The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: Shiver on July 02, 2004, 12:26:17 pm



Title: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on July 02, 2004, 12:26:17 pm
At meep-eep's suggestion, I'm making a separate topic for an argument that was sparked in the topic "Flame Thrower" and threatens to blow over. Shitty puns aside, this website does a pretty good job of expressing my feelings on the matter: http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/ Simply put, most of the so-called dirt you've heard on this guy is random crap that's been twisted and blown out of proportion. If you have any, please source it and give an extensive explanation as to why it's so incredibly awful.  Also, feel free to try your hand at convincing me that George W. Bush isn't the most hideous leader ever.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 02, 2004, 06:42:03 pm
In the same vein, here is an article which illuminates my thoughts on the Iraqi Insurgency better than I am able to myself:

http://www.businessnc.com/archives/2003/10/up_front.html

And don't forget, my fellow Americans reading this, that the Congress is every bit as much to blame for this mess (by abdicating their responsibilities regarding declaration of war) as the Executive.  Don't forget to do your part in kicking them out this November, either.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 02, 2004, 09:54:31 pm
funny thing is most of the terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis. they're muslum radicals from all over the middle east. who came to iraq to "kill the american infidels."
thats one of the main points for the war. Take the war to them so they wont attack us on our soil.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Lukipela on July 02, 2004, 10:56:15 pm
But you're not taking the war to them. You're taking the war to the Iraqis, who you yourself admitted are not the terrorists. Do you think the regular civilians in Iraq feel happy that the US named their country the new place to deck it out with Taleban&Co. in?

How'd you feel if someone tried to take the fight to you, to stop you from bombing the crap out of their soil?. Oh wait, they already did. Felt good, did it?

Any other points that are pro current administration??


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 03, 2004, 01:35:04 am
WOW lukipela.. I thought you were a nice guy guess i was completly wrong.
THAT is the most anti-american thing I've heard in a long time.
Alot of people would kill you on sight for saying something as insensitive as that.

BTW: alot of Iraqis are very happy by american presence. what most Media wont tell you is how much the infastructure has improved, and how schools are opening. how the electricity grid has been rebuilt to be better then it was before the war.

Quote
How'd you feel if someone tried to take the fight to you

I would think that my opponent is actualy fighting a war.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: ChainiaC on July 03, 2004, 01:46:02 am
Actually, if what you say is true and a lot of people would kill someone on sight for having a negative opinion about the USA, then I can only conclude that the USA must be a damn scary place!  ::)
Freedom of speech implies the right to piss some people off, doesnt it?
Also, how does having an anti-american point of view make someone un-nice?
Dont get me wrong, I'm from Holland myself but I've been to the US, and I think its a beautifull country with a lot of really cool people in it, but I too am rather sceptic about George W.'s policies. One does not exclude the other.



Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 03, 2004, 01:48:41 am
Quote
Freedom of speech implies the right to piss some people off, doesnt it?

but Fighting words are not. You say something too someone of that nature, then you are considered at fault as well.

Quote
the USA must be a damn scary place!

only if you act like a total jerk. im pretty sure anyplace you go if you act bad enough then  your life is forfeit.

Quote
but I too am rather sceptic about George W.'s policies.

I can only blame the media. when i went to the european-union every media outlet I saw had a sickening anti-american slant to it.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 03, 2004, 02:08:12 am
Patton Oswalt on Say Something Funny
http://www.theonionavclub.com/ssf/index.php?issue=4025

Sixteen things I would be willing to vote for instead of George W. Bush:
  • Anal rape
  • That scene from Dumbo where Dumbo's mom cradles him in her trunk and he starts to cry
  • Four years of constantly being hit in the genitals with an ax handle by Avril Lavigne
  • Avril Lavigne's music
  • A new STD that makes angry hornets spontaneously generate in your anus, and it's caused by masturbation
  • Every time you blink, you crap your pants
  • The vague feeling of hopelessness that you get on a rainy Sunday morning when you've just fucked someone you shouldn't, and now you have to think of a way to let them down easy, and you realize that the pain you've caused in your life is starting to come back on you threefold, and you can no longer feel joy, and also there's an under-skin zit inside your nose
  • The body odor of a two-pack-a-day cigarette smoker in an elevator
  • Vanilla Coke
  • Contagious, airborne cancer
  • Italian food tastes the way it does at The Olive Garden from now on
  • A lost puppy slowly freezing to death at 5:11 a.m. on Christmas
  • Reagan's corpse
  • Orgasms can only be reached while listening to "Meet Virginia" by Train
  • All children look like Donald Pleasence until they're 11
  • John Kerry


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Shiver on July 03, 2004, 02:12:56 am
This seems to be only a discussion of Iraq. I myself feel ambilivant towards this war. Our president basically lied about chemical and nuclear weapons to get us there in the first place and the people there hate us. He's done a wonderful job of pissing off every other country on the face of the earth. Furthermore, he let civilian companies interested in profit be put in charge of fixing the country instead of just letting the military handle that. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein was a pretty shitty person and Iraq will probably benefit in the long run. There's some good in the war, but it exists despite Dubbya, not because of him.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 03, 2004, 02:38:15 am
This is what i wrote in reply.

18 things I would rather vote for then John Kerry:

 Ethnic Cleansing of all 6 finger men.
 Outlawing A/C
 A law that requires a 4 inch spike to stick out of all new vehicles steering wheels.
 funding for all Virus writing projects.
 Goverment Grants for poeple who wish to have Sex Changes.
 Murder to be considered a misdemeaner
 Required additives to toothpaste to cause tooth decay.
 Outlawing Painkillers.
 all new video games must be written in Java.
 A law requring all mice to have only one button.
 having police enforce murphies law.
 Afirmative action for new born babies. (to many whites? then kill em)
 forced organ donating while doner is still alive. (Heart, Liver)
 renaming Linux to Doors.
 a law requiring every city to have different colors for stoplights.
 beating baby seals with clubs.
 Joe Lieberman
 George W. Bush.

I can think of alot more. ;D


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 03, 2004, 02:42:11 am
Quote
Our president basically lied about chemical and nuclear weapons

actualy they found some. but even if he did then kerry did as well.

Quote
He's done a wonderful job of pissing off every other country on the face of the earth.

he didn't "piss them off"  just had them reveal their true colors, and not everyone on the face of the earth.
Quote
he let civilian companies interested in profit be put in charge of fixing the country instead of just letting the military handle that.

this is a bad thing? it creates jobs, and saves money by having contractors do it at a set price. otherwise you would have to train the military personel in in nearly everthing. the military are for killing and civilians for building.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Culture20 on July 03, 2004, 03:07:44 am
Quote
How'd you feel if someone tried to take the fight to you, to stop you from bombing the crap out of their soil?. Oh wait, they already did. Felt good, did it?

I don't normally reply in political threads, but I'd just like to point out that they (Al-Qaida) didn't attack us to keep us from bombing their soil.  They attacked us to keep our culture from affecting theirs in what they believe is a negative way.  Whether we (U.S.) are Star Trek TNG's Borg in respects of our culture is open to debate, but they could have used better means to combat the culture than intentionally blowing civilians up.  Hollywood would have made a better target than the Trade Towers.

Quote
Do you think the regular civilians in Iraq feel happy that the US named their country the new place to deck it out with Taleban&Co. in?

Regular Iraqis seem to be quite happy that they no longer have to fear random murders & rapes from their own government, but instead from the enemies of their new government or the enemies of their governments' friends (the Coallition).  You don't hear this from most news sources since they are legally allowed to say the sky is orange if they want (yay free speech!), but if you talk with people who have been over there, you hear that the majority of people that they meet are happy for the Coallition presence despite the current turmoil.  Of course, that's not scientific polling, since most of the people who would approach an armed soldier would be predisposed in favor of that soldier (if not, they'd avoid the soldier like the plague).  But, it's better than some suits in New York spinning sound bites into cotton candy.

Recent Insurgents who happen to be Iraqis (like Al-Saudir) were merely jostling for room in a percieved power-vacuum.  He probably planned the maneuver as soon as he saw that the U.S. was going to attack.  Notice that Al-Saudir quickly mentioned that he'd run for political office after he gave up.

Quote
A law that requires a 4 inch spike to stick out of all new vehicles steering wheels.
Afirmative action for new born babies. (to many whites? then kill em)

1) That'd make people more carefull as they drive...
2) Isn't that one of Kerry's Platforms?  ::)  Kidding, kidding.

Aaaany waaay, back to Kerry.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 03, 2004, 03:19:36 am
Culture 20 you are my new friend. ;D


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Shiver on July 03, 2004, 03:28:20 am
Quote

actualy they found some. but even if he did then kerry did as well.

he didn't "piss them off"  just had them reveal their true colors, and not everyone on the face of the earth.

this is a bad thing? it creates jobs, and saves money by having contractors do it at a set price. otherwise you would have to train the military personel in in nearly everthing. the military are for killing and civilians for building.


First point - they found shit besides a few empty missile cases. If any WMDs were ever found in Iraq, it'd be all over national television.

I stand corrected in that we didn't piss off every country, just most of them. Even the governments of countries that supported us show a lot of dissent, though. England is an example of this.

Civilian companies doing reconstruction in Iraq is intensely stupid. Only the big companies really benefit from this. It's less efficient and makes the Iraqis resent us more. If you think reconstruction by our big business isn't making any trouble for us, take a look at all those execution videos of contractors. Military reconstruction isn't an odd thing, it's what we did with Japan and Germany after WW2.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 03, 2004, 03:34:13 am
Quote
actualy they found some. but even if he did then kerry did as well.

I normally live by the rule "never argue with a fool, people watching may not be able to tell the difference", but in this case I am compelled to point out that you sir, are talking out of your ass.

"Fair and Balanced" Fox News may have trumpeted the fact that WMDs were found (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html), but it was a single old, abandoned munition from the Iran/Iraq war, tagged for destruction but lost in the shuffle, and according to the military officials that actually found it, the people who rigged it up likely didn't even know that it contained binary sarin (Associated Press article here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/17/152705.shtml)) and Fox News' report was pretty much laughed off the stage by everybody except Fox News.

I'm no partisan, and I'm certainly no pacifist, but it is plainly obvious to even a casual observer that the claims by Bush/Blair that Iraq had "massive stockpiles" of chemical and biological weapons, capable of being deployed "within 45 minutes" were patently false.  To take any other position is to take a position of baseless apologism.  The whole thing was ill-conceived and poorly-executed, and now we've got a bloody, costly clusterfuck of an occupation to which the true costs may take decades to shake out.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 03, 2004, 04:25:26 am
You claim they havn't found any yet you provided a link to a site that says they did, make up your mind.

things they have found but not been reported all that much are, mass graves, video tapes of murder Rape, Components important in make WMDs. Prisons that still reek of all the death that happened in them.

the funny thing is you are trying to only blame bush and blair. the FACT is almost EVERYCOUNTY including the french, russia and germany SAID that they had WMD, even kerry said they had WMD. so how can you say bush lied and no one else?  


here are some links to stories.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120345,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
i couldnt find all of the ones i remeber though. like Iraqi scientist going to Libya to make a nuke.



Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Deep-Jiffa on July 03, 2004, 02:00:31 pm
Quote
At meep-eep's suggestion, I'm making a separate topic for an argument that was sparked in the topic "Flame Thrower" and threatens to blow over. Shitty puns aside, this website does a pretty good job of expressing my feelings on the matter: http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/ Simply put, most of the so-called dirt you've heard on this guy is random crap that's been twisted and blown out of proportion. If you have any, please source it and give an extensive explanation as to why it's so incredibly awful.  Also, feel free to try your hand at convincing me that George W. Bush isn't the most hideous leader ever.


Hitler? Stalin?


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Lukipela on July 03, 2004, 02:49:57 pm
C20. Sure, I'll cede you the point that they are happier now, and that the country is actually being rebuilt in a fashion. Within 10 years, it may well be a stable and functioning democracy, which definetly is a good thing. My reply wwas more angled towards the "Take the fight to them", when you're not actually fighting in "their" country, just some random place. A random place with a cruel leader admittedly, but a cruel leader who has no apparent linkings to "them".

And I hate to bring up an old point, but that once again brings up the point of "Why them?" the North Koreans have admitted that they have Nuclear Weapons. Itran is making probably doing the same. India and Pakistan both violated the nuclear treaty and built them themselves. Darfur is going through a genocide, as are/have many african warzones in the last decade or so. Yet you don't see anyone jumping into the fray there trying to "give the helpless democracy". We've all heard the speculations, and while there is no way to be sure if they are true or not, it does add to the negative PR for the war, and the outsider view of the US.

As for the WMD Bio, did you not listen?
Quote

"Fair and Balanced" Fox News may have trumpeted the fact that WMDs were found, but it was a single old, abandoned munition from the Iran/Iraq war, tagged for destruction but lost in the shuffle, and according to the military officials that actually found it, the people who rigged it up likely didn't even know that it contained binary sarin (Associated Press article here) and Fox News' report was pretty much laughed off the stage by everybody except Fox News.

I'm no partisan, and I'm certainly no pacifist, but it is plainly obvious to even a casual observer that the claims by Bush/Blair that Iraq had "massive stockpiles" of chemical and biological weapons, capable of being deployed "within 45 minutes" were patently false.  To take any other position is to take a position of baseless apologism.  The whole thing was ill-conceived and poorly-executed, and now we've got a bloody, costly clusterfuck of an occupation to which the true costs may take decades to shake out.


Read that part again. Fox networks says "Yes they did!", and everyone else says no.

As for the rest of the world thing, remeber France and Germany and those chaps being against the invasion. They suspected there might be nuclear weapons as well, but they felt their suspicions were not satrong enough to base a war on. That'd be the equailent of suspecting someone might have the plans and and weaponry to take oyut a policestatio, and then go in guns flaring, only to found out that what the druggie told you was false, and al he are some old cartridges to a hunting rifle he sold. Well, not the best parallell, but you get the point.

Also, any country were you can be killed for speakign your mind is not a democracy Bio. You can become unpopular, shunned, sure. If you went to a bar soemone might be tempted to beat you up, but outright kill you? I've met loads of nice americans, but never one who wnated to kill me during a debate. Maybe you were just speaking for yourself?

And what do you mean "reveal their true colours" anyway? That sounds somehow sinister and boding. Does the fact that other countries may not always want to join your illconcieved crusade mean that they are evil? Or enemies?

As for the prison thing, I'm nott even going to point out how well that went after the Coalition got contol of them. Or the sudden ban on camera mobiles and the razing to the ground of a prison. denial anyone?

Also, the lists aren't really adding anything, are they.

Now, allow me to make a few things clear. I'm not anti-american. I don't hate the US. I admire the US for their technological breakthroughs, for the large personal liberty, and a bunch of other things. I don't thin kthat all americans are overweight idiots, at least the ones I have met are usually nice, thoughtful people. I'm just criticising the reasons for going to war, and the way the war has been handled. Now wether that makes me nice or not, that's in the eye of the beholder.




Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 04, 2004, 05:56:31 am
Quote
How'd you feel if someone tried to take the fight to you, to stop you from bombing the crap out of their soil?. Oh wait, they already did. Felt good, did it?

these words are all it would take to make alot of poeple in america start thinking of ripping your heart out, specicficly in New York. since you are obviosly making reference to 9/11.
Quote
Also, any country were you can be killed for speakign your mind is not a democracy Bio.

America is NOT a democracy it is a republic. so you can get killed by speaking your mind in the wrong place, to the wrong crowd, at the wrong time. ( i know its a childish reply to a childish remark.)
Quote
And what do you mean "reveal their true colours" anyway?

means that alot of countrys dislike america for one reason or another. and this war and bushes plan to wipe out terrorism has more poeple realize this. also alot of countries dislike reflect in their actions.

Quote
As for the rest of the world thing, remeber France and Germany and those chaps being against the invasion. They suspected there might be nuclear weapons as well, but they felt their suspicions were not satrong enough to base a war on. That'd be the equailent of suspecting someone might have the plans and and weaponry to take oyut a policestatio, and then go in guns flaring, only to found out that what the druggie told you was false, and al he are some old cartridges to a hunting rifle he sold. Well, not the best parallell, but you get the point.


the fact that france and germany are key suspects in the oil for food scandal, does not make you think they had other reason to be against the war?

Quote
As for the prison thing, I'm nott even going to point out how well that went after the Coalition got contol of them. Or the sudden ban on camera mobiles and the razing to the ground of a prison. denial anyone?


parading prisoners around naked is not as bad as cutting off there hands, torturing prisoners with pincers, killing them with wild dogs, cutting out there eyeballs and tonghts, and using dull knives to extract teeth, thats what went on before the Coalition got control of it.
now you have to understand what these solder go through. they are shot at, car bomb, killed while trying to help pregnent women, alot of them dont get to bathe for weeks on end, some dont get to eat everyday so when they capture some one who may know something that may save their friends lives wouldn't you try to get that information by any means? IT'S war and war is UGLY no amount of accords or conventions will ever change that. this war is far better then having terrorist know they can get away with things like 9/11. because if they think they can control the world through terror they will try even harder next time they get a chance. And the point of this war is to not give these terrorist another chance but death instead.

as for razing it, its one saddams torture prisons and poeple cant stop thinking about that as a symbol saddams power that still insights fear, and it still reeks of blood of the countless poeple killed there.



but since this string is supposed to be one on John Kerry let me list my personal reasons why I dont want him in office.

he lies, and is not very good at it, and i cant trust poeple who lie.
Example: he said he did not throw his medals, after he got back from vietnam, then a video appears of him saying he did exactly that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118142,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425-1.html

he wants big goverment, and i dont want that.
Example: at every campain stop he makes promises of a different bill for goverment to fix poeple problems.

He wants to downsize the army and i dont want that.
Explanation: he has consistantly voted agianst any bill to fund the military.

his Priorities are not strait, which is not a good sign to me.
Explanation: during recent votes he was off campaining when his vote would have actualy made a difference.



Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Moronic Maria :D on July 04, 2004, 07:08:42 am
EDIT: I removed this post just for the sake of preventing a potential flame war. This probably came as offending to some people and nothing more than a mindless attack against against Bio Slayer. I'm tense at the moment, so I apologize for being an idiot. I got a bit offended myself and started rambling off. Thanks for tolerating me, anywho, for those who have already seen the original post. ACK.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 04, 2004, 08:33:56 am
Once again, against my better judgement:
Quote
these words are all it would take to make alot of poeple in america start thinking of ripping your heart out, specicficly in New York. since you are obviosly making reference to 9/11.
As someone who knew people who were in the Twin Towers on that day, I'd appreciate it highly if you did not presume to say what I would or would not do to a given person on a given day.

Quote
America is NOT a democracy it is a republic. so you can get killed by speaking your mind in the wrong place, to the wrong crowd, at the wrong time.
Your premise has absolutely nothing to do with your conclusion.  Are you at all familiar with how to engage in a debate?  By the sheer volume of illogic present in your posts, I'm guessing not.

Quote
means that alot of countrys dislike america for one reason or another. and this war and bushes plan to wipe out terrorism has more poeple realize this. also alot of countries dislike reflect in their actions.
You know what really pisses other countries off?  Bombing them.  A close second:  asking for their approval to bomb someone, and when they balk and ask for more evidence, telling them to kiss our red, white and blue asses, then doing it anyways.

Quote
the fact that france and germany are key suspects in the oil for food scandal, does not make you think they had other reason to be against the war?
You mean, reasons other than thinking that the evidence we presented may not have been 100% factual?  In hindsight, it's a much more plausible explanation than trying to cover up some shady international indiscretions, and has the added benefit of not ruling that out, either.

Quote
parading prisoners around naked is not as bad as cutting off there hands, torturing prisoners with pincers, killing them with wild dogs, cutting out there eyeballs and tonghts, and using dull knives to extract teeth, thats what went on before the Coalition got controll of it
Your position is utterly indefensible.  I'd prefer to not even dignify it with a response, but since I fear even such simple concepts as these require explaining to you, I'll spell it out for you:  we should not have been torturing prisoners at all.  Period.

Quote
now you have to understand what these solder go through.
If I want to know what a soldier is going through, and how it affects their worldview, I'll ask one.  I suggest that you do the same; I have a sneaking suspicion that you have not served in the military.  At any rate, "they're getting shot at" is not an effective rationale for torturing people.  I can't believe that I should even have to make such an assertion; such things should be obvious to every American.

Quote
IT'S war and war is UGLY no amount of accords or conventions will ever change that. this war is far better then having terrorist know they can get away with things like 9/11.
Ahh, this is very similar to the "we're in a war, so shut your cakehole" defense.  To go off on a bit of a tangent, I'd like to point out that I especially enjoy the false dichotomy that people who use arguments such as these present:  either you support the invasion completely, or you are against the invasion completely.  No room is ever made for the obvious third viewpoint, "I don't like the way it's being handled"

Quote
as for razing it, its one saddams torture prisons and poeple cant stop thinking about that as a symbol saddams power that still insights fear, and it still reeks of blood of the countless poeple killed there.
Of course.  It must be Saddam's legacy.  It couldn't possibly be because even after he was removed from power, the torture continued there, under the guise of "liberation"

Quote
he lies, and is not very good at it, and i cant trust poeple who lie.
Example: he said he did not throw his medals, after he got back from vietnam, then a video appears of him saying he did exactly that.
I see; a "lie" that could just as easily be a man correcting past statements is an unforgivable sin, but lying about whether or not a country is seeking uranium in Africa to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations, as a justification for a military invasion in which thousands are killed, is A-OK.  Nice logic.

Quote
he wants big goverment, and i dont want that.
Example: at every campain stop he makes promises of a different bill for goverment to fix poeple problems.
And just what do you call the Department of Homeland Security?  Or the PATRIOT Act?  Regarding the latter, Kerry has spoken out against it, and has pledged to work to have it repealed, which means that a Democrat wants to limit the scope of government power, and a Republican wants to expand it.  I'm sure that a fact such as this must tear your overly-simplistic worldview to pieces.

Quote
He wants to downsize the army and i dont want that.
Explanation: he has consistantly voted agianst any bill to fund the military.
You might want to actually look at his voting record, rather than parroting what Fox News says about his voting record.  He voted in favour of a 4.8% pay raise for the military in 1999.  He voted for an increase in veterans' benefits in 2003.  And unlike our current commander-in-chief, he has actually seen combat; which makes me more inclined to trust his judgement about putting troops in harms' way, as he has been there himself.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: meep-eep on July 04, 2004, 09:27:47 am
I will not allow personal attacks. This is a volatile enough discussion as it is without flame wars.
I have deleted Shiver's "stay out of the no spin zone", "Smarter then you"'s posting, and "OMG Moronic Maria"'s response to that.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Moronic Maria :D on July 04, 2004, 09:52:13 am
Sorry about that. I apologize if I came off angry in my first post, as well as in the response, and if I disrespected any of the members here (Bio Slayer and probably everyone else). Thanks for tolerating my stupidity. Considering the attack from guest member "Smarter then you", I feel a bit reluctant to further posting here. Unless some people won't mind having an obnoxious teenager around, which seems unlikely. Kind of embarassed.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 04, 2004, 12:10:08 pm
Quote
I will not allow personal attacks. This is a volatile enough discussion as it is without flame wars.
I have deleted Shiver's "stay out of the no spin zone", "Smarter then you"'s posting, and "OMG Moronic Maria"'s response to that.


Thank you, I was losing hope of having anything that resembled a civil debate.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 04, 2004, 12:16:12 pm
Quote
Sorry about that. I apologize if I came off angry in my first post, as well as in the response, and if I disrespected any of the members here (Bio Slayer and probably everyone else). Thanks for tolerating my stupidity. Considering the attack from guest member "Smater then you", I feel a bit reluctant to further posting here. Unless some people won't mind having an obnoxious teenager around, which seems unlikely. Kind of embarassed.


No problem, everyone make mistakes.
I dont know what you posted, but if i got a dollar everytime ive been "disrespected" I would be very rich man indeed.
;D


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Moronic Maria :D on July 04, 2004, 12:29:23 pm
I was angry there for a moment and I posted some mindless rambling. I browse through here every once in a while. Don't mind me, I get pretty hotheaded. As I see it,  everything is cleared up now, but seems I've attracted a guest poster/weirdo stalker audience due to my stupidity. Yikes.

But anyways, thanks for the reassurance.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 04, 2004, 12:35:27 pm
Quote

we should not have been torturing prisoners at all.  Period.


then let this "fool" post you a hypothetical question?

Lets say as the result of grusome torture, of the worse kind, of one terrorist the Coalition learns of a location, and destination of a thermo-nuclear bomb of a 6 Megaton payload, that is on its way to the city of  Tokyo, Japan, as the result The Coalition is able to stop a disaster that would make 9/11 look like a roadside car bomb.

now would the torturing of that prisoner be justified? or should the Coalition let 35 million people die, because they are not allowed to extract information the necessary infomation to stop the bomb?

EDIT: made me do it again this thread is suppose to be about john kerry.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on July 04, 2004, 01:32:39 pm
Quote


then let this "fool" post you a hypothetical question?

Lets say as the result of grusome torture, of the worse kind, of one terrorist the Coalition learns of a location, and destination of a thermo-nuclear bomb of a 6 Megaton payload, that is on its way to the city of  Tokyo, Japan, as the result The Coalition is able to stop a disaster that would make 9/11 look like a roadside car bomb.

now would the torturing of that prisoner be justified? or should the Coalition let 35 million people die, because they are not allowed to extract information the necessary infomation to stop the bomb?

EDIT: made me do it again this thread is suppose to be about john kerry.


Ok, so we had torture, now where are the lives that were saved thanks to it?
I'm not asking for  35 milion. 100 people will be fine. Too much? how about 50? ... 25?

In the example that you provided torture would be justified because it saved many people. But torturing Iraqis didn't accomplish anything.

Also I noticed that you keep evading harder questions. Could you please state your opinion about the Department of Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act and (allow me to add something from meself) the "Free Speech Zones"?


Title: Re: John Kerry Vs. Bush
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on July 04, 2004, 07:55:59 pm
I believe this thread started as a place to debate
Bush vs. Kerry. However, somehow, it seems to
have gotten _completely_ side tracked by the Iraqi
war, flames, insults and illogical rants.

That being said, I have to admit that I'm not American
and there for don't really care which (Kerry or Bush)
is elected. I think that Bush is likely to win the
upcoming election, but I don't have a stake in it either way.

I believe that Chris Rock summed up the reason for
my indifference better than I could myself. He was
quoted as saying in a Rolling Stone interview:
"Harlem will always be Harlem and Compton will always
be Compton".
Basically, regardless of who wins the election, nothing important will really change as a result.

Last, but not least, I'd like to point out that (democracy or republic) the US of A has a representive government. As such
its elected officals represent a large potion of the population of that country. If its people have a problem with one offical or the other, I think they should closely examine themselves...and their neighbors.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 04, 2004, 09:42:47 pm
Quote
then let this "fool" post you a hypothetical question?

Lets say as the result of grusome torture, of the worse kind, of one terrorist the Coalition learns of a location, and destination of a thermo-nuclear bomb of a 6 Megaton payload, that is on its way to the city of  Tokyo, Japan, as the result The Coalition is able to stop a disaster that would make 9/11 look like a roadside car bomb.

now would the torturing of that prisoner be justified? or should the Coalition let 35 million people die, because they are not allowed to extract information the necessary infomation to stop the bomb?

Yes, please do propose a hypothetical, at your leisure.  I should point out that the above is not an example of one, it is an example of "begging the question"; assuming that that your conclusions are true in your premise, rather than proving your premise to be true.  If you're already torturing people in your hypothetical (indiscriminately, it would seem, since you provided no hypothetical numbers), then there is no choice to be made.

But coming up with narrowly-defined "nightmare scenarios" is utterly pointless, because for every one of those, there would be thousands, perhaps tens-of-thousands of cases where the wrong people are tortured, and in your scenario, in the most gruesome manner possible, for no reason whatsoever.

As professional interrogators have said since the Spanish Inquisition, torture is not a reliable means of extracting information from suspects or prisoners.  People will gladly tell you anything you want to know if you torture them enough, regardless of whether it's true or not.  People who actually know what they are doing will use more proven methods of getting people to talk; and in the case of finding out where the hypothetical 6 megaton nuclear device is located, I'd want that information to be as accurate as possible, especially if the clock is ticking.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: entangle on July 04, 2004, 10:40:08 pm
"America is NOT a democracy it is a republic."

I would just like to point out that democracy and republic are not two mutually exclusive terms. You're not one OR the other.

Republic: A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.

So in other words, the counterpart to a republic is a monarchy, like England is, that has a queen.

Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

So as you can see USA is both a democracy and a republic.

Now you might want to argue that the process of selecting these representatives might or might not be to your liking but that doesn't change whether it's a democracy or not.

Entangle


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Shiver on July 05, 2004, 12:06:53 am
I was off visiting some people for the last couple days, so I seem to have missed a few things.

Quote
I will not allow personal attacks. This is a volatile enough discussion as it is without flame wars.
I have deleted Shiver's "stay out of the no spin zone", "Smarter then you"'s posting, and "OMG Moronic Maria"'s response to that.


Clearing up flame wars is nice, but I disagree with that course of action in my case. No Spin Zone is a funny catch phrase. It was not meant to be particularly insulting to anyone. If a pro-Bush person did a good immitation of Michael Moore, John Kerry or some other liberal type, I probably would've snickered at it and posted "Touche". So maybe Bioslayer didn't think much of that joke but does that ruin his whole day? Of course not. I truly doubt the hyper-sensitive moderators agree with me in the least bit but I should be allowed to criticize.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 05, 2004, 01:52:24 am
Quote


Ok, so we had torture, now where are the lives that were saved thanks to it?
I'm not asking for  35 milion. 100 people will be fine. Too much? how about 50? ... 25?

In the example that you provided torture would be justified because it saved many people. But torturing Iraqis didn't accomplish anything.


the military has not released the information exctracted from all the prisoners, so in all reality we wont know how many lives were indead saved. I believe that the infomation gained most likely saved more then the amount you requested.

Quote

Also I noticed that you keep evading harder questions. Could you please state your opinion about the Department of Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act and (allow me to add something from meself) the "Free Speech Zones"?


the PATRIOT Act just makes it so law inforcment can do there jobs better. It does not require more spending.

Department of Homeland Security mostly is just a reorganization of quite a few agencies too make them more effeciiant at fighting terrorism. the spending required is worth the return.

Free Speech Zones are not all that new of a concept. by law if you were going to protest you would have to file a request, and then the city says where you can protest and at what time. this was done way before bush was in office. the idea behind this is most protests disrupt most poeples dayly lives. its freedom of speech not freedom of being a roadblock.



Quote

As professional interrogators have said since the Spanish Inquisition, torture is not a reliable means of extracting information from suspects or prisoners.  People will gladly tell you anything you want to know if you torture them enough, regardless of whether it's true or not.  People who actually know what they are doing will use more proven methods of getting people to talk; and in the case of finding out where the hypothetical 6 megaton nuclear device is located, I'd want that information to be as accurate as possible, especially if the clock is ticking.


Its not that i agree with the naked parading, seems pointless to me. What i am saying is there is a very real need to extract information from poeple who do not wish to give it out, the term "torture" has usaly been used to describe the process to extract the information. if you want we can start being PC by saying "Information Extraction Techniques" or IET's instead of "torture".


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: meep-eep on July 05, 2004, 02:02:00 am
Do you really think the moderators are hyper-sensitive? How often do things get deleted around here, or threads get locked or people get banned?

By saying "this is a no spin zone" you're actually saying "you're spinning the story", without giving any arguments. This only acts as flame-bait, especially if you don't specify your name.

This is exactly the sort of thing we don't need in a thread about a controversion topic like this. I would probably have allowed it in a quiet thread, but in this case, I wanted to intervene before things got out of hand.

If you further want to discuss the actions of the moderators (this is just me really), feel free to open a new thread.


P.S.  My deleting these notes seemed to have caused a problem preventing new postings from being seen in the thread (though you could see it in the "reply" window). It should be OK now.



Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 05, 2004, 02:19:36 am
Quote

America is NOT a democracy it is a republic. so you can get killed by speaking your mind in the wrong place, to the wrong crowd, at the wrong time. ( i know its a childish reply to a childish remark.)

its seems that everyone has to come out and debate this point. when I posted it I posted it as a jest, thinking everyone whould disregard it as a joke. so you dont have to come out and tell me that:
Republic = Representive Democracy.
I knew this when I posted it in hope lightening the mood.  


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on July 05, 2004, 03:13:38 am
Quote
the military has not released the information exctracted from all the prisoners, so in all reality we wont know how many lives were indead saved. I believe that the infomation gained most likely saved more then the amount you requested.


You *belive* that it *most likely* saved more lives then the amount I requested. That's nice, but faith rarely has anything to do with reality, and even if it does, it's by pure chance.


Quote
the PATRIOT Act just makes it so law inforcment can do there jobs better. It does not require more spending.

Department of Homeland Security mostly is just a reorganization of quite a few agencies too make them more effeciiant at fighting terrorism. the spending required is worth the return.

Free Speech Zones are not all that new of a concept. by law if you were going to protest you would have to file a request, and then the city says where you can protest and at what time. this was done way before bush was in office. the idea behind this is most protests disrupt most poeples dayly lives. its freedom of speech not freedom of being a roadblock.


As for the Free Speech Zones:
What you described has nothing to do with the them.
Yes, you have to file a request if you want to protest, but that's because, you said it yourself, the authorities don't want the city's life to be disrupted too much.
The problem with the Free Speech Zones by Bush is that there already is something that disrupts the city's life - Bush himself. So I hardly belive that he is conserned with the city's traffic, espacially that:
a) People can protest, but they need to be a few miles away from Bush, wich means that even a larger part of the city is blocked.
b) The Free Speech Zones are only applied when Bush comes to town, it's OK to protest any other politcian.

As for the all 3 altogather:

I could agree with what you said about the Deprartament, and the Patriot Act, but don't you think that the price for your fictional security is a little bit too high?
I mean, every time I hear a debate about the War On Terror(tm) somebody says "the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms!"
Oh? You mean that thing that you're flushing down the toilet? Don't worry, if you're right, they'll soon stop hating you.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 05, 2004, 05:01:38 am
So, you're against "big government", but you openly support (and even praise!) the most massive consolidation of government power in history, expansion of government powers, and curtailing the free speech rights of the citizenry?  Do you not see the blatant contradiction there?

I'd like to continue this conversation, in the hopes of sparking some manner of self-examination amongst the contributors, but it is rapidly becoming obvious that to do so would be wholly unproductive.  I'm out.  Take care.


Title: Where are the weapons?
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on July 05, 2004, 05:52:10 am
To help this thread get even further off track from John Kerry,
I would like to bring back the topic of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that was raging a little while back.

Some of you may remeber that right before the invasion by
American and British forces, the USA set out to prove to
the UN that they had found WMD in Iraq. They even
provided pictures of the weapons, factories, etc. Now,
it strikes me as odd, that since the invasion, no WMD
have been turned up. Okay, so Fox claims they found one.
_ONE_. The US claimed they new the location of hundreds
of the things, claimed to know where they were made, yet
a month later they can't find any?

I think two of the greatest problems with North American
democracy are that, one, the People here don't respect
what they have. Two, we're a flickle bunch, far too
easily controled by our media.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: entangle on July 05, 2004, 08:42:24 am
Since this is a debate about Kerry I sat down and tried a game. http://www.bushgame.com is the link. Of course the game itself is just a big joke, but the inbetween facts presented are quite interesting. I'm not american myself so if anyone wants to check it out and comment about the 'facts' there I would be interested in seeing what you have to say. Have to say that if this is for real it's something that at least would make me think twice about who to vote fore.

Entangle


Title: Re: John KerryQu
Post by: Lukipela on July 05, 2004, 12:46:32 pm
For an example on how to keep a discussion on War civilised, all you new people might want to read this (http://uqm.stack.nl/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Gendiscuss;action=display;num=1046312575;start=0#0) . That's how we handled things back in the old days. Try and keep an civilised tone during serious discussions please. And Maria, this isn't the SC boards. We don't have as flamboyant peronalities over here, andthe arrogance level tends to be lower, even if the stupidity can go way higher. So keep that in mind whilst posting here, especially in sensitive topics. I hope you'll stick around though, you'll actually bring some life to this place ;)

Now, a few questoins for Bio to begin with.

Question one. Do you truly believe, that despite the fact that whilst claiming to know the location of hundreds of biological weapons, and stating that Saddam could deploy them in 45 minutes, the finding of one old empty missile case implies that all these weapons were there? If so, why haven't the others een found? The US have controlled Iraq for over a year, yet that horde of weapon has disappeared. Do you seriously beleive that Bush was tellign the truth, even though the CIA has admitted to flawed intelligence themselves?

Question two. Please give your opinion on why Iraq was invaded, bearing in mind that there are several other parts of the world where people are treated a lot worse (Sudan to name a currrent one, but people are dying and having their human rights trampled all over the place). If you in your answer point out the threat Iraq makes, please consider your answer to question one, and explain why countries like North Korea, who are actually openly threatening to invade their neighbours and start nuclear wars weren't a higher priority than a starved out country in the middle east. If you in you answer point out any relation between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, please take note of the fact that no links between the two have ever (to my knowledge) been proven, and that bin Laden never was a big fan of Saddams secular personal cult, being a islamic fanatic himself.

Question three: Do why do you keep referring to the torture of prisoners as naked parading, when every source speaks of killings, homosexual humiliation and other unpleasantries. Are you trying to make light of their plight? Also, do you really believe that "Well it's war" justifies torture in any way?

Question four: If you were about to do something that your friend thought was ill advised, then would you stop having him as a friend? The French and German were not so sure about Iraqs weapons, and did not feel that a war was justified. If they don't immideatly agree with you, does that mean their your enemies. Do your friends always follow you mindlessly, without ever questioning what you do? Isn't an allys DUTY to point out when he fears his ally is about to do somethign rash and foolish.

And now to some points I'd like to make as well.

The torture thing. Justifying someing like that is like saying, "Well this guy behind me in the ATM queue looked like a robber, so I socked him one because I was scared. A soldiers job is to fight wars, take risks and be ready to die for his country. This in no way gives him any right to take out his frustration on POW's. We strive to eliminate things like these from everey war out there, sharply condemning it when it happens somewhere else. So why should the US army be any different? In my mind, that's the problem with having a merc. army rather than a drafted one. You get a larger percent of the wrong people.

Also, perhaps DJ would care to give us an insight on how Mossad do these things? I beleieve I've heard that they sometimes resort to violent methods to find out the location of a planned suicide strike, but I doubt they do it to ebveryone that gets caught, just in case.

And as was already stated. That you beleive the torture may haver helped is just faith. In all probability, that'd already have been used by the US as an excuse to justify, if it were the case
And IMO, the claim that "Well, Europe were already cheat-trading with Saddam!" Carries about as much weight as "OMG! Teh Bush just want's oil and his dadis teh jealous cuz his invasion went pee pee!!!!1!" Both could certainly be true, but without persuasive proof, I'd be minded to think both are just propaganda in the works.

Razing the prison is viewed by most, not as an attempt to mark a new period in Iraq, but as an empty gesture, just like banning cameraphones. Neither the phones or the prison tortured anyone. It's the soldiers that are the problem.

I'll stay out of Homeland security and the likes, since I know very little about internal US affairs.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 06, 2004, 02:33:34 am
Reply to Question one:
already asked and answered.

Reply to Question two:
"becuase bush one day got up and wanted to be called evil, wanted to ruin the name of the US, since every country out there loved America to begin with, especially france, wanted to alienate all other countries, wanted to get oil which he could more easily get from Alaska, by assassinating a few senate members, and ruin the lives of arabs since he is obviously racist" is that what you want me to say? becuase if you believe that load of crap there is no hope for you. otherwise already asked and answered.

when it comes to stopping Mass murders in Sudan that should be the UN's job but what country was just elected to the Human Rights Commission? none other then Sudan
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/9cf3278be796f15bc1256e910043b302?OpenDocument
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0405/S00056.htm
so i have as much faith in the UN as you do in Bush

Reply to Question three:
Killings? if you actualy read the reports most of the prisoners who died were somehow involved with the CIA, at the time. or died while trying to escape, or solders responsable are now under investigation. but most of the tortue was indeed just naked parading. also i dont agree with the pointless embarasment of those poeple. what i agree with is all of the IET's that were approved by the bush administartion. john kerry most likely would not have allowed any IET's which means alot more solders would be dieing.

