Skip to content


The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

The place for kittens to discuss GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) issues as well as topics that don't fit in the other forums. (Some topics are off-topic in every forum on the board. Please read the FAQs.)

It Goes Beyond George the Younger

Postby DaddyCatALSO » Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:31 am

The extreme split in attitudes between two camps in this country (and the shrikage of any ral "swing" constituency) is a long and complicated process. I won't argue whether our current POTUS has made things get worse faster than soemone else in the same psoition (I can see how that might be totally correct) but it was happening earelier. It ahsn't *quite* reached the point where the two "sides" find everything about the others "non-negotiably unacceptable" but I think it's headed that way and I'm not sure if anyone within the framework of the current party lobbying and election system can really change that.



But I can hope that either I'm worng or, if I'm right, a consensus can come together to fix what's driving this.

DaddyCatALSO
 


Political Humour- or is it?

Postby Diebrock » Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:21 am

Dubya fans might want to give this one a miss.

www.bushyoga.com/movie.htm



_________________

Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

Diebrock
 


Re: Kerry: Presumptive Nominee

Postby Karmah » Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:49 am

Ok I feel the need to interject some points here

First off Freedom is not free... people in this country have the rights they have and are protected from outside forces cause of our military personnel so please lets not bash them. Marines and the Army people (I still love ya Aaron) are doing there jobs they may not like what the are told but they have to follow the orders that are set forth for them and thats that.



Secondly if you don't like the direction America is going then do your part and vote for a change go out and help educate people put a face to the name and the story. Education and exposer is the key to change

Arron

She walks in beauty, Like the night of cloudless climes and starry skies;

And all that's best of dark and bright. Meet in her aspect and her eyes.

~ by Byron ~

Karmah
 


Re: Kerry: Presumptive Nominee

Postby Gatito Grande » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:20 pm

I'm confused, Karmah: who's been bashing the military? :confused One more thing:



Quote:
people in this country have the rights they have and are protected from outside forces cause of our military personnel




GG Many of us still don't believe that the Iraqis constituted a threatening "outside force" :hmm Out

Gatito Grande
 


Re: Kerry: Presumptive Nominee

Postby urnofosiris » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:38 pm

Criticizing this war, any war, is not the same as bashing the men and women fighting in it. As with any profession there probably are soldiers that act in a questionable manner, but as a whole I have nothing but respect for the US soldiers and that definitely includes Aaron.

urnofosiris
 


What Outside Forces???

Postby darkmagicwillow » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:44 am


First off Freedom is not free... people in this country have the rights they have and are protected from outside forces cause of our military personnel so please lets not bash them.
What outside forces? The U.S. has never had its freedom or existence threatened since its inception.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

darkmagicwillow
 


Re: What Outside Forces???

Postby The Partisan » Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:04 pm

That might be putting it a little too broadly. Even if you discount the attack on Pearl Harbour, which I'd be hard-pressed to call a real direct threat to American freedom or existence, I still think that the Cold War would qualify. Both in general, vis a vis the nuclear arms race with the USSR, and in particular, with the Cuban Missle Crisis.



The Partisan
 


Re: What Outside Forces???

Postby justin » Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:56 am

Partisan, while you may be right that America's existance was threatened by these events it can be argued (certainly in the case of the Cuban missile crisis) that the threat was due to America's own actions, and not some external force.



Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

justin
 


This is a joke . . . for now

Postby Gatito Grande » Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:41 am

Quote:
Hint of suspicion



Leader

Monday March 8, 2004

The Guardian



In order to save time, the following article is being printed several months ahead of schedule as a service to readers and nascent conspiracy theorists.



The capture of Osama bin Laden, while warmly welcomed around the world, raises several questions about the interface between the war on terror and the US election cycle. The most worrying of these is the suspicion that Mr Bin Laden had already been in custody for a considerable period. George Bush's official spokesman has vehemently denied charges that the al-Qaida leader was actually apprehended in December 2001. But there is more than a hint of a "non-denial denial" about the White House's rejection of claims that news of Mr Bin Laden's capture was timed to coincide with the climax of the Democratic party convention. It is not just die-hard cynics who found the White House spokesman Scott McClellan's "Where'd you get a crazy idea like that?" less than frank.



