man, on the contrary, if there was something I worked to build, which there are many things I'm working to build, I'd want it to be used by as many people as possible so they realize the benefit of using it. Never mind getting all worked up about how you might not be getting yours. Look at open source. The fture of the world's programming depends on it. But I guess being right wing and a corp lover you must think Microsoft is doing a great job making their products compatible and available to everyone.. Not. Only if I DIDN"T care about what I was building would I look to stop it's release if I wasn't getting enough money. And while you say there are people wasting money that 'you're' entitled to (ie welfare) some of those people are more productive than you. If you haven't been a working student I wouldn't expect you to know. Maybe your mom and dad paid for your school, lucky you. Quit being such a goddamn bigot, just because peole like you would abuse a lib system doesn't mean libs will abuse a lb system. You have serious misconceptions about how wealth is divided and how social programs work. It's not free money for nothing to go buy crack with. And if it was, why not do the lib thing and treat drug addiction, instead of choosing to make things worse by making money off those people, and then criticizing the system for how it can't get rid of them. Understand you (and everyone else) are part of the problem
B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.Spumantiii wrote:
man, on the contrary, if there was something I worked to build, which there are many things I'm working to build, I'd want it to be used by as many people as possible so they realize the benefit of using it. Never mind getting all worked up about how you might not be getting yours. Look at open source. The fture of the world's programming depends on it. But I guess being right wing and a corp lover you must think Microsoft is doing a great job making their products compatible and available to everyone.. Not. Only if I DIDN"T care about what I was building would I look to stop it's release if I wasn't getting enough money. And while you say there are people wasting money that 'you're' entitled to (ie welfare) some of those people are more productive than you. If you haven't been a working student I wouldn't expect you to know. Maybe your mom and dad paid for your school, lucky you. Quit being such a goddamn bigot, just because peole like you would abuse a lib system doesn't mean libs will abuse a lb system. You have serious misconceptions about how wealth is divided and how social programs work. It's not free money for nothing to go buy crack with. And if it was, why not do the lib thing and treat drug addiction, instead of choosing to make things worse by making money off those people, and then criticizing the system for how it can't get rid of them. Understand you (and everyone else) are part of the problem
I don't give a shit about distributing wealth, America is not set up for that. It is however setup for us to be free to make our own wealth, or squander or lives as we see fit. that is why I don't give 2 shits about treating addicts. They were not addicts BEFORE they took the damn drugs now were they?? Personal responsibility NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS. Smokers.....inhale realllllllll deep for me, get that shit deep in your lungs please. Alcoholics...........drink up boys........... drug addicts, snort that shit deep in your nose.thats right, shoot that needle in your arm, find a good thick juicy vein to shoot that shit into. I do not give a flying fuck about anyone and their self induced dramas. Said it before I will say it again, I am willing to help ANYONE that is willing to help themselves FIRST. NO ONE ELSE!!
AIN'T PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY A BITCH???
Said it before I will say it again, I am willing to help ANYONE that is willing to help themselves FIRST.
well you didn't argue the open source thing, which means you probably understand it's benefts. More eople make money developing open source material than do developing their own from scratch. You'd be hurting the industry by taking that away. As for drug addiction, maybe you do have it within you to consider that not all addicts are junkies. You said: Said it before I will say it again, I am willing to help ANYONE that is willing to help themselves FIRST.
Well lots of them are trying to help themselves. Personal respnsibility and independence are great virtues until you find you can't help yourself because of something out of your control. What if you contracted a terminal condition? Would you then, by principle, expect to die because of the way you think things should work, or would you start changing your tune to suit your survival? It's easy to be critical when you can't relate. In conclusion, I'm sure that in whatever industry you now work in, people have benefitted, businesses have benifitted from the free transaction of knowledge. Nobody gets hurt by open source. Without it we would not be playing games like bf2, which I am incidentally addicted to. (lol)
personal responsibility is never a bitch, until you become personally responsible, lowing.
The reason I got mad is that you always do this: You talk to an audience labelling them 17 year olds without any personal responsibility. How can you possibly say that anyone who is a thinker must be a high school drop out commie? Statements like that defy any previous sense you might have made. You tell me about responsibility expecting that I'm some kind of freeloader that takes no part in making my own life better (only because we disagree, then I MUST be a loser right), those of others better, and LEAST importantly building personal wealth. I could be Bill Gates rich and die guilty that I didn't do fuck all to help anyone. It's your conscience.
You know who else hate cigarettes, weed, alcohol etc?