Reply to Question four:
do you really believe that America, at least my corner of it, has ever considerd france a friend, in the past 10 years? if you think bushes viewed them all as enemies that he would ask for help from them? when kerry says he will "try to go back to the UN" he means he will grovel and crawl, which no president should ever do.


Quote
"Well, Europe were already cheat-trading with Saddam!" Carries about as much weight as "OMG! Teh Bush just want's oil and his dadis teh jealous cuz his invasion went pee pee!!!!1!" Both could certainly be true, but without persuasive proof, I'd be minded to think both are just propaganda in the works.

you want proof? LOL  just search the web. LOL just talk to solders like I have. LOL "made in france" is on to many of the weapons found in Iraq.


NOW LISTEN TO THESE WORDS:
This thread is about John Kerry, please post accordingly


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Culture20 on July 06, 2004, 04:48:10 am
But Bio, it's hard to talk about someone we know so little about.   8)


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Shiver on July 06, 2004, 01:00:38 pm
From my understanding, the coming election is really more of a Bush vs. himself kind of thing. All re-elections tend to be like that. So it was really no surprise to see this topic spiral into an argument about Bush instead.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Lukipela on July 06, 2004, 03:51:11 pm
Ok, lets try this again.

Question one. No it isn't. So far we've got:

Bio: Well, there were WMD's that had to be found and destroyed. Look here! There's proof.

Several other people: Um, no. That's just one old shell that was probably UN taged. This is your article, and this is ours, saying that isn't evidence.

Bio: Haha! You linked to my article, this proves that there were WMD's.

That wasn't the intent on the other posts, and if you'll look closely, you'll see that the article he linked to doesn't make any claims about these being the famous 45-min WMD's. This isn't a question of everything and nothing, we knew he had Sarin cause he gassed the Kurds, and we were fairly sure that most of it had been destroyed. And what do you know? Just one case seems to have remained.. Hardly enough to launch an attack.

Since you responded in such an illogical manner, I was unsure wether you actually read the second article, or wether you just meant to say that you felt that "one found piece is enough". If the latter, then fine. That's your opinion. But it's not based on extensive proof.

For your reference, from the article:

Quote
The accounting for sarin was one of a dozen remaining disarmament tasks that inspectors submitted to the U.N. Security Council in March 2003, said Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman the U.N. inspectors.

"Iraq was known to possess a lot of this material, and there were questions about the accounting," Buchanan said.


We knew about the gas. We were attempting to inspect it. We didn't believe there were the insane amounts you claim. And no insane amounts have been found. Of course, if they find a huge desert hangar full of the stuff tomorrow, I'll apologise nicely, but since it's been a year without them turning up I find that very unlikely.

As for question two, how about you just try and answer it? What I am genuinely curious to know is how you rationalise it. WHY do you feel Iraq was the biggest threat out there, compared to other threatening countries. IN which way were they so much more dangerous than anyone else? I know all the counterarguments arguments about oil and such, but I've yet to hear anything else than defense against those from you. It's all good that you can say, "No, it wasn't for this and this and this reason", but you should then also be able to say "We did it for this and this and this reason. And this is why we thought Saddam was more dangerous than anyone else." For the record "He was a bad man" Is not a valid answer unless you can tell me why he is badder than anyone else.

As for when it comes to Sudan, yes I've noticed you don't trust the UN. That's not the point though. My question, if you would care to actually read it pertained to why you would break UN rules in one case and invade, whereas you wont interfere in another, obviously failining UN project. After all, if you can handle things that much better once, surely the Coalition should be continuiing their good work? Or are only certain projects important enough to break the rules?

As for three, first off, would this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/iraq/main614905.shtml) qualify as proof? Or maybe this (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=404&id=510762004)? Pay special attention to

Quote

The developments in Britain came as the United States admitted two Iraqi prisoners were murdered by Americans and that 23 other deaths are being investigated in Iraq and Afghanistan.


But those are mostly just about people being wrongfully killed.

Perhaps [ulr=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1228666,00.html]this[/url]?
Or this (http://rwor.org/a/1240/iraqtorture.htm)?
And this (http://www.rense.com/general52/dde.htm)

Also,the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact) really pointed out

Quote
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.


I'd also like to point out, seeing as the "naked parading doesn't seem to distrub you very much that:

Quote
Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.


I'm not homophobic myself, but had it been me in that situation, I'd have found it a tad more than "unneccessary". So please, stop belittling the torturing.

Question four. Well, again you didn't actually answer the question. I know that europe has considered the US an ally for quite some time, and being an ally means you speak your mind. So bearing that in mind, do you think it's anti american if soemone doesn't want to join the US in a war that they do not believe is justified? Please just answer the question.

Also, paraphrasing another board member, it might do you some good to find out what other countries complain about when it pertains to the US. Don't just say "Well ,any criticism is due to them being jealous and us right" Ask yourself, WHAT are they complaining about, and is there any validity in it?

Regardign the whole trading thing, the way a debate works Bio, you get to prove your own points. Please come up with something a bit more believable than "one Peugeot found in desert" though. Alternatively I remember C20 mentioning this as well a while back, perhaps you'd be kind enough to link? I'm not beyond admitting fault when I'm wrong, and this is an issue I'm not entirely sure about.

However, as a mental excercise, imagine you are right and I am wrong. France and Germany was trading illegally with Iraq. Wait. Why was it illegal again? Oh, because the UN didn't allow it. The US however, invaded Iraq without UN approval. Doesn't that make the invasion illegal then? If it's alright to break UN rules, then the invasion was just fine. But that means it's alright to break them to trade too doesn't it? So either the invasion is illegal, or the trading wasn't! Feel free to point out flaws if you wish.

As another mental excersise, the US really didn't need to invade Iraq because of oil. Fine, I'll buy that, there are plenty of other places to get it. But by the same logic, wouldn't that indicate that France and/or Germany could get their oil/trade somewhere else? I don't see them going bankrupt just yet, so I suppose they must have had other trading partners than Iraq. Which renders the whole argument null and void in a fashion. Again, feel free to nitpick.

Also, "just talk to soldiers" is not a good debating point. That like me saying, "Well, I know a few Brit soldiers, and they said the americans were torturing people in iraq. They even said they did it themselves." Now while this may be true, it's hearsay and not fact. When you argue, you use facts that can be backed up.

All in all, chill a little bit Bio. Rememeber the whole talking pet argument? This is just like that. There's no need to start hyperventialting and yelling.

As for the topic, it's Shivers topic. If he thinks we're drifting too far, then he'll tell us, and we'll stop. He could even ask a moderator to interfere, but somehow I doubt Shiver would do that ;)

Concerning Kerry, the anyone can talk about him. Anyone that knows anything. As I've stated, I know very little of any domestic American issues. Do feel free to give us your opinions C20. ;)


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Shiver on July 07, 2004, 02:10:30 am
Quote
As for the topic, it's Shivers topic. If he thinks we're drifting too far, then he'll tell us, and we'll stop. He could even ask a moderator to interfere, but somehow I doubt Shiver would do that


Oh man, you'd be surprised what kind of stuff I'd let slip if I were mod. We probably should keep even Off Topic family friendly, though.


I have a little news regarding senator Kerry. He's chosen John Edwards, one of his rivals from the democratic primaries to be his running mate: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5365307/

My problem with Bush is... well, I have a lot of problems with Bush. For one thing, his speeches are blatantly stupid. Here's a few sites full of his many embarassing slip-ups:
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/quotes/georgewbush.html
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
http://www.speedygrl.com/bushquotes.html

Besides that, he constantly tries to invoke nationalism in every speech, most likely to cover up the fact that his administration doesn't benefit most people in the least bit. Those in support of him probably just like his war policy and see him as a great man taking a stand. Wake the fuck up people, any president would have had the sense to go to war with Afghanistan after that September 11th incident. Intense patriotism in this country is actually oxymoronic; we're supposed to qualify our leaders carefully, not pledge blind loyalty to them.


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: JonoPorter on July 07, 2004, 06:24:27 am
Quote
However, as a mental excercise, imagine you are right and I am wrong. France and Germany was trading illegally with Iraq. Wait. Why was it illegal again? Oh, because the UN didn't allow it. The US however, invaded Iraq without UN approval. Doesn't that make the invasion illegal then? If it's alright to break UN rules, then the invasion was just fine. But that means it's alright to break them to trade too doesn't it? So either the invasion is illegal, or the trading wasn't! Feel free to point out flaws if you wish.

Just because something is not approved does not mean it’s illegal. And he had UN resolutions that gave him full authority to do what he did, start a war.
I really like this one from the first link below
Quote
* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."



The below links are the reasons for the war in answer to Question two. They also cover a lot of the subjects people here appear to be ignorant of.
Violations of UN Resolutions  (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020914/2002091429.html)
Development of Mass Destruction Weapons   (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020914/2002091430.html)
Repression of the Iraqi People   (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020914/2002091431.html)
Support for International Terrorism   (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020914/2002091432.html)
Refusal to Account for Gulf War Prisoners  (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020914/2002091433.html)
Refusal to Return Stolen Property   (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020914/2002091434.html)
Efforts to Circumvent Economic Sanctions  (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020914/2002091435.html)

Now can we just talk about John Kerry like this thread is meant to be about?


Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: meep-eep on July 07, 2004, 09:02:30 am
Quote
* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

He was citing the history of the conflict. This resolution (678) was passed after Iraq invaded Kuweit, and it was this resolution that made the first Gulf war possible.
You can make an argument that this resolution was still relevant even years after Kuwait was freed and the US and allies pulled out of the area, but I doubt the United Nations would be impressed with that interpretation.
Note that the original text included "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait", which would have made clear the context, but which was left out in the text you quoted.

These texts you linked to are the arguments used to try to convince the UN that militairy intervention in Iraq was necessary.
When that failed, the Bush administration decided to go ahead anyhow.
To present his case to congress however, Bush focused on the supposed weapons of mass destruction. In Paul Wolfowitz' words: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

But the argument made is not whether the war in Iraq was justified. The argument is that George Bush deceived congress and the people of the Uniter States by presenting false information, in an attempt to justify going to war.
Now you may be convinced that the end justifies the means, but do you really want one person to make decisions of such a magnitude on his own, even if he were the smartest person alive?

Quote
Now can we just talk about John Kerry like this thread is meant to be about?

I think the chosen subject for this thread is unfortunate. However, I think the most important (though certainly not the only) argument for voting for Kerry is that he is the only alternative for George Bush, which makes discussion about Bush's "achievements" relevant to the subject.



Title: Re: John Kerry
Post by: Lukipela on July 07, 2004, 09:31:41 am
Oh dear oh dear... We're really not making much headway, are we? It's a good thing I have a vast amount of patience. You see Bio, the way this works is, you make a point, I respond. I make a point you respond. With this pick and mix style of yours, I have no idea wether you're folding on some issues, or just haven't noticed them.

For example, I do believe I clearly stated that I felt you hadn't made your stand clear on the first question. Yet I still see no new answer to it. This forces me to assume that your assumptions are based on one newspaperclipping that noone else considers relevant, and blind faith, for lack of a better term. Nor did you offer any possible explanation to what happened to all this weapons. Or to quote your own clippings:

Quote

* Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads.

* Iraq has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred vehicle for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.


I'm left to assume that you believe they disappeared so well in a country completely under your control that you could find only a single shell. This is of course, unless you should actually care to answer and indicate otherwise.

As for your links, well they are very nice. I believe meep already pointed out the flaw with them though. Including the right to invade. If something was left unclear, I'll be happy to elaborate in my next post. Just ask me to.

And if I could once more persuade you to READ my second question, I believe I said:

Quote
What I am genuinely curious to know is how you rationalise it. WHY do you feel Iraq was the biggest threat out there, compared to other threatening countries. IN which way were they so much more dangerous than anyone else? I know all the counterarguments arguments about oil and such, but I've yet to hear anything else than defense against those from you. It's all good that you can say, "No, it wasn't for this and this and this reason", but you should then also be able to say "We did it for this and this and this reason. And this is why we thought Saddam was more dangerous than anyone else." For the record "He was a bad man" Is not a valid answer unless you can tell me why he is badder than anyone else.


Your articles are the equal of saying "He's a very bad man" You still fail to adress the question though, why this bad man was singled out, and how is badder than the other bad men out there. Saddam is not the only one to repeteadly flaunt rules. There are others who readily admit to having WMDs. There places where more people die than in Iraq. So once again, WHY. I'm not trying to force a propaganda answer out of you. I just want to know what you think.

Again, your style of answering leaves me confused on three. Do you acknowledge that there was more than "naked parading"? Did you just skip that part? Do you think every source I presented is a lie? By not answering, you're again forcing me to make assumptions that could be completely wrong, due to your inability to answer said question. In this case, I shall assume that you agree to being wrong, unless you state otherwise, and motivate why. Neither have you mentioned anything on yout "Well their just poor soldiers" line as justification for torturing prisoners, meaning I'll have to assume you've completely forgotten about that.

As for four, it's still up to you to prove it, something you haven't bothered to do. Considering your dismal performance in the past:

Quote
Killings? if you actualy read the reports[/i] most of the prisoners who died were somehow involved with the CIA, at the time. or died while trying to escape, or solders responsable are now under investigation. but most of the tortue was indeed just naked parading[/b]


And the actuual result of searching the net:

Quote

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.


I'd say it's up to you to show some convinving proof, other than "LOL, my soldier buddiez sez so!"

And even if you do come up with evidence, I remind you you've only answered one of my conjectures, and not even that one to satisfaction, as meep pointed out.

And finally, have you been gone for long enough to forget how things work here? This is not your topic. You do not call the shots here. Nor do I. The minute Shiver tries to get us back in line, we do so. The second meep tell us to shut our traps, we do so, open another topic and complain about strict moderation (with Shiver, no doubt). However, as long as this does not happen, topic drift is acceptable. Notice how people are pointing out things about Kerry as well, all the time? There is discussion going on. If you don't want to continue this, fine, but realise that it means you're effectively saying "Well, I can't explain why, but I'm right!"

All in all, I have to say that your arguments so far seem to be based more on faith than factual evidence. The few questions you've even begun to answer, you've answered with direct references to what Bush says, taking that as an absolute truth. That's fine, but you can't really use that as an argumentative point. That's like saying, "Well I believe God exists because the Pope says so!" You do, great. But it's not going to convinve any atheist. Not even one in doubt.

I'm not going to be around for a few days, as girlfriend and work takes it's toll on my time. I'll be looking for any replies though.

I leave you with a one more thing, since I got into this whole faith thing at the end. You know what we call that other group of extremely faithful people who want to kill those who show disrespect and have unlimited faith in their leaders?

Radical islamists.


Title: What ever Lukipela wants to talk about
Post by: JonoPorter on July 07, 2004, 01:28:44 pm
Lukipela I only have a limited time in which I can form replies and each time I form one you say it’s not enough or that I ignored important issues. It’s that I Just don’t have time to respond to every little point that you believe is important. It’s also hard to look up relevant information when DNS is not working properly on my computer. For the past week I’ve had irritating computer problems. Just try to think what it is like to, at random, have entire Domains not load, and continue to not load.
I am going to try, something new, short less fluent sentences to avoid more confusion.
Also Lukipela we live in different paradigms. Most of what I post is considered common senses where I live, and most of what I see you post, in my eyes, is full of flawed logic

Quote

There's no need to start hyperventialting and yelling

I’ve have yet to do that, but if you wish for me to do it; I can certainly try.
Quote

Again, your style of answering leaves me confused on three. Do you acknowledge that there was more than "naked parading"? Did you just skip that part? Do you think every source I presented is a lie? By not answering, you're again forcing me to make assumptions that could be completely wrong, due to your inability to answer said question. In this case, I shall assume that you agree to being wrong, unless you state otherwise, and motivate why. Neither have you mentioned anything on yout "Well their just poor soldiers" line as justification for torturing prisoners, meaning I'll have to assume you've completely forgotten about that.


You have to look at my wording when I say "most," it means Majority, not all, almost only, does not exclude other things. So when you say I’m wrong by saying that other stuff happened instead of naked parading, it just doesn’t make sense.

This is what I was trying to say:
I can understand what drove the solders to this extreme. It does not justify it, but lessen it. The media coverage is trying to make it worse then it was. It happened in only one prison. It has already been taken care of. It was taken care of even before the media, knew about it, and broke the coverage.

Quote

I'm left to assume that you believe they disappeared so well in a country completely under your control that you could find only a single shell. This is of course, unless you should actually care to answer and indicate otherwise.

Iraq is a big country, sparsely populated, full of hiding spots. Remember how long it took to find Saddam? The country is not under the coalition’s control anymore. The country was never been under complete control of the coalition. The solders have mostly been trying to keep the peace and there physical bodies intact. If bush only concentrated on finding WMD, instead of terrorist he would be a bad leader.  In time more WMD will most likely show up. One possiblility is that they were moved to another country before the war. WMD was not the only reason for the war. More then enough components to make WMD have been found. More then enough components that can only be used to make WMD have been found.

Quote
But the argument made is not whether the war in Iraq was justified. The argument is that George Bush deceived congress and the people of the Uniter States by presenting false information, in an attempt to justify going to war.
Now you may be convinced that the end justifies the means, but do you really want one person to make decisions of such a magnitude on his own, even if he were the smartest person alive?

It wasn't bushes fault; the blame, if any, squarely goes on the CIA. Clinton also believed there were WMD in Iraq. Also other Intelligence organizations concurred with the statement.

Quote

I leave you with a one more thing, since I got into this whole faith thing at the end. You know what we call that other group of extremely faithful people who want to kill those who show disrespect and have unlimited faith in their leaders?

Radical islamists.

I never said bush is infallible. I never said I would kill you for speaking your insensitive words. I never said I believe bush on faith. Where, trust instead of faith, comes in to the equation is all the information bush & company do not release to us. Like how they find out where terrorist are, or that they have discover new information. This requires trust, because in a lot of cases if that information got out people would die. Another place where trust comes in is the decision to act on information. Bush acted on information he deemed true, WMD, for example. He may have been wrong about the WMD, but he acted instead of waiting for, beyond a reasonable doubt, which most likely would have been a chemical weapon going off in a major city.  

Quote
Your articles are the equal of saying "He's a very bad man" You still fail to adress the question though, why this bad man was singled out, and how is badder than the other bad men out there. Saddam is not the only one to repeteadly flaunt rules. There are others who readily admit to having WMDs. There places where more people die than in Iraq. So once again, WHY. I'm not trying to force a propaganda answer out of you. I just want to know what you think.


Lukipela if you actually read the links you would find out every reason why
Saddam is a “badder man”  FYI “badder” is not a real word.

Saddam Hussein because:
=>He actively supported terrorists, known to target American solders.
=>He gave sanctuary to terrorists in his country.
=>He actually paid money to Palestinian terrorist that blew themselves up.
=>He had terrorist training camp(s) in his borders.
=>He actually tried to assassinate previous president bush.
=>Has been known to use chemical weapons on his own people.
=>He hated the color pink. (Find an article to disprove this!)
=>He was circumventing UN embargos.

Kim Jong Il :: North Korea

=>One reason why this man was not attacked is because he has china breathing  down his neck to behave, and that works. There was no equivalent for Hussein.
=>He has not supported terrorists.
=>He has not funded terrorists.
=>No know assassination attempts.

The reason why Saddam is singled out is because Bush is doing a war on terror. Since bush is doing a war on terror Sudden was a better choice. Sudan is not a major hot bed of terrorist activity. North Korea is not a major hot bed of terrorist activity. The other Arab nations are more timid after seeing Saddam fall.

Here is a list of questions I would like answers from. I did a different numbering scheme to avoid confusion with yours.

Question Alpha:
Why does Russia refuse to lift UN sanctions on Iraq? Even though Saddam is gone?

Question Beta:
Do you think Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power?

Question Charlie:
What kind of evidence do you want me to list to support my claims?

Question Delta:
Why did France Germany and a whole lot of other countries, as well as Clinton while he was in office, say there were WMD in Iraq? If there weren’t any?


Quote

The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, declared on January 20, 2003

"Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."


BTW: the color pink thing is a joke if you haven’t figured that out by now.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 07, 2004, 07:14:39 pm
Does lack of properly functioning DNS also force you to use straw-man arguments, arguments from authority, false dichotomies and the various other forms of rhetoric you've been employing?  If I were a betting man (and I am) I'd wager that your unpreparedness goes far beyond your computer woes.

As the Taalo were patient with the Ur-Quan, so too must we be patient with you.  So here we go:

Answer Alpha:
You mean like this (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200304/25/eng20030425_115753.shtml)?  I suspect that you are actually asking something else, please ask what it is you actually want us to comment on.

Answer Beta:
Once again, the false dichotomies rear their head.  Disapproving of HOW something was done is not the same as disapproving THAT it was done.  To quote cliches, "the ends do not justify the means"

Answer Charlie:
It's not that we necesarily place your claims in doubt, it's that your conclusions do not follow your premises, or you make entirely too many assumptions about facts not in evidence.  For example, let's revisit your stance regarding torture:

Most scenarios involving "justified torture" go something like this: You know there is going to be an attack.  From what you know of the attack, you know that it will be "soon", and that it will be deadly.  You know that a person has information on the attack.  Via torture, it is possible to know what that person knows.  By knowing what they know, it is possible to thwart the attack and save lives.  Therefore torture is justified.

Do I need to point out the number of assumptions one has to make  that are implausible, improbable, unprovable or downright unknowable in the real world?  Implausible, improbable, unprovable and unknowable claims have no place in a rational argument.  It then follows that your opinions are based on emotion/rhetoric rather than logic/reason; which is your entitlement, as is ours to call you a "kook", a "crackpot", and a "neo-fascist apologist wingnut" in response.  Not that I ever would.  ;)

Answer Delta:
Uhh, because they were wrong also?  Again, what are you actually asking?


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: JonoPorter on July 08, 2004, 01:52:50 am
Reply to answer Alpha:
That is a development I have not seen yet, but they have yet to fully lift the sanctions. For the reason why I want to know is simply curiosity.

Question Beta:
It’s a simple question with 2 possible answers. Yes or no. No large words required.

Question Delta continued:  now if France, Germany and Russia were also wrong, why do I get the impression that allot of people want to blame Bush for this “false intelligence?”


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on July 08, 2004, 02:23:20 am
BioSlayer: You're mixing the Greek Alphabet with the International Radio Operator's Alphabet. I shall list both so I do not see this confusion again.

Greek Alphabet:
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Delta
Epsilon
Zeta
Eta
Theta
Iota
Kappa
Lambda
Mu
Nu
Xi
Omicron
Pi
Rho
Sigma
Tau
Upsilon
Phi
Chi
Psi
Omega

Radio Operator's Alphabet:
Alpha
Bravo
Charlie
Delta
Echo
Foxtrot
Golf
Hotel
India
Juliet
Kilo
Lima
Mike
November
Oscar
Papa
Quebec
Romeo
Sierra
Tango
Uniform
Victor
Whiskey
X-Ray
Yankee
Zulu


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: JonoPorter on July 08, 2004, 02:29:58 am
Thanks for that list, but I just picked them at random. I used a unique numbering scheme for avoid confusion, not to show my proficiency in either alphabet.  

EDIT:  Maybe I will use constellation names next.  ;D


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on July 08, 2004, 02:33:28 am
I assumed you were listing with those soley as a way of goofing off. Now people may goof off more effectively.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 08, 2004, 02:38:30 am
Retort Beta:
You are presenting a false choice -- in your claim, either someone supports the Iraq invasion carte blanche, or they support never having invaded at all.  The painfully obvious third option, namely garnering "proper" international support, and going in with the express blessing of the international community, is not presented at all.  Restate your question to allow for such concepts, and I'm sure you'll get all manner of answers, both thoughtful and not.

Retort Delta:
I do not understand; does everyone else also being wrong somehow make the administration "less wrong"?  Hindsight shows us that Bush's intelligence was false, and he should be held accountable for it, as should the leaders of the other nations involved.  Throwing them all out of office for fucking up is a perfectly valid option, you know.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on July 08, 2004, 03:08:08 am
No one thinks that Saddam Hussein was a good guy, and no one thinks that it was a bad idea pulling him out of power (except for a few in Iraq), but Bush and Co. didn't operate in a fashion that coincides with international law.  Laws that were put in place to stabilize the world, what Bush did made it seem to the rest of the world that the U.S. is going to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, no matter what anyone else says, and that is bullshit.

Also I think it is pretty ironic that Bush had top members of the Taliban party on his ranch in Texas in 1999, to discuss the posibility of a pipeline through Afganistan, a pipeline which is happily being built by Bush backers (probably the real power in this administration) Unical and Haliburton.

Bush is a corrupt stooge and needs to be taken out of office as soon as possible.

Also I'm tired of all this crap about criticizing the war being "unamerican", being American gives us that right to question and that's what makes this place so god damn great.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Baltar on July 08, 2004, 11:27:25 am
Here's something to discuss beyond the Iraq war:  The USA is now more polarized than it has ever been, and in my view this is in no small part the result of the current administration's policies.  Demogogues like Rush Limbaugh haven't exactly helped over the years either, but the current administration is so unbelievably arrogant it has driven folks into fairly rigid 'pro' and 'anti' camps.  In the prez's own words "you are either with us or against us."  Bush's simplistic right/wrong, good/evil, black/white concept of morality has done a pretty good job of molding the national political scene, and indeed the international community, into a similar dichotomy.

The fact that he courts the evangelical vote so closely also gives me cause for grave concern.  I recommend everyone check out http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/view/.  As someone of no faith I find this intermingling of religion and politics rather frightening, and I'm certainly not alone.  Pay particular attention to the segment about the painting in the Governor's mansion.


Title: The John Kerry/George W. Bush + the war thread
Post by: JonoPorter on July 09, 2004, 02:27:14 am
Question Beta:
Yes or No? I didn’t ask for your thoughts about the question. Contrary to what you may believe the world will not end if you answer this question.

Quote
but Bush and Co. didn't operate in a fashion that coincides with international law.

What law(s) if any did bush infringe in his action of removing Saddam Hussein? Also did the 48 other countries who also participated in this action violate said law(s)? When they claimed to be enforcing 17 UNSC resolutions?

Quote
Bush is a corrupt stooge and needs to be taken out of office as soon as possible.  

Do you have any factual evidence to validate your claim? If so post it, otherwise don’t post unsupported claims.

Quote
 Also I'm tired of all this crap about criticizing the war being "unamerican", being American gives us that right to question and that's what makes this place so god damn great.

Over “criticizing the war” is one way that discourages troops, and lowers morale. Morale is a very important thing in wars.  When troops come home and see the news agencies, who claim to support the troops, reporting only the bad stuff; they get depressed.* That is what you call hypocritical, and in my eyes unpatriotic. There is such a thing as constructive criticism, but there is a sever lack of it in the general media. I would rather have the media stop pounding on every bad thing and report a lot more of the good things, which are happening over there. A few examples: schools opening, power plants are being refitted to produce more energy, water supplies being improved, transfer of power happening 2 days early, and so on and so forth.

* I have talked to solders, and seen many letters that say the same thing.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 09, 2004, 02:30:30 am
I can think of another time when the country was more polarized than it is now, circa 1861, when there was a dispute as to whether states that entered the Union could leave when it became apparent that adequate representation for their interests was not possible -- the most damning evidence being that a President was elected whose name did not even appear on the ballot in fully half of the country.  Of course, we all know how that turned out.  :)

I think that alot of the problem today is that the climate for debate is just so dysfunctional.  People do not seem to be interested in reasonable discourse anymore, all the "political" shows that make any money consist entirely of blowhards on the left and right spewing their inconsistant ideologies at the loudest volumes they can manage.  Neither side seems at all interested in moving the debate forward, the idealogues just dig in their heels and throw meaningless epithets at each other.

For an example of this, take a perfectly intractable issue in American politics:  abortion.  The rhetoric used when people debate this makes me physically ill; the two camps have not been on speaking terms with each other for at least a decade now.  And the fact that bullets and bombs have been traded over this issue should not be overlooked.  It's a big, hairly, intractable mess, and it has been for YEARS.

But here's the rub: neither side ever really brings up the fact that nobody in their right mind would ever claim that people should be having more abortions.  Anyone who does is a liar or a fool in some combination.  Abortions are a symptom of an actual, solvable problem, namely unplanned pregnancies, and both camps, according to stump speeches, seem to be in favour of reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies out there.  Common sense dictates that if you solve the problem of unplanned pregnancies, the abortion issue becomes a no-op, but neither side seems at all interested in moving the debate there; it's apparently much more profitable to go around and around about the symptoms than to solve the actual problem.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on July 09, 2004, 12:53:05 pm
For simplicity I will include links.

When we go into a country without the support of the U.N. the organization that was designed to prevent World Wars, I would call that a breach of international policy if not law.  And for the so called coalition of the willing how many of those 47 nations actually provided something for the war beyond 200-500 troops.  Those incredibly powerful nations like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Uzbekistan, Tonga, Costa Rica, Honduras, Ethiopia, Eritrea ( where the hell is Eritrea?), Rwanda and wait lets not forget Afghanistan (I'm sure they had a BIG choice in this matter).  The list goes on of nations that are in some way in our debt.  Very few nations with actual power joined us in this mission and if they did they were coerced.

Not only that those nations that were actually simpathetic to the United States after 9/11 have become disgusted with our actions since then.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm

As for Bush being corrupt I only need you to go to one site...

http://hometown.aol.com/GovExposed/

or you can go to www.Howardstern.com for a ton of links to horrible crap the Bush administration has done.

And Bioslayer as for your last post, I have had one of my best friends die in Iraq NEEDLESY, and have two buddies still over there and the only messages I get from those two is that
1.  People don't want us there, not a single one.
and
2.  They have no idea what they are killing people for...  the terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia.  Why in the hell didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?  Oh wait, the Bush family and friends have had ties with the royal Saudi family (who are not great dictators themselves) and the Bin-Ladin family for decades.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm

All in all, it is disgusting and smacks of pure hubris.  I am pure American baby, and I would die for this country, but I will NOT die for Bush, Cheney, Unical, Haliburton, the Carlyle group, etc.

Peace to all. ;)


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Baltar on July 09, 2004, 06:26:21 pm
I'm definitely not a fan of Bush but what I see on the 'GovExposed' page seems wildly over the top.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: gonsen on July 10, 2004, 12:19:05 am
I agree with Baltar that site is wildly over the top.
I could refer you to some widly over the top on the otherside, but they are not what i would call, legit sources.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: gonsen on July 10, 2004, 12:24:56 am
also that bbc link lists polls in only 3 countries. that to me is not a true measure of poeples opinion.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Fsi-Dib on July 13, 2004, 03:26:28 am
It would be good for USA to have Kerry as president. Then Europeans and such wouldn't be so anti-american. Why are Europeans so anti-american? As I've understood, Bush's policy didn't respect other countries or the UN. Without an approval from the UN, Bush made an action other countries (at least in Europe) found... dishonorable.

It's simple, really. He didn't do good with links to Europe, and I haven't heard really any good things he'd done in USA either.

Unfortunately there never can be a leader everybody likes. We should all be Borgs.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on July 13, 2004, 04:20:57 am
Perfectly on-topic:

The Truth Project is a team of lawyers who go around doing advanced forensic testing to determine whether people on Death Row may actually be innocent. They have overturned dozens of convictions.

Bush opposed the Truth Project as governor of his state, simply stating that he had confidence in the court system to do justice... even after it had amply been demonstrated to frequently err. It shows that either he lives in some fantasy world where actual errors never occur and where conflicting data is concocted by his opponents... or that he considers keeping a little egg off his face to be more important than saving innocent lives.

Either explanation would immediately disqualify him from receiving my vote.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: JonoPorter on July 13, 2004, 05:24:12 am
Quote
Perfectly on-topic:

The Truth Project is a team of lawyers who go around doing advanced forensic testing to determine whether people on Death Row may actually be innocent. They have overturned dozens of convictions.

Bush opposed the Truth Project as governor of his state, simply stating that he had confidence in the court system to do justice... even after it had amply been demonstrated to frequently err. It shows that either he lives in some fantasy world where actual errors never occur and where conflicting data is concocted by his opponents... or that he considers keeping a little egg off his face to be more important than saving innocent lives.

Either explanation would immediately disqualify him from receiving my vote.

Interesting subject. In my search on this I was not able to find anything but vague references to the "truth project."  It is very possible that the person that reported that misquoted or twisted what he said. I would appreciate a link if you can find one.

ALSO: Lawyers’ working to get people off death-row is part of the justice system. It’s not like these people are working outside the system right? So he trusts the system the Truth Project is working in. That is most likely what he meant.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: JonoPorter on July 13, 2004, 05:29:51 am
I found something that SOOO belongs in this tread. ;D

check out:
http://www.jibjab.com/
and look up
Political: This Land!

trust me you wont regret it.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on July 13, 2004, 02:26:38 pm
I have to say, that was pretty f__king hilarious.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on July 13, 2004, 11:13:07 pm
http://www.justicedenied.org/v2issue8specialedition.htm

search for Bush


http://www.commondreams.org/views/102500-101.htm
for confirmation on one of those quotes, try
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/06/05/help.bush.html
This last was from a sympathetic perspective, and so is unlikely to have been twisted.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: JonoPorter on July 14, 2004, 02:16:23 am
Quote
http://www.justicedenied.org/v2issue8specialedition.htm

search for Bush


http://www.commondreams.org/views/102500-101.htm
for confirmation on one of those quotes, try
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/06/05/help.bush.html
This last was from a sympathetic perspective, and so is unlikely to have been twisted.

I am still not seeing where you got "Bush opposed the Truth Project as governor of his state."
All I see in those links is tough decisions concerning pardons.  


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on July 14, 2004, 08:45:43 pm
It's the way he is in total denial about anyone ever having been executed who was innocent. He doesn't think of the possibility of error. He has FAITH, no need for extensive robust error-checking.
Mocking that woman was not a tough decision, it was gratuitous. Does he have no heart, or does he just have no repression mechanism? That tidbit of evidence seems to point to having neither.

As far as the interaction with the Truth Project, yup, it wasn't him. It was his brother.
I would guess they didn't bother trying with Texas, since he's such a lost cause.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 14, 2004, 10:16:16 pm
Quote
It's the way he is in total denial about anyone ever having been executed who was innocent. He doesn't think of the possibility of error. He has FAITH, no need for extensive robust error-checking.

Ah, the beauty of politics.  From a legal point of view, what he said was 100% correct.  Everyone who had been executed was found guilty by a court of law, and every last executed convict had the ability, if not the means, to hire a competent lawyer who could have affected the outcome.  Questions regarding miscarriages of justice and the competence on public defenders are swept aside and not addressed; and the omission leads people on both sides of the issue to hear exactly what they want to hear.  Both sides do this ALL THE TIME, if you listen to any political stump speech carefully, it's amazing how little is actually said.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on July 15, 2004, 02:40:11 am
It doesn't matter whether he was technically telling the truth.
Anyone who looks at the success of such efforts as the Truth project and then signs more death warrants than all but four other COUNTRIES, without trying a similar filter first... telling the truth or not is the least of the moral problems he faces.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: JonoPorter on July 15, 2004, 01:06:50 pm
I personally agree with the death penalty, but think it should be removed for a much different reason then you have stated. The death penalty causes more problems then its worth. Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have gathered it’s actually cheaper to imprison a person for life then to execute them. Also there are other countries that won’t extradite a suspect if they may face the death penalty. I agree with you that the system is flawed, but what system isn’t? The current justice system is the best we can do and saying we can do better is true, in theory, but not in reality.

These are my thoughts, and most likely will not change until tomorrow.

Quote
It doesn't matter whether he was technically telling the truth.
Anyone who looks at the success of such efforts as the Truth project and then signs more death warrants than all but four other COUNTRIES, without trying a similar filter first... telling the truth or not is the least of the moral problems he faces.


I’m sure he did a similar filter, but I believe you wouldn’t be satisfied unless he got rid of the death penalty entirely. Also it’s not like bush was the only one who signed death warrants. The death warrants continued even after he left Texas office.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on July 15, 2004, 03:35:22 pm
aaaand I'm back. Thank god I don't work full time in a bar anymore, 12 hour days are definetly not healthy.

And finally we're getting somewhere!

Quote
Lukipela I only have a limited time in which I can form replies and each time I form one you say it’s not enough or that I ignored important issues. It’s that I Just don’t have time to respond to every little point that you believe is important. It’s also hard to look up relevant information when DNS is not working properly on my computer. For the past week I’ve had irritating computer problems. Just try to think what it is like to, at random, have entire Domains not load, and continue to not load.
I am going to try, something new, short less fluent sentences to avoid more confusion.  
Also Lukipela we live in different paradigms. Most of what I post is considered common senses where I live, and most of what I see you post, in my eyes, is full of flawed logic


Whiler I think it's silly to try and engage in any debate/argument without enough time to do so, it is somewhat of a reason for your posting habits. Please keep in mind though that it is very frustrating to write a long and thought reply and have your opponent ignore most of it. You want to discuss these things fine, but in that case I suggest you find time to do so properly.

As pertains to common sense, consider this: Imasgine that we had this discussion a thousand years back or so. Perhaps were you live, it's common sense that the Earth is round. However, over here it's well known that the Earth is flat. While you are obviously right, you need to prove it with fact, you can't just tell me, "Well that's what most people believe around here." That equals null and void. Please keep in mind that the only way to convince someone of something is to present unarguable facts. Failing that, logical conclusions would be nice. So far you have presented exactly one fact, the article about finding one empty shell case in Iraq. Your other sources have been the speech Bush gave to the UN, the very facts that are being questioned in your own country as flawed, and facts that were never entirely believed by other countries.

When writing on a board, all we have to judge is your writing. We cannot see any facial gestures, or any hear your tone or inflexions. That being the case, I consider

Quote
"becuase bush one day got up and wanted to be called evil, wanted to ruin the name of the US, since every country out there loved America to begin with, especially france, wanted to alienate all other countries, wanted to get oil which he could more easily get from Alaska, by assassinating a few senate members, and ruin the lives of arabs since he is obviously racist" is that what you want me to say? becuase if you believe that load of crap there is no hope for you
Very close to hyperventilating instead of answering a question.

Also sentences in captial letters, especially bold ones are considered yelling.

Quote

NOW LISTEN TO THESE WORDS:
This thread is about John Kerry, please post accordingly


Unless you were perhaps imitating a CHMMR?

Now then, you've answered the questions a bit out of order, so I'll try and roll with that. You begin with the torture issue.

Fair enough, I missed a "most". To me, it makes your position more alien than before though. So you're saying, it's alright to torture some people as long as you have ten times that amount marching around naked? So it'd be alright to torture and kill a hundred persobns, as long as I have a 900 persons marching around naked, because then most of them were only doing the naked parading? Also, I think you are forgetting the aspect of pschycological torture here. If your cell buddy had been sodomized with a broom last night, how relaxed do you think you'd feel marching along naked the next day wondering if you'd be next on the broom shaft? Equally (and I know this is gonna annoy you, but I really want to try and reach you here) 9/11 was alright because most of NY survived?

And then we apparently have a difference of opinions. You believe that it lessens a crime if one is a bit stressed whilst doing it? I don't.

Also, it seems that you're not quite getting what all of this is doing to your image. I'll try to make an comparison. Imagine a husband who is unfaithful. Now this is obvioulsy a Bad Thing. (Think some bastard dictator torturing people). However, if this husband is a high official of some sort, it is much worse.Imagine he's President! (Imagine it's the US army rather than a shabby dictator). Now imagine that this president or associates attempt to deny the truth, hide facts and squiggle with things like "That depends on your definition of sex" (Think: "Mostly there was just naked parading") Se how this is worse than your average Joe/dictator doing it? The western countries, US included should be the shining light in the darkness. We should bring peace, civilisation, enlightenment. That is why it is MUCH worse when we fail, when our soilders fail their task so fundamentally.

