Second-Class Citizens

Second-Class Citizens (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

JackHammer2000 -> Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 1:47:25 PM)
http://www.amendus.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?ID=4 What do you think?

popeye1250 -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 2:04:21 PM)
What is she talking about?

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 3:01:00 PM)
*I don't know what she is talking about either... personally I think they treat gay and lesbians like second class citizens... as well as smokers... who knows?* *This isn't a thing trying to make it legal for Arnold to run for president... is it?* *Jewel*

LotusSong -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 3:40:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel *I don't know what she is talking about either... personally I think they treat gay and lesbians like second class citizens... as well as smokers... who knows?* *This isn't a thing trying to make it legal for Arnold to run for president... is it?* *Jewel* People are born gay or straight.. smoking is a choice. As to the OP.. I dunno. I think Arnold just wants to run for President in the future.

farglebargle -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 4:26:57 PM)
If people are born gay or straight, explain bisexuals.

LadyEllen -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 4:31:56 PM)
Schwarzenegger will be president, mark my words, regardless of any present preclusion..... E

KenDckey -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 5:16:51 PM)
Soldiers are often treated like 3rd class citizens. Seems to me that 2nd class would be an improvement

LotusSong -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 5:38:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle explain bisexuals. Greedy, needy, attention whores.

popeye1250 -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 6:33:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Soldiers are often treated like 3rd class citizens. Seems to me that 2nd class would be an improvement "Sailors and dogs keep off the lawn!"

Rule -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 6:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Schwarzenegger will be president, mark my words, regardless of any present preclusion..... Quite. And he will cause more wars and have more people slaughtered in them and in the genocides that occur during them than Djenghis Khan and Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler and the Bushes together.

popeye1250 -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 7:05:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Schwarzenegger will be president, mark my words, regardless of any present preclusion..... Quite. And he will cause more wars and have more people slaughtered in them and in the genocides that occur during them than Djenghis Khan and Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler and the Bushes together. Rule, they don't call him "The Terminator" for nothing!

farglebargle -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 8:45:39 PM)
OFF TOPIC: Speaking of dumping on Soldiers? How about that officer being court martialled whose defense, which is not allowed to be introduced in court, is that his orders are unlawful? I for one would welcome an open examination of the issue. WMD? Nope. Hussein a threat? Nope. Iraq AUMF obtained using fraudulent methods? MAYBE. Isn't that MAYBE worth investigating? Don't the dead deserve that accounting? P.S. Sorry for the thread tangent.

sweetnurseBBW -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 8:53:11 PM)
I am glad Arnold has some woman tell me I am a second class citizen because I would have gone the rest of my life and never known. Thank goodness Arnold told me. LOL[8\|]

ToServeIsToLive -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 8:56:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Schwarzenegger will be president, mark my words, regardless of any present preclusion..... Quite. And he will cause more wars and have more people slaughtered in them and in the genocides that occur during them than Djenghis Khan and Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler and the Bushes together. Not that I like the Bushes, but the number that have died directly and indirectly because of both bushes combined doesn't dent the numbers of those who have died from any of the other people you listed. I mean Stalin sent 20 million soldiers to their deaths in WW2 (more than all other parties (including the holocaust) combined lost during the war) and purged about 3 million of his own people. Hitler is pretty much responsible for the millions lost in WW2, and the 6 million jews in the halocaust. Pol Pot killed about 1.5 million of his own people and waged a reckless war against vietnam (don't know how many lost but more than likely several magnitudes more than lost in iraq). I have no idea how many Khan killed, but considering he ravaged most of asia it is probably is a significant number. How in the world do you put a few thousand soldiers and maybe tens of thousands of enemies/civilians in the same list as that? I mean even the number of people Sadam killed dwarfs what bush has done.

