User talk:GodlessLiberal/May2007

Welcome Wagon

Welcome aboard! Flippin 12:18, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Word. GodlessLiberal 12:28, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Good to see you back. --Helios 12:42, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Agreed :) -Icewedge 12:43, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks guys. GodlessLiberal 14:51, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Interwiki links are set, for sysop request check out my user page. Good to see you here! Tmtoulouse 16:58, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Heya Cracker 21:13, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Did you see that Heart of Gold suddenly and inexplicably retired?--PalMD^-Talk 21:34, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

My money is on a hissy fit that he/she didn't get sysop. Tmtoulouse 21:36, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Oh, snap. Who did? Will N.? Recockulous. GodlessLiberal 21:41, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

blocked

That'll teach you to check out my gorgeous ass. --Huey gunna getcha 21:53, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

You've been blocked in return. And yes, that's right, for 45 seconds. I've upped the ante. That'll teach you. GodlessLiberal 21:55, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

May the Block Wars begin! Gentlemen 9and you two, too), start your keyboards... finger your mice... ewww human^{be in} 20:14, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

keeping track?

Hey, GL, how did you find that block report for a given user thing on RW1? It seems people have been blocking me willy-nilly here, always for good reasons, of course, and I need the total for a cool UXB. In fact, we need that "user has been blocked x times" UXB here, now. human^{be in} 14:53, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

You've been blocked twice on RW2. To find the block report, click Special Pages in your toolbox on the left, click Logs, then select 'Block Log' in the box. GodlessLiberal 15:18, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, thanks, I found that, but remember when Ed blocked me one morning and you sent me a link that showed only my block history? How do I get that? Just curious, human^{be in} 17:53, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Click 'my contributions' at the top, then 'block log' at the top of the next page. That what you're referring to? GodlessLiberal 19:29, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

apologies

You did me a favor, I was so busy movingn files for TMT I didn't realize it. I had actually asked "someone" to go vandalize nation magazine so I could experiment with creating a "vandalism" sub page, and when you added Rush to the talk radio thing I had my golden opportunity! I will be working on that, now... and if you added him without that intent, heck, thanks anyway, I'm still relearning how to edit in the "we don't mind vandalism" mode. human^{be in} 12:44, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Haha... Missed your shot. ;) No worries. Being such a productive Sysop is hard work! GodlessLiberal 19:40, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Question

Hello. What exactly is this? Is it an encyclopedia? Or is it just an anti-conservapedia wiki?Bohdan 22:26, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

You know, to tell you the truth, I'm not even sure of that myself. Here is the 'official' point to the site, I guess. Mostly just a sort of branch off of conservapedia, where the left-wingers talk about their experiences there, and we ask our favorite conservatives to put in their two cents. That's just my interpretation of the site. Colin might be the one to ask for a more official answer, though. GodlessLiberal 22:29, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Read the front page, the goals are there. human^{be in} 23:41, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Is there a 90/10 type rule here?Bohdan

More of a 10/90 rule...if you ain't talkin' bout it, what's the point? Edit away!--PalMD^-Talk 22:57, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Of course there's not a rule. That was one of my biggest problems with CP (see Ninetyten, TenNinety, and 9010IsNotIce. Oh, and no one gets blocked, either. Except for short amounts of time, and it's always in jest. GodlessLiberal 22:57, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Here we have a 99/01 rule. You are only allowed to edit one article after defacing commenting on 99 user pages. We need more socks (or, better yet, warm bodies) before any of us can edit. human^{be in} 23:41, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Hello

Hello GL. How are you tonight?Bohdan 19:32, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm doing pretty fantastic. I've been pretty inactive around here (and CP) lately. Finals are soon, but school is almost over! Two days left. I'm excited. How are you doing? I see you've been blocked quite a bit :) GodlessLiberal 19:35, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I am wonderful. This site is fun, as are the blocks. I might not be as active here, as it distracts me from my sysop duties. Just wanted to say hello, and goodbye. I'll check in later to see how things are going. Have a nice evening.Bohdan 19:37, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, you have a nice evening, too. I'll block you. GodlessLiberal 19:38, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, but I have been told to lay off the blocks for a while, lest I become an addict.Bohdan 19:44, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

