Chill Spike

The Rules Real Soldiers Will Serve Under

2008-03-23T12:51:00.000-07:00

I've got a cure for idiots in the service...You know the ones who commit atrocities like killing innocent civilians, rapes, torture, animal cruelty, and just generally uncivilized behavior embarrassing and damaging to the reputation of the United States? Yeah, those assholes...If any soldier under the command of someone commits an atrocity or hurts the reputation of the united states, we decimate the commanding officer...If we did that, you'd see the scum in the military cleaned up in no time. And just so you don't think I'm just talking, I'd be willing to command and serve under those rules and ONLY those rules! Anyone who wouldn't is of inferior character, inferior strength, a coward, un-trust worthy and unworthy of military service.

If God created the Universe, where did he create it from?

2008-02-14T05:34:00.000-08:00

If God created the Universe, where did he create it from?
If nothing and none of us can exist without a Universe, and God exists and created the Universe, from where did God create the Universe?

To claim that something, like a god, "exists" is to place it under the same laws of any other existent...To "exist" is to exist somewhere...even for sub-atomic particles that sometimes momentarily escape our observations...A Universe can be defined as "a somewhere to exist"...Without somewhere to exist, a pre-universe god could not exist...Therefore, by the theory of a "god created universe", there is no way in hell a god could have created the universe if he had to "exist" before it to do it...If you're going to throw around words like "exist" in reference to God, expect Him to be held to the same laws as any other existent...namely the necessity of a universe in which to exist...

Ever notice...

2008-02-03T09:11:00.001-08:00

Ever notice that conservatives don't get along with anyone and everything not like themselves?

They have a problem with the majority of non-Christians, Atheists, Gays, Transgenders, Canadians, Mexicans, minorities, the French, the Germans, Europe, South America, Central America, African Americans, Africa, Arabs, Muslims, Jews, Hollywood, Actors, Russia, Environmentalists, Liberal Cities, The East Coast, The West Coast, Liberals, Democrats, Scientists, The UN, CNN, News Anchorpersons, The Media, Feminists, Humanitarians, Peace Makers, The Kennedy's, Civil Rights, Diplomacy, Unions, Corporate Whistle Blowers, Anti-Nuclear Activists, Anti-Death Penalty Activists, Affirmative Action, Martin Luther King, Peace Activists, Lesbians, Modern Artists , The Clinton's, etc..

And everybody else has a problem with THEM!

If this makes sense to you please add any group or individual you think I missed to the list, copy it and send it to all your friends.

Capitalism and Social-Darwinism

2007-10-31T10:39:00.000-07:00

Perhaps socialism, as it was known in the past, is not the answer. But neither has capitalism proved to be an answer. I believe we are in a time where the facade of workability covering ALL current economic systems is beginning to wear thin. And the facade of Capitalism is no exception. Capitalism is extremely social darwinistic and competitive by its nature and only perpetuates inequality. Whereas Socialism at least, though unsuccessfully, tries to address the problem, Capitalism completely ignores it. The problem is not just that people are unequal. But that some people are so unequal that they can barely exist or are in circumstances that, under capitalism, will take their whole lives to dig themselves out of and reach that "happiness" we all are so desperately pursuing, if ever.

I'm sure you've seen the movie "The Pursuit of Happiness". Defenders of capitalism like to point to that movie as some kind of proof positive defense of capitalism. But, in fact, that movie is one of its greatest indictments. Every time the main protagonist in the movie lost something, like his wife, his apartment or the motel room he was staying in, it was because of the demands of capitalism. The demands of capitalism (mainly the necessity for money) and his quite genuine struggle and inability to meet them knocked every beam out from under that guys life and left him and his son sleeping in a subway system bathroom. That's capitalism for you. And the only time he was offered any kind of relief from his struggle and misery came from the quite LIBERAL and SOCIALISTIC program of a homeless shelter. The fact, in the end, that he was the only one out of hundreds of applicants to close more deals and thus land the sole available position at that dreadful company only stresses the dog-eat-dog social-darwinistic nature of capitalism all the more. It just shows that capitalism can pretty much be justifiably compared to and reduce to the struggle of hapless sperm in a race against each other to reach the egg. Only one will make it. And if your one of the millions that got sidetracked in the journey or took a wrong turn or had a bad start, well, that's too bad, isn't it?