Further, it is hard to be convinced by the explanation that Mr Bin Laden's tanned and robust appearance was because "he worked out a lot", given that Mr Bin Laden is said to have been living in caves for almost three years. Similarly, Mr McClellan's description of the site of Mr Bin Laden's capture as "Pakistan, Afghanistan ... around there" was dangerously vague and left the White House vulnerable to troubling suspicions.



There has still been no official comment on the Los Angeles Times's leak of a draft agenda for the Republican convention, with a curious entry: "Sept 1, 18.45-18.55 EST, main floor: OBL to support ban on gay marriage." And the fact that Fox News was the only television crew on hand to witness his capture cannot only be "good old-fashioned journalism", as its management asserts, a scepticism strengthened by reports in March of Mr Bin Laden attending the News International management conference in Cancun. None of these discrepancies adds up to hard evidence - but the idea that US special forces capturing Mr Bin Laden also found George Bush's missing national guard records in a Tora Bora cave is simply too much to swallow.




www.guardian.co.uk/leader...01,00.html



GG I hear Fox News also has the "Bush Re-elected!" story ready to go, w/ the DIEBOLD voting machine people as their "reliable source" (confirmed by Scalia) :stink Out





Gatito Grande
 


Re: What Outside Forces???

Postby maudmac » Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:21 am

:lol GG, that would be funny if I didn't believe there's probably a 95% chance that it's going to be true. Someone should start taking bets. I was thinking early-mid October, but timing it to coincide with the Demo Convention could be good, too. How much of an outrage is this sorry excuse for an administration, when so many people are thinking the same thing, that the shrub has been holding onto Osama bin Laden for political reasons?



I like to think I'm right that I sense a swelling awareness in the people of the US and the media about how shady the Bush administration really is. If so, and if it holds (or grows), the "capture of Osama bin Laden" could really backfire on them, if that's what they do. That post-9/11 sense of "sure, okay, whatever you say, whatever you want" is gone now and it seems a lot of people are waking up. Or...maybe I just spend too much time at conspiracy theory websites. :paranoid


I have no professional training. I already gave my best. I have no regrets at all.

maudmac
 


Re: What Outside Forces???

Postby The Partisan » Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:35 am

If Bush did happen to bad OBL prior to the election, I'd just file it under "Even a broken clock is right twice a day". As juicy as it'd be for OBL to be already caught, it's just a little too tinfoil-hatty for me just yet.



However, it is interesting to note that despite Kerry's current momentum, most gambling oddsmakers still have Bush as the favourite...

Edited by: The Partisan at: 3/12/04 1:41 am
The Partisan
 


Re: What Outside Forces???

Postby Gatito Grande » Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:35 pm

Quote:
most gambling oddsmakers still have Bush as the favourite...




The gambling oddsmakers: ala, "those who work for casinos, who know how to rig the odds (and the slot machines)"?



GG Ergo, those w/ the grasp of what DIEBOLD is up to? :paranoid Out



*********************************************************************************************************



Speaking of outside forces . . .



I want to comment on the bombing(s) in Spain: the government of Prime Minister Aznar was quick to blame ETA. But it was convenient (if not completely unwarranted) to blame ETA, in order to not immediately blame Al Qaeda:



*Nevermind that the bombing is on a scale 10 times bigger than anything ETA has ever done before (and w/o the usual warning)



*Nevermind ETA is a shadow of its former self, w/ probably no more than 30 militants, tops



*Nevermind the van w/ the bomb fuses and Koran tapes, found on the same train line one station away



*Nevermind that the bombing is exactly 2 and a half years (and exactly 911 days!) after 9-11



Why? Could it be that blaming the close-to-home ETA serves the Law&Order purposes of a government facing an election in 3 days . . . whereas if the bombing were the work of Al Qaeda, the Aznar government could be facing a giant I Told You So?



