Tendo City

:(

The only torture I approve of is the torturing they did to the nazis soldiers captured during WW2. For example, they took them out to ball games and fancy dinners. Keeping up that sort of behavior they eventually cracked and started talking.

Now now... we did horrible things too. In 1974 we took black people off the street and painted kitties or hearts on their hands, telling them to love and enjoy life. We painted bunnies on the children... so much senseless suffering. It took decades before blacks could even step foot in a carnival. Remember the face-painting riots in Denver? When they started throwing the hard candy... you could see the fear in people's eyes. Some people called it 'Braching' which aggrivated the Chinese, sense the word Brachs in mandarin means 'To pro-rate (my) rent' which is almost considered a sin to them. It's taught that when you use the word Brachs or the phonetic term for hard candy in mandarin ('ow') that you point your feet away from the person you're speaking to as a sign of respect showing that "this message of hard candy is not meant for you."

It's even more complicated for the Japanese since hard candy can also mean a material used to make boats or sexual preference among males.

All Mukasey had to do was say "waterboarding is illegal", but no, instead it's "as described in the media it sounds wrong but I will reserve my judgement" and other total non-statements like that which are about as convincing as Roberts and Alito's "we will respect settled law" lies about how they'd act towards stuff conservatives want to get rid of but are currently legal...

Why the heck did ANY Democrats in the Senate (particularly in the Judiciary Committee) vote for the guy? I don't get it...

America is a banana republic under oligarchical control ;Control the media ;control the press and you can steer people to any aim you want; Think nation wide cult control.

There is a corporate monopoly on the mass media.

Any candidate thats runs for office they don't want will have a mud of lies flung at him. So your presidents and elections are preselected ;Only those that are cool with the powers that be; make it to the electorate.

Check my new thread titled {hypnotic control over americans}.

In the 1950's they whipped up lies under the pretense of communism;So they could conveniently remove individuals that don't comply with them. Mozzedeq in Iran was a elected Pm when Iran actually had a democracy; But he was smeared as a communist and replaced with the Shah dictator because Mozzedeq wanted to nationalize the oil and ensure the natural resource profits went to the Iranian public.

That is a very similar issue in Venezuela right now; Its why Chavez is paranoid of being assassinated or overthrown.Chavez big mouth will get him in trouble....

Since in south America your goverment did the same shit.

It seems to be why Latinos use the term gringo [barbarian] when speaking of white people?

Nobody gets in that inst a corporate lobbyist sell out.

Mark Twain once said ; Those that don't read the newspapers are uninformed and those that do are misinformed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoE5ExuOw4o

Why you should vote for what you believe in ; Not who has a better chance of winning which is the typical tactic used to dissuade people. Voting for parties is retarded since the real enemy controls both.

So what happened to Gonzales? I haven't been watching the national news lately.

ABF and I have discussed that very thing ASM. ABF's point is that voting for who you want even if you are pretty sure very few others are could potentially result in another Nader incident. My point is that while that is a potential risk, it is worth it when the consequences of voting "strategically" instead of for who you want are so much higher, and are also to blame for the "Nader incident". Incidentally I didn't vote Nader, I just hate the argument that voting for an unpopular candidate is "throwing your vote away" because that's sort of a catch 22 situation there. Of course they'll be unpopular if everyone is convinced they shouldn't bother voting for them. Rather if they are going to be unpopular it should be because the majority just disagree with their positions. Oh, incidentally I have no party affiliation. Not really my thing, and I think it's a mistake to swear allegiance to such things as stuff like maybe the entire party more or less drastically changing to reflect entirely new views you never signed up for can occur, but "party loyalty" drags you along to vote for their side, unilaterally, anyway.

Thank goodness free thinkers.

When elections come I might vote civil libertarian rather then any of the official parties.

I recommend giving Ron Paul a look for the up coming elections.

Quote:So what happened to Gonzales? I haven't been watching the national news lately.

He slipped on a Banana and sued the fruit company *joke*

(On an 'election' note, did anyone else actually vote in this year's elections earlier this month? I wasn't sure if I was going to because all that was on the ballot was a few ballot issues and bonds, but I did... voting against gambling (the measure for another racino failed, fortunately) and for longer term limits (that failed too, unfortunately... the four terms limit we have in the legislature just doesn't work at all. As soon as people start to figure out how the system works they're kicked out and replaced with new people who have no clue...) was worth it.)

Anyway, I'd say "vote for who you want to actually win in the primary, if you're lucky enough to live in a state where the primary/caucus is early enough to matter, but in the general election if you care at all you should vote for one of the major candidates if you don't want to hurt the party you more identify with. It does matter...

Quote:Thank goodness free thinkers.

When elections come I might vote civil libertarian rather then any of the official parties.

I recommend giving Ron Paul a look for the up coming elections.
Quote:

Ron Paul is a Republican as much as he is a Libertarian. He's anti-abortion, for instance, from the Republican side, and his ideas of what the government can do... well, Libertarians are weird. They're halfway on each side, really... on some issues libertarians and liberals agree, but on others they're total opposites...

