# Obama's Speech today...



## Evan Gamble (Jun 4, 2009)

..Man it feel's so good to hear thoughts I have so eloquently said to the world. What are everyone else's thoughts?

Yes I know it was just a speech and we will see if actions back it up, but still. Wasn't it great? :D 

It is still going on as I post this, so forgive me jumping the gun! But I mean this is why I voted for the guy! Very Exciting...


----------



## Robin (Jun 4, 2009)

What a brillant speech. Nothing else to say.

He will be here in Dresden this afternoon, the city has been crazy for weeks now


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2009)

I just read the whole speech on line. Brilliant. Emphasizing the true nature of religion which is to bring peace and spread understanding around the world is just want is needed to fight the extremism.

jose


----------



## tobyond (Jun 4, 2009)

Truly inspiring. He is a leader for the ages.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 4, 2009)

He just has it, doesn't he.


----------



## madbulk (Jun 4, 2009)

Didn't hear the speech. Read only the lead story. But yes, the guy just has it. So I'm sitting here thinking, "Some important stuff was said today. And I'm sure it will be very interesting when I hear it all. But in the meantime, I don't have to worry about it. And that's rather a new feeling."


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 4, 2009)

Great speech; doesn't matter. It won't change a thing. I think alot of people are expecting this speech to change things, and for this world to now be a better place. Alot of people are wrong. Shame, really. The human race is capable of so much love, understanding and respect - but exhibits anything but much of the time.


----------



## madbulk (Jun 4, 2009)

Hell, we've got that here!


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 4, 2009)

And anyone that thinks that "he just has it" is more than a tad off kilter here. "He just has it" assumes that it was he who wrote the speech. 

Cheers.


----------



## madbulk (Jun 4, 2009)

Uh oh. Duck. What a lousy choice of 500th post.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2009)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jun 04 said:


> And anyone that thinks that "he just has it" is more than a tad off kilter here. "He just has it" assumes that it was he who wrote the speech.
> 
> Cheers.



He wrote it. It has his history all of it. Pretty tough to fake that. He does have a speech writer but they write together bouncing off ideas to each other ect...

Though I'm sure he has a bunch of research guys now too. Those quotes from the Koran and from our founding fathers about Islam and the fact that Thomas Jefferson kept a copy of the Koran in his private library, bet that wasn't easy information to find.

I love the conservative reaction to all this too. They're tongue tied. They don't know what to think. This speech was so brilliant and drew upon so much American and Islamic history and where the two intertwine that nobody can knock it and not look like a total bigot.

Jose


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 4, 2009)

madbulk @ Fri Jun 05 said:


> Uh oh. Duck. What a lousy choice of 500th post.



An accurate one at that. I am sure he had a hand in parts, but if you really think that Obama wrote that speech - or most of it - you are just fooling youself. 

A great 501.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 4, 2009)

Jose so far you certainly appear to be right -- even Fox' website had a tough time attacking it, only insisting that it was just like Bush's speeches.

In some respects, it was, except for knowing a lot more about Islam. One huge difference was the large amount of daylight between the policies of Israel and the US; using the word "Palestine" and calling forcefully to an end to construction on settlements -- that is real difference between the US and Israel and already some Israelis have attacked the speech.

Of course, so has Bin Laden, though his effort was not a rebuttal of the speech but focused instead on Pakistan and blame the US for the refugee situation there.


----------



## madbulk (Jun 4, 2009)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jun 04 said:


> madbulk @ Fri Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Uh oh. Duck. What a lousy choice of 500th post.
> ...



I dunno, Riff. I'd go back and double check my logic for presumptuousness.


----------



## madbulk (Jun 4, 2009)

Sorry Riff and everybody. I'm being petty and even silly. Hijacking over.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 4, 2009)

Interesting article in the NYT citing reactions in the Middle East to the speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/world ... ax.html?hp


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 4, 2009)

RiffWraith, it doesn't actually matter whether he actually wrote the speech (although I believe Jose is right). The point is that he just has it when it comes to being President.

I also believe strongly that you're totally underestimating the impact he has in the rest of the world. Our prestige has plummeted because of the last administration, and having this kind of a face is already changing things. We no longer have a poster boy for terrorist recruitment in office, for openers, but just the idea that he can say "I have Moslems in my family" makes a huge difference.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 4, 2009)

"The point is that he just has it when it comes to being President. "

Has what, exactly? Charisma, personality, etc...? Yes, he does have those things -and more. He is likeable, intelligent, articulate, well-spoken, knows how to think...etc. Is that what you mean? Sorry for being a party pooper here, but I think you underestimate the amount of people floating around out there (right here in the US) that feel strongly that we have never had a president like this. Which is rediculous. We haven't had a pres like this in quite a while (too long, IMHO), but never? C'mon.

"Our prestige has plummeted because of the last administration..."

Spot on there.

"you're totally underestimating the impact he has in the rest of the world."

No I am not. Because...

"having this kind of a face is already changing things."

For an otherwise seemingly intelligent guy, that is a pretty rediculous statement. Changing what? What has changed, exactly? Maybe some people's opinions in the rest of the world have changed - but what does that mean, exactly? What has _really_ changed? Nothng. And what will? That remains to be seen, but if history is to bear any lesson here - the answer is simple: not much, if anything.

"We no longer have a poster boy for terrorist recruitment in office"

True. Tho, I hate to break it to you - terrorist/Islamic extremist recruitment has not waned in the past few months. Let's not pretend that it has since Bush left office.

Don't get the impression that I dislike Obama; on the contrary. I do in fact like him - I think he is a good person with a good heart, I think he means well, and that he wants to do the right thing. He is seemingly (not yet, anyway), the "typical politician", and I truly hope he succeds. I just grow weary of all the people that use the name of Barrack Obama as their rallying cry for change. Just because he ran on the basis of that very word in his quest for the presidency? Is that why people think there is going to be change? Are people really that gullible?

Cheers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 4, 2009)

If anyone hasn't seen or read the speech, I think it's really important.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =104923292

People will interpret it through their own prisms, but I can't think of anything he could have said any better to further his aim - namely to put our country in the position to use our influence positively (and to try and undo all the damage to our prestige).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 4, 2009)

"For an otherwise seemingly intelligent guy, that is a pretty rediculous statement."

Ah, but for an otherwise stupid guy it's not ridiculous.


----------



## mikebarry (Jun 4, 2009)

Especially proud to be an American today, what a speech.


----------



## madbulk (Jun 4, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 04 said:


> "For an otherwise seemingly intelligent guy, that is a pretty rediculous statement."
> 
> Ah, but for an otherwise stupid guy it's not ridiculous.



Ah!


----------



## rgames (Jun 4, 2009)

Anybody remember Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat at Camp David with Pres. Clinton smiling over their handshakes? Remember how everyone was inspired with hope about the prospects for a new peace? What came of that? Well, Clinton got the hyped press that he (and Obama) loves. I can't think of anything else that came of that media-induced frenzy.

Let's focus on results, folks...

What, exactly, has changed as a result of this or any other of Obama's "inspirational" speeches? Will they lessen the pain of the next terrorist attack? Or the first Iranian nuclear warhead detonated over Israel? Or the first North Korean missile lobbed into South Korea?

Did this speech really make any difference in terms of our global standing and global security? Or is it another one of Obama's manipulations of the media to promote his "look at me" agenda (remember the economic crisis that somehow went away when he got elected)? Who among our enemies looked at this speech and changed his mind about the US? Anyone?

_<Hold on there! Did I ask "where's the change?">_

The facts show that North Korea and Iran have both become much bolder since Obama came to power. I find it hard to believe that this speech did anything to inspire them to reduce their anti-American rhetoric.

