Liberal Joke

[deanec]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
deanec wrote:
I look at the same circumstances and see it differently. What was the benefit for Bush to prosecute this war other than his stated reasons?

The man is already wealthy and rich. I would assume he wants what most powerful and wealthy men want…more power. I don’t believe he acted with any intent of misleading the public, but rather full intent of using a tragedy as a springboard to launch his own agenda. The issue isn’t that went to war at all…it is how and when.

[/quote]

What is this agenda?

Do we allow attacks on US soil to occur without repercussion?

What does this have to do with Saddam?

It is part of a strategy/philosophy that says you take the fight to the enemy, not wait for him to come to you.

Did the ineffectiveness of the former administrations policies embolden acts of aggression against us?

I would imagine that any actions would ahve emboldened our enemy. It isn’t like they are “afraid” of us now. They simply find it much harder to get through an airport. I feel that particular aspect could have been handled without war. That takes an increase in security and public knowledge of a threat. Agai, America’s only enemies are not in Iraq.

“Only” being the key word…

Do we want to be proactive or reactive in our policies against our enemies?

That would depend on each individual case. The war in Iraq is “proactive”? We are fighting insurgents, not the ones who are already here in sleeper cells waiting for the right opportunity. These people aren’t that stupid. I know it makes some feel better to think of them as “idiots and cowards”, but think it ill-prepares us for the possibility of another strike that may be planned for efficiently than the last.

Which is why I think what the NSA is doing can be reasonably justified.

I suspect no amount of evidence would be considered enough by those who are against this action.

Ridiculius. No American is hoping to just sit back and wait to be hit. The othe perspective is the understanding that our efforts in Iraq aren’t what will prevent an attack on our own soil using our own resources as was done last time.

Fair enough, if you don’t agree you don’t agree. However those who voted to enforce the resolutions should not be backtracking now. Hindsight is 20/20. How many resolutions have to be passed and how many times should they be broken before action is taken?

It isn’t about never taking action. It is about choosing the right time when half of the country doesn’t believe that the war in Iraq was instigated due to the WTC tragedy. You can pretend that the tragedy wasn’t used to gain support for military action all you want to.

Again this is hindsight. And I am still trying to figure out the personal benefit of military action to the President.

I don’t like a lot of the Patriot act either. However I suspect many who criticize this piece of legislation would be the first in line to blast the administration in the event of another attack on US soil.

Who cares? This isn’t supposed to even be about “protecting the image of your president”. It is about the freedom of the American people. Why do you associate them as if they are one in the same?

I am not trying to protect anybody’s image. The debate is about protecting our freedom and maximizing our security.

Decisions have to be made. I don’t like many of the Presidents policies. I do like the fact that he generally does not back down in the face of criticism and is not as prone as his immediate predecessor to govern via polling data.

Bush’s entire public speaking agenda lately would seem to indicate otherwise. I suspect polls are only ignored up to a point.

Seems to me he is telling his critics to pound sand, despite what they think, he is going to do what he thinks is right.

[facko]

That joke sucked…so do republicans…so do liberals. I’m tired of liberals bein pussies and being so politically correct and none violent. I wish there was a liberal extremist party…so things could actually get down. Violence works better than diplomacy. Republicans are all racist (deep down) and if you are black and republican…you are a disgraceful uncle tom. Any black men on this forum interested in joining the nation of islam pm me.

[The_Mage]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Please support this if you can. How does creating a backdoor to encryption data destroy the encryption business unless this info is given freely? Most systems are created initially with backdoors for designers to my limited knowledge as far as computer systems. I don’t claim to be an expert on encryption, but I’m not clueless to the tech either.

[/quote]

I have little time, but there was also the limit on how strong the encryption could be if it was going to be exported.

That meant no overseas business because the foreign competition didn’t have such restrictions. Also people were worried that the backdoor would be instituted, and nobody trusted the American products because of this.

I believe this was found to violate free speech though, so may no longer apply.

Encryption was considered military technology.

[Professor_X]

[quote]deanec wrote:

What is this agenda?[/quote]

Possibly to finish what his father didn’t. Maybe to even go into the history as a “war president”. Who knows? He is human like everyone else. Unless you actually fall for the line that God spoke to him, I tend to not grant him such mystical authority on such matters as to believe his motivation is purely patriotic.

It is part of a strategy/philosophy that says you take the fight to the enemy, not wait for him to come to you.

But, have you even considered they are already here and waiting? It isn’t the insurgents who came here, took plane flying lessons, and then rammed our own planes into our own buildings.

[quote]
“Only” being the key word…[/quote]

Uh, yeah, thus why all of our focus should not be on Iraq.

[quote]
Which is why I think what the NSA is doing can be reasonably justified.[/quote]

How do you know? The issue is, why do you have so much faith that increased government power will ONLY be used honorably?

[quote]
Again this is hindsight. And I am still trying to figure out the personal benefit of military action to the President.[/quote]

You don’t understand how getting into the history books as “the fighting president” would benefit a man of power?