It's better than cigarettes, no? GodlessLiberal 19:45, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I guess. See you later.Bohdan 19:46, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Have fun sysoping over there! GodlessLiberal 19:47, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Socklist

Were you cp:User:Billwsu? I've got a quote where TK doesn't see a difference between Reaganomist2 and Billwsu. --jtl^talk 21:07, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Nope. That's not me. I think I've taken credit for all my socks, but I'm not sure. Now that I think of it, there's another... I'll go add it. GodlessLiberal 21:10, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

You're not a monkey, you're an APE.--PalMD^-Talk 22:27, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Are you sure you're not Helena Bonham Carter? human^{be in} 22:28, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Strange, I was just reading that article, and had gone to a few of the links AK left for Huey when you sent me this message. I'll add my name to the list of those who claim to be Helena. I still have no idea what the fuck you guys are on about, though. Oh, and I'm the father of Anna Nicole's baby, too. GodlessLiberal 22:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

And NOT an ape. GodlessLiberal 22:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

OH. It's Marla Singer! I feel like a dumbass. My friend Jonathan and I argue all the time about which one of us is Tyler,and which is "Jack". GodlessLiberal 22:35, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for fixing the userbox

Thanks for fixing the userbox, even though you did not agree. Trust me, I have been "helping" with user boxes that I loathe just as much.:) Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:39, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

No problem. What's so bad about FDR that makes him worse than Grant, Buchanan, Harding, or some of the other corrupt and incompetent presidents we've had? GodlessLiberal 22:41, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

See CP:New Ordeal ;) Wow, historical revisionism and ignorance! human^{be in} 22:46, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Under his watch:

• His administration was infiltrated by Soviet spies.
• The Manhattan Project was infiltrated by Soviet spies (giving the Soviets a huge advantage to developing the atomic bomb).
• Paved the way for the entitilement mentality.
• He *probably* acted on the McCullem memo, and intentionally goaded Japan into war.

The Communist philosophy can be summarized: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Thanks to FDR, we are more than 50% to this communist ideal, with progressive taxes, entitlement programs, and so forth. BTW, I did not read the CP article. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:52, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Oh, the article is great. Best parts: "the World War II" and "indexes".

But back to FDR, I think his economic programs were pretty darn good. The TVA was, in my commie opinion, one of the greatest things the federal government has ever done for the economy. I think entitlement is (mostly) beneficial. I'm not familiar with that memo... I'm curious though. As far as spy infiltration goes... we were doing the same thing to them, and on a far greater scale. And I just have a general disdain for espionage, whether it's the CIA or KGB. FDR has his faults (as every president has), but I just think that with his case, the good outweigh them the most. And it's probably because I put a whole lot of weight on economics when I assess a politician. For example, I have a favorable opinion of LBJ because of his Great Society programs, despite his bad decisions on foreign policy. GodlessLiberal 23:23, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

You say we (the U.S.) were doing the same thing to them (the U.S.S.R.)? The U.S.S.R wasn't having a difficult time spying. Roosevelt not only turned a blind eye, he spewed vulgarities toward those who informed him of the great extent of the problem. The Soviets knew more *MUCH* more about our atomic bomb program than our own vice president. And I would like to know how far we infiltrated the soviets before and during WWII. Not far, from my reading, but if you have information to the contrary, I'd be interested--not that it would change my view of the Roosevelt, who affectionately referred to one of the biggest mass murderers of all time "Uncle Joe," and who, when informed by Berle that at least two dozen Soviet spies had infiltrated the his administration, responded "Go fuck yourself."^{William A. Rusher, A Special Counsel, New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1968 (cited in Arthur Herman, Joespeh McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator, New York: Free Press, 2000, p. 60)} Heart♥Gold ^tx 02:07, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

What was FDR to do when 1/4 of Americans couldn't get a job? It's not that people didn't want to work, there just weren't any jobs around! Was FDR supposed to let 1/4 of his population die on the streets, for the sake of the "free market" spirit, I for one believe human lives are more important than any economic ideology. Capitalism works, but only when everyone gets a fair chance to begin with (scholarships, minimum wage, etc...) and basic necessities such as healthcare and a pension are available to everyone.

