yes! wesley clark is running for president!
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > yes! wesley clark is running for president!
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 16, 2003 05:35 pm considering clark's role in the waco massacre and other stuff, it's not exactly "refreshing".
these days we truly are "voting" for the lesser of two evils. voting is in quotes because of all the electronic voting machine craziness that threatens to undermine our democratic system. i'm at a complete loss for words when wondering why more people aren't interested in this.
Sep 16, 2003 06:16 pm what role in waco?
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 16, 2003 06:45 pm he was head of fort hood, where the weapons that were used to firebomb, etc the branch davidians were stored. it was a very illegal operation and a stain on our leaders, even though we don't learn it in school.
i honestly don't think the question will be raised. but that's exactly the problem, coming from a society where our president is almost considered a war hero despite his AWOL activities, and the guy who will probably become the "governator" of california doesn't want to let us know how specifically he stands on the issues that theoretically were the impetus for the recall in the first place. i'm not saying america sucks, i'm saying that we're sleeping and need to wake up.
Sep 16, 2003 07:46 pm clark is perhaps the only candidate who could wake america up. he doesn't deal with mudslinging and he thinks for himself. he doesn't need to insult anyone else. he just criticizes policy. i mean, i almost don't care: as long as a candidate appears to be thiniking on his own, he's doing what he's supposed to do, what most everyone else in any given race is not doing. i hate puppets. puppetry is the true sleep of america. and everyone i see out there now is like a puppet--they just want to win, and will say what they have to say. as a guy, i always thought bush was a likeable enough fellow, but it was shocking to me that that many people chose him over gore. because bush was essentially--at election time--an image, and a cache of slogans. i guess i put a lot of stock in how someone presents himself.
if clark was head of fort hood, that doesn't really implicate him, does it? whoever ordered the attack, thats the responsible party. in the army, you follow orders.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 16, 2003 08:17 pm of course i like that clark saw through the war from the beginning, but there are so many things in the elite consensus that have gotten very far out of control in america. to me, i want to see a candidate that isn't at the helm of some corrupt power structure with a gigantic list of scandals in the past eroding their credibility and shedding light on their poor decision-making capabilities.
yes, bush was an image and still is an image. he is nothing but hype. it's almost comical to look at his list of "accomplishments" and see that it's mostly like "well, i worked fer my daddy, and messed up a couple businesses!" but seriously...the highest office in the most powerful nation that this planet has ever known needs to be occupied by someone who is more than just a "likeable fellow". image-crafting and PR is an art, and now more than ever you can be sure that if you are not being suspicious, you are being duped. i personally don't like being lied to, and i don't like liars in public office representing my country.
it matters if he was the head of the fort, because when the feds come to get weapons that you have for an attack on your own citizens, you know what is going on.
Sep 17, 2003 02:31 am i dont really care about waco. the law/lawless aspect is and will always be sketchy. clinton and reno suspended the law for a murky reason. if i were clark, i could have just said 'federal agents were killed. i guess this is what they're going to do about it.' why question it? he was just a soldier following orders. how could he even know (unless he was a co-conspirator) that the army wasn't just being brought in as a coercive force? waco sucks. i wish people would forget it.
most all power structures have some kind of corruption in them. do you think that that means that clark is corrupt? because i dont get that impression one bit. the opposite. to be corrupt you've gotta be be driven by the lowest kind of personal drive. but there are some people in existence who have actually set the goal for themselves of being a great leader. despite his personal moral failings, clinton really cared about making the world a better place. for instance.
Sep 17, 2003 04:59 am I am with forty, what happened in waco, whatever motiviated it, doesn't really bother me that much, what did bother me is that Mr. Koresh (sp?) and his minions felt it was OK to raise children in that environment. He was an evil person, the world IS better of without him. It could have been done a little bit more gracefully.
Koresh was up a few miles north of where I am before going to waco and spent time trying to start his little cult up here, he tried recruiting many some of my cousins and other family that lived closer to his home at that time. He is evil, he was wrong, he was very ego driven and power hungry and victimized anyone he felt necessary to further his silly little plan.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 17, 2003 11:15 am see, there is no question that david koresh was messed up. dB, that really sucks about him trying to recruit your cousins. but what is disturbing is that the precedent that is set where law is ignored and citizens are killed, regardless of what they're doing. the notion that someone deserves death because they are doing something morally wrong or illegal is up to the legal system to decide using due process (well, the legality part anyway). i am bothered when human and civil rights are suspended. interesting article on waco (has disturbing pictures at the end, keep that in mind):
www.whatreallyhappened.co.../WACO/waco.html
as for soldiers following orders, it doesn't remove responsibility from them if the orders they are given are illegal. if they know they are illegal but choose not to ignore or defy the orders, then they are breaking the law.
assuming that wesley clark isn't "corrupt" because the carefully crafted interviews and news articles haven't given you that impression is naive, but it is a very understandable position given today's societal circumstances. a lot is going to have to change before america's elections are more than a silly puppet show of the powerful. corruption in power structures has existed since the invention of the hierarchy, but there are times when reinforcing their actions by electing or re-electing a POLITICIAN actually emboldens them.
Sep 17, 2003 11:28 am You just love trashing on everyone else's personal political beliefs because your professor disagrees with it don't you?
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 17, 2003 11:44 am what professor? these are my personal beliefs. i don't like trashing anyone, i just like pointing out commonly-missed truths. i appreciate your opinions, dB, and i appreciate forty's too. i don't mean to make anyone feel bad. i'm just bouncing off what i think. we've all got serious responsibilities to think critically as citizens, and i feel compelled as a citizen to do my best to draw that out in people.
Sep 17, 2003 11:53 am I assume the same professor you went on and on about your first few times here, the professor that was so great and so cool and knew everything, blah, blah, blah.