Muslims. There now you have a parallel.
do you smoke lowing?
well you didn't argue the open source thing, which means you probably understand it's benefts. More eople make money developing open source material than do developing their own from scratch. You'd be hurting the industry by taking that away. As for drug addiction, maybe you do have it within you to consider that not all addicts are junkies. You said: Said it before I will say it again, I am willing to help ANYONE that is willing to help themselves FIRST.
Well lots of them are trying to help themselves. Personal respnsibility and independence are great virtues until you find you can't help yourself because of something out of your control. What if you contracted a terminal condition? Would you then, by principle, expect to die because of the way you think things should work, or would you start changing your tune to suit your survival? It's easy to be critical when you can't relate. In conclusion, I'm sure that in whatever industry you now work in, people have benefitted, businesses have benifitted from the free transaction of knowledge. Nobody gets hurt by open source. Without it we would not be playing games like bf2, which I am incidentally addicted to. (lol)
personal responsibility is never a bitch, until you become personally responsible, lowing.
The reason I got mad is that you always do this: You talk to an audience labelling them 17 year olds without any personal responsibility. How can you possibly say that anyone who is a thinker must be a high school drop out commie? Statements like that defy any previous sense you might have made. You tell me about responsibility expecting that I'm some kind of freeloader that takes no part in making my own life better (only because we disagree, then I MUST be a loser right), those of others better, and LEAST importantly building personal wealth. I could be Bill Gates rich and die guilty that I didn't do fuck all to help anyone. It's your conscience.
You know who else hate cigarettes, weed, alcohol etc?
Muslims. There now you have a parallel.
do you smoke lowing?
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-09-09 11:00:25)
No such thing as an adict until you make the choice to go down that road.....Getting pancreatic cancer is not the same thing as choosing to snort coke up your fuckin' nose. As far as addicts getting help goes, the clinics are set up to do that, but if you are sent there by a judge, and didn't choose it yourself, helping you is a waste of time.Spumantiii wrote:
Said it before I will say it again, I am willing to help ANYONE that is willing to help themselves FIRST.
well you didn't argue the open source thing, which means you probably understand it's benefts. More eople make money developing open source material than do developing their own from scratch. You'd be hurting the industry by taking that away. As for drug addiction, maybe you do have it within you to consider that not all addicts are junkies. You said: Said it before I will say it again, I am willing to help ANYONE that is willing to help themselves FIRST.
Well lots of them are trying to help themselves. Personal respnsibility and independence are great virtues until you find you can't help yourself because of something out of your control. What if you contracted a terminal condition? Would you then, by principle, expect to die because of the way you think things should work, or would you start changing your tune to suit your survival? It's easy to be critical when you can't relate. In conclusion, I'm sure that in whatever industry you now work in, people have benefitted, businesses have benifitted from the free transaction of knowledge. Nobody gets hurt by open source. Without it we would not be playing games like bf2, which I am incidentally addicted to. (lol)
personal responsibility is never a bitch, until you become personally responsible, lowing.
Let me say this about the "corp lover" crap.......who is it you are going to go to for a job? Some crackhead on the street, or "THE MAN" who is building companies and creating jobs. If I have to give my money away to someone, I will give it to the rich wh owill build empires with it, instead of some jack off who will shoot it in his arm.
Last edited by lowing (2006-09-09 11:02:21)
I agree with that. Here in BC we have a supervised site where addicts can go to at least do their shit without the risk of furthering diseases/virii. The intention is that they get help quitting by the facility, not that it be a mandatory detox prescribed by a judge. That can't help someone who is not looking to quit.lowing wrote:
As far as addicts getting help goes, the clinics are set up to do that, but if you are sent there by a judge, and didn't choose it yourself, helping you is a waste of time.
What are you addicted to?
how do you think the rich got where they are today? You know there is a medium between crackheads and big business right it's called small business. Maybe you've never been included in that personal responsibility. Of the 2, I firmly believe small business is better. Small business depends on sharing knowledge. Big business depends on limiting it's disbursal.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-09-09 11:06:46)
I was telling you why I got so pissed off, I wasn't talking about you, sorry if it came out that way....You and I have exchanged thoughts for before. You know, I don't get worked up that easily.Spumantiii wrote:
Said it before I will say it again, I am willing to help ANYONE that is willing to help themselves FIRST.
well you didn't argue the open source thing, which means you probably understand it's benefts. More eople make money developing open source material than do developing their own from scratch. You'd be hurting the industry by taking that away. As for drug addiction, maybe you do have it within you to consider that not all addicts are junkies. You said: Said it before I will say it again, I am willing to help ANYONE that is willing to help themselves FIRST.
