I'd heard something like this before.. now updated a bit:
Here is a hypothetical situation that poses an important ethical test.
Please give the question serious thought before answering.
You are an AP photographer in Florida... in Miami, to be exact. You are
surrounded by complete chaos and huge masses of water, the result of a
Force 5 hurricane that has brought on severe floods. Though used to
witnessing disasters from your work, you are overwhelmed by one of the most hopeless situations you have ever seen: houses float by, bodies disappear under water and mud. Nature's awesome power has never seemed so destructive. Suddenly you see a man in the water, fighting for his life, trying not to be drowned by the masses of water and mud. As the torrent brings him ever nearer to you, you realize that the man looks familiar. Suddenly, just as the raging waters are about to sweep him right by you and take him away forever, you realize who it is: It's George W. Bush!
You have two options. You can save him. Or you can take the most
important photo of your life. You can save the life of the President of
the United States, or you can shoot a once-in-history photo capturing the death of one of the world's most powerful men. You can be invited to the Oval Office or win a Pulitzer Prize.
And here's the question (please give an honest answer):
Would you select color film, or go with the simplicity of classic black
and white?
;)
[Credit where it's due, this was posted by John Shirley on his forums, credited to Jean Fong]
Huh? I'm thinking color.
Im more for black and white. Make it look classy, plus you get to imagine all the colors of his asphyxiating body.
STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!!
1) I'm a journalism student -- that pic would make all my hard years of work worthwhile.
2) Bush is a moron -- We lost a moron? GOOD!!
3) There's something ironic and poetic about nature taking away the life of a man responsible for a shitload of destruction on nature.
If anyone asked me why I didn't save him, I'd say it was God's will: Bush would have wanted it that way.
That's a good one, YakSpit/John Shirley/Jean Fong! ;D
I'd use colour cause it's cheaper.
and for the hypothetical situation I just had to answer:
Seriously, I'd pretend I was going to save him so he would seem all happy, I'd put out my hand to grab him, then put my camera in his hand and laugh as he floated away. Also if possible I'd watch and make sure he actually drowned. It would be more risk to this world to save his life.
Losing a camera for a good deed, the memory would be more priceless than any sort of fame.
That's an old joke, I think I've heard it many times with different personalities being drowned.
Now, getting serious, have you heard about this photographer, I think he worked for the Time magazine. He took a photograph of this African kid that was starving to death and there was a vulture a few meters from him waiting for him to die.
The photographer won dunnowhat-very-important-photography-award but later on he went mad and killed himseld. He couldn't stand the guilt for not saving this child and just using him to win a prize. I don't think he could've saved him, anyway. It's a sad story.
I've often wondered why photographers don't ever intervene and help people...And truthfully, I would never allow anyone to die, regardless of my political views or career aspirations...
Yes Squinky, you're right, I think most people would do the same if they had any morals, even if they're someone you don't like. As long as you're not putting yourself in as much danger as them in the first place.
Assess the danger to yourself first before proceeding any rescue, it's common sense and the way professionals work anyway. just remember DRABC
I´ve heard something about that talking of reporters of National Geographic and other documental producers... they can´t intervene. It is sad, but sometimes they must film how their favourite baby lion gets sepparated from its mom, and they can´t join them back. In the last documental I saw the lion´s mom find it, but in a previous one it didn´t and the baby lion died.
Of course, we´re talking of different things when we talk of people... But I think that the camera becomes some kind of shield for the reporters...
I think you should all stop the anit-bushinism. I respect the man, and I'm glad im not in his position, because I would have messed everything up. I think Bush could do alot better, if the people were standing behind him, as one nation. Just stop the useless discussion, and save Bush, before it's too late!
Quote from: Minimi on Sun 08/02/2004 17:04:19
I think you should all stop the anit-bushinism.
Too bad -- we're going to keep on doing it.
QuoteI respect the man, and I'm glad I'm not in his position, because I would have messed everything up.
But Bush messed things up anyway.
And I'm not just talking about Iraq -- Iraq is small beans compared to the other shit he's pulled.
QuoteI think Bush could do alot better, if the people were standing behind him, as one nation.