I say socialism still IS the answer. Maybe not in any of its past forms. Perhaps more of a self-sufficient socialism is what is needed. One that utilizes current and future technology to first provide a livable platform to start from and free up the individual from dependence on not only money but dependence on other people's money...both corporate wages and charity. Socialism still offers that hope because it still recognizes sometimes a handout can also be a hand up.

Capitalism is, by its nature, opposed to handouts, and therefore can only offer more of the same competitiveness and struggle.

Mancow...what a clown..

2006-11-21T09:36:00.000-08:00

Anyone watch his idiotic special on Fox? What a mess...

After he has a 911 conspiracy theorist and a NY fireman square off in a "debate"...he apologizes to the fireman and says he was sorry for having the 911 theorist on the show...

Was Mancow unaware of the guests he had booked on his own show? That's basically admitting to having booked the guy for partisan sensationalism and ratings. If you thought it would be so offensive to the fireman, Mancow, why did you invite the conspiracy theorist on the show? And why did you present an extreme "liberal" view on one side and not an extreme conservative view on the other? Had an agenda to carry out? I encourage you to keep being this transparent, however, it works for our side.

What a moron.

Conservative post-election hypocrisy

2006-11-14T17:22:00.001-08:00

I like how some conservatives try to explain the recent republican losses by pointing to the right-leaning democrats that won... right, sure... when you could have just gotten right wing politics from the Republicans that were running by electing them....

Yeah, the Dems won because they were more right wing than Republicans like Santorum and Allen...

It also seems to me, that if the Democrats' policies on Terrorism and the war in Iraq were such a danger to this nations' security - as conservative radio and this administration has been drum-beating in to us - conservatives would do everything they could to avoid the Dems from taking control of anything.

Furthermore, by conservative logic, wouldn't it make sense for conservatives to forcibly oppose and remove democrats from office? After all, the democrats are going to allow another 911 and, under them, our country is at serious risk. Conservatives have been screaming the Democrats are for the terrorists. So if that's the case, why aren't conservatives forcibly opposing the democrats and liberals the way they oppose the terrorists?

Natural Vs. Made-Made Competition

2006-11-05T05:21:00.000-08:00

With the recent publication of The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins, there has been a lot of debate about the impact the acceptance of Evolution would have on society and human relations. I want to address the common assertion among theists that the world-wide adoption of evolution would lead to an "every man, woman and child for himself" mentality.

Just because survival of the fittest is played out in the animal kingdom, doesn't mean humans have to consciously and intentionally apply it to our social existence. One is assuming a great too many things when one implies that humans will turn into brutes by believing in evolution...as if half of them weren't behaving that way now while believing in religion.

Yes, to a certain degree, humans are at the mercy of Nature, but that doesn't mean we have to recreate Natures' harshness and threats in ourselves. There is a difference between Natural threats to Human and individual survival and Man-Made ones. An animal doesn't know the peril involved in participating in the "game" known as survival of the fittest...an animal doesn't know it could die..a human does...and it is to our benefit and survival to not engage in any competition at all. Here's a simple rule for understanding this:

Competition, in any form, is a danger to the survival of the competitors.

It's one thing for Humans to compete against diseases and bacteria and natural disasters, aggressive animals all sorts of natural-based threats...we can't control those enemies because they can't or won't engage in reason or rational discussion...but it's quite another thing for Humans, who are all capable of seeing the perils of competition in Nature, to impose Man-Made competition on themselves.

In other words, Humans have enough hardship to deal with from the Natural world...it is neither a survival benefit or a proper extension of Darwin and Wallace's theories to intentionally impose competition on ourselves.

Notice that, in order for many species of animals to survive today, it requires a non-competitive approach by humans...one side in a very ancient conflict abstaining from and controlling it's old aggressions.

Humans were able to rise to dominance because they were able to tame their instinct for competitiveness amongst themselves to a greater degree than the lower animals ...not because they were so good at crushing other species...though they no doubt were. The lower animals never mastered their inner-species competitiveness and they are therefore still not as successful, species-wise, as humans, still lower down on the evolutionary scale, and still more competitive without and within their own species.

