What would be ideal act of civil dis in NH?

[Luke S]

I suspect we stayed out of Saudi Arabia more for political and economic reasons than because we believed they didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

Which doesn't mean we'll stay out of them in the future. They would have been a hard first target to wage war against. If Bush thought it would be better to go after Afganistan first than Saudi Arabia, then I support Bush's decision in that regard.

Afghanistan was an easy target to choose. They were politically isolated, had little to offer economically except poppies, and were relatively weak militarily, with the added bonus of pretty publicly supporting terrorism. Pakistan quickly decided to change sides and became our "ally" in order to avoid the same fate.

Which goes to show you the wisdom of a one Vietnamese general (and no, I can't remember the name off the top of my head). "If you get people by the balls, then their hearts and minds will follow."

In spite of the fact that Saddam had been on the USA payroll for decades, he had outlived his usefulness so he was the next to go. Again, it was politically safe since everyone knew what a horrible regime he ran, and gave us the opportunity to set up a new puppet state in the oil fields since the Saudis were feeling their oats and weren't willing to lay down as much as they had in the past. Iraq also borders on Iran which makes it a convenient base for operations there.

I think this is totally untrue George. I've heard from crazy conspiracy theorists that Saddam was on our payroll, but from no reputable sources.

Saudi Arabia is an unattractive target for many reasons. One, we are very heavily tied to them politically. They have been as strong an ally as we have had over there through the years, and it would be much harder to paint them out to be the bad guys than it was Saddam. Two, Mecca and Medina are both in Saudi Arabia and unless we really want a full fledged holy war, those are two areas to avoid. Three, pure simple economics. Saudi Arabia invests a lot of money propping up this screwed up economy of ours. We are feeling a little bit of that right now since they are not being as cooperative as they have in the past. If they ever decided to really squeeze we would be in a world of hurt. We stand to gain very little by invading the Saudis. It makes no sense to go there.

If they supported Al Qaeda, then they supported Al Qaeda. No ifs, ands, or buts. If what Jraxis said was true about them sponsoring Al Qaeda in the past, then the only thing that should save them from war with the US in my mind is if they sign something saying that they honestly didn't know that Al Qaeda was going to attack the US on 9/11, they sincerely apologize for what Al Qaeda did, and they are going to help us track down Al Qaeda. If they don't do that, then the result should be war.

If this war were really about Al-Qaeda then yes, we would have had to do something about it. The Saudis are certainly involved with that organization, as are many countries including us to some degree. Osama bin Laden was on the USA payroll too for a very long time. Hell, he still could be for all we know. But this war is about things much larger than Al-Qaeda. Do you all honestly think with the technology that we have and the money we have to throw around that in seven years we honestly couldn't find bin Laden? If we really wanted him we would have him already, but this war isn't about bin Laden, or Al-Qaeda, or even 9/11.

I think that the statement that bin Laden was on the USA payroll is not true. I also do not believe that the USA was involved with Al Qaeda to any degree. I think you have been deceived by conspiracy theorists, George. I also do not think that technology is magical, and I think it is very possible that bin Laden escaped and is hiding in a cave somewhere and we don't know where he is, notwithstanding all our fancy technology.

9/11 was simply the catalyst needed to launch a whole lot of programs domestically and internationally that the feds, and I suspect other groups, wanted to launch but couldn't without "provocation, just as Oklahoma City and Columbine were the catalysts for a whole lot of programs domestically. It is much easier to pass onerous laws and get public approval for policies when the people are scared. Why do you think you never hear much about gun control until there is a school shooting or other mass public shooting?

We won't go into Saudi Arabia because it is inexpedient for us. They could be entirely responsible for 9/11 and I don't think we would go there. It just doesn't make sense from the gov't point of view.

George

Yes I recognize that shootings have been used as catalysts for bad gun control laws (actually, all gun control laws are bad laws). I also recognize that 9/11 was used a catalyst for some bad laws, too, such as Real ID and certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act which violate civil liberties. But that doesn't mean that every decision and every law made in response to 9/11 was a bad decision or a bad law. On the contrary, many of them were good decisions and good laws.

It's up to us the citizens to get the gov't to keep the good laws and decisions, such as the beefed up airport and airplane security, the beefed up border security (which hasn't been beefed up nearly enough, but it's a start), and the US-Mexico border wall (which hasn't had nearly enough of it constructed yet, but it's a start). And to get rid of the bad laws and decisions, such as Real ID, and those provisions of the PATRIOT Act which violate our privacy and our civil liberties.

[Luke S]

Druggies... do not deserve freedom.

Bigot 

Try replacing the word druggies with some others.

Jews...  do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a religion.

Niggers...  do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a race.

Fags...   do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a sexual orientation.

A druggie is a person who, by free choice, not by any characteristic of birth, corrupts and endangers the rest of society. Therefore a druggie is a criminal, and thereby deserves to go where criminals go, which is to the county jail, or for more serious drug offenses, to the state prison.

[Luke S]

Alleged?? Underaged?? Denied an opportunity to defend themselves?? Caleb, Caleb, Caleb..... What I had always heard was that these were people who were members of Al Qaeda. And not underaged at all, but full-grown Al Qaeda members who were high up on the chain of command. And who were known to be such. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm

What accounts for this discrepancy, Caleb?

We can't exactly say who has been waterboarded specifically, because the only thing we have to go on is the Bush Administration, which is, by definition, full of shit. But we can say that abuse of underage prisoners has gone on.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Former_chaplain_at_Guantanamo_tells_about_abuse_and_underage_prisoners

We can also say that most of them are completely innocent of any sort of terrorism activities and have been denied any opportunity to defend themselves

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths.htm

Well Caleb, first of all I don't believe that the Bush administration is by definition full of shit. I certainly find the Bush administration, which claims that only 3 people have been waterboarded, all ranking Al Qaeda members, more reputable than either Human Rights Watch or Wikinews. Wikinews is like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can say what they want on it. As for Human Rights Watch, they are a leftist organization which is funded by George Soros who repeatedly lie about the War in Iraq and the War on Terror.

So with the Bush administration saying one thing, and Wikinews/Human Rights Watch saying another, I'll have to go with the Bush administration thank you very much.

[Tom Sawyer]

Except druggies are not human. That means we can do anything we want to them.

Herr Luke has the final solution.

They were nationalists also. Luke goosesteps. 

[NJLiberty]

Luke,

How old are you? I'm not being a wise ass, but you seem to forget all of the military equipment, money, aid, etc. we gave to Saddam Hussein to keep the Iranians occupied back in the day. Saddam was a good guy as far as the US was concerned up until he decided to break out of the mold and go invade Kuwait, then all of a sudden he went from friend to foe in a heart beat. Up until then you never heard word one against him. He fought the good war against the evil regime in Iran.

Osama bin Laden was the same way, except he was helping us out with the little problem we had with the Soviets invading Afghanistan, ironic isn't it? He was useful, his family was useful, and his family is still useful to the US. The list of people who we supported, funded, armed, and then turned on when they were no longer convenient is long. Hell, Fidel Castro was a good guy at one point in time. He received aid and support from us as well, before he changed course and made us look stupid.

It isn't conspiracy theory Luke. We use whomever is expedient at the time, scum or not, and then deal with them later. The Saudis are no different. Some day we may turn on them, but we won't right now because it makes no sense politically or economically. If you think this war is just about squashing a few terrorists you have a lot to learn. 

George

[NJLiberty]

A druggie is a person who, by free choice, not by any characteristic of birth, corrupts and endangers the rest of society.

Sorry Luke, but how does the average recreational drug user corrupt or endanger the rest of society?

Well Caleb, first of all I don't believe that the Bush administration is by definition full of shit. I certainly find the Bush administration, which claims that only 3 people have been waterboarded, all ranking Al Qaeda members, more reputable than either Human Rights Watch or Wikinews. Wikinews is like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can say what they want on it. As for Human Rights Watch, they are a leftist organization which is funded by George Soros who repeatedly lie about the War in Iraq and the War on Terror.

So with the Bush administration saying one thing, and Wikinews/Human Rights Watch saying another, I'll have to go with the Bush administration thank you very much.

While I have to agree with you that the Wikipedia and Wikinews are not always reliable, neither is the Bush administration. Nothing against Bush, because every administration I have seen so far has been the same, but they all lie through their teeth. They are worse than used car salesmen. Generally Luke if you take the Bush administartion's position, and the opposition's position, and throw a dart somewhere in the middle you will be much closer to the actual  truth. It is just a function of government that they tell us what they want us to believe, truth or not.

George

[Luke S]

Luke,

How old are you?

I'm 21 years old.

I'm not being a wise ass, but you seem to forget all of the military equipment, money, aid, etc. we gave to Saddam Hussein to keep the Iranians occupied back in the day. Saddam was a good guy as far as the US was concerned up until he decided to break out of the mold and go invade Kuwait, then all of a sudden he went from friend to foe in a heart beat. Up until then you never heard word one against him. He fought the good war against the evil regime in Iran.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. But that's not relevant because that was before he started supporting Al Qaeda.

Osama bin Laden was the same way, except he was helping us out with the little problem we had with the Soviets invading Afghanistan, ironic isn't it? He was useful, his family was useful, and his family is still useful to the US. The list of people who we supported, funded, armed, and then turned on when they were no longer convenient is long. Hell, Fidel Castro was a good guy at one point in time. He received aid and support from us as well, before he changed course and made us look stupid.

Again, not relevant, because we're talking about Al Qaeda here, and this was all before he formed Al Qaeda.

It isn't conspiracy theory Luke. We use whomever is expedient at the time, scum or not, and then deal with them later. The Saudis are no different. Some day we may turn on them, but we won't right now because it makes no sense politically or economically. If you think this war is just about squashing a few terrorists you have a lot to learn. 

George

Turn on the Saudis? No George, I think you've got it mixed up. They turned on us. They turned on us when they supported Al Qaeda which attacked us. Now they either sign a paper which says they didn't know that Al Qaeda was going to do this, and they're sorry for what Al Qaeda did, and they'll help us to hunt down Al Qaeda, or if they don't do that, I think we should go to war with them after we're finished with the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Luke S]

Nothing against Bush, because every administration I have seen so far has been the same, but they all lie through their teeth. They are worse than used car salesmen.

No George. They are not "all the same". All throughout the 90's, I remember hearing "No, that'll never happen", when I kept asking people when the USA would finally kick Saddam out of power, and I waited and hoped and wished for the day when there would be a president who truly cared about America and who would right the wrong and kick Saddam out of power and rectify the border situation and punish the criminals and do all that sort of stuff. Bush has been like a dream come true for me, and we will never have a president like Bush again because the liberal media lied about Bush, and lied about all of Bush's achievements, and said he was responsible for wrongdoings that he was not responsible for. And now since they lied about Bush, now everybody hates Bush, so if there were another candidate for president who was just like Bush, that candidate would never get voted in because of all the lies that the Left has told about Bush and Bush-like presidential candidates.

The situation surrounding Bush just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished. Bush truly loved (and loves) America and did his absolute best to help America and right the wrongs in this country. And now everybody hates him, because the liberal media has basically brainwashed everybody to hate him.

And worst of all, when I look back on my own life, and everything I've done, I don't think I've done nearly enough to help Bush. I lived such a busy life in high school and college that I really didn't have enough time in between all my high school and college stuff for politics. Only during the election seasons, and right here at the very end of college when not much else is going on, did I have the ability to make time for politics. And of course when I did that it would leave me behind in the other stuff I had to do, and I would have to play "catch up" during other times of the year. I guess maybe this year I could make up for it by endorsing who Bush is endorsing, which is McCain. And I hope me and other people can convince "open borders" McCain to have a better stance on the border situation. Truth be told, I've always liked McCain, too, but not as much as Bush. Oh well.

[Luke S]

Except druggies are not human. That means we can do anything we want to them.

Tom Sawyer, that wasn't a quote from me. Stop putting up fake quotes from me.

[J’raxis 270145]

Druggies... do not deserve freedom.

Bigot 

Try replacing the word druggies with some others.

Jews...  do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a religion.

Niggers...  do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a race.

Fags...   do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a sexual orientation.

A druggie is a person who, by free choice, not by any characteristic of birth, corrupts and endangers the rest of society. Therefore a druggie is a criminal, and thereby deserves to go where criminals go, which is to the county jail, or for more serious drug offenses, to the state prison.

Whether or not sexual orientation is intrinsic or a choice (albeit it subconscious or somesuch) is still an open question. If it ultimately turns out it's a choice, can we start forcing everyone to be straight?

Religion is certainly a choice. So what if you're born into one of them—you can convert. Certainly we can force everyone to convert to Christianity, can't we?

[Luke S]

Druggies... do not deserve freedom.

Bigot 

Try replacing the word druggies with some others.

Jews...  do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a religion.

Niggers...  do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a race.

Fags...   do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a sexual orientation.

A druggie is a person who, by free choice, not by any characteristic of birth, corrupts and endangers the rest of society. Therefore a druggie is a criminal, and thereby deserves to go where criminals go, which is to the county jail, or for more serious drug offenses, to the state prison.

Whether or not sexual orientation is intrinsic or a choice (albeit it subconscious or somesuch) is still an open question. If it ultimately turns out it's a choice, can we start forcing everyone to be straight?

We'll cross that bridge when we definitively know whether it's a choice or intrinsic. Personally I've always assumed sexual orientation was intrinsic, thus attempting to force someone who's gay to magically become straight is almost like trying to force a man to magically become a woman. It's folly, and it would be a waste of tax dollars, even if the gov't did want to do it.

Religion is certainly a choice. So what if you're born into one of them—you can convert. Certainly we can force everyone to convert to Christianity, can't we?

Nope, because that would be a breach of the Establishment clause.

There is an Establishment clause which protects people from being forced to convert to a certain religion. There is no "druggie clause" which protects people's "rights to be a druggie".

[J’raxis 270145]

Druggies... do not deserve freedom.

Bigot 

Try replacing the word druggies with some others.

Jews...  do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a religion.

Niggers...  do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a race.

Fags...   do not deserve freedom.

Except druggie is not a sexual orientation.

A druggie is a person who, by free choice, not by any characteristic of birth, corrupts and endangers the rest of society. Therefore a druggie is a criminal, and thereby deserves to go where criminals go, which is to the county jail, or for more serious drug offenses, to the state prison.

Whether or not sexual orientation is intrinsic or a choice (albeit it subconscious or somesuch) is still an open question. If it ultimately turns out it's a choice, can we start forcing everyone to be straight?

We'll cross that bridge when we definitively know whether it's a choice or intrinsic. Personally I've always assumed sexual orientation was intrinsic, thus attempting to force someone who's gay to magically become straight is almost like trying to force a man to magically become a woman. It's folly, and it would be a waste of tax dollars, even if the gov't did want to do it.

Folly indeed. You mean like the sixty or so billion tax dollars they waste each year trying to stop people from doing drugs? So far that seems to be about as effective as you envision trying to force someone into a different sexual orientation.

Religion is certainly a choice. So what if you're born into one of them—you can convert. Certainly we can force everyone to convert to Christianity, can't we?

Nope, because that would be a breach of the Establishment clause.

There is an Establishment clause which protects people from being forced to convert to a certain religion. There is no "druggie clause" which protects people's "rights to be a druggie".

Oh, right, I forgot you're basing right vs. wrong largely on whether or not something is legal.

Regardless of the Establishment clause, do you believe everyone ought to be forced to convert to a particular religion, if it could be done somehow? If not, why not? What makes it wrong to force someone away from their choice of religion?

[highline]

Druggies... do not deserve freedom.

Bigot 

Try replacing the word druggies with some others.

Jews...  do not deserve freedom.
Niggers...  do not deserve freedom.
Fags...   do not deserve freedom.

I bet you are second generation "Just say no". The gooberment created an enviroment that made this kind of bigotry exceptable. It served the purpose to give ignorant people a group of people to blame our troubles on.

Dopers are stupid... well Carl Sagan smoked pot, you smarter than Carl Sagan?

Luke has no idea what he is talking about.  He is a walking DARE poster.

[Caleb]

Well Caleb, first of all I don't believe that the Bush administration is by definition full of shit. I certainly find the Bush administration, which claims that only 3 people have been waterboarded, all ranking Al Qaeda members, more reputable than either Human Rights Watch or Wikinews. Wikinews is like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can say what they want on it. As for Human Rights Watch, they are a leftist organization which is funded by George Soros who repeatedly lie about the War in Iraq and the War on Terror.

So with the Bush administration saying one thing, and Wikinews/Human Rights Watch saying another, I'll have to go with the Bush administration thank you very much.

It's simple logic. Bush=shit. Bush administration, by definition, is full of shit.

The CIA is an organization that, by its very charter, engages in misdirection, covert secret operations, propaganda, and disinformation. You need to look into the Church committee, which was a congressional investigation into the CIA which discovered, among other things, the extent that the CIA used propaganda, both at home and abroad, even holding some 400 American reporters on its payroll. And you believe the CIA? Do we really need to go line by line down the many lies of the Bush Administration?  Some reports on wikinews can be edited. That one, however, has been archived and locked. And it simply reports the testimony of an American who was there and saw it with his own eyes, and who was later tortured himself. It's not the only report on the matter, just the one that happened to come up real quick when I google searched it. Do your own research on it, if you disbelieve it. Should we be torturing American servicemen, Luke? I'm sure that's ok in your worldview. Of course, he was later released and exhonerated of all charges, but hey, he should be happy to be tortured by his country, for his country. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what your country can do TO you. How does torturing American servicemen line up with your draft idea? It's ok for them to force me into the service, and then after I'm in the service they have the right to torture me?  Your constant attacks on "leftists" are bigoted. Is there something about being a "leftist" that automatically makes one predisposed to lie? Or is it just that since you don't like their politics, you feel free to attack someone's character? How is it that you feel free to dismiss what someone says, not as opinion, but as documented FACT, simply because they are "leftist"? You won't believe something until you hear Rush Limbaugh proclaim it? You won't even examine the evidence presented by someone who doesn't believe what you believe? It's ironic, as far as I'm concerned. I'm a "leftist", but I will listen to and think about what Rush Limbaugh says. But you won't dare to open your eyes to read Noam Chomsky. You seem to be afraid of even learning facts that don't support your position. You must be very afraid that your opinions won't stand a chance when exposed to inconvenient things like "facts" and "evidence" and "morality".

[Luke S]

Well Caleb, first of all I don't believe that the Bush administration is by definition full of shit. I certainly find the Bush administration, which claims that only 3 people have been waterboarded, all ranking Al Qaeda members, more reputable than either Human Rights Watch or Wikinews. Wikinews is like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can say what they want on it. As for Human Rights Watch, they are a leftist organization which is funded by George Soros who repeatedly lie about the War in Iraq and the War on Terror.

So with the Bush administration saying one thing, and Wikinews/Human Rights Watch saying another, I'll have to go with the Bush administration thank you very much.

It's simple logic. Bush=shit.

No he isn't.

Bush administration, by definition, is full of shit.

No it isn't.

The CIA is an organization that, by its very charter, engages in misdirection, covert secret operations, propaganda, and disinformation. You need to look into the Church committee, which was a congressional investigation into the CIA which discovered, among other things, the extent that the CIA used propaganda, both at home and abroad, even holding some 400 American reporters on its payroll. And you believe the CIA?

Why are we talking about the CIA now? We were talking about the Bush Administration, not the CIA. And the Bush Administration said that only 3 people were waterboarded. It wasn't the CIA that said that, it was the Bush Administration that said that.

Do we really need to go line by line down the many lies of the Bush Administration?

There have been many people who have written liberal liar books in which they have "gone line by line down the many lies of the Bush administration", and in each and every case, it has turned out that they were either liars or misinformed, and the Bush administration was telling the truth.

Some reports on wikinews can be edited. That one, however, has been archived and locked. And it simply reports the testimony of an American who was there and saw it with his own eyes, and who was later tortured himself. It's not the only report on the matter, just the one that happened to come up real quick when I google searched it. Do your own research on it, if you disbelieve it.

I disbelieve it because the story is just so fanciful. The soldier who told the story said that there were women who stripped down and rubbed themselves against the detainees, and that the detainees were made to bow down upon a pentagram and then the guards would say "Satan is your god now, not Allah". James Yee's story is a total fairy tale that is now being used by the ACLU and other leftists to discredit the military. It is obvious that this is just another leftist fairy tale used to discredit the military.

Should we be torturing American servicemen, Luke? I'm sure that's ok in your worldview. Of course, he was later released and exhonerated of all charges, but hey, he should be happy to be tortured by his country, for his country. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what your country can do TO you. How does torturing American servicemen line up with your draft idea? It's ok for them to force me into the service, and then after I'm in the service they have the right to torture me?

Again, it's obvious he lied about the torture. Just listen to his crazy, silly story. It's obviously false on it's face. The silliest part of the whole story was when he claimed that Guatanamo guards were making the Muslims bow down on a pentagram and say "Satan is your god now, not Allah". That's obviously fanciful. It's a total fairy tale.

Your constant attacks on "leftists" are bigoted.

Maybe according to the libertarian definition of bigoted, which also says you can be "bigoted" against druggies.

Is there something about being a "leftist" that automatically makes one predisposed to lie?

As a matter of fact, yes there is.

Or is it just that since you don't like their politics, you feel free to attack someone's character? How is it that you feel free to dismiss what someone says, not as opinion, but as documented FACT, simply because they are "leftist"?

I don't. But what James Yee said is an obvious lie.

You won't believe something until you hear Rush Limbaugh proclaim it? You won't even examine the evidence presented by someone who doesn't believe what you believe? It's ironic, as far as I'm concerned. I'm a "leftist",

I thought you were a libertarian.

but I will listen to and think about what Rush Limbaugh says. But you won't dare to open your eyes to read Noam Chomsky.

I've read Michael Moore, and he's just about as far left as you can get.

You seem to be afraid of even learning facts that don't support your position. You must be very afraid that your opinions won't stand a chance when exposed to inconvenient things like "facts" and "evidence" and "morality".

Not true at all.