Adventure Game Studio

I did, and I'm still reeling.  I turned it on expecting a lot of strong (but empty) rhetoric from Bush and stiff, incoherant ramblings from Kerry.  What we got was the total opposite.  Kerry was strong, clear and decisive.  Bush was stammering, rambling, and kept losing his train of thought.  Without his peeps to back him up, he looked like an idiot.  Without the republican spin campaign to bring him down, Kerry came across looking VERY good.  Kerry not only nailed Bush's ass to the wall,  he cut off a slice and fed it back to Bush on a plate. 

Unforunately, I can't help but thinking “This is what we needed five months ago.”  Hopefully it's not too late.

I don't know if alot of muddthrowing towards the opposision is going to get you to win. But it's sure fun to look at from Europe.
I just hope that people don't get sympathy for Bush.
If Bush loses, think about all that money lost from companies that invested in the Bush-campain.

I pretty much expected that, he's a terrible public speaker unless it's a one way rhetoric. Initially in his presidency he refused to listen to speechwriters and made bumbling mistakes constantly. As soon as 9/11 happened he must have realized how important it was for him to come across as a strong leader so he probably started rehearsing and using speech writers then. I don't know for sure, but the difference is night and day so it seems that way to me.

I haven't watched it yet, I had work yesterday and class last night and fell asleep as soon as I came home. Don't spoil the surprises for me!

It wasn't so much as how stupid Bush was that floored me, but how strong Kerry was.  It gave me hope again that we might see the last of GW.  Any non-americans want to give me political asylum if he wins?

Dave, cela va sans dire!

I watched a bit. I do agree that Bush didn't always come across as polished as Kerry at some points, but to me that just means he's saying something that actaully means something, not all rehearsed and canned like Kerry. I guess I just don't like politicians like Kerry, he promises everything, and I don't believe he could do half of it....

Squinky, Bush's speech was just as rehearsed and canned as Kerry's, he just couldn't remember all he had been taught to say very well.

I only saw the clip of Kerry and the whole "I made a mistake in how I talk about the war, but the President made a mistake in invading Iraq, which is worse." Probably the knock-out punch, right?

Bush I think that whatever insane ramblings Bush gives, he sure as hell believes in whatever he's trying to say.

Not always a good thing though.

Kinda like this video: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bush-bs.html

Sure, I don't know what the hell Bush is talking about in the clip, but I bet he sure as hell means it.


Right now I'm listening to the whole thing via net radio.

QuoteI guess I just don't like politicians like Kerry, he promises everything, and I don't believe he could do half of it....

Four words:

No child left behind...

I saw a few snippets on the news, but I must say, I could never see bush winning a debate, ever, against most people in general. I hope the debate has some impact on the general public.

Our prime minister john howard is pretty bad at public speaking too, he can speak ok but it's all planned, he can't think on the spot and isn't even good at bullshitting to get around questions he doesn't want to answer (all questions)

We had our debate a couple of weeks ago and Howard lost to opposition leader Mark Latham (who speaks quite well) 66% to 33% which is the same percentage Howard lost in the debate in the previous election which he won. so it's not always a guide.

Our election is next weekend, which was made so it was before the US election, cause if bush goes out, howard probably would too.

I really hope Howard gets kicked, but I had the same feel last election and I was way off. Unless it's a close election, We'll know in just over a week.

When is the US election scheduled for?

I really hope bush gets kicked too, regular non voters could really make the difference if they decide to vote.

The most worrying thing in the Australian campaign, and probably every campaign strategy from here on in, is the fact of the size of the aging population around the world. Many of the major calling cards are to the elderly, now I respect the elderly, but the polititians on both sides buy votes by offering gimmicky bullshit just for votes.

I wont get into any specifics cause this post would get too long, I'll just mention the fact that putting economy before environment is such a short sighted view, there is NO Economy without an Environment, fucking idiots.

I have been an adamant 'non-voter' for some years now.

I guess I just never saw the point.

It's not as if my vote means anything (especially with the archaic electoral college still in place.) Ã, However, as I get older and more established in this crazy world I find myself feeling more and more involved in the whole 'political scene'.

I'm not going to get into Bush bashing. Ã, As DG said, though he may not coherently form his thoughts into speech, I do think he believes in what he's saying.

Sara and I were watching together (she hates Bush with a STRONG passion) and I said, "You know, this is how it seems to me; Ã, Bush is spittin' out things he's memorized. Ã, But Kerry seems to know what he's saying."

They're both politicians, so I trust them no further than I can throw them.

"Well Ed with your bad back you shouldn't be throwing anything!"
"Go suck your head."

Bush was, I think, just out 'politicianed' last night.Ã,  I think Kerry is a better thinker and (obviously) a smarter man.Ã,  It was very one sided from my way of thinking.

Bush kept referring to 'wrong war, wrong place, wrong time'.Ã,  If you have to keep going back to the same thing over and over then you've lost the debate in my opinion.

Between Kerry's (convincing) attitude, displeasure with GeeDub, and Drew Barrymore ... I might just vote this time.Ã,  Too bad I'm going to be in Las Vegas on Nov. 2nd.

QuoteWe had our debate a couple of weeks ago and Howard lost to opposition leader Mark Latham (who speaks quite well) 66% to 33% which is the same percentage Howard lost in the debate in the previous election which he won. so it's not always a guide.

That's cause last election they had Children Overboard. If they want to win, they'd better pull something similar, though that's doubtful cause Labor will just call it Children Overboard 2 and call Howard a rodent.

QuoteI'm not going to get into Bush bashing.  As DG said, though he may not coherently form his thoughts into speech, I do think he believes in what he's saying.

Actually, I was Bush-bashing when I said that. I meant that yes, he believes in his actions and his opinions, but his actions are very misguided and his opinions don't have much basis.

It's kind of like Iraq. Bush says "Yes, invading Iraq is the right things to do."

Why?

"Well, WMDs and mobile weapons facilities and terror and Sept 11."

Eh ???

Yes, he believe strongly in invading Iraq, and people saw strength in that. Only problem is that believing strongly in something often blinds you from reality.

Didn't have time to watch the debate. :(

I was in computer science lecture.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 01/10/2004 16:37:58
Actually, I was Bush-bashing when I said that. I meant that yes, he believes in his actions and his opinions, but his actions are very misguided and his opinions don't have much basis.

Oops ... well either way, I'm not going to bash the moron.

I think you just did.  ;D

When I was in America there was a little message scrolling across the bottom of the screen on CNN about an overweight woman not finding a bed big enough and Bush buying her one out of the goodness of his heart.

For some reason I found that pretty funny...

Most Australians missed our debate cause they were watching Australian Idol. Surely there was an ant walking across the table that was more intreresting

Is the debate in the US a popular thing to watch?

Sadly enough I live in an electorate with a fuckup for a candidate, who will win no matter what, as much as he's screwed up (which he has majorly). I just can't see how a seat can be so safe with Phillip Ruddock sitting in it, it boggles the mind, It just makes me sick.

It just shows that often people are just brought up to vote for a certain party no matter who the representative is in the particular area

Ah, the Chronicles of Ruddock. I could go on and on. He came to Brisbane last year to pimp the latest detenion centre that's going up in our eastern suburbs. I was doing a news story on the centre with a friend whose Dad used to be head of Amnesty --  Ruddock always wore an Amnesty badge when he was immigration minister. While in Brisbane, Ruddock called a meeting with certain specialist groups and people, including my friend's Dad. Her Dad asked him during the meeting, "Why do you keep embarassing Amnesty?"

Ruddock didn't have an answer.

Also, from an ABC news story: "An audience of about 50 million people are believed to have tuned in [to the US debate]."


EDIT: Just finished listening to the debate. Boy, oh boy, did Bush screw-up with his point on the war crimes court. Try making a coherent (and logical) argument out of that one.

I watched the entire debate. Ã, I was very impressed with Kerry's performance. Ã, He kept his cool during Bush's repeated attacks, and rather than taking a defensive position, he gave concise and (mostly) concrete answers regarding his positions. Ã, I still think his “plan” for Iraq sounds far too similar to Bush's, and perhaps unrealistic, but the situation in Iraq seems like a quagmire no matter which way you go. Ã, The international community is not going to send troops into Iraq. Ã, Bush burned too many bridges.

Bush, on the other hand, was mostly on the defensive. Ã, I felt that he was beating a dead horse with his “we can't send mixed messages” rhetoric. Ã, He also stumbled repeatedly, and hilariously pouted and grimaced during Kerry's rejoinders. Ã, He just came off as a dickhead. Ã, Of course, I already thought he was a dickhead, and this just reinforced my beliefs. Ã, 

The real question is how will the media spin it? Ã, I remember watching the Gore/Bush debates last time around and thinking that Gore held his own, but the talking heads convinced everyone that Bush kicked ass. Ã, It's like Jon Stewart said on the daily show, and I'm paraphrasing but it was something like, “I'm sure that by this time tomorrow, what we had thought happened, will not have happened.”

-Logan

Quote from: Timosity on Fri 01/10/2004 16:19:02
When is the US election scheduled for?

November 2nd.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 01/10/2004 16:27:34
I might just vote this time.Ã,  Too bad I'm going to be in Las Vegas on Nov. 2nd.

Darth, vote absentee!Ã,  What state do you live in?Ã,  Check out Rock the Vote's website to request an absentee ballot: http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_primaries.php

Darth, I see from you're profile you're from Florida.  Dude, you live in Florida!  You think your vote doesn't matter!?!  Were you around in 2000?  Every vote counts, especially in a swing state like Florida (even if they're not all counted).  The election in 2000 came down to just a few hundred votes.  Get your ass an absentee ballot! :-\

Quote from: ANARCHO on Fri 01/10/2004 18:03:47... the situation in Iraq seems like a quagmire no matter which way you go. Ã, The international community is not going to send troops into Iraq. Ã, Bush burned too many bridges.

I think most people can see exactly where the Viet ... I mean Iraq situation is headed. :)

I like to think (perhaps naively) that if the US votes a new leader into office, one who is willing (and wants) to repair the bridges that Bush has burned, the rest of the world leaders should be willing to start a new.Ã,  New leader, new policies, new hope, blah blah blah ...

Quote from: ANARCHO on Fri 01/10/2004 18:45:42
Darth, I see from you're profile you're from Florida. Dude, you live in Florida! You think your vote doesn't matter!?! Were you around in 2000? Every vote counts, especially in a swing state like Florida (even if they're not all counted). The election in 2000 came down to just a few hundred votes. Get your ass an absentee ballot! :-\

I didn't live in Florida then.Ã,  I've only been here about a year.Ã,  I am looking into getting an absentee ballot ... as to whether or not I'll use it ...

Let me explain my (uneducated) take on why I find my vote to be useless.

In the 2000 presidential election, GW got 47.87% of the popular vote (50,456,002 votes) and Al Gore received 48.38% (50,999,897 votes).Ã,  But Bush took 271 electoral votes, to Gore's 266.Ã,  (statistics from here (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/campaign2000race.html)) So we got stuck with Bush when it should have been Gore.Ã,  (I didn't particularly want Gore as president either ...)

Now it would seem to me, that in a democratic society that is "by the people" where they shove the 'privelage' of the vote down our throats, the candidate with the most of the popular vote should win.

The electoral college can make the popular vote completely pointless.Ã,  It's like a safety valve ... if those in power don't agree with the popular vote, just use the electoral college to put who you want in office.

Sure it's only happened 3 times in history (1824, 1888, 2000) but that's three times too many if you ask me.

It seems common sense to me, if Gore got more votes by the people' he should have won the election.Ã,  But 'lo and behold what's this??Ã,  Florida can't seem to get the count right ... and somehow, after all the BS, GW is elected.

You know ... the governor of Florida must haveÃ,  been so embarassed ... ;)

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 01/10/2004 20:01:20

The electoral college can make the popular vote completely pointless.Ã,  It's like a safety valve ... if those in power don't agree with the popular vote, just use the electoral college to put who you want in office.

Colorado has an amendment on the ballot to get rid of the electoral college, thank goodness. I hate how they word things, though. Last time a lot of Colorado accidentally voted against some gay rights amendment because of wording when they thought they were voting for it. Hopefully that won't happen this year...

A lot of states are considering turning the electoral college into a representation of the states popular vote, since it isn't actually written that there must be people in the college. With a system like that, you could have a population with a 2:5 vote ratio and 7 electoral college votes, 2 for one party and 5 for the other.

Darth, your "safety valve" symbology is right on the mark. The founding fathers realized that the nation was a bunch of uneducated farmers for the most part and they wanted to be sure that no mass prejudice would affect the vote. It's mixing aristocracy in with the democratic-republic concept. In the modern day, people are much more informed and it's a poor system. At least, I'd like to believe that being more informed meant people would vote responsibly..

Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 01/10/2004 16:05:56
Kinda like this video: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bush-bs.html

Sure, I don't know what the hell Bush is talking about in the clip, but I bet he sure as hell means it.

No, he was stalling with the first thing that came to his head while he tried to figure out what the hell "tribal sovereignity" meant. I live in the Cherokee Indian capitol, so I realize that it is the right of the Native American tribes to make and enforce their own laws as a sovereign nation within a nation... just in case anyone was wondering. That's how they can have casinos and bingo halls on their own land even though local laws prohibit it. The laws of eminent domain (the right of the state to take property with just compensation for the greater good of local society) do not apply to Native Americans, since it would be like annexing parts of Mexico, legally. It's funny how around here you'll find certain roads that take the oddest routes or sharply curve around a certain square plot of land.. because the Native American tribes learned their lesson about giving up land.

Would anyone care to explain what exactly this "electoral college" is?

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

I agree with Darth and shbaz about not needing the EC anymore. It's ridiculous. I never saw the point of it until now. :P

Quote from: Pumaman on Fri 01/10/2004 21:20:12
Would anyone care to explain what exactly this "electoral college" is?

It makes your vote not count, of course. Then again, I can't vote in this country, and I'm too far away to vote for home's elections. So um... what do I care?

I still watched the presidential debate, though.... I figured people would be talking about it, or something. But now, I don't want to talk about it....!

Ah ok, so basically each state has a block vote, which gets cast depending on whichever candidate gets the most votes in that state?

I can see the benefits of that for local representation in parliament, but for electing a president it seems rather bizarre.

Quote from: Pumaman on Fri 01/10/2004 21:20:12
Would anyone care to explain what exactly this "electoral college" is?

Here is another link (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/U.S.%20Electoral%20College) with a lot more detail and history behind the system, plus present controversy.

From an online encyclopedia:

"The U.S. Electoral College is the electoral college which chooses the President and Vice President of the United States at the conclusion of each Presidential election. The Electoral College was established by Article Two, Section One of the U.S. Constitution, and meets every four years with electors from each state. The electoral process was modified in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th Amendment. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution also modified the College, allowing electors from the District of Columbia to cast votes for the election of the president."

Basically what this means is, that the President of the US isn't elected by the popular vote. Ã, Each state and the District of Columbia is given a certain number of votes, depending upon the state's population. Ã, When a candidate wins the popular vote in a certain state, it is given that state's electoral votes. Ã, Whoever has the most electoral votes, wins the presidency. Ã, This means that candidates don't campaign in every state, but campaign strategically in a small number of states. Ã, For example, states like California, Illinois and New York are democratic strongholds, and for that reason, Kerry doesn't spend a lot of time campaigning there. Ã, He knows he's going to get those electoral votes. Ã, It's the same with Bush in states like Texas or most of the Midwest and South. Ã, In this particular election, there are very few states that contain sizeable numbers of undecided voters. So there are very few (relatively) electoral votes up for grabs. Ã, That's why the two candidates are spending most of their time in states like Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida and Pennsylvania.

The existence of the Electoral College resulted in Vice President Al Gore winning the popular vote in 2000, but losing the electoral vote. Ã, Thus, he “lost” the election. Ã, The story is more involved than that, with a great deal of corruption specifically in states like Florida, and a disturbing decision by the Supreme Court, but that's another discussion topic.

The Electoral College also allows for some fucking weird election outcomes. Ã, It's possible to have a tie in the Electoral College. Ã, It could theoretically happen in this election if the planets align correctly. Ã, If that happens, the vote for the president goes to the House of Representatives…in which case Bush would win (considering the likely outcome of this year's congressional races). Ã, But here's where it gets interesting. Ã, Electoral Votes also elect the Vice President, and if the Vice Presidential race ends in a tie, then the vote goes to the Senate. Ã, Now it's possible this year for the Democrats to take back the Senate, and if they did, then under this scenario John Edwards could be elected Vice President. Ã, Then there would be a Bush-Edwards ticket. Ã, That might seem almost acceptable for people in other countries that don't have a two-party system, but in America, it would be unimaginable. Ã, 

Anyway, hopefully that answers your question.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 01/10/2004 20:01:20

Let me explain my (uneducated) take on why I find my vote to be useless.

So, you find your vote to be useless, Ok... Do you have a preference on who should be president?

If so then take the frickin 10 minutes it takes to fill out a ballot and send it in... Pretend you're writing a post on AGS forums, it'll probably take the same amount of time... And if it isn't counted it isn't counted but at least you tried and it's not like you lost years off your life doing it.

On the debates: I enjoyed them. Bush repeated the same 3 things over and over again. Anyone count how many times he said "wrong war, wrong time etc etc..." or how many times he said that Kerry changes his positions? Or how many times he said that it's hardwork?

ARGH ARGH he makes me so angry. And oh his jokes were so funny! "Jeez, I'm not even going to get into how my opponent plans to pay for all these promises!" Yea thanks a lot ass, maybe he'll not give tax cuts out like it's halloween candy, and maybe if he didn't have the largest deficit in the US's history he could actually do something with this country..

My favourite part of the debate was when Bush said "the enemy attacked us and we responded" or something and Kerry said "Yes the enemy attacked us... Osama Bin Laden attacked us... Not Iraq." I was like ZING!!

But of course, John Kerry is a flip flopper.... yea...

In reguards to No Child Left Behind. I'm still in high-school, and it hit us badly. All of the kids that do well sit around while the problem kids who wanna drop out get help and take up our time. Heck, it even goes all the way to gym class. I've seen kids fail out BECAUSE of NCLB. Its causing a bunch of problems and screwing with the good kids.

Flip flopping.. I saw an interesting political cartoon on this pasted on my government class door.

It went something like this.

Irresponsible hard-headed idiot voter (drawing of toothless hillbilly): I refuse to change my mind because of new information or current events because I know that I'm right and god is on my side.

Responsible voter (drawing of a man in a formal suit): I carefully analyze current events and new information and make my decision based on such, even if I had a different opinion in the past.

Strong, stable leader (characature of Bush): I refuse to change my mind because of new information or current events because I know that I'm right and god is on my side.

Flip-Flopping gutless Liberal (characature of Kerry): I carefully analyze current events and new information and make my decisions based on such, even if I had a different opinion in the past.

lol, great shbaz.

Did ANYONE else notice when Bush said "September 10th" and not "11th"?

I guess Bush's Bushisms are all taboo now, because somehow it's okay to have an idiot for a leader.

Personally, I don't get that argument. If he can't out-debate someone then should he really be representing our country? Can you just imagine the things he says to other world leaders!?

Going into the debate my vote was for Kerry. Not to elect Kerry, but to get Bush out. I must say that Kerry performed very well and I no longer feel the guilt of giving my vote away to someone I don't like.

I must say though, I didn't think Bush did as bad as everyone thinks. I think he did just what he needed to do. The repetition, stubbornness, and cockiness is exactly what makes him so "lovable". His bad-ass-we-blew-stuff-up attitude is what will get him votes. That and his ignorance. He appeals to many Americans on a very personal levelÃ,  ;D

I thought the ultimate ZING! was when he quoted George Bush Sr.'s book, stating that "there is no exit strategy for a war in Iraq" (this was given as part of the reason he pulled troops out of Iraq in the first gulf war). He used Bush's OWN FATHERS words to nail him, it was great.

I'm pretty excited about the next debate. It really got my "politics" rolling. I checked out the other issues and elections on my ballot and I'm feeling all inspired.

Darth: Bush sincerely and truly frightens me. I really do believe that his intentions are to establish a dictatorship. Yep, that's right, I'm that much of a paranoid nutbag, but that's what I believe (because I know that I'm right and god is on my side). Please vote. If Bush wins again on just an electoral vote and not a popular vote...I will be the first to sign up with a revolutionary group and attempt to restore freedom to my nation. Your vote is important, the votes of all of Gore's supporters still prove today that our president has not been elected by the people. There is no end to the importance of this fact. Join the revolution and vote for your president, even if he doesn't win.

later,
-junc

Enough politics. Let's put this all in the context of adventure games (maybe someone will get it?):

View 1: I stick to the traditional way of adventure games. I love the stories in adventure games, and they should have puzzles and characters where the player could die without too much warning. I stick to the traditional values and will not changed them, because thatś the way the gods Williams, Schafer, and Gilbert, meant to create them.

View 2: I once thought that adventure games were awesome and I loved the puzzles and the way you could die without too much warning, but then I realized that, based on current events, different steps have to be taken that is for the betterment of both the genre and the player's satisfaction. My opponent view and I very much love the story line behind adventure games, but we have different ideas on how they should be put together in these current times.

All I have to say is...

huh? What was your point, netmonkey? :P

If someone wants to start real revolution after Bush's hipothetical winning, then I heard there is an organization in Belgrad which specialty is organizing revolution in other countries  ;)

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Fri 01/10/2004 21:12:11

Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 01/10/2004 16:05:56
Kinda like this video: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bush-bs.html

Sure, I don't know what the hell Bush is talking about in the clip, but I bet he sure as hell means it.

No, he was stalling with the first thing that came to his head while he tried to figure out what the hell "tribal sovereignity" meant.

Even if he was stalling, he sure sounds like he believes in what he says. Notice the satisfied look he gives at the end of the first part, even though he explains nothing really.