Results, not speeches, are the mark of a great president. So far, Obama is just another politician using the media spin machine to his advantage. I see no change in this president so far - maybe it'll come, but it definitely ain't here yet...

rgames

P.S. history has given us many great orators. Obama is not among them. Better than average, yes, but not among the greats. His is an infatuation bred of media manipulation.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jun 4, 2009)

Obama's speach was that of a once-in-a-lifetime world leader. Everyone I have talked to is very proud of him. He knows that to get respect you must give respect. He is strong but humble at the same time. The world has been waiting for someone like Obama for a long, long time.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 4, 2009)

Exactly, Hans.

And Richard, everything you post is 180 degrees wrong. Always. What else can I say.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 4, 2009)

Isn't it easy to see that the route Bush took gave extremist more ammunition to use against us? "look they really are evil" etc.

And that promoting peace and non-violence will give ammunition to those who support peace as well?

Non of this can hurt, right? Yes, when something comes up that requires tough military tactics it will be used, but promoting peace is never a bad thing for fucks sake.


----------



## rgames (Jun 4, 2009)

Evan Gamble @ Thu Jun 04 said:


> Isn't it easy to see that the route Bush took gave extremist more ammunition to use against us? "look they really are evil" etc.



And yet the worst terrorist attack on American soil took place after 8 years of Clinton policy... And before that, the previous terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, under Clinton policy... And Khobar Towers, and the USS Cole, and, and, and - under Clinton policy.

Golly - it sure seems like we suffered a lot more in the way of hateful attacks under the Clinton administration...??? How many did we suffer under Bush? Of course, he was in office only a few months when 9/11 happened, so that's Cliton's gift to him. And, of course, the war in Iraq is Clinton's baby.

So, no, I don't see that Bush gave more ammunition to terrorists. Maybe he did, but he also did a better job of protecting the US. Of course, he was more concerned with actually doing something rather than self-promoting to make people think he's doing something.

The terrorists hated the US before Bush came into power (so did Iran, and North Korea, and a bunch of other folks). Bush might have made it worse, but to claim that he created the hatred indicates a complete lack of knowledge of attacks against he US.

And guess what: despite Obama's supposedly grandiloquent rhetoric, at the end of the day, they still hate us. Americans MUST NOT lose sight of that fact and allow themselves to be duped into thinking that all's well in the world because Obama is turning the crank on the spin machine.

Fortunately, Obama appears to be a reasonably smart guy. So while he's preaching "change" and allowing folks to think he's doing something different, he's continuing most of Bush's policies as regards the war on terrorism.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jun 4, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 04 said:


> And Richard, everything you post is 180 degrees wrong.



How? So you think the Clinton spin machine made somthing useful come out of the Camp David talks? I'm open to any ideas but I've discussed it for years and never heard a strong argument that justifies the hype that surrounded it. But Clinton loved the press...! We're in exactly the same situation now.

And you think we were better off under Clinton's policies (which are conceptually similar to Obama's)? Off the top of my head, I can think of four major terrorist attacks against the US under Clinton policy, including 9/11 because Bush had only recently taken office.

How many under Bush?

rgames


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 4, 2009)

rgames @ Fri Jun 05 said:


> The terrorists hated the US before Bush came into power (so did Iran, and North Korea, and a bunch of other folks). Bush might have made it worse, but to claim that he created the hatred indicates a complete lack of knowledge of attacks against he US.
> And guess what: despite Obama's supposedly grandiloquent rhetoric, at the end of the day, they still hate us. Americans MUST NOT lose sight of that fact and allow themselves to be duped into thinking that all's well in the world because Obama is turning the crank on the spin machine.


See this is where you are wrong. None of these countries hate us. Their GOVERNMENTS have caused problems. People are people in every state and country despite borders. Don't let the few in power taint your view of the many they represent. 

And I never said Bush created these problems. But his war terror created exactly that, terror. And what do people do when they are afraid...(in our case we tortured)

But hey Conservatives will always be the party of NO ideas, just simply whining. Where is the progressive thought and looking to better ones world? He gives a speech about optimism and already you guys look at the negatives (wait to at least see how this plays out, that's all I'm asking for). 

Just throwing shit at a fan before anything has even happened yet just because you think "Oh I've seen this before". No you haven't no one has. There are too many variables to quantify how different it is now than during Clinton's years. Sure it might not work. But at least wait and see what actions play out before pissing and moaning.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 4, 2009)

But I suppose you'd rather have President that does nothing..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR_rFXXz ... re=related

Than actually TRIES to make the world better.

(and don't give me that BS that the reason he sits there is because of security, a real President would at least ask some fucking questions)


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 4, 2009)

rgames @ Fri Jun 05 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > And Richard, everything you post is 180 degrees wrong.
> ...



Yeah because 9 months is a few months. So no I won't hold Clinton responsible.

I've some bigger numbers than 4 to throw at you..

*2,974 *september 11th deaths
*4309* military deahs in Iraq
*91,856 - 100,278* Civilian Deaths in Iraq

How many under Clinton?


----------



## rgames (Jun 5, 2009)

Evan Gamble @ Fri Jun 05 said:


> *2,974 *september 11th deaths
> *4309* military deahs in Iraq
> *91,856 - 100,278* Civilian Deaths in Iraq
> 
> How many under Clinton?



All of those are as much due to Clinton as Bush - remember, Pres. Clinton signed the act that began the war in Iraq with the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power. And, of course, Clinton's eight years of worrying about which intern to mess around with rather than dealing with threats against the US lead to 9/11.

People who don't pay attention always forget those facts because Clinton worked the spin machine so diligently... Don't let Obama do the same!!!!

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Jun 5, 2009)

As usual Richard your facts are skewed. So let's get a few things straight.

First, It was Ronald Regan that gave birth to Al-Queda. Al-Queda was directly funded and trained by the CIA under Reagan's watch. Then Bush did a good thing. He beat back the Taliban in Afganistan once it was known that the Taliban and Al-Queda had become linked. But, then he did a very wrong thing. He dropped the ball and focused on Iraq. Dick Cheney has directly admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that there was no connection between Sadam and Al-Queda.

So Al-Queda and the Taliban under the Bush/Cheney watch gained strength. They became so powerful under Bush/Cheney that they nearly over took Nuclear armed Pakistan. 

Under pressure from the Obama adminstration the Taliban are now on the run again and Pakistan is now more secure having beat back the Taliban back to the Afgan border.

Conservatives in their infinite bigotry try to vilify all of Islam. We are not at war with Islam. We're at war with the Al-Queda Taliban connection. Obama knows the difference. We can't conquer Al-Queda and the Taliban without the help of the Islamic world.

Many Islamic countries hate Al-Queda. Bin Laden and crew have been kicked out of many of the Arab countries.

Plus the Bush/Cheney administration were in power for 9 months when 9/11 happened. They were fully aware that Al-Queda were planning something. Yet they did nothing. So I don't see how you can pin it on Clinton. Especially due to the fact that Al-Queda was funded by Reagan. Makes no sense. I don't get it.

Jose


----------



## hbuus (Jun 5, 2009)

A journalist for the Danish tv-channel DR1 really hit the nail on the head when he said this:

"Obama got standing ovations after his speech; Bush got a shoe thrown after him the last time he was in the Middle East."

That really speaks volumes about the difference between the two, doesn't it! :D


----------



## JB78 (Jun 5, 2009)

I totally agree with your last post Jose!

Cheney even tried to pin 9/11 on Richard Clarke, claiming "he missed it". How much of a douche do you have to be to say something like that?
It's especially rich since it's a documented fact that Bush&Co got several memos about impending attacks and they just ignored it. 

