Justice

Okay, lemme try to sum up the whole story: There's this girl, let's call her Kiddo. She's like a little sister to me, and ever since I've met her she's had some self-confidence problems. Enough to the point that she attempted suicide. She had to leave the college for the last few weeks of the semester and now she's going to another school. Kiddo has always been looking for someone to just love and love her, so she was pretty vunerable after the whole thing. Enter the Asshole. He pretty much sweet talks Kiddo for a little while and let's her believe that he really loves her and all that sort of stuff. Well, her emotional problems get worse. Most of us haven't met Mike, but she keeps getting this idea that he doesn't love her. It springs up about every week and a half or so. It generally boils down to him either saying "Jesus, get over your depression already" or his obsessive addiction to pot. And this isn't a normal addiction to pot, no no... apparently she asked him if he would drop pot for her and he almost blew up at her. Like, yelling match style. Every time she just wants to believe she's wrong and every time she basically begs him to come back, and he willingly does. Well, as of late, she's had worries that he's been cheating on her. So she confronts him about it, and lo-and-behold, he is. She's literally crushed. Apparently he's been doing this the entire time. So she just gets out of there as quickly as possible. Talks to him the next day online, and he says he's glad he doens't have to deal with her "psychotic bitching" and that she was just a "notch in the belt" to him and nothing more. Well, she is really in bad shape from that whole one. This is the one guy she really believed loved her; God knows I had to convince her multiple times that she wasn't causing all the problems in the relationship. I know Kiddo well. She isn't lying about this. This is the guy she absolutely adored while she was with him. He did shit to her that I will never forgive, and I want to get him back. And while I want to drive up there and confront him, it's a 6 hour drive from where I am. That's really not in the realm of possibility. 2Gold: I'd prefer the whole fucking around with his life thing. I don't need an assault charge right now. :\

Um, do you know of anyone who knows how to hack?

I won't go into details, but my friend had recovered from a suicide attempt early last May. She met this guy, and she was incredibly happy with him. Suddenly he just breaks it off, says he's been fucking someone behind her back the enter time, that he's had enough of her psychotic bitching, and that she's just another notch in his belt. She's pretty much devestated right now, and since she's going to another college, I'm fairly worried about her thinking about it again. He apparently has no remorse for this, and I want to show him the same sort of sentiment.

Eh, I'd prefer a long distance method because the guy happens to be at college, which is around 4 hours away. I just don't have the gas to go beat his ass, so I'm doing it this way.

Edit: Nm, Mike posted his just before I posted my comment.

I'm not harping on him for praising Communism. I'm saying that he goes out of his way to ignore things so that everything he heaps on America seems like that much more. You again ignored the fact that he's brought up just about every sort of propaganda he can find to prove that America is evil in just about every endevour we've taken overseas, that we've constantly tried to hurt people across the globe in some sadistical fashion while continually bringing mankind down. Anti-Americanism doesn't require you to say it "I hate America"; It's a disdain for all things purely American. People can enjoy democracy and still hate America. You have such an inclusive, exact definition that it's practically unusable. If you can see subtle nuances such as virile comtempt and obvious hatred for everything America does, I don't think truly understand what being 'anti-American' is.

... *Sigh* You didn't read my post at all, did you? I said that he doesn't just hate Bush, he hates America. It's pretty obvious. People have developed this thing where if a conservative says "He hates America", he only hates Bush. C-Bacon obviously has a deep hatred for America, along with Bush. He's accused us of throwing every imperialistic trick in the book, being greedy, coniving power hungry theives who constantly prey upon the weak, and claims that our foreign policy brought 9/11 on us, not a pack of deranged fundamentalist. This is the sort of Cross-fire stuff Cere is talking about. I'm bringing up a legitimate point, and you are just going for some stupid sound-bite style jab. What the heck?

