null_pointer

Members
  • Content count

    1976
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

289 Neutral

About null_pointer

  • Rank
    Contributor
  1. Wolf's Rain -- the ending

    I thought the world did get remade, then whatever was Darcia's false eye fell into the water and turned paradise back into some grungy city again. It was probably the most anticlimactic ending I've seen - really wierd, especially after they built up all that drama. It makes everything seem rather meaningless. The last shot you see is the original four wolves in the city, apparently doing the same thing all over again.
  2. SHOW ME.

    Quote:null, I think you should be a little more careful when going glorious in your posts. To say something like this, and then to remember 1/3 of the world lives in these kinds of conditions, is a powerful remark. Yes, I agree it's a huge task, and one that will probably not be completed in my lifetime, but I also think that it's certainly worth working towards whether diplomatically or militarily. 1/3 of the world living in such conditions is not something we can just turn our back on, after all. Having freedom and wealth, it would be terribly hypocritical to just sit back and enjoy it while others suffer and die under oppressive regimes. Quote:So, do you elect your country to remove all the dictatorships, starvation, and poverty from the world? I think it would be immoral to see other peoples suffering and then to do nothing about it. Not sure if you're implying it, but no one said anything about excluding other countries from helping us, provided they actually care about it. Quote:If so, you might want to start with yourself, because America is far from the pretty picture you see it in. Furthermore, you might want to address the foreign policy and corporate government the United States practices. I have to admit, that's very convenient. While you're so deeply involved in navel contemplation, no one including you will notice that you are advocating fixing problems here that pale in comparison to problems you'd have us ignore elsewhere. You really think that things such as freedom of speech, the right to vote, and the right to a fair trial in Iraq are less important than whatever problems you say we have here? Obviously, your neighbor didn't "disappear" and then wind up in a mass grave for questioning his government. In order to view far less important problems as being more important, you'd have to place a greater value on the people who are experiencing them. Why are Americans so bigoted? Quote:You might take a moment to even entertain the notion that it is this policy that creates, or at least perpetuates, poverty in the world. If poverty is the lack of resources required to live in a decent sort of way, and the ability to gain those resources comes down to a world market and economy, one of which your nation clearly has a stronghold in, you would be hypocritical to assert that we're doing everything we can to rid the world of ill conditions. Now that's just plain silly. In the first place, economics isn't a zero sum game; the more people who are allowed to participate honestly in the free market, the more wealth there is, and the faster society will advance. I don't see how you can pretend that leaving people oppressed under third-world dictatorship that uses the money for weapons and leaves the people to suffer will somehow turn out to be better than if they were actually allowed to pick their own leaders and to participate freely in the world market. In the second place, why did you drag economics into this? In the third place, I don't recall asserting that we're doing everything we can to rid the world of ill conditions - your bringing it up just sounds like a red herring. Can't you handle discussing the three specific issues that I set forth in my previous post? Quote:So, until you embrace ideas like this, it might be better for you to pipe down. You bother me. If you are an enlist or are enlisting in the United States military or political body, then you annoy me less. Otherwise, you're even more a hypocrite to burn someone about the value of life and serving to save and protect people, when you are clearly not willing to do it yourself. One has to be in the military to be able to debate when the use of military force is justified? And one side of the debate - my side - automatically gets billed as "hypocritical" if they're not in the service? That's not conducive to achieving good military policy by any stretch of the imagination. And I don't think that I need to either embrace your ideas or STFU. [rolleyes] Quote:It's okay to send people to an uncertain fate, just as long as you don't have to do it? Oh, for the love of foot fungus! By that logic you must hate Truman - and many of our military officers - for not personally leading the troops in Korea. [lol]
  3. SHOW ME.

