Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I say, good show, old chap!


(oh, I hate it when i start a new page!)

Yeah. Sewiously.

_________________

I just can't believe that we live in a country that probably condones and uses torture methods to extract information from prisoners.

It's like we have forgotten what is so great about America in the first place.

It scares me that at any given moment, if any person sees fit to think that I'm a 'terrorist,' I could be held in prison with no contact witha lawyer and no trial and be tortured.

That's scary power for an organization to have.

I believe in human rights! And justice! (--Bunny Wailer)

Your right, LJ. When I was in the military, they drilled in us the importance of humane treatment of prisoners and of following Red Cross and UN directives on the subject. Those army guards should have refused to follow their orders and reported the ones who gave them. It is my hope that not only will those guilty be punished, but also that those who gave the orders will likewise be brought to justice.

Here's a thought. Since their crimes were committed against Iraqi citizens, let the Iraqis try them.

_________________

Here's an interesting article:
Soldiers raised abuse concerns

Have a look. I sure do love reading tomorrow's news today.

In England, Our leader is the Prime Minister, the "Rt. Honourable" Tony Blair. (We do have a queen, but she doesn't actually do anything anymore. We are a democracy now.) He acts like nothing more than a sock puppet for George W. Bush. When the USA wanted to attack Iraq, Tony Blair made us be part of it. Even though numerous protests were held against it. And British Soldiers are also being held over abuse charges. It disgusts me that a country would rid another of an evil dictator (Evil, but technically did not provoke anyone for an attack) and then enforce the same torture that happened when the dictator was presently leading the country. The people want Blair to resign, but I don't think that's a good idea. For one, the Deputy Prime Minister is a fat, aggressive man famous for punching someone who was laughing at him when an egg was thrown at him, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is someone who really wants to be Prime Minister, but JUST doesn't really have it in him. *Sigh*.

_________________
Move sig, move sig, move sig, move sig. For great justice take off every sig. Move sig, move sig, move sig. You know what you doing take off every sig.

I love your amazing sense of logic. "Bad things are happening in a war, therefore it must be all about oil!" Nevermind the lack of evidence, there's got to be a connection going on!

OK, fine. I've changed my post. You didn't have to make fun of me there.

_________________
Move sig, move sig, move sig, move sig. For great justice take off every sig. Move sig, move sig, move sig. You know what you doing take off every sig.

I wasn't making fun of you, but I was pointing out your logical fallacies.

Lack of evidence?!?

Fact 1: Amount Halliburton has made on the Iraqi takeover: $1,700,000,000 plus (this is only the contract they were awarded -- it will probably be much more!

Fact 2: Amount any other corporation, including the ones headed by Iraqis, has made:$0

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Iraq_Halliburton_082803.htm

If you run an oil corporation for a living (e.g. practically everyone in our government) you are going to run your country like an oil corporation. Natch. That's all the evidence you need right there. It doesn't even matter if Bush-Cheney 2004 gets re-elected; they've made enough money from their escapades to last several lifetimes.

It wouldn't matter anyway. Think about it: the President makes $400,000 per year, has an unreal benefits package (insurance, travel, lodging, etc. all paid 100%), plus he gets a $50,000 non-taxable expense account, so day-to-day he spending almost nothing (well, okay, Bush just put two daughters through college; even I can appreciate that). So he's got this huge disposable income that he can either put in savings or invest (he's investing in oil, of course). On the returns from that alone he could easily lead a plush life until he dies. But then recall that an ex-President's retirement package is, to say the least, generous. In 2002 it was $166,700/yr., though it varies (always upward). And then consider the fact that every year, every living ex-President who is able makes a score of public appearances, e.g. commencement speeches, groundbreakings, etc., most of which he gets paid not a paltry sum for.

I don't point this out to criticize the policy -- most of our former Presidents deserve to live comfortably for services rendered -- but no U.S. ex-President has ever suffered financial hardship, at least not in the last 100 years.

_________________

He still needs money to "thank the little people who have helped me along the way."

In fact, I am sure there are thousands of people that have helped him along the way.

It sure takes a lot of money and "influence" (wink wink) to get to be the President of the United States.