I don't see how FDR's and Truman's alliance and alliances America had or has with the Taliban, the Persian Sjah, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, the Contra's, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc... (I think these were all wrong, but this shows it's not fair to judge FDR like this, especially when considering that the US-USSR alliance during WWII was necessary, unlike any of the other alliances I mentioned above.)

If the Soviets hadn't developed an atomic bomb of their own, the whole deterrence thing wouldn't have existed and the US would probably have nuked Korea, China and eventually (Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely) everyone else who didn't agree with them (like "socialist" Europe), meaning the world would have been a nuclear wasteland by now. Mankind would have destroyed the world because we don't agree on how money (a human invention) should be spent (capitalism vs communism). That's what the so-called traitors, smuggling nuclear secrets to the Soviets, were thinking about: they may have betrayed one nation-state, but they saved the world! MiddleMan

Well, at least you're forthright about your views. You're young, but apparently well read. I'd recommend reading, if you haven't already, some classical books on what is known today as conservative values, from John Locke (classical liberal but probably a conservative today) to ?????-- I'll have to look up the name of an ultra conservative from the victorian era--forgot his name. Also read up on the French revolutions. In any event, your lack of faith in the United States (Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely) is balanced out nicely by your faith in the hell communist nations forced their subjects to live under. You might also want to read some first person accounts of life under Chairman Mao as well. A solution was found by FDR, but it was not the only solution available, and whether or not it was the best possible solution is also subject to debate. The ends to do not justify the means--if they did, you wouldn't be concerned about the U.S. being the sole possessor of the Atomic bomb. Heart♥Gold ^tx 14:21, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I just think deterrence was the only thing that prevented the United Sates from using nukes after WWII, you do know that there were serious plans to drop a few nukes along the Chinese-Korean border to cut of Chinese reinforcements during the Korean war? The plan was never executed because the Soviets had the bomb as well, it was the only thing that kept Truman from crossing a line that should never be crossed, and we all know that lines that have been crossed once, tend to be crossed again...

If the Soviets were the only ones with a bomb they would most certainly have abused that power, as would any other nation, including the United States, no matter how democratic the people of that nation think it is, after all it took Germany only a few years to go from a democracy to the Nazi regime, and last time I checked, Americans didn't have a special gene preventing them from supporting a totalitarian regime, after all they were ok with segregation, and how many Americans can you hear saying things like "we should nuke the hell out of (insert name of country here)", these days (a significant percentage.)

What bothers me is that Americans (and the Chinese as well) think their country is somehow special, that it's the greatest nation ever and they're always right, this just shows an incredible amount of ignorance of 5000 years of history, who remembers the Sassanid Empires? No one, even though at the time their citizens thought they were better than everyone else (pride comes before the fall.)

So many people around the world have had to suffer under various regimes during the 20th century, but we should remember that at least there still is a world, and we should also remember that many of those regimes were supported, or even set up by nations that call themselves bringers of democracy and freedom. MiddleMan

The U.S. would not have been the only country. USSR (June, 1948) A reactor for plutonium production completed. Constructed using forced labor of prisoners in detention camp. Doesn't sound like the kind of country FDR should have been cooperating with. The U.K. and France(February, 1960) have these weapons. Giving the Soviets nuclear technology is like giving a school yard bully a machine gun. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:09, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

No, it's like having two school yard bullies keeping each other in check and keeping each other occupied. MiddleMan

I agree with MiddleMan here. The world kinda needs two opposing forces to balance each other out. Otherwise, you have one that gets to go around the world policing everything and "protecting its own interests." GodlessLiberal 10:46, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Starwars (the movie) philosophy? Heart♥Gold ^tx 10:47, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

As long as I get to wear the stormtrooper suit. GodlessLiberal 10:48, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Of course Earth (all 6,5 billion humans) vs some alien race(s) would work as well (as long as people have a common enemy they can work together.) MiddleMan

You liberal exotheologist! --jtl^talk 16:36, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

A-Bomb

Do you think the U.S. was not justified in using the Bomb on Japan? Even McNamara (liberal) says we were justified in the documentary extended interview ~"Fog of War." (After watching that film, it made me think McNamara and Rumsfeld have similar personalities and intellects.) In any event, with the "death of the west", our grandchildren may see how non-western peoples utilize the Bomb. If you think we were not justified, and have an interest, please explain your reasons. Heart♥Gold ^tx 01:04, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Well... this, for me, is a tricky subject. Being a sixteen-year-old, I'm certainly not as well-read as I'd like to be on several matters, and this is one. MacArthur (I think it was him) told Truman it would cost one million U.S. casualties to invade the Home Islands of Japan. MacArthur had proven pretty accurate in predicting casualties in previous engagements. A million people is a hell of a lot. Given the tenacity with which the Japanese held Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and other islands they posessed before the war began, it would almost certainly have been an exhausting, decade-long struggle. Had we not dropped the bombs, it probably would have lasted into the 50s, perhaps even longer. The USSR was securing control of their "gains" in Eastern Europe, and Truman at Yalta (or maybe Roosevelt at Potsdam? One of those conferences, anyway) had asked Stalin for help against Japan. Dropping the bomb before the Soviets could mobilize against Japan (and therefore have a say in the reconstruction, like what happened with Germany) probably saved Japan and half of East Asia from Soviet-brand communism.

Having said that, I don't completely agree with the decision to do so. I could understand blowing away every airport, naval base, and troop barrack we could find. However, I'd like to think that a nation that prides itself on being "civilized" wouldn't nuke innocent civillians. I find that detestable. I could maybe understand the first bomb being dropped. It shocked the hell out of them, and they were considering throwing in the towel. They understood the stakes. We had accomplished our objective. Dropping a second was simply over-extreme. I don't think that another show of such force was necessary.

A little liberal revisionism to close it out: I've read theories that we dropped the bombs on poor little Japan to show the USSR what was going to happen to them in the next few years if they stood in our way. Now, I don't subscribe to this theory, but it's an interesting idea to chew on. If it's the case (which I doubt there is much supporting evidence for), that's really disturbing, and I would be even more disillusioned than I already am. GodlessLiberal 15:32, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Just to chime in a bit here, randomly... I know this is a blank appeal to authority, but my ex is a historian, and she lists "showing Stalin our new toy" and "keeping the USSR out of eastern Asia" as two big reason for dropping the bomb.

Considering how the western peoples have used the A-bomb (we dropped two, on civilian population centers), I don't think we have a great moral high horse to sit up on.

When I was younger, I used to riff on how Nagasaki justified Hiroshima - heck, if they didn't surrender after that, a second helping was certainly necessary! But it's a weak argument. We could just as easily have evaporated an island held only by their military, then cabled them and offered to do another one if they thought we only had one Bomb, before starting on "mainland" cities.

The fire bombing of Dresden was equally horrific.

MacArthur could have been wildly wrong, some historians cite documents showing that the Japanese were close to surrender anyway - but, we wanted it quickly, as prev. stated, before Stalin could mobilize and get some of the pie.

And a last point, using black and white ideological markers such as "McNamara (liberal)" doesn't advance discussion, it shifts it to "not one of mine" and so one. Think of all the "conservatives" that Andy denies on CP, and even the random identification conflicts between HG, RobS (here) and TK (anywhere). And HG at CP. Likewise, look at most of us pawns of Soros on this site, I doubt any two of us agree all down the line on political issues, or even what constitutes "junk science", etc.

And a sort of PS, I grew up, not uniquely, of course, thinking "what would I do if I knew, undisputably, that I had only six hours to live (AFB, Navy nuclear sub repair shop, and a nuclear power plant all within 20 miles)? I felt no such worries as we went to war against Iraq, although I did have this said to me by one young lady: "But he has nuclear missiles pointed at us!". He had no nuclear weapons, and he certainly had no ICBMs to mail them with.

