Political Crossfire Forums

NeedsREALfreedom · Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Posts: 1761 Location: MN, USA

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Abraham Lincoln.

God all mighty, here it comes..... :roll:

George W Bush · Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject:

wheres the why?

why why why kill abe lincoln?

there it is.

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

George W Bush wrote: wheres the why?

why why why kill abe lincoln?

there it is.

He ended the republic and started the empire by eliminating the right of states to secede.

He gave us the first income tax, the first military draft, suspended habeas corpus, shut down seditious newspapers. . . your usual dictator activities.

Worst of all, he gets credit for ending the very slavery that even socialists like Eugene Genovese admit was on its way out. The emancipation proclamation was a political bluff for the sake of the international community. And to make it worse, he was personally indifferent on the issue.

It's no wonder he's considered such a great president, politicians love him. He was really good at the game he played.

Misanthropy · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 35

but then again so are all politicians...otherwise they wouldnt be leading us

Phædrus · Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 131 Location: Northern Europe

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: [...]
Nobody in the Bush administration had any idea that removing Saddam from power would result in the mess it is now, with the potential to spark yet another World War.

Really ...

mardron7 · Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Posts: 49 Location: Western New York

Einstein.

Time travel is far too dangerous.

But not Stephen Hawkings. Cured of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in an alternate reality he's decidedly less ambitious.
:P

NobleOne · Joined: 07 Feb 2006 Posts: 78

soldierofchrist wrote: I'd probably take out Karl Marx.
Why? Is the freedom to express opinions not sacred to you?

NeedsREALfreedom · Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Posts: 1761 Location: MN, USA

Phædrus wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: [...]
Nobody in the Bush administration had any idea that removing Saddam from power would result in the mess it is now, with the potential to spark yet another World War.

Really ...

I am supposing, in this instance, that the reasons he states for the war are the actual reasons it was waged...

All I'm saying is that there would definitely be unforeseen consequences.

NeedsREALfreedom · Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Posts: 1761 Location: MN, USA

NobleOne wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: I'd probably take out Karl Marx.
Why? Is the freedom to express opinions not sacred to you?

Yes, I thought it was communists that killed for declaring a political stance, I guess I was wrong....

social · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:48 am Post subject:

soldierofchrist wrote: I'd probably take out Karl Marx.

Because you understand neither Marxism nor Marx?... Me thinks so.

social · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:54 am Post subject:

Ennoea wrote: I would hold up the guy who shot John Lennon, and try to dissuade him from doing the deed.. No need to shoot him..

Oh god. You get a chance to kill Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Ghengas Khan, and pretty much any other tyrant/despot and you want to save Lennon. :shock:

social · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:01 am Post subject:

LostSoul3412 wrote: It really wouldn't matter who you shot in the past; the time stream would find a way to fix itself. If you shot the man who invented the time machine, another person would invent it and send you back, dress up like the initial inventor, and you wouldn't know the difference. The paradox really isn't a paradox at all, the time stream wouldn't allow it to be. Time and space would be constant (for once...) to create the scenario where you originally went back. Killing one person in the past would not effect the present at all. If it did... well... that would just be silly.

Chaos theory at its finest. :wink:

Bah!

social · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:04 am Post subject:

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: First, time is unalterable. Suppose that someone went back to kill Hitler, there would always be something to prevent it, because time is a constant and our universe exists on a single time-line.

Second, If you could go back and kill someone, you could not predict the ramifications of what you're doing. Killing Hitler could prevent WW2 but it would put the soviets in the lead.

I take the Iraq War as an example. Nobody in the Bush administration had any idea that removing Saddam from power would result in the mess it is now, with the potential to spark yet another World War.

I think most people are aware that time travel is not possible.

social · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:08 am Post subject:

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: NobleOne wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: I'd probably take out Karl Marx.
Why? Is the freedom to express opinions not sacred to you?

Yes, I thought it was communists that killed for declaring a political stance, I guess I was wrong....
What makes me laugh about your silly rants against Marx is that they can be turned right round and directed (more appropriately) to your beloved administration... Tell me, is invading a soverreing nation and killing hundreds of thousands of people not based on a political stance? :shock:

NeedsREALfreedom · Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Posts: 1761 Location: MN, USA

social wrote: What makes me laugh about your silly rants against Marx is that they can be turned right round and directed (more appropriately) to your beloved administration...