If that would've happened under Clintons watch, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would've gang-raped him with a rabid Ann Coulter taking pictures for her next book.

Obama is such a major improvement after 8 years of Bush it's actually kind of hard to believe that he got elected. 

Hbuus: Yeah, that pretty much sums it up... :lol:


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 5, 2009)

It's pretty easy for me. If you had a dumbass such as Bush who couldn't even talk, ruled the "world" for like eight years, people are simply happy that now someone is there who at least says he tries to make it better and can admit his mistakes ...

Hope dies last ... and this guy gives people more hope than someone who told the crowd that he fallen down and almost sffocated on a piece of pretzel ...

In the end it doesn't matter if he wrote the speech, his writers or his dog. It is HIM representing the U.S. in this moment ... and this is all what counts.

And we all know that Karajan was successfull too, but he didn't mostly write the music he conducted nor did he play an instrument (while conducting).
He was just successfully moving his hands and body to bring the energy to the people. In the end? Nobody talks about John Doe playing the Oboe back in that concert in the year X, ... but it was Karajan representing the orchestra that day.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 5, 2009)

RE: Presidential speech writers...

My great uncle was a presidential speech writer. Though he was like "this" with the president, fact is, it was always the president's message and they worked on the speeches shoulder-to-shoulder. Despite being close friends off the court, so to speak, it was never my great uncle's message...he wasn't elected president.


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Jun 5, 2009)

rgames @ Fri Jun 05 said:


> And you think we were better off under Clinton's policies (which are conceptually similar to Obama's)? Off the top of my head, I can think of four major terrorist attacks against the US under Clinton policy, including 9/11 because Bush had only recently taken office.
> 
> How many under Bush?
> 
> rgames


This sort of implies that terrorists practice some degree of leniency if they like what the American government is doing. It's no secret that the attacks of 9/11 were involved, premeditated efforts that could've very well fallen on Clinton's watch. Extremists are extremists. If anything, Obama's message pissed em' off even more.  

I understand where rgames is coming from (I think). I didn't understand what all the excitement was about when Obama won the election. It's all talk at that point. In an alternate universe, if Bush was a great president, I don't think the commotion would've reached the fever pitch it did. 

He hit the ground running, but whether or not he can justify the unprecedented support that got him to White House... time will tell.


----------



## nikolas (Jun 5, 2009)

Being a Greek and letting you know that Greece is largely "antiamerican" (Theo can confirm this...) I can say that Obama's speech was extremely well writen, well rendered, well produced and well performed! (since we do remain in VI-control! :D). he's either a bloody amazing actor, or he wrote the speech! which says a lot for me. His charisma is a given fact for me as well!

Now, onto the speech, I've read parts, saw parts on the telly. Speaking the truth has never been so inspiring! At last an American mouth tells Israel that they need to change tachticks (and so do the Palestinians, don't get me wrong).

I do hope that Obama will go on the same way he's going so far and that his actions will reflect his sayings! (which I personally think they will, but that's just me).


----------



## OLB (Jun 5, 2009)

rgames @ 5/6/2009 said:


> Anybody remember Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat at Camp David with Pres. Clinton smiling over their handshakes? Remember how everyone was inspired with hope about the prospects for a new peace? What came of that? Well, Clinton got the hyped press that he (and Obama) loves. I can't think of anything else that came of that media-induced frenzy.
> 
> Let's focus on results, folks...
> 
> ...




These kinds of posts are breathing pessimism which is far from being helpful and constructive. It does gives us a nice discussion though.. 

But Obama's speeches do change things, results are coming especially from speeches like this. So many europeans, americans, muslims, asians, poor people and young people are inspired by his words and most important Obama gives them hope, optimism and incredible motivation to stand up and work with each other to make this world better. Because the world is sick, sick with hate to each other. It's so easy to be pessimistic but you can't deny that Obama is giving a very clear vision, perspective and hope for a peaceful future. Which isn't that what we all want? 
It's not only Obama who is responsible for the well-being of the world, because it is me AND you who has to work hard and not judging passively and being destructive. Be constructive.

And I completely agree with Hans, he is a once-in-a-lifetime world leader, amazing... A great leader brings people together, not against each other. 

Peace o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 5, 2009)

Great line, hbuus!

Richard, I'm not defending Clinton's foreign policy. Obama is trying to undo the damage of eight years of disastrous Bush foreign policy, which you can measure any way you like - except by who the incumbents are during terrorist attacks; that's irrelevant and silly.

We've lost an incredible amount of prestige around the world, and Obama is doing his best to regain that so he can use our power to try and solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's at the center of all kinds of unrest in the Middle East; even if he fails, he's trying.

And did you notice where the speech was made? In Egypt. It's interesting that you only bring up Clinton's failed attempt at Camp David (which was not his failure but Arafat's) without mentioning Carter's Camp David accords, which are still an amazing success to this day.

But your arguments have forced me to put Obama's speech in the context of the inept leadership that preceded him. Actually he's doing his best to take huge positive steps forward, and the thing that makes him a great leader is that he's able to inspire and move people. I think the man is just magnificent.

Niklas - what you said.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 6, 2009)

JB78 @ Thu Jun 04 said:


> If that would've happened under Clintons watch, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would've gang-raped him with a rabid Ann Coulter taking pictures for her next book.



:lol:


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 8, 2009)

haha! The NYtimes is a reliable source now? Might as well quot fox news.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 8, 2009)

Can you feel me ignoring you, Fernando?


----------



## artsoundz (Jun 8, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> Can you feel me ignoring you, Fernando?



+1


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 9, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> artsoundz @ Mon Jun 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jun 08 said:
> ...



Haha! Is this a Jewish boycott?


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 9, 2009)

Fernando Warez @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > artsoundz @ Mon Jun 08 said:
> ...



Clearly, it is a Zionist conspiracy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 9, 2009)

Meanwhile I had no idea that Jon Voight is a clinical idiot:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... e-prophet/


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 9, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> Meanwhile I had no idea that Jon Voight is a clinical idiot:
> 
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... e-prophet/



OMG, ... and you can even see an Alien or something like a lizard man, rushing through the picture at around 00:37 :mrgreen:


----------



## JB78 (Jun 9, 2009)

Holy crap! 

I didn't even realise he was a prophet to begin with, it's devastating to hear that he's a false one to boot.


Seriously though...I feel sorry for Angelina...what a douche for a father.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 9, 2009)

I use to like him so much!!! Damn. They are frothing at the mouth these people. Like Rabid pit bulls.


----------



## nikolas (Jun 9, 2009)

Jay, your double posting has a new meaning now... +1+2+2 gets you to 5 instead of a mere 3! YAY on ignoring people! :D

Fernando: Have you ever thought that you are so negative on things that you are *also* failing to see things with a clear eye? Better take a scale out and weight things to see (if you can) what could be viewed as a closer approximation to truth!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 10, 2009)

nikolas @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> Jay, your double posting has a new meaning now... +1+2+2 gets you to 5 instead of a mere 3! YAY on ignoring people! :D
> 
> Fernando: Have you ever thought that you are so negative on things that you are *also* failing to see things with a clear eye? Better take a scale out and weight things to see (if you can) what could be viewed as a closer approximation to truth!



Oh boy! You're not even worth answering. You're so negative blabla.... You sound like a kid or something.


----------



## nikolas (Jun 10, 2009)

Oh no! I'm a kid or something! boo hoo hoo. 

I may not be worth answering, but I'm surely worth posting and trying to provoce with a personal comment. Way to go, mate! Keep it up!


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 10, 2009)

I think in a difficult time like this we have to be even happy that someone is there who even talks like he will do something.