Alright, alright, calm the fuck down. Jesus Christ, why don't we all rub our vaginas together as we bitch like a bunch of women PMSing? Look, I argue with C-Bacon more than anyone. I'm not fully convinced he deserves a ban. If BX or KKK haven't gotten a ban for the stupid shit they troll in the CE folder, C-Bacon isn't quite up there yet. His views are utterly idiotic, agreed, but I'm still waiting for him to do something truly ban-worthy. To Loss, YPoV, and a few others: Despite what all you guys want to believe (Mad Dog just out and accusing C-Bacon of being an American hater just because he hates Bush), he DOES hate America. It's very, very obvious for people who actually read and analyze his posts that he has a very deep hate and contempt for America and most Americans in general. Remember, this is the guy who tried to deny that Communist regiemes almost always have massive purges, which is something history has basically proven while at the same time looking for anything and everything he can possibly put blame on America for. So please, if you don't understand what we are talking about, please refrain from talking shit about Mad Dog about it. To Val Halen and RedBaron (Xero): Shut the hell up. Jesus Christ, if anyone in this thread has NO room to speak about stupidity, it is you two. I've never seen either of you make any sort of post with substance outside of veiled shots at Bush or posting articles under a sensationalist header, only to have the damn article disprove you because you obviously didn't read it (This is more Van Halen than anything). Please, shut up. To Mike: Calm down, bud. You make good arguments at times, but Jesus you are combative to the max. You need to step it back a bit. There are times where even I say you are being a fucking rock about things. My entire take on improving the CE folder: Folder Mods: 4 mods who are on all the time. My suggestions are Cere, Tyler, Robbie, and I, though you can put whoever you want in. I think we've all shown a bit of balance, restraint, willing to be bi-partisan at times, are on good terms with each other, and we probably put forth some of the best arguments in the folder. I'd say Crazy Dan and Wild Bomb, but I haven't seen them around much, either. Eliminate the Cross-fire Mentality: Cere is right, the CE folder isn't getting any good debate anymore. I think it'd be good to have something like an exercised debate where we have a weekly topic, and two people sign up for it. They have to present facts, abstain from personal attacks, and have a limited number of posts and responses. A panel of 5 people (2 Conservatives, 2 Liberals, and one Independant) judge on it. Also, cutting out articles that are obviously made to be attacks and flame-wars rather than spirited debate or informational needs to happen. Temporary Bans on the folder to repeat offenders. Yeah, it's censorship. But frankly, we need some.

Why appologize? Frankly, I've been a bit combative as of late, so I do think I need to tone it down. And point taken.

First off, shouldn't this be in HD? Secondly, I'm saddened I'm not on the bipartisan council. Looks interesting, though.

Yes, the slaughter in Cambodia was far worse. But it's not fair to compare it to Chile. In Chile, Pinochet was actually put into power by the US. Pol Pot was not (not directly at least). If we were in some parallel universe where Pinochet succeeded Pol Pot and killed 3000 people in Cambodia, then maybe that argument would hold some merit. Although murder is murder and the death toll matters little to the families of the dead. No, my comparison meant what happens when someone doesn't intervine. Pinochet may have been bad, but in comparison to regiemes we didn't intervine with, it's not nearly as bad as you try to make it out. You can say they aren't comparable, but they are very, very comparable. I'm not trying to dull the crimes of Pinochet, but to say they aren't comparable is an odd defense. Pinochet was bad, but his deaths don't compare to the devastation that Pol Pot. Yes, I'm sure the families feel bad, but Pol Pot's attrocities are far greater than Pinochet's. Also, it proves how much more Communist Regiemes are more dangerous. 3,000 lives is a horrible crime and obviously tyranny, but things like the purges of Stalin, Mao, the conditions of North Korea, are not things that the US wanted, especially in their backyard. Not only that, but Communist regiemes are prone to invading other countries (Korea, Vietnam). You can't understate the dangers of a Communist government, especially when one looks at the past.

We didn't support Pol Pot at all during his attrocities. Our 'support' was more opposition to the Vietnamese invasion and installation of a puppet government in 1979-1989. Our support stopped promptly after Vietnam left.

