Terrorists kill "innocent people?"

Okay, but that just supports what I was saying. You can't sit there and accuse one person of being brainwashed or whatever just becasue they think differently than you do. There ARE those types of people, I run into it more when talking about religion and theology, so I do see where you are coming from, but Maverick is an intelligent poster for the most part.

 

Well as narrow-minded and ignorant I think Maverick is, I agree, just because he doesn't think like you do doesn't mean he's being brainwashed or doesn't have a mind of his own, we could say the same for you. He'd probably die for what he believes as we would, so technically we're all the same way.

Now, I don't agree with conservatives like him, but he believes in what he says and that's something to respect. That doesn't make him inferior to us because he doesn't have the same mindset. I respect his willingness to stand by his thoughts and beliefs regardless of how much I disagree with him, and regardless of how much backlash he gets from people.

 

To the original poster. That arguement days not hold water. The fact that Bush is in office does not mean i voted for him. So when i go to work or child goes to school. Do we deserve to die cause someone does not like our goverment. How am i not innocent?

 

It's too bad Maverick's ass got banned.

 

So, America sucks huh? We are the most evil violent nation in the world eh? So how does giving more money to help fight aids than all other countries combined make us evil? How does giving more in humanitarian aid than the entire UN make us evil?

 

Do you get your information from word of mouth GA?? The US does not give more money in AIDS Research than any other nation and nor does it truly give AID.

Go check your facts and youll see that the money allocated for AIDS has gone hand in hand with adamant refusal by Washington to sanction the use of generic drugs which are far cheaper and thus enable the paltry sums allocated for treatment to go further. Why does washington block generics? Why because of the pharamceutical lobby which has most of our Congress and Senate in its back pocket.

As for AID, do some real research and youll find that our AID has always been tied to coercive trade agreement forcing recipient nations to apply such funds only to products and services provided by US companies, again forcing inefficient and far costlier outlays for developing nations and essentially restoring the money back into US corporate hands (give with one hand take away with the other).

You're simply spouting the myths and mantras that serve to assuage the American psyche but do not concur with the actual facts on the ground.

Consider this, Bush claims to have dedicated 15 billion to fight AIDS but the real caveat is that over 90% is restricted only to organisation which stress abstinence (and refrain from advocating other forms of protection and birth control), making it a woefully ineffective and religiously fundamentalist response to a global crisis.

At the same time, Bush gladly spends over 400 billion on wayward MIC weapons of destruction.

Cover your eyes and close your ears if it makes you feel better, but by our fruits we are known around the world even if the domestic populace is fed the warm fuzzies of societal superiority, and quite frankly we have been (over the past century) and continue to be the most prolific warmongering nation on the planet.

 

Just wanted to say
Great point!!!

 

now that was very well said. *applauds* thats the truth right there, none of the bullshit that they want you to believe

 

You'd think that someone that prefaces their comments with that much abuse would have checked their own facts so that they don't end up looking like a complete ass. But that's not LickHERish style.

Well, no, actually it is one third that is restricted to abstinence programs and that one third only refers to the 20% of the funding that is for prevention - the rest of the funding is for treatment programs, palliative care and programs assisting children who have lost one or both of their parents due to AIDS-related causes. I'll let you multiply 33% and 20% and see if you get 90%. http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=17758

So what we have is a good aid program being condemned by ignorant Bush-haters like LickHerish who call it "woefully ineffective and religiously fundamentalist response to a global crisis" while demonstrating that they haven't a clue what they are talking about.

And then we have the sycophants. Soulrebel51, when you said "that's the truth right there", did you mean that actually you had no basis for knowing whether it was truth or not, but it was what you wanted to hear?

 

i like to think that it was both of what you listed

 

Ah well, it seems the verdict from the abu Ghraib thread turns out to be a clear no to any intellectual honesty for PB.

Good program you say? Criticism from Bush haters? (how often we hear that sycophantic mantra from braindead right wing Bush sycophants who care more for partisan loyalty than true government accountability). Try "reality" PB.

Let us examine this Good Program you so slavishly defend...

Ban on Using Aid to Buy Foreign Generics Hinders Treatment, Experts Say

Bush Extends Global Gag Rule to AIDS Funds

Bush unsurprisingly picks crony ex-Pharmaceutical giant CEO as AIDS Czar

Experts attack Bush's stance in AIDS battle

And this is of course without going into the complete withdrawl by the Bush admin from the UNPF (UN Population Fund) which is linked to this issue on a broader scale.

The very fact that you repeatedly employ the terms "bush-bashing" and "Bush-haters" shows all too clearly that you value ideological adherence over treu love for the general welfare of our nation and the world in which it must coexist. Political accountability obviously means nothing to you so long as there are right wingers in power.