Anyway, while he certainly is opposed to the Iraq War, it's for totally different reasons from why I am. His reasons are like the Pat Buchanan Republicans' reasons, in a way -- "AMerica shouldn't be involved in the rest of the world", ie isolationism. I am very strongly against isolationism. As much as I know that a great many (or perhaps even most) of America's efforts to involve ourself with the rest of the world have failed or ended up doing more harm than good, I think that we have to try... just giving up and sticking our heads in the sand when bad things happen isn't right, and that's where you head with that line of thinking.

Quote:That is a very similar issue in Venezuela right now; Its why Chavez is paranoid of being assassinated or overthrown.Chavez big mouth will get him in trouble....

I've never liked Chavez... he has always seemed like he wants to be like Castro, and while I think the US embargo of Cuba is really stupid when there many nations that are orders of magnitude worse that we aren't punishing at all, Castro IS a dictator and wanting to be like him isn't a good thing.

As for the media, sure the media spins stories. You can't help that. You can look at their coverage with a critical eye though, or look at multiple news venues (such as online as well as the mass media, or papers or something as well as TV, or whatever)... oh yeah, and don't watch Fox News unless you want 100% pro-Bush Administration spin.

Quote:So what happened to Gonzales? I haven't been watching the national news lately.

He resigned several months ago... FINALLY...

Ron Paul is not a Isolationist ; His view has to do with the blow back idea that when you do mischief abroad there is consequences down the road. Non intervention means you don't get in entangled in alliances that serve no benefit and put the country at risk just the like founding fathers said to do.

He may oppose abortion and gay marriage ; But he is against forcing the issue nation wide and will let the individual states decide for themselves what to do, He promises to keep the issue out of the federal level; His stance is actually favorable to both sides.

Quote:Ron Paul is not a Isolationist ; His view has to do with the blow back idea that when you do mischief abroad there is consequences down the road. Non intervention means you don't get in entangled in alliances that serve no benefit and put the country at risk just the like founding fathers said to do.

"If we do anything it'll end up bad, so we'll do nothing" ends up in isolation. I don't see any other possible outcome. And yes, there is often blowback from our actions, because as I said we've made a lot of bad ones... I just don't think that that fact means that we should stop trying and abandon involvement with the rest of the world; if anything I think we should be doing more...

Quote:He may oppose abortion and gay marriage ; But he is against forcing the issue nation wide and will let the individual states decide for themselves what to do, He promises to keep the issue out of the federal level; His stance is actually favorable to both sides.

That's exactly what a lot of Republicans want, ASM. In fact, reversing Roe vs. Wade wouldn't ban abortion, it would revert things back to the way they were before that -- when it was up to the states. The more conservative states would then ban it, and huge swaths of the country would have no legal abortions. Women who couldn't afford to go the distance to a state with legal abortion (and in the deep south, that'd probably be quite a ways) would start dying of illegal back-street abortions again like they do in countries where abortion isn't legal.

Sure, some religious right types want a constitutional amendment banning abortion, but I don't think that that would pass... the above case is much plausible than that one.

As for gay marriage, "it's up to the states" IS the current policy. What most Republicans want is to ban it nationally, if they can.

Obama and Hilary are pawns of Aipac; So you will continue to be dragged into the controversial state of Israel and all the rage from the islamic world;There is benefits to non intervention that would be one

"isolationism" is not the case since you still trade and keep relations with them; Since your not out to flex military might no terrorist group would have excuse to attack you; You would save treasury to invest domestically rather then maintain the cost of having a large military budget.

He is also opposed to the expanding power of goverment like the patriot act were people surrender liberty in the promise of protection from a shadowy enemy; Which could be abused.

I used to have mixed feelings about abortion, but I believe now that it should be mandatory in the south.

But then where would we get all of our hilarious Southern comedians?

Personally, I'd advocate forced chemical castration. No sense in punishing the child for being born to the wrong parents. This would go for a lot people, not just those in the South. It would fix a lot of our problems, you know.

Forced is a little much I think.

Here's my thing. Basically I wonder if it would be possible to have a type of surgery at birth or at least within the first year of birth that would essentially neuter the child, BUT, and this is important, is reversable at a much later stage in life. More than that, is reversable with as high a success rate as possible. I'm not expecting 100%, but in the 90's at least if it's going to pass with the populace. Further, the surgery itself, both at birth and later when it gets reversed, must be as safe as removing an appendix at least.

This is a high order. A chemical solution, such as maybe gene therapy, would work too but with the same requirements.

After this, the matter becomes making it not just socially acceptable but also standard procedure for doctors after a child is born. The parents will have the option to opt out and in the end it'll be treated by the public pretty much like male circumcition, only actually useful.

