We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

	Subtopic	Started By	Posts
	Archive through Nov 02, 2004 Last Post: Nov 02, 2004, 01:10 pm		20
	Archive through Nov 03, 2004 Last Post: Nov 03, 2004, 10:51 am		20
	Archive through Nov 03, 2004 Last Post: Nov 03, 2004, 11:19 pm		20
	Archive through Nov 05, 2004 Last Post: Nov 05, 2004, 05:36 pm		20
	Archive through Nov 05, 2004 Last Post: Nov 07, 2004, 02:48 pm		20
	Archive through Nov 08, 2004 Last Post: Nov 09, 2004, 04:59 am		20
	Archive through Nov 09, 2004 Last Post: Nov 09, 2004, 01:53 pm		20
	Archive through Nov 10, 2004 Last Post: Nov 10, 2004, 03:25 pm		20
	Archive through Nov 12, 2004 Last Post: Nov 12, 2004, 08:11 pm		20

Posted By: Magus Nov 12, 2004 - 12:57 pm

Speaking of Hillary Clinton, I heard she's going to run for President next election. And for several months I've heard good ol' Billy talking about getting the ammendment radified that would allow for more then two terms in office. Knowing the luck of the good ol' US we'd end up with Dublyah for another four years.

Posted By: Sindatur Nov 12, 2004 - 01:08 pm

Hillary running in 2008 is just something the pundits like to theorize about. No serious conversations have been conducted in public by anyone who would be "in the know".

It is way too early to even think about who could be the Democrats choices for Nomination in 2008. Politics is a very changing environment, and a great deal can happen between now and then to bring different people onto the stage, or take people off the stage.

Posted By: Lastone Nov 12, 2004 - 02:39 pm

“And so it begins”

The primaries have not even started but the Hilary bashing starts.

4. "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

Because it’s Hilary Clinton that says it. It’s wrong and liberal.

But basically that same argument is used to support the patriot act. We need to sacrifice some individual freedoms for our security.

But in looking at the above quotation and the subsequent one by President Clinton. Are the sentiments involved any different to those in this quote?

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.”

Logically does not the needs of the many out weight the needs of the one or the few. Is that not the whole reasoning behind laying down ones life for their country?

Here is another quote for you. This from someone who seems to also be arguing for the good of the many.

“Matt 20:25-28 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Far be it for me to try and interpret a book that I do not believe in.

http://home.gwi.net/~maxswan/love_one_another.htm

“We are to be like Jesus Christ who not only lived a life of service to others, but He also gave His life for us,to redeem us from the penalty of sin. We should imitate Jesus Christ in serving others. We should give our lives to serving God, by serving others. God considers the first and greatest among us to be those who put others first and do good for them. The more we give ourselves to serving others the greater we are by God's standard. We must become slaves and servants of others, if we are to be great.”
Seems to me working for others is putting society ahead of the individual.


Hey but this person is probably just a radical liberal.

Posted By: Nomad Nov 12, 2004 - 03:38 pm

I Bow, well said all

Posted By: Magus Nov 12, 2004 - 08:11 pm

I agree with you Lastone. But you did make one error.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."

You said Clinton said this. It was actually Kennedy who said this.

I do love quotes, and love when others use them for evidence. Well played, Lastone. Well played indeed.

Posted By: Lastone Nov 13, 2004 - 04:36 am

Actually I was not clear enough. I was talking about Quote 5 in Merles list as the subsequent quote.

If you read again I never atrributed ask not to Clinton.

Posted By: Magus Nov 13, 2004 - 05:57 am

O.K., I see that. It was my mistake. I saw "Clinton" and "quote" in the sentence above it and didn't read carefully to see "above". My mistake.

Posted By: fanuilh Dec 28, 2004 - 02:15 pm

Some time ago, Lastone and I had a discussion on the veracity of information coming out of Iran. He stated that because of the hosting information he found on a particular Iranian web site indicated the web hosting was located in Texas, it meant that the web site was a fake.

My response was that anyone in Iran with anything to say against the regime was in danger of being killed.

Now we have this, a translation of a post by Mohammed Ali Abtahi, the former VP of Iran -- himself a blogger -- reporting on the imprisonment and torture of bloggers in Iran. Bear in mind English isn't the translator's first language, so the grammar and spelling may not be correct.

"1- Physical torture, punches and kicks: 'he banged my head to the bench that made my recently-operated nose bleed, and later I found out that they broke my nose'; 'they punched us'; 'we were alone in single cells for months'; and things of this kind...

"2- The classical questions about sexual relationships [to create moral scandals]: 'Write down the names of your boy/girl friends'; 'tell us about your illegal [= out of marriage] sexual relationships'; 'what kind of relationship have that girl/guy had with you?'; 'how many times have you been raped, or have you raped?'; and worst of all, they gave the names of 6 reformist activist to one of the girls asking her to confess in writing that she had had illegal sexual relationship with them. And when the girl refused, they brought in a former prisoner (who had turned to their side under torture) who told the girl face to face that he had had sexual relationship with her!

"3- The interrogations were managed by a formerly arrested blogger. A few other bloggers who had [given up and] repented before were under less pressure, and were in a way helping the interrogators who had lack of technical knowledge on the subject [of internet and blogs]. This proves that weak people cannot be trusted in politics. However, we understand the situation they're in and can't really blame them for what they've done.

"4- Objection to the bloggers right to hire lawyers, ignoring their legal rights.

"5- The interrogators lacked technical knowledge [on the subject].

"6- The interrogators tried to force bloggers to confess in writing based on the templates given to them in prison, which were along the same line as the Spider's Web conspiracy article published in Kayhan newspaper. The bloggers were told that they would be freed once their confessions were printed in daily newspapers. Some of the bloggers had accepted the terms, but those whom we met today had not given up.

"7- The bloggers were individually asked to write lies about the sexual and sometimes political corruptness of a number of different politicians. All of them were asked to write about Mostafa Tajzadeh and myself [Abtahi] amongst others."

There is more at the link. I think it's understandable that these people would want to hide their identities and locations, given the consequences of being found out.