If you want to believe that there are mitigating circumstances, then fine. We're simply having a difference of opinion on wether torture is all bad, or sometimes understandable.

Now, for the WMD. I was waiting for the "big Country" thing, I must admit. Rememebr when UN inspectors made the same claims? "It's a big country", they said. "It'll take time to go through all of it.". And you called them incompetent and invaded. And now you use the very same argument once more. Does that make you incompetent, or does it mean that the inspectors weren't and your invasion was unneccessary? Feel free to think on that.

And yes, I'm sure that in the middle of a bloody war Iraq had plenty of time to ship a whole lot of their militray arsenal abroad. A dictator like Hussein, the first things he'd do in a war would be  sending away his weapons. Personally I think the fact that they didn't even fire gas at Israel (like last time) speaks volumes of their ability to do so.

But again, fair enough, we come from different worlds. You choose to believe intelligence that is now being called faulty all over the world. I choose to believe the fact that no WMD whatsoever has been found.

Also, considering the whole "Other countries believed there were WMD's too" line of reasoning, it simply pertains to reasonable doubt. Everyone knew he had had some, the disagreement was on wether the evidence considering what they had now was reliable. Kind of the same way you just don't round people up and put them in prison beacause they might be planning a bankrobbery, you need evidence to do so. Evidence that a judge will believe.

Quote

It wasn't bushes fault; the blame, if any, squarely goes on the CIA. Clinton also believed there were WMD in Iraq. Also other Intelligence organizations concurred with the statement.


Yes, the MI5 possibly? I doubt other organizations were as sure, and if they were, feel free to link to official statements... also, the duty of a world leader is also to not trust blindly in one source that has proven itself unreliable in the past, such as the CIA.

Quote

I never said bush is infallible. I never said I would kill you for speaking your insensitive words. I never said I believe bush on faith. Where, trust instead of faith, comes in to the equation is all the information bush & company do not release to us. Like how they find out where terrorist are, or that they have discover new information. This requires trust, because in a lot of cases if that information got out people would die. Another place where trust comes in is the decision to act on information. Bush acted on information he deemed true, WMD, for example. He may have been wrong about the WMD, but he acted instead of waiting for, beyond a reasonable doubt, which most likely would have been a chemical weapon going off in a major city.  


You never said, but the way you take his statements as concrete evidence indicates so.

Also, the nature of what you wrote made it seem that you were talking about yourself or people you were affiliated. If you were talking about people completely unknown to you, perhaps you shouldn't be judging how ready they'd be to kill me? Or as OXDECODE said:

Quote
As someone who knew people who were in the Twin Towers on that day, I'd appreciate it highly if you did not presume to say what I would or would not do to a given person on a given day.


Your trust borders precariously close to faith my friend. While it is obvious that no goveremnt could release details like that, there are things that could be mentioned. A statement such as "While regrettable, the torture of certain inmates at Abu-Ghraib has saved hundreds of innocent lives". That would give away nothing, and yet go a fair bit towards calming the world opinion against the US in this certain case.

Remeber, a certain level of trust equals blind faith. Faith needs no evidence, it is evidence in itself. So it would seem is most of your argument. You believe and trust that your goverement will do the right thing. Fine. But belief in itself will not convert any of us, so maybe you should consider giving up this debate and just declaring belief?

Quote
most likely would have been a chemical weapon going off in a major city.  

Indeed. Once again this is something you believe rather than something substantial.

Regrading your "evidence" I did read through itr, and almost all of it are things Bush claimed to be true that has yet to be proven

As for terrorists in North Korea, how would we know? That is one closed country my friend. As for Africa, indeed. they're not terrorists so let them die.

Funny thing here is, Saddam may have trained terrorists, but they were part of his own little personal cult. Nothing compared to the islamic madmen that come sweeping out of his neighbouring countries. As you should know by now, Saddam was arabic, but not a moslem. The moslem leaders hated his guts even though the masses loved him for standing against the US.

If I've missed soemthing, feel free to point out.

Now for your questions.

Alpha. Well OXd answered that well. Other than that, god knows why the russians do anything. their every bit as jumpy as the americans.

Beta. NO (SORRY; MIXED UP THE YES AND NO THING HERE AS WELL). Now as a counterquestion, do you believe it is wrong to kill an innocent Iraqi civilian? Rememebr, answering yes will mean you're a monster and answering no will mean you're against the war. And since it's not a complicated question, I demand you answer either yes or no.

Charlie. Any evidence that can be controlled by independent sources and vierified as factual. Not just claims that have yet to be proven correct.

Delta. I refer you to the top of my argument where we discuss reasonable doubt. Most countries do not wish to invade others based on flimsy evidence, this is especially true for Germany.

And your quote actually indiccates that the Minister believed that the WMD process had been successfulyl blocked and that we should continue in the same tracks, possibly make it even harder. Not that we should invade.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on July 15, 2004, 06:21:38 pm
Goddamn Luk, I am greatly impressed by your patience. Ever thought of becoming an ambasador? Or maybe helping resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis?
I'm gonna call you Saint Lukipela from now on.


Quote
I personally agree with the death penalty, but think it should be removed for a much different reason then you have stated. The death penalty causes more problems then its worth. Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have gathered it’s actually cheaper to imprison a person for life then to execute them. Also there are other countries that won’t extradite a suspect if they may face the death penalty. I agree with you that the system is flawed, but what system isn’t? The current justice system is the best we can do and saying we can do better is true, in theory, but not in reality.

These are my thoughts, and most likely will not change until tomorrow.

I’m sure he did a similar filter, but I believe you wouldn’t be satisfied unless he got rid of the death penalty entirely. Also it’s not like bush was the only one who signed death warrants. The death warrants continued even after he left Texas office.


Ah... going back to faith again. You're sure that that he did a similiar filter, yet you have no proof to it.

You think that D999 wouldn't be satisfied unless Bush got rid of death penalty, but that's because you don't understand the argument. It's not the question of wheter death penalty is right or wrong, we all have our own opinions in that matter.

The question is, should the innocent be executed, and I think we all can agree that the answer is no. Every action that is going to assure us, that the soon to be executed person is guilty, should be encouraged, not opposed. If there is doubt, there shouldn't be an execution.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on July 15, 2004, 08:40:24 pm
Ivan is correct. The reason I brought up the Truth Project is to point out that it provided ample evidence that many people on death row are in fact innocent. This suggests that further efforts to determine the guilt or innocence of death row inmates would be fruitful.
In the absence of such demonstration, Bush's position would be kind of reasonable. Given that they have all too frequently succeeded, his dogmatic insistence on the infallibility of an all too fallible judicial system is fundamentally inexcusable.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on July 16, 2004, 12:04:39 am
Quote
Goddamn Luk, I am greatly impressed by your patience. Ever thought of becoming an ambasador? Or maybe helping resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis?
I'm gonna call you Saint Lukipela from now on.


I wonder if it'd be possible to get that as a custom title...
I could easily solve that conflict were I given free hands. ;) Alas I'm not so I won't.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 16, 2004, 12:14:56 am
Politics, schmolitics, let their respective campaigns' choice of technology be your guide this November:  ;)

From an article in Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,64036,00.html):

"...the Kerry site is housed on an Apache Web server running on a Red Hat Linux box. The Bush website is hosted on a Microsoft IIS 5.0 server and uses Microsoft's ASP.net."


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: gonsen on July 16, 2004, 01:19:37 am
in defense of bioslayer
Quote
Now, for the WMD. I was waiting for the "big Country" thing, I must admit. Rememebr when UN inspectors made the same claims? "It's a big country", they said. "It'll take time to go through all of it.". And you called them incompetent and invaded. And now you use the very same argument once more. Does that make you incompetent, or does it mean that the inspectors weren't and your invasion was unneccessary? Feel free to think on that.

ive read this forum tread thing and i have not seen where boislayer says anything about inspectors let alone calls them incompetent. saying he did something when he didn't is called lying.

Quote
Funny thing here is, Saddam may have trained terrorists, but they were part of his own little personal cult. Nothing compared to the islamic madmen that come sweeping out of his neighbouring countries. As you should know by now, Saddam was arabic, but not a moslem. The moslem leaders hated his guts even though the masses loved him for standing against the US.

he also had a standing offer of asylum to asama bin ladin. so bin ladin was part of his own "little" cult?

Quote
Ah... going back to faith again. You're sure that that he did a similiar filter, yet you have no proof to it.  

do you have proof that he didnt?

Quote
Goddamn Luk, I am greatly impressed by your patience. Ever thought of becoming an ambasador? Or maybe helping resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis?
I'm gonna call you Saint Lukipela from now on.

seems the other way around here.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on July 16, 2004, 02:04:51 am
1: the 'you' referred to Americans. This is consistent usage since Luki is not American.

2: note how Bin Laden kept turning him down on it. Or did you not know that Bin Laden had put a rather large bounty for the assassination of Saddam Hussein?

3: we do know that he didn't set up a second round of guilt verification as other states did upon discovering so many innocent death row inmates. Basically, they got their appeals and that was it. Note that the extra filtering process in other states was outside of the regular appeals process -- and there was no real beefing up of the appeals process in Texas to compensate. So yeah, we know.

4: Saint bioslayer, giving people the friendly advice that they can be killed for criticizing American foreign policy in some areas, while defending said policy. Sure, not a direct threat... but not exactly a candidate for canonization as far as I can tell.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on July 16, 2004, 02:08:24 am
EDIT: Argh... D999 beat me to most of it, and did a better job then I.
That's what's left of what I had to say:

Quote
do you have proof that he didnt?


Urgh... You've got to be kidding me... No, I don't have proof that he didn't do a similiar filter. As much as I hate SC3 it had one good quote I'm using notoriously: YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 16, 2004, 02:38:42 am
Sure you can.  Just got in general cases.  For instance:

Claim: I did not drive my car to work today.
Proof: My car is still sitting in front of my house, and my bicycle is in my office.
Status: True.

Where you cannot prove a negative is when you are attempting to predict future behaviour.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on July 16, 2004, 02:53:23 am
The proof you have given isn't enough in itself.
You have to make an assumption, in your example it is: A car cannot be in two places at a given time.
This assumption is obvious, but without it your evidence means nothing. Only when you sum it up with your partial proof, you can conclude that you in fact did not drive your car to work.

So you didn't realy prove a negative (not the way you can prove a positive), you proved that your car is in front of your house, the fact that you can determine the status of the negative is a consequence of a proven conjunction wich has nothing to do with the negative in the first place.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: JonoPorter on July 16, 2004, 04:26:06 am
Quote

4: Saint bioslayer, giving people the friendly advice that they can be killed for criticizing American foreign policy in some areas, while defending said policy. Sure, not a direct threat... but not exactly a candidate for canonization as far as I can tell.

When did I say that? That is so far from what I said that makes me wonder about a great many things.

Even though the name is a contradiction in it self:
Saint BioSlayer, Or The Sainted Slayer of Life.



Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: JonoPorter on July 16, 2004, 05:24:52 am
Quote
As for terrorists in North Korea, how would we know? That is one closed country my friend. As for Africa, indeed. they're not terrorists so let them die.

there were no north korean hijackers on 9/11. that as good as proof as any.

As for Africa you first say the war in Iraq is not justified by stoppage of mass murder, and then you want America to invade Sudan to stop mass murder? Make up your mind.

Also I have not seen you beloved UN make any move to stop the mass murder in Sudan, in fact they have done the opposite. (See previous posts)

Quote
Very close to hyperventilating instead of answering a question.

it was sarcasm.

Quote
Beta. Yes. Now as a counterquestion, do you believe it is wrong to kill an innocent Iraqi civilian? Rememebr, answering yes will mean you're a monster and answering no will mean you're against the war. And since it's not a complicated question, I demand you answer either yes or no.

? ? ? ? ?
So I am a monster if I believe it’s wrong to kill innocent Iraqi civilians? I guess we do live in very different worlds.   ;)
I do believe its wrong to kill innocent civilians, but contrary to what you seem to believe terrorist are not civilians and the Coalition did not put hospital, schools and nursing homes on their target list, in a attempt to kill as many women and children as possible.

Quote
And your quote actually indiccates that the Minister believed that the WMD process had been successfulyl blocked and that we should continue in the same tracks, possibly make it even harder. Not that we should invade.

But it implies that they did have weapons, when they were not suppose to have ANY.

Quote
Indeed. Once again this is something you believe rather than something substantial.  

My “belief” is based on previous examples in history. Even though you may disregard it; this is a very real example.
When did the Japanese first know the USA had nuclear weapons? When one fell on Hiroshima.

Quote
Also sentences in captial letters, especially bold ones are considered yelling.

I increased the font size, because I thought you might have been having trouble reading the smaller size, and for emphasis.

Quote
You never said, but the way you take his statements as concrete evidence indicates so.  

Because he speaks the truth, unless his statements are based on inaccurate intelligence, which most of the time they are not. He does not outright lie like Kerry does.  


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: JonoPorter on July 16, 2004, 05:40:27 am
Quote
Or maybe helping resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis?

I'll make a wager less bet with all of you. The bet is that that conflict will not be resolved until 7 years before the end of the world.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Culture20 on July 16, 2004, 06:07:28 am
Quote
aaaand I'm back.
Me too. :)
Quote
Now, for the WMD. I was waiting for the "big Country" thing, I must admit. Rememebr when UN inspectors made the same claims? "It's a big country", they said. "It'll take time to go through all of it.". And you called them incompetent and invaded. And now you use the very same argument once more. Does that make you incompetent, or does it mean that the inspectors weren't and your invasion was unneccessary? Feel free to think on that.

If I recall correctly, the U.S. didn't comment on their competancy, but instead on their efficacy, which was dependant upon Saddam's willingness to comply with them.  If you'll allow me to use a bad analogy: Finding the Queen of Hearts is easier in a game of "Three Card Montey" if the street-dealer doesn't get to move the cards around.  We knew the game was a scam, so we punched the dealer out.  ::)

Quote
When did I say that? That is so far from what I said that makes me wonder about a great many things.

I believe he was referring to this, which sounded like an exageration on your part:
Quote

these words are all it would take to make alot of poeple in america start thinking of ripping your heart out, specicficly in New York. since you are obviosly making reference to 9/11.


Quote
So I am a monster if I believe it’s wrong to kill innocent Iraqi civilians? I guess we do live in very different worlds.

Luki obviously mixed up the yes/no in his sentence.  We primary speakers of english do that too, and we generally cut each other some slack when it occurs.  ;)

Quote

I'll make a wager less bet with all of you. The bet is that that conflict [palestinian,/iraeli - Ed. C20] will not be resolved until 7 years before the end of the world.

Good thing it's wagerless considering you have to wait until the world ends to count the years.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on July 16, 2004, 04:09:52 pm
And progress is being made. Well, at least somewhat.

To begin with, I'd like to thank gonsen for joining the discussion. The more the merrier I always say. Feel free to actually contribute to the thread by stating opinions and beliefs rather than just nitpicking. I trust however that all your points (well, except the last possibly) has been met to satisfaction?

Then, I'll make it my business to continue C20:s analogy a bit further. You know the card dealer is crooked, so you punched the dealer out. However, you still can't find the Queen of Hearts. It's not on his table, nor in his coat. Sure, he might have slipped it to one of those other dealears close by, but since he isn't at speaking terms with several of them it seems unlikely. And now that you're going through his coat you are getting lice. Oh, and all the other rich kids are laughing at you.

In short, you may well be correct considering the competence vs. effiacy thing, though I do seem the word incompetent floating around at the time. However, the reasoning works just as well with that. You invaded, so that you could go anywhere, into any house or facility to look for WMD's. Hellofalot more efficent than having to wait for permission. Yet still nada.

And you are obviously correct, I mixed up my sentence.  :-[ However, I'll restate it for Bio's.

Quote
Beta. Yes. Now as a counterquestion, do you believe it is wrong to kill an innocent Iraqi civilian? Rememebr, answering NO will mean you're a monster and answering YES will mean you're against the war. And since it's not a complicated question, I demand you answer either yes or no.


And I was referring to the entire invasion. If you seriously believe that invading an entire country with military force can be done with out even one regular civilian dying then you need to spend more time with your soldier buddies. To clarify, I'm not talking terrorists here. I'm talking regular people caught by stray gunfire, or by a smart bomb mising it's destination by a house or so. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to kill them, or specifically targeted them, they're still dead.

Again Bio, I see you're applying your pick'n mix style to the debating. Well, as I have no choice I'll go with that.

No North Korean's no. With the risk of turning up a red face once more, I'll claim that all the terrorists were Al-Qaeda members, and thus not Saddamites? Meaning that'd be proof enough Saddam had no terrorists according to your logic. If I've missed somethign here, feel free to point it out.

Ok, lets straighten this UN thing out once and for all. It's not my beloved UN. I don't think the UN works very well at all at the moment. I think the UN hasn't worked that well for quite a while, yet it's the best we got. I think the UN could be vastly improved, or scrapped and rebuilt, yet the political will is lacking in many countries. As an example, the country that was extremely late with all their membership fees a few yeasrs back. Yeah, yours.

What I am trying to point at here does not consider the UN per se though. I'll try to spell it out simply.

If you want to make the claim that you "are making the world a safer place", or that you "are bringing peace and democracy" then you need to do it all the time in order to look like you're telling the truth. You can't just go "Well, this troubled country we'll fix, but the rest can rot." When you do that, people start looking for hidden agendas. "Why that country, and no other?" they wonder. Normally, everyone would look to the UN for guidance. And while not perfect, most of the time the UN does work partially. However, if you choose to ignore the UN, and make claims to being a saviour, then you must be so everywhere. Otherwise you are but a petty country protecting your petty interest, no better than the Soviets invading Afghanistan, or Finland for that matter.

For the benefit of gonsen, you once more refers to americans.

Regarding sarcasm, it's one of the harder tools to use on the internet. To me it simply looked like someone avoiding a question while accusing the opponent of being anti-american and hoepless. But fine, you used "sarcasm" instead of actually answering the question.

And again, the quote implies that they had weapons that were being disarmed, which is what you need to do with weapons so that they cease to exist. It does not imply that they wetre resisting disarmament, just that disarmament was happening. Which is a good thing.

Quite the surprise for the Japanaese yes. I'll accept that as a fair enough example, yet I'd like you to remember that just beacause you had the ability to drop that bomb, it doesn't automatically mean that Saddam had the ability to blow up Denver. Al-qaeda possibly. Again there is a difference.

I'll assume this is sarcasm again as I've not implied anywhere that I have trouble reading anything. And if you want to go against custom behaviour, don't be surprised to notice that people misunderstand you. The analogy would be sticking out the tongue at someone when you meety them abnd then explain, "I thought you might be blind, and licking someones face is my way of saying hello". It may well be, but it's not what the rest of us are used to.

And you take his statements as fact because he speaks the truth? That's what the Soviets said about Stalin as well. "Well he tells the truth, surely communism will win out! We just gotta have some trust!"

Again, I see you missed the pesky torture thing, so I'll just assume that my premises were correct.

I'll also assume that I guessed your correct stance on WMD ("I believe"). I'll even go as far as to imagining that you finally understood the whole reasonable doubt thing, though that is going out on a limb.

And as no links to other security organistaions talking about huge amounts of WMD seem to magically have appeared I guess you forfeit that as well.

And as you've failed to reply to the argument on how a little information could have relieved US pressure in the torture scandal I'll just assume that you still believe that "it might have saved someone but they're not even giving out vague details that could get them, out of the boiling water cuz that's just not what they do".


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: JesusWChrist on July 18, 2004, 08:41:29 am
Quote

there were no north korean hijackers on 9/11. that as good as proof as any.

I don't think there were any Iraqi hijackers either. That means you just proved there's no connection between Iraq and Al-Quada!

Quote
My “belief” is based on previous examples in history. Even though you may disregard it; this is a very real example.
When did the Japanese first know the USA had nuclear weapons? When one fell on Hiroshima.

You make a good point. Any country that is not an ally may actually have WMD and may one day decide to attack the Forces of Good! They should be "liberated" in a pre-emptive action. Better safe than sorry.
And maybe then do the allied countries after all. Just in case. We know some of them have nuclear weapons.
(Also see this (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,882526,00.html))

Quote
Because he speaks the truth, unless his statements are based on inaccurate intelligence, which most of the time they are not.

Amen.

Quote
He does not outright lie like Kerry does.

Right on! Like that time when he... erm... said one thing and changed it later. Evil! Because Bush is on a mission from God, so he knows that everything is either Good or Evil, Truth or Lie. And Kerry isn't. So he is Evil, and  a Liar!

I should go into politics. This is so easy. I think I hear the Voice of God too. Many Voices of God in fact. This is so much fun. Kittens Good. Sharks Evil. Nucular weapons Evil. Nucular weapons when I have them Good. Britain Good. China Evil. Russia... Pootie Poot is my Friend. Friends Good. Russia Good. I hear you God!



Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on July 21, 2004, 09:23:24 am
I can't beleive anyone here actually claimed that Bush does not lie.  What planet have you been on?

Here is a few...

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  5/11/2004

Quote/Claim:
"Some say the No Child Left Behind Act doesn't provide enough money to meet our goals... People say, well, it's an unfunded mandate to put accountability systems in place. No, the accountability systems are largely funded by the federal government." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"This year alone, the Bush administration shortchanges American schools $9.4 billion under No Child Left Behind." - NY Times, 3/14/04



Date:  9/29/2000

Quote/Claim:
"[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Souirce: Bush Environmental Plan]

Fact:
"I do not believe that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide." - President Bush, 3/13/03



Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  4/22/2004

Quote/Claim:
"I have a responsibility as the President to put people in an administration that understands the importance of conserving our natural resources and making them better." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"Oil-industry officials have been invited to a meeting at the Environmental Protection Agency tomorrow to discuss the plan, which would temporarily raise the allowable sulfur content for gasoline." - WSJ, 4/21/04



Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  9/23/2003

Quote/Claim:
“All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization.” - UN Speech [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis despite the findings of a bipartisan commission investigating 9/11. The commission found the Saudi government “not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.” - LA Times, 8/2/03


Bush sucks.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on July 21, 2004, 08:33:21 pm
Though I agree with the end point, I would like to point out that the level of sulfur in gasoline has relatively little to do with conservation of resources. Though clean air is a good thing, it's not usually considered a natural resource. So Bush may be wrong, but those two quotes are not directly contradictory... too much.

Also, the 9/11 commission also determined that the Saudi Government was not in collusion with Al Qaeda. Still, the close familial ties of the Bush Administration to a theocratic monarchic regime is somewhat unsettling.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ThisAlex on July 22, 2004, 11:07:17 am
I am quite heavily in favour of the war in Iraq, but I have not the eloquence of speech nor the detailed facts neccesary to carry on a precise debate on the war. Keep in mind though that I will not post anything I am not 100% sure of.

I would like to add a few comments regarding the iraq war.

Firstly, in regards to the argument that the US should've had UN approval:

   The UN does no favors for the US. It attempts to belittle and discredit the US at every turn, and is insanely against one of the US's greatest allies, Israel. If you don't believe me, remember the racism summit (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,33561,00.html) a few years ago that Israel and the US had to walk out of (largely unreported because of unfortunate proximity to 9/11).
Because of all these things, to then demand that the US must wait for UN approval to invade is preposterous.


Secondly, in regards to the invasion itself:

  I have seen no arguments anywhere in this thread saying that it would be better if Saddam were still in power. If I am mistaken and someone did say that, or if anyone would like to explain why they think that the US should not have invaded Iraq, and should have let a horrible dictator continue to murder his own people and refuse any sort of freedom to millions, I urge you to reply.

Please note that arguments such as "well why didn't he invade {some other place} and take out {some other horrible dictator} instead" are not logical, because to say this is the same as saying, "I agree that he should remove horrible dictators from power, but if he is going to do it to Iraq, he should go and do it to {some other place} too/instead." If that is your argument, then the underlying question should no longer be "was it right to invade Iraq" but instead be "was Iraq better to invade than {some other place}." The answere to that question is easy: Iraq is almost smack in the centre of the fundamentalist muslim countries, where terrorism is rampant, Jews, homosexuals, and many other minorities would be killed on sight, women lead horrible lives in complete suppression, personal rights and freedoms are non-existant, and children are taught daily to hate all things Western, Jewish, and non-muslim. To invade Iraq not only insures WMDs are not used against the US or its allies, not only liberates millions from Saddam, not only allows democracy to enter another middle-eastern country, not only allows rebuilding of schools, hospitals, etc, but also gives a direct presence in the middle east that neighbouring countries cannot ignore.

This is the beginning of a very positive change for the middle-east, and if countries like Spain wish cower and give in to terrorist threats (agree with the war or not, Spain chose to vote for appeasing the terrorists and doing exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do, and that alone would be a good enough reason for me to vote for a party the terrosists disliked), we can only hope that greater support for the US comes from within and abroad.

It is getting late, I may add to this later, but please don't wait to respond.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on July 22, 2004, 07:44:27 pm
Well hello there new player. Great to see someone picked up Bios torch, since he seems to have dropped it and lost himself somewhere. Being the resident patron of debate, I'll see what I can do for you... ;)

Quote
The UN does no favors for the US


This is true. It's also the whole idea. The UN isn't supposed to do anyone any favours. It's supposed to try and be fair to all sides. Granted, it's not doing so well.

Quote
It attempts to belittle and discredit the US at every turn, and is insanely against one of the US's greatest allies, Israel


Israel does tend to heat up everyones emotions. If you want to have a spinoff discussion on this, feel free to continue here or start a new thread. This isn't the gist of your post however, so I'll skip over it for the time being. Also, it would be of great interest to me to see all these other turns where the UN belittles you and discredits you. Feel free to post any links concering other subjects than Isrrael and Iraq.

Secondly, about the whole invasion, I noticed i mangled another yes/no querstion, maybe that's what confused you?

Question by Bio
Quote
Question Beta:
Do you think Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power?


My proper answer:
Quote
 Beta. NO (SORRY; MIXED UP THE YES AND NO THING HERE AS WELL). Now as a counterquestion, do you believe it is wrong to kill an innocent Iraqi civilian? Rememeber, answering NO will mean you're a monster and answering YES will mean you're against the war. And since it's not a complicated question, I demand you answer either yes or no.


Maybe you'd like to answer that question for Bio,  since he seems unable to?

Now for the next part, you seem to have grasped some of the arguing here rather well, and some rather poorly. I assume that you were referring to

Quote
Question two. Please give your opinion on why Iraq was invaded, bearing in mind that there are several other parts of the world where people are treated a lot worse (Sudan to name a currrent one, but people are dying and having their human rights trampled all over the place). If you in your answer point out the threat Iraq makes, please consider your answer to question one, and explain why countries like North Korea, who are actually openly threatening to invade their neighbours and start nuclear wars weren't a higher priority than a starved out country in the middle east. If you in you answer point out any relation between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, please take note of the fact that no links between the two have ever (to my knowledge) been proven, and that bin Laden never was a big fan of Saddams secular personal cult, being a islamic fanatic himself.


when you made your statement
Quote
Please note that arguments such as "well why didn't he invade {some other place} and take out {some other horrible dictator} instead" are not logical, because to say this is the same as saying, "I agree that he should remove horrible dictators from power, but if he is going to do it to Iraq, he should go and do it to {some other place} too/instead." If that is your argument, then the underlying question should no longer be "was it right to invade Iraq" but instead be "was Iraq better to invade than {some other place}."


While your reasoning is entirely correct, my question was not "Well it's wrong to invade because there are other more dangerous places", but rather "Why invade Iraq instead of other dangerous places?" This is the question you then find it simple to answer.

Quote
Iraq is almost smack in the centre of the fundamentalist muslim countries,


Yes, except they aren't fundament muslims, but rather a personal cult. As such, the fundamental muslims were actually happy to see Saddam go.

Quote
where terrorism is rampant,


And invading has really helped stop the car bombings? I note that the foreign workers in Saudi-Arabia aren't feeling safer nowadays than before the war. As stated before, most terrorism is muslim fundamentalists, which are in no way connected to Hussein, so you've really not given them anything but a new battlefield to play in. Oh, and another reason to hate America. illogical as it is, even the US striking down on their enemies makes them angrier.

Quote

Jews, homosexuals, and many other minorities would be killed on sight,


How do you kill homosexuals on sight? Do they wear a special badge? Other than that, you are right, this happened in Iraq. Just like everywhere else.

Quote
women lead horrible lives in complete suppression, personal rights and freedoms are non-existant, and children are taught daily to hate all things Western, Jewish, and non-muslim.


Again completely true but not in any way unique for Iraq.

So two good points, all which are true in an distressingly large part of the world. Not really enough to single any place out unless there are other reasons.

Or perhaps you regffered to this:

Quote
If you want to make the claim that you "are making the world a safer place", or that you "are bringing peace and democracy" then you need to do it all the time in order to look like you're telling the truth. You can't just go "Well, this troubled country we'll fix, but the rest can rot." When you do that, people start looking for hidden agendas. "Why that country, and no other?" they wonder. Normally, everyone would look to the UN for guidance. And while not perfect, most of the time the UN does work partially. However, if you choose to ignore the UN, and make claims to being a saviour, then you must be so everywhere. Otherwise you are but a petty country protecting your petty interest, no better than the Soviets invading Afghanistan, or Finland for that matter.


And this is what you somehow fail to see. Regardless of wether all (or indeed any), of the speculations that are flying around are true, as long as the only reason to invade was "He was a bad man" people will suspect the US of acting because of their own dark motives.

Quote
To invade Iraq not only insures WMDs are not used against the US or its allies,


Yes, nonexistent weapons are hard to use. They'd have been even without the invasion.
Quote
not only liberates millions from Saddam, not only allows democracy to enter another middle-eastern country, not only allows rebuilding of schools, hospitals, etc,


Very true, Iraq is becoming a better place and noone denies that. At some point the amount of people saved from Saddam will undoubtedly outweigh the amount ofpeople who died in the war/aftermath. We may even be there already, hard to say really.

Quote
but also gives a direct presence in the middle east that neighbouring countries cannot ignore.


Why not? They've ignored Saddam so far, the only difference is now they'll be ignoring "The captialist scum who control the puppet regime". Any good they see coming out of Iraq will simply be explained with "The evildoers are bleeding the muslim world dry, and rewarding their mindless drones". Or something similar. It wn't stop the neuigbouring countries young from joining the Jihad.

Quote

This is the beginning of a very positive change for the middle-east, and if countries like Spain wish cower and give in to terrorist threats (agree with the war or not, Spain chose to vote for appeasing the terrorists and doing exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do, and that alone would be a good enough reason for me to vote for a party the terrosists disliked), we can only hope that greater support for the US comes from within and abroad.


Well, technically I believe that Spain had already decided to withdraw their troops before the attack, but i agree with you. It was a mistake to pull back.

Now getting back to the invasion, there is an obvious difference of thoughts here. I'll attempt to explain mine and see if that clears anythign up, feel free to comment, explain your own.

Wars are primitive. It hasn't been acceptable for a nation to go to war with another since before world war one for anything but the gravest of matters. In this time of peace and enlightenment we are suppsoed to represent, war isn't a viable alternative. Violence begets more violence, as everything from Korea to Iraq has clearly shown. That's why dozens of dictators have free reign, because even though we could wage war on them, we do not. Peace brought by war is seldom a lasting peace.

However, sometimes a war can become inevitable. If someone attacks you, you of course have the right to defend. That is why everyone followed after 9/11. The US was attacked, we knew where the perpetrators were and they were a grave threat to us. In it'sd own way, it was as justified as it gets. That we managed to remove the Taliban was a bonus, but it wasn't the goal. Dirty business as it is, that war is still unfinished and now largely ignored.

There is a difference however, between striking back at an enemy that attempts to do you harm, and striking out at an potential enemy that possiby might do you harm in the future. Then you suddenly lack the justification. Especially if the evidence you have is flimsy at best.

As an example, imagine MI6 found documents that indicated that Cuba might harbour intentions against the E.U As a result E.U invades and conquers Cuba, freeing the Cubans from oppressive communist rule. However, as this is not the E.U standard procedure soon rumours will begin to flourish that the invasion was all due to the coconut and sugar plantations.

Now, would you believe that we invaded because we were genuinely concerned about the Cuban people's plight (even though we ignore that of Bela Russia for example, or other close by countries), or that we were buggers? Especially if it turns out that MI6 was wrong, and that no weapons can be founsd anywhere.

Well, I digress but I rather liked the example. Now, where were we.

Oh yes. So what most of us believe is that it is WRONG to invade another country, regardless of country, on a hunch. Certainly, some good has come out of it. But if you would take credit for the accidental good your actions have caused, then you must also take the blame for what evil they have caused. Dead civilians, growing anti-western feelings, that sort of thing. Of course, you may want to argue that miore good than bad has come out of it, but those are relative terms, and very hard to quantify. Certainly a lot of people lived that otherwise would have died. But a lot of people have died as well, who would probably have lived otherwise.

Conclusion: If we all get to invade just beacuse we feel threatned even though we cannot prove it, I except China will hold Taiwan in a matter of minutes, and Korea in a few days. But most of us don't do that.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 22, 2004, 08:32:23 pm
As Lukipela is always capable of making all the best points in the shortest possible time, I'll only add the following small sentiment from the American point of view, and let his points stand on their own:

Freedom cannot be given to people.  Freedom must be taken from tyrants by people willing to die for it, only then will it be cherished enough by the people to guard it against threats.

We knew this once, as it is one of the defining principles of our nation, and I find it intellectually dishonest to ignore it when discussing "liberation" of another country.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ChainiaC on July 22, 2004, 09:50:14 pm
Well, The vast majority of western Europe was pretty glad to have been liberated from Nazi Germany by US forces at the end of WWII  ;)
However it is ofcourse a different matter when the oppresive regime is a people's own government. That does complicate matters.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ThisAlex on July 23, 2004, 12:04:26 am
Quote
The UN isn't supposed to do anyone any favours. It's supposed to try and be fair to all sides. Granted, it's not doing so well.


I think you understate slightly, but I'll consider us close enough in agreement to move to the next point.

Quote
Israel does tend to heat up everyones emotions. If you want to have a spinoff discussion on this, feel free to continue here or start a new thread. This isn't the gist of your post however, so I'll skip over it for the time being. Also, it would be of great interest to me to see all these other turns where the UN belittles you and discredits you. Feel free to post any links concering other subjects than Isrrael and Iraq.


There are constant "condemnations" of Israel and the US, but I'll try to find some specifics for you later. I don't want to get too deep into this, so I'll just post a link to a reasonable solution I think you'll agree with. http://www.americantaskforce.org/101.htm Please note the only ommission I feel should have been present in the presentation is that Arafat must be removed from the picture before there can be any chance of peace, he has clearly demonstrated his contempt for Israel and democracy. (two examples, when Barak offered Arafat 98% of what the Palistinians were asking for and Arafat refused, and recently wheen Arafat appointed his COUSIN to a key position is his government. Arafat is a clear dictator with only his own interests in mind)

Quote
Now as a counterquestion, do you believe it is wrong to kill an innocent Iraqi civilian?


Yes, it is wrong. It also is less wrong to kill (inadvertantly) an innocent Iraqi civilian for the sake of saving a greater number of other Iraqi civilians, and removing a great deal of guilty Iraqis. I believe you agree with me, at least partially:
Quote
Very true, Iraq is becoming a better place and noone denies that. At some point the amount of people saved from Saddam will undoubtedly outweigh the amount ofpeople who died in the war/aftermath. We may even be there already, hard to say really.


Quote
they aren't fundament muslims, but rather a personal cult. As such, the fundamental muslims were actually happy to see Saddam go.


They were happy to see Saddam go, but they were much more unhappy to see the Americans come. Attacking Iraq instead of say, Iran, helps protect against the risk of every muslim country uniting under one banner to cause an outright world war. Now that the presence is there though, if Iraq is rebuilt and becomes a flagship of Western Civilization, complete with prosperity and democracy for its people, these countries will not be able to keep small (alone unnoticable, added together unstoppable) ideas and values seep through their borders.

Quote
And invading has really helped stop the car bombings? I note that the foreign workers in Saudi-Arabia aren't feeling safer nowadays than before the war. As stated before, most terrorism is muslim fundamentalists, which are in no way connected to Hussein, so you've really not given them anything but a new battlefield to play in. Oh, and another reason to hate America. illogical as it is, even the US striking down on their enemies makes them angrier.


I address some of this above and, if you'll bear with me, I'll address the rest at the end.

Quote
Regardless of wether all (or indeed any), of the speculations that are flying around are true, as long as the only reason to invade was "He was a bad man" people will suspect the US of acting because of their own dark motives.


I'll get to this too, it all ties in together.

Quote
Yes, nonexistent weapons are hard to use. They'd have been even without the invasion.


Ties in too.

Quote
They've ignored Saddam so far, the only difference is now they'll be ignoring "The captialist scum who control the puppet regime". Any good they see coming out of Iraq will simply be explained with "The evildoers are bleeding the muslim world dry, and rewarding their mindless drones". Or something similar. It wn't stop the neuigbouring countries young from joining the Jihad.


An important point, also addressed below.

Quote
it is WRONG to invade another country, regardless of country, on a hunch. Certainly, some good has come out of it. But if you would take credit for the accidental good your actions have caused, then you must also take the blame for what evil they have caused. Dead civilians, growing anti-western feelings, that sort of thing. Of course, you may want to argue that miore good than bad has come out of it, but those are relative terms, and very hard to quantify. Certainly a lot of people lived that otherwise would have died. But a lot of people have died as well, who would probably have lived otherwise.

Conclusion: If we all get to invade just beacuse we feel threatned even though we cannot prove it, I except China will hold Taiwan in a matter of minutes, and Korea in a few days. But most of us don't do that.


I'll start here. "If we all get to invade just beacuse we feel threatned even though we cannot prove it", lets get right down to it, "even though we cannot prove it". THIS particular statement is what I believe is one of the most important arguments, especially in the minds of the anti-invasionists.

I'm going to prove it.

It is no secret that children in many schools throughout the muslim world, Iraq included, are taught from the youngest of ages to hate everything non-muslim. This kind of hate is often less apparent than the hate a nazi might display if you were to talk to him, but it is still there. The difference between the hate a nazi shows and the hate a possible (future) terrorist shows is unclear, but the underlying emotions are the same. Now this is not enough reason to invade a country, especially a country that doesn't display this trait as much as others. But once you add to it the fact that these muslims have children at rates that blow away any hope of western populations keeping up with them, and each generation passing the hate on to the next, so that the children don't even think anything is strange about hating Americans, you realize that something must be done.

Quote
And invading has really helped stop the car bombings? I note that the foreign workers in Saudi-Arabia aren't feeling safer nowadays than before the war. As stated before, most terrorism is muslim fundamentalists, which are in no way connected to Hussein, so you've really not given them anything but a new battlefield to play in. Oh, and another reason to hate America. illogical as it is, even the US striking down on their enemies makes them angrier.


I would be willing to concede that you may be right, it may make things worse as a whole in the muslim world, but you would also have to be willing to concede that doing nothing, indeed even trying to just help in humanitarian ways, could also allow things to continue to escalate ad infinitum until the problem is unstoppable. I personally would rather invade Iraq and take a proactive approach rather than wait to see what happens and possibly realize that I made a mistake when it was too late.

As for WMDs, three possibilities exist:
a) They were/are there, and simply aren't/won't be found.
b) They were not/are not there, and intellegence was flawed.
c) They may or may not be there, but that wasn't why we invaded. We just SAID that was the reason.

Only (b) could be a real reason against invasion, and if it were, than Bush would only be a small part of the blame. But lets say (c) is the truth, and Bush's real reason is what I stated above. Why would he lie and say it was WMDs? Because to say "we're invading because we need to re-educate muslim children" can be misconstrued and manipulated in so many ways that anti-bush media and press would easily tear him apart, even though his intentions were just.