The fact is, it is the absence of competition and socially aggressive behavior that advances the survival of both the species and the individual. The adoption of evolutionary theory does not imply the introduction of brutality...it implies the opposite since Human evolution was aided by the control and elimination of such behavior..not it's predominance.

Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab

2006-09-24T07:05:00.000-07:00

"Academic Paper Says Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale"

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4439/1/

This has enormous implications and shows just how science and modernization is in tune with the Liberal agenda of helping others.

Conservatives always complain about giving people a "free ride" and the work ethic of capitalism but science is slowly moving in a direction, on many fronts, that will make it possible to live better without the same degree of effort, resources (money) and dependancy on the traditional capitalistic blue print required in the past. This is just one example:

If science can grow food in the lab now, the next step is mass producing this kind of food for consumers and the step after that is shrinking this technology and intergrating it in every kitchen.

One can envision "labs" the size of microwave ovens you can purchase at a your local appliance store. These "appliances" will allow consumers, at first, to complement their regular store bought food items and then, eventually, wean themselves off the traditional super market entirely.

And finally, if not immediately, this technology would be made available to the third world the help alleviate world hunger and tackle world food shortages. All huge liberal agendas.

Frankly, I don't think conservatives and their strident emphasis and consistant use of the aphorism "God helps those who help themselves" would be in any hurry to develop or exploit for others this kind of technology. They would more likely conclude it was tampering with God's divine wisdom and plan.

Vietnam protestors right afterall

2006-08-15T07:43:00.000-07:00

After all the cliched patriotic banter we hear from the kneejerk flag waving Right, about how protesting the war in Vietnam was wrong and how John Kerry was a liar, and how the left are traitors, we finally have the truth:

LaTimes - VIETNAM: THE WAR CRIMES FILES

Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units, a Times review of the files found. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam.

This is a stunning indictment on how the U.S. Military conducts itself and more evidence of why Abu Graib is probably no isolated event. This is a pattern. We did it to the Native Americans, we did it in Vietnam, and we are doing it in Iraq. The U.S. Military has a problem screening people who like to do bad things when they are given a weapon or power over others. It's that simple. They didn't address it then and they only half-heartingly address it today. Generals will cite percentages and how they are low compared to troop numbers but similiar enemy percentages do not keep them from accessing some enemy activites as threats or from taking action against them. I'm not out to bash the U.S. Military - I want them to have a good image around the world. But we need a much tougher filtering process, guys. Frankly, I'm not at all surprised we have conduct issues overseas. In most military institutions we can't even get fellow recruits to treat their own fellow citizens respectfully. ( Hence the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy". If the typical American soldier didn't have a propensity for gay bashing, there would be no need to keep it hush).

One can only imagine what will be revealed 30 + years hence from the war in Iraq as the Right takes a similar stance against war protestors today. This is not about Left or Right or treason, however. Objecting to the way the United States wages war and conducts itself overseas has a legitimate function and, as we now see many years too late for the victims in Vietnam, a legitimate basis in reality.

Gen Pace on Iraq...

2006-08-05T09:23:00.000-07:00

A telling contradictory statement from General Peter Pace at the recent Capital Hill hearing on Iraq:

Source:

Quote from TracyPress:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has succinctly summarized how Iraq can move away from the abyss of chaos. “Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other,” Pace told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

:End Quote

I submit, given the suffering and death the invasion of Iraq has brought on its children, that this statement from the general is obscene. If I was the Iraqi president or ambassador I would be absolutely livid right now. Who are the americans to be counseling deliberation and restraint in Iraq?

This appears to be an absolutely sickeningly hypocritical statement that calls for further elaboration and justification on the part of General Pace.

Do I fundamentally disagree with General Pace's suggestion? No. However,

1.) It's a little late to be advocating "love" in Iraq

and

2.) One of the architects of civilian deaths in Iraq is certainly not qualified to counsel everyone else on the importance of valuing children to avoid conflict

I urge everyone concerned with American policy and our international relations to request an explanation from General Pace:

Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, DC 20318-9999