• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  LOL! now that didn't take you long! I am so honored!
  
  Kind of out of context...... but hey.....what ever gets you the hits right? ;p
  

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  i linked the context, and it is no less stupid in context.

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 02, 2008....

  It is a bit out of context.  The fact is that the history of the world until terribly recently was strong nations conquer weak nations.  The strong nation destroys/absorbs the lesser nation, takes resources and usually improves the lives of their new citizens.  Not in the short term but in the long term.
   
  Does anybody think Africa might have been worlds better off (like say India) had they been conquered more recently?

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  how does the context change it sean? I didn't think so ...
  
  Our violence against native americans was not a result of them attacking our settlements. That time we gave them blankets as gifts that we had infected with small pox is only one of thousands of examples.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 02, 2008....

  No it wasn't, it was a matter of us conquering them and taking their land.  Same as the Isrealis, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Japanesse, and Germans before them.  They refused to be conquered and thus were exterminated.  Again bussiness as usual.
   
  The Palestinians however are actively attacking and bombing Isreal.  Personally I think Isreal has been surprisingly restrained.  Granted if you are surrounded by countries that want to destroy you it probably pays dividends to hold back.

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  you are missing the point.
  
  d6 said, "yes massive numbers of indians were killed, but only as a result of attacks on settlements"
  
  this statement is beyond stupid and the context doesn't make it any less stupid. It has nothing to do with israel and palistine. This is the same delusional nonsense we hear from smb that torture isn't torture if it's done by america.
  

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  you made the comparison asshole!
  
  the native americans are the only ones comparable to this situation and we committed genocide against them. If you are calling for genocide then be honest about it.
  
  source
  

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  "yes massive numbers of indians were killed, but only as a result of attacks on settlements"
  
  again, this statement is patently false and beyond stupid. The comparison does not make this statement any less false or any less stupid.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Ah.  Well mentioning the Indians was stupid, they really aren't comprable.  I think the closest thing to a comparable situation in the world is the relationship between Ireland (I think) and England. 

   

  If we pull out of Iraq I suspect that a similar situation will occur between Iran and what was formerly known as Iraq.

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  and bloc mentioned them, so bloc = stupid

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 02, 2008....

  You're the one who made the faulty comparison.

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  no.....he mentioned it not me....I responded

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 02, 2008....

  For cryin' out loud...  {buries head in hands} 
  
  People will say anything to support the things they believe in.  Even if their cause is an albatross and a sinking ship. 
  

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  bloc's statement is way out of context....if you ask me!

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  you, bloc, are making these "cute" little post about stupid things said on soul cast, I wish you would read more of your own material, cause in my opinion, your remarks rate high on the "stupid list"...lol

• kelly said on Mar 02, 2008....

  D6, have you no insight whatsoever?  Sheesh.
  
  
  "They refused to be conquered and thus were exterminated.  Again bussiness as usual."
  
  
  
  From a historical standpoint, yes.  But the neanderthals among us are going to have to get used to the future of mankind insisting that we grow up and not butcher and torture our neighbors.  The only reason things are getting better in this world (if they are) isn't because of the gutless I-see-the-world-the-way-it-is types, it is because of the people who are willing to change the world for the better instead of the worse.

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  "yes massive numbers of indians were killed, but only as a result of attacks on settlements"
  
  again, this statement is patently false and beyond stupid.

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  bloc, i have a native american ancestry of my own, and yet I have a better handle on the conflict than you seem to have.  I see both sides of the coin, there were atrocities committed on both sides.  For whatever reasons, the two sides didnt get along, were not compatible and they battled it out...move on already.

  kelly---I'm glad you are a "dreamer" we need a little more of that in today's world, but let's not overdo it, okay.....there are still some battles to be fought before we are going to be able to sit down to that negotiating table and talk reasonably.

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  the idea that native americans were as aggressive as we were, or were as violent as we were, is simply untrue.
  
  Please cbl tell me one post of mine that is stupid. I'll welcome any debate on the subject and I can back up what I say.
  
  
  @cbl
  "yes massive numbers of indians were killed, but only as a result of attacks on settlements"
  
  This is absolutely false, and stupid regardless of the context. If you can tell me how the context changes this I'd be happy to listen.
  