I know a lot of union guys that would argue with you on that one. Eh, from my experience with my mother and grandmother both being Detroit teachers, it's the top-heavy administrative part that eats up the most cash. Stuff like extra secretary and unnecessary advisors. Seriously, most areas have an decent amount of money per student (I know that Detroit is at least average) but the amount of administrative jobs can be obscene. If you want blame, don't put it on the Teacher's Unions or those darn Republicans, put it on useless buracracy. At least, that's what my inside sources continually tell me. Edit: Damn, Gert got it before me. *Shakes Fist*

Whether or not his an 'insurgent' or a 'terrorist' doesn't dull the fact that he was fighting as an illegal combatant from a place that is supposed to be effectively safe from any sort of combat. He completely deserved what he got. The 'freedom fighters' of this country have shown how much they truly love it by car bombing their own people, trying to deny them a new democratic government, desecrating their holy places by turning them into bunkers and weapons caches. Wow, something to be admired there, eh?

Eh, C-Bacon just irks me. Plus, if you actually read his posts, they aren't nearly as long as you'd think. There's so much insubstantial bullshit in there that I can now just fly through them. It doesn't hurt that's he's using the same argument over and over again. :\ And yes, I'm a college student, if that explains anything. I do have a job, though.

God, I've outlined this before, you just never actually read it. Fuck if I'm going to write it all out again. Suffice to say, it's because all other options outside of placing down Democracies to push out Islamofacism and pressure the place we can't invade (Saudi Arabia) into changing. Hilariously enough, Iraqi Body Count is well below the 100,000 mark you love to flaunt. And, well, are there any names to these workers, or are they just another bunch of no-names that we can't confirm actually, well, work for the Red Cross? I can't belive your using that as excuse. "But they did it too!". Weak. Of course, constantly ignoring that Europe had the largest piece of the pie by far when it comes to funding, aiding, and arming Iraq seems to be pretty convenient too, eh? The US did give some aid to Iraq. That aid wasn't very substantial in terms of the aid that Iraq was getting overall. To try and make this as a case of US Tyranny fails because of the massive amount of support Iraq has gotten from Europe before and AFTER (note the 'after' there) the First Gulf War. Yes, because we are obviously just wiping out civilians. Explain to me how to run an operation like this in Iraq. Again, give us a solution or an alternative before making a stupid claim like we are just wiping out civilians. You don't quite understand the fact that we didn't think that they could be worse when they took over, and that in comparison they are fairly small to the places where we didn't intervine. Once again, all those countries body counts combined have nothing on Pol Pot slaughtering 25% of his population. Oh God, this is like a Rage Against the Machine song... (In a bad way) Well, the main difference is this: The US puts someone in power, turns out to be bad. Damn all. It's an accident more than anything else that things turned out bad, but obviously they saw the risk for a much worse situation down there. Europe: Tends to continue to fund and support these sorts of nations. In Iraq, we were helping them to trying and beat back Iran since they were our #1 Concern in the region. We didn't help them after sanctions were put on. Europe, on the other hand, has continually funded them even after sanctions. I suppose that's where the differnce lies, though I'm sure you see it much differently through your eyes. I think he means that you don't consider the slaughter of so many innocents in the Communist Regiemes that shaped US foreign policy 50 years, I'd say yes. Let's look at that quote again: Well, considering much of the world was saying "Yes" to our intelligence and "No" to our line of action, I'd say that most people thought it was more than an assumption. Of course, if you want to believe that everything was fabricated so that Saddam would end up at the sticky end of another American Imperialist plot, then cool. Please tell the people of Cambodia, Russia, North Korea, and China this, please: You act as though we KNEW that they'd be worse. How does it work out for the US when they 'install' a harmful dictator? What bonus prize do they get for that? The argument that we knowingly allowed worse people to take over is purely based on your own belief, and nothing else. And the assumption that it couldn't possibly be better than a Communist regime is completely speculative. There are very few communist regimes that haven't committed massive amounts of murders; why should we let one go and assume it'll be the exception, not the rule? Considering that the World is the one who didn't want to do anything about this mess, I'd say so. The world has a way of keeping with the status quo (See: Darfur). Of course, blaming anyone other than the US for anything seems to be a concept completely foreign to you. He tried to push it off the Communist Regime and onto the US's shoulders for some reason, though. And I don't know about any Neo-Nazi connections, but what the hell does Prescott Bush have to do with anything right now? Seriously, if you are trying to connect Bush with his great grandfather and possible Nazi dealings, it's pretty sad. Oh God, all Chomsky writes is left-wing slander anyways. Anything leveled against him can't be worse than his own works. I do follow his citations, I have many of them infront of me, all of which are diverse ranging from various sources around the world, and none of which actually cite himself or appear to be other people citing him. You pretty much said "Let the Shiites do it themselves", which is literally an impossibility. You said INXS has been dead on in this thread, and he's proven that he supports the 'Insurgency' (read: Foreign terrorists) more than Coalition forces on the ground. Yes, you support people who supported Saddam. Nice one, bud.