W/ the exception of Great Britain, Spain has been one of the most visible "client" allies of the U.S. in its War on Iraq. The masses of Spanish people were also marching in huge numbers a year ago . . . to protest their government's involvement in the war. Many were afraid of exactly this possibility: that joining the U.S. in an illegal war could bring down on Spain the wrath of the Arab world, especially Al Qaeda. (Nevermind that, in going to war on Iraq, the U.S. was removing the bulk of its forces from the war on Al Qaeda).



Listen to some Spaniards:



Hi. I'm also shocked about what has happened in Madrid. I can't understand how somebody can do such a horrible thing. I hope that we will know who did it soon. In my opinion it wasn't ETA. They are killers, but I think they are not able to do this. If it was Al Qaeda, I think that our president should feel responsible for what has happened, because people shouted on the streets against the Iraq war. God bless all the victims and families

Alex, Barcelona, Spain



The Spanish Government seems poised to point the finger too quickly at Eta for its own political aims. Spanish collaboration in the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has sullied this country's reputation. There is no justification for violence but did Jose Maria Aznar expect his policies to please everybody?

Joseph Mudikuneil, Barcelona, Spain



and another European:



If it was al-Qaeda, then this may be just the beginning. Britain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands. All members of the coalition of the willing would be at risk. It's as if we're all being told that the foreign policies of the US cannot be supported unpunished, not without a curse being laid upon us.

Mick, Amsterdam, The Netherlands



news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talki...503800.stm



(Some "blame ETA" views on this site too. Mainly just mourning the senseless tragedy)



More and more non-Spanish government experts are saying "Looks more like Al Qaeda than ETA." However, look to Dubya's Perrito de Espan~a Aznar to keep blaming ETA . . . at least until after the election. :miff









Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 3/12/04 9:11 pm
Gatito Grande
 


Re: What Outside Forces???

Postby mscheckmate » Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:20 am

GG has a point.



My first thought, when I learned of the bombing in Spain, was, "Oh, God. ETA is at it again." (My father's grandfather's family was from Navarra, one of the original Basque provinces in northern Spain; someone who knows my ethnic background actually said to me Thursday morning, "Well, you must be feeling terrible today." Some people, obviously, speak before they think.)



I'm by no means an expert on ETA, but this attack doesn't seem to follow ETA's usual pattern. They've tended to strategically go after police, politicians, and other public officials, but not, as a rule, the general public. And it's my understanding that they'd often call in a warning before the bomb(s) were due to detonate. Plus, they've tended, after the fact, to claim "credit" for the violence. This mass murder seems much more like the work of Al Qaeda.



Whoever is responsible for this latest crime against humanity, all good people in the world are going to have to find a way to work together to eliminate terrorism.

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." G.W.Bush,Washington,D.C., 7/26/01, commenting on negotiating with Congress.

Edited by: mscheckmate at: 3/12/04 11:29 pm
mscheckmate
 


Re: What Outside Forces???

Postby The Partisan » Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:24 am

It's not necessarily an either/or situation with the ETA & AQ. It's possible that they (or smaller/splinter groups with similar objectives) could have collaborated, seeing as they could both have something to gain. It's far too early to make any kind of a definitive assessment, however.



Also, I heard yesterday (albeit from a discussion on Fark.com - not exactly according-to-Hoyle), that the ETA traditionally waits around 48 hours before claiming responsibility. But I may very well be misinformed on this, I'm by no means an expert.

The Partisan
 


Re: What Outside Forces???

Postby mscheckmate » Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:48 am

It's certainly possible that ETA and Al Qaeda got together, but I have two reservations about that: 1) ETA has been denying that it was behind the bombings, and 2) Basques are Christians; I wonder if the religious differences between Islamic terrorists and Christian terrorists could be surmounted enough to allow them to collaborate closely. But, I suppose that, in this dangerous world, organizations with the common goal of infliciting terror could find ways to work together if it was in both their interests. I guess we'll know soon enough who was responsible for this mayhem.