I don't get a feeling that you appreciate anyone's opinions personally...I might be wrong, but 90% of the time you just tell people why they are wrong and then enlighten us all with your conspiracy theories and such. Don't get me wrong, that's fine, just not the type of communication I personally respond to favorably.
You don't make me feel bad, you make me chuckle...and I would rather chuckle than feel bad, so it's all good.
Sep 17, 2003 12:45 pm i'm not naive, i just i despise conspiracy theories. i think they're mostly counterproductive to intelligence.
---"assuming that wesley clark isn't "corrupt" because the carefully crafted interviews and news articles haven't given you that impression is naive"
that's not true, although i should research him more. corruption is subjective. you think waco matters, and i don't. if it were the republicans who were behind waco, for me waco would suck, but it would be just another example of the evil side of republicans as a party and ideaology. it wouldn't be enough to make me swear them off, consider the party inherently corrupt, because i believe that america needs both parties and both sets of ideals. i would say 'the republicans messed up on that one. some people messed up that one.'
but once clinton and reno altered the law, the activity at waco was legal. unless clark was a co-conspirator, i'm going to say he's off the hook. even if he was part of it, what they did was, apparently, legal. at that moment. doesn't everyone blame reno for this?
it barely matters to me: i trust the guy, and i dont trust anyone else. i don't know about waco. it's true that people deserve due process, but sometimes police storm a building. at waco we have the government doing that. i'd need to be a waco scholar to debate this--what is to me a minor point.
clark's record, the rest of it, speaks for itself, from what i've seen. thats not why i like him though. he's absolutely spontaneous, far from engineered. he is asked a question and will come up with an incredibly sane answer produced by his own intellect. gore was like that. dont you think we need that? bush doesnt do that. the other dems are canned a lot of the time. i saw kerry making a speech saying 'we must hold them accountable in the north....east...west...and, yes, right here in the south!' (speaking of the republicans.) that's just empty words. clark is quick on his feet and says things of substance. that's not engineering.
Sep 17, 2003 12:49 pm Watch out forty, Jesse Ventura was spontaneous too :-)
Sep 17, 2003 12:52 pm unlike ventura, clark has a genius IQ or something. what do you guys think of ventura up there in minnesota? i thought he did alright. no? i didnt follow his career.
Sep 17, 2003 12:57 pm Actually, I voted for him, and I would vote for him again. I thought it was great to see a thrid party candidate get elected to a high office. I think our system needs MORE than two parties. He didn't do a whole lot better than the average Governor, but he certianly didn't do any worse other than had a big mouth...which I personally liked. It's nice to hear a politician speak their mind...their REAL mind.
He did a lot of decent things, not all succeeded, but did, but more than anything, at least he got off his *** and tried things...I liked Jesse, and I still like Jesse.
He isn't a genious, he's a guy with a head on his shoulders that thinks a lot like I do and feels the same way on a lot of issues that I do.
Sep 17, 2003 04:15 pm i liked him too.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 17, 2003 05:01 pm sorry dB, i think you are seriously misunderstanding me. i'm just putting what i think here in response to what people say. i think a lot about this stuff because, believe it or not, who is president right now is crucial to where humanity goes. things have gotten really crazy because we haven't been caring at all about what happens in that arena. there is a really disturbing sense of apathy and of herd mentality that is keeping people voluntarily uninformed. what i am essentially trying to point out is that the whole systems of presidential elections and the election system itself have become inherently corrupt and are in serious need of reform. like you said, dB:
Quote:
I think our system needs MORE than two parties.
there's one thing. but the stakes are honestly getting extremely high. the earth that is being passed to my generation is nothing like the earth that was passed to yours. a lot of people are pissed off and are mad about this, but the kind of social environment we live in at the moment really freaks a lot of people out of actually saying something. case in point.
i tried to go back and find what i really said about the professor i had at the time, but it is gone. it wasn't anything like the hero worship scenario you describe. what i did find was this:
www.homerecordingconnecti...d=1541&frm4
you understand that all the stuff that convinced so many people of the "imminent threat" that saddam hussein posed to the national security of the US was a pack of lies? not spin, not mistakes, but lies. you understand what is going on in iraq. it's a mess. it went nothing like the way that the politicians said that it would, except for the initial phase of the war. this isn't conspiracy theories, it's right in front of everyone's face.
Sep 17, 2003 05:08 pm Therein lies the problem, you look at people who disagree with you and think they are "the uninformed masses", not that you could be wrong, but that the masses are wrong. Which may or may not be true.
If anyone, politician or not, could predict how a war would go before it even started, well, they would be psychic then wouldn't they?
Sep 17, 2003 05:36 pm i thought your clark comments had that tinge of conspiracy theory to them. but otherwise i completely agree with you, minkus. that's precisely why i was touting clark. he's the anti-BS candidate. i just look around and i see people saying what they think they need to say to get elected. liberman does it, they all do. it is *very* transparent when it happens, and i believe it was written all over bush's face in 2000--he was afraid, clueless in the debate--and yet america fell for it. we cant do that anymore (what a futile statement.) you cant just vote along party lines--it rots your brain.
i'm not a democrat or a republican. i listen to conservative talk radio, though. it's entertaining in the lowest possible way. rush limbaugh can be funny, and michael savage may be the rudest person alive. but it's all a propaganda machine--omnipresent, everywhere--conservativism touting itself as 'the truth,' with millions falling for it. that's what makes me mad, thier claim to the truth. i think it's pretty dangerous. the unenlightened (countless numbers) just latch on to this poison and further cement thier rigid viewpoints. thats how propaganda works. it can be healthy to be a republican or hold republican ideals, as much so as the reverse. but what is going on here with the way people talk about stuff in this country? there is no more talk, it's just a big football game, a battle. clark really seems to transcend that. in the same way that ventura did. he's sort of like a symbol. what better way to get out of this mess than by dispensing with politics as usual. elect a role model.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 17, 2003 05:38 pm i am more than open to being proven wrong. however, it's common knowledge that there were no WMDs (especially not nuclear), they're not even really looking anymore, there were no ties between saddam and al-qaeda, no threat to the US at all by iraq. except maybe the balsa model airplanes that were characterized as military drones capable of flying to the US and dropping one doomsday device or another. there were so many lies that were told to sell this war and change public opinion. saddam was a horrible leader, but that's no reason to go to war to remove him. otherwise we'd also go take out one of the many other horrible dictators who, like saddam, we installed during the cold war.