Dumbass Bush wasn't even able to do this. Get the gun out, bumm, dead ... THAT's the way ... but no!! Talking and trying to find a different way is for wimps ... Voight to me sounds the same as Heston back then "Over my coooold dead haaaaaand".

I would say put all those violent and fight hungry guys in a football stadium, give them a few weapon and bring in a good clean team after that.

It's so funny that Voight mentiones a Kindergarten/sandbox behaviour if someone wants to talk, discuss or find a peaceful solution ... but he wants to get into the other sandbox and make it out with war???! That speaks surely for the intelligence of some people.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 10, 2009)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jun 04 said:


> "having this kind of a face is already changing things."
> 
> For an otherwise seemingly intelligent guy, that is a pretty rediculous statement. Changing what? What has changed, exactly? Maybe some people's opinions in the rest of the world have changed - but what does that mean, exactly? What has _really_ changed? Nothng. And what will? That remains to be seen, but if history is to bear any lesson here - the answer is simple: not much, if anything.



He is changing a lot. I am just giving an example from my own point of view as an outsider living outside the US (The Netherlands).
During the Bush period I lost all hope in the US, it became a country with a foreign policy that scared me. The campaign against terror and the methods used caused for me and a lot of people here that faith in the US went far below zero.
With Obama coming in, I watched the election night till 5am in the morning here and I was so happy. For me this is a very good step in a next direction. With Obama's speach he is doing one thing: he is giving hope.
Hope may not cause change immediatly, but I will explain how it will effect the US positive.

In 2 years we have government elections here again. We have a few parties that are pro US in their program and a few that want to take distance. During the Bush years I avoided the parties that were pro US, simply because I didn't want to get involved at the whole Iraq war etc bla bla (not important), but now that Obama is giving me good hope again for the US, my faith in a good collaberation is restored and I think I won't be that sceptic anymore in a wider collaberation with the US on all fronts since I know there is a leader know standing for certain rights and issues that I fully agree upon.
I am just one person here, but a lot of people feel that here. This hope he is giving in his speeches now will pay itself back in a few years when people are willing to look to the US again. This will benefit the US economicly since people get faith, will invest more, travel again to the US, the dollar will rise, again more faith in the US economics etc etc, but will also secure its leadership in the world.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 10, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> Meanwhile I had no idea that Jon Voight is a clinical idiot:
> 
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... e-prophet/



That's not Voight - it's Jonas Hodges!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 10, 2009)

Obama is a complete fraud just like Bush. 

He got elected saying "i will work for you" and then turns around and give 30 to 1 dollar to the rich, the banks. But the media built him up so good you just swallowed it without realizing it. And it's even worse since you, the citizens, will have to pay those banksters. So not only he's not working for you but you will work for him or them if you prefer. And what did he do to "change" this and to avoid this from happening again? Nothing! Hell he even named some of the guys responsible for this crisis in his cabinet. HAHAHA! Priceless! Supposedly, they will fix the economy or something... And you can expect these wall street guys to go at it again. 

And while banks are too big to fail apparently, Chrysler and the auto industry is not. How many Job will be lost? Why not save these job instead of give money to banks who created the crisis in the first place? Well, because Obama was financially supported during his campaign of course. Wasn't he suppose to work for the people? Unions will brake as a result of this. That's horrible. And that is so going backwards. Of course jobs will move to China and Mexico as well.

He said he'd stop the war in Iraq and bring the troops home within 6 months, but now it's like in 1 1/2 years. Actually, it looks like the US will never leave Iraq. 

He voted for the patriot act so the government can spy on Americans. And he can detain people without charges indefinitely out side of the law. Sam as Bush. BTW, I'd be curious to hear what the Obama fan club here has to say about that? You really love Obama and these fascist policies? 

And now he try to pretend he's against Israel building illegal settlement. :roll: That's pure hypocrisy. The guy could tell Israel to stop the building of illegal settlements or else the US will stop giving Israel billions every years. How about that? But no. The guys will cave in to Israeli pressure just like Other President. In fact, he just did in the case of Chase Freeman. 

Af course what he's trying to do is to appeal to Arab countries. That's how the story was written from the start. Bush was to be the stick and Obama was to be the carrot. Attracting support in the region is precisely why the powers that be picked up Obama. He has dark skin and a Muslim name. That's why the media favoured him for those of you who have noticed. That's why he got elected. They are using him to gain support, that's all. 

IMO, the last 8 years was like a bad Hollywood script. With Bush playing the bad guy and Obama the hero who comes in at the end and save the day. So predictable it's pathetic. And now people love Obama so much that they've accepted all these new fascist policies. Like they forgot they were there or something. I'll admit It's a pretty clever coup. 

Anyway, I'll let you online pundit feed this fake left vs right for now. :wink:


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 10, 2009)

lol Fernando... I hope a few government agencies are keeping a close eye on you.


----------



## artsoundz (Jun 10, 2009)

Sorry to be Ot- but Fernando- I imagine your room is good for recording-nice mellow sound. You know-with the walls and such heavily padded.


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 10, 2009)

Fernando Warez @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> And what did he do to "change" this and to avoid this from happening again? Nothing! Hell he even named some of the guys responsible for this crisis in his cabinet. HAHAHA! Priceless!



Hmm, just out of curiosity, ... but did you think about what any other president would have done? I assume simply replaced them and mentioned some weird other reasons (sickness, blabla) or leave everything as is, letting those guys moving on doing crap.

To be really honest, I prefer EVERYONE who is telling the truth to me. In my opinion it takes a lot of courage to OFFICIALLY mention a mistake ... we all know nobody is perfect, but ironically all higher position people never admit when they did something wrong.

Besides that do you really know what Bush did wrong or that he did it all right, only because he didn't admit mistakes?


----------



## JB78 (Jun 10, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile I had no idea that Jon Voight is a clinical idiot:
> ...





Spoiler



Hey! Didn't Hodges blow up in the car after all??? >8o



Damn 24 and their triple-quadruple conspiracies...no one ever dies on that freaking show! :mrgreen:



*Jaap*: You pretty much summed up how I feel about this as well. o-[][]-o 


Best regards
Jon

[edit]Hehehe, I figured everyone had seen it already but just to be safe  [/edit]


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 10, 2009)

I think you might want to edit your post for spoilers


----------



## nikolas (Jun 10, 2009)

artsoundz @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> Sorry to be Ot- but Fernando- I imagine your room is good for recording-nice mellow sound. You know-with the walls and such heavily padded.


Nay... The room would be too "cube-like"... Parallel walls and stuff would make the sound too muddied! :D


----------



## tobyond (Jun 10, 2009)

nikolas @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> artsoundz @ Wed Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to be Ot- but Fernando- I imagine your room is good for recording-nice mellow sound. You know-with the walls and such heavily padded.
> ...



...and don't forget all the tin foil on his hat.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 10, 2009)

Eventhough I fully disagree with Fernando his opinion and statements I don't think we should make fun out of it. He has his right to show his opinion and he should be able to do that also in the future, whether we agree or not and I think this sort of jokes will scare people away and will avoid that somebody will express themselves.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 10, 2009)

Jaap @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> Eventhough I fully disagree with Fernando his opinion and statements I don't think we should make fun out of it. He has his right to show his opinion and he should be able to do that also in the future, whether we agree or not and I think this sort of jokes will scare people away and will avoid that somebody will express themselves.



He has every right to make those comments. But we have every right to ridicule ridiculous comments. No one will read this thread, read Fernandos comments, and then conclude that expressing themselves here will get them into trouble.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 10, 2009)

Actually I do since at one point we might seem to find somebody else his posts funny and make fun out of it.

