President Bush - about bush

Nida · 2002-12-05 17:27:25

Cal, male chauvenist BOY WONDER. What, only MEN can talk about politics here? It's OK for men to put down Bush, you said nothing to Alt or Phobos or Shaun when they did it, but you INSULT Cindy for the same thing? You can only insult women, and guys like Pagan T here? Jerk.

soph · 2002-12-05 17:33:56

in fairness, i dont think he realized cindy was a woman. and gentlemanly is a somewhat universal phrase.

but i agree, if youre going to judge a president, judge him as a whole. its a republican precedent. sleeping with an intern, and spending over 100 million taxpayers' dollars to prove it, has far less to do with a presidents politics than oil. republicans like to downplay their own candidates' faults, while pointing the finger at every democratic boo-boo.

im not really aligned with either or. my views on different issues fall in different alignments, and since independent is now a political party with its own set of politics, i cant even call myself that heheh.

Nirgal82 · 2002-12-05 18:53:58

Jesus, a conservative teenager, what the hell is happening in this day and age. Heh heh.
Those are some mighty strong beliefs Cal, I hope you leave yourself flexible for a little longer before you commit yourself.
Hell, you're still young, you should be building stronger bonds with your friends, spreading the word about Mars and whatnot, playing videogames and studying algebra. Its great you have a firm foundation of knowlege on which to base such strong opinions. But remember, your opinions will ultimately affect how you percieve facts, so don't let your lense of perspective get too weighted down by your opinions.

As for Bush (and I'm saying it this way for our good friend Cal): He is a mothe*@&$&*@(%* of a &@&%*@*%@(*@&@%@* idiot!!!!. heh heh.
I'm from El Paso TX, where there has been a long standing dispute between the state and the local Native Americans, the Tiguas. See the Tiguas say they can gamble on their reservation, TX state law prohibits casino gambling.
The situation has yet to completely resolve.
I am under the impression that if Bush can't handle domestic problems with native american reservations, how is he supposed to handle the middle east...

More later, probly..

-Matt

AltToWar · 2002-12-05 19:12:23

Cal, I think you need more experience with Message Boards to understand what a Troll is and their function on a message board.

A Troll is a message board community member that gets a rise from inciting conflict. Trolls are notorious for raising straw men (usually in an intentionally poor manner) to bait community members into going down to their level.

As the troll intentionally went the low road, it is often to their amusement (and the amusement of others) that community members will be baited into their argument and genuinely partake in mudslinging. The Troll, who had from the beginning never clamed to be anything but an ass, attemps to draw others into being an ass.

You can do a few web searches for the history of trolls, the internet, and message boards. They are quite a common phenomenon.

Now trolls are not a bad thing, in fact some theorize that they are the lifeblood of message boards.

Troll help keep the community real. Help keep the whole community from falling in the stagnation of always agreeing with itself. Trolls force members to not just say 'Me Too' but instead think critically and articulate their ideas.

Trolls can often be funny as well.

Now Pegan Toris has a history of on this board writing in a style that is obviously less intelligent then he actually is. Not even american public education can produce sentence structure that bad.

Unforunately, Cal, the joke is on you. The reason is, although PeganToris is playing a role at the village idiot, he has managed to bait you into going down to his level.

Unforunately at this point the humor just turns to tragedy.

After a few more months of message board activity you will learn how to spot a troll a mile away. Then you can at you lesure respond with dignity, knowing that the intent of the poster was to make you become indignant and therefore be better prepared to resist the temptation.

AltToWar · 2002-12-05 19:18:40

in a word, no. the un is a token symbol. if the world relied on the un to solve its problems, nothing would happen. going to the un is more of a show of grace than anything. its a nice political show, but in terms of what it accomplishes, the un cant provide much more support than the us has.

Diplomacy is nothing but tokens and gestures.

I'm all for solving our differences with tokens and gestures rather than bombs and blood.

I would rather show grace than threaten warfare.