You can BELIEVE that the best way to put out a fire is to dance an irish jig while wearing a coconut bra, but that doesn't make it true. 

Bush can believe he's right, and I have no doubt that he does in fact believe that he's right.  Zealots and fanatics also believe they're right.  Bush shares a rather disturbing form of unwavering righteousness with the very same terrorists he denounces.  Bush is a zealot, he's a radical, and he's surrounded by ideologues.  He scares the living shit out of me.

Quote from: Anarcho on Sat 02/10/2004 06:18:18
You can BELIEVE that the best way to put out a fire is to dance an irish jig while wearing a coconut bra, but that doesn't make it true.

Dang! That's why the fire in the kitchen still hasn't gone out.

/me switches to a Scottish Jig.

OK, on to the serious part of the post.

I must admit that Bush scares the living daylights out of me.Ã,  I wasn't able to catch the debate, because I had a night class, but everything I've ever heard about Bush makes me think he's the wrong man for the job.Ã,  Please note that I get most of my information from the CBC and CNN and I'm writing this at two in the morning.Ã,  That'll give you a twisted viewpoint any day.

I'm not going to say anything about actually invading Iraq other than this: "STUPID ILLEGAL WAR WRONG WRONG WRONG NO BLOOD FOR OIL GET OUT!!!!!"Ã,  What I am going to talk about is his government's relationship to other countries.

Canada and France have always been big supporters of the USÃ,  (Except for that whole War of 1812 thing).Ã,  Canada is the most important trading partner with the US.Ã,  France has always fought on the same side as the US in any war they both participated.Ã,  When we don't join in on their illegal and irresponsible invasion (ooh, alliteration!) we are branded as "the other side" and "friends of the terrorists."

Even before the World Trade Center attacks, Bush was ignorant of foreign affairs.Ã,  A Canadian comedian, Rick Mercer, met with him at a press mobbing (I have NO idea what they're really called, but one of those things when an important person is leaving somewhere and the press swoops in).Ã,  He asked Bush's opinion on Canadian Prime Minister Jean Poutine's policies.Ã,  Bush said they were great, and that he would fully support Mr. Poutine.

The Canadian Prime Minister at the time was Jean Cretien.Ã,  Poutine is a tasty Quebec heart-attack-on-a-plate of French Fries, gravy and cheese curd.Ã,  Maybe he was getting confused with Russian president Vladamir Putin (sp?), but STILL!

Ironically enough, he didn't end up supporting Mr. Cretien, called him an enemy of democracy, and in general was a jerk.

I don't know all that much about Kerry, just that he doesn't support the Invasion in Iraq.  And is that really enough to base four years of presidency on?

Quote from: Anarcho on Sat 02/10/2004 06:18:18Bush can believe he's right, and I have no doubt that he does in fact believe that he's right.Ã,  Zealots and fanatics also believe they're right.Ã,  Bush shares a rather disturbing form of unwavering righteousness with the very same terrorists he denounces.Ã,  Bush is a zealot, he's a radical, and he's surrounded by ideologues.Ã,  He scares the living shit out of me.

I've often found it wierd that he [Bush] wants to hunt down these terrorist to put a stop to their evil and hatred.

Yet the way he speaks about it (and goes about it) seems evil and full of hatred ...

Wanting to defend America(ns) is nobel ... but dramaticizing it with powerful rhetoric just seems ... juvenile??

I wish Bush would realize that while you can't negotiate with terrorists, the way he's going about dealing with them, while somewhat effective in the now, is only creating new/more terrorists in the long run and will just perpetuate this 'War on Terror'.

Why not hunt down the reason the terrorists hate us (America) in the first place?

junc - I, too, liked that Kerry used Bush Sr. against Jr..Ã,  It was an elegant way to throw a barb in there (no pun intended) without resorting to useless insults.

I don't trust politicians:

[paraphrasing]
"I'm a politician ... which means; when I'm not kissing babies hands, I'm stealing the candy from them." - Hunt for Red October

Having said that, Kerry impressed me in the debates.Ã,  It's been a long time since I've been impressed with a presidential candidate, or any politician for that matter.

Do I trust him?Ã,  No.

Do I think he could do a better job than Bush?Ã,  Yes.

The thing is, up to four years ago, Bush didn't know jack shit about foreign affairs, or even national government.Ã,  I was listening to NPR the other day, or maybe reading www.rotten.com/library (greatest library EVER) and they were talking about how when Bush began to run for office, Condoleeza and others put him through an intensive foreign policy "college"...starting from scratch to teach him the basics and then moving forward.Ã,  We're not talking review...we're talking learning from scratch.Ã,  This guy didn't know a thing!Ã,  For as much as Kerry doesn't impress me, and I bet he would do plenty of things I disagree with, he's been in the Senate for 20 years.Ã,  When Bush was snorting coke off hookers' red leather heels during his "down and out" period, Kerry was already immersed in foreign policy while in the Congress.

But hey, he's so plain spoken, and he believes what he says...I guess he'll protect us...from...the...TERRORISTS!!!!!

::)

g'night folks,

Logan

By the way, is there such a thing as a Scottish jig? 

Highland dancing.

Quote from: juncmodule on Sat 02/10/2004 00:26:10

Personally, I don't get that argument. If he can't out-debate someone then should he really be representing our country? Can you just imagine the things he says to other world leaders!?

It's not just that.  The right-wing camp keeps making the argument that Bush is a strong and decisive leader, and that he is capable of managing a war as a result.  The debate put a massive hole in that, since Kerry came across as being light years more strong and decisive than Bush.  If there was more time, this could really turn things around for Kerry.  I only hope it's not too late.

Quote

Quote
Going into the debate my vote was for Kerry. Not to elect Kerry, but to get Bush out. I must say that Kerry performed very well and I no longer feel the guilt of giving my vote away to someone I don't like.

There's actually a website called www.kerryhatersforkerry.com!  I was a frequent reader because that's exactly how I feel, but no longer.  I was so impressed by Kerry the other night that my opinion of him completely reversed.  Or flip-flopped, if you will.  I'll be proud to vote for the guy now.

This debate seems to have been exactly what Kerry needed to redeem himself in some people's eyes.

And yes, despite all of us initelligent people knowing that Bush is insane and we desperately need him to go, there are still Bush supporters. AVID Bush supporters. Can someone explain this to me? How can someone be so dense and brainless as to support Bush...especially NOW after these debates?

I'll tell you the main reason - and that's the republicans are the best spin campaigners in the world. 

For example, one year ago it was predicted that we'd be over $480 billion dollars in debt by now.  It turns out we are $420 billion in debt.  Rather than worry about this, the repubs announce "We're doing great! Due to our strong and decisive leadership, we're $60 billion better off than we thought we'd be!"  And all the uneducated yokels buy into it.

Also, there is a lot of money behind the republican party, and they control the media.  Most of the media in this country is very right wing, and tends to bias their coverage in favor of Bush.  If you don't believe me, look at the 90s.  The media were like attack dogs.  If Bill Clinton got a hangnail the media would be all over him, portraying him as being weak and ineffective.  Under Bush, the media can't seem to say enough good things about the administration.  It's quite worrisome.

Especially FOX. They're well known for being right-wing idiots.

I don't think that the republican party controls the media, I think it's more about access and the nature of the 24-hour news cycle.  Karl Rove and company know how the media works, and have worked it to their advantage.  Reporters need inside contacts, they want to be able to get interviews with members of the administration.  To get that access, they can't ask sensitive questions that the administration doesn't want to answer.  It's like in that movie by Alexandra Pelosi, when she was traveling with the Bush primary campaign...she had a nice relationship with Bush until she asked a tough question about the death penalty...then he stopped talking to her.  She felt the pressure from her bosses to have access to him, so she had to change the kind of questions asked.

So in terms of access, the administration knows that it can drop a reporter or paper from the loop if necessary.  As a result, the media has stopped asking tough questions.

Furthermore, with the 24 news cycle, reporters don't fact check.  They just report as fact whatever the administration or their talking heads say.  They're in such a rush to report the next story to keep up with the other channels, journalism has suffered.

When the media stops asking questions, then we're really screwed.

-Logan

By and by, there's a great article in the New York Times today about the aluminum tubes that the administration so often cited as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program...turns out they knew as far back as 2001 that they're weren't used for nukes but for normal missiles.

I've heard arguments both ways for the media. I think they report whatever is popular to keep ratings up. People don't want to turn on the TV and hear something they don't like.

I dont buy that the US media is run by the right wing....just FOX. there were still a lot of clinton-lovers in the media. People love a story, and ragging on the president is a great way for a story.

Im so glad Kerry kicked Bush's ass at the debate. I hate Bush. I fell into the camp that a lot of you guys apparently are in too, the (I dont like Kerry but I hate Bush one). Im with Dave here...I'll be happy to vote for Kerry this election. If he loses though...we'll, Im out of the country for 2 years on a mission....

I find it strange that people say the media is owned by right-wingers when there are an equal number of people saying there's a liberal bias in the media (case in point, CBS's recent problems). I guess it just depends on your perspective.

My opinion: FOX has a bigger audience, so there's a greater right-wing bias.

Also, I never understood why people say they hated Kerry. I have not really heard one substantial reason from anyone as to why they hate him (and by substantial, I'm not talking "He flip-flops!" or "He's exploiting his military career!" or "North Korea loves him!"). I mean, if you're going to call Kerry a flip-flopper for first being for a war and then later against it, you might as well call Ron Kovic a flip-flopper too. And I guess the late author and soldier Ernest Hemingway is also a flip-flopper for calling any war a crime, no matter how justified.

It's stupid mentality to call people flip-floppers.

And every reason I've heard so far has been based merely on twisted perceptions. I haven't heard anyone say they hate him based on his policies. Why hasn't anyone brought out any of his policy decisions and said, "I hate this policy because..."

I mean, Bush attacked Kerry's National Security plan during his debate, saying it won't work. Why? Cause Kerry was an untested man. Bullshit. Bush has been tested, has no real plan or policy for post-war Iraq, and yet expects the American public to believe Kerry's plan won't work because he hasn't been tested. Why hasn't Bush attacked the actual plan? Did Bush even bother to look up the plan. I know he had the opportunity post-debate because Kerry pimped his website sometime during the beginning of the debate. I don't know who else looked up the plan, but I've found some probs with it. For example, "Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil" -- Okay, that's fine but where will the oil come from?

Look at this table from the US Department of Energy: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t44.xls

US oil is in decline, while Middle Eastern Oil is one a steady rise. I'm all for alternative energy sources, but Kerry's plan isn't really practical, unless he's got magic oil pixies hidden somewhere.

Now, think about that. I've managed to pull apart one of the key areas in Kerry's strategy based upon facts, yet Bush didn't even do that during the debate. He just used the same tired rhetoric. And he had every opportunity to argue based on actual facts. In fact, my argument  sounds like a proper Republican arguement. I'd make a better Republican president than Bush and I'm not even Republican... or American!

I don't hate Kerry. Never have. Can anyone who hates Kerry (or hated Kerry before the debate) tell me why they do so?

Liberals... Kerry is hypocritical at points, and then when he started talking about generals that support him I almost fell over laughing. Four out of hundreds!

Quote from: LostTraveler on Sun 03/10/2004 05:34:41
Liberals... Kerry is hypocritical at points, and then when he started talking about generals that support him I almost fell over laughing. Four out of hundreds!

You ever seen a politician that WASN'T hypocritical? 

C.

Magic oil pixies.. haha.

Well as someone who has done a load of research into alternative energy, I'll go into my rhetoric.

Maybe Kerry was talking about alternative fuels, in an under-the-breath sort of way.

There is no energy crisis, only a control crisis. The oil companies have a vast system of refineries, pipelines, tankers and etcetera set up and switching to anything else would make all of that expensive equipment scrap. They don't want to break free from oil until it's tapped to the last drop.

Diesel engines work on a compression cycle with fuel that won't ignite unless it's exposed to such a heat that it explodes, and so diesel engines compress air until it reaches the proper temperature and then inject fuel which subsequentally explodes. Rudolph Diesel invented and tested this engine with vegetable oil - and the engines today will still run (much more cleanly I might add) on vegetable oil. The problem with this is that vegetable oil will solidify/gel at lower temperatures and so the fuel delivery system would need to be modified. If you subject vegetable oil (even waste oil from fryers) to an easy process that many people do in their back yards, you can get a derivitive that is free of the fats in vegetable oil that is commonly called biodiesel. So petroleum diesel fuel is totally replacable, if you can get a supply chain up for it. That is a problem.. oil isn't an abundant element in even the oil-rich crops, so will it tax the food supply? No.. it can come from algae (http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html), which can be grown with brackish water in even a desert environment where land is vast, unoccupied, and cheap. So a biodiesel supply chain can, and likely will, replace diesel fuels. I believe it can be done cost effectively too with properly designed equipment. Biodiesel mixes readily with petro-diesel, never requires engine or fuel system delivery modifications on vehicles manufactured after 1993 (corrodes rubber fuel lines), and burns way cleaner.

Gasoline is a bit of a different issue. Probably the best fuel to replace it is ethanol (alcohol) except for the fuel efficiency difference. You lose about 15-30% of fuel economy. Ethanol is loads cleaner and burns cooler. It will burn in any gasoline engine with minor mods to the fuel delivery system. With a carbeurated engine this would mean replacing the jets and increasing fuel flow. With a fuel injected system it's a modification in the chip that controls injection, a lot of vehicles are already set up as multifuel engines (for exportation to places like Brazil where ethanol fuel is common) and the drivers don't even know. Ethanol is derived from sugar rich crops like grains, corn, fruit, potatoes, sugar beets and sugar cane. What a lot of people don't realise is that you can also get ethanol from cellulose (wood, wheat stalks, grass, etc - one of the most abundant resources on earth). The fermentable elements are locked in by a type of "glue" though and you need to process it with acid before they are unlocked. A breakthrough in this field was made by Purdue University (USA) who genetically modified a micro-organism that will break down the cellulose and ferment it in one easy step! They are providing it to a select few manufacturers on a leasing basis, and it is being tightly controlled because environmental contamination would be a terrible problem (since the thing eats what is practically everywhere). Right now demand for ethanol isn't high except for a drink, so this hasn't caught on. If there were demand enough for fuel, it sure as hell would and since it's such an efficient process and uses an abundant and cheap raw product, it would be very cheap to buy on a mass market. Much cheaper than gasoline.

The main advantage to biofuels is the low emmisions. They burn so much cleaner that engine life is dramatically increased to about 150-300% of what it would be with carbon rich petroleum fuels.

I think that the change that is needed to modify the market is so widespread that no one will be able to do it without vast financial funding. It spans multiple markets and it just isn't feasible now, even though it'd be loads better for everyone but the Middle East.

No, but he is pretty high on the hypocrit scale. Bullet proof vests, vietnam expierence, generals, I think some one has a hidden agenda...
He was extrememly rude during the debate, he wasnt trying to win, he was trying to kill. Both are idiots yet who do you trust more, one with four years of expierience or on with zero?

What does experience prove? No president went into office experienced as a president. On the other hand, Kerry has been in the Senate for how many years?

What if it was a bad experience? Do you continue to trust a CEO who nearly bankrupts your company, just based on the quantity of experience he has? It isn't quantity that matters, lost one, it's quality.

As far as hypocrisy goes.. how about "No child left behind," which is subsequently underfunded? The "Patriot Act" which strips us of civil liberties (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/) and is now finally being subjected to judicial review (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vppat023991638oct02,0,2920330.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines)?

Yes bush supported no child left behind, that is a waste of the education system, but the patriot act was passed by congress and has no relation to the president. Yes, he could of vetoed it, but what would be the purpose, the senate and the house supported it. How can you prove his expierence is negative? I dont know of any president that wouldnt go to war if they where put in the situation he was put in so dont use that as an example.

Yea Losttraveler, if that made you laugh so hard then you must have been rolling at everything Bush said.

And what are you talking about Hidden Agenda? And how was he rude? I seem to remember Bush attacking Kerry first "Well, I'd like to ask my opponent how he's going to pay for all these promises, but that's for another debate." Also, I'd love it if Bush could ask Kerry a question, but rules are rules I guess!

Oh wait, Bush was also the first one to break those rules by talking directly to Kerry and asking a question...

Did you even listen to what he was talking about with the bullet proof vests? How Bush sent the US troops to war WITHOUT THEM?!?! That doesn't bother you at all?

How can you pick and choose what you want to see in a person so blindly like this?

Yes, please also tell me which president went into his term with experience of being a president... I'm allll ears.

So a few Generals [and not just random Generals mind you] support kerry and you're laughing and a few countries out of the entire world support Bush and that's not something to laugh at?

Bush Snr, having fulfilled the constitutional role of Acting President [who is legally president for the duration] for 8 hours in 1985 when Reagan transferred power due to a need to undergo an operation.


So pwned by pedantry fag.

So he had experience before the eight hours that he was president? You still make no point..

Shbaz: Eric wanted know someone who had presidential expierience before going into office

Eric: I dont care if we dont have bullet proof vests, there has only been 1000 casualtys during this war, thats remarkably low compared to every other conflict. W00t four generals support him, big deal, I personaly know more then four myself, thats why its humorous. How can you say that a few countries support bush. Countries dont support individuals, they support nations.

So let's get this straight here...

You just said that you don't care that soldiers were sent to war and died because they didn't have the proper protection as long as not too many of them die?

Do you have a brother? A sister? A friend? What if they went to Iraq and got hit with a peice of shrapnel that torn through their chest and killed them dead because they didn't have body armor. You wouldn't care because the death toll isn't high enough? You sicken me to no end.

Also Losttraveler, Dick was being humorous, he gained no experience from being president for 8 hours... It was a joke.

I am so glad you're not old enough to vote.

Lost - so do I, that's why I asked in a post slightly above Colossal's. I was responding to Las.

I'm watching the debate right now and Bush mentioned right away that great progress is being made in Afghanistan because 10 million people registered to vote, "a phenominal statistic." My history professor mentioned this the other day - there are 9.8 million eligible voters in Afghanistan. Just guess how many actually registered.

They love voting so much that some of them registered twice! Freedom is awesome.

Woh, I so feel like going into a rant, but damnit, it's just not worth it.

Instead of ranting at LostTravler, I'll respond to DGMacphee:

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 03/10/2004 05:05:12
My opinion: FOX has a bigger audience, so there's a greater right-wing bias.

The size of a station's audience has little to do with whether or not it's reporters and staff are biased.Ã,  It just reflects how popular the station is.Ã,  It doesn't even neccesarily reflect the bias of the audience.Ã,  If that were the case, would everyone who watches say, "Roots" be supporters of slavery?Ã,  I hope not.Ã,  Maybe that's a wierd example, but I suspect the attraction to Fox News is that it's news-er-tainment.Ã,  It's not dry, factual, or based in reality like other "news" programs...it's just an endless barrage of baseless opinion and ranting.Ã,  Like proffesional wrestling.

Regarding the actual breakdown of political affiliations/bias among the media...the polls that I've seen (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head) showed that most media outlet owners (and they are increasingly small in numbers) are largely conservative.Ã,  Polls among actual reporters show that while they are mostly liberal regarding social issues, they are quite conservative regarding economic issues.

I'm so glad this flip-flop-argument is starting to fade. It's great that one real debate peformance can kill all the myths and ill-founded name-calling that the republican campaign whipped up.

If their campaign hadn't promoted the "flip-flop"-argument so darn hard, nobody would have understood why it's such a bad thing to change one's oppinion regarding an important issue where new facts arise.

Kerry turned out to be nothing like the republican campaign tried to portrayed him as, which sends out good signals to the american people.

Quote from: LostTraveler on Sun 03/10/2004 06:30:41
W00t four generals support him, big deal, I personaly know more then four myself, thats why its humorous.

And how many of them have told you and/or the public that they think you're currently the best possible choice for president?

Quote
How can you say that a few countries support bush. Countries dont support individuals, they support nations.

No. No. No. "Countries" or "nations" don't support each other or individuals or anybody. They're not monolithic entities. To some extent, you might say: governments support governments. The invasion of Iraq wasn't a decision of "America", it was a decision of the Bush administration. Any support for it or the occupation was likewise a decision of each participating country's government, not somehow the country itself, or its people. Whether the people even supported this decision is irrelevant - the final decision was not theirs to make.

I'm not American, so I don't get to decide, but: while there are several points on which I disagree with the views represented by Kerry, but it's clear to me he's a damn sight better than Bush. He actually pays attention to what goes on in the world, he's not an idiot, and he's not a total bastard; nor will his administration be composed of a majority of such.

And you still haven't pointed out the slightest bit of hypocrisy.

Quote from: LostTraveler on Sun 03/10/2004 05:58:48
the patriot act was passed by congress and has no relation to the president. Yes, he could of vetoed it.

Why the hell would he veto something that practically gives the government power? Your point makes no sense. Not only that, where do you think these bills come from? At the end of a rainbow? Why don't you look up the origin of the Patriot Act and then tell me it has no relation to Bush?

Also, I still haven't heard a good reason as to why people hate John Kerry so far. Someone please give me an actual reason!

I mean, it's not like the guy murdered his grandmother and danced naked on her grave. The guy's only in trouble for not sticking to a clear decision. I welcome that. When it comes the  shit hitting the fan, he won't stick to the same path as more and monkeys fling wad after wad of faeces in his direction.

Quote
The size of a station's audience has little to do with whether or not it's reporters and staff are biased.  It just reflects how popular the station is.  It doesn't even neccesarily reflect the bias of the audience.  If that were the case, would everyone who watches say, "Roots" be supporters of slavery?  I hope not.  Maybe that's a wierd example, but I suspect the attraction to Fox News is that it's news-er-tainment.  It's not dry, factual, or based in reality like other "news" programs...it's just an endless barrage of baseless opinion and ranting.  Like proffesional wrestling.