If all that I have said is true, we did NOT invade on a hunch, nor on "iffy" intellegence, nor did we do so unreasonably. We saw a REAL threat that needed to be dealt with. We ARE dealing with it. It cannot just be Iraq though. The teachings of hate have to change everywhere, because each generation brings more hate and more numbers than the last. If we cut of the hate at the source, future generations will not have to deal with what our generation is going through.

Quote
Peace brought by war is seldom a lasting peace


If we teach young Muslim children not to hate blindly, even if we had to go through a war to be able to do that, we WILL be able to bring real and lasting peace to an area previously ruled by corruption, oppression, and hate.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on July 23, 2004, 12:44:53 am
I would posit that dropping food aid which looks the same as cluster bomblets will not teach children not to hate the US.
I would posit that torturing and sexually humiliating people will not teach children not to hate the US.
I would posit that violently entering thousands of homes searching blindly for resistance fighters will not teach children not to hate the US.
I would posit that leaving the capitol without electricity 60% of the time a year after we took over will not teach children not to hate the US.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ChainiaC on July 23, 2004, 12:47:34 am
I get the impression that you believe that the muslim parents will continue teaching their offspring to hate everything western as you say ad infinitum. While this may be true if all external factors are to remain constant, what would happen if living standards in the middle east would improve? If every family would have reasonably easy acces to the basic necessities of life like food, clothing and shelter and on top of that some extras like a computer, a TV and a reliable means of transportation, then what would be the reason to continue with this jihad? I mean, the jihad is supposed to make things better for them right? Well what if it is allready good enough, dont you think Achmed Al Mohammed would rather remain seated in his comfy chair smoking his waterpipe watching some telly with his kids then go out and have him and his sons blow themselves up in some foreign country?
You could use this in an argument that the western world should just invade and regime change the whole lot... but wouldnt things like debt reduction for third world countries and doing away with dishonest trade barriers do the trick with a lot less bloodshed?
Sure, at first the rich will get richer, I know, thats the nature of our species apparently, however as their wealth increases, the poorer segments of the population will follow in most cases.
Or maybe I am just naive  ::)

edit: sorry D999, I didnt know you posted allready, I was replying to the guy before you


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ThisAlex on July 23, 2004, 01:51:14 am
Quote
I get the impression that you believe that the muslim parents will continue teaching their offspring to hate everything western as you say ad infinitum. While this may be true if all external factors are to remain constant, what would happen if living standards in the middle east would improve? If every family would have reasonably easy acces to the basic necessities of life like food, clothing and shelter and on top of that some extras like a computer, a TV and a reliable means of transportation, then what would be the reason to continue with this jihad? I mean, the jihad is supposed to make things better for them right? Well what if it is allready good enough, dont you think Achmed Al Mohammed would rather remain seated in his comfy chair smoking his waterpipe watching some telly with his kids then go out and have him and his sons blow themselves up in some foreign country?


The terrorist attacks are (for the most part) not about improving the quality of muslim life. When Nick Berg was taken hostage and murdered, the terrorists were not saying, "we're doing this to better our quality of life." They did it because of fundamental values and fundamental religious beleifs. If we give them money, they will spend it to buy weapons. They don't care about their quality of life, because they've been taught that if they kill Americans, Jews, and other "enemies of Ala," they will go to heaven and be rewarded in the afterlife. The only way to stop this is to prevent children from believing in this in the first place.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: meep-eep on July 23, 2004, 01:52:18 am
Quote
Firstly, in regards to the argument that the US should've had UN approval:

   The UN does no favors for the US. It attempts to belittle and discredit the US at every turn, and is insanely against one of the US's greatest allies, Israel. If you don't believe me, remember the racism summit (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,33561,00.html) a few years ago that Israel and the US had to walk out of (largely unreported because of unfortunate proximity to 9/11).
Because of all these things, to then demand that the US must wait for UN approval to invade is preposterous.

The United Nations consists of 191 states across the world (http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html) with a common goal of peace, respect, and human rights (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html). If they are at odds with the United States on some occasion, this can be because the rest of the world is unobjectively against the US, or it can be that the rest of the world actually has a point. If you're not prepared to at least consider the latter, any discussion relating the UN is doomed in advance.

The United States didn't have to walk out on anything. They weren't the only countries that disagreed with the draft statement (http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/AllSymbols/5CCB9AEF32A51EDCC1256A990051AC81/$File/G0114570.pdf?OpenElement). But while countries like the EU countries and Canada attempted to reach a statement that they could agree with (after all, it was still a draft), the United States just walked out. Reading this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1482000/1482217.stm), this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1485000/1485243.stm), and this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1512000/1512436.stm) it is not inconceivable that they may not have given the conference a fair chance in the first place.

Quote
I have seen no arguments anywhere in this thread saying that it would be better if Saddam were still in power.

This thread is about the Bush vs. Kerry choice. It's important to seperate the issues of whether invading Iraq was a good idea, and whether the administration's actual motives to do so were honorable.
(That does not mean that if the latter is the case, the wisdom of those choices aren't still open for discussion.)

Quote
To invade Iraq [...] also gives a direct presence in the middle east that neighbouring countries cannot ignore.

You say that like it's a positive thing. I suspect this will only provoke more agression against the United States.

Quote
(agree with the war or not, Spain chose to vote for appeasing the terrorists and doing exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do, and that alone would be a good enough reason for me to vote for a party the terrosists disliked)

This is a very dangerous view. Even when a group's methods are regretable, that does not exclude the possibility that one or more of their motives is actually valid. By doing the opposite of what terrorists want, you may make a very bad decision in the other direction.
The correct approach, as I see it, would be to do what you consider best, regardless of what the terrorists want.



Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ThisAlex on July 23, 2004, 01:58:59 am
Quote
The United Nations consists of 191 states across the world with a common goal of peace, respect, and human rights. If they are at odds with the United States on some occasion, this can be because the rest of the world is unobjectively against the US, or it can be that the rest of the world actually has a point. If you're not prepared to at least consider the latter, any discussion relating the UN is doomed in advance.

The United States didn't have to walk out on anything. They weren't the only countries that disagreed with the draft statement. But while countries like the EU countries and Canada attempted to reach a statement that they could agree with (after all, it was still a draft), the United States just walked out. Reading this, this, and this it is not inconceivable that they may not have given the conference a fair chance in the first place.


That is BS. The summit was nothing but an exuse to bash Israel, and the US was the only country with enough decency and balls to stand up against it. There was no "maybes" at this conference. It was clear, unmistakable, and blatant. Do your research next time.

(please excuse my language)

Here is another article from less right-winged CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/africa/09/01/racism.durban/


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: FalconMWC on July 23, 2004, 02:05:32 am
Quote


That is BS. The summit was nothing but an exuse to bash Israel, and the US was the only country with enough decency and balls to stand up against it. There was no "maybes" at this conference. It was clear, unmistakable, and blatant. Do your research next time.

(please excuse my language)


Well, normally I don't get involved with these threads, but, without siding on either side, how do you think it is umm.... Well not valid ThisAlex? I seem to think that the links that Mee-eep provided are fairly solid......


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ThisAlex on July 23, 2004, 02:09:18 am
I apologize for my outbreak, I had a surge of emotion and did not control myself.

The BBC links do not currently work, and the UN resolution page is not valid evidence because it does not portray the tone of the summit. Various quotes in the two articles I posted give a better idea of the true intentions of many countries.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ThisAlex on July 23, 2004, 02:12:15 am
Also, look at PP30 in the draft:

Quote
[Reaffirming that colonization by settlers and foreign occupation constitute sources,
causes and forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;]


This pretty explicitly says that Israel is racist for its disputes with the Palistinians. THAT is bs.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ThisAlex on July 23, 2004, 02:14:39 am
not enough?

Quote
We express our deep concern about practices of racial discrimination against the
Palestinians as well as other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories which have an impact on
all aspects of their daily existence such that they prevent the enjoyment of fundamental rights,
and call for the cessation of all the practices of racial discrimination to which the Palestinians
and the other inhabitants of the Arab territories occupied by Israel are subjected


seems pretty clear what the UN thinks to me!


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 23, 2004, 02:21:59 am
To restate meep-eep's point:

If the UN is at odds with Israel on some occasion, this can be because the rest of the world is unobjectively against Israel, or it can be that the rest of the world actually has a point. If you're not prepared to at least consider the latter, any discussion relating the UN is doomed in advance.

We are fortunate to have actual Israelis frequenting this board.  Do you believe that your government's actions are above reproach, as our newest member of the debate seems to?


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ThisAlex on July 23, 2004, 03:10:39 am
Maybe I wasn't being clear. The UN called Israel racist. It is right there. Period. To call Israel racist is ludicrous. To defend the people that called Israel racist is insane.

There is no justification for the UN's comments. NONE.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: meep-eep on July 23, 2004, 03:16:38 am
Oh, I didn't realise you were on the conference yourself.
I was not, so I can't judge the tone of the summit. I have only got the reports to go on. So I tried to stick to the facts, being the actual draft statement. For news reports I take in mind who wrote it, and focus on the quotes in the article. I chose to link to the BBC because it doesn't usually express opinions. If you want anything else, take your pick (http://www.google.com/search?q=US+boycott+%22racism+conference%22).
(I think you meant left-wing instead of right-wing btw).

As far as I know, the draft has been prepared by a working group, after which there's a larger discussion about its contents, changes are made, and a vote is taken.
It is the draft (which still contains the disputed texts), which I linked to. It doesn't show "what the UN thinks". If anything, it shows what the working group thought. The UN as an organisation (which includes the US and Israel) doesn't "think" anything until the vote has been taken.
I can agree that the text in the draft looks rather confrontational, and is bound to have had a negative effect on the tone of the following discussion. However, rather than trying to change the document and attempt to make a positive contribution in the rest of the summit to the not unimportant issue of discrimination, the US and Israel took off.

Neither is the draft a report of the proceedings. As a draft declaration, it is evidence. Your claim to the contrary suggest to me that at that time you made that claim you hadn't actually given it a close look.



Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 23, 2004, 03:17:31 am
Is it really unjustifiable to think that a country full of people who think they are the Chosen of God by birthright might be a tad racist?  I'd at least give it a moment's consideration before resorting to all-caps.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: ThisAlex on July 23, 2004, 03:29:31 am
This is a good forum, where people call Jews in Israel racist.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: meep-eep on July 23, 2004, 03:44:28 am
Quote
Maybe I wasn't being clear. The UN called Israel racist. It is right there. Period. To call Israel racist is ludicrous. To defend the people that called Israel racist is insane.

There is no justification for the UN's comments. NONE.

Despite this not being the UN's comments, I'd like to point out that it isn't as black and white as you put it.
The text mentions worries about discrimination against Palestinians (et al.) in the territories occupied by Israel. It does not say that it's the Israeli Government that's behind this. A similar statement is made in point 63, where they mention worries about anti-semitism in other parts of the world.
I agree that if you're so inclined, it can be read in another way. Maybe it is left intentionally vague, but it's rather hard to unambiguously condemn discrimination in those areas (try it).


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: meep-eep on July 23, 2004, 03:53:36 am
Quote
This is a good forum, where people call Jews in Israel racist.

That's not fair, and you known it.
If you've got some point to make, stop trolling and make it.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on July 23, 2004, 12:41:38 pm
Hey guys, there's this funny video of Kerry and Bush insulting each other in the form of that "This land is your land" song. That's not really them singing, but the voice actors really sound like it. It's great because it's equally offensive to both sides so everyone can laugh at it.

http://www.jibjab.com/ - this should link to it.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on July 23, 2004, 03:57:29 pm
Well well well. We seem to have traversed in the direction of israel. Methinks this'd fit better in a new thread, but I'll go with the flow, lest I be called a hypocrite. ;)

Quote
There are constant "condemnations" of Israel and the US, but I'll try to find some specifics for you later. I don't want to get too deep into this, so I'll just post a link to a reasonable solution I think you'll agree with. http://www.americantaskforce.org/101.htm


This again only pertains to Palestine and Israel. I asked you to show me how the U.N thwarts the US at "every turn", not kjust at this subject. Remmeber we actually discussed why the US doesn't need U.N approval to invade? What you're basically saying is : "Well the U.N doesn't agree with us on Israel, so we invaded Iraq." Not a very logical response. You'll have to forgive me for not looking through the link you provided, as I'm due at work shoertly. I assure I'll watch it later.

Quote
Please note the only ommission I feel should have been present in the presentation is that Arafat must be removed from the picture before there can be any chance of peace, he has clearly demonstrated his contempt for Israel and democracy. (two examples, when Barak offered Arafat 98% of what the Palistinians were asking for and Arafat refused, and recently wheen Arafat appointed his COUSIN to a key position is his government. Arafat is a clear dictator with only his own interests in mind)


This I actually agree on, Arafat has become a liability to both sides. Though he appears to have caved in under pressure now, he really isn't a very useful figure. Still, we'll just have to wait for the next presdential election eh?

Quote
Yes, it is wrong. It also is less wrong to kill (inadvertantly) an innocent Iraqi civilian for the sake of saving a greater number of other Iraqi civilians, and removing a great deal of guilty Iraqis. I believe you agree with me, at least partially:


Quote


Question Beta:
It’s a simple question with 2 possible answers. Yes or no. No large words required.


On a more serious note, less wrong and more wrong? Excellent, you live in a world of shades rather than black'n white most of the time, not Bio's stark white'n black. However, I'm sure there'd be a lot of people interested in seeing you prove this, including statisticvs for how many would have died otherwise, and how innocent those were compared to how many died now and how innocent those were.

Quote


They were happy to see Saddam go, but they were much more unhappy to see the Americans come. Attacking Iraq instead of say, Iran, helps protect against the risk of every muslim country uniting under one banner to cause an outright world war. Now that the presence is there though, if Iraq is rebuilt and becomes a flagship of Western Civilization, complete with prosperity and democracy for its people, these countries will not be able to keep small (alone unnoticable, added together unstoppable) ideas and values seep through their borders.


A flagship to be hated. No idea can cross a border that is closed, and radio signals to ears that are closed don't do wonder either. That's what people call propaganda, and if someone chooses not to believe in it they won't. Also, we haven't seen any of that prosperity and democracy fuinction yet. The same was attempted in Afghanistan, but that project isn't doing very well either. Perhaps it'd be wise of you not to take on faith that this grand experiment of yours will be successful. Likewise the battle in Vietnam was suppsoed to be easy, and I'm sure your peers of the time spoke of stabilizing democratic influences. And what happened?

Quote
It is no secret that children in many schools throughout the muslim world, Iraq included, are taught from the youngest of ages to hate everything non-muslim.


It would seem you advocate the rasism you accuse others of quite well. Many places do not have schools, and I'd like to see some concrete evidence befoee I believe that every muslim child is turned against us by teachings alone, rather than watching their sisters and parents starve and/or fall prey to diseases.

But what really stuns me is your entire point. "We invaded because their populations grow and all of them hate us"? And "Well, then we made up another reason and persuaded people who wouldn't accept the first reason to join us."? So you believe you actively lied to your allies to have them join you in an effort to stop people from hating you by bombing them?
Allow me to cite my good friend gonsen:

Quote
saying he did something when he didn't is called lying.


That presumably goes for Bush and Saddam as well.

Did you read D-999's response? Don't youi think that is more likely to make people hate you than something that is supposedly taught in some schools?

And even further, consider Chainiacs excellent point. This is very easily demonstrable here in Euorpe where you can easily divide Muslim immigrants into a few different categories.

1. Poor muslim immigrants keep their faith because it's all they have. Their children, who actually learn the language of the coountry do slightly better, but are still poor and believers. Their grandchildren speak the new language, learn more and become less religious. And this goes on.

2. Wealthy muslims come to the new country, believe somewhat but not that much. Their children don't believe at al land do splendid.

Now, only the people in 1. and their children are prone to blowing themselves up at all. By increasing education and living standards, by removing the hopelessness and apathy fro mtheir lives you give them a chance. Sure, they might still dislike the US, but their not going to get themselves kileld over it, they just bought a car!

Dammit, I'm runnign out of time. I'll adress the whole Israeli thing next time, juts let me say this as someone who knows quite a few jews/israelis and has been there.

It is equally racist to believe that everyone to beginning to a group is good as it is to believe that they are bad.

I.e "Black people are stupid because they are black" is just as stupid as

"Jews are always good because they are Jews".

To be continued....

EDIT: To be continued much later I'm afraid. My girlfriend is coming ovwer for the weekend as a surprise, to cheer up my dreary working life, so I very much doubt I'll post anyhting here before Monday. But keep the discussion going, once again I will be back!


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on July 27, 2004, 04:18:57 pm
Annd I'm back, and not through beating the dead donkey yet. It would seem however that with Bio gone, and ThisAlex receded to whnece he cameth, there wouldn't be much point in replying to this thread. Lucky for me i like the sound of my own voice eh?

To begin with, I'd like to point out that we've drifted away fro mthe original topic Thisalex. My last reply concerning iraq mostly concerned the famous question Beta. However, that's a side issue. I', not clear if you want to use the "They have it better now" as an pro-war argument. Ifthat is the case, feel free to respond accordingly to the E.U invading Cuba. They'd have it better under our rule.

So if we disreargd the whole, "they'd have it better if we invaded, that's all the reason we need!" argument, we come back to your other, less tasteful reason.

I'll try and reply to al your alternatives here I think...

If a), this has been discussed in depth, and you happily join the whole "I have faith" brigade as you can produce no evidence.

If b) maybe you should have listened to all the countires that didn't believe your claim? As world leaders you have a duty to make absolutely sure you take the right course in an issue as serious as this, rather than just going "Oops! Oh well, we were wrong". That's like China invading Taiwan and then going "Oh darn. We were wrong. Well, they have it better now".

If c) then you are actively lying to all your allies, and displaying quite a lot of arrogance at the same. I could point you to the last time western states tried to keep someone under control "because they are simple people and need a firm hand"... And look how well Africa turned out. This is equal to "muslims are poor misguided us hating souls that need to be educated... THROUGH WAR!!!" There's a very good reason for the media to rip you apart if you tried that.

For the rest of it, you seem to not have chosen to comment, so I'l lelave this open for you to reply to, if you're still around.

Niow, for Israel. To begin with, are you aware that you are writing on a online forum? If you for some reason should become agitated, nothing prevents you from taking a break for an hour or two, or even a day or two. Noone forces you to write replys staright away.

Meaning

Quote
I apologize for my outbreak, I had a surge of emotion and did not control myself.


is only relevant if you have some serious issues. Otherwsie, feel free to restrain yourself, go for a walk or something, mmkay?

Otherwise, Oxde really says it best:

Quote

If the UN is at odds with Israel on some occasion, this can be because the rest of the world is unobjectively against Israel, or it can be that the rest of the world actually has a point. If you're not prepared to at least consider the latter, any discussion relating the UN is doomed in advance.


Now I'm actually pro israeli. My sister lived there for several years, and her boyfriend is Jewish, and has served in the Israeli army, thus gaining Israeli citizenship. I do believe that the Jews have a right to a country of their own. Yet this doesn't mean I condone all actions Israerl take... wait a minute. I see the problem here. This is the same argument we had with io. Basically, your only an true ally if you unconditionallly support your friends no matter what they do! That's why France and Germany are bad states for not joining a war they weren't sure of, a true ally would have waded right in. And in a similar way, the US is a true ally because they are completely unwaivering in their staunch support for Israel.

I'd ratehr say that exactly this US attitude has created a lot fo these problems. The Israeli always have the mightiest country in the world to back them up. This means there is nothing that can keep them in check. The unfortunate result ; arrogant Israeli politicans doing everything and everything wrong from a PR point of view.

Remmebr the whole Stockholm incident? Israeli ambassador sees painting that seems to idolizer a suicidede bomber. Israeli ambassador rips down paining and destroys it. US goes "Oh yeah, that's cool. Crap painting!" Sweden is not amused.

Now personally I thought that painting should have bee nremoved. But for an AMBASSADOR to actually tear it down? No wonder public opinion at times goes against them.

Oh, and just for the sake of it:

Quote
To call Israel racist is ludicrous. To defend the people that called Israel racist is insane.


Is daft. Palestinians like it or not are i na troublesome place where they can get denied access to work and whatnot ion the whim of the Israelis. Now, Israel has a very good reason to do this grantyed, but they seem to have no incentive to work towards a lessening of these incidents. Both sides are basically trying to destroy eachother. And I'm not just sure why the word racist upset you so much. You're actions here are similar to those druing witch hunts or communist hunts. As soon as anyoner doesn't completely agree with you and your actions, they mucst ve witches/communists/Israelhaters!

That's it for now. More if someone actually turns up to debate ;)

To sum up.

Bio : I believe in the goverment, they must be right even though there is no evidence. It's all for our own good.

ThisAlex: The evil muslims must be made to love us through violence, because we are infallible. Oh, and the UN stinks because hey dissed Israel! This means they have no credibility in any issue, even those that are completely unrelated to the Israeli matter.

Seriosuly boys.. Load up on arguments will ya? So far I seem to be debating with people disturbingly similar in some attitudes to those who believed in a strong leader and their absloute right nigh on 50 years ago. you know, One people, One empire, one leader? Lets all play follow the leader and punish the others.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Omega on July 29, 2004, 07:59:21 pm
There are many arguments for and against "The War", and arguing every single point into the ground doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, so I only have one question. Is the United States of America safer now than it was before September 11th? My answer is no. Why you ask? Because killing a large number of people in the Middle-East has nothing to do with a terrorists ability to attack. If someone has the tools, the know how, and the will to do so, there is very little that can stop them.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on July 30, 2004, 05:49:28 am
Quote
There are many arguments for and against "The War", and arguing every single point into the ground doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, so I only have one question. Is the United States of America safer now than it was before September 11th? My answer is no. Why you ask? Because killing a large number of people in the Middle-East has nothing to do with a terrorists ability to attack. If someone has the tools, the know how, and the will to do so, there is very little that can stop them.


This is not quite correct. Our move against Afghanistan struck a very deep blow against Al Qaeda as that country's government was the only one to fully sponsor them. Stopping terrorist actions is mostly up to agencies like the CIA. In my opinion, we give Al Qaeda too much credit. If they haven't managed another attack on us in years, doesn't that show how fragile they are? You make it sound like they're an unstopable force, but our very own nutjobs and criminals are in a much greater position to pull something off.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Baltar on July 31, 2004, 12:15:11 pm
Quote
This is not quite correct. Our move against Afghanistan struck a very deep blow against Al Qaeda as that country's government was the only one to fully sponsor them. Stopping terrorist actions is mostly up to agencies like the CIA. In my opinion, we give Al Qaeda too much credit. If they haven't managed another attack on us in years, doesn't that show how fragile they are? You make it sound like they're an unstopable force, but our very own nutjobs and criminals are in a much greater position to pull something off.


Yeah, but...

A) Al Qaeda is but one of many terrorist groups

B) International cooperation is imperative in the war against terrorism.  It's not about dropping some bombs or armored assaults, it's about alot less glamorous things like intelligence and good police work.  Bush's 'cowboy diplomacy' has strained international relations in a way we will be recovering from for years to come (and who knows how much longer if he has another 4 years).  The war in Iraq works against us in the fight against terrorism.

C) comparisons to domestic criminal activities are irrelevant, at least in the context of this discussion.

D) The war in afghanistan certainly made a dent in Al Queda, but again that isn't really topical.  The war in Afghanistan obviously damaged Al Queda....what did the war in Iraq do to international terrorism?  And more to the point how does it make us safer?  Iraq wasn't in a position to do more than bluster...and what we have now is a giant sink hole.  The cost of repairing it is an untold fortune that we will be paying off for ages.  And lets not forget the cost in soldiers and truck drivers.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on August 01, 2004, 11:30:42 am
Maybe I didn't spell it out right, but I was arguing that we are safer than we were before 9/11 for two reasons: First, people are aware of the threat of terrorism now and governments keep an eye out for it. Second, Afghanistan got fixed. I was in no way, shape, or form implying that the Iraq war has done us any good.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on August 02, 2004, 09:56:15 pm
Afghanistan is not fixed.

The government controls about 20% of the country, with the rest being warlords, about half of them loyal to the Taliban. Furthermore, conditions in the controlled areas are not so great, and improvement has been slow.

check out
http://afghanistannews.net/


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on August 03, 2004, 12:06:44 am
Geesh. Why the hell is our media throwing such a fit over Iraq but not mentioning a single word of what's happening in Afghanistan? Maybe "fixed" isn't the best word for them, but the Taliban and crew are in relative disarray.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Baltar on August 04, 2004, 07:15:49 am
Glad Death999 stepped in there, cuz 'fixed' does sound rather absurd, though I could find no articles explaining the current situation.  If we are 'safer' for our actions in afghanistan, we are only marginally so.  And we have to weigh that against the rest of the 'war on terror' and the negative impacts the Iraq war has had on that...


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on August 24, 2004, 12:35:56 am
I feel I must step in to make a few facts available to you. Primarily in yesterdays Daily News it was reported that 36,000 people are registed both here in New York(which is mainly a liberal state) and Florida(a mainly consevative state) 85% of which are registered Democrats. A portion of the 36,000 voted in New York and Florida, here in person Florida by absentee or vice versa. Which is fine, but when it was meantioned that some voters did that in 2000 a red flag went up, some people voted for Bush OR Gore twice(there is really no way of knowing.)

Secondly John Kerry is not a war-hero, he fought in Vietnam there were no heroes in Vietnam, only baby-killers(should Kerry want people to believe otherwise he should release the offical reports of what his superiors said about him rather than a synopsis of a supporter which only his signature can release, if he is this big war hero why did he co-found an anti-war organization after did his tour?), this mainly due to the media. No Vietnam Veterns were able to get a job, the only way was to omit service.  

Kerry's pharse "I WON three purple hearts" key word there won, wining something shows that you aimed for it the only way that this statement makes sense is if you shot yourself in the leg/foot in order to get Ted Kennedy to pull you out, the correct term would be earned, not won I guess it means little to one who inherited his entire fortune/lifestyle.

Finally I really only need one reason to not support Kerry, he keeps meantioning we need to pull our troops out of Iraq and let our Allies lend a hand and for some reason he keeps meantioning the French in this context, why not the Russians and the Germans while we are at it,These Countries bought Iraq six months to dispose of the weapons they had(if they were there) through deadlocking the UN. Not to meantion numerous times the UN inspectors were booted out of Iraq over the past decade.

I've sorted for simplicity just in case this is too much to swallow at once. Blind faith in a party will get you nowhere vote for the man NOT the party.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on August 24, 2004, 02:33:40 am
There is one FACT I forgot to meantion the communist party nominates a man every presidental election, a man ho shares their beliefs, this is the first time however that this man is running under a main party, yep you guessed it John Kerry, check http://www.communistsforkerry.com for enlightenment. If your faith in this man is still unshaken there is a statue or a plauge commemorating John Kerry in Veitnam, should I find a link or a pic for it I WILL post it, preferably before November.

It is your right to disagree withme, but we can not allow another Draft-dodger in the White House.

Although communistforkerry looks like conservative propaganda it full of far to much hate that any self-respecting capitalist or American would write or think.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on August 24, 2004, 02:34:43 am
Quote
I feel I must step in to make a few facts available to you. Primarily in yesterdays Daily News it was reported that 36,000 people are registed both here in New York(which is mainly a liberal state) and Florida(a mainly consevative state) 85% of which are registered Democrats. A portion of the 36,000 voted in New York and Florida, here in person Florida by absentee or vice versa. Which is fine, but when it was meantioned that some voters did that in 2000 a red flag went up, some people voted for Bush OR Gore twice(there is really no way of knowing.)
Secondly John Kerry is not a war-hero, he fought in Vietnam there were no heroes in Vietnam, only baby-killers(should Kerry want people to believe otherwise he should release the offical reports of what his superiors said about him rather than a synopsis of a supporter which only his signature can release, if he is this big war hero why did he co-found an anti-war organization after did his tour?), this mainly due to the media. No Vietnam Veterns were able to get a job, the only way was to omit service.  
Kerry's pharse "I WON three purple hearts" key word there won, wining something shows that you aimed for it the only way that this statement makes sense is if you shot yourself in the leg/foot in order to get Ted Kennedy to pull you out, the correct term would be earned, not won I guess it means little to one who inherited his entire fortune/lifestyle.

Finally I really only need one reason to not support Kerry, he keeps meantioning we need to pull our troops out of Iraq and let our Allies lend a hand and for some reason he keeps meantioning the French in this context, why not the Russians and the Germans while we are at it,These Countries bought Iraq six months to dispose of the weapons they had(if they were there) through deadlocking the UN. Not to meantion numerous times the UN inspectors were booted out of Iraq over the past decade.

I've sorted for simplicity just in case this is too much to swallow at once. Blind faith in a party will get you nowhere vote for the man NOT the party.


Terminator: your typing makes my eyes bleed, but I'll try to respond. Kerry probably is gaining some popularity off a "war hero" image, but I personally could care less about it. If it seems like that's all he talks about, you are incorrect - the media is just way too focused on showing frivilous things over and over.

To me, re-electing Bush means another war or two, more total bullshit economic policies that pile up debt and benefit the super rich and neglect of the environment. Kerry doesn't have my vote because he's great (he might not be), he has my vote because he most assuredly will do none of the above.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on August 24, 2004, 02:42:12 am
Quote
There is one FACT I forgot to meantion the communist party nominates a man every presidental election, a man ho shares their beliefs, this is the first time however that this man is running under a main party, yep you guessed it John Kerry, check http://www.communistsforkerry.com for enlightenment. If your faith in this man is still unshaken there is a statue or a plauge commemorating John Kerry in Veitnam, should I find a link or a pic for it I WILL post it, preferably before November.

It is your right to disagree do not allow another Draft-dodger in the White House.


Uh, communism is pretty much a joke these days, but cute site anyway. "Draft dodger"? The only effect this argument has had on me is that I'm convinced you're a fool.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on August 24, 2004, 02:50:01 am
To judge someone by the quality of those who support him is extremely fallacious. Do we play the Olympic march? What about Carmina Burana? What about blonde-haired blue-eyed people? Nazis liked them all! Can't be any good.

As far as 'winning' a purple heart -- wait. So let me get this straight. He lives such an immensely cushy life that he can't understand the meaning of a purple heart despite having served in Vietnam and gotten three of them himself. Despite having actually been wounded, he doesn't understand it. Despite his freely admitting that those wounds were not particularly serious, and more specifically honoring those who lost limbs or were seriously wounded in other ways, thus doing one better than the purple heart award itself in excluding himself from the higher praise?

Quote
Blind faith in a party will get you nowhere vote for the man NOT the party.


Well, that made everything so much easier. After all, there are many republicans I have great respect for, and the platform has some nice planks in it -- planks that GW consistently ignores.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on August 24, 2004, 03:25:16 am
Quote


Terminator: your typing makes my eyes bleed, but I'll try to respond. Kerry probably is gaining some popularity off a "war hero" image, but I personally could care less about it. If it seems like that's all he talks about, you are incorrect - the media is just way too focused on showing frivilous things over and over.

To me, re-electing Bush means another war or two, more total bullshit economic policies that pile up debt and benefit the super rich and neglect of the environment. Kerry doesn't have my vote because he's great (he might not be), he has my vote because he most assuredly will do none of the above.


If you meantion that you are a war hero every chance you get and use, I won three purple hearts as a diffence it shows that you are to locked into the past. He "Fought" in nam' for four months, after which he co-founded an anti-war in nam' organization, if you do that you have no right to rite the "war-hero", Bush Sr. and Bob Dole had medals did you know that? It means little when his wife Jane Fonda now Mrs. "Hienz" Kerry was asked to star in "The Exorist"(the original) she refused calling it "capitalist horseshit." I see a pattern. I have a cartoon of two cells(scenes) one has a picture of a man with a sign with the text "NO WAR" and a caption "protected by the constitution", and the other has a picture of a marine all geared up with the caption "protector of the Constitution". I have one question what side was Kerry on, because it is quite obvious you cannot be on both.

Communism non-existant? So what was the Red Scare/Cold War all about? You see the Democrats side with the Communists because it appeals to their main support group, the impoverished, and the Democrats are well versed in the idea of McCarthyism(referrence to Senator Joesph McCarthy named people he didn't like or possibly were opponents, as communists with absolutely no proof. These people were blacklisted, fired and unemployable. Means making accusations without any evidence or proof Ted Kennedy anyone? I think Robert DeNiro starred in a movie that explained this.)Communism will always be around and appeals to the common man who can never get ahead, Veitnam, North Korea and China(in the UN Formosa is recognized as China) are communist countries, the only reason that it works in these counties is because the government controls everything the put opium in the food to force their own people to work, an addict will do anything to get his fix, and when an entire country is in this state we really do look like capitalist pigs.I'm a fool am I? God forbid Kerry gets elected you will see who the fool really is. I suppose you agree with John Kerry that we should pull out our troops to let our allies like the French to take our place. Their is one fatal flaw in that logic Arabs with pitchforks could defeat the French Army, what was the last war they were victorious(excluding WWI and all of their revolutions you really can't lose one of those.)It's time people must realize that own only allies are the English and the Jews.

He who doesn't study history is doomed to repeat it.
You cannot a appease a dictator.(initially with Hilter)

If you find this difficult to read I appologize I'm not a good writter, but I do know my history. One final piece of advice the Iron Curtain never fell it parted and then it receded ,the Soviets weren't the only communists.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on August 24, 2004, 04:32:23 am
That whole post reeks of hysteria. Let's pick it apart, shall we?

Quote
If you meantion that you are a war hero every chance you get and use, I won three purple hearts as a diffence it shows that you are to locked into the past.


Did you even read my post? I already addressed this.

"If it seems like that's all he talks about, you are incorrect - the media is just way too focused on showing frivilous things over and over."

Now if you had made an attempt at shooting this statement down, the above statement you made wouldn't sound so idiotic.

Quote
He "Fought" in nam' for four months, after which he co-founded an anti-war in nam' organization, if you do that you have no right to rite the "war-hero", Bush Sr. and Bob Dole had medals did you know that?


I don't really care about this trivia from 20-30 years ago, but seeing as how your whole post is based around it...

A person who fights at the front of a war but later expresses dissent has more of a right to the title "hero" then some rich asshole who's never seen combat but supports wars left and right. And a lot of people have medals. Is that relevant at all?

Quote
It means little when his wife Jane Fonda now Mrs. "Hienz" Kerry was asked to star in "The Exorist"(the original) she refused calling it "capitalist horseshit."


While Kerry may have messed around with Jane Fonda back in the day, his wife is a separate person. What Jane Fonda says about a film has absolutely no bearing on this issue.

Quote
I see a pattern.


The only pattern here is your paranoia.

Quote
I have a cartoon of two cells(scenes) one has a picture of a man with a sign with the text "NO WAR" and a caption "protected by the constitution", and the other has a picture of a marine all geared up with the caption "protector of the Constitution". I have one question what side was Kerry on, because it is quite obvious you cannot be on both.


I can sort of see what you're saying with this, but it doesn't work. The guy enlisted, fought, then became anti-war after experienceing it first-hand.

Quote
Communism non-existant? So what was the Red Scare/Cold War all about? You see the Democrats side with the Communists because it appeals to their main support group, the impoverished, and the Democrats are well versed in the idea of McCarthyism(referrence to Senator Joesph McCarthy named people he didn't like or possibly were opponents, as communists with absolutely no proof. These people were blacklisted, fired and unemployable. Means making accusations without any evidence or proof Ted Kennedy anyone? I think Robert DeNiro starred in a movie that explained this.)Communism will always be around and appeals to the common man who can never get ahead, Veitnam, North Korea and China(in the UN Formosa is recognized as China) are communist countries, the only reason that it works in these counties is because the government controls everything the put opium in the food to force their own people to work, an addict will do anything to get his fix, and when an entire country is in this state we really do look like capitalist pigs.


China is cruel to its people, but the only thing they'd even dream of trying to take over is Taiwan. And I can hardly blame them; we did the same thing back in the Civil War. North Korea on the other hand would kill, maim, and conquer the planet - if they could. All they can do is launch a nuke, probably only one (which has a pretty good chance of being averted by one of our anti-missile things you may have heard about), and then in response have their entire country wiped from the face of the Earth. I doubt they'd be so stupid. My point is that yes, communism is itself quite harmless now.

Quote
I'm a fool am I? God forbid Kerry gets elected you will see who the fool really is. I suppose you agree with John Kerry that we should pull out our troops to let our allies like the French to take our place. Their is one fatal flaw in that logic Arabs with pitchforks could defeat the French Army, what was the last war they were victorious(excluding WWI and all of their revolutions you really can't lose one of those.)


More paranoid garbage. No American politician is hung up specifically on the French. This idea is so ridiculous I doubt even the worst outlets of the media are pushing it around. When Kerry says "allies", he means most of the civilized world.

Quote
It's time people must realize that own only allies are the English and the Jews.


Better look out! Canada, Japan and Italy have joined the Axis of Evil!

Quote
He who doesn't study history is doomed to repeat it.
You cannot a appease a dictator.(initially with Hilter)


This is obscure, but you're obviously refering to Saddam. You know that even if we never went to war with him, it wouldn't be appeasement, right? Appeasement would be if he conquered Kuwait and we ignored it.

Quote
If you find this difficult to read I appologize I'm not a good writter, but I do know my history. One final piece of advice the Iron Curtain never fell it parted and then it receded ,the Soviets weren't the only communists.


Please don't say "one final piece of advice" if you aren't giving advice.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on August 24, 2004, 05:11:36 pm
Ah, I see the erstwhile Term has decided to grace thses forums with his "special" styler of writing. While I myself am still abit pressed for time, and will gladly allow the rest of the board to debate this, there is one thibng I might mention that seems to have slipped by unnoticed.

Quote


Finally I really only need one reason to not support Kerry, he keeps meantioning we need to pull our troops out of Iraq and let our Allies lend a hand and for some reason he keeps meantioning the French in this context, why not the Russians and the Germans while we are at it,These Countries bought Iraq six months to dispose of the weapons they had(if they were there) through deadlocking the UN. Not to meantion numerous times the UN inspectors were booted out of Iraq over the past decade.


Fel free to produce ANY evidence that Iraq "disposed" of their weapons in their last six months, and if you manage to do so (I know Bio didn't), feel free to explain why it was necessary to invade at all, if they actually disposed of the weapons that were the reason for invading.

Also, feel free to read through the entire thread (yes, I know its alot fotext, but it might hlep you make less of a fool of yourself), and pay special attention to the parts where we were debating France and other allies that weren't keen to invade. If you have anyhing to add, then do so. Don't just blindly chant the mantra "FrAnCe iS teH SuxxorZ!". I know it's popular, but that doesn't mean it is correct.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on August 25, 2004, 05:33:46 am
That post from Terminator was the most unreadable, uneducated, and absolutely ridiculous political post I have ever seen, in any board, anywhere.  It's scary that people like that are the reason that Bush got a chance to get appointed to office.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on August 25, 2004, 05:41:29 am
Wow, the off-topic boards really are meaner than the main boards.

I'd just like to point out that it's a little weird when someone can't tell the difference between a joke site made by Republicans to smear Kerry and an actual site in support of Kerry. It's a bit like those animal rights activists protesting the bonsai kittens sites, or those Bible Belt Christians who found an Onion article proving J. K. Rowling is a Satanist.

Just to clarify: Terminator, communistsforkerry is a rather heavy-handed *joke*, in case you couldn't tell from the poorly Photoshopped celebrity heads in the member photos.

Then again, the whole rather bizarre identification of Jane Fonda and Teresa Heinz Kerry as the same person makes me wonder if Terminator's own posts might not be some sort of satire. (Are Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein really the same guy too?)

And, BTW, Term, no, you don't know your history. And yes, Term, you can lose a revolution. It happens a lot. And no, Term, communist countries did not keep their entire working population permanently addicted to opium. That would be rather expensive. And I don't know what the heck you're talking about with the Robert de Niro/Ted Kennedy/Joseph McCarthy connection. Are you sure you're not the one with problems involving opiates?


