jimbarry

Ok, so if I don't agree with a moderator, I must leave? There's no way I can discuss it with them (and the group)? I thought this was a "discussion" forum... nice.

There must only be one reason? If we're going to war, seems to me there better be a lot of good reasons. ...and there are.

Only half-right, and backward. Those who make an inflamatory attack (as opposed to a supported assertion) on a group can just say it without support, and only the person or group being attacked has to respond intelligently? That's how an honest debate starts? >From Botellines: >I hope i didn´t really offend anyone with the >term WARMONGER, it was not my intention. You shouldn't backpedal like that. You meant what you meant, and you should see it through. We can take it. But then true, 'warmonger' is a term which can be easily misinterpreted.

Can I get an Amen? Amen. Our enemies want us to lose our freedoms, and they're happier if we take them away from ourselves; insult to injury.

PLF

Yeah, maybe.

Actually, up until the war started, 5-6% of US oil imports were still coming from Iraq. edited to add source: american petroleum institute http://api-ec.api.org

Get real. The war was based on the premise that SH had 12 years to show or prove the destruction of wmd he had (ask the kurds or shiites if you don't believe he had them). SH knew that use of military force was an option given non-compliance. He threw every roadblock he could in the way of UN inspectors, including oil-for-food bribes to UN cronies to keep the US off his back. More time? The inspectors' job wasn't to search and find wmd, it was their job to verify their destruction. SH never believed GWB would come over the hill. SH made a bad move. He had the power to avoid the whole thing. He and his sons could be torturing and murdering as we speak. Then the extreme-left would be cryin' about how Bush's oil deals are keeping him from putting pressure on SH's human rights abuses.

Important? No. Unimportant? Maybe not.... If the young man was singled out because he was black, then it's a shame how much further we still need to go... But then if he wasn't singled out that way, then it certainly makes you think that maybe the Herald singled out that picture to publish... Newspapers like that have hundreds of photos per day to choose from, maybe thousands. Why that one? Especially if the others in the photo were not black. Maybe innocent? Maybe not...

Geweldig? Het geweldig is de wind. De wind blazen zeer snel op de eilanden. PLFs zijn zeer belangriik!

Ik sprongen in paracentrum ameland in april en DZ is goed, groot, (en de grond is zacht voor PLFs). Ik reis naar texel volgend jaar. Mar mischien is dat een grote afstand om van teuge te reizen. Leeuwarden is een ardige Stad ook te bezoeken. Good Geluk voor u! (mijn nederlands is niet goed, mar Ik leer)

Clinton also was simply in the right place at the right time during the tech boom ('94-'98). The economy took off, tax revenues increased, and hence budgets were much easier to balance. Clinton's not to blame for the bust that followed, but he doesn't actually deserve credit for the boom either...

great question. wish i knew. i like the girl ones better. i say ban the manboobies...

Did the producers of that show have enough respect for its audience to advise them that some normally unacceptable content would be included? They should have. Then I may have actually watched it... It didn't offend me, but I respect those people who it did offend... ...unannounced. Sorry, I hate it when people break the rules and impose on my freedom of choice.

Dekker, I like a lot of your posts, but dude, that's the second time you stopped short and drew your own incorrect conclusion of what I said. My last sentence said: "And when you break them, accept the consequences." Breaking the rules through civil disobedience, so that you can work toward changing the rules, can be a perfectly moral and ethical option. As long as you accept the consequences.

Agreed. Amen brother. ed: I'm being sarcastic. My point is that society has rules, it would do us all good to follow them. And when you don't like them, work to change them. And when you break them, accept the consequences.

Did you really read what I posted? Many people aren't offended by a nipple. In fact I'd rather see two at the same time. But it's wrong to do it in that place, unannounced, and they knew it. They did it because "no publicity is bad publicity." And that disrespects society. A respectful society relies on people following rules. When nipples are ok to show on tv, then those will be the rules. And when violence is no longer glorified on tv, I too will applaud.

How's this for getting back on track. Since when do Americans care about what other people in other countries think? How do you like them apples ... eh? If you're going to reply to me, it would be cool if you read my posts in this thread. We're on the same side, dude...

>>For the person who asked about >>the culture of censorship, just take >>a look at the restrictions placed on >>what can and cannot be said and >>shown on tv. >> >>Half a million dollars for a nipple is >>censorship as far as I am concerned. To show a nipple unannounced removes from parents and others who would be offended the choice to tune in to this slice of public airwaves. TV in the US already has content more "offensive" than what Janet showed, and those shows aren't fined, it's just that those shows announce upfront that it will contain graphic or adult content, and most are shown at a later time, so they're given more leeway. Work with and respect society and you'll be given help. Work against it, especially purposefully, and you deserve the consequences. So no, I cannot see how your example is "censorship". Ever since there have been radio/TV airwaves, and the FCC involved, there has been a gradually sliding, subjective, fuzzy gray line to mark what's profane and what's not. But I do agree that this line is currently being pushed too fast and furiously in a direction not supported by the people, by an adminstration on some profanity crusade.

Drifting away from canada and into censorship. New thread.

Well, violence and guns, sure, those are part of american culture. Nothing new there... But what's this about censorship? (be careful not to confuse censorship with freedom of choice.)

al jazeera's not broadcast in the US because they're being censored and denied free speech?? where's your source for that? and how did you conclude that americans are afraid of it? it's probably just low demand. if there was a demand for it, i'm sure there's someone willing to make a profit on it. broadcast, cable, subscription satellite, etc. the US is very market-driven that way... besides al jazeera broadcasts in arabic, not english. how would most americans even understand it? but then, we do get the CBC News on DirectTV. i can't see where the demand is for that in the US either, so go figure...

of course canada has a culture of its own. how is it wrong to advocate that one way of thinking? skydyvr's entitled to his opinion. it's just that most everyone else here thinks he's wrong. so what?

Not sure we should be so tough on skydyvr, because after all, it was Boo-Boo Jimmi-Jank who approved what he said... Why's he off the hook? Side: of course Canada has a culture of its own. why is anyone allowing themselves to get pulled into this "debate"?

Oops, gotcha. You did say that. I extended your point too far. Thanks. Verrry interesting...