The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 28, 2022, 10:03:14 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Celebrating 30 years of Star Control 2 - The Ur-Quan Masters

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 17 Print
Author Topic: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread  (Read 62726 times)
Shiver
Guest


Email
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #150 on: August 28, 2004, 10:31:08 am »

Don't encourage him. I'd rather someone more clued in argue in favor of Bush.
Logged
Terminator
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 308


Obnoxious One Reformed


View Profile
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #151 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
Logged

We must each create our own paths. Do not mimic mine, I don't even like myself.
Shiver
Guest


Email
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #152 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.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2004, 09:32:54 pm by Shiver » Logged
Terminator
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 308


Obnoxious One Reformed


View Profile
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #153 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.
Logged

We must each create our own paths. Do not mimic mine, I don't even like myself.
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 175



View Profile WWW
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #154 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"?
Logged

"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth."  --Fry
Shiver
Guest


Email
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #155 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...?
Logged
Vassago_Umara
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 85


Spathis rule!


View Profile
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #156 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.
Logged

Time is never wasted, if you are wasted all the time.
Terminator
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 308


Obnoxious One Reformed


View Profile
The John Kerry flops/George W. Bush lies thread
« Reply #157 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.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2004, 07:45:17 pm by Terminator » Logged

We must each create our own paths. Do not mimic mine, I don't even like myself.
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 175



View Profile WWW
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #158 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?
Logged

"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth."  --Fry
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3620


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #159 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.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2004, 08:02:04 pm by Lukipela » Logged

What's up doc?
Art
Guest


Email
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #160 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.
Logged
Art
Guest


Email
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #161 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.
Logged
Art
Guest


Email
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #162 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.
Logged
Art
Guest


Email
Re: The John Kerry flops/George W. Bush lies threa
« Reply #163 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.
Logged
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 175



View Profile WWW
Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread
« Reply #164 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.  Wink

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)
Logged

"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth."  --Fry
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 17 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!