That's ridiculous logic -- A president (or any politician) doesn't perform any better if they gain higher public support.
A president could the most popular bloke in the world and still do a shithouse job.
For proof, look up 'Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen', Queensland's most popular premier (and one who did more harm than good to the state).
Higher public support doesn't increase a politician's performance -- if anything, it's the opposite: if the president performs well, he gains higher support.
The fact that he has low support only shows what a shitty job he's doing.
Besides, Bush doesn't need the public -- he's got the large oil and military companies behind him.
And he still does a shitty job.
QuoteJust stop the useless discussion
No, piss off!
Quoteand save Bush, before it's too late!
I could save him by sending him to rehab and AA meetings, but that won't fix the fact he's a shitty president.
I agree with DGMacphee. I think you need to give more reasons to your arguments, Minimi. It's also a good idea to show respect for other people's opinions on the issue. And this probably goes to all of us.
I'd set the timer on the camera, frame the shot, jump in and catch on film my dramatic rescue of the president!
Not only would I be a pulitzer prize winning photographer, I'd also be a hero!
But seriously ...
Saving the life of anyone in danger is far more important than any picture, color or b&w.
Even if it's the vile George Bush.
I would hastily construct an elaberate giant hand that stuck out over the water and a large multi-output speaker device with a voice distorter, and then stick the arm out to save the man, with the speakers blaring the following message.
"George! This is the hand of God! I am giving you a chance to save yourself. Admit all your inner workings with major corporations to the public, reform the political system..." Etc, etc.. Then, as Bush reached for the hand, I would construct a crude "devil hand" and start blaring an alternative message from the opposite bank "No Georgie boy! Choose me! Choose eternal damnation! The rich will inherret the Earth" etc, etc.
Then I'd turn on the digital video camera portion of the camera and film what happened. Presumably Bush would go for the devil hand. At that point I'd bring in all the religious leaders of the United States (and I mean all of them) to witness what happened next. This would of course necessitate the invention of either instantaneous teleportation/direct cloning or time travel, but I have some friends in Engineering and Computer Science, so I'll just get them to write an algarythm or something.
Quote from: Minimi on Sun 08/02/2004 17:04:19
I think you should all stop the anit-bushinism.
Too bad -- we're going to keep on doing it.
You say that, because of your convinced you have the truth in hands. If you'd start listening to other opinions once, you might learn something
QuoteI respect the man, and I'm glad I'm not in his position, because I would have messed everything up.
But Bush messed things up anyway.
And I'm not just talking about Iraq -- Iraq is small beans compared to the other shit he's pulled.
So you do refer to Iraq, because you can't come up with anything else more foundated statements. I'd like to say this... You do not know what might have happened if Bush(and the whole parlement), decided to not attack and wait for Iraq. I'm not saying war was good, because I'm against any war, for whom or whatever, but sometimes there gotta be sacrifices made for the better good. All we (the public) get to hear are stories like oil, and saddam... but have you seen the confidential papers of the governments, and all the incoming and outgoing mail of the whitehouse, listened to the phonecalls, and all other background information? No! And neither did I, so you don't know the whole truth.
QuoteI think Bush could do alot better, if the people were standing behind him, as one nation.
That's ridiculous logic -- A president (or any politician) doesn't perform any better if they gain higher public support.
A president could the most popular bloke in the world and still do a shithouse job.
For proof, look up 'Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen', Queensland's most popular premier (and one who did more harm than good to the state).
Higher public support doesn't increase a politician's performance -- if anything, it's the opposite: if the president performs well, he gains higher support.
The fact that he has low support only shows what a shitty job he's doing.
Besides, Bush doesn't need the public -- he's got the large oil and military companies behind him.
And he still does a shitty job.
I respect ofcourse your opinion, im just saying it doesn't make anything better by flaming bush.
QuoteJust stop the useless discussion
No, piss off!
I love you too ;D
Quoteand save Bush, before it's too late!
I could save him by sending him to rehab and AA meetings, but that won't fix the fact he's a shitty president.
Ok, I guess we'll never agree ::)
Quote
QuoteSo you do refer to Iraq, because you can't come up with anything else more foundated statements.