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on August 25, 2004, 06:05:02 am
Oh, also: Call Kerry a misguided publicity-hog if you want (I'm not even sure I'd disagree with you), but calling a volunteer a "draft-dodger" doesn't really make sense at all, even if it is, technically, true.

And then in your earlier post you talked about how Kerry is not a war hero because all Vietnam vets were evil baby-killers. Well... okay, now I'm totally confused about what your actual attitude about all this is. If that's so, wouldn't that make it a *good* thing that Kerry decided to oppose the war when he came back? Is it okay to be a baby-killer if you're a consistent baby-killer, and is it wrong for baby-killers to repent? Wouldn't it be a good thing to oppose a war in Iraq that would attract the same mob of sadistic baby-killers?

And... my gosh, I'm still hung up on that whole Fonda/Kerry thing. You really think they're the same person? Do you even actually read or watch the actual news at all? Do you make it a habit to listen to vitriolic conservative satire or comedy and then repeat them as gospel truth? (I'm just waiting for you to come out with the story of how Kerry intentionally wounded himself to get another Purple Heart.)


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on August 25, 2004, 06:20:12 am
Quote
Fell free to produce ANY evidence that Iraq "disposed" of their weapons in their last six months, and if you manage to do so (I know Bio didn't), feel free to explain why it was necessary to invade at all, if they actually disposed of the weapons that were the reason for invading.

Also, feel free to read through the entire thread (yes, I know its alot fotext, but it might hlep you make less of a fool of yourself), and pay special attention to the parts where we were debating France and other allies that weren't keen to invade. If you have anyhing to add, then do so. Don't just blindly chant the mantra "FrAnCe iS teH SuxxorZ!". I know it's popular, but that doesn't mean it is correct.


Be careful how you word things "PRODUCE" means to create and fabricate, I am NOT Michael Moore, I can't creat something from nothing, I can however reveal the light to those who are cast into the darkness by the veil of the media. It doesn't mean anything, all I have to prove is that he HAD them between the UN resolution and the time we responded. Assuming the weapons were there they are either hidden in bunkers across Iraq or the more likely scenario in Iran, they may be bitter enemies, but if someone you hate offers you something like that with no exchange anyone would take it.

Back to Kerry's "Purple Hearts" as you may or maynot know, purple hearts are awarded to someone who is seriously injured in battle, 3 oF them in 4 months is a little farfetched don't you think? I mean the human body can only take so much. I know that at least two of them are bogus. One was awarded on a date where he was not invouvled in armed conflict, the only way that makes sense is that if bullet from an ally's weapon or his own. Another one was awarded and the very next day he went back with a video camera and re-enacted it, some SERIOUS injury that was. Former NYC mayor Ed Koch(D) seems to agree with me on certain specific points he said http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/10/155843.shtml. Do you know what would clear all this BS up? If Kerry allowed his OFFICAL WAR RECORD to be released, he refuses at every pass, why? What secret could be so dark and evil that it can derail any chance of getting elected? I will not offer any suggestions to this as this would be considered speculation when, absolutely not FACTS are known. Onto his buddy Ted Kennedy(the one who supposedly had Kerry pulled out) he keeps saying, "Bush Lied" it seems to be a pattern in order to prove a lie in a scenario which cannot be proved at this current point, you must prove that Bush knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and told the people otherwise(my McCarthyist point eariler).

Judging my the number of Death-threats/hate-mail/virused mail I've recieved both at this board and my E-mail address(which happens to be zero, thanks for your concern) that none of the posters that actually read this are not into the ABB(Anybody But Bush) idea. People like Ted Kennedy have conviced people that Bush is Hitler and it's the lowest we could possibly sink.
NOTE: my inital count was mistaken 46,000 are registered in NY & FL 63%(28,900) are registered democrat and 15%(6,900) are registered rupublicain, in an election where 500 votes separated the winner I really doubt it would be that close in a mainly Right-wing state.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on August 25, 2004, 06:21:22 am
Third and last point: The actual Communist Party of the United States of America (cpusa.org) has no mention of Kerry himself on it that I can find, only a flyer giving their reasons for wanting to oust Bush from power. Wanting to get rid of Bush is not exactly surprising from the Communists; it certainly doesn't mean that they think of John Kerry as one of them (nor would they be likely to; all those Dean supporters back in the primary were ragging on Kerry for not being much of a liberal).


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Baltar on August 25, 2004, 10:14:13 am
Quote


Back to Kerry's "Purple Hearts" as you may or maynot know, purple hearts are awarded to someone who is seriously injured in battle, 3 oF them in 4 months is a little farfetched don't you think? I mean the human body can only take so much. I know that at least two of them are bogus. One was awarded on a date where he was not invouvled in armed conflict, the only way that makes sense is that if bullet from an ally's weapon or his own. Another one was awarded and the very next day he went back with a video camera and re-enacted it, some SERIOUS injury that was. Former NYC mayor Ed Koch(D) seems to agree with me on certain specific points he said http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/10/155843.shtml. Do you know what would clear all this BS up? If Kerry allowed his OFFICAL WAR RECORD to be released, he refuses at every pass, why? What secret could be so dark and evil that it can derail any chance of getting elected? I will not offer any suggestions to this as this would be considered speculation when, absolutely not FACTS are known. Onto his buddy Ted Kennedy(the one who supposedly had Kerry pulled out) he keeps saying, "Bush Lied" it seems to be a pattern in order to prove a lie in a scenario which cannot be proved at this current point, you must prove that Bush knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and told the people otherwise(my McCarthyist point eariler).


Term,

I'm not sure at this point whether you are just joking around or you really are suffering from some hysterical madness, but I just want to bring up a point of information.  Purple Hearts are for any wound resulting from contact with the enemy, not just 'serious' wounds.  Dunno what your source is but it seems horribly biased.  Check the Wikipedia article dealing with Purple Hearts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_heart.  The qualifications for the Purple Heart indicate that the soldier must have received a wound from enemy action.  There is no reference to the severity of the wound.  That's the only reference I have off hand, though it is fairly common in soldiers' anecdotes, war movies, etc to hear stories of a guy getting a Purple Heart for a minor injury while the guy in the next hospital bed over is crippled for life yet they both get the same reward.

The article you linked makes no mention of Koch's opinion of Kerry's war record.  That website is also poorly written and has a pretty blatant right wing bias.  There's a quite laughable summary of Kerry's interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, which I just saw less than an hour ago.

Funny you should mention Kerry's failure to release his war record; Bush only reluctantly released a censored version of his own.

Suggesting Kerry sustained an injury from himself or friendly fire is also absurd and a little offensive; not only does that NOT qualify someone for a Purple Heart, the accusation of a self inflicted wound is something of such gravity that it shouldn't be brought up unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest it.  Not just some anecdote from a Bush supporter you heard on Rush's talk radio show ;)

Anyways, I grow tired of this; all this talk of war records is a bunch of degrading nonsense.  Face it; Kerry saw combat, Bush merely protected the mainland US from charlie in the air national guard with a service record that is itself highly suspect.  Aside from that, I don't care; all this crap is decades old and gets away from the real issues that you don't seem to want to debate.

Baltar out.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on August 25, 2004, 03:19:26 pm
Quote


Be careful how you word things "PRODUCE" means to create and fabricate, I am NOT Michael Moore, I can't creat something from nothing, I can however reveal the light to those who are cast into the darkness by the veil of the media. It doesn't mean anything, all I have to prove is that he HAD them between the UN resolution and the time we responded. Assuming the weapons were there they are either hidden in bunkers across Iraq or the more likely scenario in Iran, they may be bitter enemies, but if someone you hate offers you something like that with no exchange anyone would take it.


From Dictionary.com:
Quote

pro·duce   Audio pronunciation of produce ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pr-ds, -dys, pr-)
v. pro·duced, pro·duc·ing, pro·duc·es
v. tr.

1. To bring forth; yield: a plant that produces pink flowers.

2.
a. To create by physical or mental effort: produce a tapestry; produce a poem.

b. To manufacture: factories that produce cars and trucks.

3. To cause to occur or exist; give rise to: chemicals that produce a noxious vapor when mixed.

4. To bring forth; exhibit: reached into a pocket and produced a packet of matches; failed to produce an eyewitness to the crime.[/i][/size]

5. To supervise and finance the making and public presentation of: produce a stage play; produce a videotape.

6. Mathematics. To extend (an area or volume) or lengthen (a line).


If one were a less patient man, one might suggest you learn your own language before starting to nitpick words in sentences. Of course, were that the case, one might also point out several other things. Such as your own inability in the past to use any sort of punctuation or sentence structuring, and how poorly this corresponds with your current nitpicking mode of other peoples sentences. Or possibly, that seeing as your own (http://www.speedygrl.com/bushquotes.html) role (http://www.politicalhell.com/bush-quotes.htm) model (http://www.lifeisajoke.com/politics23_html.htm) is apparently inable to express himself, you are in no position to criticize others. Of course, it may just be that somehow you realise that you have no points, and turn to nitpicking instead.

Quote
I can however reveal the light to those who are cast into the darkness by the veil of the media.


Funny how all  "the dark veil of the media" seems to be talking about these days is kerrys service record. And guess what? So are you! This would not appear to put you in an ideal position to shine a light on anything.

I see you managed to completely forget the whole "The europeans stalled cuz their evil" thing, so I'll just assume you accepted that was a untrue point.

As for Hussein giving all of his weapons over to Iran without anyone hearing a whipsper, or any satellite footage or counterintelligence noticing even the slightest hint of it, well done. My personal theory is that he cleverly hid it in Finland, so that we can teach the russians a lesson once the red communist tide swarms over us. I'm sure Hussein had all the motivation he needed to give all his wepons to one of his worst enemies, thus depriving himself of any fighting chance. Unless your suggesting this is some sort of conspiracy, and that a power mad dictator like Hussein would gladly sacrifice all his power just to make the US look bad?


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Tiberian on August 25, 2004, 03:20:43 pm
The highest military command in Finland is positively sure that the only reason for USA to attack Iraq was because they KNEW Iraq didn't have mass-destruction weapons. It was safe for them to invade the oil-fields and not have to worry about nukes flying in their direction.

And this is neither bullshit, nor my own creation, it really is the best war-strategics in Finland, who are sure of it. And I just think it all fits perfectly.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on August 25, 2004, 06:19:32 pm
That's on interesting idea and I don't entirely doubt it. However, could
you please post a link (or two) supporting this?


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Baltar on August 25, 2004, 06:59:23 pm
My sentimonies exactly; I'd love to see some links regarding this.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Chrispy on August 25, 2004, 08:33:13 pm
I cant help myself from posting here any longer.

It is my belief that the USA went to war with Iraq so that George Bush would get more votes. They brought it to the UN, but attacked early because it was all timed so bring a feeling of patriotism, and national crisis around election time.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on August 25, 2004, 08:56:04 pm
Quote
The highest military command in Finland is positively sure that the only reason for USA to attack Iraq was because they KNEW Iraq didn't have mass-destruction weapons. It was safe for them to invade the oil-fields and not have to worry about nukes flying in their direction.

And this is neither bullshit, nor my own creation, it really is the best war-strategics in Finland, who are sure of it. And I just think it all fits perfectly.



Feel free to provide any links to that, even in Finnish for me, I've not heard bout it.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Tiberian on August 26, 2004, 02:08:00 am
Naturally the leaders of Finland don't accuse the government of USA like this in public.

I have connections to the military command and this was brought up one night when enjoying sauna+beer.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on August 26, 2004, 08:56:14 am
Quote


Be careful how you word things "PRODUCE" means to create and fabricate, I am NOT Michael Moore, I can't creat something from nothing, I can however reveal the light to those who are cast into the darkness by the veil of the media. It doesn't mean anything, all I have to prove is that he HAD them between the UN resolution and the time we responded. Assuming the weapons were there they are either hidden in bunkers across Iraq or the more likely scenario in Iran, they may be bitter enemies, but if someone you hate offers you something like that with no exchange anyone would take it.


This is a speculation, not a "proof". The fact that any nation that took the weapons would be implicated in future accusations is one reason to doubt this scenario; another is that moving dangerous things like chem/bio weapons around is not as easy as people seem to think.

Bush needs to prove your point a lot more than you need to, and right now he's not doing a very good job of it; even his team has backed away from the WMD argument and is trying to justify the war by other means. The balance of evidence is that there weren't WMDs in Iraq; it's much more likely that there weren't than that there were, even if there are possible ways to explain how they used to be there and disappeared. Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

Quote
Do you know what would clear all this BS up? If Kerry allowed his OFFICAL WAR RECORD to be released, he refuses at every pass, why? What secret could be so dark and evil that it can derail any chance of getting elected? I will not offer any suggestions to this as this would be considered speculation when, absolutely not FACTS are known. Onto his buddy Ted Kennedy(the one who supposedly had Kerry pulled out) he keeps saying, "Bush Lied" it seems to be a pattern in order to prove a lie in a scenario which cannot be proved at this current point, you must prove that Bush knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and told the people otherwise(my McCarthyist point eariler).


War records contain personal and often painful information, especially if Kerry is telling the truth about being asked to participate in illegal attacks in Cambodia. In any case he's not obligated to disclose private materials to the public because he's running for office, and his not doing so is no more proof of a deep, dark secret than the numerous records Bush has refused to release. In any case the whole Purple Heart issue does not, in fact, really matter, and it's the media you hate so much who keep bringing it up (because attacking a person's character is easier and more fun than attacking a person's proposed policies).

I don't see why you bring up McCarthyism. People aren't trying to get Bush arrested for a crime, for which you *would* need a lot more evidence than we have. People are trying to get Bush out of office (as people do with *every* president who's up for reelection), and it's perfectly fair game to point out signs of dishonesty as evidence against his competence as a leader, even if we have no absolute proof he lied. Even if he didn't lie, he was misguided; he had direct contact with the intelligence sources that showed a lack of evidence for WMDs in Iraq, and yet told us with great certainty that WMDs were there anyway. Whether he was malicious or incompetent, he was wrong. The main thing is whether he makes the right decision, not whether he makes such decisions with integrity.

Quote
Judging my the number of Death-threats/hate-mail/virused mail I've recieved both at this board and my E-mail address(which happens to be zero, thanks for your concern) that none of the posters that actually read this are not into the ABB(Anybody But Bush) idea. People like Ted Kennedy have conviced people that Bush is Hitler and it's the lowest we could possibly sink.
NOTE: my inital count was mistaken 46,000 are registered in NY & FL 63%(28,900) are registered democrat and 15%(6,900) are registered rupublicain, in an election where 500 votes separated the winner I really doubt it would be that close in a mainly Right-wing state.


Umm... are you used to getting death threats, hate mail or viruses? I've argued with a lot of people whom I've disagreed with and that's never happened to me. FWIW, I'm in favor of Anybody But Bush (within limits) and I feel no need to commit indiscriminate felonies against Bush supporters.

Though I'd point out that even if you haven't gotten any e-mailed death threats, you have gotten a lot of people on this board arguing with you, attacking you and making fun of you, which doesn't seem like a very positive indicator for how convincing you are. And I don't really get your logic for saying that all the people openly disagreeing with you aren't really reading your post, and that there's a much larger number of people who've read your post carefully, understood it, and wish to express their support by doing nothing.

And even though I am in favor of ABB that doesn't mean I think Bush is Hitler or that he's the lowest this country could possibly sink. Please don't put words in people's mouths; maybe some people have said that, but I don't think Ted Kennedy has. (I don't quite understand your fixation with Ted Kennedy; is it just that he's a symbol of the Old Democrats, or did he do something in particular to get your goat?)

Also, what's this last point in reference to? If there are a huge number of registered Democrats compared to registered Republicans in FL yet the vote was surprisingly close, and you think election fraud is a possibility, wouldn't the fraud be committed by the *Republicans*? Indeed, almost all accusations of election tampering are against the Republicans (that I've heard, and FWIW I don't really agree with them). Are you doing that baby-killer thing again, taking some random argument from the opposing side and making it sound like it's an argument for yours? 'Cause it's a bad strategy.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on August 26, 2004, 10:28:29 pm
I have heard of Democratic election tampering, but not in Florida. I think it was Illinois. Still, it was pretty small-scale compared to the voter roll purges and shifting 20,000 votes to Buchanan and stuff like that that happened in Fla.

Both parties have people who will try to game the system.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on August 27, 2004, 10:17:44 am
I wouldn't be surprised if either side resorted to such tactics. Initally wasn't it for dead people voting as oppossed to living people voting twice. About Iraq, put all Polictical agendas aside isn't plausable to assume that the reason to invade Iraq was to cripple Al-Queda's resources? You can't cause terrorism without some sort of funding(it is believed that Arab oil funds Al-Queda).


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on August 27, 2004, 02:36:16 pm
Quote
(it is believed that Arab oil funds Al-Queda).


Bleeding hell, I see that when it comes to faith, Jesus Christ compared to Bush is an amateur....


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on August 28, 2004, 08:39:19 am
Quote


Bloody hell, I see that when it comes to faith, Jesus Christ compared to Bush is an amateur....


I'm a little lost here(okay I'm Dazed and Confused), what really does this mean? Ok Bush is not Jesus, but he sure as hell is not Hitler.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Baltar on August 28, 2004, 09:59:59 am
Quote


I'm a little lost here(okay I'm Dazed and Confused), what really does this mean? Ok Bush is not Jesus, but he sure as hell is not Hitler.


He's likening Bush to Jesus in so much as suggesting that Bush inspires a great deal of faith in his supporters to believe in his lies (or the lies the administration peddles through Fox News and friends).

Now please continue with your insane ramblings.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on August 28, 2004, 10:31:08 am
Don't encourage him. I'd rather someone more clued in argue in favor of Bush.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on August 28, 2004, 11:43:48 am
Quote


He's likening Bush to Jesus in so much as suggesting that Bush inspires a great deal of faith in his supporters to believe in his lies (or the lies the administration peddles through Fox News and friends).

Now please continue with your insane ramblings.


My does everybody assume that Fox News is a Right-wing conservative station they really only have Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Just because they are only ones swimming upstream in a vast sea of Liberal media doesn't make the entire station that Colmes(of Hanity and Colmes) is a left-wing liberal, perhaps you should do a little homework before you make a point or accusation, we don't need Ted Kennedy here do we?

"The threat of Terrorism is overrated"
-John F.(Fake middle-name) Kerry


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on August 28, 2004, 09:29:42 pm
No, the media is actually pretty much even. Democrats will complain about "The Corporate Media", Republicans will complain about "The Liberal Media" but they're both full of it. It has liberal and conservative outlets, and it's pretty hard to find an unbiased one regarding the coming election. The media is a beast that waves its arms around screaming for attention and respects no one.

"perhaps you should do a little homework before you make a point or accusation"

Practice what you preach, moron.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on August 29, 2004, 12:44:50 am
If you truely believe that, you really are "Blinded By the Light" that majority of papers and television stations are left-wing operated, but argue the point matey, name me some right-wing stations and papers.

When Mario Cuomo ran against Ed Koch in the NYC mayorial race, the Cuomo camp's slogan was "Vote For Cuomo, not the Homo" the tactics really haven't changed since then, only now it your past since now numerous special insterest groups that didn't exist twenty or thyrty years ago.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on August 29, 2004, 01:07:52 am
The left-right model of political thinking is anachronistic and intellectually dishonest.  "Liberal" and "Conservative" are absolutely meaningless as labels, since in the end they both amount to "knee-jerk neo-fascist jackass who wants to ban activity X"; the only substantive difference between them being what "activity X" is.

So the question becomes, as a "liberal" or "conservative", what rights are you terrified of losing?  and why are you not concerned with the rights that "your guy" would presume to take away from the "other side"?


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on August 29, 2004, 07:03:56 am
Quote
If you truely believe that, you really are "Blinded By the Light" that majority of papers and television stations are left-wing operated

Er, no. I was trying to say that the media at large isn't distinctly left or right-wing operated.

Quote
but argue the point matey, name me some right-wing stations and papers.

But that wasn't my point. The only major source that strikes me as specifically on one side is Fox News. You say news is biased against your side, but there is no channel that whole-heartedly slams Bush the way these guys worship him. Besides that, AM talk radio appears to be (from the little I've listened to it) mostly pro-Bush.

When I actually turn on the TV for news, CNN seems like the most unbiased.

Quote
When Mario Cuomo ran against Ed Koch in the NYC mayorial race, the Cuomo camp's slogan was "Vote For Cuomo, not the Homo" the tactics really haven't changed since then, only now it your past since now numerous special insterest groups that didn't exist twenty or thyrty years ago.

And you mention this because...?


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on August 30, 2004, 04:54:52 am
Quote
I wouldn't be surprised if either side resorted to such tactics. Initally wasn't it for dead people voting as oppossed to living people voting twice. About Iraq, put all Polictical agendas aside isn't plausable to assume that the reason to invade Iraq was to cripple Al-Queda's resources? You can't cause terrorism without some sort of funding(it is believed that Arab oil funds Al-Queda).



Yeah, and lots of people think that most of that cash comes from Saudi Arabia, Bush's best buddies.


Title: The John Kerry flops/George W. Bush lies thread
Post by: Terminator on August 30, 2004, 12:16:11 pm
Quote

Er, no. I was trying to say that the media at large isn't distinctly left or right-wing operated.

But that wasn't my point. The only major source that strikes me as specifically on one side is Fox News. You say news is biased against your side, but there is no channel that whole-heartedly slams Bush the way these guys worship him. Besides that, AM talk radio appears to be (from the little I've listened to it) mostly pro-Bush.

When I actually turn on the TV for news, CNN seems like the most unbiased.


It's not what they say, it's what they won't say. Most stations won't bash Clinton, or Gore or Kerry (ie. Monica scandal held out til revelation was immenent). I'm in New York(New York is the 2nd most liberal state second to only those loonies in California) so the vast majority of them support Kerry. Here there is only 770(nationwide station) supporting the republicains, the rest is more or less sports and news stations. There are Liberal radio stations, but for the most part have no sponsors and a basicly supported by the Democratic party and sympathizers, I heard someone on one of those stations say "Bush didn't seem to surprised about the 9/11 attacks" insinuating that he had prior knowledge to that effect, yes he knew they were going to attack, but when and where are colosal variables and even if the planes had been shot down the fallout from them would be even more damaging it was close to 9:30 in the morning in Manhattan, the death toll would have been much higher. Surprisingly "Bush Lied" has been Ted kennedy's main attack on Bush yet no one here or anywhere have prouduced any evidence to this effect. If I'm so wrong about Bush and Kerry why are life-long Democrats supporting Bush(Example Ed Koch)? Each and everyone of them(so far) when interviewed referred to Kerry's voting record (20 years) has been so liberal which have only changed in the last 4 years to support war. What makes you think that his RECENT record are his true feelings on the subject and not a reason to steal votes, if we wanted a Democrat to charge a war Wesley Clark would have been nominated. I meantioned Cuomo's slogan to show what has happened over the past few decades, rights activists have taken over our way of life(ie the Slogan for "Me,Myself and Irene" was forceful removed due to one of these groups supporting the mentally retarded. The slogan read "From Gentle to Mental" If Kerry or Bush did an ad attacking any aspect of their life, upbringing, race, religion or class some group would stand-up and sue before it even had a chance to air.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on August 30, 2004, 07:08:53 pm
Ignoring the fact that you do not know that John McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona, just where the hell is a POINT in all of that rambling nonsense?

I thought people from "your side" believed that "9/11 changed everything."  Or is changing your position on an issue as result of the attacks a privilege of so-called "conservatives" only?  Governor George W. Bush said in the 2000 presidential debates that he didn't believe America should "be in the business of nation building."  President George W. Bush has acted in a manner wholly opposite of that sentiment.  Is that "flip-flop"?  A "lie"?  A "broken campaign promise"?  Or do you only pay attention to things people did and said before 1964 when forming your opinions of the modern political landscape?

But to return to what I would like to know, just what rights are you afraid to lose (or feel you have already lost), and what rights are you willing to give up in order to keep them?  And most importantly, why?


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on August 30, 2004, 07:58:09 pm
Quote
Naturally the leaders of Finland don't accuse the government of USA like this in public.

I have connections to the military command and this was brought up one night when enjoying sauna+beer.


In that case, either you or your sauna buddy should be court martialed. If this is information that the finnish goverment/military doesn't want to release, maybe it should be the topic of conversation of either your drunken sauna nights or internet discussion?

and do rememebr Tiberian, all we have is your name and your word, two things wiorth naught on the internet. Your claim stands about equal to Bios "I've talked to soliders who've been in Iraq and they sid.." All well and good, but not evidence, and only believable if we assume your not just here to  rile us.

Quote
About Iraq, put all Polictical agendas aside isn't plausable to assume that the reason to invade Iraq was to cripple Al-Queda's resources? You can't cause terrorism without some sort of funding(it is believed that Arab oil funds Al-Queda).


Term, before you want to discuss this, why don't you read the thread? If you actually did so, you wouldn't be amking a fool out of yourself by pulling up points that have been soundly disproved.

Go back, read the thread, especially considering the relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Then, if you have any fresh evidence to submit, do so. Otherwise, pelase dont raise old points again, it's very disrespectful to the people who have already debated this.

I also see you completeled failed to respond to my statement. Oh well, I can live with that.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on August 30, 2004, 08:15:12 pm
Quote
I wouldn't be surprised if either side resorted to such tactics. Initally wasn't it for dead people voting as oppossed to living people voting twice. About Iraq, put all Polictical agendas aside isn't plausable to assume that the reason to invade Iraq was to cripple Al-Queda's resources? You can't cause terrorism without some sort of funding(it is believed that Arab oil funds Al-Queda).


Most of this "Arab oil" money comes from the nation of Saudi Arabia, the place where Osama bin Laden made his personal fortune. There has been no evidence that Iraq's oil paid for any sort of terrorist activity, especially since the embargo against Iraqi oil after the U.S. Gulf War made it very difficult for them to sell their oil legitimately.

It's rather silly to say that because "Arab oil" pays for Al-Qaeda activities, this means that every country populated with people of Arab descent that has oil is an Al-Qaeda supporter. Iraq is a separate nation-state whose ruling party had a vastly different ideology and agenda from that of Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda already had the support they needed from many other Middle Eastern countries who were ruled by or wished to exploit religious extremism. And all of *those* countries hated Iraq, which was a quasi-socialist secular dictatorship whose leader, in their eyes, made a mockery of Islam. (Putting up images of himself in holy places, for one thing; that's the sort of thing that Osama bin Laden says people should be burned alive for.)

Lumping all Arabs into a pile and claiming that they always act in concert with each other is the very definition of a shallow, racist attitude, exactly akin to bin Laden's belief that all white Europeans are in league with each other to destroy Islam.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on August 30, 2004, 08:29:52 pm
Quote


My does everybody assume that Fox News is a Right-wing conservative station they really only have Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Just because they are only ones swimming upstream in a vast sea of Liberal media doesn't make the entire station that Colmes(of Hanity and Colmes) is a left-wing liberal, perhaps you should do a little homework before you make a point or accusation, we don't need Ted Kennedy here do we?

"The threat of Terrorism is overrated"
-John F.(Fake middle-name) Kerry


Are you kidding me? The only way Fox News doesn't seem constantly conservatively biased to anyone who watches it is if the person watching it is already extremely right of center. Their regular news programs are full of opinionated asides, reporters smirking at the camera and inserting remarks about how dumb some liberal action is, openly grinning and admiring at Republican leaders, and so on. No matter what side you agree with, you have to admit that Fox News wears its heart on its sleeve while other channels at least try to hide their bias. Bryant Gumbel was accidentally caught cussing out the gay-basher he was interviewing because he left his mic on; Fox News correspondents intentionally say things like that to the camera, about anti-war protesters or militant Muslim leaders or whoever.

And have you actually watched Hannity and Colmes? Anyone who looks at the dynamic behind that show for two freaking seconds can tell that Colmes is there to be eaten alive by Hannity. Hannity is a loud, screaming demagogue, and Colmes is a soft-spoken little man. Hannity was the one tapped to do a show by the Fox brass in the first place; they had to do a long search to find a liberal willing to work for Fox News and to subject himself to being Hannity's punching bag.

Ever notice how Hannity gets the first word, Colmes tries to wedge in a few words edgewise, and Hannity shouts him down? Ever notice how Colmes isn't very much of a liberal while Hannity is an enormous raving conservative? Hannity shouts terrible abuse toward Democrats, calling them names, grinding them into the dirt, and Colmes takes it. Colmes takes every opportunity he can to talk about how the Republicans are nice, dignified people he just happens to disagree with.

The big joke about Colmes' new talk radio show is that it's the opposite of other radio shows; most of the time hosts rather obviously let a caller disagree with them for about fifteen seconds and then shout them into the ground. Colmes lets *himself* be shouted into the ground, repeatedly, by his callers, and the interesting thing is that in both cases it's conservatives outshouting liberals.

The other big joke is that of Colmes' hate mail, more comes from liberals than conservatives, because he does much more damage to liberalism by being a token liberal who acts as a patsy and a shill than he would by being a conservative and outright attacking liberalism. Talk about subtle bias all you want; in my view Americans are increasingly swayed by loud, angry mudslinging more than subtle rhetoric, and the conservatives have cornered the market on that. In real life there are certainly as many angry, vitriolic leftists as there are rightists, but how many Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys do we have coming from the left? There certainly aren't as many radio and TV talk show slots open for them; you have to admit that at least in broadcasting the Right has the edge.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on August 30, 2004, 08:38:06 pm
Quote
The left-right model of political thinking is anachronistic and intellectually dishonest.  "Liberal" and "Conservative" are absolutely meaningless as labels, since in the end they both amount to "knee-jerk neo-fascist jackass who wants to ban activity X"; the only substantive difference between them being what "activity X" is.

So the question becomes, as a "liberal" or "conservative", what rights are you terrified of losing?  and why are you not concerned with the rights that "your guy" would presume to take away from the "other side"?


Hello, Mr. Libertarian. Still don't like paying those taxes, huh?

Don't mean to be a jerk, but this kind of rhetoric goes nowhere. Even if I were to agree with you that both parties are too ready to allow the government to invade private life, that doesn't justify saying that they're the exact same thing or that they're both evil "neo-fascists". (Please, look up the word "fascist" before you use it. It means more than just "authoritarian", or "bad".) And they still wouldn't be equivalent; most "rights" are not something that people naturally must have by God's decree (at least from my POV) but things that we need for society to run well. There *are* good arguments for taking away some rights but not others; if no rights were taken away from the individual by the state at all, there would be no state, no government, and, at least from my perspective, no social order or civilization. One would hope that we'd agree that the right to unprovokedly take another's life would be revoked for human beings, and the right to hold another as a slave by force, and the right of the individual to forcibly and indiscriminately take another's possessions, and so on.

From my point of view, Republicans, in their current incarnation, mainly want to take away the right to criticize the government, to be free of unexpected government searches and background checks, and to, in general, be an Arab or Muslim without going through huge amounts of hassle. Democrats aren't the polar opposite, but they go easier on these rights, and are harsher on rights like the right to make racist hiring decisions, the right to have your own handgun, and the right to make tons of money and not pay any taxes and help support other people with it. My decision is that those rights are less important rights, and I think I have good reason for it.


Title: Re: The John Kerry flops/George W. Bush lies threa
Post by: Art on August 30, 2004, 09:08:44 pm
Quote


It's not what they say, it's what they won't say. Most stations won't bash Clinton, or Gore or Kerry (ie. Monica scandal held out til revelation was immenent). I'm in New York(New York is the 2nd most liberal state second to only those loonies in California) so the vast majority of them support Kerry. Here there is only 770(nationwide station) supporting the republicains, the rest is more or less sports and news stations. There are Liberal radio stations, but for the most part have no sponsors and a basicly supported by the Democratic party and sympathizers, I heard someone on one of those stations say "Bush didn't seem to surprised about the 9/11 attacks" insinuating that he had prior knowledge to that effect, yes he knew they were going to attack, but when and where are colosal variables and even if the planes had been shot down the fallout from them would be even more damaging it was close to 9:30 in the morning in Manhattan, the death toll would have been much higher. Surprisingly "Bush Lied" has been Ted kennedy's main attack on Bush yet no one here or anywhere have prouduced any evidence to this effect. If I'm so wrong about Bush and Kerry why are life-long Democrats supporting Bush(Example Ed Koch)? Each and everyone of them(so far) when interviewed referred to Kerry's voting record (20 years) has been so liberal which have only changed in the last 4 years to support war. What makes you think that his RECENT record are his true feelings on the subject and not a reason to steal votes, if we wanted a Democrat to charge a war Wesley Clark would have been nominated. I meantioned Cuomo's slogan to show what has happened over the past few decades, rights activists have taken over our way of life(ie the Slogan for "Me,Myself and Irene" was forceful removed due to one of these groups supporting the mentally retarded. The slogan read "From Gentle to Mental" If Kerry or Bush did an ad attacking any aspect of their life, upbringing, race, religion or class some group would stand-up and sue before it even had a chance to air.


You know, can you stop harping on Ted Kennedy? You may have something against the Kennedys or just against him, but no one else has ever mentioned him, most of us don't pay much attention to what he says, and he's really not that important. He's one Democrat among many, big deal.

And Kerry's middle initial actually is F. It stands for Forbes, his mom's maiden name. No, he did not make it up just so he could have the same initials as John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and their both being Massachusetts Catholic Senators is really just a coincidence, not that comparing himself to Kennedy would necessarily make him more popular with everyone.

Yeesh, what's with you and this insane truth-twisting paranoia about everything surrounding the man? Goodness. I just want to check, do you still think Teresa Kerry and Jane Fonda are the same person? How did you get to think that, anyway? Did you see one of those doctored photos of him standing with Fonda and misinterpret it or something? I really, really want to know, 'cause that little thing went out of "wacky political rhetoric" territory into "frightening insane delusion" territory.

When you talk about liberal radio stations, what do you mean they have no sponsors? If Democrats choose to run ads on their stations, doesn't that make Democrats their sponsors? Even if you think their choice to sponsor them is politically motivated? Do you think that everyone who chooses to sponsor a Republican program is doing so only out of a desire to conduct business? The only stations that don't have actual ads but that accept donations that I'm aware of are NPR affiliates (though their donors are still, in fact, called "sponsors"), and yes, NPR tends to be biased left, but hardly anyone listens to it (which is why it has to be given government funding) and for them some left-wing slant is part of what they are (they're created by government arts funding that the Republicans have repeatedly insisted they want to cut).

There are only a few Democrats who support Bush, y'know. Most of the Democrats were falling over each other's feet to describe themselves as anti-Bush once they realized how powerful anti-Bush sentiment was, and indeed one of the things the Bush campaign uses to attack their opponents is how most of their campaigning is negative, talking about Bush's mistakes, rather than presenting alternatives. There's far more people voting for Kerry despite his being relatively conservative because they'd rather have Anybody But Bush than people put off by Kerry because he's too liberal. Indeed, most of the swing votes I've seen personally have been people who were moderate Republicans before the War on Terror who were ambivalent about Bush but distasteful of Democrat policies, but who, upon news of things like Abu Ghraib, shifted over into the ABB camp. Many libertarians, for instance, seem to me pretty convinced that Bush-style infringement of people's rights is a lot worse than what Kerry-style would be, much as they tend to hate Democrats.

BTW, no, shooting the planes down *before* they reached an urban area would have saved many lives. It's not wall-to-wall city from the Boston to Manhattan, you know. Or do you forget the heroes of Flight 93, who crashed their plane into the Pennsylvania wilderness on the way to DC? But the failure to shoot down the planes was, if anything, proof that we were taken by surprise; I refuse to believe that anyone in the direct chain of command at the time (which did not include Bush, who was busy going to read to kids in Florida, nor did it include any top-level government officials) would be so heartless as to allow something like that to happen if they had a clear idea of what the terrorists intended. I do not go around accusing everyone of being heartless monsters involved in a monstrous conspiracy because I disagree with their policy, whatever other liberals may have led you to believe.

I don't give a crap what Ted Kennedy said; to me it's ultimately unimportant that Bush lied. What is important is that Bush was wrong. And it wasn't an innocent mistake, because Bush was biased toward making the sort of decision he made (regardless of whether he consciously lied), and I don't want presidents who like the idea of war, who are drawn to it, and who will decide to do it unless it becomes absolutely and undeniably clear that it's necessary to keep people from dying, which, at the time, it *was not*. It wasn't clear to us based on what *we* knew, and most of us who were ambivalent about the war assumed that they knew better than we did and were keeping secrets for our safety. That, in retrospect, turned out not to be true.

I like Kerry because he can't be trusted to be pro-war. If he got caught up in Bush's fiery rhetoric, fine; I admit I did and so did many of my friends. 9/11 left us all shell-shocked and emotionally vulnerable. I like that Kerry thought better about it afterwards, or at least wasn't too arrogant to accept other people's second thoughts afterwards. If he's more waffling and weak than Bush, I don't really mind that; someone with uncompromising, messianic confidence in their own rightness can be terribly dangerous if they turn out to be wrong. Especially since in a democracy, leaders should feel responsible to see if the public wishes or doesn't wish the costs of war, rather than trying to force the public to go along with it for its own good.

Finally, I don't know what you're trying to prove by the comment about special interest groups forcing a tone-down of offensive slurs. Is there something wrong with that, in your opinion? I don't particularly think so -- it's not good politics to mock the mentally ill or homosexuals with stupid rhyming slogans. Of course it'll be the mentally ill and the homosexuals who actually get offended, and of course in the old days no one cared, because no one cared about them. Do you think that's a good way for society to be?

If your point is that removing the slurs hasn't actually changed the negative tone of campaigning, well, then that's unfortunate, but I don't think anyone disagrees with you; stupid as it is, the electorate does seem to eat up angry name-calling. No matter what, if times have changed to prevent people from rhyming "Cuomo" with "Homo", then I think they've changed for the better.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on August 30, 2004, 09:42:11 pm
Quote
Hello, Mr. Libertarian. Still don't like paying those taxes, huh?

I'm not a Libertarian, although I do admit I end up sounding like one more often than not; Libertarians are far too idealistic to the point of naivete for my personal tastes.  I like my roads, I like my public infrastructure (electricity, phone, clean water, and in my local case, lots of bike trails that allow me to commute without using my car), and I like the fact that I don't have to raise my own private army in order to defend myself, that professionals are on call 24/7 in case my house catches fire, etc.  Tax money well spent as far as I'm concerned.  If I call myself anything, I call myself a "centrist" or an "independant", because it's the non-category that I think fits the closest.  ;)

As far as "looking it up", I will invoke Death_999's previous plea to not assume that the other party is ignorant of what they speak unless they openly prove otherwise; I have used the term rightly, as per Benito Mussolini's definition of fascism:
Quote
Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of state and corporate power

I think that the mere fact that no candidate from any political party has been able to mount a successful campaign for high-level public office in the U.S. without major corporate backing in recent history, and the relative unwillingness of the U.S. government to punish corporate lawbreakers (e.g., Enron, Microsoft) would make my point for me in this case.

Quote
There *are* good arguments for taking away some rights but not others

Exactly, and that is the discussion I would like to be having, since without it there really is little framework for understanding someone else's point of view, which is, I think, part of the reason this thread has gone on and on -- intractably so -- for pages and pages.  What rights are YOU willing to give up, and in exchange for what?  What is your personal price for freedom?  (and I do appreciate your candor in answering despite your claim that it will go nowhere)


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on August 31, 2004, 03:09:34 am
Quote

I'm not a Libertarian, although I do admit I end up sounding like one more often than not; Libertarians are far too idealistic to the point of naivete for my personal tastes.  I like my roads, I like my public infrastructure (electricity, phone, clean water, and in my local case, lots of bike trails that allow me to commute without using my car), and I like the fact that I don't have to raise my own private army in order to defend myself, that professionals are on call 24/7 in case my house catches fire, etc.  Tax money well spent as far as I'm concerned.  If I call myself anything, I call myself a "centrist" or an "independant", because it's the non-category that I think fits the closest.  ;)


So do I, sometimes, though I think potentially from a different angle from yours. For one thing I don't like that both sides of the political spectrum have negative things to say about free trade, nor that both sides of the political spectrum have positive things to say about various forms of media censorship, nor that both sides of the spectrum like to spend huge amounts of money and put the budget into deficit. But I am more of the left-wing kind of centrist than the right-wing kind -- I'd rather lower spending than raise taxes, and I'd rather cut the military than cut social services, and I'd rather schools teach boring, biased PC tripe about how history is defined by white people being mean to brown people than have them teach dangerous nonsense about the Earth being created in seven days 6000 years ago.