In the long run, what it means is no unwanted children for that kid, ever. The ONLY children that person can have when they grow up is the child they decide willingly to have by opting into the reversal procedure. Being fertile/verile would then be an opt-in feature rather than an opt-out, thus fixing a flaw in human adaptations, much like how certain high level admin options in Windows Vista are opt in now. All it would take is heavy research into such a method (though really science doesn't work too well that way, first random research into all sorts of medical things and then down the line someone thinks that this and that seemingly unrelated discovery can be used FOR this purpose, that said, nanotechnology is magic and solves everything) and some heavy social engineering. Um, not an easy task really. The big issue would be the people running around screaming that it's unnatural or is destroying our humanity. Well, maybe humanity isn't always going to be around and our best bet is to make sure we at least turn ourselves INTO the next step in nature's chain, and that is why we play chicken ball in the house.

DJ, you're not so much 1984 as you are Gattaca, which makes it all the creepier.

Gattaca was silly. If people want to not genetically engineer themselves they are welcome to. Nothing's stopping anyone from saying "too much" and creating offshoot communities called Amish 2, where everything beyond the 56k modem is evil and corrupting, living in the good ol' days of dying of heart disease and cancer.

YES, if you decide not to enhance yourself you will be at a disadvantage. That's always been true. People avoided glasses at first because they were "tampering with god's design", and their kids paid the price by being at a disadvantage in school. Seriously though if you think I'm evil then in your mind you're probably imagining this speech coming out of every single speaker on the planet as I, the mad scientist have taken control and am giving my speech just before I spread my chaos nano-spores across the world through a magnetic accelerator launch into the upper winds (YES already, I've THOUGHT about it, I wasn't going to actually do it...).

No really I would never advocate FORCING this on people. Further just as today all applicable antidiscrimination laws should be expanded and applied. However, I vehemently oppose the "conserned group of citizens" saying these new "splicers" put their own kids at a disadvantage in school and thus should be banned. What they are really saying is their own hangups are preventing their kids from excelling without monumental effort and that ALL OF SOCIETY should be held back and forced to suffer for the sake of their EGO.

I'm telling you guys, FORCED CHEMICAL CASTRATION! For poor people, stupid people, and people that we just plain don't like! It's highly effective and there's no worry that someone might come along later and reverse the process, thereby injecting the gene pool with undesirable genetic material.

Yes yes I know about your final solution. (You see what I did there? It works on 3 levels.)

I don't know what you're talking about, HITLER!

I say we nuke the south and eat their dead babies... That'll fix em..

And us! Wow! Again, works on 3 levels! That's funny. I'm funny.

If circumcision cannot be undone ; Its likely this involuntary neutering wont either. Unless your talking about China and India other overpopulated places I really don't think it will do much good except to violate human rights and be totally diabolic.

I am so turn off neutering ; I refused to get my dog fixed.(well he was a rare breed)

If anybody needs neutering its DJ

On Ron Paul...
http://www.mainecampus.com/home/index.cf...af1ad39a08

Editorial from the college paper here, anti-Ron Paul. There are several long responses that attempt to "defend" Ron Paul, but reading their defenses to me is like reading a long list of all the reasons why I so, so strongly disagree with Republicans and Libertarians.

To put it simply, Democrats believe that government can be a good thing. Libertarians believe it cannot be a good thing beyond the absolute most basic minimum level. Republicans believe that it is mostly a bad thing, but is useful on subjects relating to security. This is really a key difference -- Republicans and Libertarians are constantly trying to reduce the size of government, downsize it, destroy international alliances like the UN (because they "don't work"; my position on the UN is the exact, utter opposite of that -- I think it is an incredibly important and often quite successful organization that we should be strongly supporting, not attempting to disband... yes, many there disagree with us, but our reaction there doesn't exactly help our chances of convincing many people to change their opinions on us now does it?), get rid of vital federal departments because "the private sector can do it better" (this is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE! Just look at the army vs. the mercenaries in Iraq or Medicare/Medicaid/the Veteran's Authority versus HMOs. Which works better and is more cost effective? That's right, the government-run healthcare agencies, not the private ones. Etc, etc.), et cetera. I agree with libertarians on the danger of infringing on civil liberties and on not wanting to get into bad wars like Iraq, but on a lot of other issues I totally disagree. Government is not evil or unnecessary.

alien space marine Wrote:If circumcision cannot be undone ; Its likely this involuntary neutering wont either. Unless your talking about China and India other overpopulated places I really don't think it will do much good except to violate human rights and be totally diabolic.

I am so turn off neutering ; I refused to get my dog fixed.(well he was a rare breed)

If anybody needs neutering its DJ

Reread it! I said VOLUNTARY! Also, medical procedures are generally unrelated to each other. I specifically said it shouldn't be a government mandate, but an elective procedure. I simply want to do the proper social engineering to where it's just what most parents choose to do, and they would have good reason to. What could possibly be the downside of THAT? If it is reversible, and there are a lot of possible methods to do this that could work for that (and of course it being reversible is necessary from the start or this plan won't work) then the idea is people will NEVER get pregnant unless they actually WANT to, because they have to turn that feature of themselves on to do so. Seriously it's like you WANT everything to just stay exactly as it is now.