Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Who all heard that he was killed by American forces? what are your oppinions on this?

Osama, you meant? 

Hmmm if you ask me, it doesn't really matter whether if he is really dead or not. It is not as if after his death, terrorism will just stop all together.

Anyway, he was old and sickly. He would die soon anyway, with or without being killed by the American forces.

How do I feel about Osama dieing?

....Weee are the champions, my friieeeends....

Here's my opinion:

http://www.madglee.org/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-killed-propaganda/

patriatism in america got a defibulation last night, i think there was even a heart beat. additionally alkida is without its leader, do you know how destructive to that cell a power struggle could be?

@Madglee

there were some interesting idea is there, there are several things i agree with, feel iffy about, and a few things that i absolutely disagree with. i highly doubt the government has been waiting to annouce him dead. if had bean killed durring bush's administration then Bush would have told us. period. you cant realy call the government incompitent for taking ten years to find him. He has the love of his people, he is well funded and as you said, they help eachother. they would get a idea of were some were, then when they would get there they would be gone. i disagree with how negative you are about it, this was without a doubt  a step in the right dirrection. none the less i enjoyed reading your perspective.

EndMaster, your the best.

I believe that killing Osama is indeed a step in the right directon, althouhg it is nowhere close to dealing with the terrorist threat, or even al kaida as an organization. And the FBI's most wanted list says Usama, I don't know if that is a typo or not but the FBI would probably spell check their stuff better, especially if it will be spreat internationally. And no the government wouldn't keep that information from us for an entire decade,  you would have to admit that after all that crap the Bush administration got about the Iraq War, he would take any victory to boost morale.

They're both correct, Usama and Osama. It is hard to translate Arabic to English so don't blame the FBI nor any source for their incorrect spelling. Either way, this war had never been about Binladen or Bin Laden in the first place. If you do in-depth research, you'll realize that Ussamah Bin Laden or Oussama Ben Laden is just a scapegoat.

your kidding right? you call the leader of the terrorist cell a scape goat? the guy behind 9/11 a scape goat? ... ya you have to be kidding... hahaha...

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I have done too much research to be joking at this rate.

if you had done any research you would know he was still calling the shots and that it was him sending corespondence that us to him.

excuse me, led us to him.

Did the media tell you this, or are you in the CIA?

well then, were did you get your research?  did the media tell you all of it? or are you in the CIA? out matched by my understanding of the situation are we? clearly your only option is to say ive been misinformed instead of coming up with an iteligent oppinion.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeell, I never said the war was caused by our want to kill Usama, just that it was a step in the right direction. And, personally I am not going into the causes of what started the war because quite frankly just about everyone has a different opinion about it, and some get agressive with their opinion. And Usama is not "merely a scapegoat" he was a very powerful political (don't try to deny it) leader, especially in the middle-east. And even in the West where he is known as a terrorist, he is a household name. Don't mistake my calling him a well loved political leader means I am trying to justify his actions, what he did goes against my idea of "right". But he is not "merely a scapegoat".

I'm just glad it's overwith. Now that his reign of terror is over, we can focus on more, resonable issues. The three wars America is fighting! Why are we even fighting Afganistan anyway? They've never lost. Fighting is all they know! Why are we fighting Libya? For us? No. For the English! Yes, this killing of Laden is a small victory, but it can help us to focus more of the more important things.

Intelligent opinion? I beg your pardon. Where did I get my research? Easy, political leaders, informants, and people who actually know what is going on. Aside from your aggresive demeanor to debate everything, first of all, I doubt you are even considered an adult at your age. Secondly, if you think I'm wrong, then obviously you're not someone important that I could be corrected. And thirdly, I may not know everything, far from it, but you are away out of your league on this Specific issue.

so, was that supposed to be your rebudle? still trying to discredit me instead of actually saying something worth hearing? ok, whatever floats you boat.

Oh god, I hope Cysid isn't an adult, she needs room to mature. And are we really fighting Afghanistan, I thought we were fighting IN Afghanistan with various terrorist elements (I ask merely for information, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers.). I honestly don't quite know why we are fighting in Libya, besides the obvious Kudhafi is a dictator reason. Oh, and Cysid, instead acting extremely immature, lets treat this like a debate, that could be fun. And if we are, you are going to need to cite your sources if you are claiming to get facts from political leaders.

did you mean to say Cysid? or Erudite? replace "Cysid" with "Erudite"

ya, i can not beleive that you are using Politicions as reliable sorces, you minus well say you got your information from wiki pedia.

You know what, I don't have time to argue with a child. Anything worth hearing? I don't think you have said anything worth looking at from even one of your posts. Aside from your rudimentary english skills, you are nothing more than a child who think they are always right. Eventually you will learn you are not, until then, there are still a lot of hefty lessons you need of acquire before you even start on that narcissism.

I did notice what you called "rudimentary english skills." I didn't even think such things would be allowed on a writing website. I'm a poet as well as a writer, and I post those on fictionpost.com, and they warn you that your posts will get deleted or disregarded if you don't type in proper English. It's silly not to, it just makes you look less intelligent and incapable something rather easy. As far as Bin Laden goes, hey, he's dead, it's a small victory for the WORLD, not the U.S. Because I would bet my guitar that the U.S. isn't just in it for the protection of ourselves, but our allies and wordly interests as well. A dead terrorist is a good terrorist. If anything, I'm afraid of the terrorist retaliation. Think of it if we were in al-Qaeda's sand slippers: They just killed Barack Obama, and maybe a few other leaders as well. The U.S. would retaliate within hours. We would be out for their blood until we irradicated the entirety of their forces. You gotta look at both sides of the coin.

I cannot help but feel that the U.S focused a lot of it's hatred upon a single individual, irrationally trying to represent the ideals of al-Qaeda in him, and him alone. Of course, Bin Laden was a key member (The leadership has long been decentralised), but the hatred of western culture which fired him, and still fires all who followed him, existed long before the existence of Bin Laden or al-Qaeda. While at one point this would have been a significant move in the 'War on Terror', now it is merely a setback for the numerous groups which follow the extreme ideals characterised by al-Qaeda, and is largely symbolic. Indeed, it may prove detrimental, as it will inspire more to take up the cause, at least temporarily, and reprisals are also a significant posssibility.

On a side note, deadly-sinner, thank you for restoring my faith in the human ability to write.

this goes out to Erudite, take your own advice sense you clearly cant argue with me.

You know what, I don't have time to argue with a child. I know you have said nothing worth looking at. Aside from your Awfull english skills, you are nothing more than a child who thinks they are always right. Eventually you will learn you are not, until then, there are still a lot of hefty lessons you need to Learn before you even start on being a narcissist.

there were alot of gramatical errors in your advice so i fixed it before i gave it back to you. :)

Although a fallacy, it is used quite often, and is usually justified. Besides, attacking a person based on that conclusion only rectify what I am saying, assume stereotypes are a fallacy (depends on what you believe or not believe a fallacy is) and we say all asians are bad drivers. Does it mean that it is true? Maybe, but where does the stereotype come from? Depending on the popularity of regarded generalizations, there might be Some truth to it and not just a statement made in prejudice. Do regard it as false since it is a fallacy? Wouldn't that be using Argumentum ad Logicam? And what, you're correct because you pointed out my fallacy? That would be using authority as a fallacy, in this case because you're part of the staff of CYOA or because you have more experience with writing than I do.

Either way, most of us follow by example. Thus being, authority figures and writers/speech writers have been known to use fallacy on a daily basis to take advantage. Is it wrong? Maybe. Do they still do it? Yes.

In the first place, there isn't scientific evidence for everything. And even there were, it does not necessary conclude that as a fact with due evidence. I mean, aside from the most generalized ideas, really, most facts are just theories that have yet to be proven wrong. Only time will tell if a fact will remain such. That being said, even if we 3 witnesses who said it happened does not mean it did happen in that event. One, the witnesses could have been bribed. Second, we cannot always trust our senses, they have a tendency to betray. Three, the witnesses lie due to persuasion. There are many ways to corrupt evidence and proof, yet it will *prove* to be correct when experimented over and over. There is no liable way to say that you would trust my evidence no matter how convincing it might be too. Hell, there are enough fallacies to cover every sentence of every book, almost.

So don't give me that crap about not having evidence means what I know is wrong. Yes, my sense could have betrayed and I heard it wrong. Yes, my friends could have been lying to me. And yes, words of a single person isn't enough to say something is true or something happened, but it hell doesn't make you right.

Oh, not to mention, you're criticizing my character over it? Contradiction, much?

Wow, my respect for 3J just increased massively. I completely agree to your statement, and Eurodite, Saying that many people resort to fallacys makes it true and stereotypes are also true because they have to be based on something is completely BS. If a lot of people's agreement decides whether an idea is true or not, does that mean Nazi-ism (not quite sure on what that is actually called, I just figured it would be Nazi-ism for lack of a better term) or raceism is true? Just because Hitler convinced millions of people to follow him does not make his ideas true. And yes, stereotypes are based on something, but that something is normally exagerated beyond the actual observation, which makes it a fallacy. Also, namecalling (in this case calling someone a kid) does not disprove his point, if anything it might actually make your audience think you are immature and would rather fight than make an actual point. And if actual debating taught me anything, not rebuking an argument in effect proves it right. Also, 3J, have you ever been in a National Forensics League debate (or sometihng of the kind), you seem to know the rules and have respect for the process.

And you should not judge someone based on what you see on the computer (in this case comparing grammatical and spelling errors to stupidity). I'm not sure who it was who said that they were against ugilick's argument because of those and said Eurodite was doing something along the lines of redeeming his/her hope for the english language. Also, if Ugilcik is a kid (not saying he is), that doesn't prove that your argument is correct. I know some kids (as I'm sure you do too, even if you won't admit it) that are far smarter than their parents, and , unfortunately, far more mature.

Repost because where i stuck it earlyer people wont see it.

this goes out to Erudite, take your own advice sense you clearly cant argue with me.