I was talking about the influence of bias in society. It's already well-documented that FOX News reporters are biased. You have several gatekeepers (a journalistic term) in newsrooms that make sure people are hired to fit the agenda of a certain network. Any journalist can tell you that. Plus, Rupert Murdoch has publically admitted he's a republican supporter too. Not only that, the idea behind Fox News' establishment was an alternative voice to so-called "liberal media". Like I said, this is all well-documented.

But that's not what I'm saying in this case. I'm saying that that effect of bias is more wide-spread as far as FOX news is concerned. Because they reach more people, they have the potential to influence a greater number. Thus, the amount of right-wing bias in society increases.

Let me put it this way: Would there be just as much right-wing bias today if FOX News didn't exist? The media is a very power entity to influence people. To say it doesn't "reflect the bias of the audience" is a very foolhardy claim to make (no offence intended). If you think people aren't influenced in this way, you should do a little more research.

To prove my point, here's a fancy diagram:

(http://jmcweb.sjsu.edu/craig/agendasetting.jpg)

The diagram is a model of the agenda setting process. It was created by two crazy guys called E.M. Rogers and J.W. Dearing. They say that the media agenda does influence the public agenda. To have a bigger audience means you influence more people. Thus, this increases the amount of bias in society.

Also, I disagree with the comparison to professional wrestling. Professional wrestling is way more honest.

QuoteRegarding the actual breakdown of political affiliations/bias among the media...the polls that I've seen (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head) showed that most media outlet owners (and they are increasingly small in numbers) are largely conservative.  Polls among actual reporters show that while they are mostly liberal regarding social issues, they are quite conservative regarding economic issues.

A reporter's social standing (liberal, conservative, left, right, whatever) doesn't really mean much because they have to conform to the ideology of a media outlet's gatekeepers. If they don't, their stories either get: a) rewritten with a change in ideology, b) thrown out and thus they risk unemployment. It's happened to me -- I've been rewritten to fit a certain ideology of a particular journalism lecturer.

And in other polls, most reporters say that job security and editorial policies of organisations rate as the highest professional values.

By the way, I should mention I'm journalism student, Anarcho. I get horny for stuff on media studies.



Also, as far as "Roots" is concerned, it wasn't really a good example to use. The mini-series was more of a story about liberation than slavery (and on another note, my Aunty Leslie was nominated for an best Actress Emmy in that mini series too [She played Kizzy]).

Regardless, it would have been better to use Birth of a Nation as an example.

Why do people hate John Kerry?Ã,  That's easy.Ã,  As a former Kerry hater, here's my take.

For months the Bush team blasted Kerry with negative ads, portraying him as weak, flip-flopping and unfit to be president.Ã,  They would get on TV and do nothing but attack attack attack.Ã,  And what did Kerry do?Ã,  Practically nothing.Ã,  He sat and took it.Ã,  His team would occasionally offer a half-hearted rebuttal, but nothing really hard hitting.Ã, 

Personally, I was freaked out.Ã,  My friends and I were like "Okay, any minute now he's going to come out and kick ass.Ã,  Right.Ã,  Any minute.Ã,  Just you wait.Ã,  He's just biding his time.Ã,  Come on, Mr. Kerry.Ã,  Mr. Kerry, where the hell are you, Mr. Kerry?Ã,  Bush is killing you, Mr. Kerry.Ã,  Why are you wasting your time on the Regis show? Why don't you say anything?Ã,  Why has John Edwards dropped off the face of the earth?Ã,  WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING BACK!Ã,  ARRGGH! You WIMP. You total PUTZ.Ã,  How can you be losing to BUSH, you MORON.Ã,  etc etc"

So basically Bush was saying Kerry was a wimp for months, and since Kerry never fought back it made it look like Bush was right.Ã,  Kerry just seemed like such a nonentity.Ã,  It was kind of admirable for him to take the high road and not go on the offensive, but it backfired in a big way.Ã,  Again, I just pray it isn't too late to turn things around.

But that's not really a reason for saying "this man is unfit to become president!", just because he didn't respond to personal attacks? Where are the political reasons Kerry shouldn't be in office?

That's just it.Ã,  For the longest time, Kerry himself never gave any real reasons why he should be elected other than "I'm not Bush."Ã,  Most folks didn't knew anything about him because he so rarely ever SAID anything about himself.Ã,  He didn't defend himself, didn't attack Bush, didn't really do much of anything really.Ã,  And the Bush team took full advantage of Kerry's inactivity to talk about how lame Kerry was.  If you're among the uneducated masses who never really pay attention to the real issues, who would look more presidential?Ã,  Sad but true. 

You're right.Ã,  Those aren't good reasons per se.Ã,  But it is the main reason, I think, why Bush is killing Kerry in the polls.

I have family and friends, I wouldnt mind them dieing if it was for a cause. You seem not to understand what a bullet proof vest does. It cannot repel shrapnel. A bullet proof vest is composed of layers of kevlar woven together. It is intended to slow a bullet down to a speed that will not kill the wearer. Shrapnal would puncture the vest as it sharp and jagged. I will try to find some photos to illustrate this. As to the patriot act, a bill can be sumbitted to a congressmen by any citizen. If the congressmen passes it it goes to vote infront of the senate and house, how does that relate to the president at all?

DGMacphee: I guess the previous sentence I quoted from you confused me. Ã, I agree with nearly everything you're saying here. Ã, There's no doubt that FOX is a super biased media entity, and they're popularity will influence the public. Ã, I'm just saying that not everyone who watches it necessarily believes it. Ã, I have a ton of friends who watch FOX news because it's entertaining, but would never in a million years believe the crap they spew. Ã, It's like Rush Limbaugh and right wing radio...it's popular because it's abrasive, not neccessarily because people are sympathetic (though plenty are).

I also agree with you regarding your gatekeeper argument. Ã, I was just sharing the "facts" as I've read them. Ã, I'm certainly not one of your "the media is liberal" people. Ã, I believe it's the exact opposite.

And regarding Roots...look...it was late at night and I was fucking tired. Ã, So my analogy wasn't all that great. Ã, Man, get off my back! Ã, :P

Journalism student, aye? Ã, I was a political science/international affairs student...in my day...

I've just read that Kerry beats Bush in rankings after first debate. So who knows, maybe he's got a REAL chance.

How does it relate to the President at all?  Because the Justice Department drafted the Patriot ACT.  John Aschcrofts's Justice Department....get it?  Viet Dinh, who was a top assistant to Aschcroft was the chief architect of the document.  Get it?  It wasn't written by Congress, it was written by the administration.

Anarcho:
Hehe, I only pointed out the Roots thing so I could brag again about my Aunt being nominated for an Emmy. ;D

And aye, I agree that not every sinlge person becomes wholely influenced by one particular network. I guess the trick is to just be well-informed -- read, watch, and listen to a variety of different sources.


LT:
What Anarcho said.

Or better yet, wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Note the line: "Assistant attorney general Viet D. Dinh, was the chief architect of the act."

It was still passed in congress. I dont support it, but it was passed. The government is divided into three branches, how can you blame the ones actions on the others. So what your saying is that the author worked for the Att Gen so the bill was all bushs doing?

No. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz's doing.

As for congress, a large majority (if not all) didn't even read the Patriot act. And they've been faulted for that. But that's not the point.

In fact, I'm lost as to what you're trying to argue here. What is your point?

It sounds like you're trying to say people should vote for Bush because congress does a lousy job. If so, you can't be serious.

DGMacphee, to address your question...

I never hated John Kerry, but like many Democrats I was fairly lukewarm in my enthusiasm for him. In too many ways, he seemed like "Bush lite", with policy proposals that were just watered-down conservative positions. He failed to offer a clear and distinct alternative. Specifically on Iraq, but also in general. In recent speeches and in the debate, he went a long way towards rectifying this.

Other policies I was (and remain) uncomfortable with include his commitment to perpetuate the US policy of blind support for Israel, and his populist stance against free trade. However, a president who will pursue a fair Israel/Palestine policy is a pipe dream, and in spite of his rhetoric, Kerry's voting record remains solidly pro-free trade.

In learning more about Kerry, I have discovered how many of his opinions and priorities I share. I have been impressed by his life, as well as by his performance in the debate. I have come to feel that Goddammit! this man should be president.

Besides, consider the alternative...

It's ironic. More Democrats and liberals can acknowedge more substantial aspects against Kerry than Republicans can.

Dg, Anarcho, I just had to add my 2 bits about media bias. Ã, DG, your agenda setting model is apt, but anarcho is right in that not everyone is duped. Ã, Many people *believe* everyone else is duped, which is a very effective way of maintaining institutional control. Ã, If you're interested, my background is in Sociology AND Writing, having a degree in both (I'm currently working on a MA in Sociology). Ã, That doesn't make me an expert, but it has privileged me towards certain readings.

Also note that you probably know and half-agree with all this. Ã, I'm just saying it so people reading the debate will get a more rounded interpretation.

If you look at polls (which are still highly flawed), you find massive support for things like gun control, peace, gender equality, even gay marriage. Ã, But the media help establish an atmosphere in which it seems that more "liberal" views are crazy and more conservative views are the norm. Ã, They help engender the atmosphere in which it is "acceptable" to make extremely uniformed conservative statements. Ã, You may notice that conservatives are less likely to back up their claims with any sort of evidence. Ã, This is not always the case, but more often than not, conservatives will claim that any one who opposes them is just anti-american, or anti-Canadian, or pro-terrorist and that everyone else is sane. Ã, Really radical ideas are just shut out by the media system (excepting a few audience-based and/or non-profit publications) due to the importance of advertisers. Ã, Herman and Noam Chomsky, for example, have shown how advertsiers engender a propaganda system in the media, just because of their massive influence over agenda setting. Ã, Sometimes, media owners, like Ted Turner or Izzy Asper actually interfere in the hiring and even writing process to support their agenda, but even when owners are more relaxed, the relationships between advertisers and media outlets control content.

A couple of cases that probably most people know about, but that demonstrate different parts of how this works. Ã, First, there are public relations industries which actually package and deliver advertising in the form of "news." This is not the same as an infomercial or a supplement stating "Paid Advertisment," but highly scripted reports sold to thousands of dailys and weeklys as advertising posing as news. Ã, Hill and Knolan (I can't remember the exact name), is one such company. Ã, The Public Relations industry also commisions their own polls, which journalists searching for interesting stories invariably report on. Ã, These polls and surveys are almost always of a highly dubious quality, but since they seem to come from official sources, many journalists don't even have time to check.

Two more extreme examples include direct censorship. Ã, During the last "Woodstock" reunion in the 90's, much of the music was broadcast live, uninterupted on some cable network. Ã, During the course of the show, one musician played a song criticizing Pepsi-cola for their turn to plastic bottles, describing the waste left behind. Ã, Only problem? Ã, Pepsi was one of the sponsors of the telecast. Ã, Not the show itself, just the telecast. Ã, During the show, viewers saw a huge Pepsi ad hastily put up in front of the singer, and the sound was muted for a Pepsi commercial. Ã, Viewers never saw the song.

A second example is from here in BC, Canada. Ã, A group called Adbusters raised money to produce anti-car ads. Ã, The ads were slick and funny. Ã, They had the money to buy space, but no TV station would air it. Ã, It clashed with other advertisers too much. Ã, This demonstrates that even money isn't the source of media bias. Ã, It's all about the relationships of control and domination.

However, this does not mean that viewers are simply dupes. Ã, We are influenced, as people in this thread said who ended up hating Kerry, but viewers do not simply pick up the bias of their programs. Ã, Recent studies show that viewership is reflexive--it's critical of what they watch, even sarcastic. Ã, It's the overall climate the media help engender that defines what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Ã, So FOX news doesn't pick up on Conservative people (exclusively) and it doesn't create conservative people (exclusively) but it helps make the atmosphere more friendly to radical neo-liberalism/conservatism.

As for the Kerry/Bush debate, Kerry is probably better than Bush, but don't get too excited. Ã, Kerry would probably have gone to war in Afganistan if not Iraq, and other counterinteligence moves would have been on his agenda. Ã, The Democrats rarely break extensively from the patterns set out by the Republicans, they just do it more quietly. Ã, Bush's blunders have allowed the largest resistance movements in recorded history to rise up, which is a good sign for pluralist democracy. Ã, I'm not saying you should vote Bush. Ã, By all means, vote Kerry and get a less dogmatic leadership, but don't put too much effort into it. Ã, Remember that the real struggle is for public space, peace and social values, and if Kerry becomes another Clinton with a lot of talk and little positive action, don't be afraid to continue the movement for better government, more democracy, equality and truly unchecked human freedom.

Bspeers: Aye, I acknowledged in one of my previous posts that not everyone was influenced. Though, after re-reading my original post on agenda-setting, I should mention I didn't actualy say the entire audience is influenced. I just said there's a potential to influence more people in terms of biases. That's not to say they watch a FOX News broadcast and immediately become biased, as if it were something like magic. It does take time.

There's an old adage in politics: If you repeat the message over and over, people will start to agree with it. (Case in point: "John Kerry flip-flops!")

However, I would argue with a minor point:

QuoteRecent studies show that viewership is reflexive--it's critical of what they watch, even sarcastic.

I've read studies that show the contrary in regards to conservative viewing i.e. the viewship is mostly complacent. The reason? A lot of people consider conservative viewing as "safe" viewing and thus they feel little need to criticise it. Basically, they just want to sit in front of the TV and not be hassled or challenged in anyway, especially after a hard day at the office.


After reading your post and Anarcho's, it seems all our studies have crossed very similar paths. Hurrah for politcal media studies!

Dave Gilbert:

I'd say not responding to the charges that he was weak or a flip-flopper was a very wise move.Ã,  In advertising, acknowledging your weakness to the audience is bad.

Say three out of ten people never heard Bush's campaign saying "Kerry is a flip-flopper."

Then all ten people see the ad that says "I know Bush thinks I'm this, but I'm not. Trust me."Ã,  Now the seven people are conflicted, but they don't necessarily change their minds- and the three newcomers are suspicious of Kerry being a flip-flopper.

Instead, Kerry ignored Bush - he let Bush's advertising focus solely on the flip-flopping.... and now Bush is screwed.Ã,  Kerry appeared stronger and more determined than Bush during the debate.Ã,  "Flip-flop" was Bush's ultimate move but Kerry swept it aside in one hour.Ã,  All that negative campaigning, virtually a waste.


Lost Traveler:

Please stop trolling. Senator Kerry had 90 seconds to make a rebuttal to Bush. One of the points he had to make was that he had a strong backing by the US military.Ã,  He listed the biggest names of those supporters, not his ONLY supporters.Ã, Ã, Kerry had one minute and a half to make counterpoints to Bush- not to list a bunch of names.

You know four generals, that's great.Ã,  List their full names in your reply without typing more than twenty words.Ã, 

You may stop laughing now. (http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/debate_video/sept29/1.html)

I don't think I ever hated Kerry. I just didn't care, or see him as much better than Bush because I hadn't seen anything impressive. A lot of that has to do with the little bit I saw of him in the media during that time. I saw some pretty wacky stuff about him and Vietnam, mainly him talking about Vietnam. Things that kind of made me question him, but not hate him. However he didn't make me think dictator, which Bush does, so that was the only reason I was going to vote for him. Now, after the debate, he has come off as a strong leader. So my reason for voting for him has flip-flopped to actually casting a vote for someone I think is capable of doing the job. It's all a popularity contest and Kerry just hadn't made his entry until the debates. It was a well played hand. He will hopefully be able to ride this brief wave of victory all the way to Nov. 2, which I imagine was the plan. His big sprint at the end of the long race where his opponent is already spent.

Concerning the media: I'm not very well educated on the matter, so excuse me while I talk out of my ass for a moment.

A while back I became interested in Columbia and the FARC. Finding information about this became somewhat difficult. Very few news stories actually appear on events in Columbia. I had to dig to find out about it. Basically this is the case with almost all media coverage. You are told only what you seek out. I read both the BBC news site and CNN. There are always different spins on the same story. However, I rarely find that at the core it is all that different. I feel that the media falls somewhere in between. Not to the left or the right, but not balanced either. I think the whole "Pepsi commercial/Woodstock" thing was a good example of how I feel the media acts. It presents the whole package but, different parts are filtered out by other stories. There is fairly constant coverage of Columbia on CNN.com (virtually none on BBC) but it is buried. Buried under "news" that is barely news, repeated stories, and the latest movie/rock stars wedding. It's all a matter of reading between the lines and paying attention to what is RIGHT in front of you, and the mass of American Society has no desire to do so, which explains why they like Bush so much...At least in my opinion.

later,
-junc

Quote from: kingsized on Mon 04/10/2004 13:41:59
Dave Gilbert:

I'd say not responding to the charges that he was weak or a flip-flopper was a very wise move.Ã,  In advertising, acknowledging your weakness to the audience is bad.

Oh you're definitely right about that.  It's like if someone calls you ultra-defensive, and you respond with "No I'm not!"  Kerry did the right thing in not addressing the charges that he was "weak",  but at the same time he never did anything to disprove it either.

Quote
Instead, Kerry ignored Bush - he let Bush's advertising focus solely on the flip-flopping.... and now Bush is screwed.Ã,  Kerry appeared stronger and more determined than Bush during the debate.Ã,  "Flip-flop" was Bush's ultimate move but Kerry swept it aside in one hour.Ã,  All that negative campaigning, virtually a waste.

Yeah, NOW Kerry swept it aside.  NOW he comes across as being the strong and intelligent man that he really is.  But how come he didn't show this side of himself five months ago?  Is his recent performance good enough to change peoples' minds in the time we have left?  I really hope so, since George Bush scares the living crap out of me.  I guess we'll see.

I had an argument with my dad over dinner last night regarding Bush vs. Kerry. Sadly, he made some (good?) points FOR Bush. Being uneducated about politics, I couldn't argue much against Bush and for Kerry.

When I mentioned Bush's lying and deceit into going into war with Iraq, he basically, in a nutshell, said that the U.N. only wanted more resolutions, more resolutions, and Bush took action when no one else would and took care of a threat. I thought to myself, so a worldwide organization is useless, because you're bloodthirsty? The U.N. is there for a reason. If they decide that war is not the answer, then they must have good reason to tell us not to invade them.

Then, he decided to go on a 10-minute rant, defending the war. Now, I'm not against the REAL reasons for the war. Hussen was a threat, blah blah blah, and my dad basically said that France, Russia, et al were supporting Iraq, giving them supplies for oil. And I had no idea whether this was true or not, so I had to act like it was news to me and just nodded.

After telling my dad that he had wasted his time justifying the war, I pointed out that Bush lied. "Well, what politician doesn't??" That was it. Okay, so it's just fine for a president to lie. He then said that Bush was only going on information sent to him, that Saddam had WMD's and so took action.

But I found myself unable to argue against the France/Russia oil-for-supplies argument and that Bush was only going on what he was told by intelligence reports. I want someone (or more than one) to pretend that I'm my dad (or the "devil's advocate", so to speak) and argue against those points. Not because I side with my dad (I rarely ever have :P), but to educate me a little.

Well you're gist about the US defying the U.N. is right.Ã,  A nation cannot simply respect the UN when it agrees with you, and then defy it when it doesn't- you have to sign on with a whole package deal.Ã,  Otherwise it doesn't work.

Bush's logic: "Saddam is defying the UN! Attack him!"

Bush's action: Defy the U.N.

This is the point Kerry made about keeping alliances.Ã, 

And France and Russia are irrelevant.Ã,  No matter what their relation to Iraq before Bush "asked them for help" - the given context was to help him exploit 9/11 and carry his own agenda in Iraq.Ã,  Ã, Bush wantd to get the man his father didn't, and the oil, and Why should France or Russia be obligated to that goal?Ã,  They have their own affairs to deal with besides petty wars.

It's a simple and interesting fact that the UN did make some progress in Iraq.
The sanctions had just started to show some effect.
The inspections were running smoothly, gathering great amounts of information, laying great webs of contacts and intelligence.
Saddam had just started destroying some of the illegal missiles. Reluctantly and slowly, but he still did it.
UN acknowledged and offically supported oppositional parties. Possibly, this could eventually have led to a regime change. It would have taken time, but it would have been legitimate, diplomatic and less bloody.

First tell your father that there wasn't a threat. There simply wasn't.
Iraq wasn't in possession of a proper army, much less inter-continential rockets, or wmd:s. They have yet to make a hostile move against USA that is not in self defence.

Yes, France and Russia were involved in the food-for-oil programme. Ask your father what's wrong with that.
USA, on the other hand, was involved in the nothing-for-oil programme, and they wanted more.

Ask your dad what kind of signals he thinks the americans send out to the world, when they unilateraly invade another country, ill-foundedly and pre-emptive. Will it make the world a safer place, or will it encourage other militarist dictatorships to do the same, whenever they see fit, for whatever reason they come up with, without listening to the UN?

Oh, my dad also said that Saddam kept refusing to cooperate with the weapons inspectors. Now everybody's saying that he was cooperating the entire time. WHich is it? Tell me my dad's wrong. ;)

QuoteWhen I mentioned Bush's lying and deceit into going into war with Iraq, he basically, in a nutshell, said that the U.N. only wanted more resolutions, more resolutions, and Bush took action when no one else would and took care of a threat.

Threat??

Has your Dad heard of a country called North Korea by any chance?

Here's a map I found on Google, just in case he doesn't know where it is:
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/kn-map.jpg)

I hope this helps him.

So, a new point for the "not for war!" in Iraq is "Invade North Korea first!"?  ;)

Or rather, North Korea SAID that they had nukes, while Iraq said that they didn't and proved it through the inspections.. and Bush invaded Iraq. North Korea was on his axis of evil too, so it wasn't like he didn't know about it (nor did anyone else not notice an over-zealous dictator waving around nukes).