Quote

As far as "looking it up", I will invoke Death_999's previous plea to not assume that the other party is ignorant of what they speak unless they openly prove otherwise; I have used the term rightly, as per Benito Mussolini's definition of fascism:
I think that the mere fact that no candidate from any political party has been able to mount a successful campaign for high-level public office in the U.S. without major corporate backing in recent history, and the relative unwillingness of the U.S. government to punish corporate lawbreakers (e.g., Enron, Microsoft) would make my point for me in this case.


It's worth reading into definitions, especially definitions that come from several decades ago; the meaning of "corporate" here isn't what you seem to think it is.

The "corporate" referenced in "corporatism" does not mean a "corporation" as people use it meaning "money-making concern". It means any sort of "corporation" or grouped organization of people. And if you read more about what he said and what he actually did, the "merger" wasn't an alliance, it was an actual merging into one power under single, centralized control (hence the linkage of fascism with dictatorship). it was a statement of Mussolini's belief that all organizations, social or economic, should be part of a single monolithic state, rather than being scattered and competing against each other.

Fascism was *not* an outgrowth of free-market capitalism; fascism was inherently opposed to the free market, as it is to most kinds of individual freedom. Corporatism was actually a lot older than Mussolini, and was generally invoked by kings and queens as a pretext to seize direct control of traders and merchants within their border and take all their money. This is pretty much the opposite of what you're suggesting, that people who happen to become rich can buy themselves out of the power of the state. If we lived in a corporatist economy, there would be no war between Coca-Cola and PepsiCo to decide what brand of soda Americans would drink; George W. Bush would appoint a set of bureaucrats to head the Beverages Corporation, a government council that would assume direct power over all Coke and Pepsi bottling plants, which would be forced to merge their management into a single Cola Syndicate. All of its profits would be rolled into the national budget, and any losses would be made up by payments from the national budget. Everyone would be required by law to work for a corporation, and a corporation would be more like a medieval guild than a company; indeed, that's what corporatism at that time meant, trying to turn away from modern, international capitalism and back to a time when guilds bent the knee to the king and tradesmen were under the crown.

You have to also remember that fascism means more than just the economic system of corporatism, just as Marxist-Leninist communism means more than just a socialist economic system. Mussolini was adamant that fascism was a political, social *and* economic revolution. Dictionaries all slightly differ, but the usual points surrounding fascism are a highly charismatic dictator with unquestioned authority, a single ruling party whose unquestioned authority stems from the dictator, absolute censorship of dissident opinions, and a continuing process of nationalistic expansion through conquest. More subjective factors include a focus on youth and on revolutionary change, and a distrust and distaste for all forms of tradition, especially religion, and a rejection of philosophies based either on altruism or on individual freedom.

You can say that our government is *like* a fascist government in some negative ways, just like some far-rightists claim our government is like a socialist government in negative ways, but many things make it not *actually* fascist. No single man is an absolute dictator who has the unquestioned right to rule because of his force of will; we still feel like people get their right to power from the system, not vice versa. We do not constantly expand our political borders through conquest, and, no, expanding trade is not the same thing, especially to the fascists, who despised the "false" power of capitalists. We still constantly appeal to tradition, to religion, to altruism and to individual freedom to justify our actions rather than asserting that nationalism is its own justification. No f

Modern "corporatism", which you seem to use to refer to the disproportionate influence some money-making corporations have on our government, is still a form of "pluralism", something antithetical to the so-called "totalitarian" communist/socialist and fascist governments. Our government is not a single unit of power groups that all have the same agenda and need worry about no others; our government has to listen to all sorts of different kinds of people, labor unions, corporations, issue-based lobbying groups, the "man on the street" analyses of the press, and so on, and even if some of those powers have more power than others, all of them have to share power, and none of them is directly part of the government and gets all the power of the government.

Frankly, it seems to me that unless the state became radically socialist and destroyed the mechanism of profit corporations, some level of "corporatism" is inevitable; the whole way money works means that there'll always be people who can buy more ads and get their voice heard more loudly than others because they can pay for more stuff, because they're better at making money than other people, and if those people who are good at making money band together to form organizations whose purpose is to make money, such organizations will become the most powerful things around.

But I think you do exaggerate. For one thing, Enron did not, for instance, get a big bailout from tax money to keep it afloat; it was allowed to sink, as many corporations are allowed to sink every year, and usually the only way corporations can get those kinds of benefits are to get a good PR campaign that convinces everyone their poor workers will be unemployed if they don't get kickbacks. (Hence why the corporate welfare is concentrated in agriculture, which Americans have a soft spot for.) Also, the fact that corporations work in environments where lots of money is thrown around means that lots of money must be spent to keep people honest (as it has always been), and so corporate crime is inherently harder to track down than crime that happens on the streets to little old ladies. I agree that we haven't instituted enough reforms to prevent shady accounting practices, but it's damn hard to think of a way to do that that doesn't cost huge amounts of taxpayer dollars and won't make it impossible for corporations to earn money. (And a lot of the rhetoric around the second point is that if corporations can't earn money they can't pay workers, which is what gets the voters riled up. Despite attempts to create a class struggle theory for America, we still have lots of corporations and industries being most ardently defended by labor unions and employee organizations.)

Also, despite the rhetoric, Bill Gates did not actually do anything illegal (at least, not out of the really famous things he's done to make a lot of money), nor has what he's done been terribly worse than what tons of other people were doing at the same time he was rising through the ranks. He was just a lot more persistent at it and good at it than his competitors, but every shady thing he's done has been within the letter of the law. You have to hand it to him that in the sense of working hard, stressing himself out and ruining his social life, he did earn his success (even if he's a crappy programmer).

Quote

Exactly, and that is the discussion I would like to be having, since without it there really is little framework for understanding someone else's point of view, which is, I think, part of the reason this thread has gone on and on -- intractably so -- for pages and pages.  What rights are YOU willing to give up, and in exchange for what?  What is your personal price for freedom?  (and I do appreciate your candor in answering despite your claim that it will go nowhere)


I think it goes nowhere because the State of Nature doesn't exist; because there's no such thing as a person living in absolute freedom who has all his rights, and the only possible such person is a person living in total isolation. A "right" is only something you can define at all in terms of what rights other people don't have (I have the right to life in that others don't have the right to kill me), and so it becomes dangerous to talk about trading some rights for other rights and trying to come out on top, as though rights were quantifiable and measurable.

Better to talk about what policy is just better for you and which one is worse for you, in terms of utility; it's just as vague an idea, but at least it's not one that biases you toward one kind of *feeling* over another, as though the feeling of "freedom" or "having rights" is the freedom above which all other feelings are judged. That leads to people talking about things like "trading your rights for wealth", as though the right to have enough to eat and buy the things you want isn't also in its way a right, as though because free speech is easier to think of as a right than having good wages free speech is somehow nobler or loftier than good wages, which I really don't think it is -- in an absolute and final choice between the two I'd pick the actual material benefit over the abstract political one (and when you use words like "benefit" or "utility" this way of looking at it becomes obvious).


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on September 03, 2004, 01:44:39 am
Thank you Art for so perfectly stating what needed to be said and I didn't want to spend the time writing.

The problem with political debates in this American political environment is that most people already know who they are going to vote for and even when all of Bush's flaws are pointed out, they will still vote for him.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Culture20 on September 03, 2004, 04:52:19 am
Code:

` echo [quote]Thank you Art for so perfectly stating what needed to be said and I didn't want to spend the time writing.

The problem with political debates in this American political environment is that most people already know who they are going to vote for and even when all of Bush's flaws are pointed out, they will still vote for him.[/quote] | (sed -e "s/Bush/X/g" ; echo "Where X=\"Any Political Figure\"")` == 1


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on September 03, 2004, 10:18:34 am
And score one for C20.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on September 03, 2004, 11:28:16 am
Erm, I don't see the connection between my last post in this thread and being against Bush. It was mostly why I don't think it's fair to call America "fascist", and along the same lines why I don't think it's fair to say that the two political parties are the same and that everything in our country is so bad that voting won't do any good.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on September 03, 2004, 07:41:45 pm
Personally, I wouldn't mind if Americans put down their voting slips
and picked up arms against the establishment. Think the
'60s hippie movement, but with guns (on both sides).


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on September 05, 2004, 04:11:34 am
You wouldn't mind it because you really think it would benefit Americans, or because it'd put your country in a better position (if you're not an American)? I find it very hard to imagine that massive armed revolution and anarchy anywhere could lead to anything very good.


Title: Just changing the topic title.
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on September 05, 2004, 07:56:26 pm
I think that in the long term a reveolution could benefit Americans.
America has become a backward, intraverted society that flies in
the face of it's own ideals. In my opinion, it's too late for them to
change the system from the inside....hopefully it's not too early
to start shooting people.

I don't think it would benefit my country any. Our economy/socity is tied so
closely to America's that any change in their system would result in nasty
waves here. However, I'm more concerned about what _will_ happen sans
revolution than what _could_ happen following an uprising.

The consitution of America claims that all men are born equal, yet people with mental illness are excused from murder. The country was founded by multi-national people, looking for a fresh start. Yet people who aren't born American are treated with suspision and aren't allowed to become president. State and religion are seperated, but "In God We Trust" is printed on their money. This is a sick country, in need of a fresh start....or at least a backhanded slap.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: GeomanNL on September 06, 2004, 02:12:27 am
Look at that number.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Stuff like Enron and Microsoft is really peanuts compared to this.

I'd think the real power is in the hands of some super-rich organizations, who've lent some major sums of money to the gov't, and those aren't Enron or Microsoft, but more likely the banks and trust funds.

That's to some extent the situation in the Netherlands at least -  our gov't also ows major sums of money. The funny thing is (well I think it's funny) is, that at some point, the debt grew so big, that it could only be paid off (and paying all the other bills like schools and hospitals) by borrowing more money, from the same organizations.  You never hear of this though, so I'm sort of guessing here.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make is, I don't think there's much fascism involved, just a very delicate balance of financial (inter)dependencies, which they don't want to break for fear of economical meltdown. And I suppose it doesn't matter that much who's elected and who's not, cause they all need to deal with the same economic reality, and there aren't major different ways of dealing with it.


Title: Revolution
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on September 06, 2004, 09:21:18 am
Sure, there are different ways. Look at early communist China. Linen's idea of a money-less system or Cuba's nationalist view of money. There are lots
of examples to choose from.

Back to the need for reveolution. We are talking about a country founded
by rich slave owners, who decided that only their class, race and gender should be allowed to vote. Now, some small steps forward have been taken. However, there are still huge, glaring problems with the class system of America. We are talking about a country in which over 10 billion dollars are spent every month on cell phones. Cell phones! Billions of dollars are spent every month in movie theatures and on video games. Yet some people sleep in the streets. Some children go to bed hungry in the land of plenty. Some people go to jail or are labeled terrorists in the land of the free.
How many more people have to die of cold before people cry for a change? How many of your sisters, mothers and daughters must die of breast cancer before results are demanded? America has been, since its creation, in the hands of rich, self-centred, white men. So, I ask you: Does it really matter whether Americans vote for Bush or Kerry in the next election? No. Neither of these over-priviledged men is going to over-turn the system that made them. They will support, nurture and aid it. All the while, stealing, corrupting and using their "fellow" Americans.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on September 06, 2004, 11:16:14 am
Sigh. Zeep-Eep: My family comes from China. I don't really want to talk in detail about the Chinese Communist Revolution, or the Russian Revolution that preceded it, or the similar revolutions that occurred in other countries, except to point out that THEY DIDN'T WORK. Communist parties across the globe continue to argue about *why* they didn't work. Maybe they're right that a socialist utopia could exist in some future society with different presuppositions from ours (one where the widespread adoption of powerful technology has created true plenty worldwide, maybe) could have a socialist utopia, but the balance of evidence is that despite a lot of hard work and a lot of fervent idealism, armed communist revolutions in today's world DON'T WORK.

If you're going to go on about how they were infiltrated by counterrevolutionary forces, that they only failed because they were taken over by a few incredibly clever self-serving dictators or because the capitalist world order sabotaged them, then it may not be worth continuing this conversation. Someone who believes that the huge, endemic pathologies inherent to modern communist states could be caused by a small cabal of evil people misleading everyone else in the revolution is probably capable of believing anything.

By the way, the problems you have with America are a little weird. I can understand the rage at "maldistribution" of resources where lots of people have luxuries and some others starve (though it's better, in my view, than societies where just a few people have luxuries and the vast majority of the population starves). I would argue there's no good replacement for the money system that we currently use to distribute resources; while there are inequalities built into it I *do* believe that a good society needs to reward those who produce value for others and punish those who don't, and I don't believe that the different productivity and usefulness among different people is wholly a social construction of class.

However, I don't get your other objections. We... don't punish the mentally ill the way we should? So there'd be no insanity defense in your perfect society's courts? Somehow I do think that crazy people who don't know what they're doing should be treated differently from evil bastards who kill with full knowledge of their actions. And it's not like we let mentally ill killers go out on the street; we try to protect society from them and treat them, which is entirely reasonable.

I don't totally understand the objection to requiring presidential candidates to be natural-born. Yes, the US was founded by people from many different nations, but it was still a nation founded on certain cultural ideals and mutual loyalties, not an open international forum. It was a *new* nation, not a meta-nation meant to transcend nationalism (something some American politicians would do well to remember). I don't think I particularly like the idea of a meta-nation, like the UN; nations are founded at least partly on ideas and values, and a meta-nation whose only value is that it will treat everyone else's set of ideas and values neutrally is kind of repugnant to me, leading to things like Libya chairing a committee on human rights.

And yes, there is divided opinion on separation of church and state. There has been since the very beginning, in fact; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison famously didn't see eye to eye on that issue, and the particular phrasing of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (as with many other phrasings in the Constitution) was an explicitly careful phrasing so as not to favor either interpretation. Even so, the US has *more* separation of church and state than most other countries, either countries that have an established church supported by tax dollars (the UK) or that have a state government that feels free to "tweak" people's choice of worship (France, banning Muslim headscarves, or more extremely, the PRC, banning any kinds of Buddhism that look "dangerous").

The country is not perfect, but to be brutally honest it's better than nearly any other country I might choose to live in, and if put through the randomizing engine of armed revolution or at least major political upheaval I have severe doubts it would come out looking better than it does now.

By the way, when you can think of a way to organize a country, based on real, historical examples that have worked, so that there are *no* people who are poor (we don't have to say no one's poorer than anyone else yet, just no one poorer than some objective definition of "poverty") and *no one* being kept in prison. (You do realize that despite the prison system's problems, there are a lot of people who really are criminals and really want to break the law and hurt others for their advantage. Some of them are even actually terrorists, and want to maim and kill random innocents in order to make a point.) I'm willing to bet you won't get very far; most people who've tried it haven't. Look at the great record most communist nations have had keeping their people out of poverty and out of prison.

GeomanNL: It's an oversimplification to say that because governments are in debt they're in the control of banks and lending agencies. To say so is to internalize the money system, to assume that the social meaning of money at the small scale scales all the way up. In real life creditors have power over debtors because creditors can sue, can foreclose, in some countries can send you to debtor's prison, and so on. Governments, however, are the ones who provide the infrastructure that allows lawsuits, foreclosures and debtor's prisons. Governments are the ones with the social legitimacy that allows the laws that uphold the money system to work, and the military power to keep those laws stable. So when a government is in debt, it's actually usually seen as a way for the *government* to gain power; it means that the government has (by implied force) taken money from banks and lending institutions, and the banks and lending institutions are now required to behold themselves to the government's financial leadership so that they can get back the interest on the debt and keep the money in circulation (and themselves in business). This was Alexander Hamilton's original argument for the existence of a national debt in the first place, a way to tie the nation's financial institutions and government together so that the government would not be in the position of running out of money and having to raise it through emergency taxes, and the banks would not be too independent of the government and capable of forming small, independent economies of their own with their own currency. It's very hard for the banks to put pressure on the government using their credit, since they're scattered and multiple while the government is singular and central, and since the government *can* for the most part take as much money as it wants without fear of being arrested or sued, as long as they're sure the banks can handle it.

This doesn't mean national debt isn't a problem; this complex balance that holds our political and economic system together isn't totally elastic, and if the government pulls too hard and asks for too many loans from banks, the banks may reach the point where they can't or won't pay, necessitating conflict and confrontation. (When governments reach this point they often resort to hyperinflation, an early sign of a government's fall -- witness pre-WWII Germany.) However going too far the other way isn't good, either -- a very small debt allows banks to have all kinds of economically destabilizing free rein as they become less dependent on the government central bank's revenue to set their liquidity. It also creates *more* potential for a conflict of interest between the government and the private sector; the measure of deficit is really a comparison between how much tax money is going into the private sector and how much private money is going into the treasury, and since it's easier for the government to exert control over the private sector by paying *them* than vice versa, those who want government neutrality would usually prefer that the money go the other way.

(Yeah, I'm minoring in economics. Not a very intensive minor, though, so feel free to rip apart my assertions if anyone knows better.)


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: GeomanNL on September 07, 2004, 12:18:25 am
Sure ; but owing someone money, reduces your freedom of choice what to do with a given sum of money. If you owe a lot of money, this freedom is limited a lot. This is sometimes visible in gov't policy.


Title: Money Systems
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on September 07, 2004, 01:15:59 am
Art:
I am not, nor did I say that Mao, Lenin or Castro had great methods.
Nor that their money (or trade) system was better. I'm mearly pointing
out the obvious: That there are different money systems.
In each case, their ideals were side-tracked by basic human failure. Sadly,
there decided to replace the old totalitarian governments with their own.
These are bad examples of so-called socialism.

However, there are a number of positive socialist examples at which to
look. Sweden, for example. There have one of the highest standards of living and have a very small private sector.

Your point of view that things aren't perfect, but we're better than other countries, is a wonderful nationalist view. However, let's not take so much pride in where we live that we fail to make it better.



Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on September 07, 2004, 07:05:28 am
Sweden's a great place, and I've often said that the Scandinavian countries are probably the best alternative overall system to the American system in the world; the other European countries are generally unsatisfying compromises between the way Scandinavia and America operate. But Scandinavia, I think, has its own problems; the suicide rate is high and accelerating compared to that in the US, the economy is slow and torpid, and there's a real problem with shrinking generations (that will exacerbate the slow economy as each new generation of workers is smaller and less willing to work). The living is great in Sweden, but they don't make very much stuff; they can exist because countries that do make a huge amount of stuff (like the US) create a lot of leftover goods that go into the world economy. Scandinavia couldn't be Scandinavia without the economic powerhouse of the US, which generates most of the technological innovation and capital that powers the world economy and is the trading partner for most of the world. I wouldn't mind retiring to Sweden or Norway, but it's in the US and countries more similar to it where more of the world's work is done.

And, anyway, Scandinavia isn't much of an argument against the money system. The government has a powerful social-welfare safety net, but money is still the primary means of transaction between people, and capitalist investment is still the way most things are made. Scandinavia is not outside the money system, and except for the very early days of their history neither were any of the modern communist nations. Other systems *exist*, but none of them actually work for anything very important on a very large scale -- true socialism has only ever been realistic on the small scale, as with the Amish, or the Israeli kibbutzim, or the Oneida community (and when they haven't had religion holding them together on the inside and some degree of protection and support from an outside government, they've tended to collapse fairly quickly -- the Oneida community is an example).

I don't feel much of an emotion of pride regarding the US -- after all, I personally have almost nothing to do with what makes it good. I do choose to identify as an American citizen and serve the interests of the American nation-state, which is nationalism at the most basic level, but I'd hope any citizen of any nation would feel the same sense of duty. I also feel that Americans are responsible for improving the state of affairs in their country, but I think the best way to do that is to have a realistic perspective on how the country compares to others; while you can certainly err either way, I think even now there are too many Americans who feel their duty is to be critical of their own country above all others, and seek to imitate other countries when it would be better to be different from them.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on September 07, 2004, 08:14:16 am
I think at this point it's safe to argue that we've gone pretty far afield from the advertised topic of discussion.  A new thread might be appropriate if there is enough interest in the new discussion, as for getting back "on-topic", I thought this article on Slate was pretty interesting:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106025/


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on September 08, 2004, 12:06:28 pm
Quote
Look at that number.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Stuff like Enron and Microsoft is really peanuts compared to this.

I'd think the real power is in the hands of some super-rich organizations, who've lent some major sums of money to the gov't, and those aren't Enron or Microsoft, but more likely the banks and trust funds.

That's to some extent the situation in the Netherlands at least -  our gov't also ows major sums of money. The funny thing is (well I think it's funny) is, that at some point, the debt grew so big, that it could only be paid off (and paying all the other bills like schools and hospitals) by borrowing more money, from the same organizations.  You never hear of this though, so I'm sort of guessing here.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make is, I don't think there's much fascism involved, just a very delicate balance of financial (inter)dependencies, which they don't want to break for fear of economical meltdown. And I suppose it doesn't matter that much who's elected and who's not, cause they all need to deal with the same economic reality, and there aren't major different ways of dealing with it.


The national debt is what the U. S. government owes all who "helped" their government and bought bonds in order to balance the budget, which worked short-term(I would assume this started after the great depression, probably one of FDR's policies), now how you get facism from this is beyond me, it's closer to socialism(like almost all of FDR's polices). Although you did hit one on the mark the national debt is always rising why? These bonds mature and are being paid of by the next generation of people buy more bonds(yet another vicious cycle). I know it's rising since I've seen the giant billboard in Manhattan(The "Big City" section of New York City to outsiders.)

Back to the topic at hand. All Kerry complains about is Bushh is leading us to war, anyonw with common sense will realize that if you let the terrorists slide they WILL do it again, if you don't retaliate with force, which is the only language relifous fanatics understand, you shall remain the victim. If Bush is so wrong I'd like to know what would do better, since he hasn't said a word of what his plans are. From what I've read of "Unfit for Command" Kerry is the reason he only did 90 day in nam' he cited a 3 Purple Heart rule which required him at his own request to be put on inactive status, and what did he do? he ran for Congress and founded the label of Vietnam Veterans as "Baby Killers." In case you don't know a standard tour of duty is a year so if even one of his purple hearts are a fraud he owes the United States Navy 9 months of active duty. Another interesting fact is that only one of his Swift boat colleges supports him, the rest are on the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth". It is known that his "First" purple heart was "awarded" for a wound which was a result of his own stupidity, a fragment of a grenade which he fired from a grenade launcher, and from the description I read, it was the size of a Frosted Flake, Required not incision, removed with forceps, did NOT break the skin and was covered with a BAND-AID. If you think it's bad that "Bush lied" why was Clinton re-elected? He lied and was caught I didn't see a media frenzy until the trial. Just some food for thought. Have fun trying to swallow it.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on September 08, 2004, 08:00:06 pm
Let me see if I have this right. You're saying that because Kerry
took advantage of a loophole in the military system to get out of
combat early, he shouldn't be allowed to serve/lead his country
over 30 years later?
May I point out that if he'd raped and murdered someone at that time
that he'd be out of prision by now? I think maybe we should focus
more on the here and now rather than some minor event that
happened before we were born.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on September 09, 2004, 12:18:09 am
I'd like to point out (not that it will do any good) that Kerry always supported the war in Afghanistan, the war that actually affected Al-Qaeda in a negative fashion. That was striking back at the terrorists.

And no one mentions it anymore because it was so non-controversial. Of COURSE we needed to strike back; support for it was very strong from Kerry as well as Bush.

However, Iraq not having contributed to 9/11, as it was fairly apparent from the beginning and now quite thoroughly proven, was NOT a valid retaliatory target in this effort.

The lies made which made Iraq seem like a valid target are what Kerry has been complaining about.

Also, lying about an extramarital affair is of different character than lying so that you can start a war. You see, the former does not have the result of depriving thousands of people of their lives. If you can't tell that difference, I am intrigued and disturbed.

----------------------------

Cognitive Dissonance: a mental process by which we protect our self-image by generating plausible-seeming justifications for the bad choices we have made.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on September 09, 2004, 01:48:54 am
Quote
Let me see if I have this right. You're saying that because Kerry
took advantage of a loophole in the military system to get out of
combat early, he shouldn't be allowed to serve/lead his country
over 30 years later?
May I point out that if he'd raped and murdered someone at that time
that he'd be out of prision by now? I think maybe we should focus
more on the here and now rather than some minor event that
happened before we were born.


No, what I meant was if ANY of his purple hearts are frauds he owes the US Navy 8 months(really 9) of active service since a tour of duty is a year and got out under a three purple heart mandate. This applies since the US NAVY is now investigating his awards due a picture of him with a silver star, it has a "V" on it, which is redundant since the silver star is allready awarded for valor. It really doen't matter how old he is you cheat the US government and are caught they'll get you in the end. Zeep-Eeep I like you characterwise anyway, but seem to be quite naive, man is inherendly greedy and will try to get all he can, with methods that or both similed and frowned upon and will continue to do it as long as it goes unnoticed or unreported. John Kerry has some balls complaining about Dick Chaney being "corporate america" it's like the pot calling the kettle black so to speak when his is Mrs. Hienz(as in the ketchup company). If he raped someone his "rabbi"(rabbi-(slang)n. someone who protects you or your image both criminally and morally) would hide it and if it was brought into the light he would never have run in the first place. If the facts fly at you in the face you can either ignore it or take it at face value.
Quote
However, Iraq not having contributed to 9/11, as it was fairly apparent from the beginning and now quite thoroughly proven, was NOT a valid retaliatory target in this effort.

Also, lying about an extramarital affair is of different character than lying so that you can start a war. You see, the former does not have the result of depriving thousands of people of their lives. If you can't tell that difference, I am intrigued and disturbed.

Cognitive Dissonance: a mental process by which we protect our self-image by generating plausible-seeming justifications for the bad choices we have made.


PROVE to me that "Bush Lied" in order to prove this you must not only prove to me that the weapons were not there and that he knew before hand. Answer me this Death999 if the government had photos and documents of Kerry at pro-communist rallies why wasn't he blacklisted(read my McCarthyist section on a previous post) like everyone else?

What do you Suggest we do? Sit back build up the economy and wait for another attack? If they are left unchecked their strength will only grow. Iraq was a logical choice since that is there chief source of funds. If you can't defeat an army drain it's funds. Remember that money makes the world go round' has no bearing on terrorists, but they need it to get supplies from elsewhere.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on September 09, 2004, 02:54:36 am
PROVE to me that the sun rose yesterday.  And I don't want to see a picture, or read some dubious "logical" reasoning, I want it proven.

See the problem?  Unreasonable people can have unreasonable doubts, and I suspect that nothing short of a notarized letter from G.W. Bush himself stating that thee whole thing was a complete fiction would change your mind.  Since we'll never get one of those, it's a moot point.

As for the blacklisting communists, I'd suggest that you've thinking of a different decade.  McCarthyism was dead and buried by the 1960s.

But I'm rather amazed at the tone and passion with which you write about a bunch of irrelevant crap from 30 years ago, especially considering that "your guy" couldn't even be bothered to show up for the war in the first place, much less national guard duty.  John Kerry does have actual "electability" problems, but you've yet to mention a single one.  It's exactly like people whose only criticisms of G.W. Bush are that he's "stupid" or "looks like a monkey"; they accomplish nothing but make the group they're representing look like a bunch of petulant children.  Your parroting of Fox News' talking points is tiresome, please move on to an actual, relevant issue at your leisure.

As for "what should we do", we should be fighting terrorism.  We were already doing that in Afghanistan, and making quite a go of it, against a group that was openly associated with, and had non-dubious ties to al-Qaeda, before some jackass decided that we had to start beating the war drum in Iraq.  We were already "taking the fight to the terrorists", and already had a country that was a battleground, and decided to open up a second front in a country that had nothing to do whatsoever with the 9/11 attacks.  I would add that it was done over the express objections of the international community, but technically, we never bothered to ask, which I think is worse.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Culture20 on September 09, 2004, 05:09:22 am
From the rather detatched view that I usually hold from politics, I believe that "W" didn't lie, but he didn't tell the complete truth either.  He really believed that he'd find the weapons, so that he could use that as an excuse to invade (yes, I said excuse).  His administration's intent is not _Oil_ though, it's still war-strategy.  Check out a map of Iran, and see how many friendly countries we have on their borders now.  Any wonder why they're now talking about increasing their nuclear potential?


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Baltar on September 09, 2004, 07:35:19 am
Yeah, I'm with you C20; Bush may not have lied explicitly, at least not in any comments to my recollection.  The administration does, however, have a way of suggesting falsehoods without stating them outright.  I do remember leading up to the war polls that indicated a majority of Americans believed Saddam and Al'Queda were working together.  A notion like that doesn't just come about in the majority of the populace on its own.  Bush may not have stated "Saddam Hussein is working closely with Al'Queda", but you mention "Saddam", "Terrorists", and "Al'Queda" enough times in close proximity and viewers will connect the dots in their own minds.  I believe the Bush administration is just as liable for this sort of crap as they would be if they were lying blatantly.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on September 09, 2004, 11:40:09 pm
Quote
PROVE to me that "Bush Lied" in order to prove this you must not only prove to me that the weapons were not there and that he knew before hand.


Ahem.
I was simply pointing out that the charges are much more serious. You seemed to be stating that it's on the same level as stuff which 'we' considered 'ok'. I was saying it is not.

Quote
Answer me this Death999 if the government had photos and documents of Kerry at pro-communist rallies why wasn't he blacklisted(read my McCarthyist section on a previous post) like everyone else?


I fail to see the relevance of this to anything I said or any previous comment.

Quote
What do you Suggest we do? Sit back build up the economy and wait for another attack?


Why do you think I or Kerry would suggest such a lunatic course of action?

As I have abundantly made clear in consistent fashion throught my posting here, I would like to fight Al-Qaeda, not random people who are Al-Qaeda's bitter enemies (e.g. Saddam's Iraq).

As for Kerry, he has abundantly made it clear that he opposes the Iraq war as a poor STRATEGIC decision, not just as a money drain (though it is that too). It is poor strategy because it ties up our military in very awkward circumstances rather than letting them do important stuff like stabilize Afghanistan, rooting Al-Qaeda out of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, and finally destroying the Taliban (which still controls the majority of the country).
These are things that were on the top of our to-do list a year and a half ago and they have not been done in large part because of the war in Iraq.

Quote
If they are left unchecked their strength will only grow. Iraq was a logical choice since that is there chief source of funds.


Where did you get that idea?

Whatever happened to Saudi Arabia in there? There were zero Iraqi hijackers and a whole bunch of Saudis. Osama Bin Laden is Saudi. Just a few 'coincidences' to consider.

In the other direction, Al-Qaeda had a public standing reward for the assassination of Saddam Hussein (and may still), because he was a secular dictator instead of an Ayatollah. This extreme friction does not bespeak a close working relationship.

Hussein did send money to the families of terrorists, yes. But they were anti-Israel terrorists, not Al-Qaeda.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: NECRO-99 on September 10, 2004, 12:12:24 am
Well, it's my first post here, and probably last. I hate politics with a seething passion, so I'm gonna pick stuff out of what people have said, make a comment, then tell what I think is really going on at the end. I'll try to go in chronological order of posts, but bear with me. Some things might really piss me off, and I might really piss someone off. If I do, say so.

Shiver:
Quote
Also, feel free to try your hand at convincing me that George W. Bush isn't the most hideous leader ever.

Atilla. Coligula. Ivan. Stalin. Hitler. Castro. Hussein. Kadafi.

Luki:
Quote
How'd you feel if someone tried to take the fight to you, to stop you from bombing the crap out of their soil?. Oh wait, they already did. Felt good, did it?

Ouch, man. I like you, but that was low. We (Americans) took the fight to their soil only after they blew the hell out of a good chunk of the world economy. If you want to talk about irony, we gave Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other groups of the time weapons to fight the Soviets back in the 80's.

Chainy:
Quote
Freedom of speech implies the right to piss some people off, doesnt it?

Bwahahaaa, yes. Thank God I can, otherwise this'd be a boring world.

Bio:
Quote
I can only blame the media. when i went to the european-union every media outlet I saw had a sickening anti-american slant to it.

This is because J.W.B is notorious for shoving his big Texas boot in his mouth about every other sentence he states. As patriotic as he may be, no one likes someone with the IQ of a blender leading them.

Bio, On the topic of civilian jobs for Americans in Iraq...
Quote
this is a bad thing? it creates jobs, and saves money by having contractors do it at a set price. otherwise you would have to train the military personel in in nearly everthing. the military are for killing and civilians for building.

This is why, way back when we had intelligent Commanders in Chief, they invented groups like the Navy Seabees and the Army Corps of Engineers. So civvies wouldn't have to go into hot spots and get their balls blown off. These divisions of the military are already trained. Your statement on the differences in purpose between the military and civilians is very, VERY insular.

C20:
Quote
Whether we (U.S.) are Star Trek TNG's Borg in respects of our culture is open to debate...

No question, we are Borg when it comes to culture, but we make it look desirable. I'll get into that later.

Quote
...but they could have used better means to combat the culture than intentionally blowing civilians up.  Hollywood would have made a better target than the Trade Towers.

Not really. Think of what they did. They not only destroyed countless lives, not only in those that died but those that survived and the families of those dead, but they also shattered economic trade worldwide. The stock market STOPPED for a week! They got what they wanted, and THEN some.

Luki:
Quote
Within 10 years, it may well be a stable and functioning democracy, which definetly is a good thing.

Taking an antiethnocentrist point of view, perhaps some countries don't function well under democracy. Shoot this if you want, but it's what I think.

Bio:
Quote
America is NOT a democracy it is a republic.

WRONG. America is an oligarchy that, on the surface, looks like a democracy to placate the masses into thinking that their choices really matter at all. I am an American, so don't torch me for making this comment, either. I see the corruption daily, the throngs of politically fanatical people willing to vote for a party for just one reason, most never taking a look at the bigger picture. You want the leaders of the U.S.? C.E.O.'s rule this country. Exxon. Haliburton. Countless others I can't think. The power behind the throne is their claim to infame. They really don't care who you vote for, because it's already determined who will lead. A good face, a puppet with charisma is what they want. That's what a "president" is.

0XD, in response to Bio's comment about soldiers...
Quote
If I want to know what a soldier is going through, and how it affects their worldview, I'll ask one. I suggest that you do the same; I have a sneaking suspicion that you have not served in the military.  At any rate, "they're getting shot at" is not an effective rationale for torturing people.

I hear that. A soldier knows that getting shot at and the potential of being brought home in a dozen body-bags is a risk they take when they're out doing the exact same thing to their enemies.

Bio:
Quote
the PATRIOT Act just makes it so law inforcment can do there jobs better. It does not require more spending.

...ngh. I can't believe any American with a shred of decency  is FOR the patriot act in the first place!!! It's a shameless way to invade the privacy of the average American. Don't give me some crap about, "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry?" either. THAT is what'll lead us to becoming a blatant despotism. And yes, it DOES require more spending. More jobs are created, sure but you've gotta get these people equipment for all the snooping they're doing, not to mention wages. The setup of CARNIVORE was probably quite expensive, and getting a whole entire new Department in the government to run this whole chickensh*t outfit is going to cost too.

Luki:
Quote
It's the soldiers that are the problem.

Actually, it's their C.O.'s that are the problem. Arrogant little rich boys that got some brass pinned on their shoulders and think they can rule the goddamn world because of it. Originally, Al-Sadr was FOR the U.S. because it got rid of Saddam, who just happened to execute Sadr's father and uncle, who were also both priests. We even gave him a newspaper from with which to write about to the people of Iraq. Unfortunately, we overstayed our visit and he started writing some bad stuff about us. What'd the CO's do? Agreed to close the newspaper plant permanently. No wonder he hates us now. When we, America, bringers of peace, personal liberty and free speech decide that, because someone using their newfound powers writes bad stuff on us, we close them down. Kinda like kicking yourself in the ass.

Bio, retorting to Luki's comment about him being a radical...
Quote
I never said I would kill you for speaking your insensitive words.

No, but you said the people of NY would. Same thing, right?

Bio, about Kim Jong-Il:
Quote
Kim Jong Il :: North Korea

=>One reason why this man was not attacked is because he has china breathing  down his neck to behave, and that works. There was no equivalent for Hussein.
=>He has not supported terrorists.
=>He has not funded terrorists.
=>No know assassination attempts.


+>China is currently going through a massive change in their economy. They're still a big threat, but they're still Communist. So is Kim. They're on the same side.
+>He's supporting himself... ::)
+>See above.
+>True. He's not being an entire idiot about it like Hussein was. He's got uranium enrichment programs up and running right now. That's nice. Wait till the processing and development programs are completed. Then another nation with an unstable leader has nuclear strike capabilities. Yay.
I think once he gets all his gear together, he's going to do some massively stupid thing, like get the world to bomb the hell out of him by launching nukes at all sorts of diferent targets. Going out in a blaze of glory, y'know? KYAIEEE!!!

Fsi:
Quote
Unfortunately there never can be a leader everybody likes. We should all be Borgs.

I agree. I've prepared a speech for our new preside--er--hive leader, regarding foreign policy. Locutus for prez!
We are the Borg of Unimatrix Fifty-Four. Your people commonly refer to us as the U54. Lower your defenses, and prepare be assimilated. Your people will adapt to service ours. We have dispatched combat alcove-units 4-RMY, M4R-1N35 and 41R-F0RC3, with alcove-unit N-4VY waiting to further assist. These alcove-units will begin the assimilation of your people and your government processes in to our own. Alcove-units 4-RMY and M4R-1N35 have already begun this process with the construction of a new Hive Defense Matrix, designation 1R-4Q1 N4T-10N4L G-U4RD. The new drones trained within the new Hive will be conditioned to have positive-U54 sentiment and see to it that no resistance will be met, much less tolerated.  We have also dispatched the noncombat alcove-unit designated as H4L-1BURT0N, with units UN-1C4L and C4RL-YL3 awaiting entry orders. Unit H4L-1BURT0N has begun the process of assimilating your natural resourses into our own. Your culture distinctiveness and unique attributes will be replaced with program D3-M0CR4CY which will bring your people into the Collective compeltely.
Resistance has, and always will be...futile.

gonsen, on Saddam...
Quote
he also had a standing offer of asylum to asama bin ladin. so bin ladin was part of his own "little" cult?

As far as I know, UBL wanted Saddam dead because he wasn't Islamic, but a perversion of the faith. (Not saying extremists AREN'T, mind you...)

Luki:
Quote
Feel free to produce ANY evidence that Iraq "disposed" of their weapons in their last six months, and if you manage to do so (I know Bio didn't), feel free to explain why it was necessary to invade at all, if they actually disposed of the weapons that were the reason for invading.

WMD's weren't our reason. They were our cover. We wanted to "oust the evil dictator and gain control of his vast wealth in oil". Bush lied about it, but the supposed economic gain from all our new oil wells made up for it, I guess...???

Term:
Quote
Why does everybody assume that Fox News is a Right-wing conservative station...

One name: Rupert Murdoch.

Quote
"The threat of Terrorism is overrated"
-John F.(Fake middle-name) Kerry

He's saying that to placate the masses.
Also: scary note. Kerry's middle name is Fitzgerald. Johnathan Fitzgerald Kerry. Hmm...JFK, those initials ring a bell...

Zeep:
Quote
Personally, I wouldn't mind if Americans put down their voting slips and picked up arms against the establishment. Think the '60s hippie movement, but with guns (on both sides).