You know what, I don't have time to argue with a child. I know you have said nothing worth looking at. Aside from your Awfull english skills, you are nothing more than a child who thinks they are always right. Eventually you will learn you are not, until then, there are still a lot of hefty lessons you need to Learn before you even start on being a narcissist.

there were alot of gramatical errors in your advice so i fixed it before i gave it back to you which i find funny sense its one of the ridiculouse things you were scolding me for. its not about the years under your belt, its about the experience in your years. A special thanks to 3J ThisisBo and everyone else that knows how an intelligent debate is supposed to go. allso, supposing im 7 years old, doesnt that make you even more pathetic that you cant beat me in an inteligent debate? and yes its true it will not be very long untill they get a new leader, Osama Bin Laden was a evil person, but there are plenty more where he came from. :)

Unfortunately so. However I have seen a slight morale boost in some of the people around my town,and as much as I dislike the thought of others taking pleasure in someone's death, I think that is a good thing in these times, even if he doesn't have as much power as he said he did.

Let me refrase that. replace " as he said he did" with "as he used to have"

What, how is that correcting me? You just made my words worse Ugilick, go away and leave this conversation to adults.

And Banisher, when you starting criticizing me, this has already turned away from the debate. If that is what you're getting at, then you clearly misunderstood my intentions. I didn't mention anything about Osama in my previous post. No, it was a refuting of whatever logic you seem to think you understand.

Who cares how often it is used? Are you kidding me? Who in the right mind not care how much a word is used in a sentence, much less stating fallacies? And you were the one who said that was a debate, coming to assumptions, are we? I said Ugilick wants to debate on everything, never said I was debating when I responded.

And for your information, details are what matter. Let me see you sign a contract without overlooking the articles. Your logic astound me.

Something tells me this chick/guy didn't really understand what we were saying. just give up Eurodite, we were trying to point out the flaws in your argument, not make a personal attack on your character. And yes, you did prove Ugilick's statement, you acted childish in your own right and I'm not even gonna start on your othr arguments cuz I have to do something, I'll adress those later

All right, I'm back. I don't actually remember anyone accusing you of using too many words in a sentence, but we were using the term fallacy to point out why you were losing the argument. Also, we were stating your lack of rebuttal, which normally means you can't prove him wrong, and how you subsituted it with name-calling. (I'm assuming to hang on your last strands of ego because you know you were gonna lose the debate, or argument if you don't want to use that term.)

Also, you don't verbally acknowledge that it is a debate in order for a debate to begin, you just have to be aggressive or otherwise argumentative, we were just trying to keep it in the form of a debate in order to keep things civil, which you obviously don't care about. I'm sorry if my words come across as offensive, or otherwise insulting, but by this point I can see that you no longer wish to engage in a civilized debate.

i dont ever remember saying "details are what matter". weird. anyways ya, i tend to emmulate who i am debating with. i try to get at there more at there level i suppose. its a reason i realy like debating with people who are smarter than i am. im getting pretty tired of this because once someone has cemented there feet into the ground there isnt anypoint in telling them that there in the wrong spot. and no, errudite i fixed lots of errors in what you said, espcially tense errors. anyways, im out of this at this point its gotten silly.

Never stoop to the level of idiots ugilick, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with years of experience

Yes, I am! I refute you to prove otherwise! ;p

Either way, this started when I felt Ugilick has a personal vendetta against me or something. I have read a lot of posts in this forum, and he/she always seem to be wanting to debate/wrangle me. I am in short supply of temper today, so I played some part. Though, if you really want evidence, I can provide, just over the phone. Can't post in an inconspicuous internet forum. If you need, I can also give a few numbers of some important people. Well, the important part is mostly reserved for JJJ since I don't really know the rest of you that well. Neither do I for Banisher, but his position as admin is reputable enough.

I didn't actually mean to call him/her an idiot, its just a quote ugilick and I know, sorry i forgot to add context

@thisisbo

way to quote ME in telling me what to do man

actually it was a man named Edd Paulk that said it first, but who cares.

Lol I told you I knew it before you told me, I just didn't know where, I think I put it on facebook once.

I honsetly think that it is good for the familes to get some closer on stember 11. Do I think he was important.....Yes acutally. I think that while he might not have been leading the ALkiada froces drictly. He was still an important symbol of there leadership. I think I feal more relif than happiness in his death because he has finally paid for his crimes. I also believe that if there is a higher power out there he should be punished in the after life.

Now to lighten the mood a little bit. Last Friday the world wacthed a commoner marry a real prince charming. Last Sunday one of the most dasterdly villians in American history was killed. Yes my friends aperrintly this weekend was sponsered by Disney.

Sorry for the spelling.

Oh Disney, the delight of furries everywhere

Of course your joking right? Besides I only side that to lighten up the morbid and anger feeling this froum has. I think it is a good joke of course you might be of a different opinian.

Wee rely nied tu implument spel czek. eye wantid tew slamm mie ballz en uh kar dor reedeeng theez posts. If eny of yew arr "ADULTS" thin yoo shuld bee moar then capeabull of spe.ling

Most of us do know how to spell, but not everyone in this site is an adult. You'll just have to endure.

1.) yes I was making an untasteful joke.

2.) Just because someone spells things wrong on the internet, it doesn't say anything about their intelligence.

3.) Eurodite, you have no proof that anyone is a child (part of the anonymity of the internet) and insulting their character using unproven facts has no basis and therefor should be discontinued.

4.) we have already established the fact that age doesn't matter as much as maturity, which you obviously don't have Erudite, this forum would not be nearly as argumentative if you would just give up after you lose. Part of being mature (or being an adult, since you clearly like that term) is knowing how to take things calmly and maturely. Insulting other people's character in an attempt to prove a point or clinging on to a failed argument and making snide comments afterwards is NOT acting like an adult.

I can not spell to save my life and for some reason this site does not give my computer spell check. Really resorting to using the Child vs Adult insult argument agin. Can we just consider it a mute point and move on? Who cares about my spelling or my age my opiain as a person matters just as much as anyone eles. Also if you are going to insult my intellagence at least come up with an inslut that is a bit creative.

Thanks for supporting my point, and I noticed a check spelling feature on the forum posting, it looks like a check with ABC above it. I've never actually tried it, I don't trust spell checks because they don't normally correct grammatical errors so if I have to check for those, I might as well check for spelling errors.

Bo, I really don't understand what you're trying to do here. Really, I don't. Deadly Sinner mentioned something about spelling, and you're jabbering on without recourse. I believed we ended the conversation about Ugilick a while ago, you're the one who seems to think that your persistence is reasonable. Please scroll up, read, and reassess what you're trying to say. And as far as I am concerned, we have established nothing about maturity being more pertinent to the conversation than age. And I doubt I have lost anything, on the contrary, I said I will provide evidence if insisted, on the phone.

While you, if an adult, is a prime example to support your logic, society see different no matter your reasoning. If they didn't, we would have more frequent drunk driving. If for relevance of this site, we can say that clicking "Post Message" before checking your spelling is an indication of your character more than anything. Whether that be impulse, irresponsibility, or even have thoughts pertaining to check, that would be a more worthy measure of your intelligence. So yes, age matters in this case since empiricism would implicate thus. Though, a careful measure of a person's rationale is whimsical. You cannot predict when they're truly mature, or whether they're using consistent thought throughout their quarrels. A entity who is essentially the personification of mature one moment can rely solely on Sigmund Freud's regression when his limit is stagnant. Though, you can evaluate my basis on the actual, ideal, and the ought self, but I personally see Kelly's Personal Construct Theory a better collaboration of maturity and experience. How emotional are you? Does it affect your judgment, or will you rely on maturity as a better gauge for intelligence, or was it sophistication?

What people don't realize is that even the most subtle habit is usually a symbolism for something bigger. When dating, do you not calculate and sense these signs? Most females do it to classify males into worthy or unworthy categories. That is usually the first impulse before you approach them or talk to them. First is look and judge, then reassess when you both converse and banter. So, maturity, if you assay such a word based on intellect, you would be considered joking. I could care less how mature you are if you could barely write. It tells me that you have no enthusiasm to learn, and on that assumption, stagnant on reasoning. Of course, you could say that not everything depends on knowledge, it could also contain some substance of heredity, personality, or experience, but nevertheless, most decision is better made when you have that knowledge whether it proves to be useful or worthless. A fifty year old man on this site would be writing like an elementary student because they never graduated high school, and henceforth, I will treat them thus.

A far as what I'm trying to do here, at first it was voicing my opinion, then it was disproving a few arguments, then upholding the debate system and how you win or lose, and prove points right or wrong, then it was arguing maturity over age, which although you didn't directly bring up you did insist on, instead on focusing on the acts, calling your opponent a child, and so I rebutted that maturity is more important and applies more to intelligence than age. And on that point I would like to add that because my argument on that matter got more support, I considered it established. And after the age/maturity debate you made a snide comment about some people on the site not being adults so whoever it is your were talking too needs to make concessions, which re-opened the debate.

Also, frequent drunk driving is not based on anything relevant to my argument, which is that maturity affects intelligence more than age, and so I fail to see why you posted it. And if you had read my previous comment thoroughly, you would have noticed that i did not say that I refused to spell check, only that I don't trust internet spell checks due to previous errors and would rather do them myself, which means I do spell check, so your argument on that topic is based on a false assumption.

On empiricism, doesn't the theory of empiricism state that  knowledge is gained through experience? And if so, how would you define experience, merely living several years without any intelligent actions or a person who was, say, twenty, and already witnessed several intellectual happenings, such as debates, lectures, etc. In either case, I believe in rationalism, which states that intelligence comes from pure thinking rather than experience or what you see or here. In other words, it is based on reasoning, which is how it got it's name.

On emotion, yes, it does affect my judgement from time to time, as it does all human beings, including you. And I did say that maturity is a better gauge for intelligence. Good job with citing your sources this time around by the way ;)

Clearly, you misunderstood. Oh, and we wonder why we have wars. Anyway, what I said about spelling check is applied in general, not you specifically. The drunk driving aspect is mostly due to age, you don't have peer pressure to drink and drive at 50, do you? No matter how mature you might be, that says less about intelligence. If a teen has no knowledge of drunk driving, it ends in the same result. Same goes for maturity, if you feel yourself isolated from the rest of the age group, you will succumb to peer pressure no matter how mature you are. Look at all those teen movies or even real life example, you cannot depend on maturity or intelligence all the time as I have mentioned following. If we could completely depend on our logic, we wouldn't lose our train of thought when we think or speak. The fact that we do implies that we stop in interval with logic, reasoning, and recalling memories or experiences. Although age isn't a better indication of intelligence, it is much more efficient than per say, maturity.

And as for empiricism, your argument was maturity is more important than age, not intelligence coming from pure thinking. I also believe you are somewhat repeating me, but with more words and more specific.

