User information for Steve

Real Name
Steve
Nickname
JediLuke
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Signed On
April 12, 2004
Supporter
-
Total Posts
321 (Amateur)
User ID
20620
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
321 Comments. 17 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ] Older
50.
 
Re: Rehnquist
Sep 5, 2005, 17:23
50.
Re: Rehnquist Sep 5, 2005, 17:23
Sep 5, 2005, 17:23
 
See Halsy, I can call a spade a spade, and you still act like a douchebag. I'm not sure why you think these are mutually exclusive ideas.
46.
 
Re: Rehnquist
Sep 5, 2005, 12:04
46.
Re: Rehnquist Sep 5, 2005, 12:04
Sep 5, 2005, 12:04
 
Nice to see the level of discourse hasn't gotten any higher here.

Halsy, you act like a total douchebag, whether I agree with you or not.

And Tango, you're dreaming if you think that Bush is going to nominate anyone more liberal to the court. Rehnquist may have been an ass hole, but his death is still not a good thing for the country. Now we're going to have to live with his successor (Bush nominated Roberts for chief justice today) for the next 30-40 years.
170.
 
Re: New Orleans
Sep 4, 2005, 18:26
Re: New Orleans Sep 4, 2005, 18:26
Sep 4, 2005, 18:26
 
The same people who are doing what they are currently doing in NO are the same people who rioted during the Rodney King thing. They are also the same people who looted during andrew and are the same people who set fire to LA and Miami in the 1980's.

Haha, sure, don't even try to be subtle with your racism.
13.
 
Re: In Explaining Life's Complexity...
Aug 22, 2005, 12:20
13.
Re: In Explaining Life's Complexity... Aug 22, 2005, 12:20
Aug 22, 2005, 12:20
 
So, these people must believe in magic dust that can evolve with time and even congeal aggregate lifeforms that exist at a higher level than the dust that these lifeforms are made of.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile.
89.
 
Re: No subject
Aug 19, 2005, 18:10
89.
Re: No subject Aug 19, 2005, 18:10
Aug 19, 2005, 18:10
 
saying that you know there isn't a god is just as arrogant as saying you know there is one and that he follows your belief structure.

Atheism doesn't necessarily mean asserting that no God exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Even if it did, I don't think it's arrogant to the same degree.
85.
 
Re: Better video
Aug 16, 2005, 14:41
85.
Re: Better video Aug 16, 2005, 14:41
Aug 16, 2005, 14:41
 
Not believing in God requires as much faith as believing in God.

No it doesn't. And Pascal's wager is stupid.
8.
 
Re: I love this article
Aug 16, 2005, 11:10
8.
Re: I love this article Aug 16, 2005, 11:10
Aug 16, 2005, 11:10
 
Alcohol and drugs cause more violence than video games ever will.

That's stupid.
71.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 7, 2005, 18:09
71.
Re: No subject Jul 7, 2005, 18:09
Jul 7, 2005, 18:09
 
El Cabron, I think you're the first regular citizen (assuming that you aren't George W. posting incognito) I've seen who seemed to seriously buy into that ridiculous "they hate us for our freedom" rhetoric. So congratulations, I guess. So exactly how many Al Qaeda operatives did you interview before came to that conclusion about their motives?
26.
 
Re: Reply to #20
Jul 7, 2005, 13:22
26.
Re: Reply to #20 Jul 7, 2005, 13:22
Jul 7, 2005, 13:22
 
I'm sorry that you feel fear from terrorism, I hope you can find courage someday.

What a lame comment.
37.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 18, 2005, 12:33
37.
Re: No subject Jun 18, 2005, 12:33
Jun 18, 2005, 12:33
 
Bollocks: when you've plonked down $50 for the game, it is then YOUR game.

That's just not how it works. You don't own the software, you own a license to use it.
175.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 13, 2005, 15:29
Re: No subject Jun 13, 2005, 15:29
Jun 13, 2005, 15:29
 
Well, I'm not necessarily campaigning for it to be closed, if that would truly have worse repercussions; I haven't done much reading on that.

I agree that some progress has been made, but the only way to keep making progress is to make sure more people understand what's being done in their names. If people continue to not give a shit about lies, human rights violations, etc., things aren't going to get better.
173.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 13, 2005, 15:03
Re: No subject Jun 13, 2005, 15:03
Jun 13, 2005, 15:03
 
Gitmo is the lesser of the evils and one that people are, to a controlled degree, keeping an eye on.

I'm not sure what you mean. Who is keeping an eye on it? And how is it the lesser of two evils? And is that supposed to excuse the human rights violations? As in, "Hey, at least we aren't as bad as the Soviets?"

You're also posing a false dilemma when you say that if it's closed things will only get worse.

What this discussion is about is the systematic, sanctioned abuse of prisoners who (if this Government believed in what America stood for),by all rights, should be completely Constitutionally protected. This discussion is about torturing people who should be considered innocent before proven guilty through due process as well as protected under the Geneva Convention. Offering alternative definitions of "torture" and "prisoner of war" are just weak, malicious attempts at creating loopholes and exceptions by which we can dehumanize and control individuals, entire segments of the society, and entire races of people.

Currently, citizens, green-card holders, tourists, illegal-immigrants, and anyone else who is detained on US soil are all entitled to Constitutional protection. Even if a US agency apprehends someone overseas, under US jurisdiction or custody, they're entitled to all of the legal protection that you and I enjoy. But these people in Guantanamo and Abu Graib, for some reason, are not. They're in US controlled territory in the custody of a US agency, aren't they? If we deny these people Constitutional protection, all of our rights are in jeopardy. Remember, it's not just a legal system that can be manipulated, it's a code of inalienable human RIGHTS that our founding fathers believed all people to be entitled to. If we deny these people their human rights, we are effectively labeling them as "not humans." Once that occurs, we can not occupy any kind of even remotely righteous moral highground. By dehumanizing them, we are dehumanizing ourselves.

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42719#955304


This comment was edited on Jun 13, 15:05.
171.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 13, 2005, 14:50
Re: No subject Jun 13, 2005, 14:50
Jun 13, 2005, 14:50
 
it does not changre the fact that your argument is weakened by a lack of objective, credible sources.

What's an objective source, to you? Amnesty International isn't good enough? Help me believe that you don't just dismiss any information that conflicts with your pre-concieved ideas as biased and therefore invalid. Because that's sure what it seems like you're doing. How exactly is a news story about prisoner abuse left-leaning or Bush-bashing? Is that the standard these days? To be against torture is to be a Bush-bashing liberal, and therefore untrustworthy?


This comment was edited on Jun 13, 14:55.
169.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 13, 2005, 14:13
Re: No subject Jun 13, 2005, 14:13
Jun 13, 2005, 14:13
 
I think you're under the mistaken impression that I was having a coversation with you, Tumbler. I have no interest in your uninformed opinion on these things, I'm just posting them as a matter of record. And the "20th hijacker" didn't actually hijack anything. However, for clarity:

"Some of M.C.'s descriptions match accounts given not only by other detainees, but also by former guards and interrogators who have been interviewed by The New York Times."

But clearly any evidence inconsistent with your worldview is a lie, etc.
This comment was edited on Jun 13, 14:15.
167.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 13, 2005, 13:11
Re: No subject Jun 13, 2005, 13:11
Jun 13, 2005, 13:11
 
"One lawyer said that his client, a Saudi of Chadian descent, was not yet 15 when he was captured and has told him that he was beaten regularly in his early days at Guantánamo, hanged by his wrists for hours at a time and that an interrogator pressed a burning cigarette into his arm.

The lawyer, Clive A. Stafford Smith, of London, said in an interview that the prisoner, who is now 18 and is identified by the initials M.C. in public documents, told him in a recent interview at Guantánamo that he was seized by local authorities in Pakistan about Oct. 21, 2001, a few months shy of his 15th birthday, and taken to Guantánamo at the beginning of 2002."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13gitmo.html?ex=1276315200&en=9dd1b075e5c81c00&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
166.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 13, 2005, 13:02
Re: No subject Jun 13, 2005, 13:02
Jun 13, 2005, 13:02
 
"Basically, I accepted the point, at least as far as the struggle against Al Qaeda and its imitators was concerned, but it's striking how often the hard men who make the hard decisions to fight it out in the shadows snatch the wrong people, then fail to follow through. Only after a new commanding officer had arrived and official inquiries had issued their reports did we learn that 40 percent of those penned up at Guantanamo never belonged there in the first place. At Abu Ghraib in Iraq, the record was even worse: two-thirds of the detainees were eventually said to have been innocent of terrorist links. At least when they were picked up. Who knows what leanings they developed or links they forged during and after their interrogations?"
163.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 13, 2005, 11:53
Re: No subject Jun 13, 2005, 11:53
Jun 13, 2005, 11:53
 
This is not a black mark on our country. Shit happens.

I thought you had gotten enough sense to bow out of this discussion. Is your intention to make yourself sound more ridiculous?

Whatever, I'm going to take my own advice. Knock yourselves out guys. USA! USA! USA!

Edit: June 13, 2005: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay drew fresh criticism Sunday following a Time magazine report on a logbook tracing the treatment of a detainee who officials believe was intended to take part in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"I don't know why we didn't learn from Bagram," she added, referring to a U.S. base in Afghanistan. "I don't know why we didn't learn from Abu Ghraib [prison in Iraq], but here we are in Guantanamo with many of the same things surfacing."

"Right now they have no particular legal framework with it," he said. "We want other countries to adhere to the rule of law, and at Guantanamo, we are not."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/12/gitmo.time/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/magazine/12TORTURE.html?


This comment was edited on Jun 13, 12:42.
161.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 13, 2005, 11:24
Re: No subject Jun 13, 2005, 11:24
Jun 13, 2005, 11:24
 
You're only reinforcing my point. You're blinded by pride for your country. You're so invested in the idea of America always being right that you quickly dismiss any evidence to the contrary. That's the only reason you'd say things like "My country is better than that," which makes absolutely no sense. No country is better than anything. Countries are just made up of people that come and go. And the fact that you refer to it as your country speaks to how much you identify it with yourself, which makes it even harder for you to think of it as doing something wrong, because that would make you wrong by association. America is just an idea, and it's a damn good idea, but we don't have a history of living up to that idea very well, and we certainly aren't doing very well right now. But I guess it's easier to just pretend that nothing is wrong, and all of the people who think so are traitors, and none of this info is credible, and our government knows best.

Dissent is a much more American concept than blind allegiance. But hey, do whatever helps you sleep at night...
This comment was edited on Jun 13, 11:39.
159.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 12, 2005, 23:08
Re: No subject Jun 12, 2005, 23:08
Jun 12, 2005, 23:08
 
The U.S. always has been and always will be better than that.

I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you're in denial.


This comment was edited on Jun 12, 23:09.
157.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 12, 2005, 17:26
Re: No subject Jun 12, 2005, 17:26
Jun 12, 2005, 17:26
 
Metafilter is nothing like Rush Limbaugh. It's a community of over 20,000 users. There is no enforced agenda there, and there are plenty of users with differing points of view. What's more, metafilter doesn't generate the content, they just link to it. If you'd actually clicked the links, you would see that they were stories consisting of links to other sites, like the BBC. You could've read the stories and the ensuing discussion and had the full context, but I see you'd rather just brush it aside with a totally invalid analogy.


This comment was edited on Jun 12, 17:30.
321 Comments. 17 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ] Older