You don't read the news much to you. How about how the US is trillions of dollars in debt now, rather than moving to a balanced budget as we were. What about his "clean air" act that actually allowed looser restrictions on polluters. The "no child left behind" thing that he pulled funding from to go to the war in Iraq. Schools are actually at risk of closing, because some are operating on 1/6 the budget they had 4 years ago! Then there is the "Patriot" act that basically allows people to be held for no reason if they're suspected to be terrorists.. which means all they have to do is call you a suspect terrorist, you don't need to do anything or have any evidence. Bush protesters are labelled as "suspect terrorists" and cleared out when he is near them.
Dude, sure you have the right to an opinion, but frankly, most Bush supporters don't even know what they're talking about. Why do you like him?
Don't forget allowing American soldiers to die for neverending unsettling causes, cutting pay and health insurance for soldiers and veterans, sending Americans to war on false pretenses (remember the WMD that they got soldiers into the war on?)
Anyone who loves Bush and ignores how harmful he has been to real people fighting in these wars really shows disrespect to "the troops," and that's sad.
How about his poor spelling and pronounciation? His alienation of most of Americas allies? His attack on the separation of Church and state? While Clinton vastly reduced support for safe abortion in the US, Bush worked even harder on this front. How about gutting social programs, enraging Islamic countries, illegal deportations, unmitigated arrests, further funding of Columbian paramilitaries, damaging the peace process in Israel and Palestine, and suporting the Enron disaster with backroom deals and arrangements? Not to mention that a further recount showed he didn't even win the election.
Of course, the only difference between Bush and Gore in the debates was about the % of the tax breaks to the rich, so don't get your hopes up about the "democrats" either.
I didn't mention the war in Iraq because it was a good thing justified for all of the wrong reasons.. basically he took advantage of public fear by labeling Iraq as a lot of things it wasn't. Saddam is evil, I don't think anyone can argue with that, just as Bush is a liar.
It is really sad that he took benefits away from soldiers after sending some of them to their deathbeds before age 25.
I'm sitting on the fence with this one....I can't put all the blame on bush for all the problems of today, becuase these things don't just pop up over night... I think the economy issue was begining to happen when Clinton was president, this is just when things started to come down....
As for all the other stuff, I can't blame it all on one guy...And I really don't think Bush is as stupid as everyone claims. How did he get to be president if he's so dumb? I don't get that part....
It's my belief that all this hatred for Bush started way back at the elections. Now, I watched (Didn't vote though) and what got me all mixed up was that the news channel was saying that Gore won states before they had %30 of the votes...what the hell was that about? So, in an hour or so, what happens? They have to correct themselfs and say that Bush won....So, then the re-counts happen, which everyone is mad about. Who started the Recount? Gore.
Now, I'm sure Gore wasn't the first guy to lose that way, but he was the first to be a big goddamned baby about it. I believe his actions caused a major rift right then and there, and a lot of people hated Bush right of the bat....Which seems silly, becuase the only one doing stupid crap (At least then) was Gore.
What worrys me the most though, is that I watch coverage of the Presidantial race going over here, and all the Democrats are saying "I don't care who gets into office, as long as it isn't Bush".Holy crap, thats scary! I'd like to think it should matter what the canidates views and history are, not just the fact that he isn't Bush!
Bah...politics suck...
I live in political ignorance. I don't care about the politicians, and the politicians don't care about me. It works for me.
Quote from: Squinky on Sun 08/02/2004 21:04:41
I'm sitting on the fence with this one....I can't put all the blame on bush for all the problems of today, becuase these things don't just pop up over night... I think the economy issue was begining to happen when Clinton was president, this is just when things started to come down....
As for all the other stuff, I can't blame it all on one guy...And I really don't think Bush is as stupid as everyone claims. How did he get to be president if he's so dumb? I don't get that part....
It's my belief that all this hatred for Bush started way back at the elections. Now, I watched (Didn't vote though) and what got me all mixed up was that the news channel was saying that Gore won states before they had %30 of the votes...what the hell was that about? So, in an hour or so, what happens? They have to correct themselfs and say that Bush won....So, then the re-counts happen, which everyone is mad about. Who started the Recount? Gore.