" It tells me that you have no enthusiasm to learn, and on that assumption, stagnant on reasoning. Of course, you could say that not everything depends on knowledge, it could also contain some substance of heredity, personality, or experience, but nevertheless, most decision is better made when you have that knowledge whether it proves to be useful or worthless."

When I said, "you could say that not everything depends on knowledge", I actually meant that even Without knowledge, you could make a choice or decision and have that same outcome. And I further go on by saying, "most decision is better made when you have that knowledge whether it proves to be useful or worthless."

So, your personal belief of rationalism is really just a response that I had already given an answer to. And what you said about the seventy year old guy is possible, which leads me to come to " I could care less how mature you are if you could barely write. - A fifty year old man on this site would be writing like an elementary student because they never graduated high school, and henceforth, I will treat them thus." So yes, I will treat anyone like a child whether they be so or not if they don't know how to write according to their writing age. However, you wanted to prove to me that maturity matters more than age. No, their writing age counts, very much so.

Another thing, if I wanted to reopen that debate, I would have responded earlier than saying nothing at all. Remember what you said, saying nothing at all actually proves to affirm more thought than speaking itself.

Oh by the way, rationalism isn't all that hyped up as it seems. Oh gosh, this is recalling so much nostalgia from my philosophy classes. xD

They should have more philosophy classes in schools, I enjoy it and I never had the opportunity to enroll in one, I know that's for my section of Alabama, so I'm not trying to say they don't have them anymore. Anyway, on to business...

On drunk driving: thanks for clarifying, I think I understand your point better now, but I still disagree. While it is true that a fifty year old doesn't suffer from as much peer pressure, that doesn't mean it won't happen, hopefully people will have friends but they will lead you into some kind of trouble eventually,maybe I'm a pessimist but that's how I feel about that. Also, just because someone is a teen doesn't necessarily mean they will be subject to peer pressure, although everyone will give into it at least once in their lives I'm sure, maturity could also cause a teenager not to drink, and if they did get a designated driver, just like the 50 year old man here. Forgive my personification of the word maturity here but I can't think of a better way of explaining it.

That's all I'm gonna write for now, cuz  I left this screen up for I don't know how long trying on a tux, and now I'm gonna do some charity work. I might be back on later, if only for alpha mafia

this is a fact of life, its not about the years under your belt, its about the experience in your years. ive met alot of old fools. and Erudite, you cant prove your sorces, saying i can prove it over the phone is totall garbage. you did lose the debate because you couldnt addiquitly rebuddle any point i made and you relied upon a childish form of arguing. well im right cuz im older than you... you dont know that... for all you know im 99 years old... dont like it? deal with it. and if im nine, the fact you cant come up with a lagitament reply to my points is even more pathetic. i never wanted to argue, i wanted an intelligent debate, one i didnt getting.

I'm going to say that you didn't read this entire thread and just going to ignore you. And I think you're the only one who wanted that intelligent debate there. From what I could tell, most of us were just speculating and voicing our opinions. I do have the facts even if I didn't present it, though, I doubt you know what garbage is if you speak in garbage.

no i read the entire thread, i hit on little things i saw that irritated me. thats all. and again you cant rebuddle me. im threw. :)

Although I don't like kids all that much, I'll just say this. Reassess everything that has been said and try again. And this time, think before you speak or in this case, write.

i said im threw, there is no more from me. you have not constructed a valid enough point that i want to talk about it.

Not asking you to talk, just giving you advice. Whether you take it or not is up to you.

I'm not listenint to you, I'm not listening to you la, la, lalala

Ugilick, I swear to Allah, God, Buddha, and the flying spaghetti monster, I'm going to interweb rape you if you don't start spelling correctly. You all seem to be older than I, who is 18, and I can spell correctly. I learned so by reading, and caring about spelling. It isn't even that difficult. I don't mean to a douche, but you guys are misspelling words like opinion. Did any of you ever get past chapter books in reading? This is a reason I liked CYS when I came, most people knew the English language well. As for the arguments on this thread, they're pretty stupid. Everyone wants to argue about nothing. If I were a Moderator/Admin (COUGHCOUGH) I would close this thread. 90% of what was posted here didn't have shit to do with bin Laden anyhow.

Well you are not the youngest here. That would most likely be me, at the age of 15. Also my abc check butteon is faded out and I can not use. I apoligize in advance for the bad spelling.

I do agree that this fourm has gotten slightly off course with all the aguring going on here. Lets get back to the orignal discussion or butter yet change it slightly.

Did you think the president should have released the photo's of Bin Laden's corpse?

I have mixed feelings about it. Than after thinking through I fromed this opinion. No, I agree with his disscion. While everyone thinks that photographic evidience will stop conspircys from poping up I disagree. Think about the moon landing people think that was faked even though we have physical evidience to the contray. Most people never believe what they read and only half of them believe what they see. Also all that relaseing the photographs will do is make him more of a mytar for Alkiada. That is why we are destorying all evidence of his death site so he can't be worshipped. Also realsing the photographs would most likely insight more retailation attacks from Alkiada.

Well you are not the youngest here. That would most likely be me, at the age of 15. Also my ABC check button is faded out and I can not use. I apologize in advance for the bad spelling.

I do agree that this forum has gotten slightly off course with all the auguring going on here. Lets get back to the original discussion or butter yet change it slightly.

Did you think the president should have released the photo's of Bin Laden's corpse?

I have mixed feelings about it. Than after thinking through I formed this opinion. No, I agree with his disscion. While everyone thinks that photographic evidence will stop conspiracy from popping up I disagree. Think about the moon landing people think that was faked even though we have physical evidence to the contrary. Most people never believe what they read and only half of them believe what they see. Also all that releasing the photographs will do is make him more of a martyr for Alkaid. That is why we are destroying all evidence of his death site so he can't be worshiped. Also releasing the photographs would most likely insight more retaliation attacks from Alkaid.

Spelled checked on word this. This is also to get the screen more normal agin.

I'll just ignore the spelling errors, I spoke my piece about them earlier. ;) I do personally believe that Osama was killed. And I think that the photographs shouldn't be available to the public. As Americans (I apologize to those who aren't, I know we have some Canadian and Australian friends here), we need to believe in our leader, whether we support his views or not. It would take a very dishonest leader to lie to whole country about something so serious. That's like Batman telling Gotham he killed the Joker, when he in fact, did not. It may sound nuts, but I didn't like our previous president very much. I was against his plans on the War on Terrorism, and to be put simply, I'm the most democratic mofo in the Midwest. That being said, I still respected and supported Bush. Sure, he made a lot of decisions I didn't agree with, but you have to stand by your leader, save for extreme cases. Bitching about the president and what he does isn't going to get you anywhere. Back to the evidence. Like you mentioned, no one would believe it anyway. Blame 4chan.

Actually, conspiracy theories mostly propagated through civil unrest. And herein lies the issue, what is more important, the mental health of the population or trying to appease a seething tension between historical, cultural, economical, religious, and racial deviations? Before we ask what the risk is therein, what is the cause of it without? A proponent of technology responds ever increasingly with methods of distortion, so even if the population calls false, it can be authenticated with several learned techniques.

Democracy, that is where your belief went wrong. A proper democracy questions their leader, not to complain so in much as to limit and restrain the corruption of political influence. Think of it this way, we're the PP, Public Police, we contain and perpetuate what the congress isn't able to, at least in response to the public appearance of the country. Lobbyists are the yin, and the congress when combined with the Judicial Branch, Public Opinion, and International correspondence equal yang. As with any yin and yang, yin has good as well yang having corruption. If you really think, even the most simple of lie implicate so much more, e.g. Bill Clinton. Yes, he did some(depends on your opinion) good, and his affair is bad for the image of America, but the main issue wasn't whether or not he cheated there but how he was able to lie and in public. It is justified to say that getting away with a simple lie begets major lies, case in point, war. I mean, even Bush did better than Clinton concealing the truth. Though, you know, there weren't as many political conspiracies as when Bush Jr. came into office, well, at least they didn't matter as much to the general populace.

Ever since the president was given even more power than when Congress, Presidency, and Judicial branch held the fundamentals steady, there isn't really much to your democracy than perhaps just the word itself. In fact, just say that you're in a dictatorship in where the leader is afraid of rebellion so it dresses up nicely in a monkey suit. And that where is propaganda comes in, North Korea! If you're thinking you have more freedom in America than say North Korea, you must be joking. You mean you have the appearance of freedom, see the movie Adjustment Bureau? Yeah, that's right, you know nothing about what happens behind the scene. In fact, many methods a dictator would use is just as well effective in a so-called "American Democracy". Demostration? Woo, good for you, just don't expect anything out of it. There is blood in a violent uprising, but in a protest, you might as well grovel on your hands and knees and beg. Of course, as far as law is concerned, there is many ways to circumvent your rights, whether from being legally able to kill a protester and call it terrorism to making you disappear or pardoning whichever prisoner the president wants the last day of his office, either way you get screwed in the end.

I could care less about conspiracy theories, but don't bullshit to me about democracy.

I reread my post, correction: Demonstration. I type too fast.

I was not saying that we should not disbeilieve him. I was saying that we do not want the photos out there so Bin Laden can become a  bigger mytar than he already is. I know what the president said was bullshit. Please there was a raid with the corraporation of the Pankinstein goverment where heliecopter crashed than was completely destroyed and no one got hurt. Yeah that is bullshit and we all know it.

On the whole Democracy is a scam thing. I do not really believe it was ment to be a scam and I do not think it was for a long time. Now it might be. I do however believe that no matter how bad things get things will get better. I still think that if the goverment did something huge about our rights there would be revolt but what is the chance of that with all the spineless idiots in capital hill. Politicions here no longer care about what is good for the country they care about there public image and how to further there crearos. We have lost the sense of Democracy maybe we can revive it but as of now democrocy sucks.

I dont know how true this is, havnt researched it. within the compound where bin laden was living, information was found about another terrorist attack that he was planning for september of this year. if anyone finds something supporting or deffying this post your sorce, otherwise give you oppinion on it.