Wow, C-Bacon, you've truly shown yourself to be the new Unger. Congrats. What he had in utter distastefulness, you've made up for in conspiratorial bullshit. I won't respond to everything, since, again, it's like talking to a wall, but I'll address a few things: Our help was incredibly minor compared to that of Russia, France, and other European nations. Iraq's chemcial and biological warfare armament was NOT built up by the US: After the First Gulf War, we found out that all the WMDs he DID have were homegrown, i.e. they didn't have a US Vintage on them. You say we sent over arms to them, but you ignore the fact that everything in their army and Air Force is either Soviet or French in nature. And the fact that you ignore their much more gracious help (Considering the French and Russians were doing it throughout sanctions and the Russians even right up until the invasion) shows how much you'll ignore to try and make the US to be the ultimate bad guy. Explain to me how lighter sanctions would have worked when Saddam was able to get around these sanctions. And give me proof that the Shiites could rise up against the second most formidable military power in the Middle East. On the Reasons for going in: We've known about the Humanitarian Crisis, but frankly, the UN would have laughed us out of the chambers had we asked. It's been brought up numerous times before the war, perhaps not by the Administration (Whose job it was to convince the UN), but it was fairly well understood that we weren't going to leave Iraq a hell-hole. On WMDs: Well, considering most of our intell came from a multitude of other organizations from around the world, pretty much everyone thought he had WMDs. His top advisors admit that he may not have had them, but he always maintained illusion that he did to keep looking strong against the rest of the world. He never tried to dispell the illusion, he actually promoted. Regieme Change: Your reasons are the product of your abject hatred of this administration and the US itself, not of fact. Of course, if you want to keep believing, go ahead. On your 'solution': Wow, vague rhetoric. Really nice. No, that's not what I asked for. I asked for a realistic solution. You haven't given me one outside of 'stop the imperialism', and in the real world that's not gonna work anyways. You implied that we should invade Saudi Arabia and Egypt if we invaded Iraq. Well, I've given you reasons why we didn't. Of course, you once again reverted to "BIG BAD AMERICAN IMPERIALISM" to defend yourself, so apparently this doesn't work. Oh, I beg to differ. Stalin's Purges and 5 year plans for one are an excellent example of oppression and detriment to the citiziens. Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia as well, and Mao's slaughters in China, too. And what of the poverty Jung Il forces his people to live in? Nothing in Latin America compares to these. You seem to ignore what basic history has taught us: Communist regiemes without fail have bloody purges. Please, explain these away. I'll be glad to never talk of them again if you can somehow explain all these occurances away. It's not just that we have stuff down there, it's that we don't want these things happening in our backyard. Do you remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? What if another Communist Nation were to spring up and Russia was to try and ship missiles or arms to them? Letting Communist regiemes spring up in Latin America during the Cold War is not something that we wanted, and understandably so. Of course, you can't get off your high horse to see the God damn dead surrounding every other Communist regieme that got it's feet off the ground, so I really don't expect you to get it. Sorta like the whole Pol Pot thing, where no one intervined, right? Let's compare body counts. Pinochet: 3,000 Pol Pot: 1,700,000 Huh, a bit of disparity there, eh? I suppose, though, that was just "your bad", right? Because Communist Regiemes don't kill off their citizens... I can't understand how you can say "America needed to intervine!" all the time throughout this whole Iraq thing, then say "The Shiites could take care of it in a few years", and then completely damn us. It's a huge contradiction. The Shiites couldn't do anything, and we didn't intervine because of the UN. We intervine now, but it's obviously because of imperialistic reasons, compared to when it wasn't (Whenever that was). You are trying every which way to try and damn the US and you are basically contradicting yourself as you do it each time.