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  This one! bloc.  How come you don't think that is a personal attack on D6, when you made an entire blog around a remark that he said as being stupid.  You might as well have came out and titled your blog..."Hey, D6, you are stupid!"  has the exact same connotation...

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  I was certainly being an asshole and insulting, but that is different from being stupid. What d6 said was stupid.
  
  Here's my issue. I've been on this site for a long time and there are 3 or 4 people that will continually repeat lie after lie and falsehood after falsehood. They more wrong they are the more certain they will sound. I believe that there needs to be some social pressue put on people that lie or say any nonesense that pops into their head without thinking about it for a second before posting. Usually a 5 second google search will show that what they are about to say is not only false but stupid.
  
  Yet these people continually spew drivel and I no longer believe that being nice is the appropriate respone. I used to spend a large amoutn of time researching things to show them why I believe as I do. I would prove a certain point. Do you konw what they do every single time I do this? They wait about a month then start saying the exact thing I already pointed out as being false (and I was nice about it). When I'd say, hey I already rebutted this, they would suddenlty get amnesia and demand that I spend a large amoutn of my time looking it all up again.
  
  I'm not wasting my time on these idiots anymore and if you ask me that is hte farthest thing from a stupid decision on my part.
  
  

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  bloc....you spend hours finding biased research and opinions.....you claim to be a "critical thinker".....but make no real effort in understanding my (or anyone else you fundamentally disagree with) point.....you exaggerate the points that you make.....and now you have chosen to drag it out into the social arena of soulcast for everyone to see.....so be it!
  

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  And.....my comment being stupid seems to be a matter of opinion now doesn't it?

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  bloc--The problem as I see it is you are coming from a completely "liberal" way of thinking...I believe this because I have somewhat declared myself to be a liberal in a lot of my thinking as well.  On Israel, I am not! and I realize this blog isn't about Israel directly.

  But, having been conservative for most of my life and to have made the leap somewhat over to Liberal thinking, I see the differences in the thinking.

  Some, but not all conservative thinking and values are based on religious beliefs.  you don't share those beliefs, so it would be hard for you to understand where some of their thinking comes from.

  Sure, I see that you do a lot of research, that doesn't mean your research is correct it is still opinion.  Even if it is reported in the news.  News resporting, if you ask me, is very opinionated.

  Now, I have had my personal rounds with D6, stopmediabias, and (Alienated, especially,) on their faith-based politics.  And there have been a few times that I thought as you have that they were quoting something, or giving "pat" answers that they new themselves to be false.

  But, those times were few and very rare. I am convinced they truly believe, for the most part in what they are saying, just as you do.

  I think sometimes, judging plays a part with all of us and across the board.  I will for one say I have been very judgemental at times with the three that I mentioned.

  Just food for thought here bloc, but I do appreciate you addressing your motives here.  I really thought you were being mean and nasty because d6 is a believer and you are not....see what I mean about judging.....

• mobil said on Mar 02, 2008....

  "the idea that native americans were as aggressive as we were, or were as violent as we were, is simply untrue."
   
  You are right bloc, native americans were much more aggressive, much more violent then we were. Thank you for setting that straight. 
  

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Good for you, mobil!  Tell it like it is!  My tribe was in fact one of the more agressive...I say that with pride of course!

• GrapeKoolaid said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Yeah and look what happened.  They've been marginalized as a people, rounded up in reservations(internment camps, open air concentration camps, however you want to see it).  Is this what we do to the least of us?  If humanity is to be judged, it will be judged by what we do to the least of us.  How we treat those not as fortunate as ourselves. 
  
  You can whitewash history all you want, but the truth still remains.  People see it.  Though it may not be worth their trouble to point it out most of the times.  

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  "You are right bloc, native americans were much more aggressive, much more violent then we were."
  
  You guys really don't believe this do you? Columbus, the first one to get here, enslaved the natives and required them to bring him gold. If they didn't bring enough gold he cut off their hands. I know that columbus isn't america, but it wasn't much different when the first pilgrims came.
  
  America gave native americans blankets as gifts that were infected with small pox! We systematically wiped out native americans.
  