Well, honestly I didn't actually read any of the posts that came after mine except for that dude with Dilbert as a profile pic and cool74 saying we should change the subject. I really don't care if they provide the pics or not. The death was reported by the Pakistani government as well as our own and the pics were not released (according to the government) because they were too gory, and I really wouldn't want to see a guy with a hole above his left eye where his brain should be. However, conspiracy theories like this one are going to be cooked up by anyone wanting attention (especially in a television show), anyone repeating what those people say in order to sound intelligent, and anyone who is just anti-government in general. Also, I have heard worse theories than whether or not Usama is dead (by worst I mean just plain stupid and not based on facts) because at least people have a reason to believe that Usama is alive. I mean theories like "Obama is a terrorist, 9/11 was planned, the moon landing is fake" and even though I did not support Obama in the election, I don't like all this dirt being thrown around about him, I mean, like him or not he is still our president, which has to count for something. And (going back to another post on a different forum) the dirt throwing, conspiracy thing is one of the reasons I prefer CNN or other news shows rather than FOX.

Just say Cool 74's comment on the top of my screen. Although that topic is indeed debateable, I don't believe democracy itself sucks, or even our way of implementing it, but sometimes individuals do get in the way of progress. Or in this case groups, like the Democrats or Republicans, even if you do consider yourself one or the other (like I consider myself conservative because the majority of my views are conservative) you need to think about each issue individual, what you thing about it, and then make your decision rather than blindly following a party. I don't recall anyone on here doing that, but you would be surprised how many people I see daily who do.

Also Dilbert-dude (I can't remember your name)  I also got my spelling from reading a lot.

My Dad always told me reading makes you smarter. And JJJ, I'll keep what you said in mind. I just think constantly not having trust in your leaders is bad. I don't necessarily like Obama, but I'll put my faith in him as leader. Unless someone really fucks it up, I can feel good about putting my faith in them as a leader. And also, everyone refer to me as Blake. Dilbert guy isn't bad either.

I've read most of the thread but the off-topic arguing is extremely boring and tl;dr, so my apologies if I'm bringing up something that has already been discussed.

I believe that he was killed, but I don't think it's made as big an impact on Al Queda as the US government is making it out to be. No doubt that Osama would have trained countless other people to do his job in the ten years since 9/11, and although it's an inconvenience to the terrorist group they will recover quickly. Also, I don't think people should be too worried about retaliation attacks - there's been ten years since 9/11 occurred and if the terrorists could do something to hurt the US I think they would have done it by now. By the way, this paragraph is entirely my opinion founded on just my own logic, not any empirical evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong (I actually welcome it). Anyway.

Do you think the White House administration should have released the picture of Osama dead, despite its gory nature?

From what I've heard in radio interviews the main reason they kept the photo private was to avoid it being used as propaganda by terrorist groups, not the gore factor (though they did repeatedly mention that the photo was very gruesome). Do you think there would be much of a risk of this (propaganda etc.) happening if the photo was released?

Pictures..? So what, their leader dying isn't important?

In a way yes. It boosts our moral, maybe makes them lose some of there. But if any thing he was just a symbol of muntniy aginst the U.S. He probely was no longer important.

As I have pervisly stated. The U.S is going to great leangths to not make Osama a mytar or symbol. We lose etheir way really. We release the photos might calmdown some  conspircy threoys but some people will always resiet the turth. Also it might incite retaililation. We do not realse the photos less retailation more conspircy therios. There is one upside Alkida did not even question the fact he was dead. They just said there will be retailiation aginst the U.S. for killing Osama. That right there is why I am inclind to beleive he is dead.

Just for fun, my friend once said that the US government and Al-Qa'ida were in consorts as a publicity stunt ;p

Weird, this is one of the few times I don't want to read/respond to forums. Not weird really, I had to go to a boring fanatic christian banquet.

Well, compared to the giant media attention towards the royal wedding the week before it was nice to see something meaningful as the headline. Glad he's gone, but people still need to remain vigilant. Killing a leader doesn't usually solve the problem, it just brings relief :D.

So, I read a lot of this, right (not all of it).  But there's so much to respond to in regards to whether or not this is important, whether he's dead, and for how long, maybe about the timing of this announcement... and there's also that thing about fallacies, of which I wholly agree on with JJJ.  Anyways, this is just my perspective, not replying to or trying to address anything that may have already been said, whether I mentioned reading it or not, and it's addressed to no one in particular (unless otherwise stated).

Kay... I personally don't see this announcement as anything more than political.  I read Madglee's article (okay, so maybe I'll address this haha), and I definitely see where he's coming from.  I don't know if they've had his body for years or not.  Sounds like something they'd do.  I mean, you've got 'em dead you might as well demonize him and make him the symbol of your country's fear and hate. haha  And I know that seems completely unreasonable, but it isn't if you just entertain the thought. 

Imagine a world where we couldn't trust our politicians.  It isn't an easy thing to do, I understand.  But think about it - why would they want to give people someone to hate?  What does that do for them?  Well, it allows them to invade a country and stay there for as long they want, until they "find" him.  Okay, next you might ask why they want this war.  Well, if you're a PMC or a weapons' manufacturer, you could make a great deal of money from this war, wouldn't you think?  You'd have all the business you wanted, for as long as you wanted.  But why would our elected officials help the contractors by conducting a perpetual war?  If you're Dick Cheney, you know exactly why.  Because you have plans to build pipelines in the location you're occupying for the oil company you have stock in and used to be the CEO of.  Because the contractors paid you to... I mean, lobbied.  Because a country in fear is manipulatable - you can take their right to privacy, to travel, in cases, the right to jury trials, protection from unlawful searches and seizures, expanding the power of the Executive branch exponentially, and the people will thank you for it.  Because you have a general vested interest in the United States being in a perpetual war in the Middle East.

Okay, but come on.  It's only limitless power and money.  They wouldn't... But in a world where heartless, greedy businessmen controlled the administration, maybe.  Maybe not.  Then again, I wouldn't trust a wolf to watch my plate, you know.

Anyways, that's at least just something to think about.  Whether or not you think they would do such a thing is irrelevant when you consider the fact that, yes, a lot of fuckin' people made a great deal of money in this war, including congressmen in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Oh, and another thing really quickly that I wanna say about Madglee's article on Bin Laden's death, as an aside.  I agree 100% on your political party => false dichotomy point.  I wrote my Sociology research paper on that very thing this past Fall quarter. haha

As far as I'm concerned, in regards to the announcement of this guy's death, it's all bullshit.  Honestly, I think it is.  I don't know if he's alive or dead, or if we had him 10 years ago or not, or if it means anything to anyone in anyway.  I mean, I'm sure people do care, but why?  Oh, morale boost?  Are we so fuckin' pathetic that we rejoice the notion that "we finally got 'em?"  We were just sad and depressed that he was hiding and we couldn't kill him?  I think that's bullshit.  We killed thousands of innocent people just to find him.  We shattered our justice system and threw away our Bill of Rights to find him.  We took this war to the Middle East and they profited, and now we're clinging on whatever sliver of potential reconciliation we can manage for our despicable crimes.  We can only hope that his death, this end, is justification for the means that devestated a generation.  And I think it's goddamn bullshit.

Don't wave your fuckin' trophy in my face and tell me it was worth it.  Don't tell me to be happy 'it's coming to an end.'  You're just trying to mask the smell of your own shit with someone elses.  Is this country incapable of admitting its mistakes?! ... No, not mistakes, it's intentional wrongdoing...

Damn, I don't want to write anymore. haha  I think it was likely a political move.  Campaign season's coming up, so they suddenly and conveniently find him in time for this administration to take credit.  Not saying I'm certain, or convinced, but I do find it likely.

You agree with JJJ, as with what regard? Usually from an political outlook, it can be that way. Though, for any circumstance, there are numerous variables and consequences associated with a decision. Every choice a person makes may branch out like a tree, and here is the concerning issue, do you see the tree from your perspective, through logic, sympathy, empathy, or are you just trying to sound as though you are an expert on the issue with blatant use of citing sources? Does that make you right?

Either way, most people respond when there is a stimuli or impact on their person and self. If you walk the streets of New York, barely anyone notices you unless you suddenly bumped into them, and even if the outcome is less than pleasant, it is usually emotional. Most people try to sound logical, but often times they're just motivated by emotions or feelings of threat and fear. Lest you appeal to my emotions and hence memory thereafter, what purpose would I serve in caring? If that makes me a bad person, you are then trying to adjust myself to your perception of the world and how you feel a person should be. Of course, therein lies the conflict, we seek approval from our peers, to affirm our own existence. After-all, we can see others yet require a mirror to see ourselves. And even then, we cannot be certain we are what we see.

Every day we cling further and further in some solid substance of a world we don't understand, how far can you clutch onto the hands of another who thinks they know what they're saying only to realize that they're no more the different partaking of the same world? Is the world solid because you quote someone who say it is or are we are clasping into the complex persona of being superior just to prove our existence through the eyes of another?

With regard to fallacies.  You create a fundamental flaw in the logic of your argument when you base it on fallacies.  I believe that's what JJJ was saying, and I agree.  Nay, it's true by definition.  You can't say that a bachelor is not an unmarried male, because that's simply not true, by definition.  Similarly, you can't say that an argument is still sound if it's based on a fallacy, by definition.  Although, that's not to say that the conclusion must be false.  I'm not saying that at all (I don't even remember why you guys were talking about them), but rather that the argument itself is flawed, therefore I have no logical reason to accept your conclusion (whatever it may be). 

And next, are you asking me or telling me?  From a political outlook, what can be what way?  I don't even know if you're talking to me right now, haha.  If not, I apologize, but I don't see what anything in your first paragraph has to do with what I said, besides the fact that you seem to be addressing me.  Are you attacking my logic?  My perspective?  The fact that I have one?  Do you not like the sources I didn't cite? haha  Are you asking if my not citing sources you don't like makes me right?... Ok, I think you understand my confusion here.  If you are in fact addressing me, could you be a little more specific on what you're saying?  I'm not saying my perspective is the correct one; only that I have one, and here it is.  I don't need another existentialist explanation for the way I conduct my business.

I feel like you've digressed onto something completely tangent to what I said, haha.  These things about seeing others and affirming our existence is all interesting, but your explanation of the mirror and what we see just kinda makes you sound like you've been waiting to use some stock analogy you've come up with, and the opportunity seems to have presented itself.  Because first you're talking about people and emotions, and while "seeing yourself and others" applies to the material and immaterial, mirrors are completely disconnected from your original existential conclusion.  So, maybe you see where I'm coming from here, too.  I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad analogy or that I necessarily disagree with it, but there comes a point where you seem to be saying things just to say them, and I feel you've passed it.  While interesting food for thought (that I tend to, not necessarily agree with, but certainly favor at times to be honest), there's still a massive disconnect between my post and your response.