Well lots of them are trying to help themselves. Personal respnsibility and independence are great virtues until you find you can't help yourself because of something out of your control. What if you contracted a terminal condition? Would you then, by principle, expect to die because of the way you think things should work, or would you start changing your tune to suit your survival? It's easy to be critical when you can't relate. In conclusion, I'm sure that in whatever industry you now work in, people have benefitted, businesses have benifitted from the free transaction of knowledge. Nobody gets hurt by open source. Without it we would not be playing games like bf2, which I am incidentally addicted to. (lol)
personal responsibility is never a bitch, until you become personally responsible, lowing.
The reason I got mad is that you always do this: You talk to an audience labelling them 17 year olds without any personal responsibility. How can you possibly say that anyone who is a thinker must be a high school drop out commie? Statements like that defy any previous sense you might have made. You tell me about responsibility expecting that I'm some kind of freeloader that takes no part in making my own life better (only because we disagree, then I MUST be a loser right), those of others better, and LEAST importantly building personal wealth. I could be Bill Gates rich and die guilty that I didn't do fuck all to help anyone. It's your conscience.
You know who else hate cigarettes, weed, alcohol etc?
Muslims. There now you have a parallel.
do you smoke lowing?
No don't smoke, drink occoasionally, never did drugs, always had a job or in school since I was 18, left home with whatever I took to basic training with me, never got a dime from anyone, I do not stand to inherit anything. everything I have and do not have is by my choices. Looking back, I would love a "do over" in some aspects of my life, but for the most part doing well. Never been in trouble wit hthe law, nothing more than a speeding tickets. Living responsibly in America doesn't take that much effort. Actually, anyone that can't make something of themselves in America without an excuse of disability is a loser. Period.
Last edited by lowing (2006-09-09 11:10:57)
"It is however setup for us to be free to make our own wealth, or squander or lives as we see fit."
are you willing to be judged on the worthiness of your life? Didn't think so. No life is squandered just because a person didn't choose to make money at other's expense
there are many ways to make something of one's self
are you willing to be judged on the worthiness of your life? Didn't think so. No life is squandered just because a person didn't choose to make money at other's expense
there are many ways to make something of one's self
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-09-09 11:12:51)
BF2, sex. ..........LOL since I have been married............in that order.Spumantiii wrote:
I agree with that. Here in BC we have a supervised site where addicts can go to at least do their shit without the risk of furthering diseases/virii. The intention is that they get help quitting by the facility, not that it be a mandatory detox prescribed by a judge. That can't help someone who is not looking to quit.lowing wrote:
As far as addicts getting help goes, the clinics are set up to do that, but if you are sent there by a judge, and didn't choose it yourself, helping you is a waste of time.
What are you addicted to?
Spumantii, I am not talking only about money....wealth is your entire quality of life. respect you give, your word, your reputation. How will your kids remember you?? Stuff like that. And by that standard I am willing to be judgedSpumantiii wrote:
"It is however setup for us to be free to make our own wealth, or squander or lives as we see fit."
are you willing to be judged on the worthiness of your life? Didn't think so. No life is squandered just because a person didn't choose to make money at other's expense
Last edited by lowing (2006-09-09 11:13:33)
some consider tolerance if not understanding is a part of that wealth, that many *people and politicians seem without.
*edit
*edit
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-09-09 11:25:07)
I have never denied, my lack of tolerance for laziness or self destruction, or choices that affect an innocent life, negatively. I am full of tolerance for disabilities, and children who are victims of the aforementioned actsSpumantiii wrote:
some consider tolerance if not understanding is a part of that wealth, that many *people and politicians seem without.
*edit
I also have openly admitted to being judgmental of people based on frivolous shit like appearance. <-----This is one of my short comings.