  Seriously, do you guys really believe that native americans were more violent than the americans that annihilated them? I studied a fair amount of early american history in college and anyone that knows anything about this can't possibly believe that the indians were more violent than the europeans.
  

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  @cbl
  
  You are one of my favorite people here and I respect you a great deal. Because of htis I put more consideration into what you say. So let's get to it.
  
  "Sure, I see that you do a lot of research, that doesn't mean your research is correct it is still opinion."
  
  This is absolutely true, but it isn't what I'm talking about. Let me give you three examples.
  
  1. One of the things these people do is throw out a litany of bullshit unrelated to whatever topic at hand. One common way is to bring up clinton in every other post I make criticizig Bush. Here's the problem, I have said over and over and over again that I am not a democrat and that I never voted for clinton. D6, smb, and alien have read this statement many times over and yet they continue to demand that I justify clintons actions whenever I criticize Bush. This isn't a matter of opinion, they flat out refuse to hear what I say and continually repeat the same nonsense after I've refuted it beyond any doubt.
  
  2. I've thoroughly documented the issue of torture with substantial sourcing. They will debate me on a post where I'll link to documents that rumsfeld signed authhorizing many torture techniques or I'll link to sources about the US prosecuting people for waterboarding americans. They will debate me on these posts, and read these sources (these aren't opinions you can see rumsfelds signature on the documents or see that we in fact did prosecute people for torture when they waterboarded americans) and they'll wait a month or so and then act like they have never heard of this stuff before. They will then demand that I "prove" it. I have proven it, and I know they have read it because they debated me about it, so what am I supposed to conclude? That their memory doesn't work or that they are dishonest and don't care about the truth? Are there any other conclusions I can reach after this?
  
  3. Then there is the issue of integrity. People can question my sources and their biases, but I think it's clear at this point that I try very hard to verify something before I say it. That I not only do some fact checking, but I think about it before I post just to make sure that it makes sense, has sourcing, and is logical. D6 and smb have shown over and over again that they will say anything that crosses their mind no matter how illogical or factually false. 5 seconds of a google search would show that it's false and 2 seconds of thinking about it before posting would show that it's clearly illogical. Yet they post it anyway and then demand that I spend significant amounts of time researching facts to dispute it.
  
  I find this to be highly disrespectful. When it's clear that I take time before I say things, and time when I respond, then I expect them to show me some respect and do the same. This may be an unrealistic expectation, but it doesn't prevent me from getting irritated.
  
  You are right that I should not be an asshole and I always feel bad after the fact. I've apologized for it before and d6 I apologize now for this post and my other statements this morning.  Please try to understand why I get irritated and please try to do a basic sanity check before you post something.
  
  "But, having been conservative for most of my life and to have made the leap somewhat over to Liberal thinking, I see the differences in the thinking."
  
  I grew up in an extremely red area of VA and I was a member of the young republicans early in my life. This is one of the major reasons I enlisted int he army when I was 17. I'm the type of person that will put my money where my mouth is. In the end I made the same leap as you which I've talked about in the past.
  
  Much of the nonsense you hear from the nutty right (I am distinguishing the nutty right from the intelligent right not claiming everyone on the right is nutty) is easily seen as bullshit when you leave america and live in another culture for a significant time. One of the major reasons I became a liberal is the experience of believing many of the things that Rush or Oreilly say (as I did when I was younger) then going to another country and realizing that it was nonsense.
  
  

• TinSoldier said on Mar 02, 2008....

  "the idea that native americans were as aggressive as we were, or were as violent as we were, is simply untrue."
  
  
  Dude, you had me on your side until this. Can I make my own "stupidest thing on Soulcast"? I mean, it is just as stupid as D6fer's statement.
  
  Look, I'm not going to whitewash history or claim that the US never mistreated the natives. In far too many cases we did and it is shameful.
  
  But I will not put Native Americans on any kind of pedestal. They participated in genocide against others of their kind as well as the full spectrum of acts of cruelty as did every other culture on this planet. And they would have done so against the Europeans if the Europeans had not had better technology.
  
  It was a different time, with different mores. It sure is easy to look back and judge them.
  
  Not that we shouldn't, but we should take a wider view of thing and realize that not only did our ancestors have their biases and notions of what is "common sense morality", but that we do as well.
  