Yeah, but if you don't accept my conclusion based on the flaw which you said is the fallacy, then you're not accepting the conclusion based on the fallacy which is Argumentum ad Logicam. Or were you just contradicting what you said before and after the parentheses? By the way, which fallacy were you refering to, the Ad Hominem or the one about Stereotypes? Then again, it all comes down to perspective and approval really.

I was talking in general. If I wanted to attack you personally, you would know it and not question whether it is or is not. The first paragraph is a response you what you said about the entire issue being "likely a political move". And I replied with what, is it really just a political move? Isn't there more to it than that when making a decision, whether it be war, pictures or otherwise?

I might have to agree with you here, sometimes I think too much that I forget what I was arguing about in the first place. You could say I'm more like the thought stream than rather pinpointer. Or you could just use the tree analogy for me, I don't grow straight, I branch out. At first, I was responding to your argument paragraph by paragraph, but my thoughts took the better of me before I could get to your other points.

I wasn't talking about either, really.  I'm essentially saying that a conclusion based on a fallacious argument shouldn't just be accepted.  While the conclusion may still be "true," the argument (ie the thing you're using to convince people of your conclusion [in the context of debate or persuasion]) fails.  I mean, you can still use them, and it will often work with people with a lesser developed grasp of logic, but you shouldn't count on it.  In fact, when it does fail, you lose credibility with your audience and it's just bad... Best to just keep logically sound arguments.  You can try to make a case for legitimate use of fallacies in argument, but good luck trying to convince anyone, especially if the argument itself has fallacies. haha  If nothing else, it's counterintuitive.

Oh, and to respond to your "Argumentum ad Logicam" defense.  To quote myself, "...that's not to say that the conclusion must be false.  I'm not saying that at all..."  Ergo, the argument that I'm "not accepting the conclusion [because it's] based on the fallacy" holds, well, no weight.

I never thought you were attacking me personally.  In fact, I had no idea what you were attacking - perspective, citations (or lack thereof), etc.  So, for clarity... You were addressing my comment about the announcment being political, yes?  Okay, so you asked if I think that my having a perspective (ie "it was likely a political move") makes me right?  Or...?  I mean, that's what it sounds like you're asking, because you're making a positive claim about decision making - namely, it involves a lot, haha.  'Cause I can just as easily turn it around and say "Okay, just because a decision can be as intricate as you say, doesn't mean it is"  Know what I mean?  Ockham's Razor, whether you agree with him or not, can be applied.  Regardless, I didn't say that's the way things are (as you seem to be), nor that I was even entirely convinced that things were political (notice, I never said "entirely" or "completely" political, because I don't believe it was the only factor either, but a perhaps major one).

Yeah, dun worry about it.  I do that alllll the time, myself.  It's the philosopher in me, haha.  You sort of write yourself into a thing, then you just go on about it, and what you write is stream of consciousness, pretty much... Yeah, that's how I write all my essays, actually.  Like I said, it wasn't bad, haha, just tangent.

All right, although I was active a lot in this thread in the beginning and tried to defend it to the best of my ability (If anyone can tell me how they think I did, I would be very grateful, If I don't know where I went wrong, I can't improve), but near the end I have been distracted. I've recently read all of the posts, and although I did post every now again I only read a few posts and there were many well thought out arguments. The most thought out and logical would probably be Zero's (not saying that I agree with everything he posted, I just appreciate them), and I must agree with him, Eurodite, part of the argument I spent trying to disprove what you saying, and the other part was spent either pointing out or trying to figure out why that parts of what you were posting had almost nothing to do with the thread. Cool74 (at least I think it's 74) You have many well thought out arguments and views. However, and as much as I hate to admit that I was biased, the spelling in your posts (as well as Ugilick's) turned me off to your argument, and I had to go back and reread the argument to fully grasp what you were trying to say. That being said, I'm not trying to call anyone out or personally insult anyone, and I am fully aware that some of what I am saying applies to me as well, I am just offering criticism and (like I said in the beginning of the post) I would fully appreciate any criticism others have to give about me.

Disregaurd this, I'm trying to get a hang of these forums, and how to post in a new area (all the way to the left)

You know, the most natural response is usually verbal or physical abuse when a person's belief feels threatened? For example, if you were Galileo and said the earth was round, then any person who grew up with a set belief will outright reject it for fear it might be true. Or for another example, if you said there was no God whether or not you could prove it, or if the evidence point substantially from that likelihood, the first instinct is: Lie! Lie! LIE!

So for example, if I said something like you don't always need approval from others in order for something to be true, JJJ would respond with something like: Bullshit! It didn't matter what is right, and what is wrong since there is always a contradiction for any argument where lies finding that contradiction the dilemma, and there is always more than one way to look at things, the first response is still "Bullshit" since Banisher is probably used to relying on sources which probably has a contradiction as well to prove themselves right. Not everything is set in stone, and that scares us, the unknown. For example, let us say hypothetically God existed but it's power is just as limited to explain existence itself, then it doesn't really matter if there is one to the Human race as long as they know that there is someone or something they "know", understand the truth to it. It also gives them an excuse for their trials and tribulations, a blame. Thus saying, the dark tunnel isn't really dark if you can follow and imagine someone who had a torch even if they didn't.

This is not a response to JJJ, just using an example. I am confounded and chuckling at how often our defense mechanism puts on a play.

Lol, unfortunately that is very true, and has happened many times in history. On Christianity, although I do consider myself Christian others may find that debateable, I probably wouldn't defend it wholeheartedly because as much as it does has some historical merit, it ,like all tales passed down through time, has some exagerations (at least in my opinion). In other things I probably would debate it because some things ( like your God's power theory, for example, even though I just said I wouldn't debate christianity) can be equally based on the unknown. I do try to weigh both sides equally, however, and I will join whichever side has more facts and basically makes more sense.

I know you just meant the God's power theory as a hypothetical example, I'm just using it as well. At least I hope it was hypothetical, otherwise I'm just looking stupid lol.

That's one smart dude.

All right, although I was active a lot in this thread in the beginning and tried to defend it to the best of my ability (If anyone can tell me how they think I did, I would be very grateful, If I don't know where I went wrong, I can't improve), but near the end I have been distracted by my events in real life. I've recently read all of the posts, and although I did post every now again I only read a few posts and there were many well thought out arguments. The most thought out and logical would probably be Zero's (not saying that I agree with everything he posted, I just appreciate them), and I must agree with him, Eurodite, part of the argument I spent trying to disprove what you saying, and the other part was spent either pointing out or trying to figure out why that parts of what you were posting had almost nothing to do with the thread. Cool74 (at least I think it's 74) You have many well thought out arguments and views. However, and as much as I hate to admit that I was biased, the spelling in your posts (as well as Ugilick's) turned me off to your argument, and I had to go back and reread the argument to fully grasp what you were trying to say. That being said, I'm not trying to call anyone out or personally insult anyone, and I am fully aware that some of what I am saying applies to me as well, I am just offering criticism and (like I said in the beginning of the post) I would fully appreciate any criticism others have to give about me.

Going back to the original topic, Al Quida released a video saying that Osama was dead, just throwing that out there.

I mentioned that earlier in this thread. Why would they say that unless he actually was killed recently? There is no logical reason they would do that unless he really was died. Which is why I am Inclined to believe him. Also how do you get a profile pic?

I meant Believe Obama. Also I found out recently I can spell check by going into source code first.

Go to pictures in My Stuff, then upload a pic from your computer and make it your profile pic

Thank you very much Bo. I apologize for the horrible spelling earlier. It took me awhile to be able to figure out how to spell check. Also thank you for the complement about my points in this semi-debate.

Complement-means to accent something or go well with something (Those assless chaps really complement your leather boots). You were thinking of compliment, like saying something nice. Just helping :)

@Bo I didn't know they released a video saying he was dead.

Also, for the Americans reading, aren't you guys a little afraid of retaliation? As much I hated 9/11, I feel something worse in oncoming. Discuss?

Well yes I am afraid of retaliation. I live in a very small city named Folsom in CA. Why I am afraid is that the quickest way to take out a lot of citizens and potentiality the capital would be to bomb the dam that helps hold back the American river.

There is one point I would like to make through. If Usama was still leading AL Quida then that means that they no longer have a leader. With him dead there are most likely many people trying to take his place making a power vacuum. In this case there is more likely to be heavy infighting right now. This also provides us a chance to go and put a beat down on them.

mm, I'm in nowhere Alabama, so I really don't have to worry about anything unless there's fallout, I am fairly close to some big targets. But I doubt Al Quaida will have any nuclear weapons.

This is what I meant by it appearing to be a political thing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110511/ts_yblog_theticket/obamas-approval-hits-two-year-high-in-ap-gfk-poll

I mean, it obviously doesn't prove whether it was done for this purpose or not, but I just read it and thought it was interesting.  I remember telling a buddy down here on my floor about that, 'cause he's a Democrat Obama supporter and all that, and he was something like about the elections being too far away for it to matter... but come on.  There's like no way this isn't gonna win him the election.  Or at least set him up some appeal to the southern or conservative vote

Exactly, I just hope people are not stupid enough to vote for him again. "A house divided can not stand." Abraham Lincoln. This is what I think of the Obama presidency. During this time we have seen the worse infighting ever in the senate. I like Obama as a person. I just do not like him as a leader.

Ya, If the country was in a different situation than it was right now, he might have actually made a good president, but not now. Unfortunately he is sure to be the democratic nominee, and I've seen a few Republican running, i'm not very hopeful. Also, Dilbert-dude, That is one definition of compliment, but not the only one (sorry, I just now read that post), it also means "An expression of praise, admiration, or congratulation", good job on twisting words though, that is not sarcastic I actually aprove.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compliment)

@ Bo If you'd actually learned how to read, I briefly mention the other definition. And "that is not sarcastic I actually aprove." I'm assuming you meant sarcasm? I'm sorry but sarcasm is very common today and is supposed to be taken in a humorous manner. You don't know me well, so I can accept that you are not used to how sarcastic I am. It's the person I am. One more thing I must mention due to your EXTREME lack of reading skills: "Complement-means to accent something or go well with something (Those assless chaps really complement your leather boots). You were thinking of compliment, like saying something nice. Just helping :)." Gee, lookit the end there. I said I was just helping, and even put a smiley face. I'll elaborate. A smiley face is really nifty way of me saying "I have good intentions." Seriously, please read the whole post and quit picking fights with people of a much higher intelligence.