When it comes to solving problems concerning war and human rights, I would rather slowly inch forward than violently fall backwards.

soph · 2002-12-05 19:31:44

i agree, but war is necessary in certain situations.

hey, im a teen, i have strong views though. im told i am too strong in my beliefs, but im actually flexible. when i see an idea i like, i am strong in my support for it. of course, i have to plan for college too. i think im gonna go for an astrophysics major, maybe bio/chem as a minor(s). princeton!

AltToWar · 2002-12-05 20:07:02

i agree, but war is necessary in certain situations.

Indeed, war at time is the only recourse.

Sense World War 2, the International community has shifted to policys of containment and diplomacy when dealing with it's enemies.

As a result, there have been reletively few inter-state wars. The majority of the wars in modern times have been civil wars.

The unwritten rule of International diplomacy has been somthing to the nature of:

"Any soverign nation that overtly attacks another soverign nation will face serious consequences from the international community."

This is the doctrine that brought such a large coilition to the first gulf war. This is the policy by which has kept China out of Tiwan, India out of Pakistan, etc.

Basicly, the unwritten rules governing current global interstae relations has allowed several nations with a very diverse set of political ideologies to remain soverign and secure from foreign attack, as long as they never challenge the soverignty of another nation.

The policy of 'Premtive Strike' threatens to change this, though.

Afghanistan harbored the terrorists that planned and executed an attack on America. Very few in the international community challenged our right to attack the regime that allowed this to happen.

But Iraq, Iraq has done nothing but rattle it's limp, dilapitated scimitar at America. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

I know this is somthing hard for some of you to swallow. The war administration has tried to make baseless insinuations, and the media for whatever reason has gobbled it up. Forgive the caps, but I believe this is a point that must be emphisised.

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

So here is a nation with a near useless military, with a civilain population that is starving to death and without proper water treatment, sanitation, or medical supplies. Iraq has been effectivly contained for over a decade, and there is no credible evidence AT ALL to prove that it is in the process of making any attack towards america or it'a allies.

We are going to attack them, because they might attack us, one day, in the future, perhaps. Or someone else, maby.

If America, a nation that prides itself in it's supposedly Free Press? and Open Democracy?, can throw together a few half baked theories and conjecture and think itself justified to go to war, God knows that nations that make no denial of it's total media control can come up with the some kind of ass backwards rational to attack some other smaller country.

The very diplomatic policy that has prevented them from doing so, we are about to rip to shreads.

After we have attacked Iraq with the doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike, what about China, can it go occupy Tiwan. Tiwan afterall might make a move for total independance one day, maby.

What about India. Pakistan is an potential threat. Should India make a preemptive move into Pakistan? Pakistan might possibly, maby, attack India.

I know that here in america, we think of ourselves as 'The Good Guys'

We think thout our intentions are good, and the other guys intentions are evil.

The trouble is, the other guys think the exact same thing about us.

The past policy of containment has allowed everyone to have different political and social views without the threat of warfare as long as everyone allowed everyone else their soverignty.

With the Doctrine of Pre-emptive strike, what we are essentially re-instating is the philosophy that 'All is Fair' and 'Might is Right.'

Honestly, we cannot let this happen.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-05 20:13:28

Whatever the debate over Pagan's 'trollness' or Cal's level of maturity in entering into a pointless argument with him, I have to say I'm impressed with Cal's intelligence.
I never visualised him as being 14 years old. His ability to formulate a consistent philosophy and express it so fluently are well beyond his years.
Admittedly, he has some ground to cover in understanding people and deciding when to walk away from a fruitless and immature exchange, but I think he should be dealt with a little less severely than he has been.

I know there are many of us here at New Mars with views to the left of centre. It seems to me that people in that camp tend to treat the more conservative types as though they are beneath contempt, as though they are regressive and insensitive cave-dwellers.
Such treatment is unpleasant enough for more mature conservatives, but how much more difficult must it be for a 14 year-old to cope with?

I invite Cal to come back to New Mars and try again. I advise him to ignore vitriol and work at putting forward his views calmly and clearly, carefully avoiding insulting the other party. He'll never persuade everyone that he's right, maybe he'll never persuade anyone that he's right (! ), but that's life.
And there's more to New Mars than politics anyway ( ... thank God!! ).