Edited to add:



from www.yahoo.com



Spain Announces Five Arrests in Bombings





MADRID, Spain - Spain's interior minister Saturday announced the arrest of five suspects in the Madrid bombings, including three Moroccans. The other two are Spaniards of "Hindu" origin, minister Angel Acebes said. The five were arrested in connection with a cell phone inside an explosives-packed gym bag found on one of the bombed commuter trains. The suspects "could be related to Moroccan extremist groups," the minister said. "But we should not rule out anything. Police are still investigating all avenues. This opens an important avenue."





The 10 bombings on Thursday, which killed 200 people on Madrid commuter trains, comprise the worst terror attack in Spanish history. Families began burying their dead Saturday as a cold drizzle fell on Madrid on the eve of parliamentary elections.



In a show of national unity, massive crowds gathered in Barcelona, Seville, Valencia and even in Spain's Canary Islands off western Africa on Friday night to protest the attack. State TV said nationwide, more than 11 million marched — one-quarter of Spain's 42 million people.



In Madrid, black bows of mourning dotted the city, on shop windows, on flags draped from balconies, and on lapels.

Madrid's biggest funeral home, Tanatorio Sur, was so overcrowded that some coffins were placed in a room normally used for staff meetings. Outside, hearses carried coffins in and out all morning.



Investigators were focusing on a stolen white van found in the town of Alcala de Henares outside Madrid hours after the blasts. Police found detonators and an Arabic-language cassette tape with Quranic verses inside. Alcala de Henares is the town where three of the four bombed trains originated.



A doorman told police he saw three young men carrying knapsacks toward the station in Alcala de Henares, a senior police official said Saturday on condition of anonymity. Officials have said the bombs used in the train attacks were concealed in knapsacks.

The doorman saw the men get out of the van and "walk toward the train carrying backpacks and he was struck by the fact that they were wearing ski masks when the weather was not suited for that kind of clothing," the official said.

"It is one of the main focuses of the investigation," the official said. "It is very important."



A London-based Arabic newspaper also received a claim of responsibility in al-Qaida's name that called the attack "part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America's ally in its war against Islam."



The attack's lethal coordination and timing — 10 explosions within 15 minutes — suggested al-Qaida. But the compressed dynamite used in the backpack bombs is an explosive favored by the Basque separatist group ETA.



ETA issued an apparently unprecedented denial Friday, saying it had nothing to do with the bombings. It has claimed responsibility for more than 800 deaths since 1968 in its fight for an independent state in the northern Basque region.



Debate on who is behind the attacks could sway voters in Sunday's election. If ETA is deemed responsible, that could boost support for Mariano Rajoy, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's hand-picked candidate to succeed him as prime minister. Both have supported a crackdown on ETA, ruling out talks and backing a ban on ETA's political wing, Batasuna.



However, if Thursday's bombings are seen by voters as the work of al-Qaida, that could draw their attention to Aznar's vastly unpopular decision to endorse the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) and deploy Spanish troops there.



Opinion polls have put Rajoy 3-5 percentage points ahead of Socialist candidate Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. No surveys have been released since the attacks.



Aznar, in power since 1996, is honoring a pledge not to seek a third term, saying he wants renewal in government and his party.



Spanish radio station Cadena Ser broadcast a 12-second recording of an unidentified woman who had called a colleague's voice mail after an initial blast on a train at the Atocha station.



The woman, who survived, was in the process of fleeing as she frantically says: "I'm in Atocha. There's a bomb on the train! We had to _" and then two more blasts are heard.



















"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." G.W.Bush,Washington,D.C., 7/26/01, commenting on negotiating with Congress.

Edited by: mscheckmate at: 3/13/04 11:34 am
mscheckmate
 


!Viva Espan~a!