[quote]
I am not trying to protect anybody’s image. The debate is about protecting our freedom and maximizing our security.[/quote]

How do you protect our freedoms by giving them away so easily?

[quote]
Seems to me he is telling his critics to pound sand, despite what they think, he is going to do what he thinks is right.[/quote]

It would sound to me like he finally, after 5 years, admitted he acted on false intel publicly. That is a huge difference than the attitude he walked into his second term with.

[Professor_X]

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Professor X wrote:

What are you even talking about here? Why do you feel “entitled” to anything? Aren’t we constantly hearing how blacks shouldn’t feel “entitled” to anything on these forums? But it is ok for conservatives?
You aren’t “entitled” to jack shit other than what you have already earned. If you aren’t wealthy right now, you are NOT entitled to be wealthy. You are not guaranteed to be wealthy. Therefore, you are not so much better than the very people you put yourself above. But I’m stupid?

Theres a breakthrough.
Now your starting to sound like a republican!
Atta Boy Professor. I knew you’d come around.
(checkmate)

[/quote]

So, your answer to the crap you were writing is to now agree that it was crap? Cool. Agreed.

[Professor_X]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Please support this if you can. How does creating a backdoor to encryption data destroy the encryption business unless this info is given freely? Most systems are created initially with backdoors for designers to my limited knowledge as far as computer systems. I don’t claim to be an expert on encryption, but I’m not clueless to the tech either.

I have little time, but there was also the limit on how strong the encryption could be if it was going to be exported.

That meant no overseas business because the foreign competition didn’t have such restrictions. Also people were worried that the backdoor would be instituted, and nobody trusted the American products because of this.

I believe this was found to violate free speech though, so may no longer apply.

Encryption was considered military technology.

[/quote]

This is illogical. Are you saying you believe that other companies worldwide don’t install backdoors into their encryption programs? You don’t honestly believe this, do you? You may not know about it (no shit), but why would you assume it isn’t being done?

[deanec]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
deanec wrote:

What is this agenda?

Possibly to finish what his father didn’t. Maybe to even go into the history as a “war president”. Who knows? He is human like everyone else. Unless you actually fall for the line that God spoke to him, I tend to not grant him such mystical authority on such matters as to believe his motivation is purely patriotic.
[/quote]
Maybe it was because he actually believes that what he is doing is the best course of action to protect the country, whether we agree or not.

It is part of a strategy/philosophy that says you take the fight to the enemy, not wait for him to come to you.

But, have you even considered they are already here and waiting? It isn’t the insurgents who came here, took plane flying lessons, and then rammed our own planes into our own buildings.

“Only” being the key word…

Uh, yeah, thus why all of our focus should not be on Iraq.

If ALL our focus is on Iraq, what are we doing in Afghanistan? Why do I keep hearing about domestic spying? Why is Iran in the news?

Which is why I think what the NSA is doing can be reasonably justified.

How do you know? The issue is, why do you have so much faith that increased government power will ONLY be used honorably?

I don’t know for sure, which is why I think the debate is good. Without it, we don’t get anywhere.

Again this is hindsight. And I am still trying to figure out the personal benefit of military action to the President.

You don’t understand how getting into the history books as “the fighting president” would benefit a man of power?

Nope. He is going to be buried six feet under just like you and me.

I am not trying to protect anybody’s image. The debate is about protecting our freedom and maximizing our security.

How do you protect our freedoms by giving them away so easily?

Same answer as above.

Seems to me he is telling his critics to pound sand, despite what they think, he is going to do what he thinks is right.

It would sound to me like he finally, after 5 years, admitted he acted on false intel publicly. That is a huge difference than the attitude he walked into his second term with.

There is a big difference between acting on faulty intel (and admitting to such) and “rushing to war” for “personal gain”. His core conviction do not appear to have changed.

Good talking to you…

[deanec]

X, is that you in the new avatar? For some reason it reminds me of Clarence Gilyard, Jr.

[Headhunter]

[quote]facko wrote:
That joke sucked…so do republicans…so do liberals. I’m tired of liberals bein pussies and being so politically correct and none violent. I wish there was a liberal extremist party…so things could actually get down. Violence works better than diplomacy. Republicans are all racist (deep down) and if you are black and republican…you are a disgraceful uncle tom. Any black men on this forum interested in joining the nation of islam pm me.[/quote]

Are you really Louis Farrakan? (Kidding!)

You will probably get your wish – as the welfare state turns into groups fighting each other for control, the middle-of-the-road parties will appear more and more to be ineffectual. This will radicalize an increasing segment of the general populace into 2 extremes. These two will fight to the death for power.

Hmmm…are we really the Weimar Republic?
(not kidding!)

[ZEB]

[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
A business man fighting for a larger stake in the business at the beginning of the company?

HOW DARE HE!

So you truly believe in being willing to do ANYTHING – including backstabbing your friend.[/quote]

From the little story that you told I don’t see any backstabbing. Gates took a position, and apparently rgued it well enough to convince his partner that he was correct.