a lot of the anti-war movement apparently was psychic. but honestly, most people do make up the uninformed masses. otherwise, why would so many people believe that iraq was behind 9/11?
this war was sold to us, primarily by an incredible liar that, despite the fact that many of his administration's policies have contributed heavily to the american downward spiral, still sits in the office of president. i think that's disgraceful.
Sep 17, 2003 05:59 pm What is the hangup on WMD? Who cares? I certainly don't for one...
This crap bores me to death, it's the same old crap, everytime this crap comes up...same old thing...I don't even know why I got into this one other than I am just so sick of listening to some people piss and moan...
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 17, 2003 06:15 pm WMD was a major case in getting this war rolling. the fact that lies started a war that is still taking lives theoretically should make people a bit angry at the leadership. i understand that you're bored with it, but the issue is going to get worse and worse as our country goes down the toilet. the sooner we get mad and demand change, the better.
Sep 17, 2003 07:36 pm clark will save the day. he's maybe the only democrat who fully realizes the folly of pulling out of iraq now. in a way, those other democrats are scarier than bush. you *can't* pull out now, no matter what, no matter how wrong the war was originally. clark's also sensible enough to have been against the war from the start. preemptive attack as administrative policy is wrong. El Clarko knows that.
and now for my ninth-grade style essay wrap-up:
and so, in conclusion, vote for clark.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 17, 2003 07:45 pm yeah he was against the war from the beginning, which is neat, but i don't think he's going to fix anything. a number of people are of the mind that pulling out of iraq now equals cutting losses. we've definitely got a lot of apologizing to do to the iraqis.
CrashIgnorance Is StrengthMember
Since: Nov 10, 2002
Sep 19, 2003 11:59 am On Wako...When tanks pull up to your front door, come out with your hands in the air. Doesnt matter whos president. Note: DO NOT shoot at federal troops unless you want to meet Jesus. Its simple.
Clark and Hillary, if she decides to get into the race, are running for vice president in my estimation.
70% of people believed Sadam was involved in 9/11 because it was "implied" (never really spoken outright) by Bush and Faux News. It was 'implied' over and over again. Tell a lie and repeat it over and over and people believe it to be the truth. Hitler did it, Musollini did it, Hannity-Limbaugh do it.
If you want to the otherside of the ranting right - Hannity/Limbaugh/Weiner- stream this show;
www.tomhartman.com/commondreams.shtml
Thom Hartmann is a great mind and sets the neocon right on their ears using history (not Ann Coulters history), fact and common sense. If you havent heard of Thom Hartmann, I predict you will in the near future.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 19, 2003 02:20 pm the article that i linked to mentioned that it is not exactly clear who really shot first.
you're right about the clintons and clark. this is pretty weird.
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Sep 19, 2003 03:05 pm People believe saddam was involved in 9/11 even though we were told that it was all Bin Ladens Fault. Speaking of which, if Bin Laden was such a threat to the US why aren't we hearing anything about hima nymore? Is he dead, is he alive? If he's such a huge threat I want to know. Did anyone else notice that they simply passed off enemies in one fell swoop? Do people not remember the attack on Chile (i believe, been a long time so I don't remember) that also happened on 9/11 that was led by the americans? Do people not know that Bin Laden and Saddam were both trained by the CIA? No... they don't know. that's what the Problem is. The people just don't know. They also can't seem to see that this country is moving more and more towards fascism everyday. This is obvious in the fact that a fascist community needs an enemy to bring the country together. We have just declared war on terrorism, it is a war that will never end. Seems to me like we've got a decent enemy now.
9/11 sucks
Patriot Act Sucks
Fascism Sucks
Time for a change
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 19, 2003 04:38 pm very cool!
Sep 19, 2003 08:06 pm People believed Saddam was involved in 9/11? I don't recall anything of the sort. I certainly don't know anyone who believed that. I watch Fox News fairly often, and I never got that impression. It was said that Saddam might have a connection to Bin Laden and Al Quada, but the key word is might. I don't believe that that has been discredited yet, anyways. the hard part about all this is that we don't really know for sure what is the truth. We could all be conspiracy theorists, or we could all just trust the government. The truth is probably somewhere in between the two extreams. Honestly, I know it's easy to get into the trap, but we really can't be so sure of ourselves. Keep a bit of an open mind. I don't believe that the public is really all that uneducated. The reason we don't hear as much about Bin Laden is that he is no longer a major threat since Al Quada is no longer half as strong since we went in and took a bunch of them out. Isn't that kind of obvious? And what about the recent tapes we've been shown by the media? What do you mean we don't hear anything about Bin Laden? About the Gore and Bush battle of 2000, I recall thinking that Gore appeared rather phony because he was always so spot-on with everything he said. And, I mean, just look at the guy, he looked like such a liar to me. Does anybody else remember those debates between Gore and Bush where Gore made faces and chuckled while Bush stumbled over his words? That's what I remember when I think of the election of 2000, not this well rehearsed, polished Bush that you speak of. I know that I felt sorry for him. I think that image is what got him through. He was a loser-- but a nice loser, someone who wouldn't be too good at telling lies.
Sep 21, 2003 12:43 am first off:
Neither bin laden or saddam were "TRAINED" by the CIA, they were funded, not trained.