Postby Gatito Grande » Mon Mar 15, 2004 12:54 am

GG, feeling less smug (that I had a hunch of what was really going on in Spain), than celebratory, because the Spanish have given their Bush Puppy the Ol' Heave Ho! !Muy Excellente! :banana (Or should I say they stuck a sword in that "bull"? :rolleyes )



GG May "regime change" in Spain foreshadow the same in los Estados Unidos! :party Out



Mods: I'm looking at this: :pinky Can we please get a dancing 'donkey-con'? ;)

Gatito Grande
 


Re: politics

Postby sam7777 » Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:00 am

GG: Congrats! I'm hoping we can give Bush himself the heave ho this fall. Unahppilly, I fear that the republicans obscene anoutn of money over $100 million will let them buy their way back into the White House.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 3/15/04 10:01 am
sam7777
 


Re: politics

Postby lauriebear » Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:18 pm

hey all,

I know we have just a couple of liberals here so I just wanted to remind you that liberal radio has launched.



Listen on the web at www.airamericaradio.com



So if you're like me and don't know whether to laugh or cry at the current president or you just want to listen to politics with a different spin. tune in. it's refreshing.

lauriebear
 


Canadian politician vows to make music file-sharing illegal.

Postby Dave V » Mon Apr 05, 2004 7:55 am

(Borrowed with permission from phrawzty on the winnipeg Livejournal community.)

Quote:
www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/04/03/407037.html



Summary: Federal Heritage Minister Helene Scherrer has sworn to make it illegal to download music in Canada.



Here's where you can let her know what you think of that, good or bad - the point is to get involved:



www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/min/contacts/index_e.cfm



Let's make it a meme. Everyone post this in your journals.



CONTACT INFO



Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Political Affiliation: Liberal Caucus

Constituency: Louis-Hébert

Province: Quebec

Telephone: (613) 995-4995

Fax: (613) 996-8292

Email: Scherrer.H@parl.gc.ca



Hill Office

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0A6



Constituency Office

2625 Ste-Foy Road Suite 103

Ste-Foy, Quebec

G1V1T8


Edited by: Dave V at: 4/5/04 6:56 am
Dave V
 


big step

Postby databbycat » Tue Apr 06, 2004 4:36 pm



I got my normal letter I get every two years from the RNC asking for donations.Instead of putting my normal 20 dollar check in there I put a typed,hand signed letter in there saying"When the Republican party stops perverting conservative prinicipals to help the uber rich at the cost of the poor and stops it's war on my gay and lesbian brothers I will reconsider my decision to reregister as an independent and start giving my donatios to progressive canidates.



I then went to say although I believe a hand up is far more desireable than a handout the Gop is refusing to extend that hand to pull the poor up in order to appease the financial elite who now control the party or something tio that effect.



I was at the mail drop for an hour before I got the nerve to put the envelope in.



tabby

databbycat
 


Re: big step

Postby Ben Varkentine » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:46 pm

1. Well done, Tabby.



2. This is an inspiring if somewhat overly verbose talk by Sam Smith about just how few people it takes to make a movement:



prorev.com/wilmington.htm



ETA 3. And this is an entry from The Washington Monthly's blog about "Partisanship and geography..."



www.washingtonmonthly.com...003650.php



ETA 4. And yet more problems...



www.washingtonmonthly.com...003661.php

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

Edited by: Ben Varkentine at: 4/10/04 11:05 am
Ben Varkentine
 


Re: politics

Postby sheila wt » Sat Apr 10, 2004 7:33 pm



It'd be funny, if it weren't tragic...



Daddy Why Did We Have To Attack Iraq?



Quote:


Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)

(c) 2003 anarchie bunker



Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?

A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?

A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?

A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?

A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?

A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.

A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?

A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?

A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?

A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?

A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?

A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?

A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?

A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?

A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?

A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?

A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?

A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?

A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?

A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.

A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?

A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?

A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?

A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?

A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?

A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?

A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?

A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?

A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?

