trusted?

I've decided for which I'd rather be known.


mr g
i am not worthy!

:D

quote: Do you confront people who you largely agree with with zeal? You certainly haven't here.

"If I'm in their thread that entertains their questionable premise(s) supported by questionable argument(s) from authority. Sure."

So it seems that you're of the opinion that because you created the thread, your place is simply to pass judgement on the responses without explanation for your reasons?

No.

He's simply trying to get a rise out of all this: life isn't very easy
when no one likes you and your cat keeps ruining your chairs...

I'm kidding, Mr. G; you own the n00bs. Keep at it... ;)