YES: george bush Sr's mother was rapped by adolf hitler.. and we wonder where the facism comes from.
the enemy is within out borders. bush family has been running the country since the 1970s when Bush Sr. was head of the CIA. then for the 80 election he got an older, notable, braindead actor (Regan) to run for prez while he stayed in VP seat and CONTROLLED EVERYTHING for 12 years straight. i know that might mean nothing to you.. but it does to me. how can the 2 men who are not supposed to tell secrets to eachother walk as the same soul? because hes above the govornment. why is he making his children run for office and telling them to take it all over? OIL. TEXAN gun slinging coke sniffing cowboys are sooooo greedy they set up this elaborate scheme to tie saddam to some guy he never even met before bin laden.... 911. the hammer and the sickle was a threat. camel jockeys are not. your country feeds you these lies and you eat them like candy. we are so concentrated on all this terror crap. CHINA HAS A WAR PLAN FOR TAIWAN. anyone know about that? or were you to busy watching the news seeing who we captured over there today. north korea and chinas armys combined out man us 3 to 1. now you KNOW the reds are going to have to side with either india or pakeistan when that stuff goes down. either way we are looking at it... we are going to fight a super army over the pacific in the next few months. they wont attack us.. but we will be dumb enough to send thousands of troops over there to try and "keep peace". troops, kids i went to high school with are starving in iraq. my drummer is in kosovo hes lost 30 lbs since july. tell me your govt cares about you. they dont. you are all fed lies. sorry for ranting .. this country just pisses me off... one last thing. why isnt dick cheney in jail for enron?
you all need to stop watching the stupid box and turn to the history of our downfall. look for the clues.. youll figure out the rest.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 21, 2003 12:36 pm actually, saddam did receive some training from the CIA when he was in exile. it's when they were paying for his living expenses and stuff.
bush 41 is in an interesting position in the FEMA command hierarchy. it has been pointed out over and over (but nowhere on the "stupid box") that, in the case of emergency, he essentially becomes the central executive authority. so in case of another bad terror attack, we have the opportunity to enjoy our own real american dictator.
you do make the main point here. in political discussion, people are mainly discussing the finer details of a system that is waiting to implode. the news and politics today is essentially a puppet show keeping us distracted from the main event, which has been hopelessly out of control for some time now.
but on iraq, enjoy:
www.msnbc.com/news/969219.asp?0cl=c1&cp1=1
Sep 21, 2003 01:43 pm Wow, you guys really are crazy :) How do you know that your sources are any more correct than anyone elses? I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, but do you realize how wild what you're saying is?
I could go read a conservative magazine and get the exact same kind of thing from the other side of the fence. Do you guys just believe everything you hear as long as it's from the left and disbelieve everything you hear from the right? C'mon guys!
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 21, 2003 03:10 pm the whole left-right thing is part of the puppet show. true conservatives see a complete wasteland in regards to their traditional preferences of limited government and fiscal sensibility. the current political landscape is dominated by neo-conservatives who have been advocating war to protect american dominance since long before 9/11, which served conveniently as the "modern day pearl harbor" that they repeatedly declared a necessary element in their agenda.
it's interesting that you are asking about the validity of our sources. i've been asked that many times before. the way i judge the quality of an argument that i am reading is by determining the author's bias, weighing the evidence, checking other sources (including "conservative" sources), and coming up with a real conclusion. frankly, people on the "left" who are feeling like victimized pseudo-patriots because the "right" currently has power are almost as silly as the neocons who are pushing insane, imperialistic, dehumanizing agendas that are crippled by their myopic analytical lens of fear. it's especially sad because we have so much valid historical precedent that should be warning us.
if we care to become truly informed about current issues and the true goals of society, we would transcend the left-right subterfuge and begin to have the serious national discussions about these issues...we would quickly lose the hysteria that is gripping us.
Sep 21, 2003 03:38 pm Yes, I agree with that, but it doesn't seem to fit together with the things you've said before. I like to think I do the same thing. Now how do we end up with such different conclusions? It's interesting how you always seem to point out republican leaders' errors and not the democrats' ones, however.
Anyways, I'm with dB, I wish I hadn't involved myself. You guys can continue your back and forth ranting without any opposition if you wish.
Quote:
you look at people who disagree with you and think they are "the uninformed masses", not that you could be wrong, but that the masses are wrong. Which may or may not be true
My point exactly.
Sorry I got involved.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 21, 2003 03:45 pm wait...i thought i jumped into this thread initially to talk about why wesley clark (running as a democrat) isn't what he's being hyped up to be. an accessory to a crime is still guilty. the democrats aren't the ones starting wars at the current moment, but they are still part of the process that is allowing everything to happen.
i don't look at people who disagree with me as part of the uninformed masses. i look at people who are uninformed as part of the uninformed masses. that's not a bad thing, it's just how it is. if you want to take it as an insult, you and i are not on the same page.
Sep 21, 2003 05:09 pm Correction - You look at anyone who does not subscribe to YOUR theories and beliefs as a member of the "uninformed masses." Just because you don't like what someone has to say does not make them uninformed.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 21, 2003 06:27 pm not true. i talk with a lot of people who are extremely politically aware. frequently we think differently (sometimes very much so), but they are clearly informed.
a good parallel is musicians and non-musicians. the non-musicians still have their opinions which are just as valid as those of the musicians. but if a non-musician tells a musician that a major chord is a minor chord and the musician corrects him, the non-musician doesn't need to get angry and feel insulted. however, i'm not a political expert. i'm just saying what i think, and while i might slip and call fortymile naive (sorry forty), i seriously am not as intolerant as you apparently think i am.
there's no disrespect to anyone, we're all amateurs with our own theories. this also means don't push disrespect my way or attempt to put words in my mouth. if you want to know if i am as intolerant as you would like to believe, ask me rather than simply declaring it to be so.