farglebargle -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 9:03:03 PM)
quote: Pol Pot killed about 1.5 million of his own people and waged a reckless war against vietnam (don't know how many lost but more than likely several magnitudes more than lost in iraq). I've always thought, that the John's Hopkins/MIT study done a few months ago was pretty accurate. Don't think I agree with the hype associated with the high value of their range, 600,000 Dead Iraqis, but considered their Low-Middle range ( 300,000 - 400,000 Dead Iraqis ) to be reasonable. So, figure Bush is now, 6 months on, good for what 500,000 Dead Iraqis? ( American Casualties are negligible compared to the toll on Iraqi Civilians, so they're not included in this calculation ). With no end in sight. Will he beat Pol Pot's 1,500,000? I'd take the under. That's nothing to be proud of, is it?

ToServeIsToLive -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 9:25:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Pol Pot killed about 1.5 million of his own people and waged a reckless war against vietnam (don't know how many lost but more than likely several magnitudes more than lost in iraq). I've always thought, that the John's Hopkins/MIT study done a few months ago was pretty accurate. Don't think I agree with the hype associated with the high value of their range, 600,000 Dead Iraqis, but considered their Low-Middle range ( 300,000 - 400,000 Dead Iraqis ) to be reasonable. So, figure Bush is now, 6 months on, good for what 500,000 Dead Iraqis? ( American Casualties are negligible compared to the toll on Iraqi Civilians, so they're not included in this calculation ). With no end in sight. Will he beat Pol Pot's 1,500,000? I'd take the under. That's nothing to be proud of, is it? After reading on the death toll estimate, I'm inclined to not quite believe it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14/1.php (I linked to a part that particularly made me doubt the report of 600,000. 600-800 a day of dead bodies don't just disappear (540,000 in total over the occupation)).

farglebargle -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 9:35:38 PM)
Iraq Body Count, If I recall correctly, only uses published reports of deaths? That would underreport actuals. They want to quibble about the accuracy of their numbers? I'd like to remind us that Baghdad is still a war zone, and it's so out of control, they need to send in more troops to go door to door and clean out "Undesirables". I guess a wall or something will keep them from coming back home. From the BBC: "An article in the Wall Street Journal by Steven Moore, who worked as a pollster for the coalition authorities in Iraq, " A pollster in Iraq. Sorta sums up why Bremer was such a failure in one simple idea. This is when our troops didn't have armored humvees? And that worthless shit is drawing a salary conducting fucking polls?

ToServeIsToLive -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 9:43:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Iraq Body Count, If I recall correctly, only uses published reports of deaths? That would underreport actuals. They want to quibble about the accuracy of their numbers? I'd like to remind us that Baghdad is still a war zone, and it's so out of control, they need to send in more troops to go door to door and clean out "Undesirables". They use UN reports which sum iraqi morgue and ministry of health information. Obviously there's going to be some percentage of undiscovered deaths, but to use a small scale poll and then believe that it's 1000% is a bit out there.

farglebargle -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 10:16:54 PM)
What number do you like? Me? I like ZERO dead Iraqi Civilians. I know, I know... I'm an old hippie. I object to the NEXT war, too.

farglebargle -> RE: Second-Class Citizens (1/30/2007 10:19:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToServeIsToLive quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Iraq Body Count, If I recall correctly, only uses published reports of deaths? That would underreport actuals. They want to quibble about the accuracy of their numbers? I'd like to remind us that Baghdad is still a war zone, and it's so out of control, they need to send in more troops to go door to door and clean out "Undesirables". They use UN reports which sum iraqi morgue and ministry of health information. Obviously there's going to be some percentage of undiscovered deaths, but to use a small scale poll and then believe that it's 1000% is a bit out there. But seriously folks. Where is it written that you must take your dead brother to a morgue and get a certificate? What? Like his life insurance is going to pay out, living in Iraq? I think, given the tradition of burial within 24 hours, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people don't bother filling out the paperwork. THEY know their son is dead. Who the fuck cares what MinHealth accumulates statistics for or is going to take the risk of getting shot dead going downtown to file some camelshit paperwork?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875