BACK TO THE TOPIC.

I think that mentioning if it were a different situation is  irrelevant, because you could say that about every president who was in a shitty era (Hoover, anyone?). Obama is dealt with hand he has, and he is playing to the best of his ability. It may not please the public, but saying he isn't a "good president" is a matter of opinion. Osama was killed under his administration, right? I'd say that is something to mention. And in no way am I solely crediting Obama for the death of Osama. I'm just pointing out it happened under his administration. Some credit is due. We all slapped ol' George Bush on the back when he went after al-Qaida, right? Might as well give Barack some props, too.

Dude, what is your problem? "I'm assuming you meant sarcasm?" Yes, when I say "that is not sarcastic" it probably means I am talking about sarcasm, and what's with all the "EXTREME lack of reading skills"? If you really want to bring up the "You don't know me" card, don't assume you know that I have reading problems just because I misread one post, yes I did misread it, and I did say that you did not include the other definition, but there was nothing in my comment to indicate hostility, so I don't know what encouraged you to respond with a hostile comment. I'm sorry that I did not follow your apparently infinite wisdom and put a smiley face at the end of my post, but if you really have to look at that to identify the mood of my message, maybe you need to refine YOUR reading skills. Now, I get no pleasure from petty squabbling on the internet, but if you want to make half your post to insult someone, I'm game.

On a more civil note, yes, I agree that mentioning that he would be good president under different circumstances is pointless, but i would just like to point out that he is not a horrible president (as I have heard in my community, not applying this to anyone on here).

You said I twisted your words and I didn't. I retaliated. Big deal. And I most certainly am allowed to assume you have reading issues if a PREVIOUS post denies a RECENT post. This, my fellow CYSer, means that something that was posted before your post, trumps what you said. This implies to me that you are too lazy to read it all, or you have a disability which impairs your ability to comprehend. If the latter is the answer, then I will stop "squabbling" with you about your problem. If not, make a habit of reading the entire post. I also notice you miss words or use the incorrect forms in your sentences sometimes, read over your posts to make sure they are clear. That is where I got my correction involving saracastic and sarcasm, you used the wrong form and confused me. I did not say I had infinite wisdom, either. If you're active on these forums you will notice I ask for advice from more experienced writers. -.-

In my opinion, I would say that we have few "bad" presidents. Richard Nixon being one, James Buchanan being another. They did really stupid things that made the country and their administrations look bad.

I know this is out of order, but bear with me.

"that is not sarcastic I actually aprove" When I say that it means that my previous statement is not sarcastic, it is not the wrong form of saying it, if I were saying "that is not sarcasm", it would also be correct, but I am not wrong in that. I also did not accuse you of twisting my words, I just stated where you made an error and corrected it. And I assumed that you thought that you are smarter than you really are (infinate is an overstatement of course), much like you made the assumption that I have a reading disorder because I misread a post. And if you want to argue that a post that is made first is automatically right, take a look at the back button forum.

A few things I need to address about my own comment

"bear with me", On that quote I'm not sure if bear is the right spelling or not. If it is not, please correct me.

I forgot to mention that asking for help from experienced writers more often does not make your argument automatically better than the other one .Also"experienced" is an opinionated term, if you could list who you ask it would be much more helpful. For example, "This guy wrote a story, he is experienced." might not hold as much weight as "This guy has written five stories and an article on name systems, he is experienced."

On the actual topic of the forum: yeah, those presidents did screw up pretty badly.

please do not rely on human error concerning spelling as a strategic point of attack, second do not personally attack a person you are debating with, it is rude and shows your inability to otherwise rebuttle what the person has said.

I think you should really stop assuming every conversation is a debate Ugilick. Not everyone here is here to debate, if we did, we would researched for three days and rehearsed everything we expected our opponents were going to say for a day or two before every message we wanted to post.

any intelegent discussion of opposing viewpoints is a debate by deffinition. inpromtu is the best form of debate. we should not refer to each other as opponents it causes a feeling of ill will that I, as well as many others, do not want. i enjoy debates, thats not why im here, you should not assume my motives. its ok though lets not escalate this.

we would research for three days and rehearse everything we expect our opponents to say for a day or two before posting every single message.*

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate

If you're thinking of intelligent debates, then that is a formal debate and not just arguing. Impromptu is the form of giving a speech, not debating. And if we have two opposing views, it is opponent whether you want ill will or not.

"de·bate  (d-bt)

I gave you a dictionary definition, I never said Ugilick was wrong. I just said Ugilick should stop assuming it is one or expect everyone is here to debate. Either way, as far as intelligence goes for Impromptu speeches, I wouldn't count on it. And Ugilick said any "intelligent" discussion is a debate by Definition.

improptu is anything that we havnt had forwarning of. there can be opposing view points without opponents. i do it all the time. anytime there is an inteligent discussion of opposing view points there is a debate rather it be informal or formal. for instance this is becoming a debate, one i did not want. you are not my opponent, you are an equalwith whom i am sharring and comparring understanding with.

That might be so, but it does not qualify as a debate when you call it an Impromptu Debate.

'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impromptu_debate'

Impromptu Debates are FORMALIZED ACADEMIC debates, not spurts of bickering.

perhaps you are correct, debate is not the best word. we should come up with a different one. :)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opponent - You are just using your own interpretation of the word "Opponent".

i use a looser definition in an attempt to differ the term opponent from more potent words like foe. but your right.

Uhh, I'm just going to say that we have had a lot of bad presidents. A president is an office that is considerably higher and exalted in more than say one country especially if we're talking America. Suffice to say, a president who is considered average is worse than a president who was downright bad. At least then people will wake up from their hibernation, but a president who is viewed as average WHEN the people had awoken from their dreams with expectations, that, that says a lot.

I think I should clarify my statement above. What I meant was mostly that we need some one in office who can unite the democrats and republicans. I just do not think he has the leadership abilities to deal with a bunch of politicians and get this country back on track. That is why I want him out of office. I just do not think he is what America needs right now.

Thank you, Erudite. And everyone, before you continue to be pissed that I'm an ass about spelling corrections, take a look at my profile. Did you read it? Yup, people spelling shit wrong makes me perturbed. And you did use the correct bear, it's just confusing because bear is also an animal.

Also Bo, it doesn't surprise me that once again, you don't comprehend my posts. When I posted "And I most certainly am allowed to assume you have reading issues if a PREVIOUS post denies a RECENT post." I was simply saying that you posted something that had already been trumped by a previous post. This wasn't a debate until you decided to forget how to read. I corrected you in a not-so-kind manner, and you retaliated.I'm not really angry, it's just annoying how you can't seem to comprehend ONE post of mine, I explain things thoroughly. Quit taking everything to the MAX and making it a big ol' fight. I did that a bit here too, and I'm going to stop. I don't want to clog these beautiful forums up with trash or "balderdash" as our Banishing friend would say. If you want to debate, PM me so I can use more swear words.

profane language shows weakness in a debate, it shows the inablity to use better words. words must be strong, but allso procise. profanities are to general, to overused. ultimately they are watered down. also the best thing to do here would be, "i have already discussed why that point is not relevent, read this post, " then you just copy and paste that post and put it in quotation marks. i hate repeating myself too, but there is not reason to be rude about it.

I am just wondering why we can not move own from the grammar. Let us just accept that BO and DS66 do not agree and move on with this debate. You both are being childish in the whole argument. Just drop it and move on to the actually discussion. If you want to argue about grammar there is a WRITING forum I suggest you check out.

Now that we are on track I suggest people look at my earlier post and response to that.

I'm pretty sure by reading my posts, you would see that I know plenty of words. Big, scary, ones. And small, difficult ones, too. Profanity doesn't diminish your vocabulary, it adds to it. People always say swearing shows lack of intelligence, no, it shows lack of patience (in my case). Just think, if I didn't know the words shit, fuck, damn, cunt, ass, and meekrob, there would be SIX words I didn't know. I'd say it adds to my vocabulary, plus it gives the opporunity to allude South Park in my explanation.

You're thinking of a formal debate Ugilick. In an informal debate, there is no such things as profane language being a weakness, or having precise words to supplement your argument. It might be overrated, but most formal debates are insults disguised as words. Just because you conceal your intentions does not mean you can hide your words.

(sigh) I guess there is no stopping this childish behavior. Continue with your pointless arguments. When you want to talk about the actually topic or the topic that is in correlation with it come to me.

when i see profane language used i think less of the person using it, a person with self control, and a good head on there shoulders could think of something better to say, and like it or not, subcontiouly a lot of people agree. when anything loses all formality its ridiculouse to continue it, unless it be something of drastic consequence. for instance, war. not the discussion of war, but war itself.

subcontiously... still wrong, its better though...

I'll repeat myself, this is not a FORMAL debate. We have formality in a FORMAL debate, not some garbage talk in a forum. And any debate isn't who is right and who is wrong, a debate is mostly opinions of two people or more in where both sides are right when fought to their best of ability, thus saying, this is just a way of relieving their stress as a concession of OPINIONS. And profane language is one such way, it is not meant to infuriate than it is being blunt and honest. I can think of several million ways of insulting a person without their knowing, but being blunt with straight out insults does not make your argument any less effective even if people have the notion that it do.

where both sides can be right*

it does*

i already said all things need some formality, and why it does weaken the credibilty and power of the point made. which is not to say that profanities cannot be used correctly, when well place they are very effective. they are just vastly overused.

Overused does not make it any less effective, and it helps relieve the stress of debating. Some things in life need formality, but if we want to be formal in this forum, just let me research every point I want to make for three days, and have one or two days to rehearse everything I expect my opponent to say for every single post I might want to write up.

You know, to not weaken my credibility and the power of my point.

there is a difference between formality and research, one you are ignoring.

Ack, you are not understanding Ugilick. You are just trying to come up with whatever whim of an point you can grasp at to win.

Yes, there is a difference between formality and research, but we are talking about debates. Formal debates require formality and preparation. Preparation being research about your facts and references. If we have formality and ignore research, I doubt that counts as a formal debate. And if you're talking about having a informal debate with formality, I don't get it. What part of formal and formality don't you get? Add "ity" in formal and you have FORMALITY. A debate can't be informal and have NEED formality or even have it for that matter.

have NEED of formality*

you have made several incorrect assumptions, you are talking about formal debates i have allready conceeded that a better word needs to be found and used. i am in no way trying to win, i am trying to reach an understanding.

and agian, everything needs some formality or it becomes madness.