Incidentally, and for the record, if I've made disparaging remarks about President Bush Jnr., it was only in fun. He is a politician after all, and therefore fair game for a joke!

soph · 2002-12-05 20:27:45

republicans are a double edged sword. they are more likely to support the technologies that would end up helping the space program, but they tend to be the religious types that cut off space travel, and progress in other areas that would be just as useful (im sorry to say it, but republicans couldnt care less about our environment, progression of power past the turn of the 19th century, or colonization of mars).

i have a family member in the defense industry, who says that the money for mars colonization has to come from the government-private industry doesnt have the capital. but i think he's right to an extent. the success of private industry in space exploration relies on their ability to cooperate and truly strive for the collective goal, and not for personal goals that detract from the end result. i think the resources are there, and it has to be the private sector that shows us the way to outer space. W has shown that his only concern with space is convoluted missle defense systems, which have been a perfect example of the "next 5 years" technology for the past 40 years as a lot of other techs that are more viable, but havent gotten the funding for political reasons, like fusion.

AltToWar · 2002-12-05 20:46:20

As soon as private industry discovers a way to reliably make a buttload of money by going to mars, private industy will be there in under a decade.

Nirgal82 · 2002-12-05 20:52:18

Here, here Shaun. I too invite Caltech to continue sharing his thoughts on this forum.
He has indeed impressed me, he sorta sounds like the opposite version of me a couple of years ago.
To those familiar with the Mars Civ-Culture list, they may remember me as OmegaXa1phaA@aol.com. I first came in there babbling my way-out ideas about changing the world and what not. I learned, after numerous flamewars, that one cannot just go around spouting his/her beliefs without offending someone, and as I got into deeper discussions regarding my reasons behind my conclusions, I found I, despite being more informed than probly 90% of my peers, I was still vastly ignorant to all things.
What is important to realize, IMHO, is, "I don't know everything". but don't be disparaged at this, just remind yourself by saying "I havn't lived long enough to know everything"
I am twenty years old, and have had some crazy beliefs in my short time here on Earth, and I basically maintain them, however they have been reshaped in a way to be more realistic.
I still maintain the hope that if I work hard enough I just may find myself on Mars, but I have since learned that it is a task most monumental, and will require dedicating my life to it, but it may never come true.
The only truely solid thing about myself is my desire to go to Mars.
You see my point is this: You must educate yourself in the ways of the world, but never give yourself wholeheartedly to one set of beliefs. One of the reasons society changes so much slower than technology is that people in charge have had very rigid beliefs ever since the age of 20. Think, our congress had to deal with beliefs that were becoming over half a century old with Senator Strom Thurmand up until this year.
Don't ever make your beliefs so rigid that they cannot be wavered. You see, if you wont allow your beliefs be questioned and debunked by others, why do you expect others to do it when the encounter your philosophy...
Anywho, enough rambling, I have to go to Math class...

-Matt

Bill White · 2002-12-05 21:40:50

To those familiar with the Mars Civ-Culture list, they may remember me as OmegaXa1phaA@aol.com.

Hi Matt! Do you remember galiel?

I actually agreed with him more than most of the others did.

a/k/a T1032319

Nirgal82 · 2002-12-05 22:13:51

I remember you Bill,
I remember Galiel too, uugggghhh...I remember that when there was constructive discussion happening he was nowhere to be found, however when an argument would loom, or someone would bring to the discussion an item that hasn't been thoroughly accepted by peer-review, here he came with paragraph after condescending paragraph...
He made decent points in those short novels he wrote, (those I bothered to read) however I don't even remembering him mentioning Mars in those topics at all beyond stating "this forum is for the discussion of Mars civilization and culture" or something to that effect. He only participated in flame wars as far as I can remember.
IMHO - Consider all of us lucky he ain't here...

Your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-06 01:56:36

Well, Matt, you're the second person under twenty-one I've had occasion to compliment in the past 24 hours!

I admire your mental flexibility in being able to modify your opinions as the facts demand, and your willingness to try and see the other person's point of view. To my mind, these are crucial tools for successful social interaction, and yet remarkably few people ever develop them properly. Witness some of the inflammatory exchanges which occasionally blight this noble website, for example.

You're doing great for a twenty year old (no patronising attitude intended here by the way) - many people twice your age don't understand what you've already learned.

If it were up to me, I'd get you on a flight to Mars. I think you'd make a damned fine Martian!!

AltToWar · 2002-12-06 05:31:04

Very good speech by Noam Chomski in Real Audio

Part 1

part 2

Zubrin-For-President · 2002-12-06 09:27:25

Just a few things that i believe

President Bush,

Old economy, failed oil man. Dare I say anti-environmentalist. War monger.

Funding Terrorism,

ALL americans that drive a car fund terrorism (damned SUV drivers). Before Bush was elected i remember adds by Honda and Toyota for electric/gas hybrids 70 mpg!!!!!!!

War with Iraq (based on their possession on "weapons of mass destruction")

WE have weapons of mass destruction, why dont we disarm ourselves? It all boils down to oil. (I can't wait until fuel cells become mass produced). Saddam a tyrant? yeah he is, but do you realize how many people these sanctions are killing?
So who is the worst tyrant? Saddam or the U.S. ?
Hell N. Korea has nukes "but that is a different situation" according to the current administration.

i'll add more later bedtime

clark · 2002-12-06 10:10:16

It seems we have all the personalities...

This is not an issue of Conservative or liberal views. This is not the Republicans versus the democrats. This is not an election.

This is one man given the power to destroy in yours and my name.

This is one person, given the descretion to act without oversight, to determine who should live, and who should die.

One person whose loyalties are at the very least suspect, his motivations questionable.

Is this a decision based on the public good, or is it a decision directed by personal philosophies?

As events unfold, evidence in actions demonstrate that decisions seem to be made based less on public good, and more upon personal agendas.

Bush campaigned upon a platform that Saddam must go. And now we somehow find ourselves in a situation where Saddam must go. I still stand by my view, we may be doing the right thing, for entirely the wrong reasons, which in itself, is simply wrong.

Convicting a guilty man for the wrong crime is still a miscarriage of justice. Our direction, and the precedence we will set, goes against some very fundamental precepts we hold as Americans. And it will be done in our name.

clark · 2002-12-06 12:35:57

Something we probably won't hear about, since it goes against the end goal of this administration, being control of Iraq Oil:

"Could it be that the Iraq war will not be necessary? Representatives of a group of exiled Iraqi intellectuals and professionals who claim to be making significant progress with a non-violent resistance movement to Saddam Hussein are lobbying discreetly in Washington. Many of them work for the Gulf- and London-based Arab press and are using media contacts to spread the word that Saddam's regime is already crumbling. They seek neither arms nor money, and are skeptical of groups that do. They say the Iraqi regime is demoralized, with whole quarters of Baghdad and other cities now effectively no-go areas for Saddam's troops and police. They cite Saddam's own complaints that people are no longer attending Ba'athist party meetings, and his invitations to exiles to return to help draft a proposed new Constitution. They claim mounting desertions from the army and a breakdown of discipline in Saddam's security forces who are selling their own arms on the black market. Calling themselves the Third Pillar (Pillar 1 being Saddam's oil money and Pillar 2 being the Republican Guard and Mukhabarat secret police), the group argues that what remains of Iraqi civil society is ready to challenge the regime. Watch for demonstrations of mothers demanding to know the fate of their "missing" sons, strikes and boycotts."

From UPI

PaganToris · 2002-12-06 17:10:25

yah Caltech o may not be 18 bit i will be in bout 7 monthes yer just some little punk who doasnt know anyhting bout politics ok so liosten to everyone on the forum and let us older people have space too post and not some little punk such as yerself!

soph · 2002-12-06 17:15:15

pagan, intellectually, id say hes about 10 years older than you.

AltToWar · 2002-12-06 17:29:33

pagan, intellectually, id say hes about 10 years older than you.

Please dont feed the trolls

Palomar · 2002-12-06 17:49:05

Cal, male chauvenist BOY WONDER. What, only MEN can talk about politics here? It's OK for men to put down Bush, you said nothing to Alt or Phobos or Shaun when they did it, but you INSULT Cindy for the same thing? You can only insult women, and guys like Pagan T here? Jerk.