A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?

A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?

A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?

A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?

A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?

A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?

A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?

A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.

A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.

A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?

A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?

A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.

A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?

A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?

A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?

A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?

A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?

A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?

A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?

A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?

A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?

A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?

A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?

A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?

A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?

A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?

A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Q: Good night, Daddy.




--------------------------
"She had tasted Willow on her tongue, and she had worn Willow on her skin. There wasn't a shower in the world that could have washed that away." (Terra Firma, by Tulipp)

sheila wt
 


Re: Canadian politician vows to make music file-sharing ille

Postby urnofosiris » Sun Apr 11, 2004 3:21 am

Thanks for posting that Sheila, it gave me a chuckle. Too bad it is the truth.

urnofosiris
 


Software patents within the EU

Postby justin » Sun Apr 11, 2004 9:34 am

In September 2003 the european parliament voted on swpat, a directive which would increase the cover of patents to cover software. They made several amendments to the directive effectively banning the patenting of pure software, which, IMHO, was a very good thing.



However the EU presidency has written a second draft of the directive, removing all the amendments added by the parliament. It is now being read by the council of ministers. Should this new draft be passed by the council then it will be a lot harder for the parliament to make any ammendments. So it is very important that the council be persuaded to modify the draft directive to include those amendments that were voted in by the parliament.



If you're wondering why this is important then here are ten reasons why software patents are bad,



Quote:
#1

Software is already protected by copyright. Patents are not needed.

#2

"Software patents are like landmines for programmers. Considering the large number of ideas that must be combined in a modern program, the danger becomes very large." -- Richard Stallman, founder of GNU.

#3

Software patents reduce innovation and increase monopolies in such a basic asset as software, thus harming consumers choice and value for money and depriving citizens of a healthy information society

#4

They undermine e-commerce by legalised extortion from patent holders.

#5

They jeopardise basic freedom of creation and publication (a software patent holder can censor publication by the author of an original program)

#6

They cause legal uncertainty to copyright holders through patent inflation, since they won't know they are infringing someone else's patents until blackmailed or sued

#7

They endanger SMEs and professionals who do not have the resources for patent buildup and litigation, and currently concentrate most jobs and innovation in European IT

#8

They introduce a fundamental legal contradiction by using patents to monopolise information (software is only information) instead of its original purpose of dissemination of information on inventions

#9

They would particularly disadvantage European companies, because U.S. companies hold the majority of software patents and patent know-how.

#10

The biggest cheerleaders for software patents have been patent attorneys and the IP departments of the largest firms. Software patents are overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of software professionals.




This letter from Laura Chreighton, a programmer and software investor also explains the problem.



Finally you can find out more info about it and what to do at Foundation for Free Information Infrastructure



There's more than one way to do it. - The Perl mantra

justin
 


Bush/Stern/Caulfield

Postby Willowlicious » Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:06 pm

I wasn't exactly sure where to put this, or if I should put it anywhere, but it was kind of interesting to me, so here goes:



I was flipping stations on the radio dial this morning and happened upon Howard Stern's show. Of course, it's been all over the news that Howard has been kicked off Clear Channel in the wake of the Janet Jackson idiocy. He's also had a famous political conversion, going from pro-Bush to vehemently anti-Bush and he is actively trying to persuade his sizable audience to vote Bush out of office. So, I decided to listen for a couple of minutes, because I have time for anyone who wants to criticize the Bush Administration.



Anyway, Howard and Co. were indeed making fun of Bush's Q & A last night. Then they started talking about "hot chicks" that have written in to support Howard and his fight for free speech. To my surprise, one of them was Emma Caulfield. He read a lot of a letter she sent him (which was extremely well written) which basically said, she has been staunchly Republican her entire life (which I knew), but that she is horrified by the Bush Administration for many, many reasons, including their disregard for the First Amendment, etc. She went on to say that, for the first time, she will not be voting Republican this fall and "like most actresses in Hollywood will be turning to the left." (that quote is only a paraphrase)



The Anybody But Bush crowd grows larger by the day....