Yeah, and then the uprising gets it's ass blown to the moon by the combined might of the Army Nat'l Guard, Army Reserves AND whatever units of the Marines, Army, and Air Force are still within the U.S. Then, as preventative measure, the current establishment decides to delete the 2nd Amendment so nothing like that can ever happen again AND increase police enforcement in areas that might harbor "home-grown terrorists"...not smart. I hope you were joking, anyway.

Geo:
Quote
I'd think the real power is in the hands of some super-rich organizations, who've lent some major sums of money to the gov't, and those aren't Enron or Microsoft, but more likely the banks and trust funds.

Yep. Add to the list those companies I mentioned before and you've got what really runs the U.S.

C20:
Quote
From the rather detatched view that I usually hold from politics, I believe that "W" didn't lie, but he didn't tell the complete truth either.

Yeah, he took what was given to him and used his foot-in-mouth magic to make it sound even worse.  ;D

I refuse to vote this year. Many people say to me, "Then you have no right to complain." Sure I do, it's a free damn country. I hate BOTH of them, so I don't complain about just one.
Bush= Oil rich, idiot who can't speek klearlie.
Kerry= Married money + Forbes family background, enigma to 99% of the population.

There. I'm done. Unless someone wants to target anything I had to say directly, I'm not gonna post in here again.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on September 10, 2004, 08:08:08 am
I wonder why they call him flipper http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv. or rtsp://real.stream2you.com/RNC/RNC07200.rm.
It's a right-wing version of FAHRENHEIT 9-11 without a bogus commentary, just your "War-Hero" putting his foot in his mouth.

Anyway Bush will win the election, this is a given, how the democrats will react to this is a variable, I think that either one of the NY senators will call for Bush's impeachment. Bush will win simply because he has a backbone and a record with aligns with what he says(Actions speak louder than words). Kerry doesn't seem to know what he wants, and Ralph Nader is a thrid-party candidate. This is my final post on this topic so you all can do without my rants.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on September 10, 2004, 09:29:50 am
I agree that Bush will likely win the election, though for different reasons.

I read something funny today. About 55% of Americans say
they'll vote for Bush. However, in 35 countries around the world,
30 of them favored Kerry. This makes me wonder about two things:

1. How much different Americans see the world than other people.
2. What impact Bush's upcoming win will have on international
issues.


Anyway, back to why I think Bush will win. Here in Canada, we elected a prime minister for two full terms (he won a majority government both times)
yet noone seemed to like his party, his politics or him personally. However, Canadians could relate to him as a man. We (I use "we" loosely) could
connect to him in the way we thought; our sense of country and of humour.
I think Americans connect more with Bush than with Kerry.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Tiberian on September 10, 2004, 09:53:58 pm
I can see why Americans can 'connect' to Bush. There is no denying that Bush has intelligence below average and the stereotype of 'normal' U.S. cidizen is just that. Stereotypes more than often are based on the truth, more or less.

From this post you can clearly see that I just don't like Bush and I pretty much hate the whole country too, but let's not make that an issue.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on September 11, 2004, 01:59:35 am
I think you just did....

Actually, I meant that Bush has (other) qualities that I think
americans connect to. His apparent strength, patriotism and
big brotherness certainly play in his favor. People like to see
someone strong and charismatic in charge. Not someone who
wants to group-hug the nation....As appealing as that may be.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on September 11, 2004, 02:37:24 am
Bush is a religious nut, who can barely finish a sentence.  I can see why some people in the south and mid-west like that ignorance, but I find it disturbing.  Policies should  be made on evidence scientific and physical, not FAITH!


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on September 11, 2004, 10:34:08 am
That's one of the beauties of democracy. You don't have to
have a reason for voting for the person you do. You can vote
for them based on their race, gender, a coin toss, as a favor
or because the voices in your head told you to.
During the Canadian election this year I asked several people
who they'd vote for and why. No two people gave me the same
reason. I find that both reasuring (in regards to our personal freedoms)
and distrubing (because we seem to have no logic in our system).



Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on September 12, 2004, 05:26:59 pm
Quote

Luki:

Ouch, man. I like you, but that was low. We (Americans) took the fight to their soil only after they blew the hell out of a good chunk of the world economy. If you want to talk about irony, we gave Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other groups of the time weapons to fight the Soviets back in the 80's.



True, but it was meant to be. If you read through the conversation carefully, you'll see that I was trying to shake Bios attitude around. What annoys me more than anything else is people that believe that because something horrible happened to them, it's quite alright to go bomb some other innocent country. Yes, the WTC bombings were horrible, and completely unjustified in my eyes. However, people who cry in horror at the WTC, yet just say "Well there are always some civilian causalties/we're just taking the fight to them" when they invade a country that had no part in the WTC bombings is just as bad. That's saying "It's alright when it happens to someone else", which is why a large part of the world hates western countries.

Quote

Luki:
Taking an antiethnocentrist point of view, perhaps some countries don't function well under democracy. Shoot this if you want, but it's what I think.


In a way yes. But that's only because some countries have no experience of democracy. Think of Europe bout 500 years ago. If anyone ahd told you they'd be what they are now, you'd have laughed at them, and killed a few peasants. for democracy to feel natural, it either had to come gradually, or it has to be around for quite a bit, so that you have a generation that has grown up under democracy, and to whom the old ways are just scary stories. This is actually one point where i disagree with the people pointing at Iraq as a dismal failure. It is a tghe moment, but it won't neccessarily always be. Much more follow-through will be needed though. Same goes fro Afghanistan.

Quote

Luki:
Actually, it's their C.O.'s that are the problem. Arrogant little rich boys that got some brass pinned on their shoulders and think they can rule the goddamn world because of it. Originally, Al-Sadr was FOR the U.S. because it got rid of Saddam, who just happened to execute Sadr's father and uncle, who were also both priests. We even gave him a newspaper from with which to write about to the people of Iraq. Unfortunately, we overstayed our visit and he started writing some bad stuff about us. What'd the CO's do? Agreed to close the newspaper plant permanently. No wonder he hates us now. When we, America, bringers of peace, personal liberty and free speech decide that, because someone using their newfound powers writes bad stuff on us, we close them down. Kinda like kicking yourself in the ass.


Let me clarify this for you. The entire army setup stinks, not just the COs. just bnlaming those in charge is seeking an easy way out. An army that takes in people who actually want to kill, for whatever reasons rather than one where people are drafted to do their duty is in trouble. I'm not saying that everyone in the US army is an psychotic murderer, but the percentage is higher when most of the people who are in the army are there because they volunteered. Granted, you'll loads of real heroes as well, but that's another story.

Quote

Luki:
WMD's weren't our reason. They were our cover. We wanted to "oust the evil dictator and gain control of his vast wealth in oil". Bush lied about it, but the supposed economic gain from all our new oil wells made up for it, I guess...???


Again, we don't know that. We just believe it. When you start believeing theories as fact without evidence, you're in trouble.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on September 13, 2004, 04:31:28 am
Quote
Let me clarify this for you. The entire army setup stinks, not just the COs. just bnlaming those in charge is seeking an easy way out. An army that takes in people who actually want to kill, for whatever reasons rather than one where people are drafted to do their duty is in trouble. I'm not saying that everyone in the US army is an psychotic murderer, but the percentage is higher when most of the people who are in the army are there because they volunteered. Granted, you'll loads of real heroes as well, but that's another story.


Normally I agree with you Lukipela, but this one statement strikes me as borderline moronic. You're saying the entire US military should be made up of draftees? Most volunteers are sadists? Pretending for a sec that a draftee and a volunteer end up as the same caliber soldier (which is laughable), do you know how much drafts piss off the general populace? It's the sort of thing that, justifiably, starts riots nation-wide. I don't doubt the military has some kill-happy types in it (especially the Marines), but you should keep in mind that the military is probably the only productive career available for someone of that temperment. If they weren't off shooting at foreign enemies on the battlefield, they'd be preying on bystanders (in some form or another) back home. Additionally, after these sorts of people come back they're so conditioned into following a structured life-style that they have very little probability of doing anything criminal. Soldiers aren't the ones that decide when and where to start wars, so it's of little consequence that some of them actually like their job.

It's best to wage a war as efficiently as possible, leading to the fewest casualties on both sides. An army loaded with draftees is almost guaranteed to suck, develope low morale and in turn result in more Abu Ghraib-like incidents than we have now. Israel is a big exception to what I'm saying about draftees (as I'm pretty sure they have everyone over 18 do some kind of military service), but that's because they're collectively cornered and in danger. Bush will tell you otherwise, but the United States is not.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on September 13, 2004, 07:41:51 am
I didn't think Luki was going in that direction,

That aside, I disagree with the volunteer vs. draftee statement. After
all there are many many countries in the world that draft soldiers.
As I understand, most east-block countries drafted. During war time
up until the 70s the USA drafted soldiers. During the second world war,
nearly every country in the conflict drafted its armies. To state that
those armies sucked (relatively) is a huge generalization and one without
evidence.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on September 13, 2004, 08:03:50 am
Quote
I didn't think Luki was going in that direction,

That aside, I disagree with the volunteer vs. draftee statement. After
all there are many many countries in the world that draft soldiers.
As I understand, most east-block countries drafted. During war time
up until the 70s the USA drafted soldiers. During the second world war,
nearly every country in the conflict drafted its armies. To state that
those armies sucked (relatively) is a huge generalization and one without
evidence.


No dammit, he's saying the whole military should be drafted. As in, people who want to join can't and lots of people who want no involvement with the armed forces are required to. I'm not making "a huge generalization" when I say that's a horrible idea, not to mention totally against what's supposed to be a free democratic society. Those other militaries and ours have been a volunteer-draftee mix which is entirely different from what Lukipela was talking about. In our case, the previous drafts were because the country was in great danger and needed every warm body it could get. It's not like that right now.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on September 13, 2004, 10:23:12 am
You have a good point Shiver, but only because a draft army means a very different thing to you than to me. You see over here, everyone gets drafted. The entire population. so it's not a question of someone not getting in even though they want to. I didn't take into consideration that this might not work so splendidly in a country the size of the US. Perhaps a combination of the two might be a better idea?

And if you read my text, you'll find that nowhere am I stating that everyone who volunteers is a sadist. I simply think that a higher percentage of those who join the army willingly instead of because they have to may be of the unsuitable sort. The draftees would make the army mellower if you want.

As for efficency, the finnish army held off a large part of the Soviet war machine during WW2. That's what I call efficent.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on September 14, 2004, 01:45:55 am
I'm not entirely against the concept of universal conscription, but I do think that it wouldn't fly well in this country for a number of reasons. Number one is obviously the huge relative size of this country's population; it'd probably cost more to give every new generation of young males a basic military training and a low-grade salary than you'd possibly make back from finding them pissant military jobs to do. The US military, especially, is being designed for maximum efficiency by functioning at a high-tech, high-skill level in which the basic-training draftee grunt of yesteryear has little place.

Number two is the different attitude of Americans. Say what you will, but I don't think Americans are terribly patriotic in the traditional sense, and that may be a positive thing. Americans are unlikely to see their country as an abstract ideal worth sacrificing everything for, and, indeed, the American system has often largely been built around the idea of America being a place where people are free to look out for themselves and their families' interests (hence the traditional American emphasis on "Freedom" rather than "Honor" or "Pride" or "Virtue"). There are pretty good arguments that even if the 13th Amendment against involuntary servitude doesn't ban drafts outright, it's a strong argument against a universal draft. The military here is not identified with the glory and reputation of the country; it's a tool to make the country safe for us to grow rich and happy in, and so we'd really rather not allow it to control our lives to the point that it actively keeps us from being rich and happy by drafting us.

That means that you're much more likely to get Conscript Syndrome among American draftees. From what I can see the number of outright sadists anywhere, including in the military, is pretty small -- the actual reason most volunteers join is because this country doesn't do a great job of taking care of its poor, and there are a lot of young men who can't afford to go to college and who see this as a productive thing they can do to help people and make money. That in itself may be a problem, but it's very different from saying that most volunteers are middle-class layabouts who want to give up their comfortable lives so they can legally kill people. The biggest source of likely problems in the military is resentment from people who have to go to war who don't want to fight; that was the source of the frags and mutinies in Vietnam, and the much greater stress, resentment and anger someone is likely to feel at a situation they had no choice over is more likely to cause blowups like Abu Ghraib or My Lai.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Fsi-Dib on September 19, 2004, 05:12:17 am
Whoah... you sure have babbled all kinds of crap here. I might add some notes some you people haven't noticed. I'm not gonna join the conversation, I don't want to be labeled as a politician. :)

As you might know, some people on these boards are finnish (surprise), and finnish people are very critical. Towards everyone, USA is just the biggest spot to criticize about. Oh but you all knew this... I hope.

The next thing is US citizens. Some don't seem to take criticism well at all. Then they start threatening and mocking the person who criticized. I remember a scene at slashdot.org, when Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning's trailer was published. It contains a gag about Bush in the beginning, and some americans were ready to nuke Finland, just for that. Tsk, tsk, where's the tolerance?

And today I read some threads from IMDB about Michael Moore ... what's wrong with right wingers? Most posts were straight insults and threatenings. Gives a good picture of all the right wingers, doesn't it?

Let's not forget the inauguration day (I hope I chose the right word from my dictionary) when Bush's limo was thrown by eggs. And he's the first president to recieve this kind of treatment.

Also I've noticed most americans who use internet (and/or IRC) have a better knowledge of the surroundings and consequences. I am not sure do I even know a single american who uses IRC who would vote for Bush.

Give me a break. I wrote way too much. And even thinking of the faulty "democracy" of United States of America makes me sick.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on September 19, 2004, 05:28:45 pm
Quote

As you might know, some people on these boards are finnish (surprise), and finnish people are very critical. Towards everyone, USA is just the biggest spot to criticize about. Oh but you all knew this... I hope.


This is a very good point. That you are critical of something does not autmatically mean you place yourself on the other side. You can be just as critical of both parts in a conflict. People who believe in the "if you're nto for us, you're against us" principle don't make good debaters.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on September 21, 2004, 08:44:57 pm
Quote
Whoah... you sure have babbled all kinds of crap here. I might add some notes some you people haven't noticed. I'm not gonna join the conversation, I don't want to be labeled as a politician. :)


I take it that this is directed at the thread, not Art in particular?


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Kaiser on September 22, 2004, 01:04:25 pm
Quote
Whoah... you sure have babbled all kinds of crap here. I might add some notes some you people haven't noticed. I'm not gonna join the conversation, I don't want to be labeled as a politician. :)

And yet you join anyway :P


Quote
As you might know, some people on these boards are finnish (surprise), and finnish people are very critical. Towards everyone, USA is just the biggest spot to criticize about. Oh but you all knew this... I hope.

Also known a few who were just plain delusional...


Quote
The next thing is US citizens. Some don't seem to take criticism well at all. Then they start threatening and mocking the person who criticized. I remember a scene at slashdot.org, when Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning's trailer was published. It contains a gag about Bush in the beginning, and some americans were ready to nuke Finland, just for that. Tsk, tsk, where's the tolerance?

Because like it or not, we typically defend our own against non-Americans.  You want to criticize our country, become a citizen.

Quote
And today I read some threads from IMDB about Michael Moore ... what's wrong with right wingers? Most posts were straight insults and threatenings. Gives a good picture of all the right wingers, doesn't it?

Or all those insults Moore and other ultra-leftists have spouted against our President and any other Republican or Democrat who is voting for him?

Sure, liberals threatening conservatives because of who they vote for is just dandy. ;)


Quote
Let's not forget the inauguration day (I hope I chose the right word from my dictionary) when Bush's limo was thrown by eggs. And he's the first president to recieve this kind of treatment.

Right word.

That's because many Democrats are sore losers. (not all)

Quote
Also I've noticed most americans who use internet (and/or IRC) have a better knowledge of the surroundings and consequences. I am not sure do I even know a single american who uses IRC who would vote for Bush.

*is a Republican, an IRC junkie and is voting for Bush*
As are most other Americans on IRC that I know.  Even some people I know who hate Bush are voting for him because Kerry is a worse choice.

Quote
Give me a break. I wrote way too much. And even thinking of the faulty "democracy" of United States of America makes me sick.

Our REPUBLIC is fine.  The only way it'd collapse is if Kerry is elected.  Our defense, with military and intelligence capabilities, would be gutted.  Just as he's voted for in the past.

Flipflopflipflop


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on September 22, 2004, 07:51:11 pm
OK, I think I've just about reached my limit on half-wit hyperbole.  As a counter-point, the sky is not falling, the world will not end if the election does not go to a Republican, and Democrats will not single-handledly destroy the country.  Get the fuck over yourselves.

For fuck's sake,  if Kerry is elected, the Congress will still be controlled by the Republicans, which in this overly-partisan climate, means deadlock.  i.e., nothing will get done, which given lawmakers' ability to complicate the most simple matters, means "it won't get any worse."  Given that people go to the polls to vote against candidates rather than for them, I'd say this is the best situation you can hope for without election reform.

As for Bush, I'm afraid to say that I'm a single-issue voter this year:  we invaded a sovereign nation based on faulty intelligence.  Disregarding all the tangential issues around that invasion, there are two possibilities:  Either our intelligence organizations are incompetent, or the intelligence was fabricated.  In the former case, we need to replace the cabinet-level intelligence positions, which would give a mandate to change the organizations, and in the latter, we need impeachment, and preferably a firing squad.  Either way, it means the person currently holding the job of chief executive should lose it.

They could exhume Stalin's corpse and run it against Bush and I'd vote for it, that's how strongly I feel about the current state of affairs.  That the Democrats are running a dfferent animated corpse for President this year is a bonus.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on September 22, 2004, 10:03:58 pm
Quote
The only way it'd collapse is if Kerry is elected.  Our defense, with military and intelligence capabilities, would be gutted.  Just as he's voted for in the past.


Summary of the main Kerry votes that Bush likes to put forward:

#1) Kerry votes against buying modern air fighters.
Of other interest is that both Dick Cheney and Bush Sr. also voted against these air fighters. It was the end of the cold war, the army was being restructured away from defeating the USSR. Yes, this was like 13 years ago.

#2) Kerry voted against the $20 billion funding for Iraq troops.
True. He voted against this $20 billion measure because he voted for a $60 billion measure that Bush opposed on the grounds that the war should be cheap and easy.

#3) Kerry opposed the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.
If you look back, actually BUSH opposed the formation of the DHS, at about the same time, for the same reasons. But you don't call HIM a flip-flopper, nor weak on security.

Check the congressional record if you really want to see what was going on. It doesn't look anything like what the advertisements say.

Quote
Because like it or not, we typically defend our own against non-Americans.  You want to criticize our country, become a citizen.


This makes about as much sense as, "If you don't like Picasso, buy up everything he painted so you can burn it legally."


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on September 23, 2004, 07:00:02 pm
Quote

You want to criticize our country, become a citizen.


So, if a certain president wanted to criticize a country such as.. oh Iraq, Iran, North Korea or Sudan, he should first emigrate to said country? Or is this a rule that only applies to filthy non-US citizens??

The point of having a democracy boy, is that we're allowed to speak our minds. Granted, our arguments are more impressive if we know what we're speaking about, but only a true fool would discount someones opinion based on where they live.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on October 05, 2004, 04:27:27 am
Quote



Back to the topic at hand. All Kerry complains about is Bushh is leading us to war, anyonw with common sense will realize that if you let the terrorists slide they WILL do it again, if you don't retaliate with force, which is the only language relifous fanatics understand, you shall remain the victim. If Bush is so wrong I'd like to know what would do better, since he hasn't said a word of what his plans are. From what I've read of "Unfit for Command" Kerry is the reason he only did 90 day in nam' he cited a 3 Purple Heart rule which required him at his own request to be put on inactive status, and what did he do? he ran for Congress and founded the label of Vietnam Veterans as "Baby Killers." In case you don't know a standard tour of duty is a year so if even one of his purple hearts are a fraud he owes the United States Navy 9 months of active duty. Another interesting fact is that only one of his Swift boat colleges supports him, the rest are on the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth". It is known that his "First" purple heart was "awarded" for a wound which was a result of his own stupidity, a fragment of a grenade which he fired from a grenade launcher, and from the description I read, it was the size of a Frosted Flake, Required not incision, removed with forceps, did NOT break the skin and was covered with a BAND-AID. If you think it's bad that "Bush lied" why was Clinton re-elected? He lied and was caught I didn't see a media frenzy until the trial. Just some food for thought. Have fun trying to swallow it.



Bush lied to take us to war, and a thousand Americans have died as a result.  Clinton lied about sex with a secretary, which one is worse?  If that BJ had killed a thousand people I wouldn't have voted for Clinton.  As for Kerry's complaints about GWB going to war, he has a valid point.  When Bush said we would go to war with Iraq only as a last resort, he lied we didn't go as a last resort.  He didn't wait for weapons inspectors, supposedly so that Saddam couldn't hide them, yet we didn't find any anyways.  Smart move...  When he lied about the connection between Saddam and September the 11th, when all intelligence said there was no connection.  Another good one.  In my eyes this president has gone against the convictions that this great nation stands for, and in the process reduced the world's opinion of the U.S. from one of great respect and admiration, to one of wariness and unease.  Choke on that


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on October 06, 2004, 02:20:15 am
Ahh, the beauty of an AVID and alot of free time:

http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on October 06, 2004, 06:39:44 am
Quote
Ahh, the beauty of an AVID and alot of free time:

http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov


:D LOLercaust!


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on October 07, 2004, 09:01:32 pm
You have too much free time. But that was extremely amusing.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: NECRO-99 on October 11, 2004, 10:36:13 pm
Quote
Clinton lied about sex with a secretary, which one is worse?  If that BJ had killed a thousand people I wouldn't have voted for Clinton.


Hell, when Clinton was busy getting "serviced", the Dow Jones was going UP. We don't need a president. We just need someone who's willing to get a hummer every now and then.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on October 12, 2004, 03:21:51 am
Well, the Dow was overinflated; perhaps if a brake had been put on a little earlier it would have stayed at a sane level. Someone pointing out how idiotic a lot of the software startups... so perhaps the BJDJ was not the best indicator of economic performance.

On the other hand, since this president seems to have the reverse deal going on with investors, I guess one must remember that it's all relative.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on October 12, 2004, 07:57:40 am
Quote


Hell, when Clinton was busy getting "serviced", the Dow Jones was going UP. We don't need a president. We just need someone who's willing to get a hummer every now and then.And I think I'll be the right person for the job.


Thank you Lewis Black, let's try and be original. The reason for that was the dot.com boom. Internet-based businesses spawned all over the place, at the final 6-months of Clitin's(intentional spelling) term the economy began to tank (the dot.com bust) when the ecnomy spikes that drastically it's only a matter of time before it falls. Your boy John Kerry is planning on correcting the debt by raising taxes mainly on the middle-class and small business, does this make any sense to you? Small businesses and the middle class are the workforce. Anyone with half a brain will realize that this is a sure-fire way to kill the economy. You people support a corrupt party without integrity, didn't you ever wonder where Gore's 1000+ votes discovered in Florida actually came from? John Kerry believes that the war on terror should be handled the same way the war on drugs is handled to "bring to a point where it's only a nuisance" this is a stupid idea when dealing with people who believe it is the will of god to exterminate every man, woman and child who lives in a free society. If Kerry miraculously gets elected the expression "Common sense isn't all that common" will have an entirely different weight.

I know I said I wouldn't post on this thread again, but recent events have been quite "taxing" and has pissed me off beyond belief.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on October 12, 2004, 02:05:32 pm
Sigh. I hate to sound evil and class-warfare-ish, but no, Terminator, the workforce is not all middle-class and small-business-owners. Actually quite a lot of it is the *working*-class (hence the name) working for large publicly-held corporations. The middle class and small business owners are a sizable chunk of the workforce, sure, but what they're a *huge* chunk of is the people who have time to show up to vote on Election Day, which is why they're the people both parties usually try to throw a scare into.

Actually, one of Kerry's biggest campaign promises (whether you choose to believe him or not is up to you, but given that you're not psychic this is the only real way to say what he "will" do) is to make the lower-class and middle-class tax cuts permanent. Kerry claims he'll raise taxes on the upper-class, which for him starts from $200,000 up. (FWIW I always considered my family upper-middle-class and my dad never made more than $100,000.) Also, Kerry specifically claims to be trying to protect small business against *large* business -- almost all the business-related tax cuts Bush passed would benefit large, publicly-held corporations rather than small privately-held ones. The huge tax break for foreign-based corporations only applies to corporations large enough to move their operations overseas; the cut on dividend taxes only applies to corporations that have gone public and have stockholders. Unless you're going to start talking about estate tax (don't get me started on that -- let's just say that there are no existing IRS records of any actual small business or farm that ever had to be sold to pay it), there's no evidence of any small-business-targeted tax raise or cut from either side.

And no, I don't believe any president can ever be given credit for creating a boom or bust, but I'm not such a fatalist that I think the government has no power over the economy at all (or I'd lose much of my interest in politics). Clinton set up an environment where the dotcom boom could be nurtured and safely transmit its gains to the population at large; booms and busts happen in administrations of any party, but it's under Republican regimes where public spending is slashed and tax cuts go to the rich that you see polarization increasing, where booms mainly benefit the elite and the poor stay poor. We can argue about it all day, but there is an argument to be made that Clinton's social programs made the late '90s boom one that everyone in America could feel -- one that, for instance, successfully decreased unemployment, as opposed to this economic recovery in which unemployment is continuing to stand still and occasionally grow. We really should note that Clinton's running of the *government* gave the *government* a nice budget surplus that economists were saying could last long enough to actually be a problem for the government; George W. Bush made it disappear completely and be replaced by record deficits in the blink of an eye. Say what you like about the country as a whole, but the government's books aren't doing well under Bush.

Finally, on other points that are completely and totally tangential to the point about taxation: Um, I'm not entirely certain what you're referring to about the Florida election. Neither party has ever been totally innocent of possibly messing with the voter rolls to their benefit (the temptation is just way too high). But the fact is Gore didn't *get* those votes in 2000; it's a toss-up whom to blame the recount situation on (though, honestly, looking at Katherine Harris and her team I felt like they were understandably reticent to actually find a Democratic victory). However, there *is* some pretty nasty dealing concerning huge numbers of votes that were thrown out, without informing the voters, because Governor Jeb Bush personally ordered election counters to "spread the net wide" in disqualifying felon voters, not only throwing out registrations of confirmed felons but anyone whose name was similar to a felon's; this discriminated strongly against, for example, Hispanic people and many black people and was *certain* to unfairly throw out some people's right to vote (since often they *knew* there was only one felon named "Tyreke Randell" but threw out all ten Tyreke Randells in the county anyway). Only through a convoluted chain of logic can you tell me that's fair; only by being completely blind can you say that doesn't penalize Democrats, who almost always perform much better among minorities than Republicans.

As far as the War on Terror goes, what you say doesn't match at all with anything John Kerry has publicly said; he's actually been way more outspoken about the need to aggressively "hunt down and kill" terrorists than almost all his competitors in the Democratic primaries. As for what he's said about Iraq, I don't think expressing a desire for triage -- for doing the important things first and with all your energy, and the less important things second and with less energy -- is the same as wanting to compromise with terrorists' existence. Afghanistan is a big threat, so we lead the charge there with all our power. Iraq is a lesser threat, so we set up a coalition to keep an eye on them and limit their funds. Claiming that this is unacceptable compromise is like claiming the War on Drugs should be fought by whatever means necessary to *absolutely eliminate* drugs, even if it means sending cops to search every single house in every single neighborhood in every single city in America, and damn the costs. That's an insane attitude, and, heck, it's not even an attitude George W. Bush even really seems to endorse, given that he *is* willing to compromise and wait for results in delicate hotspots like North Korea. I don't think Iraq is an example of his being overall tough and unwilling to compromise; I think it's just his becoming obsessed with one particular plan and going with it despite its flaws (mistakenly classifying Iraq as "high-risk" rather than "low-risk", not denying that there's high and low levels of risk).

Also, Terminator, misspelling people's names to make fun of them is a really stupid and immature debating tactic, and it only makes you look bad. Don't do it, no matter how negatively you feel about a person. And it is good to try to expand your points a bit in order to make them part of a single argument, since tossing off taxes, the War on Terror and election fraud all at once appears pretty scattered and random.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on October 13, 2004, 02:31:41 am
Quote


Thank you Lewis Black, let's try and be original. The reason for that was the dot.com boom. Internet-based businesses spawned all over the place, at the final 6-months of Clitin's(intentional spelling) term the economy began to tank (the dot.com bust) when the ecnomy spikes that drastically it's only a matter of time before it falls. Your boy John Kerry is planning on correcting the debt by raising taxes mainly on the middle-class and small business, does this make any sense to you? Small businesses and the middle class are the workforce. Anyone with half a brain will realize that this is a sure-fire way to kill the economy. You people support a corrupt party without integrity, didn't you ever wonder where Gore's 1000+ votes discovered in Florida actually came from? John Kerry believes that the war on terror should be handled the same way the war on drugs is handled to "bring to a point where it's only a nuisance" this is a stupid idea when dealing with people who believe it is the will of god to exterminate every man, woman and child who lives in a free society. If Kerry miraculously gets elected the expression "Common sense isn't all that common" will have an entirely different weight.

I know I said I wouldn't post on this thread again, but recent events have been quite "taxing" and has pissed me off beyond belief.


:'(

Do you beleive everything you see in Bush campaign commercials?  Damn man you are blind to reality if you think all of this is true... go to www.factcheck.org and see for yourself what some of those claims Bush makes are about.



Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on October 13, 2004, 06:42:56 am
Okay, I'd missed Friday's debate, so I went back and found your source for the "nuisance level" quote. The thing is Kerry was there talking about all terrorism, as a concept; it's pretty clear he wasn't talking about Al-Qaeda specifically, which he does hope to destroy as an institution.

I think it's really annoying that increasingly the Bush campaign is using the word "terrorist" as code for "bad Muslims". Terrorism is a particular crime, and you'll never get *rid* of terrorism any more than you'll get rid of murder, or get rid of confidence schemes, or get rid of burglary. Any upset kid who makes a pipe bomb in his basement can be a terrorist. People who think that solving terrorism means going to a particular part of the world where terrorists come from and killing them all are seriously deluded; unless you kill every single person in that country, you won't make it impossible for some angry person in that country to *become* a terrorist, and the more people you kill the more likely that is to happen (since widespread war is one of those things that gets people upset).

Finally, I'm also pretty sick of the rhetoric that says that Muslim terrorists are all psychotic religious fanatics who believe that God personally ordered them to kill every living person in a "free society". They may often use that rhetoric, but most terrorists have rational political agendas just like we do, and have specific goals they want to accomplish (often by scaring us into thinking they're crazier than they really are). They can be cornered, intimidated, negotiated with and coerced. I think what people don't realize is the degree to which politicians and diplomats *had* neutered dictators like Saddam Hussein before the war; it's the dangerous assertion that people like Saddam are *crazy* and you can never negotiate with them and *must* always go to war that's led to our current situation. The problem is that if you go through life thinking everyone who opposes or even hates you is mindlessly fanatic and must be annihilated, you're going to get in a lot of needless fights and in the end you *are not going to win*.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on October 13, 2004, 09:28:55 am
Along the lines of what Art was talking about, terrorists aren't
just limited to children with pipe bombs and religious fanatics.
Terrorism can also come from opressive governments and
orgasnizations. Ones that want to tap your phone, check
your bags atthe airport and stamp a number next to your picture.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on October 13, 2004, 07:41:44 pm
Anyway, it was Bush who first said that you can't really win a war against terrorism. He basically said the same thing Kerry said, but without comparing it directly to crime. It was one of his few lucid moments in the past few years.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: NECRO-99 on October 13, 2004, 10:33:23 pm
And yet he still says we're winning the war on terror.
Most people must've ignored his comment  about it being impossible to win. I mean, that sounded intelligent, and that's not our foot-in-mouth POTUS!

I'm not a Kerry supporter either, mind you. They both suck.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Vassago_Umara on October 14, 2004, 03:48:55 am
George Bush could be classified as an environmental terrorist, he actively wants to destroy wildlife preserves, is making our country more polluted under acts such as the "cleaner" sky act, which sets pollution regulations for factories and coal plants back to what they were in the 1960's.
And the "cleaner" water act which actually reduces the amount of money spent on water treatment plants, purification, and the conservation of natural filters like wetlands.

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  9/29/2000

Quote/Claim:
"[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Souirce: Bush Environmental Plan]

Fact:
"I do not believe that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide." - President Bush, 3/13/03


I'm not a Kerry fan either, but I believe in a time such as this we MUST vote for the lesser of two evils, and I believe Kerry is nowhere near as corrupt, biased, and closeminded as Bush.  You can't be president and base all of your decisions on what you think Jesus would want, ignoring all scientific evidence to the contrary.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on October 14, 2004, 05:05:42 am
Quote
You can't be president and base all of your decisions on what you think Jesus would want, ignoring all scientific evidence to the contrary.

Oh, I've got some fairly compelling evidence that you can, and that ~50% of the country will love you for it...  ;)


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Kaiser on October 15, 2004, 08:53:02 am
Quote
George Bush could be classified as an environmental terrorist, he actively wants to destroy wildlife preserves, is making our country more polluted under acts such as the "cleaner" sky act, which sets pollution regulations for factories and coal plants back to what they were in the 1960's.
And the "cleaner" water act which actually reduces the amount of money spent on water treatment plants, purification, and the conservation of natural filters like wetlands.

Environmental terrorist?  Okay.  So you want the economy to tank more by putting in so many restrictions that they're unprofitable.  Oh, and that life filled tundra up in Alaska where the oil is.  Wait...  What life?  IT IS BARREN.  

He wants to shrink the preserve a little.  So what?  I'd much rather have cheaper gas than preserve wasteland.

Quote
I'm not a Kerry fan either, but I believe in a time such as this we MUST vote for the lesser of two evils, and I believe Kerry is nowhere near as corrupt, biased, and closeminded as Bush..

The lesser of the two evils IS Bush.  Kerry just says what he thinks the far left wants to hear.  He hides his own objectives and is a habitual liar.  The draft for example.  That is a DEMOCRATIC proposal that the Republicans, and the President especially, is against.  Expect to be drafted if Kerry wins.

Kerry lies on his own record constantly.  He is the most liberal Senator in the Senate!  How do you have the gall to claim he's not biased?  Everything he does is biased.  At least Bush TRIES to give the people what they want.  

Kerry would only be a good President to a person who wants to government to control every aspect of the country.  *glances at all the horridly run government businesses*  Sorry, I'd rather keep my doctor as an independant.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on October 15, 2004, 10:00:04 am
Quote

Environmental terrorist?  Okay.  So you want the economy to tank more by putting in so many restrictions that they're unprofitable.  Oh, and that life filled tundra up in Alaska where the oil is.  Wait...  What life?  IT IS BARREN.

I've been to Alaska, and it's beautiful. This is a stupid way to start a pro-Bush post; after reading just this line I've already disregarded everything that follows as dog shit. I will illustrate this reaction of mine in the following quotations.

Quote
He wants to shrink the preserve a little.  So what?  I'd much rather have cheaper gas than preserve wasteland.

Yes, I would honestly expect Bush to at least be able to drop the gas prices down to nice friendly level what with all the environment stomping and Middle East war mongering. [link=http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200410/200410130038.html]He has failed even in this.[/link]

Quote
The lesser of the two evils IS Bush.  Kerry just says what he thinks the far left wants to hear.  He hides his own objectives and is a habitual liar.  The draft for example.  That is a DEMOCRATIC proposal that the Republicans, and the President especially, is against.  Expect to be drafted if Kerry wins.

Expect another irrelevant war or two if Bush wins, forcing a draft.

Quote
Kerry lies on his own record constantly.  He is the most liberal Senator in the Senate!  How do you have the gall to claim he's not biased?  Everything he does is biased.  At least Bush TRIES to give the people what they want.

How exactly do they gauge who is most liberal and who is most conservative within the government? That's something the Bush Administration and their pet news network like to claim, but even if Kerry is "too liberal", he is not the most liberal. Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy are less liberal than Kerry? Even with the little I know about the other two, I doubt it.

Quote
Kerry would only be a good President to a person who wants to government to control every aspect of the country.  *glances at all the horridly run government businesses*  Sorry, I'd rather keep my doctor as an independant.

In an extremely biased way, you have stated the difference between liberal and conservative. Bush isn't a true conservative. Sure he taxes like one, but he spends like a democrat. Who's going to get rid of the huge deficit he made doing that? Him? The next asshole neo-con in line? I doubt it.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on October 15, 2004, 01:10:20 pm
Quote

Environmental terrorist?  Okay.  So you want the economy to tank more by putting in so many restrictions that they're unprofitable.  Oh, and that life filled tundra up in Alaska where the oil is.  Wait...  What life?  IT IS BARREN.


I really do hate misusing "terrorist" this way and wish that poster hadn't done it. A "terrorist" is someone who, literally, causes violence or destruction to terrorize people -- to scare people into following an agenda rather than directly advancing that agenda.

So no, Bush isn't a terrorist against the environment. He doesn't need to be, since he directly controls policies that harm the environment.

While I, being an econ major, am willing to make compromises over the state of the environment for the good of the human economy, you seem to be implying that making a profit and boosting the economy is always preferable to economic regulation, no matter how drastic the deregulation (and Bush's changes have been pretty darn drastic). For what it's worth, the problems with our economy are caused by politics, by tax problems and legal snafus, by passing trends in people's waning and waxing consumer confidence and willingness to hire and whatnot. The business cycle, constant fluctuations in people's ability to provide supply and express demand.

The actual resources in the environment, however, don't fluctuate. They're there or they're not there; use them up, pollute them or destroy them and they're gone. There is a real argument against spending down from a fixed fund that we'll never replenish or only replenish after a long time -- our environment -- to ease the transition through the bad period of a cycle that will pass anyway if we give it enough time.

And by the way, you really are an idiot by referring to Alaska as "barren wasteland". The part of Alaska that the wildlife preserve is in is actually the richest part of America there is when it comes to exotic animals and wildlife -- it's been called "America's Serengeti", and it's the whole *reason* Congress decided to put such a big honking wildlife preserve there in the first place (no, they don't just create them for fun). It'd be different if we were talking about the ice-covered parts of northern Alaska rather than the forests and grasslands of the southeast (Alaska's a huge state, you know), but, hey, we're already drilling there.

Quote

He wants to shrink the preserve a little.  So what?  I'd much rather have cheaper gas than preserve wasteland.


That oil would last us a month at worst, six months at best. And then the equipment would stay there, killing off vegetation and starving the caribou, destroying the tourist trade for generations after the oil had run out (if the impact on the human economy is all you care about).

Quote

The lesser of the two evils IS Bush.  Kerry just says what he thinks the far left wants to hear.  He hides his own objectives and is a habitual liar.  The draft for example.  That is a DEMOCRATIC proposal that the Republicans, and the President especially, is against.  Expect to be drafted if Kerry wins.


Has Kerry tried to push his views to the left to get votes? I agree he probably has. But has Bush pushed his views to the *right* to get votes? Abso-fucking-posi-lutely. We're talking about a president who only ever takes advice from the same five or six people, most of whom worked for his dad. He's changed his own stated views on foreign policy -- not thinking America should be the global policeman to suddenly taking actions right out of the Project for a New American Century's playbook, right down to the country they recommended for a pre-emptive invasion to establish democracy in the Middle East. He used to want to push for a middle-class tax cut -- Karl Rove, whose only damn job as a party publicist ought to be airing ads, actually yelled at himi to "Stick to principle" and forced him to recenter his tax cuts on the wealthy. Why did John Iulio quit the faith-based initiatives project that was initially his baby? Because in the Bush White House, there's "no policy arm -- everything is dictated by the political arm". It's all about being right-wing and getting right-wing voters; no deviation from right-wing rhetoric allowed.