I feel Kerry is wrong on North Korean policy though, with tri-part talks.. Bush has a good point about keeping China and Russia in there. If you drop their most powerful bordering countries from the talks, how the hell are you going to pressure them?

No, Farl. Don't misread me. I'm saying that it's hypocritical to say "Iraq was a threat" when it was very minor compared to N.Korea. And the Bush administration hasn't done very much about North Korea's threat either, which makes the hypocrisy behind Iraq all the more evident.

Also, what shbaz said.

Yes, but follow the logic.  If pre-emptive war is an unsupportable action then it is unsupportable period.  I don't think the North Korea example is a very good one in general.   The more we use it, the more people will think, "Yeah, they ARE a threat!"

Not that I don't think Bust was hypocritical, I just think that it's dangerous to tell people to invade other countries.  They could easily argue "Yeah, you're right.  North Korea is a bigger threat.  Now that Bush has beat Saddam, he's the only one with the gonads to bomb North Korea"

Of course bombing primarily hurts the people who live in a country and has very rarely had an overall pacifying effect.  The normal effect is to rally enemies together agaisnt the attacker and *strengthen* opposition, while harming innocent people.  Even the bombing of Germany during WWII was largely counter-productive and targetted civilians, but that at least could be partially justified on the grounds that Germany was the agressor.

Anyway, I don't want to get into all the reasons why warfare is not only inhumane, but technologically, environmentally and politically irrational, I just wanted to point out the danger of using North Korea as an anti-war example.  There are many even easier examples of Bush's hypocracy, and many better reasons not to invade.

Quote from: bspeers100 on Thu 07/10/2004 01:53:49
Yes, but follow the logic.  If pre-emptive war is an unsupportable action then it is unsupportable period.  I don't think the North Korea example is a very good one in general.   The more we use it, the more people will think, "Yeah, they ARE a threat!"

Not that I don't think Bust was hypocritical, I just think that it's dangerous to tell people to invade other countries.  They could easily argue "Yeah, you're right.  North Korea is a bigger threat.  Now that Bush has beat Saddam, he's the only one with the gonads to bomb North Korea"

N. Korea spends over 30% of its GDP on its military - more than any other country in the world (as a percentage, not as a whole number). They made threats and really do have nukes. They really ARE a threat, whether it's convenient or not. Bush doesn't have the gonads to bomb N. Korea or he would have done it before Iraq, which was clearly the better choice, which is why I don't think it matters. Besides, I'm all for giving him a chance anyway or it wouldn't be a fair comparison. Really though, once you do give him a chance, there IS no comparison, he's done badly at nearly everything he put his hands on.


In other news, did anyone watch the vice-president debate? I didn't, but I think everyone will get a kick out of this.

Cheney Drops a Dot-Bomb in Debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12901-2004Oct6.html)

QuoteAfter Democratic nominee John Edwards raised some nasty allegations about Halliburton Corp., the company Cheney once ran, Cheney angrily responded to the "false" charges. "If you go, for example, to FactCheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton," he said.

But when people followed Cheney's instructions, they wound up at a site sponsored by administration antagonist George Soros. "Why we must not re-elect President Bush," the site blared. "President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values."

furthermore..

QuoteGradually, people became aware of Cheney's mistake, and the White House transcript of the debate was annotated with the correct address. But, unfortunately for Cheney, FactCheck.org was not much more helpful than Soros in knocking down Edwards's charges.

Cheney "wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton," the Annenberg site wrote in a posting today. "In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."

In your face, Dick!

bspeers, you're looking for things in my comments that I don't actually mean. I'm not saying that we should invade North Korea right this minute. I'm just saying that it's hypocritical that the Bush administration would negotiate with North Korea yet invade Iraq. It's much better logic to say (and this is my point) they should have negotiated more with Iraq.

That's why I think North Korea is a prime example for comparison. The US will negotiate with North Korea, but won't negotiate with Iraq even though Iraq was slowly complying with demands. Thus, it wasn't a real threat.

DG, I'm not arguing against you, merely against the general use of N. Korea as an argument.  Lots of people *do* use the "what about North Korea" argument, and all you did in your post was show a map of Korea and say "Threat??"  That sounds like saying North Korea is a threat to me.

And as for spending on armourments, Shbaz, N. Korea has not threatened the US.  Merely spending money on armourments is not the same as a threat, unless one considers anyone attempting to outpace the US in any resepct an automatic crime. 

However, I'm not sure how accurate your data is.  According to the 2003 CIA world-fact book, North Korea ranks about 32nd.  South Korea ranks 29th.  Israel rules the roost (by far), followed by Singapore, the US, Brunei, New Caledonia, etc. 

Check out http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap/, and also, http://www.nationmaster.com/country/is/Top-Rankings/ --these are my hastily found sources.  Also, in raw dollars, the military budget of South Korea is about 3 times that of North Korea.  (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html)

bspeers, yeah, I did only say "Threat??" and just show a map of N. Korea. But I think it was pretty obvious that I was trying to say the threat in Iraq was rather minor rather than "Why aren't we bombing N. Korea?". Especially if you look at the context of the threat and the quote I was replying to.

Anyway, I've elaborated now, so I hope that satisfies.

B - you're not interpreting what I wrote correctly, I expected that so I typed it out as clearly as I could.. read again.

N. Korea spends over 30% of its GDP on its military - more than any other country in the world (as a percentage, not as a whole number).

GDP stands for gross domestic product.

I don't have time to check to see if Kim Jong Il has actually threatened the US yet (though I'm sure he has) but there is an obvious implied threat in his violation of the nonproliferation treaty and huge military budget for a country of that size. There is a demilitarized zone between North and South Korea that he's just itching to get rid of. Countries that build up the military tend to use the military.. I was saying that to everyone I knew when Bush campaigned on military improvements and a missile wall around the USA. Then we had a suspiciously un-necessary war sometime in 2003...

Quote from: DG at Uni on Thu 07/10/2004 01:28:59
No, Farl. Don't misread me. I'm saying that it's hypocritical to say "Iraq was a threat" when it was very minor compared to N.Korea.

Of course, I was joking.  8)

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Thu 07/10/2004 07:33:11
B - you're not interpreting what I wrote correctly, I expected that so I typed it out as clearly as I could.. read again.

N. Korea spends over 30% of its GDP on its military - more than any other country in the world (as a percentage, not as a whole number).

GDP stands for gross domestic product.

Gee, that's funny, because the CIA world factbook also relies on GDP. Ã, In fact, all the statistics I quoted explain their exact source, including GDP, population, etc. Ã, Raw % of GDP is not a reliable method of attaining spending, unless other methods of computation are made.

But, I decided to examine your evidince further. Ã, The CIA world factbook is generally considered a reliable source, even by those opposed to the CIA, but maybe Korea has threatened other countries since the Korean war. Ã, Note that Korea has never attacked attacked an outside country. Ã, During the war, Koreans were fighting against invading Japanese, American troops, and each other. Ã, Since 1994, when Kim Jong Il took power, he has made zero threats to the United States, and only a few veiled statements to Japan. Ã, The following article is from an expert on the region, and you can read his latest book if you like:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=4992

And while I have no absolute proof, after an exhausting search, I have found no evidence whatsoever that Kim Jong Il has threatened the United States in the last 20 years--which is certainly when the relevant history begins. Ã, He has performed "threatening" actions, but independent observers have questioned the degree to which these are truly unprovoked actions. Ã, If I were a scientist, I would say we had disproved, to the extent that we are able, your hypothesis.

North Korea Pumps money into military (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040803-122618-7502r.htm) (Washington Times)

QuoteSEOUL â€" North Korea is spending as much as 40 percent of its gross domestic product on its military, including its nuclear-weapons program, to give its 1.2-million-man army key advantages over better-armed U.S. and South Korean forces, said Army Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.

CIA Factbook - North Korea (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html)

QuoteMilitary expenditures - percent of GDP:Ã,  Ã, 
22.9% (2003)

So apparently these numbers vary wildly, maybe depending on what year it is, but according to my research they are starving the country to keep up an oversized military. If you don't think that's a threat, well, whatever. You don't know your history very well if you can't see what it means when you have:

A. A strongly opinionated leader
B. Massive military spending
C. Tension with other nations
D. Self-imposed problems blamed on said "other nations" which unites people against common threat

US sanctions should mean nothing. The article you posted even points out that they once had loads of food on their hands, what happened? Is it the US that took the food away, or was it the huge army?

That article is a big bunch of over-sympathetic crap so far as I'm concerned. While a lot of the things Bush has done are genuinely dumb, some of the stuff in it makes me doubt the opinion of a so-called expert. You develop nuclear weapons, you pay the consequences. Apparently the secret program has been going on for a lot longer than when Bush was in office. There have been hostilities there ever since the war that seperated them and North Korea is just as dangerous now as it was then.

Wow, what other leader/country does this sound like? ::)

A. A strongly opinionated leader
B. Massive military spending
C. Tension with other nations
D. Self-imposed problems blamed on said "other nations" which unites people against common threat

I am an american that lives in Pennsylvania. My parents are voting for bush. The reason is that kerry is really raising taxes for people that make ovver 100000 dollars american. My dad owns 4 orthodontic practices and makes about 650,000 dollars before taxes. Kerry is a bum and a hippy. He makes rich people pay to send losers to college. Grrrrr. I saw John Kerry in a book store. He is a retard. He just looked around acted happy and then left. What a jerk.

I really hope you're joking.

sadly, i am not

You yourself think it's sad that you said the above in earnest?

Just so long as we can agree on that I'm happy.

He's got to be joking, right?  Is this another april fool's joke?  CJ?  Are you trying to make a fool of us yet again?

Hmm for such a high class citizen you really should not call your self poop but rather something like feces...

How is Kerry retarded tho, liberals raise taxes because they want to help people, conservatives oppose taxes because they want to keep their money.

Yeah, I don't understand your point either, poop. You see, for too long the wealthy have been granted tax cuts and given a free ride, so to speak. It's about damn time the wealthy got taxed. Being not-so-wealthy, I take offense to you saying that he wants to "put losers in college." Excuse me? Who the fuck are you to say that I don't deserve a chance at college? So only the rich are good enough to survive, eh? Why don't you get off your high and mighty horse and come back to Earth, and reality. Just beacuse you had your life handed to you on a silver fucking platter doesn't give you any right to judge others not as fortunate as yourself.

I'll just stop there. I might say something unkind.

I went to college. I must be a loser.Ã,  :'(

Nobody was paying my way, i still am paying student loans off 7 years later.

Quote from: poop743 on Thu 07/10/2004 23:54:23
He makes rich people pay to send losers to college.

I totally agree with you on that.

Oh, wait, you were talking about Bush Senior, right? 

:P

Ok, so I'm a foreigner, and don't give a damn about politics to boot, never have, but I started reading this thread anyway because, frankly, I love hearing about Bush's latest embarassments (that guy almost took us to war, no thanks to our own former Prime-Moronic-Minister Durão Barroso, against the will of about 65, 70 percent of the Portuguese people). But then I see this -

QuoteMy parents are voting for bush. The reason is that kerry is really raising taxes for people that make ovver 100000 dollars american.

Aha. There. The secret revealed. I understand Bush's election was a bit fishy (not sure about any specifics, though - like I said, politics isn't my cup of tea), but if he gets reelected again, this explains it. And of course, people will have what they ask for. If they're willing to elect someone who almost started a WW3 (am I exaggerating? I honestly don't know) because he makes rich people live even better (what about all the other people? Oh, those, nevermind THOSE, how can poor people go into college at ALL, those shit-for-brains?), well... my deepest sympathies.

Poop, I'm glad you opened my eyes to Kerry's hush-hush plans to tax the rich.Ã,  I think those poor people have had it way too easy for far too long. In fact, taxes for anyone who does not wear a top hat and a monocle.

Also, I'm glad you've proven Kerry is a retard with the simple statement: "He is a retard". And one that hangs around in bookstores too!! Ooo, those damn retards! They should look around and act happy in the loony bins, and not our bookstores and other retail outlets.

But there are some people I know who don't believe he's a retard. Do you have any records from mental institutions to prove so? If so, just send them to me and don't give them to Dan Rather cause he's biased left-wing media.

By the way, when does your Halloween Humour Competition finish. I need more time to finish my entry.

Love DG (when I say 'love' I don't mean i'm gay cause Bush says that Jesus says gay people are sinners)

Well, Poop, since you're only 13 years old, I'm not gonna waste energy trying to explain why you make an arse of yourself. You will realise that in some five years or so.

Poop, you're not helping the republican effort with those postsÃ,  ;D

Side note: That makes me remember that, while I am conservative, I am not very Replublican. Many times I look for good economy management, that means voting thr "right" in Spain, whereas the republicans are not a guarantee of that.

Another story is to agree with them in the very matter of Iraq (It is curious that Kerry agreed with them in that moment, has he amnesia?) I personally think he's another example of politic saying "what people wants to hear" saying yes to war when it's going ok, and not when it goes worse... All the politicians are the same (Including the conservatives, of courseÃ,  :P)

About Poop stuff... When I was reading his pearls of wisdom I remembered that I have an image, (going in the direction Helm expressed in his latest posts...) that is f*ing funny.

(I don't want to offend anybody, it's not directed to anybody, actually, but I think it's funny, because I found the pic as I show you here):

(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/STFU.gif)Ã,  ;DÃ,  ;DÃ,  ;D You can use it!

I thought that the STFU noob was geniune of AGS...  :) but apparently is very popular outside the community. Excuse my ignorance.

Sorry, DG but the humor contest wasnt officially approved yet. One of the mods said it would be a nice them for Mags one month, to have a humor game. Even if it isnt a contest, there arent enough funny games. It would be great if you finished your game and posted it anyway. You might even get a headstart on an upcoming MAGS.

PS. Sorry for calling Kerry a retard, but I live in the states and i no whats going on. John Kerry always chanmges his opinin, hes a hippy, and he raises taxes. My parents already put 52% of their income to taxes. You see, people making  alot of money really do hav higher taxes already

I'm also a hippie, mr Poop, and I always change my opinion as well. Last week I didn't think you were an ignorant brat, but now I do think so. I also like being in book-stores.

Does this make a retard as well?

Quote from: poop743 on Fri 08/10/2004 13:22:58
i no whats going on.

You sure do!

Quote
John Kerry always chanmges his opinin,

My doctor did the same thing. One year he said that my grandad was alive and then just a few years later, he said he was dead. That stupid doctor. He should have found another way to explain the lack of breathing, reflex responses, heartbeat and the funny smell. My grandma, even though she is in an institution, stuck to her guns and kept saying that he was alive. That doctor was just a weak flip-flopper.

Quote
and he raises taxes.

Already! And he's not even president yet! How evil can you get?

Quote
My parents already put 52% of their income to taxes. You see, people making  alot of money really do hav higher taxes already

Its ridiculous. Just because they are the only people who can afford to pay them, politicians are always putting a larger tax burden on the rich.

All joking aside, the tax relief the rich get when the republicans are in power is a strong motive for them to keep voting that way. 

My uncle, for example, has more money than he knows what to do with.  I remember him saying before the 2000 election: "Man, that Bush is such a moron.  I'm going to HATE to vote for him." He voted  for Bush because his primary concern is the wellfare of his own wallet, and by extent the wellfare of his wife and children. 

It's sort of understandable, but also not so because he is so insanely wealthy to begin with.  The tax increase isn't going to hurt him that badly.

Quote from: poop743 on Fri 08/10/2004 13:22:58
Sorry, DG but the humor contest wasnt officially approved yet. One of the mods said it would be a nice them for Mags one month, to have a humor game. Even if it isnt a contest, there arent enough funny games. It would be great if you finished your game and posted it anyway. You might even get a headstart on an upcoming MAGS.

oh darn my game was going to be so funny that your balls would explode on fire. All my beta testers laughed so hard that they suffered from nad combustion after they played it. THAT'S HOW FUNNY IT WAS GOING TO BE! and now I can't release it for the competition cause some moderater has flip-floped just like that evil hippy john kerry!

QuotePS. Sorry for calling Kerry a retard, but I live in the states and i no whats going on. John Kerry always chanmges his opinin, hes a hippy, and he raises taxes. My parents already put 52% of their income to taxes. You see, people making  alot of money really do hav higher taxes already

I hate when those damn hippys raise taxes. they always do it. Just the other day I was going to catch the bus to subway to grab a meatball sub but I didn't have enough money to catch the bus because there was a transport tax. And i said to the bus driver "wtf??? why the transport tax??" and the bus driver said "those damn hippys raised it!!" and i said "ooo those damn hippys! if they're not filling their crack pipes they're raising taxes!! i'd like to give them a pice of my mind" and I shook my fist. so i couldn't get my meatbal sub cause it was all john kerry's fault.

Ah, poop, so you live in the States and therefore know what's going on! Wow. Well, let's see...I live in Massachusetts, which I believe, is in the States. Hmm, yes, I beleve so. And, ahem, I think I know FAR better than you "whats going on". Let me educate you a little, poop. You see, if you have a certain small amount of money, and get taxed very little on it, you still have a small amount of money left. But, if you have a ton of money, and get taxed a lot, it is still possible to have a crapload of money. Do you get what I'm saying? 52% doesn't affect you as much as it would affect me. I would go broke. Your parents are probably only slightly affected by it.

As for opinion-changing, you need some more educating. I'd rather have a president that changes his opinion once in awhile due to new facts or circumstances, than have a president that doesn't change what he believes, even if proven wrong. Understand?

Dg, i have a great idea for a game. You can make a game where this guy keeps running into these darn hippies. Ill leave the rest up to u. I think you should release your game anyway. Even if its not totally finished, id love to see it. But im not sure if the hippies would fin dit politically correct. ha

Quote from: poop743 on Fri 08/10/2004 21:55:04
Dg, i have a great idea for a game. You can make a game where this guy keeps running into these darn hippies. Ill leave the rest up to you. I think you should release your game anyway. Even if its not totally finished, id love to see it. But I'm not sure if the hippies would fin dit politically correct. ha

Or you can change hippies with rednecks.
How about it poop?

i dont think so. I've always found hippies funnier than rednecks. Besides, redneck games have been done before. DG would be the first person to exploit hippies in an adventure game.

Your new around here, first thing never to do is piss off DG.
Secondly, I am a republican yet I am borderline on most issues but you are really ruining everything republicans stand for. Untill you pay taxes you cant complain about them, I believe you are just mimicing your parents at this point. Get out some more, go to your local party headquarters. View the aclu site, the canadite's sites, the UAG site, and any other political site that is not just a rant. Ask people! When you know get back to us with your ideas, not your Ebenezer Scrooge parent's ideas.

For those of you that don't know the 2nd round of debates are coming on in about an hour and a half. I think it's 2AM GMT, 9PM Eastern Time(US).

For more info about the debates and transcripts (sorry if this was posted earlier), check out: http://www.debates.org/

later,
-junc

Quote from: poop743 on Fri 08/10/2004 23:18:48
i dont think so. I've always found hippies funnier than rednecks. Besides, redneck games have been done before. DG would be the first person to exploit hippies in an adventure game.

You just don't get it, eh?
What do you want me, to draw it all for you?

QuoteGet out some more, go to your local party headquarters. View the aclu site, the canadite's sites, the UAG site, and any other political site that is not just a rant. Ask people!

And maybe absorve some Michael Moore films and books, as well some pro-Bush influence, wherever it comes from. No sarcasm here - if you manage to balance both and somehow find the truth in both points of view, you'll have gone a long way.

Quote from: LostTraveler on Sat 09/10/2004 00:09:42
Your new around here, first thing never to do is piss off DG.

I'm not an angry person. I'm just misunderstood.Ã,  :'(

(http://www.dvdangle.com/fun_stuff/interviews/wil_wheaton/images/frames7.jpg)
"I just wish I could go
someplace where nobody
knows me."

Vern : Geez, Gordie, why couldn't you have gotten breakfast stuff like twinkies, Pez and root beer?
Gordie : Sorry, Vern. I guess a more experienced shopper could have gotten more for your seven cents.

sorry to be off topic......

Chopper, Sick Balls....

Wow. Well, the debate has just ended, at least for viewers in the Eastern Time Zone of the U.S. Just a few key points:

• There were several points where I would mumble something under my breath, just a thought or a sentiment, and then John Kerry would voice my exact thoughts just moments later, one time almost word-for-word.
• This debate is tougher to choose who the winner was. Personally, I walked away from it just as convinced to choose Kerry as before.
• Basically, Bush kept arguing that he would do the job. Kerry kept arguing that he would do the job right. Even their closing statements reflected this. Kerry, having spoken first, said that he had plans galore, plans for this, plans for this, plans, plans, everywhere! But at least he detailed a few of those plans for us during the debate. Bush merely said that people wanted a strong, decisive leader, who will take action.
• My biggest beef has to be with the "no new taxes" statement by Kerry. A panelist basically told Kerry to look into the camera and promise never to raise taxes for families making under $200K a year. Kerry then said "I will not raise taxes." He didn't add "...for families making under $200K a year," but that was a given, if anybody had been listening. Well, apparently Bush wasn't. He then attacked Kerry and claimed that he first said he would raise taxes for the rich, then not raise taxes at all. I felt like slapping my TV and saying "He meant not to raise taxes for a certain bracket, you idiot!"

Anybody else have some thoughts coming away from the debate?

I like this little fuck-up from Bush:

"I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to (oops) -- brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge.

Now let's play "What Bush was going to say?"

Can you guess what Bush was going to say after "brought to --"? Was it:

a) Justice
b) Kathmandu
c) Delicious cupcakes
d) John Stamos

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 09/10/2004 04:19:21
I like this little fuck-up from Bush:

"I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to (oops) -- brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge.

Now let's play "What Bush was going to say?"

Can you guess what Bush was going to say after "brought to --"? Was it:

a) Justice
b) Kathmandu
c) Delicious cupcakes
d) John Stamos

John Stamos! John Stamos!