I dont get what either one of you rocket scientists is talking about... but for the record:lowing wrote:
I agree I say we should return to isolationism and let Germany bowl you dumb fucks over ...............................again.Recoil555 wrote:
lol the us government reclassified oil as an issue of nation security how can you trust them with wiretaps for nation security the only reason America went to Iraq was oil because the government believe that the middle east have no right to withhold there liquid assets from the rest of the world haha if America was sitting on pile of oil and Iraq invaded the us for it would be different matter. the fact is Americans need to accept that Islamic terrorism is byproduct of them fucking with bunch of countries affairs and should just keep the fuck out of them but they do it by arming the opposing faction to fight someone they dont like or just go to war if they cant sort it out quietly. For example when the communist invade Afghanistan the us gave the tali ban weapons to fight the north alliance who side with communist and then in the recent Afghanistan war they re fighting the tali ban who fight back with the weapons they gave them as an outsider you cant help but laugh at stupid the America government is they fuck with someone Else's affairs and end up screwing them selves later brilliant "poetic justice"
If we wanted Iraq's oil, explain why we didn't keep it after WW@ or again after we were in Bagdads backdoor in '91.
also if terror is a byproducy of US meddling, explain terror in Russia, Spain, Phillipines, England, Germany (attempted twice) Indonesia..Japan etc.....all the US's fault huh??
The chechens want to be free from Russian control.
there are sepratists in the phillipine island who we DID send 'advisors' to train their counter-terrorist forces. But those seperatists we pre-existing.
Spain - Terrorists in the Basque region of spain are the historical 'terrorists'. The madrid train bombing conducted by al queda or a proxy was obviously designed to influence political opinion about Iraq. Something that was our doing.
England - They followed bush into the desert didnt they? Of all people i would have expected the brits to call bs and not support it. But they did.
Indonesia - Tamil tigers. Another seperatist group to my knowledge. WTF do we have to do with this?
Japan - Wernt they some crazy end of the world sect? Other than the tokyo subway gas attack, anyone heard from them?
What i think he was saying is that we supported whoever or whatever served our goals in the past and that is now coming back to haunt us. *cough* immigration *cough* As far as terrorists, i'd say we are 1/2 responsible till someone can explain why they cant get their shit together and act like civillized people. I know that sounds like a crude generalization, but when Hezbolla can hide behind kids and shoot rockets and still call themselves men and hero's, there is a problem. Not sayin everyone is perfect but damned if they arent the special kids in the class. Any jihadis wanna defend themselves?
Just found a nice article as an update to this thread:
Bush Uses the Word Fascism to Mislead
by John Cox
As a historian of Nazi Germany, I have been intrigued by the widespread use of the term "fascist" in public discourse over the last few weeks. Since early August, the Bush Administration has undertaken a coordinated campaign to link "fascism" with political Islam and with Muslim-based opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East.
President Bush claimed that the arrests of terrorist conspirators in England were "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists," and referred to an "Islamic fascism ... totalitarian in nature" in Lebanon and elsewhere.
This raises the question: exactly what is fascism? What is served by the application of this term to Muslim fundamentalists—does this help clarify history or deepen our understanding of current events, which is the goal of historians like myself?
Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no." There may be a superficial resemblance between European fascism of the first half of the twentieth century—the heyday of those movements—and al-Qaeda and other such groups. They each subscribe to right-wing beliefs and favor violence to achieve their ends. But this is about as deep as the similarities run, and there are many dozens of organizations and ideologies of recent history that share those broad characteristics.
FUZZY USAGE
More instructive are the many differences between fascism and political, fundamentalist Islam. Nationalism is always at the center of fascism, while the Islamist groups seek allegiance along trans-national, religious lines. Groups like Hamas or Hizbullah do not glorify the state, another defining feature of fascism. The European fascists (as well as fascist movements in Latin America and elsewhere) were secular, and only occasionally invoked the symbols or traditions of religion.
While some fascists, like Mussolini, harkened back to the glories of Rome, fascism has always had a modernizing thrust, shrouding its reactionary ideology in rationalism and science. This also sharply distinguishes it from modern fundamentalist Islamists, who exalt Islamic law (their interpretation of it, that is) and long for a return to a "golden age" that never really existed.
Further, the term "Islamic fascism" implies that this new "fascism" is rooted in the Islamic faith, which is patently untrue. And finally, we cannot understand the popular appeal of a group like Hizbullah — which draws much of its support for its nationalist resistance to Israeli policy, especially during the 18-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon that ended in 2000 — by simply labeling it "fascist."
There have, however, been a handful of political movements in the Middle East that did resemble fascism, such as Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party. But Hussein's regime was militantly secular, and it's also worth remembering that its semi-fascist politics and heinous crimes did not prevent U.S. administrations of the 1980s from providing it with political and economic support. And the term "Islamic fascism" encompasses a large variety of parties and movements that, like Hussein's Ba'athists and bin Laden's al-Qaeda, have little in common, and are often sharply at odds.
MARKETING IRAQ
So what is served by the bandying about of this misleading term? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the true aim is simply to inflame opinion, at a time when support for the war on Iraq is waning. Fewer Americans are willing to accept the linkage, so often suggested by Cheney and others, between the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq. The horrifying human costs of this misguided adventure are also harder for us to ignore. So with the November elections on the horizon, it's time to try out a new strategy to market the war.
"Islamic fascism" also is being used to bludgeon critics of the administration's war against Iraq. Invoking the "fascist" menace, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently accused his critics of "moral and intellectual confusion." He and other Bush spokespeople have linked antiwar sentiment with the appeasement of Hitler by European diplomats in the 1930s, a particularly outrageous parallel.
More than ever, we need reasoned and informed debate and reflection. Overheated and cynical oratory does not help, and we can appreciate the inhumanity of terrorism without equating it with Hitler. And as a historian, I believe we should try to learn more about the true nature and crimes of fascism and Nazism — crimes that are diminished by the indiscriminate use of those terms.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-21.htm
Bush Uses the Word Fascism to Mislead
by John Cox
As a historian of Nazi Germany, I have been intrigued by the widespread use of the term "fascist" in public discourse over the last few weeks. Since early August, the Bush Administration has undertaken a coordinated campaign to link "fascism" with political Islam and with Muslim-based opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East.
President Bush claimed that the arrests of terrorist conspirators in England were "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists," and referred to an "Islamic fascism ... totalitarian in nature" in Lebanon and elsewhere.
This raises the question: exactly what is fascism? What is served by the application of this term to Muslim fundamentalists—does this help clarify history or deepen our understanding of current events, which is the goal of historians like myself?
Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no." There may be a superficial resemblance between European fascism of the first half of the twentieth century—the heyday of those movements—and al-Qaeda and other such groups. They each subscribe to right-wing beliefs and favor violence to achieve their ends. But this is about as deep as the similarities run, and there are many dozens of organizations and ideologies of recent history that share those broad characteristics.
FUZZY USAGE
More instructive are the many differences between fascism and political, fundamentalist Islam. Nationalism is always at the center of fascism, while the Islamist groups seek allegiance along trans-national, religious lines. Groups like Hamas or Hizbullah do not glorify the state, another defining feature of fascism. The European fascists (as well as fascist movements in Latin America and elsewhere) were secular, and only occasionally invoked the symbols or traditions of religion.
While some fascists, like Mussolini, harkened back to the glories of Rome, fascism has always had a modernizing thrust, shrouding its reactionary ideology in rationalism and science. This also sharply distinguishes it from modern fundamentalist Islamists, who exalt Islamic law (their interpretation of it, that is) and long for a return to a "golden age" that never really existed.
Further, the term "Islamic fascism" implies that this new "fascism" is rooted in the Islamic faith, which is patently untrue. And finally, we cannot understand the popular appeal of a group like Hizbullah — which draws much of its support for its nationalist resistance to Israeli policy, especially during the 18-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon that ended in 2000 — by simply labeling it "fascist."
There have, however, been a handful of political movements in the Middle East that did resemble fascism, such as Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party. But Hussein's regime was militantly secular, and it's also worth remembering that its semi-fascist politics and heinous crimes did not prevent U.S. administrations of the 1980s from providing it with political and economic support. And the term "Islamic fascism" encompasses a large variety of parties and movements that, like Hussein's Ba'athists and bin Laden's al-Qaeda, have little in common, and are often sharply at odds.
MARKETING IRAQ
So what is served by the bandying about of this misleading term? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the true aim is simply to inflame opinion, at a time when support for the war on Iraq is waning. Fewer Americans are willing to accept the linkage, so often suggested by Cheney and others, between the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq. The horrifying human costs of this misguided adventure are also harder for us to ignore. So with the November elections on the horizon, it's time to try out a new strategy to market the war.
"Islamic fascism" also is being used to bludgeon critics of the administration's war against Iraq. Invoking the "fascist" menace, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently accused his critics of "moral and intellectual confusion." He and other Bush spokespeople have linked antiwar sentiment with the appeasement of Hitler by European diplomats in the 1930s, a particularly outrageous parallel.
More than ever, we need reasoned and informed debate and reflection. Overheated and cynical oratory does not help, and we can appreciate the inhumanity of terrorism without equating it with Hitler. And as a historian, I believe we should try to learn more about the true nature and crimes of fascism and Nazism — crimes that are diminished by the indiscriminate use of those terms.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-21.htm