Now, I'm sure Gore wasn't the first guy to lose that way, but he was the first to be a big goddamned baby about it. I believe his actions caused a major rift right then and there, and a lot of people hated Bush right of the bat....Which seems silly, becuase the only one doing stupid crap (At least then) was Gore.
What worrys me the most though, is that I watch coverage of the Presidantial race going over here, and all the Democrats are saying "I don't care who gets into office, as long as it isn't Bush".Holy crap, thats scary! I'd like to think it should matter what the canidates views and history are, not just the fact that he isn't Bush!
Bah...politics suck...
I totally agree with Squinky!
No comment on everything I said earlier?
Fact is, all of the Dem candidates are better alternatives to Bush.
Quote from: Squinky on Sun 08/02/2004 21:04:41
What worrys me the most though, is that I watch coverage of the Presidantial race going over here, and all the Democrats are saying "I don't care who gets into office, as long as it isn't Bush".Holy crap, thats scary! I'd like to think it should matter what the canidates views and history are, not just the fact that he isn't Bush!
It's not that they don't care who gets elected. They just know that the democratic front-runners all have the potential to be good presidents.. They do care that they get a good president, it's just that they won't mind if it's not exactly the person they were looking for. A lot of Dean supporters would be perfectly happy with Kerry, because he's experienced, and cares about workers, troops, etc.. They care about credentials, but they're also willing to take the next best thing. That's the nature of democracy, like it or not.
All the democrats who now heavy complain about having such a stupid president... Should´t be ashamed for loosing the previous elections in front of such a stupid man? ???
That is how democracy works... If you don´t like Bush, don´t vote him for the re-election...
I think it´s fucking easy, isn´t it? :)
Amen Ben.
As for earlier posts, it IS true that a lot of the economic problems were forming pro-Bush, but the man could've done a whole lot more to help slow it down (stop it?) as opposed to throwing it all into a war for oil and revenge.
Farlander, I attribute it to rich people and people who didn't know enough about him to merit giving their opinion, not that the Dem candidate was a poor choice. In that election I probably would have preferred a 3rd party actually. I recall my HS principal talking to one of the janitors about the election a long time ago, he'd give a reason why he liked Bush and she'd tell him how his policies would undermine that, and how bad he would be for the school, other misc. issues, and eventually he just said, "I'm just looking for a change." He couldn't defend any of his reasons to the janitor.
I think the change was for the worse, myself. I'm definately not voting for him.
Heh, and the guy I'm talking about just phoned my roomate.
It scares me the way you aim to the "Rich people" as an uniform mass of republican people without feelings... O_O
What cracks me up most about this whole issue is that in 5 years (when Bush is out of office after his second term) All the same crap will be drummed up about the new guy.
"You mean he actually campainged about shit he didn't live up to? Oh my God the shock!"
Come ON people. It's the same thing over and over and over again yet people are still suprised by this?
Presidential Candidates lie their way into the oval office. It's as old as campaigning itself.
"Bush lied about the WMD!!" You mean the president LIES?? You must joking.
I don't give a shit who is president.
The Road of the Presidency:
* Act like 10 year olds on the playground when campaigning with million dollar commercials that don't say what I'm going to do, just rip on my opponet. Very adult.
* Get in office and don't live up my pre-election promises.
* Former supporters turn against me.
* Everybody rips on me ...
blah blah blah blah.
It's the same shit every time.
That, and with the antiquated and moronic electoral college, individual votes don't mean shit anyway.
Yeah, I'd like to say that I'd like the electorial college thing gone, it seems like my vote dosen't mean crap here in Idaho...But there must be a good reason for it?
I personally, seriously, would like to see Bush no longer in office. My reasoning: I'm tired of the whole Bush hatred thing clouding up the waters, he's just got too much baggage now too be good for anything...
I'm not really into politics, but here in my region I'd say it's mostly republican, so I'm probably being influenced, but I also have some pretty liberal ideas too. So really, I'm not too interested in partys, I just want somebody in office that isn't hated or have sex with his interns.
We need somebody worthwhile really...