That part made me laugh, too. I was hoping he wouldn't correct himself and stumble over his words like he is known to do.

Didja catch when Bush said something along the lines of: "With Kerry as President Saddam would still be in power! And the world would be a lot better for it."

FLIP FLOPPER!!

I also enjoyed very much when he said "There's a rumor going on around the internets." Ã, Oh that crazy interweb!

Kerry said something that made me smile, about abortion. When he said that he's Catholic but because of this he doesn't have the right to run the country like everyone else is also Catholic.

That was very good to hear, I tell you what.

It also seemed like Bush was very... Pushy. Or demeaning. The way he spoke to the crowd seemed like he was talking to 3 year olds. Which is why I'm glad Kerry kicked him in the nuts by [twice] saying exasperatingly to give up on the labels [calling Kerry [even though he said Kennedy] one of the most liberal senators] and Bush did! Sit back down Mr. Bush, the President is speaking.

From my own brains... There will never be a perfect President for me. Clinton did a lot of good and a lot of bad, Kerry believes in a lot of good but also a lot of bad [marriage = man and woman, eat my ball sack Mr. Kerry] But taking the good and taking the bad.. Ignoring the obvious joke... and weighing them opposite each other, the good scale drops to the ground like AGA's pants in a sheep pasture.

edit while DG and the Pete were posting: Yes DG, I caught that and enjoyed the hell out of it. What's so about justice.. HMMMMM?

Eric: by saying "marriage = man and woman, eat my ball sack Mr. Kerry", were you expressing your disdain at that sentiment, or were you telling Kerry what your opinion was? I just want to know, don't worry, I won't start a gay marriage thread. I'll keep my opinion to myself.

Dig it! Jessi Klein's blog on CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/blog/10/08/klein.blog/

I like this part:

"Why are both Kerry and Bush strutting around the stage and yelling? I would say this looks more like a scene from "8 Mile" than a presidential debate, except for the fact that "8 Mile" was far more entertaining than this."

----

Also, check out Bob Novak's blog, which is also funny, but mainly for his very curt entries:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/blog/10/08/novak.blog/

Like this one:

"Bush is not smirking."

allow me to add to that then Terran:

Marriage = man + woman?!?! WHATHAFU? ?? ? ? ?OMG

How's that?

Eric

P.S.? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?

What? That made no sense. :P Make sense! Now!

Saying that marriage is reserved for only men and women and yet allowing so many other things to go unchecked is hypocritical and retarded thinking.

It's a symbol of love not an institution. There are people who get married for tax reasons and have no eternal love for each other. There are people who get married and then have polyamorous relationships with multiple partners not out of spite but with the other partner knowing and accepting. There are people who get married in a drive through in Vegas. There are people who don't even get married in a church with a priest rabbi or whatever! Religion doesn't even come into play with their marriage at all, it's all legal! So as long as one of you is a man and the other a woman you can throw marriage around as much as you like? But as soon as the gender is equal OFF LIMITS!

What about transgendered people? Biologically they may be a woman but mentally they are a man and live every bit of their lives as a man. Are they allowed to get married since they can also be legally recognized as a man?

This is mostly what I ment by OMG

And yes, this is about the debates so if someone has something to say about the above PM me please or start a new topic...

I LOVE LOVE how Bush, when asked what some mistakes are, said that history will look back on see some mistakes he made. You don't have to wait 20 years to be able to look back and see mistakes, goddammit, you can do it half a second after the act has been made!

Retard

QuoteThere are people who get married in a drive through in Vegas.

This made me think: we've reached a sad state in humanity when gay people aren't allowed to get married, but Britney Spears is. Twice. And in the same year.

I sat up and watched the entire debate (from 3 to 4:30 this morning), and I reacted quite strongly on a few things.

I now understand better how and why americans look at certain things the way they do. It's constantly being hammered into people's minds (maybe not always outspoken) that america is all, and the rest of the world is something else, and they just want to be a pain in america's ass.
When Bush talked about decisions he had made that had annoyed other nations, he said things like
"I don't want a war tribunal which our troops can be put before. That made a lot of europeans upset."

Instead of really arguing the pros and cons of a warcrime tribunal that could hold war criminals from each and every nation responsible (a fair, international court, in other words), he just said something along the lines "those crazy europeans got upset" as if we were some bloody anthill.

He also repeatedly said that he invaded Iraq because the UN was not doing anything, and the sanctions had no effect.
That's only true if you live in america. If you live in Europe, you know that the weapons inspectors made Saddam detroy his last wmd:s already back in 1993-94, and that Hans Blix had repeatedly stated this, and reported the lack of such weapons now adays.

"We didn't know that Iraq didn't have wmd:s until we got there!" Bush stated. To me that's a horrific thing to say, for two reasons:
1. He suggests that if you don't know whether a country has illegal weapons or not, it's best to invade it to find out.
2. He would have known, if he had listened to Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors. He stubbornly refused to take part of information that was presented before him, and afterwards still claims he couldn't know.

To me this is stupidity beyond belief.

What more do we have?

Bush filling all his pauses with "you can run, but you can't hide....that's reality....that's reality". What the fuck is the deal with that?
Does any adult american actually buy that kind of juvenile bullshit?

Also, the audience's questions annoyed me. Why only ask things that both of the candidates are bound to have rehearsed and prepared for?
The only question that sort of put Bush to a loss was the one about supreme judges. He didn't have a clue on what to say, so he just started rambling about the importance of not letting your personal oppinion get in the way of justice. Completely obvious, empty statements.

I think it's a sad fact that Kerry has to spend so much precious debating-time on defending himself from the accusations of being a flip-flopper, when this is merely a pr-trick from the republican campaign.
The very first question was even about this, which I think is pretty tasteless and politically irrelevant. You shouldn't have to stand in a political debate and face name-calling and rumours that the other campaign just pulled out of their arses.

Well, this was rather incoherent, but I'm still tired from a pretty sleepless night, and I will probably continue the discussion when more people share their two cents.

For those who are uninformed, the rumor is that Bush had a helper (whisperer, and a pretty GREAT one as the actions showed)...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html

There is a tape which Fox caught where Bush has a box on his back. They say it is DEFINETLY NOT a walkie-talkie, but the lunch his wife prepared to him, or so the secret agencies say.

http://www.foxnews.com/

If they'd cheated, I don't think they would have done it quite so badly and obviously. No. It's the suit bunching up, perhaps.

As for the second debate - another clear Kerry win to my mind, though not, perhaps, as obviously as last week. For example, I was a tad disappointed that he didn't throw Bush's threat to veto those 87 billion dollars he loves talking about so much back at him, since the next debate will be about domestic issues - but then we'll see for how long they'll be able to stick to that.

Guys, I watched the debate last night too. Last time Bush stumbled alot, but he was strong last night. I hated the way Kerry kept saying he was consistent. Just because you are consistent over the course of two debates, it doesnt erase years of flip flopping. I honestly believe bush won last night. It was more like a debate and Bush even got a little mean about the lumber company crack.

Kerry only scored a point once: "How can you get other countries to give up their weapons, when you are making your owm Bunker Buster right now."

Touche, Kerry. Touche

I also hope you guys now know what I meant about taxes. Kerry is singling out and abandoning people making over 200k. Alot more people make over that than he thinks. 90% of the kids at my school have parents making over 200k. Some people arent born rich. My dad was born into a normal family, paid his way through college and dental/orthodontic school, and moved from house to house until we got to the 6000 square foot house on a 2 1/2 acre lot that were on now. And can you guys stop calling me silver platter boy and giving me crap.

I am only american. I am no match for the dry wit and sarcasim from England and other European countries. Be gentle

Poop:
Could you please back away from everything your dad and the republican campaign have told you, and look objectively at things; why is Kerry a flip-flopper? How did the word flip-flopper ever reach your mouth?

Take a look at Bush:
1. "We know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Ergo, we must invade Iraq to neutralise the threat."
2. "We haven't found any weapons. But now our objective is to get rid of Saddam."
3. "All right, there were no weapons. But they might have, in some distant future, got hold of such weapons. Therefore we stroke pre-emptively."

Isn't that flip-flopping, isn't that being inconsistent?
Listen, poop, Kerry is one of the least flip-flopping politicians you will find in America. He is an honest, dead-serious, commited poltician, he doesn't own a baseball-team, he doesn't own an oil-company, he's just into polítics, and he's been there for 20 years.
He's straight-backed and right on target.
Of the two candidates, Bush is an infinitely worse flip-flopper, but the worst flip-floppers are the american people, who can't tell slander from facts, and who keep being uncertain when so much is at stake.

Don't worry, Poop, you're only 13 and can't be blamed for anything, it's worse that a hundred million adult americans let themselves be duped like this.

Darn, if Bush wins this, I'm gonna be really pissed with your country.

Quote from: Andail on Sat 09/10/2004 14:58:36Darn, if Bush wins this, I'm gonna be really pissed with your country.

You aren't already? ;)

I hate to say this, but I think it's a foregone conclusion the President Bush will be re-elected.

I base this opinion on two theories:
- If he can fix the election in 2000 (when he wasn't president yet) I'm sure he can fix this one as well.
- There are FAR too many stupid people in America who think GW's bullshit rhetoric is 'cool' and will vote for him because he's "goin' afta dem ter'ists".  They're too stupid to see the global effect the man is having on our country ... and that's sad.

I hope I'm wrong.  I really do.

did not watch the debate, not interested in the canidates bush never gave me my job and kerry well i feel that he's a liar... i think if i vote at all i'll right in my own name..

Yeah Vote for me Free healthcare in all 50 states and whatnots

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 09/10/2004 14:05:31
I also hope you guys now know what I meant about taxes. Kerry is singling out and abandoning people making over 200k.

Bush likes to say that Kerry is "raising" taxes on the rich, but really all Kerry wantsÃ,  to do is bring their tax rates back to what they were before Bush slashed them. Even before Bush rich people paid ridiculously low taxes, compared to what they pay in most countries; they actually pay the same or lower percentage than middle income people. Many countries tax the rich at over 50% of their income, and I think they should -- if you make that much money, you should contribute a lot to society, and really that's what taxes are all about. Not about some kind of "burden".

Quote
I am only american. I am no match for the dry wit and sarcasim from England and other European countries.

I am both American and European by citizenship (okay, Europe is not a country...) and I've spent a lot of time in both places. Most people in the world used to look up to America, even if they didn't admit it out loud because they thought America's self-absorption was a little weird. But since GW took over, America is the laughingstock of the world, even if they don't (always) laugh at her out loud (that could be dangerous). And Americans now feel like they have to say things like "I am only an American".

Let's hope that someone (maybe Kerry) can bring America back into the world community, not neccessarily as the leader of the world (like Kerry said at last night's debate), but as a country that acknowledges that its own self-interest is best served when it listens to other's points of view and doesn't force it's distorted view of reality down everyone's throat.

any way you go it'll ruin america...
i say we vote for someone of action and not words

Okay, dark, you have my voteÃ,  8)

Escargot, an excellent post.

Darkx5, on the other hand....hm, well, you just brought back this political debate to a primordial level again.
At least try to contribute with some thoughtful arguments. And for the love of god, go vote!

actually, escargot, you should get your facts right. My parents are getting taxed 52% right now. Think of what Kerry will do. I know alot about kerry despite my age

John Kerry:
-wants to ban the pledge of allegiance in schools  because it has "god" in it

-Isnt going to allow us to drill for oil in alaska, even though the amount of oil there is ridiculous, because he cares about polar bears

-Is going to weaken america because we need a strong cowboy right now, not some hippy dippy senator

-Is going to cut military funding and leave america in shambles

- Wants to develop a plan to get all able-minded americans into college. I like the idea, but we just dont have the money for that, and the ttax burden would take more away from america than college puts in. Jobs requiring diplomas wont pay as much anymore, because everyone would have a degree.

-Wants to end all of the nuke-building in america. I feel safe in america knowing we are the only country with hundreds of nukes to back us up. I couldnt sleep easy without them.

Kerry is nobody. Liberals just vote fpr him because he isnt bush.

Example: Canada! Canada has free healthcare and college, yet their country has not grown very much. They are 1/10 of the american population and 1/50 of our army, and 1/100 of our value.

The future of the world is republicans. Some call us mean capitalistic scumbags, I call us the leaders of tomorrow. When something needs to get done  we do it. We dont save polar bears like pansies.

hahah id like to see the replies to this

Like I said, no knowledge of politics... but -

Quote-Wants to end all of the nuke-building in america. I feel safe in america knowing we are the only country with hundreds of nukes to back us up. I couldnt sleep easy without them.

Couldn't sleep easy without them? I pity you, I really do.

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 09/10/2004 19:19:28
actually, escargot, you should get your facts right. My parents are getting taxed 52% right now.

I agree, that's shockingly low. If I had my way, people would be taxed at 90% on income over $100,000 because let's face it, nobody needs that kind of money.

Why do dustbin men get paid minimum wage and teachers only get a pittance, whereas "fat cat" company directors get paid millions a year? Ask yourself which provides a more useful service to the country.

Without dustbin men, we'd all be drowning in waste; and without teachers, kids would be even thicker than they already are these days. Whereas without a company director, nothing much would change. So why does he get paid more?

Quote
-wants to ban the pledge of allegiance in schoolsÃ,  because it has "god" in it

Don't know what this 'pledge of allegiance' is, but it sounds pretty inconsequential anyway.

Quote
-Isnt going to allow us to drill for oil in alaska, even though the amount of oil there is ridiculous, because he cares about polar bears

And why shouldn't he? Why don't you?

Quote
-Is going to weaken america because we need a strong cowboy right now, not some hippy dippy senator

Why on earth do you need a strong cowboy right now? Bush's rashness has made the world a more dangerous place and greatly increased the threat of terrorism -- why would you want that sort of thing to continue?

Quote
-Is going to cut military funding and leave america in shambles

Why would cutting military funding leave america in a shambles? If anything it should improve things, since the cash could be spent on schools and hospitals instead.

Quote
- Wants to develop a plan to get all able-minded americans into college. I like the idea, but we just dont have the money for that, and the ttax burden would take more away from america than college puts in.

If somebody has the ability, why should their education be restricted depending on money? I don't know where your fear comes from -- in the UK we had completely free university education for all until a few years ago, and the country isn't overrun with graduates pouring out of every orifice.

Quote-Wants to end all of the nuke-building in america. I feel safe in america knowing we are the only country with hundreds of nukes to back us up. I couldnt sleep easy without them.

Wow yeah, I sleep real easy knowing that the end of the world is only a button-press away.

QuoteThe future of the world is republicans. Some call us mean capitalistic scumbags, I call us the leaders of tomorrow. When something needs to get doneÃ,  we do it. We dont save polar bears like pansies.

No, it's people like you that give conservatism a bad name. The whole Thatcherite "I'm ok, so screw you" philosophy just sums up what's wrong with the world today.

Quoteany way you go it'll ruin america...
i say we vote for someone of action and not words

darkx5, the "THINK BEFORE YOU POST" clause is there for a reason.

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 09/10/2004 19:19:28
hahah id like to see the replies to this

Me too.

Alright, I'll admit, I'm not the biggest follower of American politics, but I shall give it the ol' college try (college try! see what I did there?):

You make it sound as if America isn't doing that well financially or in terms of power at the moment. I think Bush has made it quite clear that America can push everyone else around, & give whatever reasons he wishes for it.

Also, do you support all of Bushes decisions in the last few years? Do you think a country with too much potential power should be taken down a notch (as with Iraq)? Did you cheer when he told us he was going to get rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?

Then why do you want your country to keep building nukes?

And why do you need a 'strong cowboy' as you put it? Are you scared Kerry might ban the rodeo next year? You haven't really backed up why cowboys are better than hippys, & I for one think a more peaceful leader would be better than a trigger-happy macho-man. The type who doesn't push the rest of the world around for their lunch money (or whatever else they may possess).

Also, what's wrong with polar bears? Do you wanna hurt this guy?*:

(http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/AWI/KAH97/Pics/eisbaer.jpg)

I think most of the world would agree that keeping these guys is much more important than increasing America's oil monopoly.

QuoteKerry is nobody. Liberals just vote fpr him because he isnt bush.

Yup. He's the lesser of two evils (no offense if Evil reads this).

I'm sure there are many more who are much more well researched & learned on this subject, but these are basically my gut feelings, based on what I know. I do not follow American politics much, as I said, but then again I imagine most Americans don't either.

*NOTE - There are probably much cuter polar bear pics on the net. But I like this guy.

I don't like what you guys are saying about taxing the rich. If one person pays 30% of their income to the government, the next should pay exactly the same. If you tax the rich 90% just because they're rich, that is punishing people for being successful. That isn't fair and it reminds me more of communism than anything. What will motivate people to be doctors, engineers, scientists, and etc? Do you think the satisfaction they get from going to college for eight years to get paid as much as a common laborer would make it worthwhile? I don't.

shbaz:

You can tax Mr. Giant Pile Of Burlap Sacks With Dollar Signs On Them more than Mr. About To Be Evicted Because He Can't Pay The Rent and still leave Mr. Giant Pile Of Burlap Sacks With Dollar Signs On Them more money than Mr. About To Be Evicted Because He Can't Pay The Rent. And you should, because he can afford to pay a larger proportion of his income than poorer folk. It doesn't have to be so much larger that he ends up having about the same amount of money as them.

QuoteIf one person pays 30% of their income to the government, the next should pay exactly the same. If you tax the rich 90% just because they're rich, that is punishing people for being successful.

But you're equating success with money, and that's not the case at all. Why would people who graduate with a degree become a teacher, when they could earn much more as an engineer? There's far more to being a success than how much cash you earn.

QuoteWhat will motivate people to be doctors, engineers, scientists, and etc?

Not everybody picks their career based on how much money they can earn, and nor should they -- really, what you're saying is the problem with capitalism. People should choose a career that gives them the most satisfaction in their job.

Money can still be used as a way of promoting people and so on, but only to a certain point. Personally, I believe that nobody deserves to be paid more than $100,000 unless they've contributed something absolutely amazing to the world, such as curing cancer.

Amen to that, Shbazjinkens

That is what I have been trying to say all along. I could make a million good points, but if i call liberals hippies at the end of my post suddenly im an idiot. I'm one of 4 children. My school costs 22,000 dollars a year per child. Thjats before taxes. If taxes get higher, i will either have to transfer schools or my parents will have to sell one of our beloved beach houses.

Also i have some tips to get rich for you guys. There is a place in canada called PEI. We bought a house there 200k american 4 years ago. We just sold it for 700k american. Its a goldmine people!

Do not fear wealth, embrace it! There is a fortune waiting for all of you. And if one of you happens to make over 200k one day, or if you make over 200k right now, i urge you to seem my side.

America is about opportunities, not just free handouts. Nothing is straight out given to you right away. There is no excuse to be homeless in America today. If youre willing to work you can be anyone in america.

About the debate: John kerry said bush lead us into Iraq with a bad plan! Who the hell is John kerry to say bush made a bad plan. What does he think bush does? Sit there in a friggin war room all day and write up plans for war? No.
He cant make laws either. He just passes and vetoes laws. All day.

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 09/10/2004 19:19:28
Example: Canada! Canada has free healthcare and college, yet their country has not grown very much. They are 1/10 of the american population and 1/50 of our army, and 1/100 of our value.

Woah! We've got free post-secondary school tuition? Tell that to my student debt!

Do you know why we're 1/10 of the American Population, Mr. Poop?  It's because we aren't over populated. We have huge national parks and reserves. The northern portions of most provinces are still rather untouched. We still have rainforest, the only temperate rainforest left in North America. 

We don't have the armed forces America has.  Do you know why? Because we don't go to war with other countries.  We try using diplomatic chanels instead of attacking "possible threats."  In fact, most of the time that the Canadian troops are deployed, we're cleaning up from other wars.   That's why they're actually called "The Peacekeepers."

And 1/100 of American value? What does that mean?  Our dollar is worth 80 American cents.  Our exports of lumber, wheat, oil and other natural resources are what keep the United States running.  The United States actually gets a very large percentage of it's oil from the exotic oil sands of Western Canada.  We have a thriving artistic culture, with Canadians being some of the most respected writers and actors in the world: Margaret Atwood, Michael Ondaatje, Martin Short, Yann Martel, Jim Carrey, Mike Meyers, William Hutt, Lucy Peacock... the names can go on and on.  Where, exactly, is our value less than yours?

Besides.  We're bigger than you.

Land doesnt matter! Can you fight a war with land! I think not. Also canada isnt 8/10 of our value. We are only a relatively weak dollar because of inflation and the fact that we have trillions of dollars more than you. Take great britain for example. A pound is worth 1.75 american dollars. Are they 75% larger than us? no. Yes it is true the canadian dollar has been getting more valuable though. Also, thankx for PEI and the 500k I made there! Cheers.

PS. Your beer sucks

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 09/10/2004 20:02:35
I'm one of 4 children. My school costs 22,000 dollars a year per child. Thjats before taxes. If taxes get higher, i will either have to transfer schools or my parents will have to sell one of our beloved beach houses.

Forgive me if I don't shed too many tears at the prospect.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that even America still provides free education up to age 16, so there's no need to spend $22,000 on a private school. The vast majority of people don't, and get by just fine.

Quote
Also i have some tips to get rich for you guys. Do not fear wealth, embrace it! There is a fortune waiting for all of you. And if one of you happens to make over 200k one day, or if you make over 200k right now, i urge you to seem my side.

Have you even considered the possibility that not everybody wants to 'get rich'? What's the point - so that you can buy a 52" TV rather than a 25" one, and own a beach house rather than renting it for one week each year?

I also notice that you haven't bothered to respond to my points. Fair enough.

Quote
America is about opportunities, not just free handouts. Nothing is straight out given to you right away. There is no excuse to be homeless in America today. If youre willing to work you can be anyone in america.