Just my .02, well, more like .12 or so. human^{be in} 18:32, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I am going to rephrases and pose my original question in the debate section. Please either cut and paste your response to that debate. This is per request of Human. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:24, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I moved it to Debate:Was the United States Justified in Nuking Japan?. And in my response, I stole some of your tunder regarding the Soviet Union in the far East, though this is only a beneficial side effect, not a reason to drop the bomb. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:35, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Hey, don't just do things 'cause I suggest them ;) Do them if they's good ideas! But it did seem like we had a nice one going here. Too bad you stoled GL's "save east Asia for us" theme. But I'm sure we can rephrase ourselves. I'll go third. human^{be in} 23:43, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks...

for the welcome - jerk. --Horace 23:18, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Hey!--PalMD^-Talk 00:30, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Don't you 'Hey' me! GodlessLiberal 00:34, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

It's okay, he's a doctor. --Kels 16:09, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Thats ok

She is quick, but I would have loved to block you also. See you next time!Bohdan 14:58, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I was hoping to let you have the honors of doing so. I'll get to you faster some other time. Have a great day! GodlessLiberal 14:59, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

You too.Bohdan

I was waiting :)Bohdan 19:30, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Did you realize it was me? You just called me 'cabal member'. And what's up with Dan reverting my edit? Jerk! Haha... GodlessLiberal 19:31, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I didn't get your message until I saved mine. I know that many of you here claim to be this person, so I could't be sure. GL, DanH is no jerk, he is one of my conservapedia role-models. Bohdan 19:36, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I was kidding about Dan being a jerk. He was really helpful to me, back when I was a good, honest contributer. He is one of the handful of sysops over there whom I respect quite a bit. And I have no idea why we claim to be her... GodlessLiberal 19:38, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Virginity

My first block. ;_; Was it good for you? --Kels 19:47, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

It was great. Let's do it again sometime ;) GodlessLiberal 19:47, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Well I'm ruined now, so might as well enjoy it. I knew abstinence would never work! --Kels 19:53, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm going to block myself for that. GodlessLiberal 19:55, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Make sure to block yourself repeatedly. But in private.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 19:56, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

It's always good to stay in practice. --Kels 19:58, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm in practice.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 19:59, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

From your fascination with buttsex, I can imagine what your practice entails. --Kels 20:01, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Who told you that??? It wasn't Karajou, was it?--PalMD^{-yada yada} 20:03, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

The way he was shouting, everyone could hear. --Kels 20:06, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Sonofabitch...well, I'm not the one who said "in lube we trust" but if the, er, shoe fits...--PalMD^{-yada yada} 20:08, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Good thing GL (Green Lantern?) is blocked, what with us filling up his page with Karajou buttsex an' all. --Kels 20:09, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Have you noticed that everything always comes down to buttsex. I think it is because the word is just funny. So is ass. Good words, high humor value. 162.82.215.199 20:11, 30 May 2007 (CDT)--that's me PalMD, apparently TK was smart enough to figure that out.

You fire enough random shots, eventually you'll hit something. Remember he thought I was AK? --Kels 20:20, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Buttsex! Speaking of buttsex, Doc, my weiner is blue. Any ideas what that could be? And yes, I'm the Green Lantern. The new one, the black one. TK thought I was Icewedge one time, but only because I was using a proxy on CP. GodlessLiberal 16:17, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I thought with all the new crisis stuff, Hal Jordan was back again (and still sniffing around after underage girls). --Kels 16:20, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Hal's been replaced by a black cartoon on the Justice League. I do the voice-overs. GodlessLiberal 16:22, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Oh, I'm a comics geek, haven't really been watching the animated. Haven't really been into TV in years, honestly. --Kels 16:23, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I haven't ever really watched television regularly, just catch stuff when my little brother is around. GodlessLiberal 16:25, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

All I watch is Jon & Stevie's "Daily Report" and pre-BJ M*A*S*H* reruns. Oh, is this section only for us virgins? Let us wandalize! human^{be in} 16:49, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Someone got a BJ? Where? Who do I impeach!? --Ken Starr