If All Things or Everything had SOME formality, the world would go to shit. While we're on the subject, what are you, steampunk?

we have finally found the root of the disagreement, i hold the point that without some rules and formal thinking the world would fall apart, allthough in war its kill or be killed take off the kiddy gloves. while you see it in the perspective that formality is often time bad? i dont fully understand you view point in that aspect, could you please explain it?

Easy, when you say formality, it could mean many things from western formality to eastern to the Middle East. You never specify what formality to keep yet you insist on having formality for "Everything" or "All Things" if I could quote you. Formality for like of better words, is nothing more than tradition of how and when a person can behave any a certain way for whom some people view as though they should. Need an example? The bible.

any certain way*

when i say formality i am refering in this case to the absence of rudeness or an understanding of what is unnaceptable in order to help order be promoted.

thank you for your reply to my question it is a very good one.

That just makes it more complicated since everyone has their own 'level' of order. Order isn't a ball you can fit in a block, it comes in many shapes to different people. And besides, being rude or having an understanding can be interpreted in many way. In some hypothetical country, spitting at a person is a sign of friendship. It is "polite" to spit, and then we have another country whose Tradition say that spitting is rude.

thats where things get confusing and we must have an understanding of other cultures, you are absolutly right. i think we have found our understanding. :D

Although I am going to respect your wish to end this debate, I should be able to post a concluding argument as well.

Alright, lets gets started. Although "And I most certainly am allowed to assume you have reading issues if a PREVIOUS post denies a RECENT post.", might mean that I posted something that had already been "trumped", that is not what you said. By saying this, you are making it a rule that can disprove someone's statement which, as you said in your clarifying statement "This, my fellow CYSer, means that something that was posted before your post, trumps what you said". Like I said in my earlier post "I forgot to mention that asking for help from experienced writers more often does not make your argument automatically better", can disprove the statement you made, if you want to make a reference to the post that I took the quote from to see why it disproves it, feel free to do so instead of just saying I'm wrong. Also, if this wasn't a debate until I "decided to forget how to read", then how am I starting the debate if that is the basis for your opening insult, I know that is relatively childish but I had to get that out there. And I can comprehend most of your posts, the only thing is that you evidentaly jump to conclusions. I say this because this whole argument was started when you saw a post where I was COMPLIMENTING you on how you made your sentence (although my compliment was based off something false) and you decided I was somehow insulting you, and you felt that you had to defend youself, albeit in a hurtful way. If you wanted to simply correct me, you could have civilly told me that I had misread your post and that I was wrong, instead you decide to say that I could not read. If you would read my post afterwards, I was telling you that I did NOT want to continue  a debate, I just stated it emotionally, much like you did with the your first statement.

Alright, I started typing before everyone else posted, but I had to leave before I could finish.

And Ugilick, Eurodite is right about profanity in an informal debate, although I do not use it for personal reasons and I beleive profanity to be useless in an argument, that is just my opinion and people actually can use profanity to emphasize their point. You are right in saying that you shouldn't do it in an impromptu debate, however.

Formal, not impromptu, my bad

Keep focused. This story is all propaganda.

Lol, I was just about to post that I was done responding anything non-related to the topic.

@Cool

Well put dude. He is not a bad leader, just not what America needs. Reminds of the quote in the Dark Knight (isn't exact) "Batman is the hero Gotham deserves, but not the hero that it needs,"

Sorry about the harsh words but sometimes that is what it takes. Also like the quote choice. I know it is not exact but I believe he said "but not the one she needs right now."

Now back on topic, We need someone who does not care about a political agenda but wants to do what is right for this country no matter how much it hurts there political career.

I disagree, no leader should be a laggard when billions of lives are stake trying to tear it away brick by brick. Batman saved a few lives a day, a president impacts billions of lives EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Right for the country, "For the Greater Good?" xD

Yeah it is unlikely but we are being pushed into a wall because of all the benefits our country gives the underclass. Lets put it this way. Shits going to hit the fan sometime and we got a hole lot of shit right now. Basically if the United States goes bankrupt because of that the world is going to go to hell very quick.

Basically let me ask, why is the underclass in the underclass? Can there be an upperclass without an underclass?

the underclass is the underclass becuase some people are hard working individuals that live a life that is successful, and much of the under class sit around asking for hand outs, there are exceptions on both sides here.

There is an under class because 90% of the world's money is in the hands of only 1% of the populuation. Also ever since the begging of recorded history there have been the haves and the have nots. Therefore I rest my class.

a middle class was completly un heard of for a long time, i cant even immagine there not being a middle class, im in it.

So I am I.

i dont realy know, but im going to need to see a source sited before i beleive such an incredulouse number.

http://stevendiebold.com/90-of-the-worlds-wealth-is-held-by-1-of-the-population/

This is the only source I could find on short notice but it is respectable. I got this statistic from my history, biology, and English teachers.

aditionally i agree with erudite with one exception, it was batmans influence that saved many more lives then a few every day. big batman fan.

the skills Obama has are not very usefull at the moment. he would be better in a different position.

My comparison of Batman to Obama was not in the scale of people they save or affect. It was that they both are the "leader" we deserve, but not at this time. If you read the quote, you should understand this. I didn't once mention numbers.

i was responding to erudite, sorry for the confusion.

http://stevendiebold.com/90-of-the-worlds-wealth-is-held-by-1-of-the-population/

This is the only source I could find on short notice but it is respectable. I got this statistic from my history, biology, and English teachers.

Also here http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

No prob. And Cool, respond to the bottom post always, otherwise we will be confused to death. A way I picked up from my gaming Clan's forum is if you are responding to a post that isn't the most recent one use the @ symbol and the person/topic's name.

@Cool <---Just like that.

I did that before this was up. I find that funny.

interesting.. :|

Didn't I make the statement that Obama would be a good president under different circumstances? (paraphrasing) anyway, I have problems with both the Upper and Lower Classes, the whole not every individual person, and I agree with Ugilick in that I couldn't imagine the world without a Middle Class, as common as it is today.

Hopefully I proved my sources enough for those numbers I put out there.

I'll repeat myself, again, and again, and again. They are not "leaders" in the sense, one is a superhero who do not lead people, he saves people. Yes, he might affect or MOTIVATE the population, but that does not necessary mean he "LEADS". And like I said, we don't NEED a LAGGARD president nor do we DESERVE an average president who performs well when the world is at peace. Yes, just because the world isn't all that it "craps out" to be does not mean that if the stool that came out was perfect, we would deserve that type of toliet treatment. Meaning, even if the world was feces, does not mean we should vote for a dictator to be our "leader" because that phrase and real life does not work well together.

I put the word on quotations to indicate that I was using the term very loosely. Calm down.

Sorry, some people write like a dolt and act like they're professional scholars or something. It gets to me how arrogant kids get just because the world revolves around them.

i havnt observed anyone being arrogant. the statement you made implies superiority, but thats because you angry.

Is your goal in life to create unnecessary controversy. We are having a conversation about the lower and upper classes now. Please refrain from making unnecessary references.

Cool, I was having a conversation with Sin, you had no right to say what I can and can not say in a public forum. Or even what is a right or wrong way to behave in a forum between two people whom you just happened to read and disliked. Keep your opinions to yourself or just don't read our so-called "controversy", it isn't our fault that you wasted a few seconds reading. You read of your own accord, and not of our responsibility.

And it isn't for you to determine what is necessary and unnecessary in life.

"Okay, let us not go from mythology to religion. That is going to screw us all over the place. So, no more comments about religion after the post on top or you'll have to endure my atheist insults and provocations."- Eurodite2  (from Modernized Mythology)

"you had no right to say what I can and can not say in a public forum. Or even what is a right or wrong way to behave in a forum between two people whom you just happened to read and disliked"-Eurodite2

Nope, no right to do that at all.

   one person likes this 

I didn't just " So, no more comments about religion after the post on top", I used or after. I gave the person the freedom of the choice to continue and caution it with a likely consequence should it continue. However, Cool in this case downright said I should stop, or that it is unnecessary so I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

He didn't come out and say "don't you ever say something different again", he civilly asked you to please refrain from stirring up unneeded controversy, he was just asking you to stop cluttering the forum.

I was just trying to politely express my views on bringing up past topics on a forum that has moved on. I am sorry if I offended you personally.

Exactly, "stop." Stop is the same thing as saying you cannot do it as though they know what is right and proper. It is also an insult that you would consider it civil or even that it clutters up the forum. To what authority make you the better person to determine what does and does not clutter the forum? Ever heard of the expression, one man's trash is another man's treasure? Obviously, you have been indulging yourself too much here. It also implies that you're superior to me since you know what is right or wrong for everything else, are you kidding me? Who are you, my father?

And yes, he/she said "refrain", not Please stop talking about something I don't care about. And someone already said the thread has been off-topic for a while now. Are you right in the head? 

please refer to my statement about your original comment.

If we are to have convos, we should PM each other to save the public some grief. And no problem Bo, there is no thunder here. We are merely conversing of class and political topics. Nothing to be sorry for, I enjoyed knowing there are other Americans out there overcoming the struggle so many of have fought and will fight. And not just Americans, but people worldwide. Our middle class struggle is a lot of Africa's struggle for their lives. I need not explain that, as I hope most of us are informed. If not, PM me.

The separation of the upper and lower class is always a touchy subject. Those in lower class believe the more successful, higher class citizens must help the lower class. I hear a lot from lower class citizens that if they were in a high class situation, they would be helping lower class citizens left and right. The truth of this, I don't know. Those in the higher class generally believe lower class citizens underestimate how they worked hard to have the economic status they hold. I personally believe they are both correct. We need to help each other out, but recognize almost nothing is given out. I also resent the previous statement that lower class citizens ask for handouts.

I agree. Further more I think there is a miss conception about the Middle class citizens. The lower class tends to think that everyone not in a similar situation is a upper class citizen. My father has worked hard without a degree to go from living off of trash to a middle class house. It can be done with a whole lot of effort.

i fully understand your point, but it is true, i see it every day. in the "bad neigborhoods" the people there all expect to be taken care of instead of working out there own problems. otherwise i fully agree with you in everything you just said.

i know this is going to back lash, but i have to agree, we should stay on topic, its impolite to spam offtopic things.