I hate to break this to you, but that’s not backstabbing.

(Segway to Seinfeld George Castanza to Jerry) “It’s called negotiation. You try to get the best deal that you can. That’s how Ted Danza made 100-K per episode of cheers.”

Yes, the guy was his FRIEND. He become richer at HIS FRIEND’s EXPENSE (i.e., he is richer because his friend is poorer).

(oh boy…) Yes, I understand, the one who negotiates the best usually ends up with a bit more.

Maybe his “friend” gave in because he realized that Gates was the mastermind behind the operation. Maybe that’s not it at all. Maybe it’s just that Gates was a better negotiator.

You know, he worked harder at it. He was smarter about it. Yada, yada, yada.

[quote]Even if you don’t find any problem with that, well, you made my point.

I, for one, would be incapable of doing what he did. Does that make me “stupid and lazy”? Is the adage “No good deed goes unpunished” true?

I guess my hippie parents taught me wrong then.
[/quote]

No, I don’t think you are “wrong” anymore than I am “right.”

I think this is a matter to be decided between the willing parties. And will ultimately be decided on plenty of things: Willingness (which you wouldn’t have), aptitude (which you probably have plenty of), desire etc.

And in reality, it could be that the other fellow actually got the better of Gates!

How do we know where Microsoft would have been if the roles had been reversed. The other fellow might be worth less today!

It could be that you are looking down your nose for no reason.

[Professor_X]

[quote]deanec wrote:
X, is that you in the new avatar? For some reason it reminds me of Clarence Gilyard, Jr.[/quote]

I don’t know who it is. I just ran across a pic of a guy who was about my skin tone with a bald head. I personally don’t think I have any pics of me screaming for a camera unless taken at the height of orgasm. I just shaved my head again this week after letting my hair grow back so I was just looking for a new avatar.

[The_Mage]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

This is illogical. Are you saying you believe that other companies worldwide don’t install backdoors into their encryption programs? You don’t honestly believe this, do you? You may not know about it (no shit), but why would you assume it isn’t being done? [/quote]

Again it is not just about the backdoor, but that was part of it. Some encryption has backdoors and some do not. The purchasers of encryption software prefer it doesn’t, and prefer that nobody, including, or sometimes especially, a government.

The first time I did forget to mention the limits on the technology to something the government could more easily crack. The US could not export high level encryption, but we could import it.

The efforts were to give the government easier access to “secrets” and the result was damage to American business.

[Professor_X]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Professor X wrote:

This is illogical. Are you saying you believe that other companies worldwide don’t install backdoors into their encryption programs? You don’t honestly believe this, do you? You may not know about it (no shit), but why would you assume it isn’t being done?

Again it is not just about the backdoor, but that was part of it. Some encryption has backdoors and some do not. The purchasers of encryption software prefer it doesn’t, and prefer that nobody, including, or sometimes especially, a government.

The first time I did forget to mention the limits on the technology to something the government could more easily crack. The US could not export high level encryption, but we could import it.

The efforts were to give the government easier access to “secrets” and the result was damage to American business.
[/quote]

Understood, but I don’t see how this relates to insults to Americans. It sounds like a failed attempt at intel. Shit like that is a part of the game and is mostly expected…as long as it isn’t against our own citizens.

[randman]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
A business man fighting for a larger stake in the business at the beginning of the company?

HOW DARE HE!

lol

Please do more…[/quote]

It also cracks me up how ultraliberals (like hspder) always explain away Bill Gates enormous success due to one factor like how he knew this special somebody, he had the right connections, he got lucky, etc, etc. hspder, you boil my blood on these boards like no other. I’m glad you can so easily explain away Bill’s success to make your own mediocre lot in life feel so much defensible.

[randman]

[quote]facko wrote:
That joke sucked…so do republicans…so do liberals. I’m tired of liberals bein pussies and being so politically correct and none violent. I wish there was a liberal extremist party…so things could actually get down. Violence works better than diplomacy. Republicans are all racist (deep down) and if you are black and republican…you are a disgraceful uncle tom. Any black men on this forum interested in joining the nation of islam pm me.[/quote]

Wow, I’ve been waiting for an insightful post such as this on this board. I’ve seen the light. You are completely right. I believe we should all follow your peaceful plea to join this divisive group. It was the content of your post that converted me. We are brothers in Islam now. Where are the meetings being held?

[vroom]

Encryption was considered military technology.

It was considered a munition. I don’t know about the status now, but I suspect not much has changed, given that browsers only use 128bit encryption.

Back in the day we had to work with the treasury department (can’t really remember if that is the right department) to get permission to use strong encryption so that we could conduct business over the Internet with overseas trading partners.

They okay’d the project, the clampdown on encryption wasn’t there to restrict business use and they were very willing to allow commercial projects to use and “export” for direct use in such cases.

Okay, I guess this is way the hell off topic…