:lol: My beloved administration.... :roll: Woo-hoo hoo, that's rich!!

social wrote: Tell me, is invading a soverreing nation and killing hundreds of thousands of people not based on a political stance? :shock:

Your very right, a Marxist aproach, indeed.

Preechr · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject:

Smedley Butler.

There was a conspiracy to overthrow FDR in 1933 that is generally referred to as the Business Plot. The business interests chose retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler to lead the military end of the coup. Instead Smedley went to Congress and ratted out the conspirators. Being that the conspirators were extremely wealthy and influential members of society, the politicians in Congress did what all politicians do and looked the other way once off paid with large campaign donations.

So if you can kill Smedley Butler before he squeals, the Industrialists find someone else more trustworthy and they depose FDR. Possibly we could have avoided the end of the Great Depression, never become involved in WWII, and not have to deal with so much of the bloat in the US Government that is the legacy of FDR.

social · Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:54 am Post subject:

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: social wrote: What makes me laugh about your silly rants against Marx is that they can be turned right round and directed (more appropriately) to your beloved administration...

:lol: My beloved administration.... :roll: Woo-hoo hoo, that's rich!!

A stranger to logic you may be, but even you should be able to recognise the sheer, monumental stupidity of supporting the actions of American government, and at the same time denouncing people who kill for a political stance. That spells H-Y-P--O--C--R--I--S-Y!

Quote: social wrote: Tell me, is invading a soverreing nation and killing hundreds of thousands of people not based on a political stance? :shock:

Your very right, a Marxist aproach, indeed.

I suggest you attempt reading a little Marx before waging another asinine attack on his ideas. You'll only stop showing how woefully ill-informed you are and might, in the process, demonstrate that you are actually worth debating.

Phædrus · Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 131 Location: Northern Europe

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: Phædrus wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: [...]
Nobody in the Bush administration had any idea that removing Saddam from power would result in the mess it is now, with the potential to spark yet another World War.

Really ...

I am supposing, in this instance, that the reasons he states for the war are the actual reasons it was waged...

All I'm saying is that there would definitely be unforeseen consequences.

That is precisely the point. They knew full well that there would be "unforeseen circumstances" - ie chaos. Perhaps the mess is bigger than foreseen, but it is precisely this kind of mess that jusifies US presence in this area of increasing strategic importance ... central Asia.

In my opinion, there was a deliberate decision after the collapse of Saddam's regime to allow the power vaccuum to fester for long enough to create a lengthy civil conflict. So I still take issue with your point that "nobody in the Bush administration had any idea that removing Saddam from power would result in the mess it is now" ... it is but a minor difference of opinion ....

Preechr · Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:56 am Post subject:

social wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: social wrote: What makes me laugh about your silly rants against Marx is that they can be turned right round and directed (more appropriately) to your beloved administration...

:lol: My beloved administration.... :roll: Woo-hoo hoo, that's rich!!

A stranger to logic you may be, but even you should be able to recognise the sheer, monumental stupidity of supporting the actions of American government, and at the same time denouncing people who kill for a political stance. That spells H-Y-P--O--C--R--I--S-Y!

I thought all you socialists discounted the Bush administration as being inept. Now I see that you like to elevate the administration to the same high level as your vaunted philosophical hero. I can’t say that I agree with you but it is interesting to see how other people think. :-D

social wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: social wrote: Tell me, is invading a soverreing nation and killing hundreds of thousands of people not based on a political stance? :shock:

Your very right, a Marxist aproach, indeed.

I suggest you attempt reading a little Marx before waging another asinine attack on his ideas. You'll only stop showing how woefully ill-informed you are and might, in the process, demonstrate that you are actually worth debating.
Besides, killing Marx wouldn’t have changed much. His ideas weren’t revolutionary so much as they were evolutionary. If it hadn’t been him, it would have been someone else.

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

social wrote: NeedsREALfreedom wrote: First, time is unalterable. Suppose that someone went back to kill Hitler, there would always be something to prevent it, because time is a constant and our universe exists on a single time-line.

Second, If you could go back and kill someone, you could not predict the ramifications of what you're doing. Killing Hitler could prevent WW2 but it would put the soviets in the lead.

I take the Iraq War as an example. Nobody in the Bush administration had any idea that removing Saddam from power would result in the mess it is now, with the potential to spark yet another World War.

I think most people are aware that time travel is not possible.

I'm one of those people. What is the physics establishment incorrect about?