  
  Seriously, do you guys really believe that native americans were more violent than the americans that annihilated them? I studied a fair amount of early american history in college and anyone that knows anything about this can't possibly believe that the indians were more violent than the europeans.
  
  
  Then maybe you should question your education?
  

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  bloc----Thank you ,  I appreciated that, and I also appreciated your comments on my blog too.

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  "Dude, you had me on your side until this. Can I make my own "stupidest thing on Soulcast"? I mean, it is just as stupid as D6fer's statement."
  
  How in the world is it stupid? If I say that they weren't as violent as we were that isn't putting them on a pedestal. Please show me anything they did comparable to giving them blankets as gifts which were infected with small pox or telling soldiers to kill all the buffalo so they'd starve.
  
  If you want me to question my education then give me a reason to. I'm the only one here giving any specifics at all so at this point I have nothing to question.
  

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  bloc....I don't have to go any further than #1 to find that you are a hypocrite....You were the one that brought up the native Americans on that post that had nothing to do with them.....not me.....so as far as bringing up bullshit unrelated to the post, you are as guilty as the rest.

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  As Tin points out above....the indians would have wiped us out if they had the technology to do so.....they demonstrated that fighting with one another prior to our arrival.

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  @cbl
  
  Do you want to see why I get frustrated? Here is what d6 just said.
  
  "you are a hypocrite....You were the one that brought up the native Americans on that post that had nothing to do with them"
  
  D6 is the one that brought them up. Here is his comment from that post.
  
  " bloc....We fought our way to peace with the American Indians, The British, Japan, Germany, Ourselves"
  
  I replied saying that only the situation with the native americans was comparable. This is what I'm talking about. A 5 second fact check would have prevented him from making a false statement.
  

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  "they [native americans] demonstrated that fighting with one another prior to our arrival."
  Here is another example of why I get frustrated. I promise you that d6 has absolutely no clue what he's saying here. I'm certain he can't name a war in which indians killed massive numbers of indians before we got here. He has absolutely no basis for this statement and if he took two seconds to ask himself "do I really know of wars between indians before our arrival?" he wouldn't have wasted all of our time reading his baseless claims.

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  fine......I didn't see what you had said as being in context with that.....my bad....that doesn't make your statement any more true.....and you didn't get openly ridiculed for it.

• TinSoldier said on Mar 02, 2008....

  How in the world is it stupid? If I say that they weren't as violent as we were that isn't putting them on a pedestal. Please show me anything they did comparable to giving them blankets as gifts which were infected with small pox or telling soldiers to kill all the buffalo so they'd starve.
  
  
  Then I guess that we have two choices: either the Native Americans could not imagine any action that they could accomplish on the same scale with regards to the Europeans, or that they didn't have the technology or cohesion to do so.
  

• pickersplock said on Mar 02, 2008....

  http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/custer/custers-last-stand.htm
   
  Dee, those tribes were pretty tough!
   
  "The Indians had always been brave and skilled warriors, but in 1874 and 1875 the Sioux succeeded in arming themselves with modern rifles, becoming a foe more dreaded than any European cavalry. This combination of modern arms, incredible bravery, and superb horsemanship created a formidable fighting force."
   
  You know bloc, I was the subject of a very unflattering post recently and I was forced to defend myself. 
   It's bad form to post like this. 
   It's something Cops would do, and I know you're not Cops.

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  or that they did not think in terms of annihilating other people? I'm not saying this is true, but isn't it a possibility? Isn't it possible that the native americans and europeans could have actually gotten along and lived together?
  
  Why is this limited to a choice between them annihilating us or our annihilation of them? If we come in with the assumption that we were going to try to annihilate them then there is only two options, one of the sides had to be annihilated. But, this does not mean that the native americans thought in those terms which may be why they were annihilated. Maybe they could have gotten along with us, but that was never an option for us? Isn't this a possibility?
  

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  bloc---yeah, I'm reading it and shaking my head., but it does sound like frustration, don't you think? There does seem to have been already enough said to cause some frustration.  I'm going to do some research, be right back.