*Actually, I doubt CalTech's criticism of me has to do with my being a woman. This is the 2nd time I've gotten singled out for pointed criticism for expressing my opinions by a newcomer. I think it quite possibly has more to do with my being the only person here who consistently "advertises" the fact that I'm a member of the Mars Society...and people like CalTech and Axis may get some notion into their heads that, because of my Mars Society membership, I'm somehow supposed to be the living, breathing embodiment of ::their ideal:: of what a Mars Society member should be.

Fact is, this ::isn't:: church or the local high school clique [read: Where everyone has to dress, act, and think alike "or else"]. The Mars Society, from my dealings with it, is an inclusive, freethinking, open organization -- you're free to be yourself; if it were otherwise, I wouldn't have joined.

If anyone here attempts to set me -- or any other MS member -- up to some preconceived notion, and we fail to meet it, that is the fault of the person with the preconceived notion.

Of course, I could be wrong regarding CalTech and Axis. However, it's a hunch.

And these will probably be my last words on the topic.

--Cindy

soph · 2002-12-06 18:00:23

alt, just had to say it

PaganToris · 2002-12-06 18:20:06

Yah listen to Altwar dont feed trolls

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-06 21:51:41

Look, maybe I didn't clarify some things before I left. Let me get some things straight.

I'm not a chauvanist, and I wasn't saying you don't have freedom of speech in here. I was referring to the "dictator" quote from Bush when I said to stop making personal attacks. By all means, you have the right to say anything you want on this page, even that he's a mother #@%^er. I was just trying to say that we should look at his presidency and his actions, instead of his off-the-cuff quotes (even I will admit that he is not a good improv speaker when he's trying to be funny... )

When I said "gentlemenly", I knew Cindy was a woman, but I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that gentlemenly was a universal term. For the record, I think clark was the gentle"person" in this debate. Cindy, AltToWar, and Shawn, I apologize if I offended you. And I didn't by

As for being "boy wonder", thank you, but I believe you were mislead. I'm not trying to out-do or put anyone's beliefs and opinions down on this board. I was just trying to have a friendly debate with some fellow members about politics.

The troll thing makes sense to me now. I should have known better. I use that tactic all the time in debate class to get the opposing point to come down to my level. HOWEVER, your troll has caused the opposite effect. If you look at the past messages here, I was the only person defending Bush. Now that you've hate-mailed and harrassed me into leaving, you have no one to argue with, and the board agrees with itself. This thing will go stagnant in a while, which was the opposite of what you were trying to do. I was providing enough controversy to begin with. Oh, well.

I apolgize for any misunderstandings about my last post. I really let my argument slip when I fed the trolls. Sorry everybody

And I graciously thank all of those who commented on my argument and my political know-how (at least for my age, if not my point). I really appreciate it.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2002-12-05 17:27:25

Re: President Bush - about bush

#77 2002-12-05 17:33:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#78 2002-12-05 18:53:58

Re: President Bush - about bush

#79 2002-12-05 19:12:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#80 2002-12-05 19:18:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

#81 2002-12-05 19:31:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

#82 2002-12-05 20:07:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#83 2002-12-05 20:13:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#84 2002-12-05 20:27:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#85 2002-12-05 20:46:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#86 2002-12-05 20:52:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#87 2002-12-05 21:40:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

#88 2002-12-05 22:13:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#89 2002-12-06 01:56:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#90 2002-12-06 05:31:04

Re: President Bush - about bush

#91 2002-12-06 09:27:25

Re: President Bush - about bush

#92 2002-12-06 10:10:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

#93 2002-12-06 12:35:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

#94 2002-12-06 17:10:25

Re: President Bush - about bush

#95 2002-12-06 17:15:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#96 2002-12-06 17:29:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#97 2002-12-06 17:49:05

Re: President Bush - about bush

#98 2002-12-06 18:00:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#99 2002-12-06 18:20:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#100 2002-12-06 21:51:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer