Ableton Forum

DeadlyKungFu wrote:So what the fuck has been going on in this thread? I ain't reading all that siht but I'm ready to start insulting people.

D DAS wrote: http://www.ogrish.com/beheading_videos.html

robtronik wrote:

ocp wrote:

robtronik wrote: why don't I what?

rob

Why don't you americans invade Iran and North Korea, while you're at it?

its possible. That's why we are using diplomacy first. 6 party talks with North Korea. U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Same with Iran. Sanctions. See where it nets out.

But diplomacy without the threat of consequence is meaningless and a waste of time.

rob.

joesapo wrote:

the people who want us to "Grow some balls and vote third-party" would have the balls to defend their point of view.

A comment like that usually signifies the end of my participation in a discussion - but I'll let you be my huckleberry.

All of the flat tax proposals I've seen essentially set a flat percentage for taxes on wages while eiiminating capital gains tax. This would shift the entire tax burden onto lower and middle class Americans while allowing the very wealthy to get away tax free since they generally don't make their money in the form of wages.

Eliminate the federal income tax. It wasn't until around 1913 that it really came to be anyways, so it's relatively recent. It's really not required. Unless you really want to keep paying Haliburton a third of your paycheck.

..since typically protection of private property is one of the only functions that libertarians would allow the federal goverment to oversee.

Yeah - let's talk about EMINENT DOMAIN laws. The feds can stay off my lawn.

For the record we already tried private fire services in this country and it was a disaster. How do you forsee a private police force working? Only those who can pay get any protection?

You don't know what you're talking about. There are private fire and ambulance services contracted by cities all across this country. This is a city/county/state level thing. As far as the police thing - residential neighborhood and apartments hire security services - it's no different. If you don't live in one of those neighborhoods or cities with a police contract - go get a gun and learn to protect yourself.

The point of a society is that sometimes we decide that what's better for the individual can actually benefit society as a whole. If I pay for private fire service but my neighbor doesn't and his house catches fire and spreads through the neighborhood, it doesn't take me long to realize that the whole neighborhood would be better off if we all just pay for the fire service together even if only one of us ever has to use it.

Ever heard of volunteer fire fighters?

So who is the "we" who is deciding what's best for me...? If you are concerned about fire prevention - just live in a neighborhood, or a city, or a county with fire prevention service. The point is - it's up to YOU to decide where you live and what services are there.

I trust public programs FAR more than I would ever trust any privatized system.

GOOD GOD MAN! Are you serious? Tell you what - why don't you just forget about IRAs and 401k programs and just hope that your SS payments are enough to keep you BARELY ALIVE... Do you know anybody who retired and lives off Social Security?

At least "Privitized systems" can be held accountable. Can the government be held accountable for not having your money? When I turn 65 and my money isn't there - who do I go to for restitution? Why don't I just go and try to sue the feds and see where that will lead me. I'll probably be deemed an enemy combatant and be locked up in Guantanamo.

It's just like with communism. If you and your neighbor are told to make chairs, and you are paid the same no matter what... what incentive is there to make better chairs than the other guy? There isn't any. But in capitalism, you can work harder than the next guy and make a better chair and people might buy more of your chairs. So you improve your product, in an attempt to better yourself financially.

subterFUSE - thank you for the sanity injection

forge wrote:

glu wrote:and at the same time folks, watch how two cousins catch a 4 ft catfish,
and how Carmen Electra teaches a group of elderly ladies how to lapdance!

NEWS!

exactly!