Amy

Edited by: Willowlicious at: 4/14/04 11:09 am
Willowlicious
 


Re: Bush/Stern/Caulfield

Postby Ben Varkentine » Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:01 pm

Man, Emma just wakes up every morning hotter and hotter. Republican women who turn to the left make me so...but I digress.



Good column here on Bush's lack of explaination for why he was asleep at the switch before 9/11/



www.workingforchange.com/...emid=16767



ETA: Do you suppose they'll revoke Emma's status as a "Republican Babe of the Week" now?



www.jerseygop.com/RepublicanBabes23.html



Warning: The pictures on that page leave little to the imagination...thank goodness. :devil

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

Edited by: Ben Varkentine at: 4/14/04 3:20 pm
Ben Varkentine
 


Re: Bush/Stern/Caulfield

Postby urnofosiris » Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:43 pm

Emma :heart That is awesome to hear, may she be one of many.



I have not been following the news closely for a while but some things get through anyway, like that memo for president's eyes only, sent just over a month before 9/11 and the response that it was too vague to prevent the attacks from happening. What is the reaction to that in the US? Right now if I were to go to the US I would have to let them take my fingerprints and picture. What for, is the threat of terrorists attacks less vague now than it was then? I have no idea how or whether these horrible events could have been prevented, but why weren't all these extensive security measures taken at airports before thousands of people died. Bush has not shied back from using the images of the attacks to plug himself and justify his policies, what will he do now.

urnofosiris
 


Americans deserve to die

Postby Gatito Grande » Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:03 am

Got your attention? Well, it's true.



With Dubya's endorsement of Ariel Sharon's annexation of major parts of the West Bank, and preemptory denial of Palestinians' Right of Return, every last remaining shred of hope that the U.S. could be any kind of broker of Mideast peace is finished. We have now formally stated that we Americans are the Palestinians' enemy, every bit as much as the Israelis, if not more so. Without American backing (that is, to rein in Israel), Palestinians have No Hope. Why the hell shouldn't they kill us, who have made their lives so utterly miserable? (and why wouldn't much of the Palestinian-sympathizing world feel likewise?)



In a democracy (yeah, I know: recalling sElection 2000, what democracy?), the citizens are responsible for their government. Maybe, if we can (Please dear God in heaven! :pray ) elect John Kerry, and IF he formally reverses this policy, we can win ourselves a reprieve. But until then---quite apart from the Iraq Debacle---we should expect that Palestinians (and others) will try to give Americans exactly what they deserve.



GG I formally renounce any right of retaliation for my death if I, a U.S. citizen, am killed by anyone fighting for the Palestinian cause. Out

Gatito Grande
 


Re: Americans do not deserve to die

Postby justin » Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:00 am

I'm not sure whether this title is meant in a tongue in cheek fashion but I have to say I have a lot of problems with this statement.



For one thing no one deserves to die. That's regardless of whether they're Israeli, American, Palestinian, Iraqi or whatever.



Are you really saying that you can blame a whole nation for the actions of one man? Especially given the fact that he was not democratically elected. Remember more people voted for Gore than voted for Bush.



Even if that wasn't the case, if your stance is that because three years ago people elected in someone who is now making policies you disagree with, they deserve to die for it then all I can say is :wtf



I hope that I have misunderstood your post in someway as a few pages back WillowRulz4Ever asked this,

Quote:
.Is it true all war protesters were happy for 9-11.They felt we got what we deserved.I




At the time I was horrified by that suggestion, but reading your last post it sounds as if that is what you are saying. :confused



There's more than one way to do it. - The Perl mantra

justin
 


Re: Americans do not deserve to die

Postby Kieli » Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:44 am

deleted b/c it just ain't worth it


Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 4/17/04 9:21 am
Kieli
 

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to The Kitten

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Powered by phpBB The phpBB Group © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007
Style based on a Cosa Nostra Design