Tell that to all the people living in depressed towns like Flint, Michigan where the last source of employment has shut down. How exactly are the people there supposed to get rich? There's no work to be had in the town. Starting a new business would fail, because nobody in the town has any money to spend. They can't move elsewhere, because they can't afford to. So what's the magic cure?

Quote
About the debate: John kerry said bush lead us into Iraq with a bad plan! Who the hell is John kerry to say bush made a bad plan. What does he think bush does? Sit there in a friggin war room all day and write up plans for war? No.

Bush and his advisors should at least have considered what would happen post-war, and constructed some sort of plan for dealing with the aftermath, rather than just charging in guns blazing and then suddenly realising "oops, what do we do now then?"

QuoteLand doesnt matter! Can you fight a war with land! I think not.

Oh of course, a country's importance is defined by its ability to wage war. How silly of me to forget -- I mean, that was the case 100 years ago so obviously it still is today.

Is that all you want? War?

Looking over your posts, you seem interested in nothing but taxes & war. Granted, the taxes issue is important, but surely you are hoping to have NO more wars, especially what with the farce over the last one.

And I'm sure Rosiecakes is tres offended by the beer remark. Don't cry Dragonrose, it'll all be okay.

Poop, you crack me up!

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 09/10/2004 14:05:31
Kerry is singling out and abandoning people making over 200k. Alot more people make over that than he thinks. 90% of the kids at my school have parents making over 200k.

Yeah, and I'm sure your school is a representative cross-section of the US. It's not as if rich people cluster together in exclusive neighborhoods or anything.

Quote
And can you guys stop calling me silver platter boy and giving me crap.

Little chance of that if you're going to go on saying stupid shit like this:

Quote
I know alot about kerry despite my age

John Kerry:
-wants to ban the pledge of allegiance in schools Ã, because it has "god" in it

Point one: I can't find any references to Kerry saying anything about that, and I'm sure you can't either. So the first thing you "know" about Kerry isn't even true.

Point two: No one wants to ban the Pledge of Allegiance. They just want to change it back to the way it used to be. It didn't originally say "under God", that bit was added in 1954 (because the Soviet Union was atheist).

Point three: I guess you have to be a damned liberal hippy to want to protect the US Constitution, which in the very first Amendment clearly prohibits Congress from "respecting an establishment of religion".

Quote
-Is going to weaken america because we need a strong cowboy right now, not some hippy dippy senator

Ah, yes! The hippy dippy sissyman John Kerry. The guy was in a rock band. He played hockey. He volunteered to go to Vietnam, where he received two medals for bravery, was wounded three times, and killed enemy soldiers with his own hands. After he came back, he led demonstrations and was arrested by the police.

Meanwhile, George W Bush snorted coke, used his family connections to keep out of 'Nam, went into daddy's oil business and failed miserably, drank too much and picked up DUI tickets.

W's macho image is a fraud. His bravery and strength of character is a joke compared to that of John Kerry.

Quote
-Is going to cut military funding and leave america in shambles

I guess it was your bedtime before the end of the debate. You missed the bit where Kerry said he'd increase military funding.

Quote
-Wants to end all of the nuke-building in america. I feel safe in america knowing we are the only country with hundreds of nukes to back us up. I couldnt sleep easy without them.

You already have hundreds of nukes. In fact the US has some 70,000 nuclear weapons. According to some sources, enough to devastate the surface of the earth 30 times over. What possible reason would there be to spend money to build more of them?

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 09/10/2004 20:12:51
PS. Your beer sucks

So does yours -- Australia is the only place to go for beer :=

Hehe, Poop, make sure you save all your posts in a sealed envelope and open it in some ten years. No wait, give it twenty years. You will laugh your head off.

Nobody here takes you seriously, because you don't have any proper arguments, you just ramble about things you've heard your parents say, and still you get it pretty confused.

I don't think people should waste energy replying to your posts, because first of all you don't seem to read them at all, and secondly you make a pretty fine job promoting the democrats by the sheer siliiness in your attempts to refute them.

Do yourself a favour and stop posting.

I might as well throw my two pence into this.

Quote
-wants to ban the pledge of allegiance in schools Ã, because it has "god" in it

I'm in complete agreement with this. Ã, I think that it is morally wrong to force religious beliefs on to another person.

Quote
-Isnt going to allow us to drill for oil in alaska, even though the amount of oil there is ridiculous, because he cares about polar bears

What right does a human have to endanger an animal? None. Ã, Just because we have opposable thumbs, doesn't make us the greatest species in the world. Ã, In fact, it's only because of man that the world is in such a poor state at the moment. Ã, The way you use this as a Kerry down point, makes me think of you as one of the neglected children who torture small animals for fun.

Quote
-Is going to weaken america because we need a strong cowboy right now, not some hippy dippy senator

In Britain, a "cowboy" is usually a plumber or electrician etc, that comes in and does the work badly for an extortionate amount of money. Ã, The way Bush has shown himself in the past, it's an accurate description. Ã, Iraq, for example. Ã, He rushed in, bodged it and ended costing far more than it should have.

Quote
-Is going to cut military funding and leave america in shambles

America is not just a military force, it is a country. Ã, I'm sure the money taken from weapons would go to improving other sections of the nation.

Quote
-Wants to end all of the nuke-building in america. I feel safe in america knowing we are the only country with hundreds of nukes to back us up. I couldnt sleep easy without them.

Firstly, America already has enough. Ã, Ending building and Disarming are two different things. Ã, Secondly, they're weapons of mass distruction. Ã, What makes it ok for America to own them, but not other countries? Ã, Thirdly, your attitude towards this reminds me of the fact that America has the highest gun crime problem in the world.

Quote
Kerry is nobody. Liberals just vote fpr him because he isnt bush.

Four years ago, Bush was just the son of a former president, who had killed over a hundred Texan convicts. Ã, It's not like it's Arnie, or Reagan.

Quote
Example: Canada! Canada has free healthcare and college, yet their country has not grown very much. They are 1/10 of the american population and 1/50 of our army, and 1/100 of our value.

I don't understand your point here? The people are happy and safe. Ã, Is that in someway bad?

Quote
The future of the world is republicans. Some call us mean capitalistic scumbags, I call us the leaders of tomorrow. When something needs to get done Ã, we do it. We dont save polar bears like pansies.

I'm not against Capitalism. Ã, I'd rather have Communism, but it only works in theory. Ã, I'm against the way Capitalism has become "let's all sh*t on the little guy, because we can". Ã, Republicans? Ã, Bush got to power thanks to people who considered themselves "Neo Con". Ã, I'm fine with Republicans, as long as they don't go to far Right Wing. Ã, Nazism and Fascism are just a short step from the Neo Con.

Personally, I'd vote for Kerry, because Bush's track record does make me either trust or like him. Ã, Not to mention the fact that he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I think this should be moved to the popular threads forum. This started as a thread about the debates. It became a debate about ethics and beliefs..and...ummm....canada.

But i do have one more counterpoint. There was a list in my newspaper about all of kerry and bush's beliefs. Every single thing i said about what kerry wanted to do as president was factual. Maybe canada doesnt hav free collge, but besides that im right.

Maybe the fact that you guys believe this way  is the reason that your countries[excluding my fellow americans out there]
are incredibly weak compared to my country.

And with that I leave this thread forever. Also, I really am DGmcaphee.............or am I?

That's hardly a "counter-point", when you haven't even bothered to acknowledge, let alone reply to, all the points that people have scored against you  :P

If you are DG, I said it before you in the critics lounge :)

If not, may God have mercy on you, poor child

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Sat 09/10/2004 19:43:52
I don't like what you guys are saying about taxing the rich. If one person pays 30% of their income to the government, the next should pay exactly the same. If you tax the rich 90% just because they're rich, that is punishing people for being successful. That isn't fair and it reminds me more of communism than anything. What will motivate people to be doctors, engineers, scientists, and etc? Do you think the satisfaction they get from going to college for eight years to get paid as much as a common laborer would make it worthwhile? I don't.

If a person earning $40,000 a year pays 20% in tax, they're left with $32,000. If a person earning $200,000 pays 50% in tax, they're left with $100,000. That means they still have three times as much money left after taxes, which is a pretty good motivation to be a doctor or stockbroker (I doubt many engineers or scientists make anything like 200 grand a year).

I agree that all people should be taxed equally, but not in dollar terms. You see, if a waitress is taxed 30%, it may mean having to take another job. If someone earning more than $200,000 a year is taxed 30%, it may mean having to wait another six months to buy that new beachhouse. Who does taxation hurt more? (Hint: It's the waitress) The personal cost of taxation is not the same, even if the percentage rate is.

Don't think of it in terms of money, think of it in terms of what you're giving up because of that money.

A progressive tax rate (one that charges a higher percentage for people earning more money) is necessary to ensure that the tax burden in terms of personal cost is the same for everyone, as far as possible.

That's what a fair tax system means.

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 09/10/2004 19:19:28
actually, escargot, you should get your facts right. My parents are getting taxed 52% right now.

Wow, I do have my facts wrong. I would really like to know why they pay so much taxes. On average, people making more than $200,000 pay around 7% taxes (because they can afford accountants who trick out all the tax loopholes for them). Hats off to your parents, they are making a much higher than average contribution to the good of society!

One of my best friends growing up Europe had a dentist as a father. His father paid almost 75% in taxes; they still had a huge house and the newest BMW every year, and vacationed in the most expensive spots. Even though he was always complaining about taxes, he didn't seem to suffer much.

Last night, a thought occured to me: Bush keeps saying that lower taxes are good for the economy. But isn't the opposite true? If you can work less and be less productive to earn the same amount of money, because you're not paying so much in taxes, what's the motivation to be more productive? Wasn't that the big argument against communism? So lets have really high taxes so that people are properly motivated to be productive and get the economy going again!

Okay, I'm not 100% serious about that...Ã,  :P

Quote from: Pumaman on Sat 09/10/2004 19:59:40

QuoteIf one person pays 30% of their income to the government, the next should pay exactly the same. If you tax the rich 90% just because they're rich, that is punishing people for being successful.

But you're equating success with money, and that's not the case at all. Why would people who graduate with a degree become a teacher, when they could earn much more as an engineer? There's far more to being a success than how much cash you earn.

Usually that is exactly the case though. Teachers are govt. employees and unfortunately subject to govt. pay cuts. Why should a bricklayer who could barely handle public schooling make as much as the doctor who suffered through debt and poverty for 8 years to get through medical school? If you're going to say the bricklayer works harder, you need to check your pretenses because doctors are subject to call 24 hours of the day oftentimes, and they subject themselves to potential lawsuits and disease daily. As someone who has went to college to learn something that most people in the world aren't willing to even think about, you don't feel you deserve higher pay than a truck driver or a janitor? I think you do. You have more skills and you should be rewarded likewise. Your skills are more in demand and thus get more pay. They're more in demand because in modern times I find people want someone else to do their thinking for them, especially here in America. That's why people who are willing to think get paid more, and people who aren't but can do physical work do that. Supply and demand, which is perfectly fair. If your skills aren't in demand, you should help society by getting different skills, it's not society's responsibility to fund people with no or little use.

Quote from: Pumaman on Sat 09/10/2004 19:59:40

QuoteWhat will motivate people to be doctors, engineers, scientists, and etc?

Not everybody picks their career based on how much money they can earn, and nor should they -- really, what you're saying is the problem with capitalism. People should choose a career that gives them the most satisfaction in their job.

Money can still be used as a way of promoting people and so on, but only to a certain point. Personally, I believe that nobody deserves to be paid more than $100,000 unless they've contributed something absolutely amazing to the world, such as curing cancer.

I agree. I didn't pick my potential career based on how much money I will/can earn. The problem is that I'm subjecting myself to 4-5 years of hell trying to pay for college and keep good grades at the same time, and when that's over with I still want my due compensation. If I don't get it anyway I'm not going to quit but I would sure as hell be pissed about it.

If you can sucker someone out of $100,000 it's their fault for losing it, not your fault for getting it (unless you did it unfairly). There are a lot of things that a single person could do in a year that are well worth $100,000 beside curing cancer.

The only problem with capitalism is that exploiters gain power exponentially as they exploit - which is why there are a lot of laws in place trying to prevent that. Today people are willfully exploited through loans, credit cards, and entertainment because they are ignorant of the consequences and choose to remain ignorant. There is a load of information in place to prevent that from  happening and people don't even want to see it. They just want a new Dodge Ram with a Hemi. I rarely hear of people being exploited through their job (in the USA). Mostly it's through massive debt which they incurred by trying to live above their means and blame on the creditors. Who is really at fault, is it the creditors for giving them the money at an interest rate, or is it the loaner who couldn't pay for it and knew it but did it anyway? That is the root of most people's financial problems in the US and I give them no sympathy for it. If loaners can get hundreds of thousands of dollars through loaning people who will sign those contracts without even reading them, I don't blame the loaner. I blame the idiot who let himself be exploited.

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 09/10/2004 20:44:39
If a person earning $40,000 a year pays 20% in tax, they're left with $32,000. If a person earning $200,000 pays 50% in tax, they're left with $100,000. That means they still have three times as much money left after taxes, which is a pretty good motivation to be a doctor or stockbroker (I doubt many engineers or scientists make anything like 200 grand a year).

I agree that all people should be taxed equally, but not in dollar terms. You see, if a waitress is taxed 30%, it may mean having to take another job. If someone earning more than $200,000 a year is taxed 30%, it may mean having to wait another six months to buy that new beachhouse. Who does taxation hurt more? (Hint: It's the waitress) The personal cost of taxation is not the same, even if the percentage rate is.

Don't think of it in terms of money, think of it in terms of what you're giving up because of that money.

A progressive tax rate (one that charges a higher percentage for people earning more money) is necessary to ensure that the tax burden in terms of personal cost is the same for everyone, as far as possible.

That's what a fair tax system means.

The problem isn't that the taxes are too high for the waitress with a flat tax rate, the problem is that the waitress's wages are too low. Raise min. wage and give a flat tax and the employer will be able to afford it because of the de-strangulation on his income.

Quote from: Escargot on Sat 09/10/2004 21:04:01
Last night, a thought occured to me: Bush keeps saying that lower taxes are good for the economy. But isn't the opposite true? If you can work less and be less productive to earn the same amount of money, because you're not paying so much in taxes, what's the motivation to be more productive? Wasn't that the big argument against communism? So lets have really high taxes so that people are properly motivated to be productive and get the economy going again!

Okay, I'm not 100% serious about that...  :P

Kidding or not, that's the way I feel this conversation is headed. Communism isn't good even in concept. Everyone could benefit from reading some Ayn Rand.

Righto, I've just watched part of the first debate, and just from that, I am sure Kerry would make a much better president. You might think someone from israel would prefer the canditate who blindly supports israel, i know several israelis who do, but I think it'd be much better for america to try and keep good terms with both israel and arab countries and/or palestinians. If anything, it might make them less bitter and help our country even more.
I have an uncle in america who I'd better as who he's voting for, though I'm quite sure he won't vote for bush, as last time he voted against him too.
So then, enough about israel ;).

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 09/10/2004 19:19:28
actually, escargot, you should get your facts right. My parents are getting taxed 52% right now. Think of what Kerry will do. I know alot about kerry despite my age

If, in the future, I were to become rich and successfull, I'd gladly pay more taxes than others since despite everything that sucks about this place, I still care about my country.
shbaz has a point of course, but lets do the math, 52% (lets say 60%, assuming kerry raises taxes) of 650k = 260k a month. In 4 months, they make over a million dollars. In one year, over 3 million. Make your own conclusions.

QuoteJohn Kerry:
-wants to ban the pledge of allegiance in schools because it has "god" in it

I didn't quite know what that is either, though I heard of it, but after a quick look around the web, I found out the part about god wasn't even there originally. read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance") for more on that. With all the different religions and atheists aswell, 'under god' is quite controversial and those who don't believe in god have every right not to agree with it. Don't know where you heard Kerry wants to ban it, so I won't argue, but there's a good chance he just wants to remove what wasn't there in the first place.

Quote
-Isnt going to allow us to drill for oil in alaska, even though the amount of oil there is ridiculous, because he cares about polar bears

Quote
"I am appauled. It's appauling." How could kerry even think of saving polar bears, caring for the environment, and making sure the earth doesn't fall apart after all man has done to it, when America's oil supply is so low and there is absolutely no possible way to replace the oil!! How could he be so selfish? ::)

Quote
-Is going to weaken america because we need a strong cowboy right now, not some hippy dippy senator

-Is going to cut military funding and leave america in shambles

What CJ said.

Quote
- Wants to develop a plan to get all able-minded americans into college. I like the idea, but we just dont have the money for that, and the ttax burden would take more away from america than college puts in. Jobs requiring diplomas wont pay as much anymore, because everyone would have a degree.

You don't have the money to get people who have the potential to be brilliant eduacted in colleges? So, only the rich should be allowed education, and the cycle of success will continue? This makes changing your social position much harder, and as you say your dad is from a normal family, wouldn't you want people like him to be able to to progress in society? I am reminded of the age of feodalism (if I were to take it to the extrme of course), when the 'society class' you were born in (nobleman or lower class) was the class you had to live in all your life.

Quote
-Wants to end all of the nuke-building in america. I feel safe in america knowing we are the only country with hundreds of nukes to back us up. I couldnt sleep easy without them.

You sleep well because america has nuclear research going on? I will agree it's important for science, but the fact that it still is dangerous to america isn't at all calming. Ever heard of chernobyl (http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/")? Obviously people who are working on these things are more careful now, but nevertheless, these things happen.

edit: Whoa, there sure were a lot of replies while I was typing this.

Look, even if they still make over a million, think about it.

A major fooball player (any kind, it's irrelevant) can make millions in a single year, but their useful time span is fairly small and the risks are huge for their health and well-being. Many will play for some years and retire for the rest of their life.

Now, are you telling me that even though they made this their life for decades, focusing on nothing else and risking so much, they don't deserve to be able to make all of the money they'll need for their entire life in a period of 3-10 years and then retire? Training/working for 12 hours a day every day, eating only the healthiest foods, getting injured, and then getting taxed 70% because they make too much?

I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to give it their all and get paid for it. You probably scoff at entertainers, but the money they make will only allow them to live lavishly for as long as they're popular, most will need to spread those millions over their lifetime. High incomes are almost always involved with high risks or sacrifices.

And once again, if people will give it to them it's not their fault for getting it (if they're honest).

Furthermore, the government wastes more money than any rich person ever will. I trust myself to do the right thing with my money multitudes more than I'd trust any elected official.

Everyone could benefit from reading some Ayn Rand. If you consider hysterical laughter a benefit.

Raising the minimum wage would help some. Specifically, it would help the people earning minimum wage. There would still not be an even tax burden, though. It's still harder to pay 30% tax for a middle-wage earner than it is for a high-income earner.

Ginny, no need for your friends to worry. Kerry blindly supports Israel as well.

Mmmm... Between the "Disney blocks Michael Moore..." post and this, the Bush stuff has been discussed along something like 1000 posts.

And no one of the AGSers has changed its previous opinion.

So... I'll go and open my PSP, I have some backgrounds to do... I think it's a better way to use my time...

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Sat 09/10/2004 21:15:17
Why should a bricklayer who could barely handle public schooling make as much as the doctor who suffered through debt and poverty for 8 years to get through medical school?

I'm not saying he should make the same amount, but rather that the bricklayer is entitled to make a living where he can feed his family, pay his bills and still have some cash left over for other things.

After all, if there were no bricklayers then where would the doctor live?

QuoteSupply and demand, which is perfectly fair. If your skills aren't in demand, you should help society by getting different skills, it's not society's responsibility to fund people with no or little use.

Indeed, it does work on supply and demand. But therefore, suppose you do your college degree in anthropology, but then a few years after graduating there is a huge surplus of anthropologists and nobody wants to employ you any more. You still have your student debt to pay but your skills are now virtually worthless; how does capitalism help you now?

QuoteThe problem is that I'm subjecting myself to 4-5 years of hell trying to pay for college and keep good grades at the same time, and when that's over with I still want my due compensation. If I don't get it anyway I'm not going to quit but I would sure as hell be pissed about it.

A university degree is by no means a guarantee of higher paid work, and you know that as a risk when you decide to go to university. Besides, I'm not trying to deny you your due compensation; all I'm saying is that you don't need to earn $200k in order to pay off your debts.

Quote
If you can sucker someone out of $100,000 it's their fault for losing it, not your fault for getting it (unless you did it unfairly). There are a lot of things that a single person could do in a year that are well worth $100,000 beside curing cancer.

Well true, if someone is prepared to pay you a fortune then it's your good luck. But it's a cycle that's virtually impossible to break, because all the company director types have a situation where no matter how well or badly they do their job, they get paid a ton. Even if they really screw up, they get rewarded with a golden handshake of a million or two when they're sacked. How is that fair?

QuoteToday people are willfully exploited through loans, credit cards, and entertainment because they are ignorant of the consequences and choose to remain ignorant.

Oh yeah, well consumer debt is quite another argument. And yes, I'd agree that it's your own fault if you rack up huge debts; you can hardly blame the banks for trying to make as much money from you as possible.

QuoteThe problem isn't that the taxes are too high for the waitress with a flat tax rate, the problem is that the waitress's wages are too low. Raise min. wage and give a flat tax and the employer will be able to afford it because of the de-strangulation on his income.

If you raise the minimum wage rather than cutting taxes, then more money goes to the government in taxes. The government then wastes this on wars in Iraq, and leaves the waitress's employer worse off.

Quote from: Escargot on Sat 09/10/2004 21:04:01
Communism isn't good even in concept.

A world in which nobody lives in poverty because the state assures everyone of a certain standard of living is very tempting to a lot of people. Of course, in practice it can never work, but the basic theory sounds very appealing.

So, Shbaz, I'm currently $35,000 in debt, I currently have NO way of paying it back. Does this make me an idiot?