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  @pickers
  you are right, but I have a limit to what I can take. They've called me a traitor (even though I've actually served and they haven't). They've called me an america hater, and they've called me all kinds of nonsense. Oh, they've called me a baby killer and said that I revel in the death of babies. At a certain point I'm more than happy to be an asshole.

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  " By 1622 it was apparent to the Indians that the colonists intended to expand their holdings in Virginia. This physical expansion threatened the Indian way of life. Of even greater concern, perhaps, were the renewed colonial efforts to convert and educate the "savages." Opechancanough's response to the threat of cultural deconstruction was to plan and stage a massive attack on the English settlement as a demonstration of Indian power and in an attempt to drive off the English for good."
  

  This is an opinion expressed of another blog, will be back with the link.

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  I took the above off a blog called Yahoo questions and answers... Cached

• TinSoldier said on Mar 02, 2008....

  or that they did not think in terms of annihilating other people? I'm not saying this is true, but isn't it a possibility?
  
  Hmm. I thought that that was what I said. Or at least implied by what I said.
  
  
  Isn't it possible that the native americans and europeans could have actually gotten along and lived together?
  
  I certainly hope that it would/could have been possible. Despite my comments here and other blogs, I certainly think that it was a possibility.
  
  
  Why is this limited to a choice between them annihilating us or our annihilation of them? If we come in with the assumption that we were going to try to annihilate them then there is only two options, one of the sides had to be annihilated. But, this does not mean that the native americans thought in those terms which may be why they were annihilated. Maybe they could have gotten along with us, but that was never an option for us? Isn't this a possibility?
  
  I'm pretty sure that neither side, in the beginning, thought that total annihilation of the other side was the necessary end consequence. But I'm also sure that there was far less introspection among either the Natives or the Europeans at the time.
  

• crybabylu said on Mar 02, 2008....

  http://www.virtualjamestown.org/phatmass...
  http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tr...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Mass...
  http://www.bookrags.com/history/jamestow...
  http://www.wm.edu/niahd/journals/index.p...

  The above are some more links to the Indian issue:

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  it is getting hard to keep up here.......even though in my opinion you don't deserve the hits.....I'll keep things going.....bloc said:
  I promise you that d6 has absolutely no clue what he's saying here. I'm certain he can't name a war in which indians killed massive numbers of indians before we got here.
  
  No I couldn't....not off of the top of my head....but it is common knowledge....and others have already proven my point for me.....all of the information listed in this blog had to be researched....including yours! Or do you think that we are stupid enough to believe that you pull all of these facts and figures out of your ass?
  
  I could care less if you call me an idiot on a post I respond to, but doing a post for the sole purpose of it is pure bullshit.
  

• pickersplock said on Mar 02, 2008....

   Well said, D6. 

  I was just reading up on the Wounded Knee massacre, which apparently was a misunderstanding over a tribal dance.

  "Although Ghost Dancing was a spiritual ceremony, some agents for other tribes misinterpreted it as a war dance."

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

• mobil said on Mar 02, 2008....

  I would, could really get into this, but it takes so damn much effort for no gain. Thanks anyway.

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  "and others have already proven my point for me"
  
  This is another example of why I get frustrated with people like d6. Words actually mean things yet they will use words for their emotional impact even when they are factually incorrect. No one has proven anything, in fact no one posted any examples of this claim until pikers AFTER you said this. I was the only one that gave any specific examples of anything. The fact that other people hold the same opinion as you doesn't prove anything. Hell, most people thought the earth was flat for a long time, but that didn't make it right.
  
  Ok, let me take this to the next level. Here is the argument I am hearing from many of you.
  
  Native americans fought wars with each other. This means that they were violent at some point in their history. Therefore, they were equally at fault or no better than the europeans who practically wiped them off the face of the earth.
  
  Let me flip this around. Europeans had a history of war prior to discovering america. Would it make any sense to say that the native american would be justified in crossing the ocean and destroying all the countries of europe so they could have the land because europeans had fought wars in the past?
  

• sheltercrow said on Mar 02, 2008....

  ...of the 25 million or so natives that were here on these two continents before the white man came 90% were dead within 100 years of contact.
  
  Now would you not be a little aggressive?

• TinSoldier said on Mar 02, 2008....

  I don't think that your analogy holds any water.
  
  
  Native americans fought wars with each other. This means that they were violent at some point in their history. Therefore, they were equally at fault or no better than the europeans who practically wiped them off the face of the earth.
  
  "Equally at fault"? No, not really. But again, as I have tried to say over and over again, we are judging the Europeans from our modern moral standpoint. Not the moral standpoint that was held 200+ years ago by any human group.
  
  I think that one of the (admirable) aspects of our current culture is our ability to empathize with the underdog. I think that that is a new quality, historically speaking. Of course, that makes into the villain whoever it is that actually "wins".
  
  
  Let me flip this around. Europeans had a history of war prior to discovering america. Would it make any sense to say that the native american would be justified in crossing the ocean and destroying all the countries of europe so they could have the land because europeans had fought wars in the past?
  
  Then we would be excoriating the Native Americans instead of the Europeans, no? Heh. We could even be having the same discussion but with the actors names changed!
  
  But since it didn't happen that way we condemn the actions of the Europeans. And rightfully so.
  
  Again, speaking only for myself, I justify nothing. It is what it is. We can hopefully learn from the mistakes of the past, even if humanity is filled with slow learners.
  

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  ""Equally at fault"? No, not really. But again, as I have tried to say over and over again, we are judging the Europeans from our modern moral standpoint. Not the moral standpoint that was held 200+ years ago by any human group."
  
  I don't prescribe to the idea of moral relativism. For example, slavery is wrong regardless of the mores of the culture keeping slaves. I think the same is true here.
  
  
  

• D6fer said on Mar 02, 2008....

  so what are you saying bloc? We are all stupid now? You are the only intelligent person in this forum? My aren't we full of ourselves!

• sheltercrow said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons. Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, precise pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain, and estimates are often produced by extrapolation from comparatively small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used these various estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people, although some recent estimates are lower than that. On an estimate of approximately 50 million people in 1492 (including 25 million in the Aztec Empire and 12 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll of 80% at the end of the 16th century (8 million people in 1650). Latin America would only reattain this level at the turn of the 20th century, with 17 million in 1800; 30 million in 1850; 61 million in 1900; 105 million in 1930; 218 million in 1960; 361 million in 1980, and 563 million in 2005. In the last thirty years of the 16th century, the Mexican population highly decreased to attain the low level of one million people in 1600. The Maya population is today estimated at 6 million, which is the same level as at the end of the 15th century. In what is now Brazil, the indigenous population has declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 4 million to some 300,000.

• TinSoldier said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Heh. The liberal doesn't subscribe to moral relativism and the conservative does!
  
  How do you like that juxtaposition?
  
  (Sorry, not trying to insult with labels, just trying to show that we are more complex than labels would lead one to believe.)
  

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  yeah, I actually don't think of myself as being that liberal, but it seems that opposing torture, and defending civil liberties makes me a raging liberal in modern america. Oh, and believing in a social safety net.

• hottips4u said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Or that your all arguing over something in history that simply cant be argued or written away no matter what opinion ultimately rules.
  
  But fact is, along a similar line of thought,  1 out of every 99 A mericans are as of today, Incarcerated in America's Prisons, More than any place else in the entire World.
  
  Why cant you get mad at each other over something thats here and now and can be changed ?  Well, because if you go in knowing you cant change what has been already been done, you are not accountable or facing failure.
  
  1 out of every 99....thats something to get pissed about here in the homeland and land of the Free.
  
  I am done, go back to futility.  Have a good night ya all.
  

• TinSoldier said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Then I guess that Americans should pay more attention to the law which we supposedly hold so dear.
  
  Or maybe enforcement is better or corruption is less than in other parts of the world.
  
  What's to get mad at?
  

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  @hottips
  yeah, that's certainly an issue that needs to be talked about. What do you think is the cause of this? Is our culture more criminal, or do we put people in jail for things that wouldn't cause jail time elsewhere, or do we give longer sentences that don't achieve anything but filling up jails? Or maybe some of each?
  

• hottips4u said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Stop force feeding religion into the veins of our courts and governmental offices so that fanatical efforts to create a police state are not so popular by popular demand.
  