I like jokes, a lot even, but when somebody is making a serious statement in his opinion and the whole post setting is not implying that he would like to be made fun about, he should be threated with respect in the replies in my opinion, regardless if you like it or not what he is saying


----------



## nikolas (Jun 10, 2009)

Actually Jaap is right. I crossed the line to make (semi-)personal comments about Fernando, by insinuating about his room, etc... I do hope he realises it is fun, but it was a personal comment about HIM and not HIS VIEWS... So... 

So: Sorry Fernando. And Jaap's right, for me!


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 10, 2009)

Jaap @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> Actually I do since at one point we might seem to find somebody else his posts funny and make fun out of it.
> 
> I like jokes, a lot even, but when somebody is making a serious statement in his opinion and the whole post setting is not implying that he would like to be made fun about, he should be threated with respect in the replies in my opinion, regardless if you like it or not what he is saying



I guess I just fundamentally disagree with that. If someone wants to write here in all seriousness that the earth is 6000 years old, or the US governement planted explosives in WTC (to mention a few opinions I see rom time to time), then at first I will first try reason (Just as many have with Fernando). However if one keeps harping on about such utter and complete nonsense, then at some point people start to treat you accordingly. Keep saying crazy stuff, then at some point you get treated like crazy... thats a simple fact of life. You have every right to state that Elvis is still alive and sitting on your porch, but it has consequences. Not all opinions are worthy of respect.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 10, 2009)

For us it is crazy, but what we say can seen as crazy as well by alot of people. The voice of reason is not for everyone the same.

But!

I agree to agree upon that we fundamental disagree on this :mrgreen:


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 10, 2009)

Yes! 

Thank you Jaap - you're absolutely right. 

There should be no room on this forum for personal attacks.

We should focus on ideas that are presented - not on personalities. 

We should take on someone's ideas if we disagree - not criticize them personally. 


.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 10, 2009)

Ok, just to clarify. What I am opposing is that we "can't make fun of" (JAAB's words) opinions. Of course there are limits to personal attacks - I am not advocating personal attacks. I just disagree that all opinions, at all time, should be treated with equal respect. Just so we are clear.


----------



## tobyond (Jun 10, 2009)

Poor Fernando, not only is the government out to get him, so are the folks on VI.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 10, 2009)

Fernando, the root of your problem is that you fail to understand the old line: politics is the art of the possible rather than the ideal.

Because of that blind spot you assume that every politician who doesn't do 100% what you think he or she should has to be evil and that it's all theater. That's why you think anyone who believes we're moving in the right direction is deluded, and most likely it has a lot to do with your 9/11 conspiracy obsession.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 11, 2009)

I am sorry folks, but when someone voluntarily posts some of the crazy things he posts, I am going to make fun of them and the person who created them. If I get banned for it, so be it.


----------



## nikolas (Jun 11, 2009)

Jay,

The point, I think, is that it's one thing to make fun of what someone says and a whole other issue to make fun of a person. The one is pure fun, the other constitutes personal attack, which certainly is not nice.

I know that we made fun, and it was quite funny, but I think we kinda crossed the line (my inclusive of course, see page #2 of this thread) and this is where Jaap stepped in.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 11, 2009)

nikolas @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> Jay,
> 
> The point, I think, is that it's one thing to make fun of what someone says and a whole other issue to make fun of a person. The one is pure fun, the other constitutes personal attack, which certainly is not nice.
> 
> I know that we made fun, and it was quite funny, but I think we kinda crossed the line (my inclusive of course, see page #2 of this thread) and this is where Jaap stepped in.



Fernando has written things in the past that crossed a line for me that as far as I am concerned make it open season on him.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 11, 2009)

On the other hand, who amongst us named Jay isn't a buffoon?


----------



## nikolas (Jun 11, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 11 said:


> On the other hand, who amongst us named Jay isn't a buffoon?


Let's take the opposite idea: Who amongst all the vi members is a buffoon? (Jay... don't raise your hand please! :D)

Jay: Didn't know... What you say does make sense of course, but he's done nothing to me (yet... :twisted: ) so... :-/

anyways let's move on


----------



## Jaap (Jun 12, 2009)

Am I going crazy or is suddenly one post gone? I am pretty sure there was a post below Nikolas his post from somebody who stood up for Fernando (did the author removed the post?)


----------



## nikolas (Jun 12, 2009)

Jaap: Insanity must be contegious then! :D:D:D:D:D:D

I actually didn't notice any post bellow mine (and I did check a few times, while taking a regular break)... hmm...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 12, 2009)

There was one... But I think it should be respected if he wants it gone. 

I did however have a reply to the poster: Opinions of Fernando's view on things is not based on just this thread. That's all 

[edit] And here is a new link from CNN to put things into perspective: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/11 ... topstories - so are such utterings crazy and deludedl? Or are they equally valid and should be treated with respect and seriousness?


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 12, 2009)

Generally, I agree with the principle that you attack the argument, not the person making the argument. However, when that person is making arguments that are racist, anti-semitic, sexist, xenophobic, or just plain wacky, then at that point I suspend the principle.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 12, 2009)

Exactly.

The problem (re: #3 and its effect on #1) is that our love has been way too unconditional for too long.

And Fernando, this theory is even stupider than the YouTube one you enjoy dredging up over and over. The PNAC were indeed totally nuts, and Bush wouldn't have been president if the American public had taken the time to read what they were saying. But you're taking a fact - that they're pro-Israel - and then misinterpreting it blindly and recklessly to support ridiculous, irrational, ill-informed crap.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 12, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> Jaap @ Wed Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I do since at one point we might seem to find somebody else his posts funny and make fun out of it.
> ...



Who made you the judge of what's crazy or not? I've had to put up with some pretty crazy opinions coming from you but I've never attacked you personally.

I think there's far too many personal attacks. 

If somebody has an opinion to the contrary then that person should be able to present facts that support his contrary opinion. Then you can debate facts all day long.

To be sure Fernando has said some pretty wild things. He has said somethings that are completely true and has uttered some things that are completely absurd, but I can say the same for just about anybody on this part of the forum.

I try to draw the line at criticizing people based on religious or ethnic reason, so my hope is that if Fernando continues to present his views that he understand that there's a difference between Israel and Judaism. Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. There's nothing in the Torah or Tanakh about killing Muslims for Oil or Security purposes. These are matters of State. Yes Israel is a Jewish state. But, blaming all of the actions of a state on some sort of Zionist conspiracy is just missing the point. They're making decisions a long the lines of money, security and survival just like any State does. Hell France allied with the southern states of the US to trade and traffic slaves for years, but I don't go around thinking that the there was a Franco Anglo Christian conspiracy to enslave all black people. I think that the country of France in protecting it's interest allied it's self with the south at the expense of human decency.

You'll never get to the truth unless you get over your particular biases. And, sometimes your post are not that different in thinking than a lot of these US white supremacist groups. I know you're better than that. With a name like Fernando Warez you don't really have the luxury of thinking like them. 

best,

Jose


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 12, 2009)

josejherring @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> Who made you the judge of what's crazy or not? I've had to put up with some pretty crazy opinions coming from you but I've never attacked you personally.



1) I don't have to be the judge of what is crazy. Crazy and not crazy gets determined by our conversational and social discourse. If I say and believe that I have a unicorn in my basement, then that pretty much garantees that people will see me as crazy (hopefully). 

2) I elaborated my stance on personal attacks previously. However the post of mine you quoted was mainly a reaction to the notion that all opinions are equally valid and worth respect. In short you get judged my what you say and do. Say things deemed crazy, then you get judged as such. 

3) Could you tell me which of my opinions in the past that you have found crazy (where I wasn't obviously joking - I like to take the piss)? I'm genuinely curious what these may be. Should be quite telling... 