Sep 21, 2003 07:24 pm Minkus, it appears to me that you talk with no one, I have only seen you talking at people. Big difference.
At the same time it totally cracks me up when people talk about this stuff like they actually know like they are actually part of it rather than just ordinary citizens like everybody else.
Nobody proves anyone right or wrong, and in all of these waste-of-time threads that do nothing but breed anger, nobody has changed anyones mind about anything. One person says one thing, another person "proves him wrong" with their theories or claims their sources are not real, then another spews their "evidence"...when in fact nobody knows anything other than their intepretation of events and the "knowledge" they have gained by whatever means, be it TV, talk radio, school, books or any of thousands of other sources, ALL of which are slanted by their own leanings and motives.
So, unless you actually work for the CIA (and very highly ranked), FBI, the president or gov't at large (again, very highly) you really know nothing outside of you and your "clique's" perception of local and world events.
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Sep 21, 2003 07:38 pm Trust in teh gov't was brought up somewhere in here. All I'm saying is that if someone constantly lies to your face and you know it, are you going to trust them? I think not. Same goes with the gov't. Why would I believe the majority of things they want to feed me when they have lied to the american people over and over again all throughout history?
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 21, 2003 09:44 pm dB, i am doing exactly what you or anyone else on this thread has done. i am speaking my mind. posting in forums isn't like speaking one on one, so your perception of whether i am talking with or at people doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. what does make a lot of sense is that you are frustrated with my arguments and have decided to attack me instead. it's called argumentum ad hominem:
gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html
aside from me stating that trusting a presidential candidate because he looks like a good leader on TV "naive", the only people who are attacking character are the people who don't like what i'm saying.
but seriously, this is a perfect example of why i kept posting in this thread. it really weirds me out how people who question what is going on in any specific terms or with any feeling get jumped on by the thought police. the overwhelming impression that i get from people my age who pipe up at work or at home to say that they don't support what is going on is that they are cowed by angry co-workers/family who shriek at them because they don't like what they say. typically, they don't pay attention as much as i do (which is FINE), so they don't know how to defend themselves. in a democracy, that is disgusting.
perhaps no one posting changes their mind in threads like these, but who knows how many people read these? i'm sure you do.
trusting the government has always been a joke. there is a difference between having confidence in a government being a useful tool to its people, but it's plain as day that people who are given power tend to abuse it. a people suspicious of their government are a people with a good one.
i'm glad this cracks you up, dB.
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Sep 22, 2003 03:02 am Well, what cracks me up is the fact that Minkus has a new link backing up his points (presumably) in every post. Though I do tend to agree with him, I just find it funny.
Sep 22, 2003 06:41 am I am not attacking anyone, Minkus, just saying I think it's funny. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. I am hardly frustrated with your arguments, as I really don't care.
The only thing I am frustrated with is that these threads keep getting started, and that I can totally predict who will post what and how. Actually, I agree with a lot of (well, OK, SOME of) what you say. I don't really like Wesley Clark myself, but forty has every right to without you me or anyone else getting down on him. I don't work for the gov't and neither do you (that I am aware of anyway) so really neather of us KNOW anything, that is my point. You are entitled to speak your mind, it's just funny to me that I can totally predict whe and where you start speaking your mind and what you are going to say. Especially when the things you say while speaking your mind you have absolutely no way of actually knowing. It's juts some stuff that was feed to your by some one else...as is the case with most of us, the only difference is who fed it to us and who we trust and believe.
Trust the Gov't? No, that's foolish, but at the same time I am not going to waste my time in an argument about what most important in life with someone how hasn't lived any yet.
Sep 22, 2003 07:10 am After breakfast thoughts...
Sorry you feel attacked, Minkus, reading I back I can understand why. I should wait a while before posting cuz I get very reactionary when angry. Not angry at you or any one person in particular, but just angry when this crap keeps coming up in a home recording forum.
All forty did was express that he was glad to see Wesley Clark run, that's all he said. It did not need to be turned in to this. I don'tlike him either prsonally, but forty has every right to without interference from you or me.
I still, however, feel that every time you "speak your mind" it involves telling every one else why they are wrong, which gives me bad vibes. You have never (or VERY rarely) agreed with anyone, they are always wrong. That's is beyond speaking your mind, that's just being argumentative. Which is why a vast majority of those threads have been deleted in the past.
Please don't flatter yourself by thinking you have us all (or just me) are frustrated due to your brilliant arguments. Generally you have most of us involved just pissed off. I can speak for many cuz I get the email from people at HRC telling me so...but in fairness I have not banned you, nor will I as you break no rules.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 22, 2003 11:12 am man i seriously don't seek to enrich my ego at all. i just look at the things one point at a time and speak my mind about it. i very much apologize about getting any tempers going at all. i keep hitting myself over the head because i know that i should be seeking to defuse things instead of getting tensions higher, but that keeps getting countered by the thought that there are a lot of people who keep mum about their thoughts because what isn't popular these days is REALLY not popular. i actually get e-mails too.
but i really don't want people thinking that i have an inflated opinion of myself because i'm passionate about this and i write complete arguments in paragraph form with sources sometimes. it's habit! :-)
this is a great forum, i'll try to keep focus more.
Sep 22, 2003 11:48 am Ya, we all have sources, but I have seen you many times just blow off points from others saying their sources are not credible...in your opinion...so what makes your sources so credible?
It's times like these I wish some threads wouldn't need to be deleted...
Links to web sites are not really credible in many eyes...hell, anyone can make a website and spew garbage. The internet has just fueled a new, more global way to spread lies and hostility. And I will NOT let this website play a supporting role in it.