Odd why you didn't seem to care about these. I really doubt these guys were pushing Dubya into War because of their suggestions here.

No, the WMD reason was the one expounded so much because the humanitarian ones have been ignored for a while. If the UN would have let us, I'm sure we would have went in long before 2003 for humanitarian reasons. We used WMDs because that was the one we thought we could get the UN supporting. We didn't figure out other reasons: They've been there since the first Gulf War and we've known them for a while. They've only been laughed at by the world community.

No, you see, when there is no choice in who you are voting for, there is no voting rights. It a sham, and you trying to pass this off as a valid point is weaker than anything Mike is pulling right now. His point that while they had voting rights, they still were the target of vicious attacks from the Saddam regieme basically shows it's all a sham. Seriously. You are a rock. Seriously, you just don't comprehend the idea of multiple reasons for going into a country. I gave a long rant in another thread (Which, for all intents and purposes, you ignored to spout off more tired, irrelevant talking points) about the full reason of why we chose Iraq. That contains WMDs, Humanitarian reasons, the Regieme change, and many others. We helped oppress? Are you kidding me? Get past the one time we helped them out and give us something substantial here: where is the US's continued support of Saddam? We have nothing on most European nations when it comes to supporting, arming, and funding Saddam. It's inane to try and compare our meager support to theirs. Fuck, let's just invade them all, right? First off, give me your solution to the region. You refuse to because you lack one and I'm going to continue to call you out on this. If you don't have a solution, I don't see how you can criticize what I've been saying. Secondly, give us time. Changing the face of a region takes a lot of time. You still don't seem to understand that changing Saudi Arabia through invasion would actually cause the outrage you seem to think is happening all over the world. Thirdly, gotta love the hypocracy. We should continue to invade other countries besides Iraq, even though you certainly wouldn't support it? Asking us why we haven't invaded other countries yet is not a defense because you wouldn't invade them either. It's a sad talking point. Explain to me this: Why not Iraq? It's the safest of the three, has the worst leader of the three, and is perhaps the best foothold that the US can get into the region. Explain to me why we should consider the other 2 over Iraq? Another irrelevant point? Changed for Accuracy. The UN and Powell didn't want to support the Shiites, not Bush Sr. Seriously, you were talking before about the Shiites rising up against Saddam in a few years. Why did they need US support then, when they were stronger and Saddam's military was in shambles? Or was that you talking out of your ass there? Yeah, Saddam, that excellent 'democratically-elected' leader. Then again, many of the Democratically elected leaders were, well, communist, and if Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, and Ho Chi Minh were any indication on how communist leaders turn their country around, that's something we REALLY wanted to keep around. Not say that some of them didn't turn out well, but then again they are nothing compared to any of the communist regiemes above. Like to ignore that though, don't you? Wow, isn't that you suggesting we stay out of it? Hypocrit. The US, along with that PNAC that you demonize so often, were teh ones who wanted to go in and stop this stuff. You are the one who wanted to sit back and let the UN handle it. The UN didn't want to back the Shiite uprising. Where is your scorn on that one? Then you go out and suggest that the Shiites can now defeat Saddam on their own when they couldn't when he was at his weakest... You are the hypocrit, not us.

Point: Yeah, they had the power to vote. For Saddam. Only. Kinda diminishes the rights thing, doesn't?