4) If I said something deemed crazy, then I would not mind a "personal attack" on the level of those Fernando has seen here. Just keep in mind that the tollerance for personal attacks is highly dependant on our discourse. For instance if I say something crazy and you call me out on it - then you might start looking like the crazy one (see point 1). In other words... If you feel the urge some time to get personal based on some opinion of mine, then please don't hold back. Do it, and let others be the judges of who is crazy.

5) Are you still pissed at me for calling you out on some of the ill-informed nonsense you wrote here? I can hardly remember what it was now, but something like "Scientists now know that emotions don't come from the brain". I challenged you back up such a ludicrous claim....you never did. Is that what's in play here?


----------



## artsoundz (Jun 12, 2009)

Jose, I cant tell to whom your post is directed ò
¥   £©Z
¥   £©[
¥   £©\
¥   £©]
¥   £©^
¥   £©_
¥   £©`
¥   £©a
¥   £©b
¥   £©c
¥   £©d
¥   £©e
¥   £©f
¥   £©g
¥   £©h
¥   £©i
¥   £©j
¥   £©k
¥   £©l
¥   £©m
¥   £©n
¥   £©o
¥   £©p
¥   £©q
¥   £©r
¥   £©s
¥   £©t
¥   £©u
¥   £©v
¥   £©w
¥   £©x
¥   £©y
¥   £©z
¥   £©{
¥   £©|
¥   £©}
¥   £©~
¥   £©
¥   £©€
¥   £©
¥   £©‚
¥   £©ƒ


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 12, 2009)

I don't believe Fernando is racist at all. He just enjoys these crazy conspiracy theories. It's the thrill of getting away with being a naughty boy. I have a brother-in-law who likes the attention when he spouts conservative nonsense; it's the same thing.

These theories are fun, after all. The only problem is that they're complete bullshit.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 12, 2009)

Jay, maybe i mixed things up here but i know i remember you saying the occupied territory belong to Israel because they were conquered during the 6 day ware etc... And of course that's not true. So i assumed you also supported the building of illegal settlement. Are you sure you haven't changed your mind about this? Because i could swear you supported these illegal settlement precisely because you thought these territory belong to Israel.

And BTW Jay, this is a little off topic but you realize that when the Zionist leaders in Europe called for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine that they knew there were people living there? And that they knew they were not gonna go willingly? And that they would have to engaged in ethnic cleansing right? Of course the Zionist propaganda talk about "support for Israel" because it sells better than what it really is which is the Zionist conquest of Palestine "to establish a Jewish state". Palestine was not some vacant lot you know?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 12, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Who made you the judge of what's crazy or not? I've had to put up with some pretty crazy opinions coming from you but I've never attacked you personally.
> ...



This idea to start with. By this determination of what's crazy most great thinkers in any time would be and were considered crazy. If we labeled as crazy anybody who disagreed with the "conversation and social discourse" of any given time then just about anybody who ever thought of anything original would be considered "crazy". Your statement is the crazy idea that's blocked almost all progress on Earth.

If you say that you have a unicorn in your basement, then by all means I believe that you believe that you have a unicorn in your basement. If I don't see it then it's my word against yours. If I bring a friend in and he doesn't see it either then the both of us would consider you "crazy" for not agreeing with us. Are you crazy? Don't know. Maybe you just have a good imagination and can imagine a unicorn in your basement. Maybe you make a movie about it. Maybe the movie makes a billion dollars, all because you believed you had a unicorn in your basement.

When I was young I imagined all sort of things. Were they real to other people. No. Were they real to me, sure. I imagine writing music that sets the world a fire. Trust me. At this point in my life it's one of the only things that gets me up in the morning. Is that real to other people? No, but if I waited for them to see it then I really would get nothing done or make any progress towards my goal.

As for your opinions that I considered crazy most notably the idea that man is just skin, bone, tissues and brain cells. That to me is crazy. Especially considering that you're a musician dealing in music which expresses thought and emotion.

But I respect that you believe that. That you go practically mad if somebody suggest that there's more to man than can be measured in a laboratory is telling to me. That you lump all people together as "crazy zealots" that believe there's a spiritual side to life imo, is also pretty crazy. That you don't see it as crazy is in itself to me again, a crazy idea.

Again Fernando has said some pretty inflammatory stuff that I've found border line Nazish. This whole Jewish conspiracy thing is what Hitler sold to the German people to justify killing every Jew he could find. I suspect that Fernando doesn't mean it that way. It's hard for me to believe that somebody in this day and age would blame the Jewish banker for the worlds problems. Blame bankers for sure. But not all bankers are Jewish!! :lol: 

If you want to know what Crazy is I'll tell you. Crazy imo is the intention to destroy. It's complex and has many reasons but at the end of the Day destruction beyond any thought of creation is crazy. Dick Cheney is crazy. His only thought was to destroy. Sure he had plenty of "Good reasons" but at the end of the day there was far more destruction than anything good coming from that man. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hiro Ito the mom that beats her kid for playing too loud. Rapist, Child molesters, substance abusers, ect... Those are crazy people. People with an opinion that differs from the "conversation and social discourse", might as well label everybody that says anything crazy then. The only sane people by your standards would be the ones that never offered up their own opinions.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 12, 2009)

I thought the speech was a helpful step toward reducing name-calling and speaking honestly about differences.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 12, 2009)

Very impressive post Jose!



> But not all bankers are Jewish!! Laughing



And not all jews are bankers :D (some are composers )

That said: Fernando's post are on the line of anti-semitic, but I don't see him as racist, nor feel offended by his posts (as Jew, not a strict one since I live on myself and formed my own opinion, but still). Though I disagree with the points raised here, it is true that the jewish lobby is very strong and often too strong. I see that also here in the Netherlands and I don't believe that it's a complete conspiracy, but whom am I to know the whole truth? 
We get our truth in bits and pieces, some accurate, some biased, some false and that whole sum will form for everyone of us a unique truth. We don't know of everything the ins and outs, but its human to form an opinion and live our expectations up to that.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 12, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> The problem (re: #3 and its effect on #1) is that our love has been way too unconditional for too long.
> 
> And Fernando, this theory is even stupider than the YouTube one you enjoy dredging up over and over. The PNAC were indeed totally nuts, and Bush wouldn't have been president if the American public had taken the time to read what they were saying. But you're taking a fact - that they're pro-Israel - and then misinterpreting it blindly and recklessly to support ridiculous, irrational, ill-informed crap.



But Nick, it's not some crazy idea. I even have Cohen on tape saying the therm neocon is antisemitic. :lol: And bush's policies were directly taken from the PNAC everybody knows that. And much of these ideas were first written by the same top neocons in Israel in a paper A Clean Brake. These guys thought the removal of Saddam was an important Israel security objective. And them they ended up in the Bush administration selling us this war in Iraq. Come on! That's not some stupid conspiracy it happened. The only line of defence you really have available to you is that they were misguided and that they thought the removal of Saddam was in both Israel and the US interest. Personally, i don't buy it. I mean not really. And besides, the end result is the same. America fought a war that was not in their best interest but was in Israel's interest because Saddam supported the Palestinians and removing him was weakening the Palestinians.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 12, 2009)

Jose, That's right. Zionist and Judaism are 2 totally different things. I think a lot of people mixes both. And for the record, i think Zionist has pretty much hijacked Judaism, and that is really sad. At least, they have attempted to. And i also think that Jews might very well be the first victim of Zionism. I know this will sounds crazy to some but i have good reasons to think that. But look up The transfer agreement and you'll find some ugly stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCX62OpL ... =quicklist

As far as conspiracy goes. Yes i like to research conspiracies because i like the intrigue and the challenge it represent to make sense of all of this. But I'm still not sure who is at the top. There are 3 groups up there that i know are very powerful but I'm not sure which one is running the show. It may be a combination of 2 or 3 groups. But i assure I'm not stupid enough to accuse a whole ethnicity to want to rule the world. I mean that is idiotic to say that. I mean it makes no sense. But there is the possibilities that it is a highly sophisticated world wide crime syndicate based on a certain ethnicity. And that may lead to confusion.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 12, 2009)

Fernando, do you by any chance have a unicorn in your basement?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 12, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> Fernando, do you by any chance have a unicorn in your basement?