 

Intellectual honesty? Slavishly defend? You said 90% of the funding was for abstinence. This is false. How is pointing this out "intellectual dishonesty" or "slavishly defending" anything?

This is typical LickHERish. Write a long essay full of hatred and insults as a way to cover up the fact that you were wrong.

It's a simple open and shut case. You insulted everyone and told them to go check their facts, and then you proceeded to get the facts wrong. When this is pointed out, you respond with personal attacks. How predictable.

 

Fine I was wrong on one point (note i got 1 FACT wrong, not "facts" as you indeed dishonestly claim), yet you continue to avoid the broader scope of this issue in your bid to dismiss everything on the basis of one error. Typical PB, focus on the tip of the iceberg and ignore the greater mass beneath the surface. There is far more wrong with this administration's lopsided and ideologically inspired AIDS (and Foreign AID) policies than the issue of abstinence, but you avoid all that like the plague.

Now, go on and defend your lying corrupt right wing heros as you are wont to do.

 

Could you be any more petty? As I told you before, when you load up your posts with so much abuse about how people should get their facts straight, you don't have much basis for whining when someone points out that you are the one getting them wrong. Keep that in mind then next time you consider prefacing your thoughts with boilerplate insults.

But you also said that the US does not give more money to fight aids than any other country, when in fact it does, and you condemned the "refusal by Washington to sanction the use of generic drugs" when actually they have not refused to do so, they have been good political strategists by leaving wiggle room in their statements so they could not be easily attacked by pharmaceutical lobbyists. I expect that in the end they will quietly buy generics. So it is indeed honest to claim that you were wrong on facts. Happy now?

Reread your original post.

You conclusion followed, and seemed entirely based upon, this "fact". Since your conclusions didn't change when you realised they were based on false information, it seems that the "broader scope of the issue" is your predetermined conclusions based on your ideological agenda and irrespective of the facts.

You have already dug yourself a deep enough hole here, I suggest you stop digging. More insults and weasel words are not going to help.

 

No dude, you are missing the whole argument. People ARE innocent when a tyrant rises up who was not democratically elected and they can't do anything about him, but in the US, where we supposubly have freedom of speech, and the right to overthrow our government, and the right to elect our officials, how can we say we are innocent when we are the people who elect these politicians, and let them do whatever they want when we have the right to impeach them, as opposed to a tyrant where the people being ruled over have no rights, and no way to overthrow or impeach them.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

It was the white house and Bush Administrations policies that made those soldiers do what they did, they were following orders... Maybe you should look into what the Pentagon's policies are

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

if we are going to CLAIM to be a democracy, we can't also CLAIM innocence when our government or military commits atrocities around the world.

Good point- you can't have it both ways. "We can't help what our government does" falls flat when that government is supported by most citizens. If Bush isn't thrown out of office in November, I'm not so sure whether I'll start calling the terrorists "freedom fighters" or not.

One of my favorite people recently quipped that he's noticed that the press is failing to use the technically correct term for members of the so-called "Iraqi resistance." He pointed out that we once had a one-word term for people who fight a guerrilla war against an occupying army: "minutemen."

Some days I'm optimistic: surely Americans won't REALLY re-elect Bush. We may be fat and stupid, but even we aren't THAT fat and stupid. On the other hand, I consider myself of about average intelligence, and I fell for some of Bush's crap as well.

The only good thing about the Bush presidency, if there is anything good about it at all, is that a lot of young Americans have awakened. To see my own kids finally reaching the point where they're truly outraged and not the slightest bit afraid to say so is a small but present consolation.

 

Over throw the government?? are you totally off your rocker? you think the US government would ever allow this to happen?

the US government would use the nukes on american citizens before they'd allow any of us to overthrow them.

Yeah..we have a piece of old paper that says we can overthrow the government.

that same piece of paper also says we can own all the guns we want to and form militias...that same paper also says that we have the rights to fair and speedy trials.


??????????

I can point out about 5 billion examples of the government blatantly ignoring our constitutional rights...I can name 5 billions examples of the government shadily stoppering attempts to form militias..and their ongoing race to remove guns from the hands of all US citizens.

as for our elections??? I guess you ignored the 2000 elections and all that BS.

and the people of Iraq did have the vote...but Saddam shot all his opponants.

and remember..Saddam was legally voted in prior to seizing power to become a dictator.


But you know what??? none of this makes any difference...because the reality is....NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO JUST KILL AMERICANS JUST LIKE WE ARENT ALLOWED TO JUST KILL OTHERS.

Just because..you have this warped view of innocense vs guilty..does not mean it justifies murder.

you justify murder as long as it's against a certain group of people...and that is as ignorant and hateful as Al-qaeda murdering americans because they are simply american.

If you are american and believe that "simply being american" qualifies you as a target to be wontonly killed by others...then by all means, please make Osama's job easier and kill yourself.

One less bitchy American.