I'm not doubting you (yet), but do you have any credible sources on this one? Wow, that's pretty shitty writing. From reports I've heard, yes, civilians have gotten caught up in crossfires, air strikes, and surprise surprise, Resistance Snipers. Sorry, it'll happen in war. We've also killed over 2,000 insurgents and are pretty much rooting them out of their biggest stronghold. I feel sorry for those who have died, but the action was necessary. Ah great, unconfirmed and anonyamous sources. Those are REAL credible. You do understand that, no matter what the military does, using gas and chemical attacks would be nearly impossible to hide from the military. You can try and shout military blackout all you want, but word will get out one way or another, and the networks would get it. A disgruntled soldier talking to a news reporter, or even one embedded reporter. And you should at least TRY to get an unbiased source on this. Seriously, IslamOnline isn't a very credible reporting service. Article (for those anal about Common Dreams, it was originally published by Reuters) Though I'm sure there have been some incidents which may need to be taken care of, I honestly think to say that the US hasn't tried to take precautions to prevent civilian deaths is absurd because it works against them so much. Of course, you bring this up as a shocking revealation or some sort, which it sort of isn't. *shrugs* So we were in effect excerising Terrorism by going full tilt at Germany and instituting a new government there, right? Because, frankly, we didn't need to go that far. We only did it to prevent a problem. (Before you say "Hitler attacked other nations/us", Saddam has attacked 3 different nations with Kuwait, Iran, and Turkey. He could easily be considered a problem) Secondly, use of force to change governments is not literally terrorism. That's an incorrect definition. It's far too broad, though that's how you would put it to suite your needs. A few different definitions. You are trying to twist terrorism against the US, ignoring the fact that there were legitimate reasons to deseating Saddam. No one wanted Saddam in power (outside his benefactors, of course): He was a dictator who had constantly proven to be a hinderance to Middle East stability. I can't see how you can liken this Again, you try to overgeneralize a complex situation, which is why you point is flawed. Point in case, we started supporting Israel 1) Because it was the first stable democracy in the region and 2) Because it was the defender, not the aggressor, in the initial conflicts to come. The entire reason behind it becoming the most well-armed state in the region is because it has had to fight numerous wars on it's own soil to defend itself from outside invaders. Otherwise you'd better believe that Israel would be only an extention of Jordan right now. Actually, at the moment Israel has started developing a lot of their own weapons. Their small arms and their tanks (With the Merkeva) are starting to become exclusively Israeli, so American Corporations profit less and less from Israel. Just so you know. And, um, please, don't try to speak for the US. You obviously don't know how to, so don't. First off, it's great that you think Bush is a fundamentalist Christian. Good for you, though I don't think he's at that level. He's deeply religious, but you just obviously don't understand how far you have to be to be fundamenatlist. I'd say that he can be a bit over-religious, but I don't think he's nearly at a fundamentalist level. I only wish you could start condemning the Islamic Fundamentalists as much as you do Bush, a 'fundamentalist'. And when it comes to frightening commentary and thinking: Pot, meet kettle.

Doesn't say anything about not doing their job though, except maybe providing evidence that the President's plan(s) or lack thereof suck. Um, point in case, leaking out information if you don't like a guy is moronic to the extreme. It makes you a huge security risk, and frankly, I don't want you if you allow your political leanings to control you that much. I suppose NoCal doesn't understand the concept of 'secrecy' yet, though.

Yet these are probably the same pseudo-hippies that claim the death penalty doesn't perform the same thing... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...did=167#STUDIES Is there evidence that is does deter violent crime? Yup. The perp doesn't commit it again after being executed. -=Mike Ah, brilliant. I would expect nothing less. I actually think rotting away in prison for life would be worse than the death penalty. We just need to make prisons a whole lot shittier. That way at least if evidence comes out later that the perpetrator was innocent at least they're not dead already. I'm sure it's a great reassurance to so many families who lost their loved ones that the man who killed them is still alive, even if imprisoned.

That shouldn't matter. Your job makes up your identity. Your lover makes up your identity. Everything makes up who you are, so I can't understand why it should matter. Does it mean more that he killed me more for sleeping with his wife than me being black? It makes no sense. See, that's the point. What if he kills a brunette then? All the murders of blondes are harsher sentences because of the color of their hair! You are putting them over the brunette because of the color of their HAIR! Doesn't that seem absurd? The degrees of murder do not involve motivation at all, they involve planning and circumstances. It's not a correct comparison. Motivation can be twisted into many different things, and in the end, it doesn't matter as someone is dead in the end. With circumstances, it might have been an acccident, it might have been in the heat of the moment, and it might have been planned. There is something to be said of that, but not motivation. To place more value on someone's life because they are of a different color or belief is just backwards thinking.