I am very close to just deleting every politically motivated thread that starts here. This is a HOME RECORDING forum. Deal with it.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 22, 2003 12:14 pm i actually go to sources on all sides of whatever story i'm interested in. after reading those articles, addressing the inherent bias of the author, and comparing the points that they make, there's usually a bit of compromise, these days leaning away from the neo-conservative tip. but what seems to be the most important are remembering what happened before (such as watching the justification for war in iraq shift as the current one was disproven, anything israeli-palestinian related) and being able to tell what is blatantly propaganda. all the time, but especially during the war, there are a lot of stories that are clearly there to influence opinion through emotion rather than addressing the real point itself. there are also journalists who defy left/right comparisons and simply go for journalistic integrity, which has been forgotten big time. robert fisk ruled up the show in iraq reporting, and still is great.
but the center of it is personal knowledge that you use to compare and analyze. it helps to know history in great detail, how political systems work in great detail, the state of journalism throughout american history, and of course classics along the lines of 1984, which serve as warnings to us masses against subtle and confusing abuses of power from our "superiors".
this is usually beyond most people because they care to do something other than scour the back pages and read dull history books. it is simply a personal interest. i don't really attach strongly to it, i just think it's one hell of a soap opera that we can watch actually affecting us.
it's cool if you want to delete political threads, it's clearly your choice. i'm just responding because it's here.
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Sep 22, 2003 03:15 pm DB, Deleting this forum because you do not like where some of the threads are going does not seem right to me. This is not the home recording forum, this is the talking smack forum, where people should feel free to come on and post as they like as long as they obey the rules already set in place. This thread may have pissed a few people off in where it's going, but I haven't seen any rules broken yet. I can understand you not wanting to have this website serve as a place to spew propaganda, but I see no reason to delete this thread, much less the whole forum. If we start telling people what they can and can't talk about on the forums we'll just have people feeling like they can't say certain things on this forum, which is not where I want to go. It's your call bud, just letting you know how I feel.
Sep 22, 2003 04:20 pm Thats a fine way to feel, I respect that, but for one, I never said I was gonna delete this thread, or the whole forum...I said I will delete political threads as they start if this trend continues, and am ready to post a new rule that they do not be started again.
I really don't care if this is the talkin smack forum or not, this is a home recording website, this forum is certainly for off-topic discussion, as that happens because many people in this community have grown to be friends outside of music and wish to talk about other topics.
The threads I have deleted have been deleted because they have gotten hostile and insulting, due to my actions as much as anyone else. These types of topics invoke personal beliefs and standards in people that vary greatly and that people are very passionate about. While I do respect that, and feel that way myself about my stance on subjects, I am not about to let these types of threads be a breeding ground of insulting and flaming, that is NOT what this community was started for and I'll be damned if I will ever let it become that.
People are perfectly entitled to belive what they want, I have no problem with that, and actually to some degree find it interesting and entertaining, but people damn well better understand what they can and cannot talk about in these forums, cuz it's spelled out in the rules. We have had to ban troublemakers before and I have no problem with doing it again.
While I generally disagree with a lot of the crap I have been hearing, you are right, no rules have been broken, and I have no problem with people that have different views from myself. However, we have been down this road before, and we all know this is the type of thing that starts.
FYI, Loki, we have our own private forum for us to discuss this type of thing. Not out here in the public domain. We talk about and set rules in private and present them in a unified voice, not challenge each other in public.
flame...bringing sexy backMember
Since: Jul 01, 2002
Sep 23, 2003 04:50 am theres times that im glad i dont have real interest in politics...
Sep 23, 2003 08:19 am well no offense minkus... but you have whats called "the mother disorder." you are an american... and dedicated to your country. nothing wrong with that. but if some one told you your mother was an axxe murderer would you still support her? probably because youd be like "no way, i didnt see it on TV or read it on the F*%&ing internet." (why do you believe that CRAP?!?!?!?!?!?!) but if you saw it with your own eyes... would you still believe it? now...i always try to look for the blatently obvious acts..and im not saying my sources are credibal, my theorys are all based on my knowledge of the human mind and its downfall..but i will say this. Humans are greedy. oil is the BUSH family guilty pleasure. why didnt we have any problems when clinton was in office. BUSH sr went after panama for the coke, iraq for the oil. oh darn the bushs dont own any oil fields in iraq what do we do??? lets pull out the puppets again and go to work. look at your oil prices! your trying to tell me we have to pay more for oil after what we just did to those poor people? 8 years go by with no bush propaganda. no problem at all. and you better not bring up that black hawk down stuff.. less people died on clintons watch that any other president in the last 100+ years in the history of our country, and you probably didnt know about that until they made a movie of it. they should mkae a movie about george bush laundering money in panama for over a decade before he held the presidency.. look back in the books people- we are always fighting someone. why? because we feel that we have to because it makes us all come together.. yadda yadda. why? because the general public cannot just go over there and ask them their side of the story. a little obvious right? thats propaganda. and im not challenging anyone or anything.. but i mean... why dont we all realize what is going on here and leave this stupid country. canada doesent have enemys...( or prohibition on reefer)
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Sep 23, 2003 08:30 am "canada doesent have enemys."
Yeh who can blame 'em. Very nice Country. Apparently the Canadians came out as the happiest people on earth in a survey, having visited their country (from the UK) I can see why.
They seem to have the best of the European social model approach combined with a more moderate version of US total capitalism, seems to work well enough. Oh, and they have S-P-A-C-E...lots of it!
Clinton was pretty well thought of in the UK, compared with Bush. But like you Americans, we don't like to find out our politicians are having a more adventurous sex life than the rest of us!
flame...bringing sexy backMember
Since: Jul 01, 2002
Sep 23, 2003 08:32 am lets not turn this into one of THOSE topics guys...or itll go on forever and we'll never get anywhere excepting pissing each other off.
bottom line : everyone's entitled to their own opinion, be it right or wrong in the eyes of others.
oh yeah, and this post wasnt directed at anyone in particular, so dont take it personally anyone...
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Sep 23, 2003 10:05 am Anyways, as far as Wesley Clark goes, I've seen his poll numbers lead the democratic challengers at 15% with Howard Dean and Lieberman both at 12%. Now, I'm not sure what exact question was asked to get those results (a very important factor in my mind), but that's what I saw on the news last night. Personally, I'm a Howard Dean fan, and I think Lieberman may as well be a Republican.
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Sep 24, 2003 06:06 am "lets not turn this into one of THOSE topics guys...or itll go on forever and we'll never get anywhere excepting pissing each other off.
bottom line : everyone's entitled to their own opinion, be it right or wrong in the eyes of others."
It already IS one of those posts Flame.
In any case, if a couple of people enjoy taking part in the post and sounding off (as long as its reasonable) then what's the harm. Better than threads that have two posts and die a death!
flame...bringing sexy backMember
Since: Jul 01, 2002
Sep 24, 2003 06:20 am you got it in one there dude - 'as long as its reasonable'.
once it becomes one of thoses topics where people are getting slagged off for their opinions, thats when a topic SHOULD die a death.
until then, feel free to air your views people, and as long as theres no flaming (pardon the pun) or general bitchyness, then cool!
Sep 24, 2003 01:52 pm i'm glad to see the intellegence of this thread has dropped to invertebrate level.
that was sarcasm
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Sep 24, 2003 02:55 pm I participated in a thread much like this one on another website, starting right around the time of the main attack on Iraq by the US. People bitched, people moaned, people threw links back and forth as supporting evidence. It created a lot of bad blood, the moderator had to make significant changes to the forum rules. At the end of those several months, nothing had changed. Nobody had changed their minds about anything, the closest thing to a resolution was a couple of muttered statements about agreeing to disagree, and an ultimatum by the moderator.
It doesn't matter what my views are, I've already listed all my arguments about the war on that other site. I got flamed by most, praised by a few. Who cares? I printed out a bunch of the posts just for memorabilia, so I could someday show my son what all the fuss was about - that's all I got out of it.
*****, moan, stand on your soapbox and do the frickin' hokey-pokey for all I care, but I'll tell you guys - it won't matter. Nobody here is going to change their minds.
You could be writing music right now instead of wasting your time... put those emotions into a song, make something positive out of this. But hey, it's your time to kill... me, I've got one more hour at work then I'm going home to play with my 8 month old son. Have fun, try not to kill each other. :)
CrashIgnorance Is StrengthMember
Since: Nov 10, 2002
Sep 24, 2003 03:47 pm I find it amazing that 2 people from different political sides can take the same information and get 2 different and opposite impressions from the same info. I find it appauling that right wingers on the AM talk stations call liberals lazy, and say that they want to live off the govt. and they are unpatriotic Osama-loving, pinko, vermin that need to be eradicated or at least taken care of in one way or another. I'm a liberal kind-of-guy and have worked all my life, my family has been here since the 1700's, geesh where do these guys get off? Do their listeners believe that I'm an enemy of the state? Do they really believe that those who disagree with their views have mental problems?
I had to make some sense of this for my own piece of mind. After a bit of research I found this essay by George Orwell written in 1945 (or there abouts).
Yes, it is kinda long. No, not everybody with get it, but it helped me understand why I see reality one way and someone else sees the same thing in a different way.
www.k-1.com/Orwell/index....ationalism.html
My study of fascism led me to this essay.
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Sep 24, 2003 03:51 pm Ok, this is weird... I was just reading the news when I saw this brief story about Wesley Clark:
-------------------------------
www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/23/154016.shtml
GOP Wannabe Clark Caught in Lie
Presidential contender Wesley Clark has claimed, "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." Not true.
As Fox News Channel's excellent Brit Hume pointed out last night, Weekly Standard has noted that the White House, which logs every incoming phone call, has no record of Clark ever calling Rove. Nor does Rove recall speaking with Clark.
-------------------------------
CrashIgnorance Is StrengthMember
Since: Nov 10, 2002
Sep 24, 2003 08:38 pm Tincanbug:
What's the big deal? Clark Clinton Bush all the same. Bought and sold by corporate intrests. Corporations invest in politicians and reap huge rewards thru free trade, off shore tax cheating, no teriffs, sweetheart govt. contracts, slave labor in Asia, relaxation of environmental rules, illegal alien cheap labor coming up from mexico and generally manipulating the govt. for profit. I think this corporate control of our govt. should be illegal like it was until the 1880s. Before that time corporations could not give money to politicians for any reason.
Clark wants to be Republican? pffft let him.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Sep 24, 2003 09:53 pm crash: i agree with you that essentially the whole system is dominated by those corporate interests, and needs a fix. right on about the band on corporate donations to politicians. that essay that you posted rules, even if it does take a million years to read. i don't think clark WANTS to be republican at all...before he jumped into the race, he had no political affiliation and was looking to see where he could make the biggest splash. i wonder if the quote that tincanbug referred us to was actually taken out of context...after seeing clark's style in interviews, he might have been facetious.
tincanbug: i don't think that any of this is a waste of effort. there are more people involved than those who post, and minds are changed even though it's not apparent. it shows a lot when there is some response other than the swollen chests that are so popular in america, especially since 9/11. i've got my own collection of memorabilia going on as well, so i was amused to read that you are keeping one. my favorite piece so far is a limited edition magazine that i bought at a grocery store that glorifies the life of ronald reagan in a bath of red, white, and blue.
the other day, wesley clark said that he would have voted yes for the war if he were in congress. the next day, he said that he would have voted no. i think we'll see plenty of duplicity from him, kind of like bush's pre-election statements about needing to have a "humble" foreign policy.
CrashIgnorance Is StrengthMember
Since: Nov 10, 2002
Sep 25, 2003 02:10 pm MinkusMaz:
I'm glad you got something out of that essay. Yep it was kinda long and takes a little concentration to get thru it but I found myself chuckeling because I saw my own sense of nationalism there and realized I'm just as blind as the most staunch Bush supporter.
Anything to make some sense out of whats happening in these 'Strange Days'.
Sep 25, 2003 02:38 pm Supporting Bush does not make one blind, it makes one different than you. It's many colors of the beautiful tapestry of life...or some crap like that...
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Nov 28, 2003 08:03 pm not really trying to start any further discussion at all about this, just wanted to follow up on it since it's interesting that it actually came up in the news media.
Clark Post During Waco Gets New Attention:
story.news.yahoo.com/news...pr/clark_waco_3
ha ha it sure took them a while to get around to this!
Nov 28, 2003 09:01 pm yep. INNOCENT.
theres a discussion about this on the clark yahoo forum right now. consensus is that the article was written by a deanie or a republican. the clarkies even wrote yahoo to get them to change the original headline, which was misleading. glad to see that it happened. all you need to take from the story are these quotes:
"Clark's involvement in support of the Waco operation a decade ago was indirect and fleeting," according to his former commanding officer.
Clark's campaign flatly denies any planning role by Clark in Waco. And an investigation by a Justice Department special counsel, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., bears out that assertion. Danforth found no improper actions by anyone in the U.S. military regarding Waco and concluded that the fiery end to the siege resulted from the Davidians setting fires inside the building compound where they were holed up.
Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.
***"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us." ***
*Regarding Taylor's comments, Clark campaign spokeswoman Mary Jacoby said "this is exactly what we've said all along; Gen. Clark had no involvement." *
Taylor says that "anything Schoomaker did, he wasn't doing for Clark." Internal Army documents support Taylor's position.
IMHO, clark's the only alternative to bush. the only one who's wise enough, got his priorities straight enough, and can actually beat the guy. this upcoming election isn't centrally about the economy, jobs, gay marriage, or anything like that. or at least, it shouldn't be, because it's not the right time to worry about that. this one's about america's role in the world. it's the most important election in years and years. people can call me insane, duped, whatever. this dude's larger than life.
and he's gaining ground.
(sorry for jumping back in...i can't resist. :)
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Nov 28, 2003 11:17 pm I guess if we must uphold the tradition of having a president, Homer Simpson would be fine by me. He is honestly ficticious. Created by a host of others with the intention of lining their pockets. True his persona is that of a raving moron, but I am used to that credential when it comes the the office of the president. Just think of the savings in transportation alone. Just beam the pres to wherever. Or send him in a box, airfreight! DigiPres! What a concept!
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Nov 28, 2003 11:37 pm i vote for digipres, and having a homer skin on it would be fine with me. sorry forty. the posse comitatus act of 1878 was created to keep military out of domestic police affairs entirely. the question isn't whether clark pulled any triggers or schemed behind the scenes, it's just about that law. the word of a politician's election campaign PR people isn't really solid, nor is the unofficial testimony of a commanding officer who also would be in trouble. we all saw what happened during the whole iran-contra mess. i don't know what happened, and i don't plan on assuming, just keeping it in mind as a possibility. in conclusion, digipres is it!
Nov 29, 2003 01:47 am "the word of a politician's election campaign PR people isn't really solid, nor is the unofficial testimony of a commanding officer who also would be in trouble."
well, that's certainly true. but the order came from somewhere. a decision was made. and you can bet it wasn't made by anyone 'down in the ranks.' after that, it's the army's job to carry out orders. they'd be remiss if they didnt. blame the government.
as an aside, i've never given a damn about waco. it's true also that i know very little about it, and that clark's being involved in a minor way would do absolutely nothing to sway my opinion of him. but anyway, i'm assuming that local law enforcement asked for assistance, correct? and then the decision was made...by someone.
'someone's' always going to be in trouble. who can possibly be credible here?
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Nov 29, 2003 10:16 am All joking aside. I am truely in awe at how you guys can keep track of whos who through the years and bring such pertanant information to bear. My hat is off to you! Personally, I have really internalized the concept that if it is a politician, he or she is lying to me. I believe to play in a political areana, one must forsake all ethics and mores. In effect become a "digiPres" or a "skin" saying and doing what the "character" depicts. And I think at some level the american public responds to that concept per our pepensity to elect actors as of late. Actors actually do possess the necessary resume skills.
Nov 29, 2003 10:20 am More joking aside, I would be very happy if these topics would never again appear on this website. I'm sick to death of reading political debate on a home recording forum...more over, the vast majority of the people here really don't give a crap what anyone else here thinks politically, it has been WELL documented from my inbox...I'm as tired of listening to everyone damn conspiracy theories as I am getting email from people complaining about people dis'in each other over the crap. If I would have followed my instincts and my rules to the letter of the rule there would be about 6 people banned (at least), myself included.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Nov 29, 2003 10:39 am OOps, forgot that one.
Nov 29, 2003 01:12 pm politics is a pretty divisive subject, and no one ever wins. i think we all realize that. it can be really annoying.
maybe there should be a new section of hrc...a dark, unmoderated political forum :)
Nov 29, 2003 01:25 pm I actually proposed that to the staff and was completely shot down...
Nov 29, 2003 02:43 pm hahahaha
Nov 29, 2003 03:21 pm no, seriously, it WAS discussed in the private staff forum and everybody thought I was nuts for even suggesting it...and actually, I was...
Nov 29, 2003 06:37 pm woah, weird man.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Nov 29, 2003 09:08 pm We could always turn PigPen into a political debate arena. The name would fit!
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Nov 30, 2003 12:36 pm yeah on the staff forum that suggestion got like 10 replies in one hour, everyone saying NO, we don't want to put up with and moderate that. hehe
Posted on Sep 16, 2003 02:28 pm