BTW - John Hopkins university has put the toll at over 650 000 dead civillians
the "official" Iraqi health department figure is around 130 000
GWB puts it as 30, 000 - I think that figure came direct to him from his hotline to God

whatever number it is, the US troops count is considerably less than all of them, which considering they started the whole damn thing, I think they've come out pretty well

It's just like with communism. If you and your neighbor are told to make chairs, and you are paid the same no matter what... what incentive is there to make better chairs than the other guy? There isn't any. But in capitalism, you can work harder than the next guy and make a better chair and people might buy more of your chairs. So you improve your product, in an attempt to better yourself financially.

jackmazzotti wrote:

D DAS wrote:well that's war for ya.

if the tables were turned there jackmazotti, if iraq invaded the states and occupied it with extreme aggression wouldn't you be a little pissed after over 3 years of occupation. not saying snipering is justifed cause it is not, but just what the fuck are we doing there in the first place.

you want to see some messed up shit, here ya go, here is war for you
http://www.ogrish.com/beheading_videos.html

occupiers?

did you know that far more Iraqis voted with the risk of losing their very lives then we Americans did during Bush vs Kerry

doesn't that tell you something

if you even did vote would you have done so if you had a very good chance of getting suicide bombed at the voting booth?

Islamic terrorists funded by Iran and Al Queda are the ones we are fighting over there not the normal people of Iraq who want freedom like everyone else in the world

robtronik wrote:That 650k number of Iraqi's killed since the invasion is BS, Deva. Don't be so sucked in by anti war propaganda that you can't be analytical enough to parse those numbers realistically.

Its been sliced and diced and analyzed by many groups who are anti-war and even they say the study is flawed. To put it in perspective, the 650k number would mean the following:

* It is larger than the total number of Americans killed during combat in every major conflict, from the Revolutionary War to the first Gulf War.

* It is more than double the combined number of civilians killed in the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

* It is a larger number than were killed in Germany during five years (and 955,044 tons) of WWII bombing.

And of course, they actually identified 547 deaths in their survey to extrapolate these numbers. In otherwords, its BS.

I won't critique your point on whether they (U.S. soldiers) are justified to be killed by snipers or not, but ask yourself this: Would we leave if there wasn't violence in the country that threatened to destablize it (all accomplished by those who don't want to see democracy?) OF COURSE.

The real question is: What role does our occupation play in aggravating the violence? My guess: It is an excuse by those who are anti-democratic to attack their own people. If (and when) we leave, the attacks will continue by those who want to re-instate a terrorist friendly government (i.e. fascist, like the taliban) so they can have a base of operations.

Its a fight. It will be ugly, and it is necessary. They either show up there, or in the U.K. or in the U.S. - And for what it is worth, Saddam needed to be removed for all the reasons we've discussed ad nasuem to date.

Those who don't think it was necessary probably also support non-action in darfur, or Iran, or even N. Korea as well (for instance). If there is to be the rule of law and it is respected in the international community, then action must be taken against those that would defy the international body for over 14 years directly, not support WMD inspections, etc.

To believe otherwise is foolish and dangerous to this thing we call the U.N. - which is already well on its way to obscurity and influence due to the way it has been ineffectual in dealing with real crises.

In the end, post removal of Saddam and the restablization of Iraq is important. Lots of mistakes have been made. Things that we can fix, we have to (this is what is referred to as "completing the mission") and the things that the Iraqi's can do, they will have to. We won't be there forever - withdrawl has ALWAYS been on the table (the U.S. has never intended to create an Iraqi colony), but the question is: under what circumstances?

Those circumstances are constantly under evaluation (and this is a criticism of the Bush administration that he deserves) and yet, this is the reality of situation - ground situations change, politics change, causing strategies to change. This is an inevitable part of being an occupying force with the challenge of rebuilding an infrastructure of a country.

We are also legally obligated, under the Geneva convention to be there until the Iraqi's can self govern and sustain themselves.

You all who don't agree with this point of view, that's your right.

But it doesn't mean you are right, if you know what I mean.

On a personal note, I think it is funny and quite ironic that those who consider themselves liberal (i.e. probably against the removal of Saddam, against Bush, etc.) are "Liberal" enough to let someone like Saddam stay in power and viloate international law rather than "change" the status quo.

Sounds kinda conservative to me, actually.

jackmazzotti wrote:and you hate me because of what?
because i think it is shamefull and disgusting to play a video of enemy snipers killing our soliders during a very very serious war