And no, neither candidate said a damn thing about the draft. For God's sakes, the draft is not going to happen, especially not by a Democratic president in his first term going up for reelection -- whether you think the Congress Democrats want it or not, the Democrat voter base would scream bloody murder (these are the people who went to anti-war protests and are voting for Kerry holding their noses shut, remember). I've never said Bush wanted a draft, and I'm still sure he doesn't -- in fact he's been so friggin' determined to make this war a light load on the American people and not disturb American prosperity because of it that he let Rumsfeld set us up for a quagmire in Iraq by sending as few troops as possible in the initial invasion (not a smart idea). Yes, Kerry wants to create new divisions (which, honestly, we need; we're stretched damn thin right now with the "backdoor draft" of reserves going full tilt) and I think it'll be hard to staff two full divisions with volunteers, but a draft's not a politically viable option for anyone.

By the way, yes, the bill for a draft was introduced in the House by a Democrat from New York last year, primarily to force the Republicans to side for or against it so that the Democrats could campaign against them that way. The Republicans trapped it in debate and only allowed it to be voted on in order to make it clear that they *were* against a draft. Yes, two Dems voted for it -- and all 402 other Democrats and Republicans in the House overwhelmingly voted against it. So both parties can shut up and stop waving the draft in people's faces to scare young voters.

Quote

Kerry lies on his own record constantly.  He is the most liberal Senator in the Senate!  How do you have the gall to claim he's not biased?  Everything he does is biased.  At least Bush TRIES to give the people what they want.


Wait, why are liberals biased and conservatives not? Liberals are liberals because they believe what they believe is right, and good for people; conservatives are conservatives for the same reason. If you're one of those annoying conservatives who thinks that 90% of the country is actually conservative and the country only seems liberal because of the evil media and liberal government officials, you're far enough removed from reality there's no point talking to you. The country is split 50-50 between Kerry and Bush right now, so that's a good sign that at least half the people don't think Bush  *is* trying to give them what they want. I can tell you right now that Bush never tried to give me a lot of what I want, and I'm one of "the people".

And for what it's worth (though I don't think it's totally relevant) there's evidence that Bush actually doesn't listen to opinion polls that much, and has pretty much stuck with his same advisors even when public opinion has been burning strongly against his actions -- notice that his originally soaring approval ratings plunged several times throughout the course of the Iraq war, and he never responded by changing policy direction or changing advisors even when it was *obvious* that, say, in the wake of Abu Ghraib he could've saved himself by letting Rumsfeld go. There are *reasons* he went from 95% approval to 41%.

Also, Kerry being the "most liberal Senator in the Senate" is a reference to a study the National Journal did on his voting record *this year*, not over his whole career (and while he has been very liberal in the past, winning that award three other years, there have been years he's raised Democrat hackles by backing Republican-sponsored bills, especially on things like deficit reduction -- if you'll remember, he also pissed hard-left Dems off by voting to authorize Bush to go to war (as did most people at that time -- hell, I was sort of in favor of the war before I learned how much distortion the president had packed into his presentations in favor of it). In any case, if you do a similar study on Bush, he's by far the most conservative president we've had in a helluva long time -- definitely more than his dad, probably more than Reagan, and you have to go back to Coolidge to find someone who can compete with him before that.

Quote

Kerry would only be a good President to a person who wants to government to control every aspect of the country.  *glances at all the horridly run government businesses*  Sorry, I'd rather keep my doctor as an independant.


If you'd been paying attention, you'd know Kerry was only talking about making available a government-funded opt-in HMO, not government seizure of all private-sector hospitals and health services and integration into a single-payer health-care system (which I would actually be in favor of, given that every other First World nation has one). Even though this won't eliminate the horrendous levels of bureaucratic overhead caused by competition between HMOs -- our health care system is *terrible* compared to the rest of the world's in terms of administrative efficiency and actually getting people served, whatever you think of the fancy-pants medical technology we can afford that they can't -- it'll at least get people treatment who need to be treated, rather than having deathly sick people dying in the streets (do you know how many people are wandering America uninsured right now? 41 million plus.)

Other than with that health care thing, Kerry's not really much for nationalizing anything. (Regulation is not the same as nationalizing industries, and our industry became world-dominating *after* we got strong regulation bureaus like the FDA, not before.) Yes, he's for not privatizing Social Security, but that's an argument for the status quo, that, despite its problems, nonetheless seems to be doing better for us than what's happened in countries like Chile where privatization tanked and put retirees in the poorhouse. (And that's not bringing up how we'd *pay* for privatization -- where's the money going to come from to pay for this generation of retirees who we promised checks to, when this generation's taxpayers aren't subsidizing them anymore but putting their payrollt axes in private accounts?)


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on October 15, 2004, 03:54:56 pm
Everything made perfect sense to me right up until you said this:

Quote
In any case, if you do a similar study on Bush, he's by far the most conservative president we've had in a helluva long time -- definitely more than his dad, probably more than Reagan, and you have to go back to Coolidge to find someone who can compete with him before that.

I think it might be a good idea to digress for a moment and define terms; namely "Liberal" vs. "Conservative".  Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) has some excellent articles on the nature of the terms, but they are a bit lengthy and do not seem to address vernacular usage (although they are a fascinating read to anyone of a slightly wonkish persuasion).

In service of my point, the current administration has advocated:
  • Fiscal irresponsibility (via massive deficit spending)
  • The establishment of huge government bureaucracy (Department of Homeland Security)
  • Lifting constitutional restrictions that would safeguard individual liberties (the effective elimination of 4th amendment search and seizure restrictions via the USA PATRIOT Act)[/i]
  • Unprecendented levels of Federal government control over state affairs (via the DHS)
  • Altering the U.S. Constitution to specifically deny rights to people (Gay Marriage Amendment)
That reads to me like a stereotypical "liberal's" wet dream wish-list, yet modern "conservatives" love this stuff, ostensibly because it's "their team" scoring all the points.  Or have I missed out, and "conservative" is merely a latter-day codeword for "evangelical christian", much like "welfare mother" was a codeword for "african-american" (or, more accurately in my opinion, "filthy nigger") in the 1990s?  I'm quite willing to believe that, as the labels don't make any objective sense to me anymore using their classical definitions.

What are, say, the three core beliefs that make someone a "conservative", and conversely, what makes someone a "liberal"?  And, if your beliefs put you at odds with the presidential candiates stated and/or demonstrated policies, what is it that's keeping you from "jumping sides" and voting for the other guy?  Hmm, perhaps this merits its own topic.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Kaiser on October 16, 2004, 04:51:41 am
Quote
Yes, I would honestly expect Bush to at least be able to drop the gas prices down to nice friendly level what with all the environment stomping and Middle East war mongering.

Right...  So you want to actually drop the enviromental standards and build more refinaries?  THAT is what is needed to lower the price.  Environmentalists blocking their construction and modernization are directly responsible for the rising gas/oil prices.  Good job.

Quote
Expect another irrelevant war or two if Bush wins, forcing a draft.

Just like all of Clinton's wars caused a draft.  Wait...  They didn't.  And our troops are still there.  Where are the Democrats bitching about the wars Clinton got involved in.  Including the little fact that a certain Democratic General tried to get US troops to attack Russian paratroopers at a Serbian airport, which could have very well forced a war with Russia.

Quote
Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy are less liberal than Kerry? Even with the little I know about the other two, I doubt it.
His record proves otherwise.  But you're right.  How can you tell as he changes positions biweekly?

Quote
That oil would last us a month at worst, six months at best. And then the equipment would stay there, killing off vegetation and starving the caribou, destroying the tourist trade for generations after the oil had run out (if the impact on the human economy is all you care about).

Where they want to drill is near the far north of Alaska.  There are VERY few things living there.  It's tundra.  I doubt many tourists head that far up.  You also don't know exactly how much oil's hidden up there.  How about drilling and truly finding out? :)

Quote
In an extremely biased way, you have stated the difference between liberal and conservative. Bush isn't a true conservative. Sure he taxes like one, but he spends like a democrat. Who's going to get rid of the huge deficit he made doing that? Him? The next asshole neo-con in line? I doubt it.

And with all the spending that Kerry's planning?  He certainly won't help it.  Unless you count the large tax increases he'll enact to counteract his spending, crippling the economy.

Quote
And by the way, you really are an idiot by referring to Alaska as "barren wasteland"

Nice to resort to name calling.  However, where they want to drill is pretty damn barren.  While the reserve does cover a large part of very rich land, that's not where they want to drill.

Quote
And no, neither candidate said a damn thing about the draft. For God's sakes, the draft is not going to happen

Tell that to the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

Quote
Wait, why are liberals biased and conservatives not?

When did I say that?

Quote
If you'd been paying attention, you'd know Kerry was only talking about making available a government-funded opt-in HMO, not government seizure of all private-sector hospitals and health services and integration into a single-payer health-care system (which I would actually be in favor of, given that every other First World nation has one). Even though this won't eliminate the horrendous levels of bureaucratic overhead caused by competition between HMOs -- our health care system is *terrible* compared to the rest of the world's in terms of administrative efficiency and actually getting people served, whatever you think of the fancy-pants medical technology we can afford that they can't -- it'll at least get people treatment who need to be treated, rather than having deathly sick people dying in the streets (do you know how many people are wandering America uninsured right now? 41 million plus.)

Why would you be in favor of it?  The burecratic nonsense is WORSE in those countries.  In many Western nations, it can take weeks or even months to get to see a doctor!  I know Canadians who come to the US to see doctors and go back home to buy the damned drugs.

Now for the list:

   * Fiscal irresponsibility (via massive deficit spending) [Which virtually every President has done since FDR]
   * The establishment of huge government bureaucracy (Department of Homeland Security) [Which is an attempt to STREAMLINE the current government bodies]
   * Lifting constitutional restrictions that would safeguard individual liberties (the effective elimination of 4th amendment search and seizure restrictions via the USA PATRIOT Act)[/i] [State of war changes many things.  Look at the American concentration...  Sorry.  Detainment camps during WW2]
   * Unprecendented levels of Federal government control over state affairs (via the DHS) [Like what Lincoln, a liberal, was doing during the Civil War?  Arresting entire ELECTED legislative bodies so they  couldn't oppose the Union?]
   * Altering the U.S. Constitution to specifically deny rights to people (Gay Marriage Amendment) [Protecting tradition.  A very conservative thing to do]


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on October 16, 2004, 06:57:12 am
Quote

Right...  So you want to actually drop the enviromental standards and build more refinaries?  THAT is what is needed to lower the price.  Environmentalists blocking their construction and modernization are directly responsible for the rising gas/oil prices.  Good job.


Um, no. Even by the most generous estimates the ANWR oil is very small potatoes. The real big sources of oil are and continue to be overseas Middle East oil and even ANWR oil won't really allow us to compete with them. So the *primary* reason for oil prices still being high is politics -- OPEC's desire to maintain their power, plus the inefficiencies of the oil industry in actual oil-rich non-OPEC countries outside the US like Venezuela, and our general slowness to do anything about the political messes in Africa that keep us from getting the oil there (which would be the surest way of hitting back at OPEC).

Quote

Just like all of Clinton's wars caused a draft.  Wait...  They didn't.  And our troops are still there.  Where are the Democrats bitching about the wars Clinton got involved in.  Including the little fact that a certain Democratic General tried to get US troops to attack Russian paratroopers at a Serbian airport, which could have very well forced a war with Russia.


Generals, unlike presidents, are not elected and are therefore outside the control of the party apparatus, so whether a general calls himself a Democrat or Republican isn't that relevant to their decisions. Especially when you're talking about something that is clearly an individual stupid mistake and not a matter of Democratic Party policy.

And FWIW, I join you in repudiating the conspiracy theories that say Bush will launch a draft. That said, the war in Iraq is *immensely* more draining on our armed forces than the war in Kosovo was; we've had an intense occupation of a good-size small country against an organized insurgency that's actually got fortified positions in two whole cities now. Huge number of reserves are in, 9 out of 10 of the active-duty divisions have been called up -- compare that to Kosovo, where all the true military action was air-based and following that we merely contributed to a UN peacekeeping mission in a tiny province. Just count the number dead in each war and you'll see there's a massive difference of scale.

Quote

Quote:
Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy are less liberal than Kerry? Even with the little I know about the other two, I doubt it.
His record proves otherwise.  But you're right.  How can you tell as he changes positions biweekly?


You know, this is the weird thing about the Republican campaign. First they've accused Kerry of being a flip-flopper and constantly shifting his positions from left to right as the wind blows. Now they're nailing him for being *consistent*, for being, by their analysis, so amazingly and incredibly consistent that he's the pillar of the left wing in the Senate. You really can't have it both ways.

Quote

Quote:
That oil would last us a month at worst, six months at best. And then the equipment would stay there, killing off vegetation and starving the caribou, destroying the tourist trade for generations after the oil had run out (if the impact on the human economy is all you care about).

Where they want to drill is near the far north of Alaska.  There are VERY few things living there.  It's tundra.  I doubt many tourists head that far up.  You also don't know exactly how much oil's hidden up there.  How about drilling and truly finding out? Smiley


Is it okay for me to gig up your backyard for treasure as long as I confine it to the corner that no one walks through? You won't notice all my digging equipment or the huge amount of dirt I rip up or the exhaust my machines blast into the air, I promise. And even if all the experts say there's no gold there, you never know unless you try.

Quote

Quote:
In an extremely biased way, you have stated the difference between liberal and conservative. Bush isn't a true conservative. Sure he taxes like one, but he spends like a democrat. Who's going to get rid of the huge deficit he made doing that? Him? The next asshole neo-con in line? I doubt it.

And with all the spending that Kerry's planning?  He certainly won't help it.  Unless you count the large tax increases he'll enact to counteract his spending, crippling the economy.


News flash: Bush's tax cuts for very wealthy people are *enormous* compared to his tax cuts for the vast majority of the population. The very rich don't tend to allow their wealth to "trickle down", contrary to Mr. Reagan's logic -- quite the opposite, in fact. If they allowed their wealth to trickle down they would not be very rich. The very rich tend to store their wealth in long-term savings and investments which keep money concentrated in certain sectors of the economy rather than circulating, *slowing* growth.

To stimulate growth you want to give money to a very large number of people, preferably people who have a high propensity to spend money -- that is, the middle and lower classes. Not only will there be lots of them, each with separate consumption needs, they'll probably spend that money quickly, putting it back into the economy to increase consumption and further growth. Even better, you can take money from rich people where it's not doing much good and give it to people who are a drain on society -- illiterate people without skills scraping from job to job -- and give them the support they need to become productive memebrs of the workforce. All of those do a lot more to grow the economy than a few billionaires swelling their kids' trust funds.

Quote

Quote:
And by the way, you really are an idiot by referring to Alaska as "barren wasteland"[

Nice to resort to name calling.  However, where they want to drill is pretty damn barren.  While the reserve does cover a large part of very rich land, that's not where they want to drill.


Perhaps you should try making points without using ALL CAPS and such a derogatory tone, then. In any case, they haven't specified where they want to drill; the proposed bill gives them pretty big powers to scout around for wherever they think the drilling will be profitable. They just tell voters they don't think they'll have to drill in the wildlife-rich areas to please them, but if they drill anywhere within the protected area they'll be polluting and damaging the ecosystem, since animals move through and plants grow in even the areas where there's not that much visible activity. The middle of the street outside my house is empty most of the time -- that doesn't mean it has no effect on my neighborhood if I start piling garbage out there. (Hence the decision to protect that whole specific area -- again, Congress didn't just draw a square on the map at a whim.)

Quote

Quote:
And no, neither candidate said a damn thing about the draft. For God's sakes, the draft is not going to happen

Tell that to the Kerry-Edwards campaign.


Show me one place where Kerry or Edwards or one of their spokespeople has said anything that says they're in favor of a draft. Barring you having psychic powers over Kerry and Edwards, no, you don't have any evidence (and the right-wing bloggers and commentators you're probably getting this from don't have psychic powers either, much as they act like they do).

Quote

Quote:
Wait, why are liberals biased and conservatives not?

When did I say that?


"How do you have the gall to claim he's not biased?  Everything he does is biased.  At least Bush TRIES to give the people what they want."

Tell me one meaningful way in which Kerry is "biased" that Bush is not. It doesn't mean anything to say they're "biased" -- they're biased by their own friggin' opinions on right and wrong that make them liberal or conservative. They're *supposed* to be "biased".

If you mean that the *information* they make their decisions based on is biased, I should point out that Bush has the most ideologically unified set of advisors in quite some time -- have you ever seen him take serious advice from a Democrat or even a moderate Republican? (Colin Powell's as close as you get, and Bush overrides Powell way more often than Powell has any visible effect on Bush.) Kerry, at least, has shown himself open to listening to the other side -- note that he *did* give Bush the benefit of the doubt and authorize him to go to war if Bush thought it was necessary. Either way, though, both of them have their opinions and we should judge them on whether their opinions are right or wrong, not based on where some authority thinks the "center" of American politics ought to be.

Quote

Why would you be in favor of it?  The burecratic nonsense is WORSE in those countries.  In many Western nations, it can take weeks or even months to get to see a doctor!  I know Canadians who come to the US to see doctors and go back home to buy the damned drugs.


...And I know Americans who have no health insurance and would probably just be sick and end up going to the ER if they got a bad disease. Which one is worse?

In both situations, keep in mind, people go to the doctor for non-essential things, and expect to be treated more and more thoroughly for an ever-increasing list of ailments. People in America compensate for this by paying extra money for health plans that cover more stuff -- single-user plans compensate by making those with less serious problems wait more time.

I think both are fair, except that single-user plans have a bottom limit -- everyone *will* get some form of treatment sometime -- while Americans are content to let certain people fall outside the system completely. I think that's unacceptable. The Europeans and Canadians seem to think so too, given that though some may complain about government bureaucracy most of them aren't mounting campaigns to re-privatize the system. And you should note that the *total amount of money spent* (public or private) in other countries is a lot lower than what we spend in the US on health care. We *waste* tons of money paying HMOs to shuffle around papers and surprise us with exemptions on our insurance. Maybe if you're really wealthy *you've* never been overcharged or denied essential services that you then had to pay through the noise for by your HMO, but that's not what most of us experience.

In any case, you're talking about something irrelevant. Kerry's *not proposing* a single-user plan. He wants to create an opt-in government HMO (not true health plan) for Americans. That might create some redistribution of resources within our health care system -- the fact that everyone could get *some* health care paid for by taxes might push up prices at the top, for instance, unless regulation kept the HMOs from doing so by forcing them to trim their margins -- but it would still allow you to have scalability in health care, to pay for really nice health care if you could afford it, to systematize one group of hospitals into one health plan to avoid the bureaucracy of super-centralized single-player systems, and so on. It's not as effective a solution as I'd like, but it solves the big problem -- 40 million uninsured people walking around -- without creating many more problems, so I like it.

Quote

Now for the list:

   * Fiscal irresponsibility (via massive deficit spending) [Which virtually every President has done since FDR]


Mmm... no. FDR was kind of massive for his time. But the post-FDR presidents never really pushed it far beyond FDR's level, and in the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon era they actually pushed it a little back.

Reagan was the one who pushed deficit spending to truly *massive* proportions -- four or five times the level of FDR, in real terms. Then the deficit slowly shrank under Bush Sr. and shrank a *lot* under Clinton, even at the very beginning of Clinton's term -- and remember it was at the end of Clinton's term that we had our first surplus since Coolidge.

Whoever you want to give the credit to, Clinton could have easily prevented it from happening by jacking up spending and cutting taxes -- getting *rid* of surpluses is really easy, after all. Bush Jr. did it within his first year, and at the end of his term we're at our biggest deficit in *history* -- 1.5 times that of Reagan's deepest deficit.

Yeah, Democrats aren't guiltless when it comes to deficit spending, but the two worst deficit spenders in history *by far* are the two Republican icons, Reagan and Bush, and Bush holds the title record by a long way.

Quote

   * The establishment of huge government bureaucracy (Department of Homeland Security) [Which is an attempt to STREAMLINE the current government bodies]


A failed attempt.You have to realize that even though bureaucratic reshuffling that's meant to streamline things *in the end* creates huge amounts of bureaucracy *now*. You have to be very careful about how you go about it, because huge amounts of restructuring in any bureaucracy -- a government, a business -- will create tons of red tape -- Who's whose supervisor when and for how long? Who gets moved to which office? Which regulations from the old office override which ones from the new office? -- and sometimes just make things worse and never get better, as lots of information and rules get lost in the big confusing shuffle.

In this case, the places where DHS influence has been strongest -- its acquisition of the INS, for example -- have left those agencies a muddled mess, where regulations are determined by fiat because no one knows the precise procedures for re-establishing the chian of command. Our borders might be more secure now, but it sure doesn't seem like it; the impact of things like illegal immigration seems to actually be increasing. And the main security holes the DHS was meant to fix -- "streamlining" the FBI and CIA to collect data more efficiently -- never happened. The FBI and CIA leadership refuse to work together, and the records aren't in much better state now than they were before. The DHS may be a great symbol of America's redefining itself post-9/11 -- that was its main selling point, and I won't fault it for that -- but as an actual bureaucratic instrument, it's a mess. Ask anyone who actually keeps up on these things and isn't actively campaigning for Bush.

Quote
   * Lifting constitutional restrictions that would safeguard individual liberties (the effective elimination of 4th amendment search and seizure restrictions via the USA PATRIOT Act)[/i] [State of war changes many things.  Look at the American concentration...  Sorry.  Detainment camps during WW2]


And... er... you're defending this as a good thing? People have choices to make, you know. Just because there's pressure to do certain things during wartime doesn't mean we have to do them. Particularly when we've learned that they were *bad decisions*.

Quote
  * Unprecendented levels of Federal government control over state affairs (via the DHS) [Like what Lincoln, a liberal, was doing during the Civil War?  Arresting entire ELECTED legislative bodies so they  couldn't oppose the Union?]


Lincoln was a Republican, dude. The Republicans like to brag about it. I have no idea why you're calling him a "liberal", unless you're trying to claim that the word "liberal" applies to every bad thing ever done in history. The left wing and right wing as we know them didn't exist back then.

Anyways, Lincoln *was* facing a full-fledged Civil War, you know. Said legislative bodies contained many people who actively opposed the United States and wished to see it at least partly dissolved as a governmental union of states, the definition of treason. Today's situation hardly compares -- Ann Coulter's rhetoric aside, the fact that Democrats disagree with the way Bush is handling the War on Terror does not make them traitors who are seeking the country's destruction.

Quote
   * Altering the U.S. Constitution to specifically deny rights to people (Gay Marriage Amendment) [Protecting tradition.  A very conservative thing to do]


I actually agree. There's a big difference between "conservative" and "libertarian", and though conservatives try to define themselves as libertarians sometimes, especially to young people -- claiming conservatives are always for a smaller, less intrusive government -- that's not true. They often do increase government power when they see it as the only way of keeping the country in line with their image of what a "traditional" America looks like -- the bedrock foundation of being "conservative". Hence the union of people who don't particularly want the government to help out poor people  ('cause ending poverty and the need for ceaseless economic competition changes America's face) with people who do want to give the government broad powers to stop people from doing stuff they've been doing a long time ('cause America's face shouldn't include drug users, pornographers, abortion doctors or homosexual families).


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Kaiser on October 17, 2004, 01:51:46 pm
Lincoln WAS a liberal.  He was also a despot.  No, I'm not fond of the man.

As for the detainment camps, those were ordered by the hero of the Democrats, FDR.  Those were all our citizens.  Bush gets bitched at for detaining people arrested in warzones and with suspected ties to terrorists.  Imagine if he arrested everyone of Arab descent or Muslim faith.  Could you imagine the fallout from that?

Quote
Show me one place where Kerry or Edwards or one of their spokespeople has said anything that says they're in favor of a draft. Barring you having psychic powers over Kerry and Edwards, no, you don't have any evidence (and the right-wing bloggers and commentators you're probably getting this from don't have psychic powers either, much as they act like they do).

Never said THEY claim to be in favor of it.  They do, however, claim Bush will push it through if he's elected.  

As for the caps, it's merely a replacement of the bold command.  

Hmm.  4am.  Need sleep.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Tiberian on October 17, 2004, 03:40:47 pm
I think you are taking way too seriously all their political speeches. Of course every president says "I will make sure that this, this and this will happen if you elect me as the president."  but the truth is that they are unable, if not unwilling to actually do anything about it. It is the same in all countries. What counts in my opinion, is that the one I'm voting for is a good man. I don't know anything about Kerry, I just know that Bush is lower than dirt, so personally I'd like to see someone else in charge.

There was a recent survey in Finland which stated that in a few years, Finnish people have started hating the United States even more than they hate Russia. And that's something, considering our history.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on October 17, 2004, 11:25:48 pm
Quote
What counts in my opinion, is that the one I'm voting for is a good man. I don't know anything about Kerry, I just know that Bush is lower than dirt, so personally I'd like to see someone else in charge.


All politicians are lower then dirt. And that also is true for all countries.
What matters in my opinion, is to be sure that the man I'm voting for is able to make the country function properly.
My ideal president would be Lord Vetinari of Pratchett's Discworld... alas, it's only fantasy...


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on October 18, 2004, 07:03:11 am
Quote
Lincoln WAS a liberal.  He was also a despot.  No, I'm not fond of the man.


Lincoln was only a "liberal" in the most naive sense of the word, in that he pushed for a new policy that granted more rights to people who had been traditionally oppressed. He bears little resemblance to what we would call a "liberal" today, except among simplistic thinkers who equate "liberal" with "increased government power" and "conservative" with "decreased government power" (which not only goes against the intuitive meaning of the two terms but also gives us absurdities as saying Hitler and Mussolini were "liberals" and anarcho-socialist squatters in New York who want to burn down the White House are "conservatives".)

I agree he overstepped constitutional bounds a lot. That may make him a despot in your eyes. On the other hand, I think the secession of North Carolina was a much, much, *MUCH* bigger threat to the country than the 9/11 attack or WMDs in Iraq could possibly be, and that American slavery and the whole damned Southern aristocracy was a much greater evil that we had a much greater moral imperative to destroy than anything about Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime. (I'll accept that the Taliban were probably more evil, though their evil was not carried out on as wide a scale.)

Quote

As for the detainment camps, those were ordered by the hero of the Democrats, FDR.  Those were all our citizens.  Bush gets bitched at for detaining people arrested in warzones and with suspected ties to terrorists.  Imagine if he arrested everyone of Arab descent or Muslim faith.  Could you imagine the fallout from that?


Just a factual clear-up: Various exclusion acts had been passed before that prevented Japanese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens (though these weren't much more different from the other restrictive laws of that time that made becoming naturalized much more difficult for members of nations not already well represented in America). So all of the Issei (immigrants) in the camps were resident aliens. The Nisei, the children, were citizens, though most of them were only just reaching the age of majority and were under their parents' authority at the time.

The total size of the Japanese-American population at the time was much smaller than that of the population of all Muslims and all Middle-Eastern-looking people in America. Perhaps if Middle Eastern people were a tiny group, all living in the same regions of the same cities, that had only started immigrating here a generation ago, it *would* be possible for us to have detainment camps for them.

But thankfully I do think we've come a long way as a nation since then, and moreover that 9/11 didn't throw us nearly as off-balance as Pearl Harbor did. Even so, just because what we're doing isn't as bad doesn't mean it's not bad. Just because Jim Crow laws were more tolerable for black people than chattel slavery doesn't mean it was right for America to sit back and allow Southern blacks to live in segregation. And right now we do have some pretty nasty systems in place that harass Muslim Americans who have no direct implication in crime -- no-fly and danger lists that simplistically target anyone with a Muslim-sounding name who goes on an aircraft, for instance, or enforced interrogation and registration of whole swathes of Muslim youths within a single community with no discrimination for actual terrorist links.

Quote

Never said THEY claim to be in favor of it.  They do, however, claim Bush will push it through if he's elected.  

As for the caps, it's merely a replacement of the bold command.  


Amended, then. Kerry and Edwards haven't, however, been the ones floating the rumor about Bush's secret bill to create a draft that he has hidden for after the election. Edwards did make a remark that I think was regrettable about how people might expect a draft if Bush continued his current policies, though I still think the more likely result will be that Bush will find his policies untenable and pull out of Iraq, leaving it in ruins. (The main thing is that to keep doing what we're doing in Iraq the way we've been doing it, we have to pour soldiers upon soldiers into the area to constantly hold down violence. And it's not easy to keep finding volunteers in such a situation.)


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on October 18, 2004, 08:11:02 am
Quote
What counts in my opinion, is that the one I'm voting for is a good man. I don't know anything about Kerry, I just know that Bush is lower than dirt, so personally I'd like to see someone else in charge.


That is the most dangerous idea of all, you would elect a man whose ordinates hated him to a point where he had to be relocated far from Vietnam to the Coast of California as opposed to a man of character who has proven he has the ability to lead.

And lets disprove the biggest liberal-left-wing lie of them all "Bush is an idiot" he's far from stupid, in comparision to Kerry,who complained that the terror-alert system (which is color-coded) is too complicated(green good, red bad difficult concept ???). Kerry would bring the war on terror to a screeching halt, why two conflicting ideals.
1. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.
2.Requires a united coalition of forces.

If you harp about #1 what kind of lunatic leader would comitt any kind or miltary aide to #2?

Finally one of Kerry's statements offended me "In New York(city) one out every two African-American Males are unemployed." As a native New Yorker I know this to be untrue, when I pass through Jamiaca, Queens I don't see people on the street, and I frenquently pass through at 3 or 4 in the morning I would see illegal acts or non-legit jobs taking place if, any of that statement is true a majority of them are working "off-the books."

NOTE: I must apologize for my horendous writing(errm.. typing) as written english is my fatal flaw.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on October 18, 2004, 08:57:05 am
Quote
That is the most dangerous idea of all, you would elect a man whose ordinates hated him to a point where he had to be relocated far from Vietnam to the Coast of California as opposed to a man of character who has proven he has the ability to lead.

And lets disprove the biggest liberal-left-wing lie of them all "Bush is an idiot" he's far from stupid, in comparision to Kerry,who complained that the terror-alert system (which is color-coded) is too complicated(green good, red bad difficult concept ???). Kerry would bring the war on terror to a screeching halt, why two conflicting ideals.
1. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.
2.Requires a united coalition of forces.

If you harp about #1 what kind of lunatic leader would comitt any kind or miltary aide to #2?

Finally one of Kerry's statements offended me "In New York(city) one out every two African-American Males are unemployed." As a native New Yorker I know this to be untrue, when I pass through Jamiaca, Queens I don't see people on the street, and I frenquently pass through at 3 or 4 in the morning I would see illegal acts or non-legit jobs taking place if, any of that statement is true a majority of them are working "off-the books."

NOTE: I must apologize for my horendous writing(errm.. typing) as written english is my fatal flaw.


Terminator, can you please just let Kaiser--who makes a few very good points--argue the pro-Bush side from now on? I don't even mean that as an insult really, even I tend to keep to the sidelines since Art is more knowledgable and patient than I.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on October 18, 2004, 09:26:14 am
Quote


That is the most dangerous idea of all, you would elect a man whose ordinates hated him to a point where he had to be relocated far from Vietnam to the Coast of California as opposed to a man of character who has proven he has the ability to lead.


First: None of Kerry's subordinates, superiors or peers expressed any protests about him during the war, or in the time immediately afterwards when he started becoming famous. Most of the people who actually served *with* Kerry during the war still refer to him as a hero, AFAIK *one* of his subordinates is with the Swift Boat Vets, the rest being scattered sailors from units that served with Kerry's, none of whom seemed particularly interested in talking about it till this election became a big deal.

Sure, there might've been genuine personal frictions at that time, as I expect there certainly would be in as stressful a situation as war. But the fact that it's taken this long for them to say anything tells me that it wasn't that big in the beginning; it's just that Vietnam vets, like anyone else, can get sucked into politics wars and start feeling the need to say what they can to affect an election. I don't trust myself to be accurate if they ask me to characterize one of my friends in college, even a really good friend, 20 years from now, especially if that friend's a presidential candidate for a party I seriously disagree with.

Second: This happened *thirty years ago*; it's not going to be a good representation of what the man is like now. Do we want to compare John Kerry thirty years ago with George W. Bush thirty years ago (drinking and goofing off and by his own admission making a huge mess of his life)?

Quote
And lets disprove the biggest liberal-left-wing lie of them all "Bush is an idiot" he's far from stupid, in comparision to Kerry,who complained that the terror-alert system (which is color-coded) is too complicated(green good, red bad difficult concept ???). Kerry would bring the war on terror to a screeching halt, why two conflicting ideals.
1. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.
2.Requires a united coalition of forces.

If you harp about #1 what kind of lunatic leader would comitt any kind or miltary aide to #2?


You know, John Kerry's position on this is exactly the same as *my* position on this, before I heard anything John Kerry had to say about it. It does make sense; we needed a united coalition of forces *first* to determine whether there were weapons, through an armed UN inspections program (kept under international scrutiny to prevent the suspicion or, hell, the reality of US intelligence tampering). A full-fledged invasion *before* inspectors had been given a chance, and before a real alliance had been put together to get ready for failed inspections, *was* the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time and would have been even if WMDs had actually been in Iraq. There's a list of priorities you go through in situations like this, and you do a low-priority check of potential, long-term threats like Iraq before you draw resources away from your high-priority conflict with a *known* sponsor of an attack that *already happened* (the Taliban).

Also, it's not the idea of a blue-to-red scale that doesn't make sense about the alert scale. It's the gradations *from* green to red -- what the hell exactly constitutes a shift from "yellow" to "orange" alert? We've never actually been told. What would a "green alert" or "blue alert" look like anyway, given that we've never been out of yellow or orange? Are we saying we can't go on blue alert until the world is in some sort of crime-free utopia? In that case, isn't it useless to have blue be an actual color, and doesn't it seem like the DHS is creating a sort of artificial scale to make us more scared about our current situation than we ought to be, given that we've probably been on "yellow alert" for our entire history?

You really haven't been paying attention if you haven't noticed the ways even pro-Bush people have been mocking the color alert system. It's vague and annoying; it's an excuse for the government to get us all worked up about an "orange alert" and never have to actually be straight with us about what particular security threats it's actually tracking.

Quote
Finally one of Kerry's statements offended me "In New York(city) one out every two African-American Males are unemployed." As a native New Yorker I know this to be untrue, when I pass through Jamiaca, Queens I don't see people on the street, and I frenquently pass through at 3 or 4 in the morning I would see illegal acts or non-legit jobs taking place if, any of that statement is true a majority of them are working "off-the books."

NOTE: I must apologize for my horendous writing(errm.. typing) as written english is my fatal flaw.


Poor spelling, grammar and punctuation is less of a problem than weakly formulated logical arguments. In this case, your impression based on what you personally happen to notice on the street in the small slice of the city you walk through does not have the same weight as a survey or poll. It barely has any weight at all.

And why do you assume that every unemployed black person, or even the majority of unemployed black people, must be literally homeless on the streets surviving on a life of crime? Statistics show most of the unemployed can be accounted for living as dependents on others, at least temporarily -- many of these "high-risk" young black males who can't get jobs are dependent on their parents or their girlfriends or wives for support. They're usually not continuously unemployed, either -- they just tend to get short-term jobs that don't last long or part-time jobs that don't count as being "employed" on a survey. Crime is one problem you get from unemployment, but it's not the major problem -- most people don't become street criminals or find off-the-books jobs, just have mouths to feed that drag down the standard of living of their families.

Also, of course, even criminals like drug dealers are usually not so desperate that they have to meet on street corners to conduct business, despite what movies show. Cops are often cruising around at 3-4 a.m. too, you know.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Terminator on November 02, 2004, 07:43:49 pm
It's been reported that there were voting machines here in New York(city) that have been found to have hundreds of votes(per machine) allready on them before the election(unspecifyed for whom). The Republician party is appealing for this machines to be impounded. It is unlikely the republicians are responsible since their support here is unbearably low.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: NECRO-99 on November 02, 2004, 08:07:11 pm
Please, for the love of GOD, lock this thread. It's OVER!!!


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on November 02, 2004, 08:38:14 pm
Over?  But, we haven't even had the first legal challenge filed yet!

;)


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Shiver on November 02, 2004, 08:51:27 pm
Terminator: Wouldn't those just be absentee ballots or leftover data from the previous election? It's possible that both parties will try to cheat, but I just can't see democrats cheating in New York. Why bother?

Update: As of election night, it looks like G.W. has won. I'd say I was "horrified", but Kerry wasn't really the greatest candidate. So I'm something just below horrified. And rioting is really immature. On a bright side, another round of Bush with even less restraint should hopefully prove to everyone what he's really like. That is, either "not as bad as we spun him to be" or "OMG HE JUST DROVE US STRAIGHT TO HELL WE'RE DYING!!"


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Halleck on November 03, 2004, 03:08:04 pm
I think it's a toss up right now, with a slight slant in Bush's favor. This is gonna take a while- not all the absentee ballots have been counted, and I'm sure thre DNC will raise questions about those malfunctioning machines in florida.

I'm betting the whole thing will hinge on Ohio. Bush is probably gonna get Iowa, and maybe even New Mexico (last i've seen it was pretty close there.) It doesn't look so good right now, but let's wait till they actually count all the votes...


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on November 03, 2004, 07:38:43 pm
And the winner is:
B-B-Bu-Bu-Bush.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Baltar on November 03, 2004, 08:13:38 pm
Yup, it certainly looks that way.  Oh well...my prediction was that a slight majority of the populace was going to favor Kerry while the electoral count would be a toss up.  Guess I was wrong; a majority of Americans DO favor arrogant bullshit.  Chalk this up to the GOP attack machine I suppose, and all the Nascar Dads et al that eat that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Kaahtt on November 03, 2004, 10:32:38 pm
*opens up a lawnchair and sitds down to bask in the warmth of the flaims of America's President.*

majority of the popular vote, kids... that didn't even happen for clinton. Seems america loves Mr Bush, dispite the vocal minory whom thinks the contrary.

Anyway, as the one guy in the fantastic four says, Flame on!


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on November 03, 2004, 10:44:42 pm
A vocal minority with 49% of the vote. Not exactly your typical 'vocal minority' each side loves to complain about the other having.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Halleck on November 04, 2004, 01:17:01 am
I never would have thought Kerry would concede without putting up a fight. Oh well, maybe we can impeach Bush in a year or two.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Fsi-Dib on November 04, 2004, 02:08:15 am
I want to bring up this (http://www.ishkur.com/editorials/kerrywins01.jpg). Why is it that USA is one of those very few countries that do want to have Bush as their president?

Granted, the map isn't an official map or anything, but it's really close.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Death 999 on November 04, 2004, 04:38:18 am
How the heck did W get Alberta, Canada??


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on November 04, 2004, 06:37:33 am
Alberta, Canada, is one of the most right-wing parts of the country. It's
the home to the Reform party, (or as it was called a while ago, the Alliance Party, which is now part of the Conservative party...) Sorry, I got off track. Anyway, Albertians are (typically) very right wing, so it stands to reason that
they'd be more in favor of Bush than Kerry.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Lukipela on November 05, 2004, 01:15:04 am
Still, in the US election, what the rest of the world wants doesn't matter, does it? just as no finnish president is going to care about how those damn swedes tfeel about him.

To the winner goes the spoils. Now, it remains to be seen what can be done with them, and if the country as a whole can heal after this campaign...


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Art on November 05, 2004, 02:20:14 am
We should note that for Clinton the reason he didn't get a majority was because of the presence of Perot. This is different from George W. Bush first time around, where he didn't get a majority just because he didn't get a majority.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Arne on November 07, 2004, 04:38:08 am
The us economy matter a great deal to me. The dollar has gone from 11 Swedish 'crowns' down to almost 7. Since I freelance as an illustrator (with mainly American clients) that means I've lost about 30% of my income due to the dollar drop.

It might be a Post Hoc fallacy to blame Bush though.


Title: Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
Post by: Halleck on November 08, 2004, 12:33:19 pm
Quote
The us economy matter a great deal to me. The dollar has gone from 11 Swedish 'crowns' down to almost 7. Since I freelance as an illustrator (with mainly American clients) that means I've lost about 30% of my income due to the dollar drop.

Oooh, that sucks. Too bad you didn't exchange your dollars into crowns before we had our recession.