    Quote:Asserting that the war was the only solution to ending Saddam's regime, and it was justifiable enough to turn against the UN, is gung-ho politics. And remember-- the original plan wasn't to free Iraqis, it was to protect the US from WMD's. Bush and Co. didn't think up that whole "liberation" story until later, when they figured out it was the only good they could do(all the while pretending it was their intention from the start). And as of 2001 and even somewhere into the time of The Search For Osama, every American living at home was assured that Saddam was as good as whupped. Please try reading over my posts here and thinking rationally about what I have and haven't said. I don't feel the need to defend assertions I haven't made. Apparently, you think that my posts in response to other people somehow have to do directly with your own arguments such that you feel free to draw all sorts of inferences between what I wrote and what you wrote. I posted here because I wanted to address this attitude of not caring about people in other countries, the idea that somehow Iraqis cannot form a peaceful, stable democracy, and finally the idea that oppressive, nondemocratic governments are OK for some people. These things bug me, not least because I used to hold to them, and many fellow Americans hold to them today. Quote:Talk about the "same silly assertions"... in the future, why don't you look a little more into the situation other than what the GOP is telling you NOW, passing it off as common sense? Careful, you might have a cathartic episode. That was clearly addressed to another poster. If you want to take those remarks and stretch them to apply to your own post, you're perfectly welcome, but you're going to look a bit silly doing it. EDIT: Stupid typos...
  4. SHOW ME.

    Quote:News flash: We're all still just people! But some are more important than others because of where they happened to be born, right? Iraqis aren't worth caring about enough to sacrifice Canadian lives, or money, or time, or even enough guts to hear about the death tolls on the evening news. It's too much. Better to let them starve and die under Saddam's oppression than to actually do something about it and then be forced to hear about the terrorists. I suppose what you don't know about other people's suffering can't hurt you. Or are you trying to say that you actually cared about what Saddam was doing to his own people as much as if it were happening to your fellow "countrymen"? The mass graves? The U.N. scam that he used to cheat his own people out of health supplies and equipment that they needed to earn a living, just so he could stockpile hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives and weapons? The secret executions? The lack of representative government? No free press? The mutilating and/or raping of dissenters? The gassing of the Kurds? The oppression of non-Sunnis? Strange, I don't recall Canada giving a damn about it. The French and the Germans, our great moralists who have such sanctity for human life that they can't bear going to war, couldn't care less about what happened to the Iraqis under Saddam, and they still couldn't care less about helping them establish a peaceful, stable democracy. I know you guys are all upset about the recent munitions fiasco, but I find it rather odd that you couldn't care less what Saddam used the vast quantity of normal explosives for against his own people. Would you be proud if one Canadian died to save five others? Of course. Would you be proud if one Canadian died to save five Iraqis? Dunno, maybe less so. If you had to estimate the relative value of Iraqi lives to Canadian lives, where would you put it? 1:2? 1:5? Would you sacrifice 10 Canadian lives to save 500 Iraqis? Or doesn't it matter? And would you mind telling me how this notion of valuing the lives of one group of people more than another corresponds to what I meant by "we're all just people" such that you can run about claiming "we're all still just people"? In the future why don't you venture an explanation for your comments instead of just repeating the same silly assertions? Careful, you might actually communicate something useful and wind up making a point.
  5. SHOW ME.

    Well, that would be the problem with nondemocratic governments: the people don't have a say in what their government does, and many times they don't even know what's going on. There's no free press, so you know only what the government officials tell you, and anyone who disagreed with Stalin was easily disposed of. Asking questions about the disappearances can get you "sent away," too. Not only that, but you get to be indoctrinated with a state-determined view of history and your position in life, and you get to have your occupation decided for you, your means of earning a living owned by the government. Funny, you'd probably be saying exactly what I just said about nondemocratic governments if you saw it happening here in the U.S. I think this disconnect happens because people tend to take their freedom for granted; after all, if you grow up in a world where the government can't just start executing people on a whim, and you have a free press, you tend to assume that most other forms of government do, too - at least in your mind. Other people tend to have two standards for acceptable living conditions: one that's acceptable for those that they identify with (e.g. fellow Americans), and one for everyone else (e.g. Soviets, Iraqis). I thought the libs kept telling us that we're all just people? Whatever happened to this magical, globalist utopia where we all get together and discuss ideas on how to improve everyone else's lives? Y'know, like the Kyoto Accord. I guess it's a bad thing to care whether Saddam was feeding families through plastic shredders one at a time, feet first, for fun, when we could be worrying about making European leaders feel good about us. Gee, it makes me feel really good about my country to know that we all feell that we're more important than everyone else. Good thing we got rid of that "arrogant" Americanism thingy. [rolleyes]
  6. SHOW ME.