Uglick I appreciate you agreeing with me but plz do not get caught up in an argument with him.

I agree with and appreciate your previous statement about the middle class, cool74. My father grew up as a poor kid in Pennsylvania who even had to bum money off his girlfriend just to eat. Now however, in no small part due to my father's hard work as a tar layer, janitor, EMT, firefighter, and eventually police officer, my family lives very comfortably. Although it is true that we could be doing a lot better with some more money, my father has helped us live the way we do today, and I am very appreciative.

Off topic? Our conversation of Osama led to a leader's conversation, which led to conversation of the classes? What more is there to say about Osama? He is dead, America Fuck Yeah, maybe he'll retaliate, maybe not, the end.

@Cool  I'm of the middle class as well, cool, and my father has also built up from a bad situation, though not as extreme as the situation you mentioned.

lol, I posted about my father while you were, I wasn't trying to steal your thunder.

agian that was aimed at Erudite from earlyer, again, sorry for the confusion. i was talking about an off topic post completly sepperate from yours.

these two posts to be exact:

Cool: "Is your goal in life to create unnecessary controversy. We are having a conversation about the lower and upper classes now. Please refrain from making unnecessary references."

Usama Bin Laden by Erudite2 Today at 22:05 [reply to this]

 

Cool, I was having a conversation with Sin, you had no right to say what I can and can not say in a public forum. Or even what is a right or wrong way to behave in a forum between two people whom you just happened to read and disliked. Keep your opinions to yourself or just don't read our so-called "controversy", it isn't our fault that you wasted a few seconds reading. You read of your own accord, and not of our responsibility.

 

He had roommates a place to live and work. He just could not pay for food.

Any ways back on topic ( sort of i agree we have gone vastly off the original topic but it does make sense if you think about it.)

With all these government programs to help the lower class families is driving up our national debt. In the past when the government could not pay for these programs the private sector took over. Honestly, they would probably take over again. I am sure there are sins that executives want to clean off there plate enough to help the poor people.

The only government program I can actually agree with is Social Security for those too old to work. My grandfather is seventy and still working as a bike repairman at WalMart. Although he isn't "qualified" to be a mechanic, but he can fix anything I bring to him, be it a chair to a van to a lawnmower, but as it is, the combination salary of and social security is what is keeping him afloat.

Unfortunately, these days you need a paper certification to get any job of substance. Hats off your grandfather though, hard-wroking Americans deserve their recognition.

thank you sir, as my old cyber-defense instructor would say "Society would be better off without these modern day guilds". Of course he was talking about a society that you need to recieve a license from every X years or it's illegal for you to be a networking consultant, but I think it applies to this as well.

I find that funny though. If we have two equally hard working people and had enormous gaps in salary, does that make one person more hard working than the other? Someone probably has already stated thus, and I apologize for repeating but the conversation seem to not account for the comments of the previous posts.

Although I hate the controversy of communism, the first part of the Communist Manifesto talks about this social class or even the book "Democracy for the few".

Fact of matter is, Americans live an idle life. I can understand of 1/3 of the world's products were made in America, thus explaining why Americans have such an easy life when compared to China, India, South America, or Mexico, but reality is US don't. United States produce the ideas, and most of the time not even that, they're just middlemen that faciliate between two parties who are the actual producers.

understand if*

first off, I would like to state that Americans might not have it as hard as the Chinese, but that is not because we produce more products, I mean, look at how much China produces. The problem is that East Asian governments focus more on the community than the individual, and normally this goes wrong depending on the person in charge.

Communism actually has pretty good and interesting ideas on paper. But as the world has seen, it just works against the common man in practice.

Whether they do or don't influences how idle a life Americans may have. Lets say for example, Mexico was a Democracy and rich in resources hypothetically, it would then tarnish how easy a time Americans would have making a comfortable living, at least in the American stand of what is comfortable. Therefore, it doesn't really rely purely what the nature of the government is, but on who gets the better end of the straw. That is why we have the CIA, to keep other government in check so their workers will produce the product without demanding too much. Each country has a leader and each leader can be threatened to become a puppet. International appearance? Americans could care less when they make it a threat to their current livelihood.

I disagree, but I just got out of a debate that was pretty long and stupid on both sides, so I'm not going to argue it.

social security is pretty important.

(completely off topic)

I would like to congratulate Ugilick for creating a 200+ response forum, even if most of it was petty arguments on both sides, you gotta admit its pretty impressive. Thats all I have to say, continue with the class systems

Yup, it ensures that we can comfortably stop working when our balls sag to the floor and we feel we can no longer work.

Yes but that will be killed due to all the baby boomers getting old. My dad included he is pushing 50 and just now got a management job in a profession he has been doing for 15 years.

My father's been a Seargent at the local police force for 14 years, even though most of the other officers refer to him for help, even with lieutenants! It has happened less often when he was switched from Investigations to Patrol for a year, but still.

I meant to say he is only a seargent after 14 years, I'm not sure how long he has been a seargent.

I seriously doubt Social Security will die due to the boomers getting old, unless we have another Great Depression, which I really we don't.

I am just saying that there my be a big enough strain that it might have change how it works for our generation. On second thought since I am 15 I should probably say my generation.

ya, I will be sixteen in a couple of days and I heard that social security will be extremely strained by the time  our generation rolls around. Of course, I havn't heard their statistics on this, and it is based mainly on if our government keeps things exactly the same, but it's still a scary thought.

That is why we need strong leaders right now. Who can make people change themselves and also better our country.

I'm 18, so we're in the same generation. I can't speak for the rest, though I want to 3J is near my age as well (from what I remember, don't trust my memory). I think our generation just needs to be a lot more successful than others, which scares me considering how lazy many of us are, including me. I need to get off my ass. THANKS ALOT, CYS! :P

Hey speak for your self. I am working for a local retail who is selling a house in the neighbor hood as a gardener. 20$ every 2 weeks until he sells the house. I am at 117$ Yes I am rolling in money.

"Oh I need to write a speech on the negative effects of censorship and how it should be repealed. lets ignore it for weeks on end and get on CYS instead!" That was basically my mind set was. I managed to write a four page speech of the top of my head a few days after it was due, but hopefully I can make it last five minutes. I know 3J is in college so somewhere around 22 being the highest. I would consider that our generation, if pretty far up there.

I suppose our generation would be our decade wouldn't it? I was born in 1992, so anyone from 1990-1999 is in our generation. That has been my interpretation of it.

Yes I agree now that we established that.

3J is 19

I think that everyone on this site is on the same generation.

Endmaster is older (compared to myself), Madglee is in his mid to late thirties. That's the examples I know of, I think everyone who commented on this site is in the same generation though, at least as far as I remember.

commented on this forum*

No End master and Madglee have both commented here but of the main contributors yes.

250th reply.

my bad

my previous message was @endmaster

has anyone heard that another plan was being formulated for a terroist attack this summer, and this information was found in Usma's compound? not sure if this is trust worthy information or not though.

I have heard about it. Would not surprise me even if he was not the boss he still was a boss.

he was important enough for them to communicate with continuously at the very least.

Is Usama's son taking over, or just inheriting his huge porn collection? I have heard he had one that planned on taking over, but not much on that subject.

Usama's son died in the raid. The only people the did not kill was the women.

HIs son released a statement about his father's death. I don't know that much about the raid itself, so maybe they killed one (or more) of the sons, but one (or more) of them were not in the compound.

I guess that is a possibility.

the fact that he just now made comments about the deat supports that he was killed in the raid, and not ten years ago right?

I never heard that he died ten years ago. You did mean the son right

i also meant death, not deet....

but then again I would be six at the time... I don't know. I DO know that they tried to take him out with a UAV missile, but it turned out to just be a goat herder (who was uncharacteristically tall, like Osama) and his goat. Poor goat.

They attempted to and got close to taking him out at the very start of the war but he went into hiding before we could get him.

There were SEVERAL almosts. We actually laid seige to an Al Qaida hideout he was in with the help from the army of whatever nation it was in, I don't remember. The only thing that stopped us was when the commander wanted to wait for the cluster bombs to hit the cliffs to minimize casualties. It desimated the terrorist forces, but he escaped wwhile they were waiting for the bombs to drop.

You I think that someone in their government was a spy or supporter of him. Otherwise how could he always mange to get away.

its possible, but its allso possible who was just realy good at hiding, and realy good at getting away, we realy dont, and cant, understand what its like to chase one man in such a huge area, with people who wont talk, attack suicidaly, and look alot like him. most people realy couldnt pick him out of a line up of other similar looking men. especially if he shaved his beard.

No, he just has the support of the people, at least where is from. Most of what law enforcement or military gets to catch their enemies are tips, not satalites UAVs, althought they are helpful. If no one tells us where he is, we can't know where he is, even if he were hiding in the US. Especially if he were hiding in the US, actually, because we wouldn't be looking here and noone would believe someone who said Osama was hiding here.

thats what i was saying, there is no reason to say no, if you look way up i mentioned that he had the support of his people.

Lol, notice the positioning of the post, I was replying to cool.

muh bad...

I talked with a teacher who shares an office with my Dad. She thinks their is going to be major retaliation, like someone assassinating Obama or another attack similar to 9/11. I can't imagine either, if we lose our president our morale goes down the drain quicker than two jiggles of a jackrabbit's ass. We can withstand another terrorist attack of that caliber, I just don't know where it would happen, and wouldn't want any friends, family, or CYSers to get hurt. Luck to those who don't live in the U.S., because we might be in for some really stinky shit in the near future. I believe the only way to prevent to rebuild Afghanistan like we did Iraq, except for Afghanistan is much more unstable. Just thinking of how Afghanistan became a country proves its' instability. A bunch of radical Muslims in India were tired of the Brit's and Hindu's supposed "bullshit", so they said screw this and made Afghanistan. That went well, right? Religious wars piss me off to no extent, why argue about things you can't even prove?

I'm not sure, there are people from all religions who do it though, present or past, and undoubtfully future. Even if it is not a war, it would be a massacre or other kind of violence. Even if there is retaliation, which certainly could happen but I'm not sure, then the US will respond in force, like we did in 9/11, which will cause another retaliation from the terrorists, and so on and so forth. It will not stop unless one side is completely wiped out, which is unlikely. It is pretty hard to be the "bigger man" and break the cycle when there are thousands of lives being lost.