I'm not following you. :?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 12, 2009)

josejherring @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> This idea to start with. By this determination of what's crazy most great thinkers in any time would be and were considered crazy. If we labeled as crazy anybody who disagreed with the "conversation and social discourse" of any given time then just about anybody who ever thought of anything original would be considered "crazy". Your statement is the crazy idea that's blocked almost all progress on Earth.



I see why my view could be misinterpreted that way. I'll elaborate a bit, although its OT and semi-rambling... I just don't want to leave the impression that anything in my being would ever impeed science or big thinking. So here goes... 

1) what gets defined as crazy is dependant on context. Example: I say in a philosophy class that the table is not flat (go close enough and the surface is rough), of in a physics class that the table is not solid (go closer still you would see things on a sub-atomic level)... No one would raise an eyebrow. However in most other context it may come off as being slightly crazy... 

2) I am not talking about majorty rules in every context. For instance it is not for we musicians to judge a cosmologiss´ts findings as crazy. That would be his peers. We can call it crazy, but the only ones who's opinions matter, and who could impeed any progress, should be fellow cosmologists. 

In short - in _this_ social disourse certain things tick the looney alarm. They are not the same as they would be somewhere else - for instance a conspiracy website. 

I hope my position is more clear now?



> If you say that you have a unicorn in your basement, then by all means I believe that you believe that you have a unicorn in your basement. If I don't see it then it's my word against yours. If I bring a friend in and he doesn't see it either then the both of us would consider you "crazy" for not agreeing with us. Are you crazy? Don't know.



Can you honesty tell me that you _really_ think like that? Somehow I doubt you live your life by such loose concepts of truth, and reality. 



> When I was young I imagined all sort of things. Were they real to other people. No. Were they real to me, sure.



And so what if it was real to you? That does not make you any less crazy ( of course when you are a child it's not really crazy... so don't misundertand me). But if you go around imagining such things you start to look a little crazy... _esepacially_ if they seem real 



> As for your opinions that I considered crazy most notably the idea that man is just skin, bone, tissues and brain cells. That to me is crazy. Especially considering that you're a musician dealing in music which expresses thought and emotion.
> 
> But I respect that you believe that. That you go practically mad if somebody suggest that there's more to man than can be measured in a laboratory is telling to me. That you lump all people together as "crazy zealots" that believe there's a spiritual side to life imo, is also pretty crazy. That you don't see it as crazy is in itself to me again, a crazy idea.



Ok. I see... Obviously thats waaaay beyond his thread to go into. But thanks for pointing out what you have issues with. In short, some people are persuaded by the best substantiated evidence and science. Others by their gut feelings and intuitions. I'm the former 

In regards to spiritual life. I'm not opposed to that per se. I'm opposed to the idea that t is somehow metaphysical or supernatural. I don't deny spirituality.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 12, 2009)

Jaap @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> Very impressive post Jose!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know how many times I'm gonna have to say it but I'm not antisemite. That would mean i hate Jews? As in all Jews right? Well i don't. And i don't see why i would. Do i like Israeli leaders when they boomed indiscriminately south Lebanon and kill 1000+ civilians? No i don't. But i don't blame all Jews for it.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 12, 2009)

Fernando Warez @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> Jay, maybe i mixed things up here but i know i remember you saying the occupied territory belong to Israel because they were conquered during the 6 day ware etc... And of course that's not true. So i assumed you also supported the building of illegal settlement. Are you sure you haven't changed your mind about this? Because i could swear you supported these illegal settlement precisely because you thought these territory belong to Israel.
> 
> And BTW Jay, this is a little off topic but you realize that when the Zionist leaders in Europe called for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine that they knew there were people living there? And that they knew they were not gonna go willingly? And that they would have to engaged in ethnic cleansing right? Of course the Zionist propaganda talk about "support for Israel" because it sells better than what it really is which is the Zionist conquest of Palestine "to establish a Jewish state". Palestine was not some vacant lot you know?



I have not changed my mind. Indeed assume is what you generally do and that is where you run into trouble.

I simply do not respect you enough to spend the time debating you.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 12, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Fri Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay, maybe i mixed things up here but i know i remember you saying the occupied territory belong to Israel because they were conquered during the 6 day ware etc... And of course that's not true. So i assumed you also supported the building of illegal settlement. Are you sure you haven't changed your mind about this? Because i could swear you supported these illegal settlement precisely because you thought these territory belong to Israel.
> ...



Hahaha! How convenient! But you did say in the past that you thought the occupied territory belong to Israel or something along those line. I remember as much. i can dig up that thread if you want. And there's very little difference between saying that ans saying i support the building of illegal settlement.

I think you wont debate me because you don't have any argument. And i think I'm being personally attack in this forum because i criticize Israel and Zionist and because i dare question the official story of 911. Zionist always resort to name calling and insult when people criticize Israel.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 12, 2009)

Fernando Warez @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> Ashermusic @ Fri Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Fernando Warez @ Fri Jun 12 said:
> ...



have had many disagreements with people here, some quite heated. There are only 2 members of this forum who I will not waste my time debating because I do not respect them. You sir, are one of them. Make of that what you will.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 12, 2009)

I want to add that I'm not offended by these personal attack at all. As i said, personnal attacks and insults are more often than not a sign that people don't have any argument so they have to resort to these tactics. 

But i will say this, and that is I'm really disappointed by this behaviour because it makes it impossible to have an intelligent debate on certain issues.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jun 12, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Fri Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Ashermusic @ Fri Jun 12 said:
> ...



Well, anybody can go back and see you have offered no argument at all. And now you're running away saying I'm not good enough for you. See if i care.


----------



## Jaap (Jun 12, 2009)

Fernando Warez @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> Jaap @ Fri Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Very impressive post Jose!
> ...



No that's clear now. I made the same mistake as a lot of people and assumed that arguing against Israel and its lobby is also blaming the jews in general.
My apologies. In the posts follewed up by you its clear that you are very aware of the distinction.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 12, 2009)

_In short, some people are persuaded by the best substantiated evidence and science. Others by their gut feelings and intuitions. I'm the former 
_

I love my wife and kid. Do I need scientific evidence to support the fact that I love my wife and kid or can I just take it on faith?

Faith, Hope, Love and Joy are pretty unscientific but still very real. I would even say they're metaphysical. They transcend that which can be quantified by the physical sciences and there's no real explanation for any of it.

Back on topic. Obama's speech more than anything gives people hope that we don't all have to kill each other and that we're not all enemies. Is there a tangible way to determine what effect this has had or will have, no. But scientifically we can count the amount of dead bodies produced by the other way of thinking.

I'm not saying your points are not valid Christian. I think they're very valid and I respect people that don't accept things that aren't verifiable. There's just a lot more ways to verify things than is currently being practiced by today's scientist. Even science itself is currently running up against the unknowns of life. The more they split up an atom the more they see that there's really nothing there. So at the core our whole universe is being kept together by nothing that can be seen or measured by current technology. 

Maybe at the bottom of it all the only thing keeping this whole universe going is just a belief that it should keep going and everything that is physical manifest itself from this belief. If you really study subatomic theory you'll see what I mean. You can reduce the entire universe to nothing if you smash it to bits enough.

Obama of course isn't a messaih. But he is deeply religious. I read some of his writings and he's said that he spent the first 40 years of his life studying religion and the next 7 trying to apply it to real life through politics. He says he's most influenced by Eastern Religion. To an extent so am I. Most notably the works of Lao Tzi and the Dao de jing ("The mystery that underlies all mysteries"). My favorite parts are these:
_
1. Tao
------
The Tao that can be known is not Tao.
The substance of the World is only a name for Tao.
Tao is all that exists and may exist;
The World is only a map of what exists and may exist.

One experiences without Self to sense the World,
And experiences with Self to understand the World.
The two experiences are the same within Tao;
They are distinct only within the World.
Neither experience conveys Tao
Which is infinitely greater and more subtle than the World.

_

_4. Properties of Tao
--------------------

Tao is a depthless vessel;
Used by the Self, it is not filled by the World;
It cannot be cut, knotted, dimmed or stilled;
Its depths are hidden, ubiquitous and eternal;
I don't know where it came from;
It came before Nature._


--Lao Tzi

Maybe I'm crazy. But, it's a happy kind of crazy. :lol:


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 12, 2009)

josejherring @ Fri Jun 12 said:


> I love my wife and kid. Do I need scientific evidence to support the fact that I love my wife and kid or can I just take it on faith?[...] Faith, Hope, Love and Joy are pretty unscientific but still very real. I would even say they're metaphysical. They transcend that which can be quantified by the physical sciences and there's no real explanation for any of it.



No you do not need scientific evidence to love your wife. But that is not the same as saying that there is none. We don't know all the workings of it yet, but nothing in our experience or knowledge lends support to the fact that it isn't a part of biology. On the contrary - fields of neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and biology keep shedding more and more light on the subject. But of course you can take it on faith - its a feeling and the feeling is real! You do not need to know the inner workings of life to live it... But it might just enhance it :D



> I'm not saying your points are not valid Christian. I think they're very valid and I respect people that don't accept things that aren't verifiable.



Misunderstanding. I do accept things that aren't verifiable in the scientific sense. Lots of things aren't verifiable... However if they are verifiable, or more importantly, falsifiable, then I demand it yes. It would be more precise to say that I don't accept things _that go against the best evidence_. So I do accept you love your wife - evidence supports it (I hope :D). 



> There's just a lot more ways to verify things than is currently being practiced by today's scientist. Even science itself is currently running up against the unknowns of life. The more they split up an atom the more they see that there's really nothing there. So at the core our whole universe is being kept together by nothing that can be seen or measured by current technology.



That has no baring on the validity of science and scientific method. In contrast its a big sign saying "Keep on going!"



> Maybe at the bottom of it all the only thing keeping this whole universe going is just a belief that it should keep going and everything that is physical manifest itself from this belief. If you really study subatomic theory you'll see what I mean. You can reduce the entire universe to nothing if you smash it to bits enough.



I have, and I do understand what you mean. Except for the notion that somehow it is somehow held together by what we primates may think about it :wink: - and they say science iò   £Ãq   £Ãr   £Ãs   £Ãt   £Ãu   £Ãv   £Ãw   £Ãx   £Ãy   £Ãz   £Ã{   £Ã|   £Ã}   £Ã~   £Ã   £Ã€   £Ã   £Ã‚   £Ãƒ


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 13, 2009)

> But I respect that you believe that. *That you go practically mad if somebody suggest that there's more to man than can be measured in a laboratory is telling to me.*



Just noticed this one while re-reading the thread. The above does not make me mad at all. What makes me mad is when people say such things in the good name of science. Using science to spread unscientific ideas _really_ makes my blood boil. 

Jose - your points about the unknown and not being able to explain what was before matter misses the point entirely. It has no baring on the scientific endevour... There are many things we can't explain, but we just keep at them. "Explaining" them with spriritual placeholders won't get us anywhere. Your points apply to every single scientific discovery "it makes scientists mad that they can't explain a rainbow/eye/planets/flight/magnatism/gravity etc etc"... So what? That is the drive that moves us forward... The unknown. Scientists view the unknown as something facinating and motivating - a mystery to be unravelled to reveal it's beauty. Ravelling in the mystery itself is mute (although obviously feels good for some). 



> While I will concede that physical Science makes a fascinating Study. It falls way short of answering some of the basic fundamentals of life. Namely, who are we?, how did we get here? Where do we go when we die? The science answers are, we came from a sea of ammonia, we have sex and when we die we get buried. Wow. Brilliant answers. Guess we should all just give up now. What's the point?



Many of the questions you pose there are indeed objects within the realm of science. You don't like the answers? So what? I don't like the fact that I'm going to die, or that I get fatter and fatter by eating the stuff I like. But that is irrelevant in respect to truth and reality. What is the point you ask? Does there have to be a metaphysical point for life to be enjoyable or worth living? How about loving your wife and child - would you love them less if you accepted any of the answers above? Ironically your wife and kid IS the point of life (metaphorically speaking)


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 13, 2009)

Waywyn @ Sat Jun 13 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Sat Jun 13 said:
> 
> 
> > No you do not need scientific evidence to love your wife. But that is not the same as saying that there is none. We don't know all the workings of it yet, but nothing in our experience or knowledge lends support to the fact that it isn't a part of biology. On the contrary - fields of neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and biology keep shedding more and more light on the subject. But of course you can take it on faith - its a feeling and the feeling is real! You do not need to know the inner workings of life to live it... But it might just enhance it :D
> ...



I'm curious... Does knowing this make the experience of being excited any less real or powerful? I often find I appretiate things even more when I know the facinating mechanics behind it. Take nature for instance... I used to regard animals and nature as something nice, but not all that interesting. Advancing my knowledge of evolution has opened my mind and eyes to a whole new level of facination and interest. Everything starts to make sense... every animal or plant makes sense. And making sense of it in a way which is a close approximation of reality is really fulfilling.


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 13, 2009)

There is a pretty simply answer to all that (at least for me).
It is there because it is there - that's it. If it wouldn't be there we wouldn't experience it. Period.

It is like taking paint, a brush and millions of canvas. Then go around and throw the brush with paint to each canvas. On at least one canvas you will experience such beautiful structures and artistry, that it's almost unbelievable that someone painted it. It must be "GODSENT"! 

Another example would be 1000 men doing a hardcore marathon from one side of the pole to the other. In the end there would be just one guy running/walking through the finish line. Man, this guy had to be godsent to go through all of this. Maybe it is just the fact someone had to win?!? 


That's the same with the universe, stars, planets, beings and plants. It is just there, it just happened. This universe is very constant and stable so planets and stars could developed. If it would be a bit hotter there would be no earth, the same if it would be a bit colder. Everything seems planned, everything seems constructed and highly concepted ... but in the end it is just the same as the one guy walking through the streets he got hit by a flowerpot from the 4th floor who accidentally fell down. Was this man cursed? Did he do something bad in his life? Was he born as a murderer in his previous life? ... or did it just happen?


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 13, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Jun 13 said:


> Waywyn @ Sat Jun 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Christian Marcussen @ Sat Jun 13 said:
> ...



Hey Christian,

sorry, your post came a bit before mine. No, for me it doesn't change anything.
I feel love, hate and excitment and I am happy that I can feel it. No matter how it happens or being generated. I am also not trying to forcly looking for a sense behind everything, but I am a guy who questions all kinds of things. I am just an explorer and I prefer to ask twice than never, even if it's about the most famous book of the world, the universe or certain spots/happenings on mother earth


----------