    Quote:Democracy doesn't work in a country like iraq. Undemocratic governments are immoral. You'd say as much if they tried to do it to your country, but someone else's - well, that's their problem. Apparently you value your countrymen above Iraqis, which seems pretty bigoted and selfish.
  7. SHOW ME.

    I thought the OP was a parody of the left. Are you quite sure that someone is actually ignorant enough to believe all that at once?
  8. The Democratic Party

    Why would you want the Democratic Party to go populist?
  9. The Democratic Party

    Damn...you even get a custom post icon. Me? Oh, I'm a compassionate conservative. [wink]
  10. The Democratic Party

    I wouldn't be so sure about Clinton-Obama getting stomped. They'd make a pretty convincing pair, especially with the former being a woman and the latter being black. IMO a significant portion of the population would vote for them based just on those facts.
  11. The recount has already started!!!!!!!

    Quick, everybody erase your GDNet profile information.
  12. The Democratic Party

    I still say Clinton-Obama '08.
  13. Kerry should bow out now - aviod the lawsuits

    Let's not forget all the wild charges Kerry was throwing around during the campaign. According to him, Bush was going to: 1. Pass a draft bill and start conscripting people to increase the size of the military. Dunno how this rumor started because the only draft bill was introduced by two Democrats, and seeing as how Charlie Wrangle was one of them I don't think they were doing it on Bush's behalf. Will Bush now introduce a draft bill immediately after the election as Kerry said he would? 2. Take away the social security checks of the seniors citizens and give them to young kids. Yeah, right. Anybody who believes that an elected official of either party would to this has his head firmly planted in his bum. And for the last time, there's no social security lockbox - after all Gore ran on putting social security in an Iron-clad Lockbox four...what?...twelve years? 3. Continue to run the economy into the ground. Worst economy in 71 years in terms of job loss, but guess what? We inherited the "Clinton" recession, and we also had an precedented terrorist attack on our own soil that shut down the stock market for ~100 days and caused economic chaos for far longer. Let's see how Bush does economically without a terrorist attack on American soil - assuming that happens. And no, I don't want to hear lots of spin with all the leftists continuing Kerry's other talking points to distract from their own charges; I just want you to wait and see what happens during Bush's second term.
  14. Kerry should bow out now - aviod the lawsuits

    Quote:No. Florida has an automatic recount law, and so the recounts occurred automatically. No one had to call for them. Furthermore, the *original* lawsuit was actually filed by the Gore campaign, requesting more time be given to complete the recounts. The only reason the Supreme Court case is called "Bush v. Gore" instead of "Gore v. Bush" is because Gore won in the Florida supreme court, so the appeal was filed by the Bush campaign. As I understood it, the recounts occurred in violation of state anti-election-fraud laws which required any and all recounts to be state-wide. Quote:Usually this term isn't applied until the next election, though, especially considering we still have a Republican majority in both houses of Congress to pretty much do as Bush says. Why are people saying this? The dems have effectively made it impossible to pass a bill with less than 2/3 of the Senate instead of the 51 majority that the Constitution requires. All they have to do is threaten to filibuster, and whammo! instant gridlock. In the old days the people who filibustered had to spend hours and hours talking continuously about absolutely nothing in particular in order to stall the vote, and they looked pretty stupid doing it. Byrd actually filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Now they can do this very easily.
  15. Kerry Concedes

    Quote:On Boston.com There has been more than one poster to the news boards calling for an assination of Bushy. Say what you want about him, but calling for the killing of anyone because you don't believe in their views is assanine. Yeah, but I also heard about an article that asked essentially, "John Wilkes Booth, where are you when we need you?" Wierdos. :P