  Stop incarcerating the non violent offenders.  Give back the constitutional rights that are but water downed versions of the 60's and 70's advances gained thru blood death and despair have been not eroded but surrendered by as destinydiva once said, and it comes to mind, people sometimes walk around with their eyes wide shut.  Only when the issues affecting your today can be made better for tomorrows by acting today to correct the now rather than mend history with 20/20 hindsight.
  

• TinSoldier said on Mar 02, 2008....

  If you think that we have fewer civil/Constitutional rights now than in the '60s or '70s then you've got another think coming.
  
  Let me know when J. Edgar Hoover is running the FBI again, 'k?
  

• bloc said on Mar 02, 2008....

  i think hottips is referring to the gains made after Hoover's doings came to light. Things like FISA (although FISA was a result of Nixon's misdeeds). Although I think a convincing case can be made that the Bush admin is as bad as Hoover and NIxon. They've argued in a court that they can detain americans without due process. I can't think of anything Hoover did that is as bad as this.
  

• TinSoldier said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Sorry, I agree that we have backslid a bit since the '80s and '90s, but we're nowhere near where we were in the '70s and before. That's the point I'm trying to make.

• hottips4u said on Mar 02, 2008....

  oh no...where's the stability in the 4th amend.?  or the 14th amend ?as pointed out by bloc.  Or the 6th amend ? w/ detainees.  I can easily go on with the ground that been lost to erosion by fanatics desiring to live in a police state where even probable cause has been revisited to that of whim and surmise.

• TinSoldier said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Okay.
  

• hottips4u said on Mar 02, 2008....

  G-Nite ya-all. Good foundation to some solid conversation possible in this post, hope it goes that way for ya.  Nitters.

• TinSoldier said on Mar 02, 2008....

  Sorry. Maybe I'm too much of a "moral relativist".
  
  I know that abuses of civil rights have occurred. Some of them have been reported in the media, some of them have not.
  
  I still think that the situation is better than it was in the '70s and before. And that we need to remain vigilant and call out whenever violations do happen. But I also think that we are following the Constitution far more closely than we ever have in the past.
  

• sheltercrow said on Mar 03, 2008....

      o                   o
       \                  /
  
     /                      \
  ----------------------

• sheltercrow said on Mar 03, 2008....

  This one is pretty good..... Should Israel destroy Palestine?

• travelr712 said on Mar 03, 2008....

  as one who was alive and self aware in the 60's and 70's, i can say through personal experience that we now enjoy some freedoms that we did not back then. i can also say that we do not enjoy as many freedoms as we did in the 90's, mostly because of the fear of terrorism that our 'fearless leaders' tried to instill in every man, woman and child in the world, and for a time, just long enough, it worked. now we are dealing with the social, legal and economic fallout of burried heads in 2002, 2003 and 2004. BUT. people are waking up. the next 4 years are gonna be interesting folks! :-)

• curmudgeon said on Mar 03, 2008....

  As far as the Native Americans are concerned, we have to be a bit realistic here. The European settlers wanted land. Coexistence stood in the way of economic, territorial and popular expansion. The Europeans (and the Native Americans) saw the world very differently from the way we see it now. Who am I to second guess their decisions when everything I have is a result of what they did?
   
  I think this "sliding scale of violence and immorality" debate is useless.  If we want to talk about how Native Americans are treated today, well great - that's something we can do something about. But we're not doing that here. We're indulging in this post-modern self-blame and guilt for what peope did several hundred years ago. Quite frankly, only someone well-off can afford to indulge in such fruitless self-immolation.
   
  As far as all the prisioners are concerned, here's an idea. Everyone who thinks "non-violent offenders" ought to be released should offer one or more of them a job and a place to live - in their neighborhood. Put up or quit blaming the rest of the country.

• bloc said on Mar 03, 2008....

  @curm
  
  I agree with a lot of what you said. What is more interesting to me in this debate isn't who is to blame for what but this notion some have that america is this pure white noble nation that does no wrong. The idea that when we waterboard someone it isn't torture, but when anyone else does it then it is torture. Or, the issue here, when america slaughters peopel for their land it's ONLY because their settlements were attacked first, while any other nation that does a similar thing is evil and crazy.
  
  
  

Comment on "Second stupidest thing on soulcast"

Currently tagged	stupid politics ROFL bloc head (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment