Bush blocks anti-terror bill

[Dibujante]

From http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/07/bush.torture.ap/index.html
PANAMA CITY, Panama (AP) -- President Bush vigorously defended U.S. interrogation practices in the war on terror Monday and lobbied against a congressional drive to outlaw torture.

"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law."

He declared, "We do not torture."

Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture. With Vice President Dick Cheney as the point man, the administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA. It was recently disclosed that the spy agency maintains a network of prisons in eastern Europe and Asia, where it holds terrorist suspects.

The European Union is investigating the reports, which have not been confirmed by the White House.

"Our country is at war and our government has the obligation to protect the American people," Bush said. "Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture."

Bush pointedly noted that Congress as well as the White House has an obligation to protect U.S. citizens.

Not only is the Republican-controlled Congress challenging an element of Bush's policy, but the Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the administration's policy on military tribunals for foreign terror suspects. The case, which won't be decided for months, is a major test of presidential wartime powers.

The United States is holding hundreds of foreign terrorism suspects, also, at the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Bush spoke at a news conference with Panamanian President Martin Torrijos on last day of five-day Latin America trip. Bush was ending the day in Virginia, where he was to campaign for Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore just ahead of Election Day.

On another issue, Bush ducked a question about the CIA leak investigation, declining to say whether he has lived up to his campaign pledge in 2000 to abide by the spirit of federal ethics laws.

"We take this investigation very seriously and we'll continue to cooperate during the investigation," he said.

Bush expressed his condolences to victims of a tornado that hit Indiana over the weekend.
Am I the only one who sees a hypocrisy in "We don't torture so we won't pass laws prohibiting torture or if we do we'll make loopholes for our spy agencies which absolutely don't torture, so they need loopholes"?

[Bentusi]

i'd be intresting if the article said expressly what it means by "torture". I'm not familiar with the bill but there'd be ample reason to block it if it was as vague as this article, we'd have human rights advocates saying stupid shit like detaining people was torture and we have to free them.

[Karmashock]

perhaps they disagree on what torture means....

is playing britney spears and feeding people bad chinese food torture?... who knows...


worst case, we'll get someone else to do it while we watch... and ask quesitons. With the promise that if they tell us what we want to know we'll 'convince' the other party to stop torturing them.

[DJTheBaron]

it was once said that they play the music to kids shows like barney etc to terror prisoners, the only thing i can think of thats any worse is leaving a family/kids music channel on and having to deal with the mobile phone ringtone adverts every 15 minuties

[Dibujante]

perhaps they disagree on what torture means....

is playing britney spears and feeding people bad chinese food torture?... who knows...


worst case, we'll get someone else to do it while we watch... and ask quesitons. With the promise that if they tell us what we want to know we'll 'convince' the other party to stop torturing them.
Your worst case is torture, just as much as if you did it yourself. Whether you command the crimes of others or commit them with your own hands, you are just as guilty. That's the precedent our legal system works under, that's the precedent the world court works under and that's the precedent that let the free world bring Nazi war criminals to justice. You do not lessen your guilt by having someone else get their hands dirty in it for you.

Now, the definition of torture? Let me look...
...
...

SEC. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations Convention Against Torture and

Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on December 10, 1984):
(1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.

(2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and any regulations prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations.

Looks like it defines "torture" the way the U.N. defines it:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
The Bush administration is therefore campaigning against the affirmation of the U.S.'s adherence to the U.N. prohibition of torture. It's as clear as day.

[Karmashock]

Your worst case is torture, just as much as if you did it yourself. Whether you command the crimes of others or commit them with your own hands, you are just as guilty. That's the precedent our legal system works under, that's the precedent the world court works under and that's the precedent that let the free world bring Nazi war criminals to justice. You do not lessen your guilt by having someone else get their hands dirty in it for you.
The US is not subject to the 'world' court. Furthermore, the point becomes irrelevant as it becomes difficult in the case of another doing it as to who ordered who to do it especially when said third party won't cooperate with your investigation any more then we will. Who would you condemn?... you wouldn't have enough proof in most cases to make any kind of offical condemnation... and thus it's rather pointless.


If you want to get legal with us, then take the US to court. Otherwise, it's a moot point.



Terrorist scum bags will divulge information.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

The US is not subject to the 'world' court. Furthermore, the point becomes irrelevant as it becomes difficult in the case of another doing it as to who ordered who to do it especially when said third party won't cooperate with your investigation any more then we will. Who would you condemn?... you wouldn't have enough proof in most cases to make any kind of offical condemnation... and thus it's rather pointless.

So....you're saying that Libya routinely tortures random terror suspects and then gives the information to the CIA, without the U.S. or the CIA asking, providing the suspects or in any way soliciting this behavior? I'm sorry, but that's not what happens.

Torture is being committed and has been committed under U.S. auspices and Bush is trying to have his cake and eat it too by insisting that the U.S. does not torture and then campaigning against laws that would keep such torture from happenning.

I assert, given the information above, that your government is torturing people and that you are fine with it. Disprove me.

[Karmashock]

So....you're saying that Libya routinely tortures random terror suspects and then gives the information to the CIA, without the U.S. or the CIA asking, providing the suspects or in any way soliciting this behavior? I'm sorry, but that's not what happens.
I'm saying that you can't prove exactly what's going on... and having only heresay, your complaints aren't going to change anything.

Torture is being committed and has been committed under U.S. auspices and Bush is trying to have his cake and eat it too by insisting that the U.S. does not torture and then campaigning against laws that would keep such torture from happenning.
Again, it is a question largely of what people think of as torture and what is actually done. When bush says "we don't torture" he might be saying that the US doesn't use thumb screws or flay people alive.

Which is a very effective form of torture... but perhaps we feed people bad chinese food, play barney music, and other such things.


Again, we don't do this to soldiers or civilians. That is what the anti torture laws protect against in the UN.


If you are an enemy combatent or terrorist, then there is no international law to protect you. You are in the same legal classification as a spy. You have ZERO protection.


And international law doesn't protect such people is by concensus. No nation wants such people protected. You catch a spy or terrorist on your soil, you can do what you please with him. Including tearing him appart and literally eating him alive.

"If Mr Phelps, you should be caught or killed all knowledge of your existence shall be disavowed."

This message will self destruct in 15 seconds... poof.

This is entirely different game you're talking about here.

I assert, given the information above, that your government is torturing people and that you are fine with it. Disprove me.
Terrorists and spies? Sure... why would I have a problem with that? They know what they're getting into before they do that... and all they have to do to protect themselves is throw down their weapons to become civilians or join a recognized army to be come soldiers... either of which are fully protected.


We do not torture civilians or soldiers... that is the rule... but if you're neither, then your ass is ours.

[Dibujante]

I'm saying that you can't prove exactly what's going on... and having only heresay, your complaints aren't going to change anything.

Again, it is a question largely of what people think of as torture and what is actually done. When bush says "we don't torture" he might be saying that the US doesn't use thumb screws or flay people alive.
Occam's razor. Bush is working to keep the U.S. and, at least, the CIA from being restricted by anti-torture laws so naturally we must fabricate the most elaborate hypothesis imaginable in order to exonerate him.


Again, we don't do this to soldiers or civilians. That is what the anti torture laws protect against in the UN.

If you are an enemy combatent or terrorist, then there is no international law to protect you. You are in the same legal classification as a spy. You have ZERO protection.

And international law doesn't protect such people is by concensus. No nation wants such people protected. You catch a spy or terrorist on your soil, you can do what you please with him. Including tearing him appart and literally eating him alive.
Enemy combatants, eh? Like the French Resistance in WW2. You never declared war in Iraq. Since there is no war anyone fighting is an enemy combatant. Anyone resisting an invasion of their land (as is the inalienable right of all people) is not protected from torture, by your reasoning. Basically, this states that anyone who opposes the United States in any way should not expect to be treated like a human being, as I expected.

Oh, well. All I really wanted out of this was to hear a supporter of compassionate conservativism come down on the side of torture. I generally try to see both sides of the coin, since it seems like both sides have something important to say, but all I'm seeing on the neo-con side is a more elaborate version of "us (those who have all the rights and are the only real human beings) and them (those who have no rights and are to be demonized at every opportunity)". I don't think you are capable of any real criticism of the United States.

[Karmashock]

Occam's razor. Bush is working to keep the U.S. and, at least, the CIA from being restricted by anti-torture laws so naturally we must fabricate the most elaborate hypothesis imaginable in order to exonerate him.
Ha... this is too easy... Innocent until proven guilty... *Karma takes his racket and knocks the ball back to Dibs side*

You can't use Occam's razor in legal matters. :lol:

Enemy combatants, eh? Like the French Resistance in WW2.
Yes. :) if they don't put on uniforms, then they are not protected by the Geneva convention. How many times do I have to explain this to you? I know this has to be like the 10th time here...

You never declared war in Iraq. Since there is no war anyone fighting is an enemy combatant.
*dib's racket slips and the ball go wurring off to the left without even getting near the net*

Dib, come now... Soldiers and civilians protected. Terrorists and spies not.

The declaration of war isn't even a factor.

Anyone resisting an invasion of their land (as is the inalienable right of all people) is not protected from torture, by your reasoning.
Considering that you know full well that most of the people we've got weren't protecting their "homeland" or "country" that's a rather strange statement.


But if you're going to play games, then I bet I can play them better! :D

It isn't an inalienable right nor protected by international law. Tada!


Basically, this states that anyone who opposes the United States in any way should not expect to be treated like a human being, as I expected.
Nope, all it means is that you can't sneak around.

If you so much as put on an arm band that you DO NOT TAKE OFF to hide, then you have a uniform and are protected. Take it off and pretend to be a civilian when in fact you are not... and you've got no protection.




Let me explain this... people that pretend to be civilians to get at military targets like spies and terrorists USE civilians or the grace given to civilians to better act as soldiers. This is why they are not extended rights.


All they have to do to get them is have some recognizable uniform or not fight. Either or... very simple.


If you want to fight, then all your side has to do is pick some idenifying marking and stick to it. Gangs in big cities do this to identify their own, I should anyone else on the planet should able to do it as well. Fuck, if you can't tie a rag around your arm, then put some paint on your face. Anyone can do it.

Oh, well. All I really wanted out of this was to hear a supporter of compassionate conservativism come down on the side of torture.
I'm not a compassionate conservative and find the whole title he concocted to be rather silly. As to your 'notions' of torture, they are very naive and self serving. Feeling smug about any of this is not something you can claim based on any external state but your own need to feel vindicated.

I generally try to see both sides of the coin, since it seems like both sides have something important to say, but all I'm seeing on the neo-con side is a more elaborate version of "us (those who have all the rights and are the only real human beings) and them (those who have no rights and are to be demonized at every opportunity)". I don't think you are capable of any real criticism of the United States.
False, you do not understand my critera, motivations, moral construct, world view, hopes, fears, or dreams.

You don't understand. And in not understanding you aren't able to see what I'm saying or why I go forward in some areas and stop in others.


Furthermore, your need to demonize the US leads you to sympathize with monsters. You are protecting people that blow up schools, hospitals, kill children, and murder people for the sake of simple revenge or to create fear for the SAKE of fear.

This is what YOU must admit to defending if you expect me to take any of your recriminations seriously. I think monsters should be treated like monsters. I do not give credit to people that butcher people for the SAKE of BUTCHERY!



You are too caught up in a REACTIONARY mindset to be able to think about any of this creatively or independently of that reactionary ethos.


With Love and Peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

Ha... this is too easy... Innocent until proven guilty... *Karma takes his racket and knocks the ball back to Dibs side*

You can't use Occam's razor in legal matters. :lol:You can use Occam's razor in legal matters. Do I really need to explain it to you? Bah, I guess I do.

In legal cases there are three different types of burdens of proof. A burden of proof is the requirement that the guilt of the plaintiff be proven, i.e. innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof can be fulfilled two ways, depending on the type of the case.

It can be a preponderance of evidence, which is commonly used for civil cases. O.J. Simpson was convicted of wrongful death in a civil court because the evidence was strong enough to qualify as a preponderance of evidence. In the case of a preponderance of evidence, it is simply more likely than not that the charges are true.

There's also beyond a reasonable doubt. This is commonly used for criminal cases, and indicates that the evidence needs to be strong enough that it would be unreasonable to contradict it. O.J. Simpson was not convicted of murder in a criminal court because the evidence did not qualify as beyond a reasonable doubt.

Occham's razor can be applied both to evidence presented in court and to preponderance of evidence trials. Given a past and present record of torture, as well as present manoeuvring, I would say that the charges against the U.S. at least qualify for preponderance of evidence if not beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's only because the CIA flat-out refuses to tell us important things that could help for BARD proof. If the head of the CIA were indicted, I imagine that it would turn into a messy trial indeed.


Yes. :) if they don't put on uniforms, then they are not protected by the Geneva convention. How many times do I have to explain this to you? I know this has to be like the 10th time here...

*dib's racket slips and the ball go wurring off to the left without even getting near the net*

Dib, come now... Soldiers and civilians protected. Terrorists and spies not.

The declaration of war isn't even a factor.

Considering that you know full well that most of the people we've got weren't protecting their "homeland" or "country" that's a rather strange statement.
If they put on uniforms they'd be dead within a week. You demand that they kill themselves to appease you.

Further, the OHCHR doesn't state that soldiers and civilians are exclusively protected. In fact, it doesn't state they're protected. It states that all persons are protected, soldier, civilian or otherwise. Sorry.

In fact, I don't know full well that most are not Iraqi nationals, so unless you can prove it, that point is worthless. It stands to reason that inside of Iraq, it is highly likely that most of them are Iraqi nationals. Unless there's compelling evidence otherwise, you can't substantiate the burden of proof.


But if you're going to play games, then I bet I can play them better! :D

It isn't an inalienable right nor protected by international law. Tada!

Nope, all it means is that you can't sneak around.

If you so much as put on an arm band that you DO NOT TAKE OFF to hide, then you have a uniform and are protected. Take it off and pretend to be a civilian when in fact you are not... and you've got no protection.

The U.N. declaration of human rights protects both the right to a nation and the right to popular sovereignty. The logical extension of this is that people have the right to resist anything that encroaches on their rights to sovereignty and nationhood.


I'm not a compassionate conservative and find the whole title he concocted to be rather silly. As to your 'notions' of torture, they are very naive and self serving. Feeling smug about any of this is not something you can claim based on any external state but your own need to feel vindicated.

False, you do not understand my critera, motivations, moral construct, world view, hopes, fears, or dreams.

You don't understand. And in not understanding you aren't able to see what I'm saying or why I go forward in some areas and stop in others.I really wish I didn't understand. Then I'd be less worried.

Furthermore, your need to demonize the US leads you to sympathize with monsters. You are protecting people that blow up schools, hospitals, kill children, and murder people for the sake of simple revenge or to create fear for the SAKE of fear.

This is what YOU must admit to defending if you expect me to take any of your recriminations seriously. I think monsters should be treated like monsters. I do not give credit to people that butcher people for the SAKE of BUTCHERY!

You are too caught up in a REACTIONARY mindset to be able to think about any of this creatively or independently of that reactionary ethos.
Right. Okay, point out at what point I supported the insurgency, let alone terrorism. As a matter of fact, I didn't. The puerile doctrine of "you're with us or you're against us" is immature and baseless. You make it out to sound like any criticism of the United States is obvious sympathy for terrorists, a mindset both dangerous and unproveable.

Further, I don't think you can contribute meaningfully to this discussion. This is unfortunate, since you're half of it. However, I think this is the case because I don't think the Bush administration could do anything you'd criticize. First you deny any torture and then when that defense seems to fall through you start to justify it. It's sad that one's criticism and praise need be distributed along political lines, rather than those of merit.

[Karmashock]

You can use Occam's razor in legal matters. Do I really need to explain it to you? Bah, I guess I do.
Not in criminal cases and technically not in civil ones either. Occam's razor simply states that the most simple solution is hte answer.

Citing something as the most 'simple' answer does not make it the most likely or more likely then anything else. It does not qualify as anything legal.

*dib makes a lazy pop to the middle of the court and karma spikes off the back side of dib's area... point me*


If they put on uniforms they'd be dead within a week. You demand that they kill themselves to appease you.
And a spy that tried to sneak into a top secret facility with a "I'm a chinese intellegence agent" wouldn't get very far either. But he WOULD be entitled to full protection by the geneva convention. As to your second sentence, don't be stupid. The convention wasn't written to allow you to spy or commite acts of terrorism. It does not protect you in such acts. I only demand that they not be terrorists or spies.


Fail that and any nation can do what they please with them... including feeding them to the dogs alive.

Further, the OHCHR doesn't state that soldiers and civilians are exclusively protected. In fact, it doesn't state they're protected. It states that all persons are protected, soldier, civilian or otherwise. Sorry.
Read it again, the convention specifically protects civilians and soldiers.

This is why we use the term "enemy combatent" what you are suggesting is that we are using that term for no reason at all. Do you think we use that term because we like the sound of it? Please... We'd rather use the term "scum"... but enemy combatent is a term that specifies that the individuals in question are both enemy agents and not soldiers.


If you think the convention applies to spies, then you're very confused... sorry.

In fact, I don't know full well that most are not Iraqi nationals, so unless you can prove it, that point is worthless.
As the burden of proof is on you, I don't see why your claims aren't the worthless ones. :lol:

Unless there's compelling evidence otherwise
We've captured them... they told us who they were... because they want to home to their mommies. :)

Nevermind that we tried to kill american soldiers and innocent iraqis...


The U.N. declaration of human rights protects both the right to a nation and the right to popular sovereignty.
I guess china must be in violation then, huh?... please

*makes another easy return... point karma*

The logical extension of this is that people have the right to resist anything that encroaches on their rights to sovereignty and nationhood.
They have more of a nation today then they had with saddam.

FACT.

So all you're trying to do is find legal justification for terrorism... there isn't any. Give it up.

I really wish I didn't understand. Then I'd be less worried.
You don't understand... you miss details that you would know to be important if you understood... and focus on details that you would know are irrelevant.

You're a little like someone that thinks he understands christianity, but at every instance say stuff like "oh it's too bad you can't eat pork"... Which just shows you don't know dick about it... you have that issue with neocons. You presume to understand, but don't really grasp the point.
Right. Okay, point out at what point I supported the insurgency, let alone terrorism.
In your arguements above you have said that people have a right to be terrorists and spies... and that the act of terrorism and spying is protected by the geneva convention.

false... amusingly false... but your claim none the less...

The puerile doctrine of "you're with us or you're against us" is immature and baseless. You make it out to sound like any criticism of the United States is obvious sympathy for terrorists, a mindset both dangerous and unproveable.
Do you support terrorism? Do you think it would be a good or bad idea that we destroy the international terror networks? If wish to destroy the international terror networks and will take serious and realistic steps in that direction, then you are with us.


If you are a supporter of terrorism, then are against us.


You are not with us or against us based on your like or dislike of the president but on your additude towards terrorism. You have misunderstood what that statement meant. You are taking it out of context to use as a weapon instead of bothing to understand.

The only thing puerile is your reactionary hatred of a words you never bothered to understand. Taking one line out of context is a very powerful tool. You can say the bible supports gay sex if you carefully select quotes from the bible... I'm sure a book has been written that actually claims that he did... it's probably an amazon search away.


Understand the words before you quote them. I know the full text and your statement is as foolish as the often repeated quote from Eisenhower about the "military industrial complex" that conspiracy theorists use to say JFK was killed by military contractors. Eisenhower was cautioning Kennedy not to try and base the economy on the MIC much as the russians did do in the 50s through the present day. He was merely saying that it's a mistake to base your economy on weapons production. But you know how badly it's misquoted and abused.

Likewise, with us or against us is a term that is only useful if all you want is weapon words. And someone so devoid of human reason as to seek nothing more then weapons in words like a mindless robot isn't really worth granting an opinion.

Further, I don't think you can contribute meaningfully to this discussion.
False... you do not understand my critera. You are further being hypocritical as I don't think you have once prased the bush admisistration for anything. I HAVE criticized him in the past. So I'm off that hook, twit.
It's sad that one's criticism and praise need be distributed along political lines, rather than those of merit.
Sad indeed... thou should change... your hypocrisy runs deep.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

Fail that and any nation can do what they please with them... including feeding them to the dogs alive.

Read it again, the convention specifically protects civilians and soldiers.

This is why we use the term "enemy combatent" what you are suggesting is that we are using that term for no reason at all. Do you think we use that term because we like the sound of it? Please... We'd rather use the term "scum"... but enemy combatent is a term that specifies that the individuals in question are both enemy agents and not soldiers.
I was talking about the convention on torture, not the geneva convention. The convention on torture is the convention mentioned. Here's the text of the convention on torture: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm


As the burden of proof is on you, I don't see why your claims aren't the worthless ones. :lol:This is where Occam's Razor comes in. You yell "They're mostly not Iraqi nationals!" and I yell "They're mostly Iraqi nationals!" and who's to win? With only that on the table, we can bring in our remaining shred of evidence: it's an insurgency occurring in Iraq. My suggestion is currently the most plausible. The burden of proof rests on you. Stop assuming that every time someone contradicts you, the burden of proof is on them. It makes the ugly implication that you somehow take your beliefs to be undeniable truth.

I guess china must be in violation then, huh?... please

*makes another easy return... point karma*Wait...are you implying that China is somehow not in violation of the U.N. declaration of human rights?


They have more of a nation today then they had with saddam.

FACT.

So all you're trying to do is find legal justification for terrorism... there isn't any. Give it up.Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Stop lying. I'm arguing that the U.S. is violating anti-torture laws which do apply. I am not in any way trying to find a legal justification for terrorism. YOU are trying to find a justification, no matter how many straws you must cling at to accomplish such, to justify torture. Grow up, please.

As for the nation argument...that doesn't change a single thing. If I stole a possession of yours, sold it for more than you thought it was worth, and returned the money to you, you might be called better off. Of course, your rights would have been thoroughly violated in the process.


You're a little like someone that thinks he understands christianity, but at every instance say stuff like "oh it's too bad you can't eat pork"... Which just shows you don't know dick about it... you have that issue with neocons. You presume to understand, but don't really grasp the point.I'm like someone who understands Christianity and says annoying things like, "So, the bible does demand that homosexuals be put to death (Lev. 20:13)." only to be met with the horrified gazes of people who realize I'm right but, in order to save their facade, must demonize me.

You are not with us or against us based on your like or dislike of the president but on your additude towards terrorism. You have misunderstood what that statement meant. You are taking it out of context to use as a weapon instead of bothing to understand.You consistently quote only a single line of my arguments and then base your assault on it. You often leave out the rest of them. Please, stop quoting me out of context.

False... you do not understand my critera. You are further being hypocritical as I don't think you have once prased the bush admisistration for anything. I HAVE criticized him in the past. So I'm off that hook, twit.Really, tell me what you criticized him over, then. A poor choice in dogs? Or something otherwise inane?

I can easily praise him. He inherited a recession and applied the appropriate tax remedy to turn the recession around. He's been trying to reconstruct New Orleans while still keeping fiscal policy tight (which is the appropriate response in a post-recession) and I approve of setting educational standards. That doesn't mean that my overall impression of his government is in any way positive.

Sad indeed... thou should change... your hypocrisy runs deep.Quote me on some hypocrisy and I'll apologize.

[Karmashock]

I was talking about the convention on torture, not the geneva convention. The convention on torture is the convention mentioned. Here's the text of the convention on torture: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
We didn't ratify that convention, so you're citing something that doesn't apply to us. Neither does it apply to Belgium or Iceland..

*returns another amaturish serve by dib with skill and force to another easy point...*

This is where Occam's Razor comes in.
It doesn't... talk to a lawyer about that... or drop it.

You yell "They're mostly not Iraqi nationals!" and I yell "They're mostly Iraqi nationals!" and who's to win? With only that on the table, we can bring in our remaining shred of evidence: it's an insurgency occurring in Iraq. My suggestion is currently the most plausible. The burden of proof rests on you. Stop assuming that every time someone contradicts you, the burden of proof is on them. It makes the ugly implication that you somehow take your beliefs to be undeniable truth.
Actually, because you're trying to put US on trial we are the accused and the burden of proof rests firmly upon you.

Try again. *point karma*

Wait...are you implying that China is somehow not in violation of the U.N. declaration of human rights?
Not at all... are you some how implying that your declarations matter?


The UN is not soveriegn.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Stop lying. I'm arguing that the U.S. is violating anti-torture laws which do apply.
Actually, as I just cited above, you never bothered to check whether we ratified the thing so I guess your claim of "bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. stop lying" is really kind of funny now isn't it?

Makes me laugh... You assume we are stupid, Dib. This is where the left always fails first. You underestimate us. We use the term Enemy Compabatent because we must to allow us to act as we do.


Your whole case pre supposes that we do this for no reason at all. You think us fools and yet we succeed while you fail.

In the words of Forest Gump... Stupid is as stupid does... :lol:

I am not in any way trying to find a legal justification for terrorism. YOU are trying to find a justification, no matter how many straws you must cling at to accomplish such, to justify torture. Grow up, please.
I only wish to protect my people and help bring about a better world. That is all that matters really.

What do you accomplish if you win? The terrorists will have great peace of mind if you triamph... what will happen if I win?... there will be peace throughout the middle east and the terrorists will spend what remains of their lives shreaking in a hole.

Are you sure you want to win?

As for the nation argument...that doesn't change a single thing. If I stole a possession of yours, sold it for more than you thought it was worth, and returned the money to you, you might be called better off. Of course, your rights would have been thoroughly violated in the process.
False analogy, the iraqi people never had their country, saddam did.


and we're not giving it back to him. Make a better analogy or leave that to someone else that can.

I'm like someone who understands Christianity and says annoying things like, "So, the bible does demand that homosexuals be put to death (Lev. 20:13)." only to be met with the horrified gazes of people who realize I'm right but, in order to save their facade, must demonize me.
I do not need to educate you, dib. You fail to understand what drives our movement and have no interest in understanding it... not my responsibilty to make you see what it's about.


this is not about agreeing with what we're about or disagreeing... you can understand without agreeing... but you don't even understand.

You consistently quote only a single line of my arguments and then base your assault on it.
It is acceptable to quote a single line so long as it is done in context. For example, a religious scholar can quote the bible to make a religious point to other scholars. He knows that if he takes it out of context then his line will be seen for the fake it is and be taken appart by his peers.


I do not take you out of context, dib.


Really, tell me what you criticized him over, then. A poor choice in dogs? Or something otherwise inane?
I dislike his budget, his immirgation policy, his stance towards women, at least one of his choices for judical office, and many others... and this just off the top of my head here...


Don't be an idiot, bush isn't even a true neocon. One of the things that tells me you don't understand neocons is that you think I like bush.

I don't like him... he's going in my direction on some things... nothing more.

Something you must understand is that neocons don't even especially like the republican party... it isn't what we're about... that's just politics.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

We didn't ratify that convention, so you're citing something that doesn't apply to us. Neither does it apply to Belgium or Iceland..

*returns another amaturish serve by dib with skill and force to another easy point...*You're right, you didn't ratify it. However, I would like to bring this back to the original amendment. The amendment stated that no funds would be used that would violate that convention. Whether or not the U.S. ratified it is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the U.N. sets standards for what torture shall be. The U.S. will gleefully redefine its conduct away until it's doing the same things but now they're not "torture" per se, you see, they've been given new words.


Actually, because you're trying to put US on trial we are the accused and the burden of proof rests firmly upon you.

Try again. *point karma*Actually, no. Learn to read English, I've been doing so since I was three years old. You were putting the insurgency on trial for not being mostly Iraqi. You provide the accusation, you provide the proof.


Not at all... are you some how implying that your declarations matter?

The UN is not soveriegn.I don't get your point.


Actually, as I just cited above, you never bothered to check whether we ratified the thing so I guess your claim of "bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. stop lying" is really kind of funny now isn't it?The only thing that's funny is that you're an adult and still illiterate. Learn to read, kid.


Makes me laugh... You assume we are stupid, Dib. This is where the left always fails first. You underestimate us. We use the term Enemy Compabatent because we must to allow us to act as we do.

Your whole case pre supposes that we do this for no reason at all. You think us fools and yet we succeed while you fail.

In the words of Forest Gump... Stupid is as stupid does... :lol:We (the left) often fail to empathise with other movements. Much like you cannot emathise with the Left. Or, if you can, please explain to me Marx's theory of productivity. Or, perhaps, Rosa Luxembourg's criticism of the Soviet Union. Some tidbit to make sure that this isn't just a case of "pot, meet kettle".


I only wish to protect my people and help bring about a better world. That is all that matters really.

What do you accomplish if you win? The terrorists will have great peace of mind if you triamph... what will happen if I win?... there will be peace throughout the middle east and the terrorists will spend what remains of their lives shreaking in a hole.I object to you engaging in mass murder and oppression. If you think this needs substantiation, look at your history from 1776-present and have a good cry.


Are you sure you want to win?What on earth am I winning again? Is this another "Dib is a communist nazi arab terrorist homosexual woman" accusation?


False analogy, the iraqi people never had their country, saddam did.

and we're not giving it back to him. Make a better analogy or leave that to someone else that can.Okay, you steal jewelry from a thief who stole that jewelry to begin with. Then, you promise to return it and disappear into the night with it. Whatever. The main point was that you're still stealing property that rightly belongs to someone (the Iraqi people), regardless of who you've stolen it from. And the historical record indicates that you've got to work pretty hard to prove to me that you're not just stealing it.


I do not need to educate you, dib. You fail to understand what drives our movement and have no interest in understanding it... not my responsibilty to make you see what it's about.

this is not about agreeing with what we're about or disagreeing... you can understand without agreeing... but you don't even understand.I wish I didn't understand a jingoistic and self-serving movement that believes that it has developed historically superior institutions that it must share with the world (by force if it must) all the while pocketing a tidy profit that just coincides with mass suffering. Joy.

I dislike his ... stance towards women...Right, Mr. Misogynist:

bitter little cunt from "Money"
bitter little cunt from "The French Mistake"
Don't be a cunt from "The terrorists kill more innocents..."
you're being bitchy and effeminent with your insistance on pointless aspects of this discussion. I haven't seen this kind of petty trash outside of ocasional arguements with my girl friend and mother... they're the ONLY ones I know that bring up stupid shit like this... and they do it only to cause a fight. They don't even care themselves... they're just desperate for something to say... they admit it afterwards...
...
And NOW I see YOU doing it... well, I'm sorry, but I've only seen women in an emotional state do what you're doing... Sorry for the facts, sussan.
...
Not at all, but emotional women are known to be unreasonable... there are poems that go back thousands of years on the topic... to say nothing of a wealth of lifetime experences that anyone with more then one day outside his room would be aware of...
from "We're winning Iraq"
You're a misogynist. I haven't met a single member of your movement that isn't. Misogynist, racist, homophobic, the list goes on. At least the Left, for all its failings, is rarely touched by these blights.

Don't be an idiot, bush isn't even a true neocon. One of the things that tells me you don't understand neocons is that you think I like bush.

I don't like him... he's going in my direction on some things... nothing more. He's going in your direction on the Iraq war, mainly, and on the jingoistic and imperialist attitude towards the rest of the world. Basically, he goes your way along hatred/violence lines. Yay for capitalist imperalism, I guess =/ Your crowd sure knows how to put the other mass murderers to shame.

[The Fell Hand]

lollercakes keep going :)

[Dibujante]

No, this is the part where I wait for him to say "USA! USA!" and then assert that I'm stupid, at which point I'll pull out the bodycount and intervention statistics (again) only to have them yet ignored. I wonder if he sings "Amerika über alles" to himself...

[The Fell Hand]

I'm aware. Continue.

[Karmashock]

You're right, you didn't ratify it. However, I would like to bring this back to the original amendment. The amendment stated that no funds would be used that would violate that convention. Whether or not the U.S. ratified it is irrelevant.
I don't understand why it is relevant to us if we didn't ratify it... it doesn't apply to us. The only thing you can use on us is the Geneva convention and we're within it. So enough of you legal arguements... Attacking the most letigious society in history with lawyers is suicide. Give it up.

Furthermore, the U.N. sets standards for what torture shall be.
Yes, and only those standards that we sign on to matter. What's your point?



Actually, no. Learn to read English, I've been doing so since I was three years old. You were putting the insurgency on trial for not being mostly Iraqi. You provide the accusation, you provide the proof.
The only person I'm taking to court is Saddam. The terrorists are going to rot in a hole.

I don't get your point.
Simply that UN's relevance is limited by its power to enforce it's laws. An uninforcable law might as well not exist.

If there were a law that said you couldn't think about purple salimanders at 4pm every tuesday, would that be a law worth remembering? Of course not... because no matter how much you wanted to enforce it, you can't. You can't get inside of people's heads at 4pm on tuesdays and know want color salimander they're thinking of if they're thinking about salimanders at all.

The UN can't make China improve it's human rights abuse issue, so the UN doesn't really hassel china about it... it's wasted time.

The only thing that's funny is that you're an adult and still illiterate. Learn to read, kid.
A stupid statement considering that you never bothered to read that we didn't ratify what you were using to say that we had violated some international law.

We didn't ratify it, you didn't read to see that we haddn't, you're the dope.

Live with it for the rest of your life...

We (the left) often fail to empathise with other movements. Much like you cannot emathise with the Left.

Oh sure I can... Look, I get that you want to provide a safety net for all people to ensure that everyone is given a piece of what society has to offer regardless of what fate or their will has done to make that unlikely in a capitalist society.

I know that you don't trust people's instincts or hearts and that the best way to see that everyone gets what they deserve is to force resources to get to where you want them to go.

I know you believe that luxery is an insult to the poor and that to ride around in yachet while people starve is fundementally evil.

I know you think that the simple average worker should be held higher then all as the backbone of society... I understand and even admire many of your beliefs.


I just think they're based on some false presumptions and a lot of youthful naiviety... that they are admirable but self destructive at the same time.


I do not hate you or your beliefs... I just think they're incompetent to govern the world theatre.


If you think I hate or wish harm upon your kind, then you don't understand me. I don't hate... I'm not a hateful person... I judge and act in harsh ways sometimes... but it's nothing personal... I have always and will always wish the best for everyone. I want everyone to be happy, prosperous, healthy, and proud.


I see only misery and failure down your path... and I do not wish that even upon you... even though you work to bring that world about, I do not wish that misery upon you. I do not believe you know what you're doing. I believe you are full of good intentions... at least most of you... in any group there are those that do nothing but destroy and they're not good for much... but I do not hate or even dislike you Dib. I love you... in a totally non sexual way :D

I do not mean that in a mean or derisive manner. But I do not think you or your wing is prepared to bear the weight of the crown... I expect you to disagree and fight my wing... I also expect you to lose... time will decide.

I object to you engaging in mass murder and oppression. If you think this needs substantiation, look at your history from 1776-present and have a good cry.
Name any major world power with a cleaner soul.

*crickets chirp in the wilderness*


Fine then... we're all sinners, brother. Does that mean we're forever damned or might we one day rise above the horror? I know universal passivity has bought us nothing but pain.


What on earth am I winning again?
Why you're winning everything... the US retreats and never again does anything without the UN's say so... or perhaps not even then. The terrorists all get released because they weren't read their miranda rights... The US signs kyoto, the world court, and anything else the UN feels like doing tomorrow. North korea and Iran become nuclear powers because everyone has a right to nuclear weapons if the US has them. Or maybe the US destroys it's nuclear weapons and only other countries have them.

If you win then everything I have supported against your objection - dies. Capitalism and the markets crumble... money evaporates... and whatever the world looks like when that happens is what you and your children will inherit.


Best of luck to you... truely.


Okay, you steal jewelry from a thief who stole that jewelry to begin with. Then, you promise to return it and disappear into the night with it.
Hardly, we're giving it back to the Iraqis... so we take loot from a thief and give it back to the rightful owner... and at worst claim a small reward for our efforts... I know, we're evil... *grows horns and rapes babies with his long devil dick*...
Whatever. The main point was that you're still stealing property that rightly belongs to someone (the Iraqi people), regardless of who you've stolen it from.
What are we stealing?... We've made sure they're having a new and stable government RUN BY THE FUCKING IRAQIS THEMSELVES!

I wish I didn't understand a jingoistic and self-serving movement that believes that it has developed historically superior institutions that it must share with the world (by force if it must) all the while pocketing a tidy profit that just coincides with mass suffering. Joy.
You don't understand... All you see is hate... and there is no hate in this heart.

Right, Mr. Misogynist:
I never use that term to describe women, only as an internet insult. :)

You're a misogynist. I haven't met a single member of your movement that isn't.
Mustn't have met many, never met one that is... Normal conservatives are often misogynists, but Neocons rarely are.

Misogynist, racist, homophobic, the list goes on. At least the Left, for all its failings, is rarely touched by these blights.
You're confusing us with other groups, you're lumping every group on the right together... That would be like me saying that all communists are hippies... it's a stupid statement.

He's going in your direction on the Iraq war, mainly, and on the jingoistic and imperialist attitude towards the rest of the world. Basically, he goes your way along hatred/violence lines. Yay for capitalist imperalism, I guess =/ Your crowd sure knows how to put the other mass murderers to shame.
History will judge better then you, dib... and that judgement must be accepted by us both... whatever it is...
================================================== ==
lollercakes keep going :)
Do you feel special by throwing rotten cabbage in the middle of a discussion like a filthy little heckler? Contribute or leave please.
===============================================
No, this is the part where I wait for him to say "USA! USA!"
Unfair dib... should I give up trying to get a you to behave or show any will to turely understand the other side? Because you've never shown any interest in actually learning the other side so far as I've seen. :(



As always

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

I don't understand why it is relevant to us if we didn't ratify it... it doesn't apply to us. The only thing you can use on us is the Geneva convention and we're within it. So enough of you legal arguements... Attacking the most letigious society in history with lawyers is suicide. Give it up.Okay, let's dumb it down. The amendment said, "There is a list of laws here. We are familiar with this list of laws. Any money in this act will be subject to this list of laws, regardless of all other circumstances. This list of laws prohibits torture, as per the U.N. convention." Whether or not that convention is legally binding on the U.S. in general is irrelevant. That amendment specifically stated that it would be binding specifically on funds appropriated in that particular bill. Done and done. You want to challenge my ability to litigate? We could have a legal battle if you want. I'll tactfully fail to mention having gone to Washington D.C. to sit in on the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas was sleeping, by the way :P Oh, and O'Connor told me that there were 28 amendments and I didn't have the heart to correct her =/


The only person I'm taking to court is Saddam. The terrorists are going to rot in a hole.Stop changing the subject...


I know you believe that luxery is an insult to the poor and that to ride around in yachet while people starve is fundementally evil.Nonsense. I believe that to ride around in a yacht because people are starving is evil. If your yacht is a result of the deprivation of those people then it is evil. There's nothing wrong with luxury or wealth. Marx railed against the distribution of productivity gains in the 1800s mainly because, for all of the additional wealth they could produce, they simply impoverished workers all the more. Wealth is a great thing, but it needs to be distributed along more merit-based lines.

I know you think that the simple average worker should be held higher then all as the backbone of society... I understand and even admire many of your beliefs.The simply average worker should be given their human rights, no more and no less. People often assume that leftists seek to elevate the worker simply because of declaring the superfluity of capitalists. Workers are fit to run their own companies, so why have capitalists? That's about as close as leftism gets to declaring that workers are "higher" than everyone else.

I'm saddened that you think that this is related to Leftism. Maybe some kind of doped-up, watered-down leftism from where you come from, but I like to get my leftism from original socialist, anarchist and communist philosophers, theoreticians and leaders.

Leftism, at least, leftism by people who understand leftism, is a question of power dynamics. The right of all people to life, liberty and property is seen as a positive right, rather than a negative right. Rather than restricting government from abridging these rights, leftists argue that if these rights are ever abridged, then something is wrong. These rights could be being abridged by the government or they could be abridged by capitalists under "fair social contracts" (which ultimately amount to coercion) and the crime would be the same. Leftists want democratic self-determination and it appalls the ruling elites, even when leftists turn the other cheek.

I do not mean that in a mean or derisive manner. But I do not think you or your wing is prepared to bear the weight of the crown... I expect you to disagree and fight my wing... I also expect you to lose... time will decide.And I believe that crowns are wrong and that no one should bear them, not that they should be put "in leftist hands" because "leftists are somehow better suited to the task of being a total fascist". Despotism is a violation of the fundamental rights of human beings to self-determination.


Name any major world power with a cleaner soul.

*crickets chirp in the wilderness*

Fine then... we're all sinners, brother. Does that mean we're forever damned or might we one day rise above the horror? I know universal passivity has bought us nothing but pain.Then that would indicate that it would be time to do some soul-searching and see if it would be possible to reform the world to be more humane. 140 years ago, many people in the United States owned slaves. The United States got rid of that, they were willing to try to change the world for the better. If everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you?

Why you're winning everything... the US retreats and never again does anything without the UN's say so... or perhaps not even then. The terrorists all get released because they weren't read their miranda rights... The US signs kyoto, the world court, and anything else the UN feels like doing tomorrow. North korea and Iran become nuclear powers because everyone has a right to nuclear weapons if the US has them. Or maybe the US destroys it's nuclear weapons and only other countries have them.

If you win then everything I have supported against your objection - dies. Capitalism and the markets crumble... money evaporates... and whatever the world looks like when that happens is what you and your children will inherit.
Imperialism crumbles. For every state that is currently unstable and threatening to blow up the world there is a history of U.S. puppeteering behind it. You've dug yourself into a deep enough hole, yet you persist in digging and digging. It doesn't help that you've spawned so many petty dictatorships that are now looking for alimony.

Hardly, we're giving it back to the Iraqis... so we take loot from a thief and give it back to the rightful owner... and at worst claim a small reward for our efforts... I know, we're evil... *grows horns and rapes babies with his long devil dick*...

What are we stealing?... We've made sure they're having a new and stable government RUN BY THE FUCKING IRAQIS THEMSELVES!

You don't understand... All you see is hate... and there is no hate in this heart.Heh. Just like you kept giving those Latin American governments "back to the Latin Americans". Either back to dictators, or, if dictators were not politically expedient, back to democracies with carefully vetted constitutions allowing you to rape their land for whatever you wanted.


I never use that term to describe women, only as an internet insult. :)
Because being a woman is somehow insult-worty. It's the equivalent of calling someone "a nigger" and insisting that you're not racist.

Unfair dib... should I give up trying to get a you to behave or show any will to turely understand the other side? Because you've never shown any interest in actually learning the other side so far as I've seen. :( This coming from someone who tries to define my beliefs in order to tear them down? Not particularly fair.

[Karmashock]

Okay, let's dumb it down.
Condescention will only lead to pain, Dib.

The amendment said, "There is a list of laws here. We are familiar with this list of laws. Any money in this act will be subject to this list of laws, regardless of all other circumstances. This list of laws prohibits torture, as per the U.N. convention." Whether or not that convention is legally binding on the U.S. in general is irrelevant. That amendment specifically stated that it would be binding specifically on funds appropriated in that particular bill. Done and done.
So... you're saying we're using funds in the UN bill to toture people?... I think we're using US taxpayer money if anything... and the UN can't claim that money with this bill.

You want to challenge my ability to litigate?
Don't really need to... you tend to blow your own foot off at the first opportunity... then work on the other one...
I'll tactfully fail to mention having gone to Washington D.C. to sit in on the Supreme Court.
Cool... what does that have to do with anything... last time I went to washington, I met one of my senators... does that mean I should write laws? :D

Stop changing the subject...
I'm not changing the subject.


You want to make things legal and I don't. I'm not taking people to court. I'm not using laws. I'm cracking heads. So bringing up all these laws is really kind weird to be honest... it's all irrelevant unless you think any of it will be enforced. Because enforcing something is the only way you're going to stop it.

The critical term being en"FORCE"... but the UN can't do that... so the UN isn't really important in this discussion... and there is nothing in the US legal code that forbids this... so... yeah... guess there isn't much point is there?


Why don't we sue God for making Barney the Purple Dinosaur? He'd totally lose that case because he has the annoying arrogance to not show up when summoned by a court of law.

Nonsense. I believe that to ride around in a yacht because people are starving is evil. If your yacht is a result of the deprivation of those people then it is evil. There's nothing wrong with luxury or wealth. Marx railed against the distribution of productivity gains in the 1800s mainly because, for all of the additional wealth they could produce, they simply impoverished workers all the more. Wealth is a great thing, but it needs to be distributed along more merit-based lines.
Exactly, and capitalism isn't based upon merit, it's based upon who's better at being greedy. So we need some other system of distributing resources according to merit.

I'm totally with you... lets do it. The first thing I'm doing is confiscating all the millions given to actors and professional sports players... you guys are entertaining... not royality...



The simply average worker should be given their human rights, no more and no less.
Human rights?... uhhh... mission accomplished...
http://newmexiken.com/images/2004/05/Accomplished.jpg
The US is now a nation both you and Marx can be proud of!

Workers are fit to run their own companies, so why have capitalists?
Uh... that's like saying we have doctors and teachers that are mothers so why have mothers...

You've generally got to be both... unless you intend on not being a profit orriented company run by workers...


Leftism, at least, leftism by people who understand leftism, is a question of power dynamics. The right of all people to life, liberty and property is seen as a positive right, rather than a negative right.
Wow, America was founded as a communist state then...

Preach the Word TJ!
http://richmondthenandnow.com/Images/Famous-Visitors/Thomas-Jefferson-big.jpg
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315


Rather than restricting government from abridging these rights, leftists argue that if these rights are ever abridged, then something is wrong. These rights could be being abridged by the government or they could be abridged by capitalists under "fair social contracts" (which ultimately amount to coercion) and the crime would be the same. Leftists want democratic self-determination and it appalls the ruling elites, even when leftists turn the other cheek.
Then we're brothers... You're a Classical liberal... as I am myself. Long live the republic!

And I believe that crowns are wrong and that no one should bear them
Don't intentionally misunderstand me. It is a figure of speech.


Any system that organizes the world effectively rules it. It could be a body of nations, a world government, chaos.


I do not mean a literal crown or that any one group would rule but that an IDEA would rule.

The IDEA is what should wear the crown. You previously stated liberty... she wears a crown... see...
http://www.blogwaybaby.com/uploaded_images/Statue%20of%20Liberty-728428.jpg
:D

Don't be snarky, pooky. You know what I mean! :D


Then that would indicate that it would be time to do some soul-searching and see if it would be possible to reform the world to be more humane. 140 years ago, many people in the United States owned slaves. The United States got rid of that, they were willing to try to change the world for the better. If everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you?
Depends on how high the bridge was, if I was wearing a swim suit, and what the weather was like...

Assuming the bridge wasn't that high, I was wearing a swim suit, and the weather was nice... sure... Sounds like fun.


If everyone refused to eat a delicious cocolate donut, would you?... I'd totally eat it. :)

I am the donut hunter... beware sugar coated baked goods!

Imperialism crumbles. For every state that is currently unstable and threatening to blow up the world there is a history of U.S. puppeteering behind it. You've dug yourself into a deep enough hole, yet you persist in digging and digging. It doesn't help that you've spawned so many petty dictatorships that are now looking for alimony.
Wait wait... so we're the primary cause of the world's problems? Sweet, I thought were like this classical liberal commie dream state and now it turns out we're a legion of Hell...

http://media-cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/static/gaetano/satan.jpg
Shivvy...



Heh. Just like you kept giving those Latin American governments "back to the Latin Americans". Either back to dictators, or, if dictators were not politically expedient, back to democracies with carefully vetted constitutions allowing you to rape their land for whatever you wanted.
Uh... no... just allowing them to sell one of the few things they have that's marketable for much needed funds... If you live in a war torn hell hole and someone offers your country money for something you don't especially need at the moment or that would be your primary export regardless... do you say no just to be diffcult and stick it to the man?


You do if you're a moron. :)

Because being a woman is somehow insult-worty.
No, if being a woman were insult worthy, I'd call you "a woman". Being "a cunt" is insult worthy. That the people I call "cunts" arn't often women is in fact a large part of the insult. It would be less of an insult to call a woman a cunt then a man a cunt.


Here's another one for you... If I said a woman looked "manish" would that be a compliement? No... it would be an insult to her feminity and beauty. Is calling a man "manish" an insult or a compliment? A compliment because to identify a man or woman with their own gender is complimentry.

Likewise, if I call a man 'womanish' it is an insult, but to call a woman "womanly" it is a compliment.

It's the equivalent of calling someone "a nigger" and insisting that you're not racist.
Were I black, I could make that statement easily.

This coming from someone who tries to define my beliefs in order to tear them down? Not particularly fair.
I didn't define your beliefs, you defined them yourself by process of elimination. What left is there to believe if you wish to destroy all the things I love?... All hail the mighty Chincilla!
http://www.indyzoo.com/uploadedImages/Chinchilla%20cropped.jpg


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

So... you're saying we're using funds in the UN bill to toture people?... I think we're using US taxpayer money if anything... and the UN can't claim that money with this bill.No, I'm saying that you're using taxpayer dollars to torture people. Why don't you actually read up on the issue and then report back?

THERE IS NO "CLAIMING". If the bill said, "No funds in this bill shall be used to paint rabbits pink" then IT WOULD BE LEGALLY BINDING. Likewise, if the bill said, "No funds in this bill shall be used to contravene U.N. definitions of torture" then IT IS EQUALLY LEGALLY BINDING. You're blowing your own foot off here. Logic, Aristotle could figure it out, why not you?


I'm not changing the subject.

You want to make things legal and I don't. I'm not taking people to court. I'm not using laws. I'm cracking heads. So bringing up all these laws is really kind weird to be honest... it's all irrelevant unless you think any of it will be enforced. Because enforcing something is the only way you're going to stop it.

The critical term being en"FORCE"... but the UN can't do that... so the UN isn't really important in this discussion... and there is nothing in the US legal code that forbids this... so... yeah... guess there isn't much point is there?

Why don't we sue God for making Barney the Purple Dinosaur? He'd totally lose that case because he has the annoying arrogance to not show up when summoned by a court of law.Sigh...again...sigh...let's go back to what the original argument was. I was asserting that you couldn't demonstrate that the Iraqi insurgency was composed mostly of non-Iraqis. You asserted that the burden of proof was on me because I wanted "to bring the U.S. to court". I said that we were debating the iraqi insurgency in that clause, and therefore, you had the burden of proof because you were accusing the Iraqi insurgency of something. To which you responded that you were trying to bring Saddam to court. What the fuck? That wasn't at all related to what we were discussing. WE WERE DISCUSSING THE COMPOSITION OF THE IRAQI INSURGENCY AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF! And you just jumped in with a bit of literal verbal ejaculation to spurt out some ridiculous talking-head bullshit as if it somehow related or proved anything. I swear, watching you argue is like watching a dog engage in an arms race with its own tail.


Exactly, and capitalism isn't based upon merit, it's based upon who's better at being greedy. So we need some other system of distributing resources according to merit.

I'm totally with you... lets do it. The first thing I'm doing is confiscating all the millions given to actors and professional sports players... you guys are entertaining... not royality...Sigh...and again, you fail to comprehend.


The US is now a nation both you and Marx can be proud of!Not really. If you understood a word I was saying (or the leftist movement in general) you'd understand the fallacy of that.


Uh... that's like saying we have doctors and teachers that are mothers so why have mothers...That's like getting rid of people who advise investors to use "dollar-cost averaging" because they provide no actual benefit to the investment process itself. Capitalists, likewise, provide no organizational, motivational or creative benefits to the production process that workers cannot provide. They serve as leaders of industry because they own the industry and have the dictatorial power to enforce their whims, not because of the value of their contributions.

You've generally got to be both... unless you intend on not being a profit orriented company run by workers...
I'd advise you read up on the Mondragón cooperative in Spain (branches in three continents, still growing, survives all the nastry recessions and completely "communist") as well as Weirton Steel and United Airlines, both based in the U.S. All three of those are run by workers exclusively and all three demonstrate not only greater efficiency but greater durability than capitalist-run firms. Capitalists should be like dinosaurs: a fossil of a distant past.


Then we're brothers... You're a Classical liberal... as I am myself. Long live the republic!What part of people being able to legally oppress and enslave each other did you not get? Classical liberalism makes the fallacious assumption that only governments can be oppressive. I am not a classical liberal, I believe that the structure of social relations in the United States is oppressive, government or no.


Any system that organizes the world effectively rules it. It could be a body of nations, a world government, chaos.If a nation, a world government, a body of nations or space aliens, even, rule through violence and terror their rule is unsound and wrong.


Wait wait... so we're the primary cause of the world's problems? Sweet, I thought were like this classical liberal commie dream state and now it turns out we're a legion of Hell...If you ever once really sat down and studied history you'd be less skeptical and flippant.

Uh... no... just allowing them to sell one of the few things they have that's marketable for much needed funds... If you live in a war torn hell hole and someone offers your country money for something you don't especially need at the moment or that would be your primary export regardless... do you say no just to be diffcult and stick it to the man?You make the (stupid) assumption that Latin Americans couldn't possibly use what is being sent to the United States. I, for one, think that just maybe Latin Americans could make good use of their land, rather than being forced, through slave labor, to work it to provide cheap American goods. Maybe they have made good use of their land and it has upset the United States repeatedly. Maybe Latin Americans want to run their own businesses so they can invest profits into their own communities and feed their own families rather than be gunned down by American-supported gestapo every time they protest social injustice.


I didn't define your beliefs, you defined them yourself by process of elimination. What left is there to believe if you wish to destroy all the things I love?...Hey, if you love Holocausts, and it seems like you do, then I'm obligated to oppose your beliefs.

[Karmashock]

No, I'm saying that you're using taxpayer dollars to torture people. Why don't you actually read up on the issue and then report back?
wait are you talking about the US bill or the UN bill? Because that wasn't made clear which you were refering back to... if it's the UN one, then my origional statment stands... if it's the US bill, then that hasn't been signed yet... soo... not binding... yet.

Sigh...again...sigh...let's go back to what the original argument was. I was asserting that you couldn't demonstrate that the Iraqi insurgency was composed mostly of non-Iraqis. You asserted that the burden of proof was on me because I wanted "to bring the U.S. to court". I said that we were debating the iraqi insurgency in that clause, and therefore, you had the burden of proof because you were accusing the Iraqi insurgency of something.
I'm not accusing them of anything, I'm shooting them. :)

To which you responded that you were trying to bring Saddam to court. What the fuck? That wasn't at all related to what we were discussing.
Well... I'm not bringing anyone to court but saddam... so I don't see what you're talking about... I am not using legal arguements... you are... I don't have any interest in them, and you do.

See?... YOU are the one that wants to make this legal and not I.

I have no interest in making any legal case except for one against saddam.

For me to make the case, I have to be the prosecuter... and I'm not prosecuting anyone but saddam... I'm shooting the insurgents... but a court-o-law that ain't.

Sigh...and again, you fail to comprehend.
EXPLAIN IT TO ME Oh GURO-O-KNOWLEDGE!

Why can't I take money away from rich twity actors and give it to under privleged children that would do so much better if they had proper educations?

Not really. If you understood a word I was saying (or the leftist movement in general) you'd understand the fallacy of that.
Your words
The simply average worker should be given their human rights, no more and no less.
Well... American workers have their human rights... don't tell me they don't... come on, skippy... not down that silly magical road of comic relief?

That's like getting rid of people who advise investors to use "dollar-cost averaging" because they provide no actual benefit to the investment process itself. Capitalists, likewise, provide no organizational, motivational or creative benefits to the production process that workers cannot provide. They serve as leaders of industry because they own the industry and have the dictatorial power to enforce their whims, not because of the value of their contributions.
And yet they founded and partnered with every great commercial success that ever was... funny how that works out isn't it? Like how when the sun light hits your face you feel warm... it's almost as if the sun is doing that... but causality and correlation are two different things aren't they!


I'd advise you read up on the Mondragón cooperative in Spain (branches in three continents, still growing, survives all the nastry recessions and completely "communist") as well as Weirton Steel and United Airlines, both based in the U.S. All three of those are run by workers exclusively and all three demonstrate not only greater efficiency but greater durability than capitalist-run firms. Capitalists should be like dinosaurs: a fossil of a distant past.
Well... I know United Airlines and I can say with some authority that its one of the more poorly run companies in the country... and that it cannot survive without handouts from teh tax payers...


So... no... the only thing extinct is your list.... Oh the irony...
United Airlines - bankrupt.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/r11/united_airlines_case.htm
Weirton Steel - bought out by a multinational
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weirton_Steel
The "Mondragón" thing is still going strong it seems... but that's largely a product of it's ties to the basque then to any economic issue.


Seriously dibs, you really do underestimate us... we're the fucking Olympic athelets of economics and you consistently treat us like towel boys... it's just bizarre.

What part of people being able to legally oppress and enslave each other did you not get? Classical liberalism makes the fallacious assumption that only governments can be oppressive. I am not a classical liberal, I believe that the structure of social relations in the United States is oppressive, government or no.
well, legally oppressing each other is only legal because the government says it is... I mean, I could enslave people if it weren't for the fact that I'm apparently not allowed to do that...

so... I think the old scholars would have bone to pick with you on that point... but whatever boy-o... I'm happy either way :)

If a nation, a world government, a body of nations or space aliens, even, rule through violence and terror their rule is unsound and wrong.
Now judging space aliens is hard, I mean what if blowing up your planet is their way of showing affection? I mean, maybe the highest insult to them is giving them a christmas card? You don't know... don't impose your moral code on an entirely different species let alone a different culture... :D

If you ever once really sat down and studied history you'd be less skeptical and flippant.
Ah but I did... I just did something a little differently... I did my best to try and live history from the perspective of those living it... and THAT is a totally different experence. I didn't impose my world view on them... I accepted theirs whatever it was and did my best to understand them. Not one world view but each world view. When I studied the native americans, I accepted their world view... when I studied the french explorers, I accepted theirs... when I studied the world war two era japanese, I accepted theirs... when I studied pre civil war blacks, i accepted theirs... etc...

Doesn't mean that I kept their world view when I left their world... but I didn't tell them how to think...

Because I'm an understanding kind of guy... I believe in seeing the other person's perspective... if to only know how they think...


Getting all judgemental about the dead always seemed... pointless... like getting emotional about a rock.


I was born into the world that is... and unless you're want to get all christian on me, I was born clean. No sins touch me but that I commit myself... Paint all the history you like but it wasn't me... wasn't alive to do it...
You make the (stupid) assumption that Latin Americans couldn't possibly use what is being sent to the United States.
We buy their fruit and send them money?


Are you saying we shouldn't buy their fruit?... :(

I, for one, think that just maybe Latin Americans could make good use of their land, rather than being forced, through slave labor, to work it to provide cheap American goods.
Slave labor?... wow... talk about throwing heavy words around without really carring if they apply... I mean... that's like a verbal holocaust right there... Prove real slavery or choose a word that applies... you verbal nazi you...

Maybe they have made good use of their land and it has upset the United States repeatedly.
And maybe not... maybe it's all to blame on aliens... or gerbals... or maybe not... We've seen lots of recent collapses were the US was clearly not involved in anyway beyond just not giving another loan that won't be paid back. *shock* you want us to pay the loans back! DEMON!@

Maybe Latin Americans want to run their own businesses so they can invest profits into their own communities and feed their own families rather than be gunned down by American-supported gestapo every time they protest social injustice.
Was Bush booed?... Was the crowed killed by American supported Gestapo you silly whimical facist (remember, until you respect the language, it's fun time)?

Hey, if you love Holocausts
And how... man, i like my holocausts with fudge myself... and a cherry... just for style you know... I always eat that part first too... :)

Wow, how could you take the holocaust so lightly as to joke with that word, Karma? Well, you see it's merely a parody of what dibs is doing... and nothing more
and it seems like you do, then I'm obligated to oppose your beliefs.
Hey, make up what you like... the magical bunny will whisk you off to fairyland!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Karmashock/funny/Easter_Is_Cancelled.jpg

DRAT!... well, the magical bunny won't be coming this time timmy, but never fear... all you need to do is close your eyes wrinkle your nose and WISH!

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

wait are you talking about the US bill or the UN bill? Because that wasn't made clear which you were refering back to... if it's the UN one, then my origional statment stands... if it's the US bill, then that hasn't been signed yet... soo... not binding... yet.That's not the point. The point is that the Bush administration wants to perform those acts proscribed by the convention. If the convention stated, "You shall not eat blue rabbits" then we could reasonably accuse the bush administration of eating blue rabbits, whether that is good or not. However, the convention says, "you shall not torture" and that is what Bush wants to do.
Again, no comprehension of anything.

[QUOTE=Karmashock]
Why can't I take money away from rich twity actors and give it to under privleged children that would do so much better if they had proper educations?Because those actors earned that money...the reason why those children are underprivileged is because of a cadre of petty dictators who call themselves "capitalists". Redistribution of wealth is not even a priority, redistribution of power is.


Well... American workers have their human rights... don't tell me they don't... come on, skippy... not down that silly magical road of comic relief?Do I really have to point you to the various incidents in which workers, protesting their conditions, were fired upon? I don't think I am even obliged to provide you with something so utterly straight-forward that every schoolchild should know it.


And yet they founded and partnered with every great commercial success that ever was... funny how that works out isn't it? Like how when the sun light hits your face you feel warm... it's almost as if the sun is doing that... but causality and correlation are two different things aren't they!The overwhelming, overwhelming majority of capitalists are not entrepreneurs.

Well... I know United Airlines and I can say with some authority that its one of the more poorly run companies in the country... and that it cannot survive without handouts from teh tax payers...You mean, going bankrupt after all the other companies started to fold?
Edit: Whoops, I accidentally implied something here I didn't mean to. United Airlines filed bankruptcy before other airlines, but in total seven airlines filed bankruptcy in the same three-year period. United Airlines was not the last to file bankruptcy, as my statement implied.

The "Mondragón" thing is still going strong it seems... but that's largely a product of it's ties to the basque then to any economic issue.Prove. It operates in a capitalist country inside a capitalist world market. If it not only survives but thrives then it's doing something right.

Really, you can't prove to me that capitalists are necessary in order to run a business. I'd like you to try.

well, legally oppressing each other is only legal because the government says it is... I mean, I could enslave people if it weren't for the fact that I'm apparently not allowed to do that...

so... I think the old scholars would have bone to pick with you on that point... but whatever boy-o... I'm happy either way :)Yep. The government says that it is perfectly legal to rob each other blind and then claims that we all have "rights". I laugh at this concept of rights. I'd like rights that meant something.




Getting all judgemental about the dead always seemed... pointless... like getting emotional about a rock.How did you know that the Soviets were going to do bad things in countries they controlled? You didn't, unless you looked at the historical record. Yes, those rocks that people get all emotional about. Stupid.

We buy their fruit and send them money?

Are you saying we shouldn't buy their fruit?... :(

Slave labor?... wow... talk about throwing heavy words around without really carring if they apply... I mean... that's like a verbal holocaust right there... Prove real slavery or choose a word that applies... you verbal nazi you...Wow, your ignorance isn't even worthy of a response at this point. Read some history, newb.


And how... man, i like my holocausts with fudge myself... and a cherry... just for style you know... I always eat that part first too... :)

Wow, how could you take the holocaust so lightly as to joke with that word, Karma? Well, you see it's merely a parody of what dibs is doing... and nothing moreI'm talking about the murder of millions of people. Holocaust is an appropriate term.

[Karmashock]

That's not the point. The point is that the Bush administration wants to perform those acts proscribed by the convention. If the convention stated, "You shall not eat blue rabbits" then we could reasonably accuse the bush administration of eating blue rabbits, whether that is good or not. However, the convention says, "you shall not torture" and that is what Bush wants to do.
Again, no comprehension of anything.
Either you're stupid or joking... did the US ratify or sign into law this thing?

Yes or no?

If yes, then it mustn't have been mentioned yet, if no, then it's pointless.

You say the bush admistration wants to torture?... fine... I say there are different definitions of it. Do as you please.

Because those actors earned that money...the reason why those children are underprivileged is because of a cadre of petty dictators who call themselves "capitalists". Redistribution of wealth is not even a priority, redistribution of power is.
naive tripe... you believe that if 'workers' or people personally invoved in the production of whatever their business is ran everythign that it would be end of poverty?

sigh...

Do I really have to point you to the various incidents in which workers, protesting their conditions, were fired upon?
You do if you think workers in US don't have their HUMAN RIGHTS today.

Bringing up something that happened decades ago stupid. Talk about now.

Do you really claim that they don't have their HUMAN RIGHTS!? Rediculious.

The overwhelming, overwhelming majority of capitalists are not entrepreneurs.
And all entrepreneurs worth the price of their shoes ARE capitalists... so what's your point? :lol:

You mean, going bankrupt after all the other companies started to fold?
Edit: Whoops, I accidentally implied something here I didn't mean to. United Airlines filed bankruptcy before other airlines, but in total seven airlines filed bankruptcy in the same three-year period. United Airlines was not the last to file bankruptcy, as my statement implied.
Prove. It operates in a capitalist country inside a capitalist world market. If it not only survives but thrives then it's doing something right.
It's a failing company that survives on government handouts, this you know.


This while South West Airlines and Jet Blue thrive on NOTHING but profit.

I believe your UA will eventually lose control of its stock if it hasn't already... kind of basic in a bankrupsy for the investors to lose control of a company.... and it all get pass to creditors.

Really, you can't prove to me that capitalists are necessary in order to run a business. I'd like you to try.
Wrapped in tight cultural cacoon that loves it because it's part of them. That you found so few such companies and the only one still doing alright was in basque hands practically proves my point on the face of it.

Yep. The government says that it is perfectly legal to rob each other blind and then claims that we all have "rights". I laugh at this concept of rights. I'd like rights that meant something.
You miss the point, you said that governments can't give you rights, but that's not true... again... if they outlawed whatever you're mad about at the moment, then things would be fine right?...



How did you know that the Soviets were going to do bad things in countries they controlled?
We looked at their own and the satilite states.

Duh, twit.

You didn't, unless you looked at the historical record.
comical... we could look at their current conquests, fool.

Yes, those rocks that people get all emotional about. Stupid.
Wow, your ignorance isn't even worthy of a response at this point. Read some history, newb.
Back up your silly claims, idiot.

I'm talking about the murder of millions of people. Holocaust is an appropriate term.
You do great dishonor to the dead by pointing the wrong finger at their dooms.

But blame the US if that's all you're good for... like a novelty anteque, some things do their little song and dance and then are good for nothing but repeating the tired little jig till the end of time.

[Dibujante]

Either you're stupid or joking... did the US ratify or sign into law this thing?

Yes or no?

If yes, then it mustn't have been mentioned yet, if no, then it's pointless.

You say the bush admistration wants to torture?... fine... I say there are different definitions of it. Do as you please.Wow, you're so off base here it's laughable. I'm not even going to condescend to bring this back to the starting point. Re-read, think a bit, then answer again.


naive tripe... you believe that if 'workers' or people personally invoved in the production of whatever their business is ran everythign that it would be end of poverty?Please tell me, without resorting to stupid "Well, it's just because" rhetoric, why workers cannot run businesses?


And all entrepreneurs worth the price of their shoes ARE capitalists... so what's your point? :lol:The point you just agreed on. Capitalists are not useful, entrepreneurs are. Or at least, that's what you're saying. Thanks for being your own best critic.


Wrapped in tight cultural cacoon that loves it because it's part of them. That you found so few such companies and the only one still doing alright was in basque hands practically proves my point on the face of it.You never had a point to begin with...please, if I missed it, reiterate and substantiate it.

The nature of investment lends itself to capitalists. Please explain to me how a bunch of workers can produce a sufficiently large company in a small enough length of time to be serious?


You miss the point, you said that governments can't give you rights, but that's not true... again... if they outlawed whatever you're mad about at the moment, then things would be fine right?...I didn't say the government couldn't give me rights. I said it wasn't giving me enough to guarantee life, liberty and property in any meaningful fashion.


We looked at their own and the satilite states.

Duh, twit.

comical... we could look at their current conquests, fool.

Back up your silly claims, idiot.Their current conquests are a historical record. Even though a Soviet government may have murdered x thousands of people in y city isn't going to prove that they'll do it again. Simple, common sense will, and that common sense looks at history.

Oh, and wanna look at your satellite states? We'll look at all those brutal Latin American dictators who murdered thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands.

Something slightly more contemporary (you've been supporting dictators in Latin America since ~1890 - ~1970) would be, say, instating the brutal Shah of Iran, so reviled by his people that you somehow act surprised when the revolutionaries that brought his bloody reign to an end hate you. Better than ask, "How could they hate us?" you should ask "How on earth could they not hate us?"

Oh, and of course, there's always Saddam Hussein. You gave him WMDs, knowing full well that he was going to use them. Sorry, I don't buy the "benevolent democracy" bullshit.


You do great dishonor to the dead by pointing the wrong finger at their dooms.

But blame the US if that's all you're good for... like a novelty anteque, some things do their little song and dance and then are good for nothing but repeating the tired little jig till the end of time.
I've already pointed out numberous U.S. interventions, all of them bloody. Can the rhetoric, pull out the facts, please.

[Karmashock]

Please tell me, without resorting to stupid "Well, it's just because" rhetoric, why workers cannot run businesses?
They can run them... it's just that at a certain point, a worker managing a company becomes a capitalist... that is unless you're saying that ALL the workers own and run the business... they remain capitalists in that instance as well... it's just that instead of looking out of the company's well being, they tend to just look out for their own... which is fine of course, except for it leads to ruin with the workers canablizing the company going into bankrupsy.

As per your three examples above... only one of which in a small ethinc eddy was able to survive.

The point you just agreed on. Capitalists are not useful, entrepreneurs are. Or at least, that's what you're saying. Thanks for being your own best critic.
Capitalists are useful... entrepreneurs are capitalists... there are many types of capitalists as there are many functions in a complex economy.

You never had a point to begin with
If you believe that then you never have any intention of debate... i was mistaken about you... you came here looking to hurt me... not discuss things...


Very sad.


I always wish to learn... and so open myself to your arguements...

Oh well, I guess there is no point in pretending that you want to have a discussion. Even our private discussions were little more then an opertunity for you to try and get out of context quotes from me... you've abused my trust and my respect for our discussion for the last time in a while.


I am done with you till you master your hate.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[The Fell Hand]

contribute or leave? hilarious, however in this particular case there is no "make me" button. I'm amused, and I let it be known. Continue.

[Karmashock]

contribute or leave? hilarious, however in this particular case there is no "make me" button. I'm amused, and I let it be known. Continue.
I didn't claim to have a 'make me' button... I was relying on your integrity.

You do have integrity don't you?

[Dibujante]

They can run them... it's just that at a certain point, a worker managing a company becomes a capitalist... that is unless you're saying that ALL the workers own and run the business... they remain capitalists in that instance as well... it's just that instead of looking out of the company's well being, they tend to just look out for their own... which is fine of course, except for it leads to ruin with the workers canablizing the company going into bankrupsy.Hilarious. You don't even know what a capitalist is, much less what capital is. Go back to school, kid.

[The Fell Hand]

I told you it was hilarious.

[Dibujante]

Yep. Kind of funny that for all his neo-con rhetoric he doesn't even know how to define capitalism =/

By the way, Fell, how is Singapore going? Have you gone yet? Don't chew gum there or they'll pull your teeth out.

[The Fell Hand]

I'm aware, I've been there before for a couple days actually. Very clean place, but it's brainwash city pretty much. Great public transport tho.

I leave this Sunday, my league matches are on the 17th, and if i qualify it'll be 8 man single elim bracket on the 19th. My group consists of chobo ( no idea), spirit (runespirit?), fear, lufy ( korea #2 select clone), and some unknown guy with a weird underscorey name. If I finish top 2 in group after round robin I advance. So essentially I need to beat either fear (lol) or lufy.

I face lufy round 1. So right when I walk into the tourney doors I've kinda either made it to top 8 or i'm doomed :(