It takes about five and a half members of your family to be in the government, already.

And you have to be religious.

Oh, and white and male.

Ooh, and if you're religious, definately be a Christian, preferably Protestant.

Yeah, you'd better make that Protestant. To be safe.

Yeah.
I'm gonna call and tell him he owes me $15 bucks for voting for him.
That oughtta cover it.

I'm scared and I don't even live in America.

I've always admired the Canadian military. We get mocked for not having a lot of military strength, and our army is in dire need of funding, but we've always held to the principle of peacekeeping. Canada's military is truly for defensive, not offensive, purposes.

_________________

Yeah, and you don't meddle in other country's affairs. America was that way until Pearl Harbor, really. We all went nuts, and have never regained consciousness.

You don't meddle in other country's affairs, and guess what? No terrorist attacks. I don't see Switzerland having any problems.

I think that's what it takes; a mutual respect to stay out of each other business, unless someone has been invaded. The borders should stay the same. This 'pre-emptive war' garbage needs to go.

Any thoughts?

Comon, someone disagree with me, let's make this interesting!

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If the election doesn't go the right way this November, I will very, very seriously be considering a move to Canada. I honestly don't know if I can take another four years of this.

Maybe I'll just take a really, really long vacation. Somewhere safe. Like.. Afghanistan.

_________________

I mean no offense, but I'm going to say the same thing i say to anyone who says they're planning on ditching America.

Good riddance.

What are you talking about? Of course you mean offense.

_________________

No, I'm simply expressing my opinion that anyone who hates America or its government enough to leave it probably shouldn't be in the country in the first place.

IJ,

America needs us!

We can't leave this country to the Rush Limbaughs!

The comment that we are welcome to leave is so often used by the Limbaughs because they want this country to themselves. Then no one would stand in their way! They could curtail the rights of the people and invade other countries and let the school systems and other human programs rot into muddy puddles in the ground!

America would become a police state, an Orwellian pseudo-utopia where John Ashcroft could be listening to you right...Now! Executions of the homeless! Forced childbearing! Worship of the American Flag!

Who would complain about human rights if all the liberals left for another country?

No one, that's who!

Again, I say,

America needs us!

When did I say I hated America or its government? I didn't, dear friend, and I do not. And on that you can quote me.

_________________

George Bush is the head of the government and you obviously hate him.

I think that's a common misconception, that people who complain about the President/government hate the prez/gov.

While it may be true for a minority of the 'liberal' community, it certainly is not a hard and fast rule.

The Truth hurts! George W is not being served by the truth -- he has spent so much time (like NIxon) covering up the truth and living in some sort of dream world, that he acts like he has no concern for the truth. Keeping someone truthful and accountable for their actions is certainly not a hateful action.

It seems as if he only has concern for spin.

Anger is not the same thing as hate. Hate does not serve anyone, while anger arises from injustice.

Once again, you're making broad assumptions, Gemini. I do not hate George W. Bush. I do not hate anybody. It is my sincerest hope that never in my life will I have cause to harbor hatred for any person. I have only pity for people who allow hatred into their hearts, and it hurts me to be accused of being such a person.

But it is true that I dislike the President very much. I think that every person would dislike any official who actively fought to limit the rights of and persecute people that you love. And I think that no person appreciates being lied to, and no person should appreciate seeing their friends and countrymen being asked to die for those lies.

I do not hate the President, and I do not hate the individuals in his administration, but I am tired of being heartbroken and afraid because of the actions he and they have precipitated upon myself, my loved ones, and my countrymen, and people around the world, and am, truth be told, terrified of what will come to pass if this administration is not removed swiftly.

_________________

Things wouldn't be any different under Kerry. Kerry also supported the war in Irag, remember? He even made tough policies against terrorism a part of his platform. WDTM? That Kerry is just as likely to invade Syria or Lebannon as GWB is.

I can remember hoping that GB Sr. would lose in '92 because I was disillusioned with the corruption in government. What happened? Ol' Billy Bob turned out no better than his predecessor.

But I look at it like this. The system we live under here is not perfect. But just imagine what the Iraqis have been going through for the past 30 years or so under Saddam. Don't get me wrong--the current war is a war of aggression, not defense. But we've had it good compared to the Iraqis. We should be thankful for what we do have. If we lived in Saddam's Iraq, we'd probably have been executed by now for these posts.

_________________

The thing is that we don't hate the Constitution and the Founding Fathers and freedom and all that. The problem is that this is no longer that America. I see the Bill of Rights being butchered in many things GWB does. PATRIOT act, perhaps?

That and GWB seems to be trying to turn the Bible into the new Constitution. I'm not an antireligious zealot. I don't care if some kids pray in school or if the 10 Commandments are in a government building. But when the leader goes by the Bible, it gets hairy. I have to classify him as a hypocrite when he denies gays the right to marry due to something that was written in the same book that tells you to destroy any town that has "people calling for worship of other gods". That's 1/2 of America nuked on the spot. Don't make me go on about how many people the Bible says to kill.

To sum up that rant: If Canada does a better job of being America than America itself, move to Canada.

And before anybody says something about the Founding Fathers founding the USA on christianity, read Thomas Jefferson's letters about christianity.

I don't think Canada does such a great job being America. They do a pretty good job of being Canada, though.

As a Christian myself, I happen to have a high opinion of the Bible, so I have absolutely no problem with our nation's leaders using it for guidance. The First Amendment was meant to protect religion from government persecusion, not to exclude religious descussion from politics and public forum. I happen to ba a chaplain at a VA Med Center, so I know what I'm talking about; if "separation between religion and state" were a hard-and-fast rule, I wouldn't be there. In other words, don't be dissing the Bible.

Furthermore, since the Constitution does garauntee each citizen the right to express his own religious convictions, then why is it that people think that government officials don't have that right as well? I wouldn't be able to do my job at all if I were under such restriction.

_________________

Firstly, I have no problem with the Bible. I have a problem with the Bible being used as an excuse for hate.* Our President uses the Bible as justification in turning certain groups of people, groups that I care very much about, into second-class citizens.

If a government official turns to the Bible in his personal life for inspiration and guidance, I can't fault him. But when a goverment official tells me that my friends and my children** and myself have to live according to his (interpretation of) scriptures, as has been the trend in this administration, I will not stand by and watch.

*I'm not accusing Bush of exercising hatred (though I couldn't discount its likelihood), but certainly there have been others.
**The children are hypothetical, but if I seem outspoken now, wait til I have offspring to watch out for.

_________________

The President is walking a thin line when he mentions his religious beliefs -- He sees himself as the hand of God working in our time, the great liberator of peoples, etc. THIS is dangerous.

As for the "separartion of church and state," I have heard many people talk smack about the phrase, saying that it is not in the Constitution, that it is not a founding fathers ideology, that America is and always has been a Christian nation...

I respond to that: if it is not in the Constitution, let's put it in there! Look at history, at every oppressed people. Religion has played a role. Oliver Cromwell, the Inquisition, the current Middle East Conflict.

Secularizing (which has become a dirty word) the government, away from religion was one of the best ideas that America ever had, there is way too much power to be had if the most powerful people claim to speak and work for God himself. Claiming to speak for God is a tricky, blasphemous business. In politics, if you can call the other person 'evil' or whatever, and get a bunch of zealots to do you bidding, you can have absolute power. And what politician wouldn't want that?

Didymus, your job is not an affront to the aforementioned 'separation,' and I hope you like your job and you do well at it. Bush is very welcome to have his religious beliefs, as is every American, but it is those same religious beliefs that scare the holy crap outta me and that is why I can't wait to vote his sorry butt out of office. I dislike any powerful person who believes that God speaks to him and can't claim any mistakes. I'd much rather have someone be a human being, not a Napolean.

I am aware that Kerry will not be a perfect president. Kerry was not my first choice for Democratic candidate. But I cannot honestly imagine Kerry doing a worse job than Bush. In fact, there are few people I can imagine doing worse than bush. And at this point, I'll take what I can get.

I can tell you one thing, though: Kerry won't keep Ashcroft and Rumsfeld around, and if that doesn't spell improvement, I don't know what does.

_________________