See, the catch is that $35,000 is in college loans. Last year I left school to be a Truck Driver (

QuoteAs someone who has went to college to learn something that most people in the world aren't willing to even think about, you don't feel you deserve higher pay than a truck driver or a janitor? I think you do.

What do I think again?). My point of leaving school was to pay those loans down in the event that my fiance' were to get pregnant/so we could get married/so we could buy a house (you know, American dream bullcrap). It gets all twisted around though. By leaving school I will never make more than $50,000 (and of course, to earn that much, never see my family). By staying in school I have to put family on hold until I am almost 40 years old (I am 30 right now). Basically, I'm wanting to go back to school now, but because of stress and the situation last year I screwed up my financial aid. I have to somehow pay for a quarter of school. I currently work in fast food and pulling $1000 out of a fast food job is going to take a bit of time.

What's the point of my life story?

By calling me...

Quotethe idiot who let himself be exploited

...you are looking at things in a very narrow view. I'm not buying a Dodge with a Hemi, I'm trying to educate and better myself. However, my pressure is more about buying a house, getting married, and raising children. It's a huge amount of pressure to deal with, and VERY real in my world. That pressure has put me into debt and at the same time makes it difficult to follow through with my education.

eh,
-junc

Junc -
Notice I didn't mention student loans though? I'm talking the endless cycles of debt that people let them selves get into whereis you have a manufactured home that people somehow end up owing $100,000 on. Credit cards as well, but not student loans. Student loans aren't exploitative if you look for the right ones. I got subsidized loans from the government and won't have any interest until graduation or if I drop out. I have one other loan at only 4% interest. All of which I'll be able to pay off with even a mediocre job once I graduate (or even if I don't).

In your present situation you're pretty much screwed though because student loans work against you once you make the decision to leave school. You can hardly pay off your loans and go to school at the same time, which is what you have to do once you leave and come back (so far as I understand). In that case, getting romantically involved like that isn't such a great idea and I've tried to avoid it until I can afford to. In a way though, that's depriving me of happiness, so I guess you lose either way. I'm personally for government paid higher education (if the students are worth it), I'm just against taxing success.

I don't know how anyone could read and understand Ayn Rand's better works (Atlas, Fountainhead) and think they're bunk, but I guess that's life. You either get it or you don't. She grew up in Russia during the revolution so she saw all of the people who really would have made a good difference get crushed into nothing as an "equal" firsthand.

Chris, I'd continue to argue but you're saying a lot of things I agree with anyway. Basically I think it's fine to have deductions for the poor (from a flat tax rate) but there should be limits to that, and the rich shouldn't be obligated to feed the country. They're people too.

I've seen far too many manufactured homes with a new boat in the rear, a hummer and satellite dish in front. All paid for courtesy of the US government and possibly drugs.

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Sat 09/10/2004 21:40:46
Look, even if they still make over a million, think about it.

A major fooball player (any kind, it's irrelevant) can make millions in a single year, but their useful time span is fairly small and the risks are huge for their health and well-being. Many will play for some years and retire for the rest of their life.

Now, are you telling me that even though they made this their life for decades, focusing on nothing else and risking so much, they don't deserve to be able to make all of the money they'll need for their entire life in a period of 3-10 years and then retire? Training/working for 12 hours a day every day, eating only the healthiest foods, getting injured, and then getting taxed 70% because they make too much?

I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to give it their all and get paid for it. You probably scoff at entertainers, but the money they make will only allow them to live lavishly for as long as they're popular, most will need to spread those millions over their lifetime. High incomes are almost always involved with high risks or sacrifices.

And once again, if people will give it to them it's not their fault for getting it (if they're honest).

I don't scoff at entertainers, though it does seem ridiculous at times that big stars get paid 70 million per picture ;). Basically, I'm not saying taxes should be that high (I don't think they were ever 70%), and there is nothing wrong with making a lot of money, I'm just saying that taxes affect people who earn more money less than they affect others. I don't know how the whole football system works, so I don't know how much they are taxed, and I see your point about the risk in their job and their need in the money to provide for themselves in the future in case of injury.

Quote
Furthermore, the government wastes more money than any rich person ever will. I trust myself to do the right thing with my money multitudes more than I'd trust any elected official.

Now with this I totally agree. Government corruption might be going on with anyone in office, since, as Darth said before, people don't tend to trust politicans. I remember when I was in a camp in summer, we were touring outside the building where the different minister's and their departments are, and someone made a crack about how you can tell who's corrupt and who isn't by the number of air conditioners they have hanging outside their office (some had 1, some 2, and some none). It was funny, even if unbased :P.

Funny, I was never really that much into politics until this thread came along. A bit more reading around and I'll get straght A's (100's) in citizenship class next year) ;).

Sharky - hehe, thanks for the note. ;)

P.s. this is one of the most active threads I've seen. Heh, I guess I've found something I agree with poop about- this thread is getting very popular.

Luckily, I have a financial hardship deferment on my loans. So, I have some time to get that money together. I still won't have to pay until after graduation so long as I get back in school soon.

I really think that student loans fall into the same category as other debt though. It's based on the same ideas. I agree with most of what you say if you remove the student loan factor. However, I think the mentality of many Americans is more like: "now that I'm so far in debt, what's a few more thousand dollars?" I know I've felt that way at times.

Something that may intrest you:

http://www.communitysolution.org/pdfs/NS2.pdf

It's about Cuba and how they are surviving with minimal help from the outside world. I think the section on hospitals is really interesting and drives Chris's point about doctors home.

I also think that people becoming doctors "just for the money" has a lot to do with massive malpractice suits. I think you are lot less likely to make a mistake at something if you don't have your heart into it, and just your wallet. Not that I believe that is the only reason for mad-crazy lawsuits, but I do think it contributes.

Your previous post about alternative fuels was really great by the way (not sure if I mentioned that or not). I found it entertaining that Bush mentioned Ethanol and Biodiesel in the debate. If I'm not mistaken didn't Bush push for Hydrogen research that involved refining Hydrogen with Petroleum, but not other, cleaner means? Being Captain Cowboy Oil Man I highly doubt that he is intrested in alternative fuels in any way that could solve our "energy crisis".

later,
-junc

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot.

Quotegetting romantically involved like that isn't such a great idea and I've tried to avoid it until I can afford to

You are SOOOOO screwed buddy. Look for love, be desperate, then you will never find it. Avoid it, run from it and hide, and it will find you. Love falls onto people, people don't fall in love. ;)

Oh yeah, well tell that to...me! I've been lonely for about a year and a half now. ;)

But all kidding aside, there have been a LOT of posts since I went to sleep and then to work this morning. I was reading some of poop's posts and the replies to them, to my friend Vicky, and she was laughing hysterically along with me. Especially when poop said:

QuoteThe future of the world is republicans. Some call us mean capitalistic scumbags, I call us the leaders of tomorrow.

Can I quote that, poop? Please? Pretty pretty please??? :P

As for the Pledge of Allegience, every non-American that has replied to that (everybody, really) makes the most sense I have ever heard. It's pointless, ridiculous, a hollow showing of patriotism and "loyalty" and the "God" part has no place. Thank you. :)

---

Also, regarding poop "leaving" the thread... which great AGSer was it that said "Goodbye! Don't come back until you've hit puberty!" :=

And I somehow feel like going off on poop like Bender did on Claire, showing mock-pity at her "tough" life being rich, right after the pot-smoking scene. :P

Quote from: juncmodule on Sat 09/10/2004 22:40:23
Your previous post about alternative fuels was really great by the way (not sure if I mentioned that or not). I found it entertaining that Bush mentioned Ethanol and Biodiesel in the debate. If I'm not mistaken didn't Bush push for Hydrogen research that involved refining Hydrogen with Petroleum, but not other, cleaner means? Being Captain Cowboy Oil Man I highly doubt that he is intrested in alternative fuels in any way that could solve our "energy crisis".

He didn't mention it in the first debate.. I haven't watched the second yet, because I was in my night class and couldn't.

I typed all of that out because someone said something about it being impossible for Kerry to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It isn't, because of alternative fuels. It's just not widely known and everyone is stuck on hydrogen. Hydrogen has too many problems to be feasible in ten years, while ethanol and biodiesel are fairly widespread now and with some industrial tooling-up we'd be using it instead (and because the fuel is so clean, engines and the oil inside would last a lot longer). It's a major part of what I intend to accomplish as an engineer, among other things.

Thanks for that link, that's really interesting. As much as the writer likes it, I'm rather attached to my machines and so my goal is to find a different renewable means to power them rather than get rid of them. You might be interested in Journey to forever (http://www.journeytoforever.org) because that site is largely dedicated to ways to help 3rd world countries.

QuoteLuckily, I have a financial hardship deferment on my loans. So, I have some time to get that money together. I still won't have to pay until after graduation so long as I get back in school soon.

I really think that student loans fall into the same category as other debt though. It's based on the same ideas. I agree with most of what you say if you remove the student loan factor. However, I think the mentality of many Americans is more like: "now that I'm so far in debt, what's a few more thousand dollars?" I know I've felt that way at times.

Good to know. The only reason I regard student loans as different is because they are intended to be easily paid back.. they have low interest rates, you can often get a subsidized loan and it won't gain interest until graduation, and you can consolodate them all when you graduate so that you won't be paying several different lenders. On the other hand, the bad loans will be geared toward extending your debt as long as possible in order to accumulate the most interest. Those TV ads for auto loans with no credit check required are a good example.

Shbaz, this one's just for you.

In England, there once was a football (soccer) player named Gordon Ramsey.  Most people say he's the greatest goal keeper we ever had.  He trained hard, and devoted his life to football.  Then, one day, he got old and retired from the game.

Sure, he made money, but, not as much as today's players.  So what did he do? Scrimp and save ever penny that he could so he could never work again?  No.  He packed his bags, went to France and learnt how to cook.  It took him a few years, but now?  Now he's a "celebrity chef", who owns restaurants, and quite regularly appears on tv.

Then, there's an olympic runner called Steve Ovett.  He won a gold medal in the eighties, I think.  But no one saw him for years after that.  Did he retire and live off what money he had from sponsorships and stuff? No.  This year, the BBC were interviewing people in Athens, and low and behold who should turn up?  Yep, good ol' Steve.  "Where have you been?" they asked him.  "I've been around all the time, just not on the BBC," he replied.  Truth is, he'd been commentating for some small, obscure tv or radio station for years.  He'd made enough money from this to live his life quite happily.

My point is, the folks earning fortunes from sport don't get to the end of their sporting career and have to think "Crap. Now what do I do?".  They're celebrities for starters, so they have jobs available in the media as a first option.  If that fails, they usually retire earlier enough in their lives to go on to a different career.  They even have enough money to buy property and live off of the rent.

Hell, there's one guy who used to be a singer, and now he sells burgers from a van at a seaside.  Another singer bought a pig farm.  The 80's pop sensation, Kim Wilde, is now presents a gardening program.

Life doesn't just stop when you finish one job or career.  It finishes when you've had enough of working.  If they just want to quit work altogether after a few years, then they seem pretty lazy people, which is surprising for an athelete.

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 09/10/2004 20:40:57
And with that I leave this thread forever. Also, I really am DGmcaphee.............or am I?

Quote from: Andail on Sat 09/10/2004 20:44:10
If you are DG, I said it before you in the critics lounge :)

If not, may God have mercy on you, poor child

Well, Esseb, looks like I owe you a drink next time you come to Australia.

Andail, I'm not poop. Not even I could come with long ramblings that are this mindbendingly crazy. And I don't have enough time in my day to pretend to be poop.

Besides, I was asleep when poop did his last few replies.

Quote from: Iqu on Sun 10/10/2004 04:02:13
Life doesn't just stop when you finish one job or career.  It finishes when you've had enough of working.  If they just want to quit work altogether after a few years, then they seem pretty lazy people, which is surprising for an athelete.

I don't think anyone who quit working after being an athelete should be considered lazy. It's not like retirement requires you to sit in your house all day on a couch. They could be travelling to see the world, mountain climbing, spending more time with their kids, or whatever suits their personality.

Giving examples is kind of pointless, of course some people are going to want to keep working. My point isn't that they all do, but that they've earned the right and taking away their money just because they make a lot for a few years is taking away the reward they are entitled to for all of the hard work they already went through. In other words, that would be punishing them for their success.

There are no polar bears in Alaska...

Quote from: LostTraveler on Sun 10/10/2004 04:59:06
There are no polar bears in Alaska...

You know, a quick google would keep you from looking so clueless (http://www.alyeskaresort.com/page.asp?intNodeID=11099), unless they're giving fake polar bear viewing tours in Alaska to ignorant tourists.

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Sun 10/10/2004 05:29:56

Quote from: LostTraveler on Sun 10/10/2004 04:59:06
There are no polar bears in Alaska...

You know, a quick google would keep you from looking so clueless (http://www.alyeskaresort.com/page.asp?intNodeID=11099), unless they're giving fake polar bear viewing tours in Alaska to ignorant tourists.

This has nothing to do with the debates, this is just a great story. My anthropology teacher, Alan, used to work in Alaska, cataloging artifacts found while they were working on the pipeline. The grandmother of one of his informants had been out walking along the coast and was attacked by a polar bear. This woman was in her 90s, but she obviously wasn't willing to go just yet. So she punched the polar bear in the mouth. Her mitten got stuck in the bear's throat, suffocating it. She returned back to the village and told everyone about it. Nobody believed her, so she led them to the polar bear's body. As proof, she reached into the bear's throat, pulled her mitten out and put it back on. She was from there on a hero of the village and the main character in a wonderful story.

I thought you'd all enjoy that break away from the debating in this thread. You can now go back to complaining to each other.

Its all a hoax! Its just DG in a bear suit!

Na, I knew there where polar bears in Alaska, watched a documentry in biology on them. I just said that to change the subject from anti poo rants to pick on lost!

Quote from: LostTraveler on Sun 10/10/2004 05:38:42
Its all a hoax! Its just DG in a bear suit!

Esseb, I owe you another drink. You are quite a soothsayer.

Poop, I'm happy that you can still view America as the land of opportunity from within your fancy house, in your gated community, while going to a fancy private school.Ã,  I'm sure it's a real struggle to get out of your finely appointed bed in the morning, knowing that those damn hippies want to take it all away from you!Ã,  I feel so bad for you!Ã,  You certainly are the victim in this situation.

No, wait...I hope you lose it all someday.Ã,  I hope you end up having to go to an underfunded public school system that lost its accredidation.Ã,  I hope your single mom has to work three jobs to put food on the table (you have a single mom in this scenario).Ã,  I hope you never have the opportunity or money to go to college.Ã,  I hope you live in a depressed town where your only employment opportunities will be in the form of a paper hat and golden-arches adorned apron.Ã,  Then I wonder if you'll still view America as the land of opportunity.

Sure, anybody can work hard, fund themselves to go to school (like me with six digit debt), and then maybe find some kind of high-paying job depending upon their major.Ã,  But you see, most people in this country have SEVERE obstacles in there way...obstacles that you will never have to face.Ã,  Obstacles like poverty, poor educational opportunities, no health care, high unemployment, underemployment.Ã,  No, barring your parents getting cancer and you being a complete idiot, you're on the fast track to success.

So in summation, I'm sure you're going to keep thinking that this is a perfect world without problems where anyone can just strike it rich, but please observe this tiny request: don't bitch to the rest of us about how your poor daddy has to pay taxes.  It's just insulting.Ã,  Ã,  Ã, 

-Logan

And do you seriously think everybody has 200k to spend on a second house?Ã,  Are you fucking nuts?Ã,  You must think the rest of the world consists of idiots who just don't properly invest.Ã,  Dumbass, most people in this country live paycheck to paycheck.Ã,  You see, only the rich actually have the money to get richer.Ã,  Ã, 

Sorry Andail, I tried not to respond to all this, but I couldn't resist.

I have a few things to clear up. I'm only 13 and I'm not an idiot. My school may be private but yuou still need to be a really good student to get in, and I'm ranked 2nd in my class of 80 for grades.

I have heard too much about communism. Communism destroys motivation to succeed. Let u ssay that ina fictional community, half th epeople make 1 dollar a year and the other half make 3 dollars a year. Except th egovernement rearranges it so that everyone makes 2 dollars a year. Suddenly, the people making 3 dollars stop working really hard because they figure no matter what they do, they make 2 dollars. The people making 1 dollar stop working altogether, figuring the rich people can take care of them. Suddenly there is no money to go around.

Communism doesnt work. The only place where communism might work is in a small isolated village.

Stop dissing America. If we have so many problems, then why are we the most powerful country in the world? The average american worker makes 38,000 dollars a year. Thats not bad.

My parents dont make as much as you think. Last year my dad made 750k before taxes and business expenses. We only got 275k worth of cash to spend, because he put 200k into his offices and other investments.

John Kerry isnt fit to run a country. He has a 20 year history of bad choices. I admit that Bush is a little shady, but a country doesnt get as powerful as america without being a little shady.

It is a known fact that the higher up a hill you climb, the farther you fall when you trip. America is at the top of its hill. I only hope that it doesn't trip.

then you're hoping that bush isn't re-elected..

The bigger the size, the louder the fall. Whatever education you've been given, it's unworthy opf what SHOULD, indeed, have been a great nation.

QuoteI have a few things to clear up. I'm only 13 and I'm not an idiot. My school may be private but yuou still need to be a really good student to get in, and I'm ranked 2nd in my class of 80 for grades.

Now, this isn't personal, but of course you'll take it personally, and I would, too, but as you can probably imagine, after we learned how much your parents make we can reasonably doubt how much of a good student you had tyo be, and how much of a good student came in dollar bills. Nothing personal - we have our own share here in Portugal, namely Os Salesianos. And I'm not saying it's the case with you, just that... well, with all that you've said so far, we WILL doubt it. Sorry.

QuoteI have heard too much about communism. Communism destroys motivation to succeed. Let you ssay that ina fictional community, half th epeople make 1 dollar a year and the other half make 3 dollars a year. Except th egovernement rearranges it so that everyone makes 2 dollars a year. Suddenly, the people making 3 dollars stop working really hard because they figure no matter what they do, they make 2 dollars. The people making 1 dollar stop working altogether, figuring the rich people can take care of them. Suddenly there is no money to go around.

Communism doesnt work. The only place where communism might work is in a small isolated village.

Neither does Capitalism, because what happens is what has happened to AMerica - the rich shit on the poor. I've been reading up on some awful stories on Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's My Country?", stuff like Dead Peasants Insurance. That could NEVER happen in Communism. Not to say Communism's better, but all manners of government are, essencially, utopical, because the human being lusts for power and riches and WILL screw everyone else up.

QuoteStop dissing America. If we have so many problems, then why are we the most powerful country in the world?

And why is your name synonimous with violence, racial and social crimes, and recently near genocide? We have a saying: "The BERTRAND BOOKSTORE is older than America!" This is extremely depreciative, and it's our general opinion of you. Are you powerful? Sure you are, in military terms. But how did you get that way? Man, give me Europe any time. I think I'd feel safer with Salazar than with Bush! I mean, imagine if Bush started bombing us because "he wanted us to get rid of Salazar?" (Salazar was our great dictator, by the way) To heel with your power, we'd say, just leave us alone and use your brains instead of your brawn!

QuoteMy parents dont make as much as you think. Last year my dad made 750k before taxes and business expenses. We only got 275k worth of cash to spend, because he put 200k into his offices and other investments.

This is just none of my business.

Quotea country doesnt get as powerful as america without being a little shady.

And you think that's GOOD? You think being shady in a country that was supposed to be a hail to democracy is GOOD?

EDIT - I apologize for any American people I offend, but as far as I know, this IS how the rest of the world - or at least Europe, or, let's be fair, at least Portugal, that one I CAN speak of with 100% certainty - views America: as a great dream that got ruined along the way, and everyone's sorry for it.

Also, if I said anything untrue or out of turn, please point it out and forgive me - like I keep saying, politics aren't my cup of tea, and I may have misunderstood something.

Except for several presidents along the way, America doesn't have that bad of a reputation. Especially when you compare it to other world powers, and consider how well the people inside get along. The pursuit of happiness isn't lost except for a minority.

Until the current president, I never heard so much America-bashing. I don't think we're ruined, just through a bad spell because of inadequate leadership.

Gosh, I never imagined things would turn out this way when I started this thread!

I had a very interesting conversation with a french guy a few weeks ago.Ã,  I'd like to hear other europeans' takes on it.Ã, 

He pointed out to me that you never see a French flag prominently on display anywhere, except perhaps on government buildings.Ã,  "We are not just France," he said. "We are also EUROPE."Ã,  He went on to say that the french remember all-too-well what excessive patriotism and isolationism did to Europe in the early part of the 20th century, and that America was heading down the same road.Ã, 

I never thought about it that way, and it's an interesting point.Ã,  America is extremely patriotic.Ã,  We are spoon fed patriotism all our lives.Ã,  When I was a kid, I believed all of it.Ã,  I honestly believed that attacking another country because they didn't think like us was the right thing to do.Ã,  The ideal of the rough-and-tough cowboy, laying down the law and enforcing order, resonates very strongly with Americans.Ã,  As I got older, wiser, and more experienced, I realized how juvinile and stupid that image really was.Ã,  If anything, it's extraordinarily arrogant.

Case in point.Ã,  Some years ago, I visited England.Ã,  While there I asked people what they thought of the whole Bill Clinton impeachment thing.Ã,  The responses I got varied from shrugs to rolled eyes to indifferent laughter.Ã,  It was a joke to most people.Ã,  A very funny, ridiculous joke.Ã,  To the rest of the world, we were a laughing stock.Ã,  If this experience taught me anything, it was this one life-altering fact: there is a whole big world beyond America's borders, and they don't think we are as important as we believe we are.

America is a baby compared to the rest of the world.Ã,  A very rich, spoiled and arrogant baby.Ã,  I love living here, but I really hope it grows up sooner than later.

I thought isolationists didn't participate in any foreign affairs, including war?

I just want remind everyone who wants to argue with poop: he maybe a self-proclaimed genius and going to a school that costs 1 billions dollars, but he still chose poop743 as his nickname. Not Rembrandt62 or Faulkner1138. Just poop743. And arguing with a 13 year old self-proclaimed genius with a nickname synonymous with faeces is like trying to cram a cow into the mouth of someone claiming to be from India.

poop743, your credibility just goes lower and lower with every post you make, do you know that? I think you're in the negative numbers now, my friend.

Listen.

You might think you know everything and that you're right, because you believe what everybody tells you. That America is great because we rush into things and take action and say "screw everybody else!" poop743, when you grow up, you'll realize that we're part of a larger world community and we just can't ignore our neighbors. That would be like going over your neighbors' houses mansions, and throwing them because you don't like the way they park their car Ferrari, or because you just don't like them personally. It's ridiculous.

We have to realize that what we do has reprecussions and consequences, and we affect the world with everything that we do. We're not some cowboy yee-haw Lone Ranger nation-state with dreams of taking over the world.

So what if we're a world power? DaveGilbert's analogy of America being a spoiled little brat is dead on. And don't think that it's just non-Americans arguing with you, poop. DG may be from Australia and redruM may be from Portugal (I am Portuguese and have family in Portugal, BTW redrum! ;D), but I am American...have been for over 22 years, as a matter of fact. Try telling ME that this country is great because of cowboy politics and world policing.

I'll tell you to get a clue and not to come back until you've reached puberty. (Who WAS that AGSer, anyway? Does anybody know???)

Thanks for bringing me down to earth DG.  You're absolutely right. ???

Man, I wish I had the foresight to choose Faulkner1138 as my screen name. 

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Mon 11/10/2004 02:44:25
I thought isolationists didn't participate in any foreign affairs, including war?

Well maybe that's not the best word.  I meant isolationist as in "we'll go it alone without anyone's approval or help."

I think the word for that, Dave, is "foot-shooter". As in our own feet.

I think we should be a bit firmer when it comes to the age-limit here. People are wasting their time and energy on trying to make a 13-year-old kid understand what the world is like.

The teacher within me says this can't be right; the ags:er within me is quite annoyed that 13-year-olds are allowed to post freely around the forums.

Poop, you've said many things which are ridiculous and refractory, but also some highly offensive things. You need to show some respect.

If your parents weren't be so busy complaining on the taxes, they would probably teach you some manners.
Now please do us all a favour and disappear until you're 16 years old.

I'm sure everybody's noticed that the ONLY person to even bother trying to defend Bush was a 13-year-old rich kid. Isn't there anybody out there that can successfully defend Bush?

I have been trying to come to grips with why people like Bush.

In the end it just has to be that they relate with him. I will try to explain that in the least demeaning way possible.

Americans suffer in two ways from this "we" problem:

One, how we don't think about what the rest of the world thinks. If it were not for these forums I wouldn't think in such "worldly" or global terms. It has been ingrained in me. It is a constant struggle for me to view things from a world perspective versus an American one.

Two, internally we suffer from a similiar problem. Those exposed to colleges, larger cities (and even not so large cities), and intellectuals in general are very detached from the rest of America. Living on a college campus I was much more aware of the issues in my country, even without seeking them out. Away from this free flowing knowledge these things must be sought out. Most Americans "don't have the time" and are generally uninterested in these things. Most Americans watch the 6 o'clock news and draw all of their knowledge from there. The other day I watched the 6 o'clock news and 10 minutes was dedicated to the Ohio State University football game, 10 minutes to weather, 5 minutes to local fires/car accidents, and the rest divided between world news and commercials.

I think many Americans, mainly "well informed" ones, are not sympathetic to the people that fall into category two. They just don't understand why those people don't seek out that knowledge. In truth they often have no concept as to how those people think. I think that this is why there is such a great divide in this years election and in politcal topics today in general.

Over the past ten years communication has sped up tenfold. Tenfold to an already blazing fast communication system. Urban areas are much more likely to be drowned in this communication while rural areas recieve a lighter flow.

By saying this I'm not saying that Bush supporters are idiots or uninformed. I'm just saying that they only see the good side of Bush. They blame the bad things on someone else and aren't as likely to question it. They still trust America and blind patriotism runs high. There is also a new fear rising. A fear of being painted unpatriotic by speaking out against things. This would affect Rural residents much more strongly than Urban residents.

That is just my theory as to why the country is so divided. You have two different cultures trying to co-exist in America and they are so far apart that they are unable to understand each other. It is not a financial gulf, but a technology gulf in many ways. It is a new problem that the world has not had to deal with yet. It's not a matter of the technology being inaccessible, I think it's a matter of fearing technology and being raised without it. It's also about different uses of technology.

In closing, no I cannot defend Bush, because I am unable to understand him or his supporters. Even if someone did come here to support Bush, they would seem unsuccesful in many of our eyes. The divide to too great.

later,
-junc

Ill try to come up with a way to defend bush.
Be back in a month or two with a one line answer.

Here's my answer: Ignorance, stupidity, and wealth. Everyone knows that Bush is a tax cutter for the rich, including the rich. Look at this map from the 2000 election.

Blue: Democrat (Gore)
Red: Republican (Bush
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/misc/Maps.htm
(http://www.makethemaccountable.com/misc/images/BushGoreMap.jpg)

Notice the high correlation for rural areas to vote for Bush? The six O'clock news factor. What junc said.

The Bush campaign's main messages are:

Terror
John Kerry changes his mind as new issues arise
John Kerry will raise your taxes

Bush has instilled more terror in Americans than any terrorist ever will, but people away from places where politics are actually questioned don't think about it.

Oh, and look at that bible belt shine!

I saw a doco last night on Ohio's perception of the upcoming election.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1215757.htm

I found it interesting to see the born-again Christian support for Bush, especially when a lot of these same people had no idea of the economical or health issues. They're voting for Bush because he's a good Christian fella and cause Kerry flip-flops.

IMO, if Kerry wants to win, he's going to have to expose a little more hypocrisy in Bush's Christianity. Kind of like how Pat Robertson lost his presidential nomination after the televangelism scandals.

Catholics are quiet about religion, and for John Kerry that's a good thing because if he goes talking about Bush's religious hypocrisy then Bush will tackle Kerry's stance on abortion and gay marriage (which he is against, but won't take a stance on).

I have to come clean. Im not 13, Im 12. I dont know too much about politics but i feel I have a valid argument scattered throughout this thread. The american government was created by countless men, and some of the greatest mids the country has ever known. I dont think there is a single way to save america. Every change would help some but contradict something else. I think that if we take it one issue at a time and organize this this thread, or start a new one,  we migh tcome up with something pretty good though.

Following up on more of the "why Bush?" thing. I have a co-worker that I know supports Bush so today I asked him why. Although it took a bit to get it out of him he eventually said he's pro-life. For many people this is a HUGE deal. Regardless of the good they may see in Kerry or bad in Bush, they are still going to cast their vote pro-life (therefore, pro-Bush). Later in the day I asked him what he thought of the patriot act. He had of course heard of it but didn't know much about it. I told him about Homeland security and unifying intelligence agencies and he seemed to know about that part. He was unaware of "sneak and peak", suspected terrorists being arrested and not given legal representation, etc. It actually really sparked something with him. He values his privacy and freedom.

On another note I was told the other day that the US doesn't observe or honor the Geneva Convention in regards to terrorists? Is this true? Has anyone confirmed or heard of this? Kind of falls along the lines of the whole international crimes court thing. No accountability for us, but everybody else should be accountable. These are the kinds of things that push me over into the conspiracy theorists area...the dictatorship is coming...

Oh, and DG, what the heck!? It scares me when people from a different country may be more well informed about my state than I am! ;D Thanks for the link, that comes on in two hours and I'm going to watch it. I will try to remember to comment back here after I see it.

later,
-junc

EDIT:

Wow.

I'm stupid

ABC does not stand for American BroadcastingÃ,  Corporation (or whatever the "C" stands for) it stands for Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Thinking like an American... ::)

Here is the transript though:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1217992.htm

That is mainly in relation to the alleged [hey, eveyone should have a right to a trial] Taliban fighters and Al Queda members at Guantanomo. Since the Taliban was not recognised as a government byanyone but Pakistan, none of the participants in that war were actually at war with Afghanistan, and so the administration argues that the prisoners that have been taken are not prisoners of war, but "illegal combatants", and thus that the Geneva Convention does not apply.

Whilst it's clearly in violation of the spirit of the convention, they may have a technicality.

I have a great idea. It is an adventure game inspired by the contents of this thread. i am calling it America: The Game. It will be funny and comically highlight many of america's shortcomings and problems. Please tell me about your ideas. In my game George Bush is wearing a darth vader mask and tells dick cheney that he is his father. John Kerry is Luke Skywalker. Can someone draw a character of george bush and bush wearing a darth vader mask. The one I made is way too small and i need one drawn to scale. I know thta I have been a jerk, but i also know that people here are happy to help me.

Please feel free to give ideas and character models for the game

QuoteI've been messin with AGS for over a year, but i am still a forum newbie. I am also one of the most notorious posters here.

Poop743 rules!

Please see the debate thread and help me with my game

Sorry,

time to flush the Poop down the toilet.

You're not real. I keep telling myself that, but I think it's time for you to know too, you can't be real.

I drew a bush char and a talking pose for him!

(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/Poop_char.PNG)

Sorry, I felt the urge.

Quote from: poop743 on Tue 12/10/2004 01:19:48
In my game George Bush is wearing a darth vader mask and tells dick cheney that he is his father. John Kerry is Luke Skywalker.

Now you think John Kerry's a good guy???

Who's flip-flopping now?

Maybe he got bankrupted so he doesn't need to support Bush anymore.

*BA DA DUM!1!*

/me actually has no interest in the topic and maybe read only 0.05% of stuffs in this thread.

John kerry is a weiner. He wouldnt take over the world. I am also poking fun at star wars. Also, i need the head drawn by you. That photo could only run on the super high resolution and color depth

I cant understand the "Im pro-life so Im off to vote for Bush" dealie. I consider myself pro-life. Most religous people are. But, its not like a vote for Bush can change anything

Roe V Wade was not an act of congress. It is not a law. Its a supreme court case. Bush can rant and bitch about how Abortion is evil, but he cant do a thing about it, unless the court wants to re-open the case, something that is *highly* unlikely.

Same with Kerry. Aint a thing he can do to change anything. its a misconception the GOP propagates with people who dont know how the US goverment works.

There are other reasons to vote for Bush, I guess. Taxes might be one. If you were a xenophobe, that might be another. If you liked No Child Left Behind, are against Gay Rights, or are terrified or terrorists, then you might vote for Bush too. I dont agree with this rational, but there a few reasons.

America wants a desisive leader. they dont care if he fucks up, as long as he fucks up with gusto. Weird place I live in.

poop743 if you would like to discuss your game please find another thread to do it in. If you would like help with your game, please find the proper thread to ask for it in.

oh...and to make this post worthwhile...

The final debate is Wednesday, October 13 at 9:00 p.m. E.T.

later,
-junc

EDIT: Panda, I guess the thing is Bush is against it, Kerry isn't. People who stand on one side or another of such a hot topic tend to be very zealous in their opinions and standings on it. It's not a matter of either one being able to do something about it. Although I do imagine at some level bills could be passed, supreme court justices could be selected, or departments heads selected that could change some sort of legislation which would affect it. Some sort of, it is illegal to perform abortions without such and such medical certification or something. I don't know, I'm not a law expert but I'm sure there is a way for something like that to occur.

if it were possible to do anything about it...why hasnt he? Bush was all gung ho about swinging social policy to the GOP side. he's done squat for it. It really is a non-issue

I found this story on IMDB:

Democrats Seek To Block Sinclair's Anti-Kerry Telecast
Sinclair Broadcast Group's plans to preempt regular network programming on its 62 TV stations just before election day to air an anti-John Kerry documentary have been caught in a pincers movement by Democratic lawmakers and party officials. The Democratic National Committee said that it plans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over the company's plans to carry Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, in which Kerry is lambasted by fellow Vietnam War veterans. At the same time, Democratic senators have asked the FCC to investigate the planned telecast. Today's (Tuesday) Los Angeles Times indicated that they will find a sympathetic ear in FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, who called Sinclair's decision "an abuse of the public trust." Copps said that it represented "proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative.

Here's CNN's version:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/kerry.program/index.html

Here's the website for the doco:
http://www.stolenhonor.com/

Could this doco be the end for Kerry?

If it airs and people believe the bullshit that will be broadcast, then I will be sorely disappointed in the average intelligence of the people in this country. It still baffles me, to no end, that people can bash Kerry for doing something that Bush ran away from. It boggles the mind.

What boggles my mind is that people will be swayed by a 2 hour movie when Bush has fucked up for 4 years...

DragonRose, Unilin, clear off a couch, Eric and Jess are coming to Canada!

Straight Talk from George W. Bush (well, at least at least Will Ferrel impersonating him):
http://www.crapville.com/videos/STRAIGHTTALKHI.asx Ã,  Ã, ;D

Allright, the last debate is behind us, and soon we can forget about this awful thread.Ã,  :'(

Did everybody see Bush lay the smack down on "ENGLAND"?Ã,  On a question regarding the flu vaccine, he said something like, "Well first of all, the product was manufactured in ENGLAND"....see, and I always thought Bush liked England for, you know, helping out in his wars of compassion.

That was another great line, he talked about his "armies of compassion."Ã,  Awesome.Ã,  Next stop, Ministry of Love.

And more importantly, what was with the spittle on Bush's lips for half the debate.Ã,  Very distracting.Ã,  You can see I take these things seriously.

Kerry just ruined his arguement.
In a interview with mtv kerry stated that drug abusers should not be clogging up the jails as they are non violent.

What was the arguement that he ruined?

I'm glad someone else saw the spittle, I was all like "Oh man! Bush is going into a Hulk Hogan type rage! He's gonna tear his shirt off and powerbomb Kerry into the audience!"

Sadly, he didn't. Cause Kerry can totally take him and he knows it "Frankenstein Vs The Monkey"

Anyways, was Bush not at the debate he had with Kerry when Kerry mentioned the Global Test?

Or does he just love taking things out of context and misleading people?*

It's just so angering to me so so much...

Eric

*This is rhetorical

You know what gets me, is when Bush says this "Massachusetts liberal" bullshit...I don't know why Kerry doesn't develop a backbone and call him out on it.Ã,  Why's "liberal" a bad word?Ã,  Fuck that.Ã,  I'm liberal, and proud of it.Ã,  I'm from CONNECTICUT, another one of those eastern LIBERAL states, and I'm proud of it.Ã,  Gosh darn it, I even believe in crazy things like people should have the right to organize unions, corporate executives and management shouldn't make so much more money than I do, queer couples should have the legal right to marry, women should have the right to choose...and I'm proud of all those things.Ã,  It just gets me that so many of our democratic politicians shy away from the word "liberal", when it really stands for so many core values that most Americans believe in.

-Logan

besides the gay marriage thing I can agree that those are core values most americans believe..

However, this administration has turned liberal into a dirty word... hmm maybe not even this administration but over the past 8 years maybe it's been slowly turned in those this thing that's horrible to be. I don't know how and I don't really know why. Well how is probably through repetition and why is to defame. But still, is it that hard to debate someone without name calling?

Spoiler

you fuckin' liberal...

[close]

I wasn't saying those were all core values, just things I believe in. 

I've noticed that too. The throwing around of "liberal" as a dirty word is just laughable. It's happening in my home state with two senator candidates as well. I'm thinking about writing the "dirty liberal" and telling him to put the definition in one of his campaign commercials, because that would really put things in perspective.

QuoteLiberal:
Noun
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Adjective:
1. Showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
2. Having political or social views favoring reform and progress
3. Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
4. Given or giving freely
5. Not literal

Other than the laissez-faire markets, I'd consider it an insult to not be called a liberal.

Bush may as well be screaming, "I'm a close minded bastard and all of you intellectual weirdos who are for progress and broad-mindedness need to shut the hell up and go to church!" which sadly wouldn't actually anger many people here.

In Australia, our main political party (which won re-election over the weekend) is called 'Liberal', even though it's more conservative than liberal.

Also, haven't watched or listened to the debate yet. Finding a transcript of the debate right now.

C-span has all of them.

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/debates.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=PresVP_04&Rot_Cat_CD=PresVP_04

Listened to it on net radio.

Although he made some good points now and then, I could really hear the desperation in Bush's voice.

I especially liked the second debate, where the look of desperation on his face was consistently shown because the camera angles often showed them both at once. You could see a look of laughter in Kerry's eyes when Bush talked.

Liberal means lots of different things around the world. In Europe and other places, the "Liberal" party is closer to the American Libertarian party then say, the American Democract party. Its all relitive.

Liberal has been a dirty word for a long time...at least since Regan I imagine. I dont think its a very effective insult, but its been stigmatized to mean "out of touch". I dont really consider myself a liberal per say, (Im an american democract, and on the economic scale, closer to the left then I am the right, but I think Im more of a lefto-centrist), but I dont really connsider it an insult. John Kerry is a liberal. So? Bush is a neo-con. So?

I dont get it. My countries political system is messed up.

Yeah, a lot of Kerry's effort in the debates has been spent trying not to appear to be a liberal, and yet not disassociate himself from his friendly liberal friends.


And eric, it's not that Bush isn't capable of debating without name-calling.Ã,  Sadly, name-calling can be quite effective to many people watching.Ã,  Huh?Ã,  What... this Kerry feller is a liberal?!Ã,  Hell, we can't put another one a them in office!Ã,  Look what Lincoln done!

Sorry, but lincoln was a republican conservative. He wasnt a liberal

Hah. I tend to disagree, my fecally-named friend. Here are quotes from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

QuoteConsidering the dangers and provocations of the time, Lincoln was quite liberal in his treatment of political opponents and the opposition press.

QuoteThe Republicans disagreed among themselves, however, on many matters regarding the conduct and purposes of the war. Two main factions arose: the “Radicals” and the “Conservatives.” Lincoln himself inclined in spirit toward the Conservatives, but he had friends among the Radicals as well, and he strove to maintain his leadership over both.

QuoteWhen Conservatives protested to him against the implication that the war must go on to free the slaves, even after reunion had been won, he explained...

So, you see, he was either considered neither liberal nor conservative, or more toward the liberal side (protested by conservatives). Are they teaching you the wrong things again in school?

Quote from: poop743 on Sat 16/10/2004 13:34:23
Sorry, but lincoln was a republican conservative. He wasnt a liberal

The Idea of letting all the Slaves go, and get this, rights for EVERYBODY was not a conservative idea. Conservativism, by nature, is for the status-quo, whereas Liberals press for change.

You tell me. Who's the Liberal here? I'll give you a hint. He was a lawyer who's name starts with Abe.

Lincoln didn't care whether the slaves were free or not, which he said repeatedly. He was more concerned with the preservation of the union.

http://www.absofacts2.com/abrahamlincoln/data/lincolnquotesslavery.htm

QuoteI will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

...

QuoteMy paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

I don't think that the terms Liberal and Conservative, whose application is sketchy to begin with, can really be applied to federal American politics in the 1860s.

Looks like people are doing it just fine Dick... Now if they're right or not... That's a different story...

Quote from: Las Naranjas on Sun 17/10/2004 02:23:42
I don't think that the terms Liberal and Conservative, whose application is sketchy to begin with, can really be applied to federal American politics in the 1860s.

They can if you know and consider the mass attitude of society at the time. I wouldn't try to categorize Lincoln though, because I also think he was a mixture of both.

The Eighteen-Hundreds is exactly the right time to talk about the labels liberal and conservative, because that's when the two movements originally arose. That's when the liberals became the movement for greater civil rights (against slavery, for women's suffrage), secularism (in defense of the separation of church and state), workers' rights (the right to unionize, the twelve-hour workday), and tolerance of minorities.

The conservative movement has, for its entire history, resisted and opposed these causes.

The main difference between liberals in the nineteenth century and American liberals today is in economic policy. Back then, the liberals stood for free trade and minimum government restrictions on the economy.

If you mean in a vaguer sense "Progressive" and a small c conservative you can apply, but the terms are a more specific political science term, especially when relating 20th and 21st century politics to the 1800s.

Moreover, the 1860's in a good time to highlight a lack of defined conservative in the world, since the old conservative were long dead, and the post 1871 conservatives of the english speaking work were yet to arise. It's most important to realise that in this period, a liberal, whether of the British school [whose liberalism was rooted mainly in trade, and thus becoming anti socialist in the 20th century would be considered conservative] and continental liberalism, was identified as someone who supported the development of parliaments and other, sometimes only quasi, democratic institutions. The liberals that dominated Britain were characterised by their support for the new enterprise classes and weakening of the, by know very faint, feudal systems, and the european liberals who had taken the continent by storm in 1848 were pushing for greater parliamentary powers.

Now, in America, where the powers of an elected assembly and president were taken to be self evident, and there existed no feudal systems, it's hard to apply these terms.

A progressive stance that an American may feel would reflect efforts of liberal coutnerparts accross the atlantic may be the support of industry over agrarianism, but it would be foolish to equate agrarianism with feudalism when the former holds private property to be it's underlying virtue.

if by liberal, you merely mean progressive, arguments can be made. But to use the term liberal for all progressives would be like using "molecule" for all small building blocks of matter, whether they are molecules, particles, atoms or sub atomic. It's muddy thinking.

The point that really needs to be made is that the terms, in any context, are irrelevant since they're falwed enough in the present, trying to illustrate them in terms of the past simply makes them more spohistical and pointless.

this thread is dead

yes, and it was resting peacefully before you opened the grave. thanks for reminding us it's dead.

Idiot.

Debate Thread- Ressurection