Quote from: Minimi on Sun 08/02/2004 19:31:34
You say that, because of your convinced you have the truth in hands. If you'd start listening to other opinions once, you might learn something
I did listen to your opinions.
But I found it an illogical argument and told you why.
How can I learn something if an argument is illogical?
Quote
So you do refer to Iraq, because you can't come up with anything else more foundated statements.
Fine -- I'll include more instances next time, like his lack of participation in the Kyoto protocol, or that the US economy has been the lowest in ages, or the fact he won't allow gay marriage, or the Patriot Act... Did you want more than that, cause I got loads!
QuoteI'd like to say this... You do not know what might have happened if Bush(and the whole parlement), decided to not attack and wait for Iraq. I'm not saying war was good, because I'm against any war, for whom or whatever, but sometimes there gotta be sacrifices made for the better good. All we (the public) get to hear are stories like oil, and saddam... but have you seen the confidential papers of the governments, and all the incoming and outgoing mail of the whitehouse, listened to the phonecalls, and all other background information? No! And neither did I, so you don't know the whole truth.
But the US government does and they now say they wouldn't invade Iraq knowing what they know now.
Colin Powell gave an interview to the Washington post about it while everyone was focused on Janet Jackson's tit.
QuoteI respect of course your opinion, I'm just saying it doesn't make anything better by flaming bush.
And praising him doesn't make anything better either.
QuoteI love you too ;D
;)
QuoteIt scares me the way you aim to the "Rich people" as an uniform mass of republican people without feelings... O_O
It scares me the way the uniform mass of republican people are stripping my rights away while wasting tax money and contributing to the ruin of the world.
Hmm.. posted this in the interest of humor but it's launched into a political debate of sorts. So be it.
Ghormak stated that he didn't worry about politics and politicians don't worry about him and he likes it that way. That's precisely the way I felt about it for quite some time. If you knew my attitudes of a few years ago, you'd find it amazing and perhaps a bit disconcerting that Bush has done what none of our presidents have done in my lifetime. He made me give a shit. In that way, I suppose, he was useful.
I am utterly confused as to how any non-US person could back Bush. There've been the previously mentioned issues, such as the patriot act. By the way, the Patriot Act isn't what's scary, it's the fact that these things are being passed into law like they're going out of style. It's the ammendments and the Patriot Act II that frighten me. After reading through the Patriot Act, there isn't too much introduced that wasn't more or less in place already. It's the additional laws that back it and allow for more exceptions and loopholes that make the PA a violation.
People have mentioned Bush's stupidity. It's reknowned. You can blame the press and say that other presidents made stupid statements & grammar/spelling mistakes as well. Of course. However, don't you think the press would jump on them to an equal extent if they had as poor a track record as Bush when it comes to thinking?
His financial policies have been mentioned. Don't forget that, as governor, he also did a record-breaking FUBAR job.
If nothing else, the non-US people backing him despite his environmental standpoint is amazing. The Clean Air act, initiated during the Nixon administration, forced corporations to clean up their acts somewhat. Bush's castration of this act, to give an example, allows corporations to divert waste water and toxic sewage to the same processing plants. He gave the finger to the Kyoto convention. He didn't even suggest a compromise or state that the nation would consider it after it'd resolved post 9-11 financial issues. He basically just said, "Up yours, we'll just worry about the US, you guys worry about the world." He signed off on the "Healthy Forests" initiative which allows massive forest-destruction in our nation's largest remaining national forest. I'm no tree-hugger, but this attitude seems to say,"Do what we want for now, let our grandchildren frolic in the ashes."
Alright. If you don't care about stupidity, environmentalism, foreign policy, warmongering, double-talk, et al, maybe you care about cash? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not wealthy by any description. We've slowly been making laws that seek to repair the condition the nation was in during the 1920's. During that time-period and through the Great Depression the US had a very large gap between those with money and those with nothing. In the past few decades, we've managed to establish a middle-class that's a little bit less broad in scope. Currently, you can be considered middle-class and still barely above the poverty line, or nearly independantly wealthy. Bush's administration has signed into law (or cancelled sections of existing laws) allowing corporations to keep more of their holdings while the lower-income people pay for it. He introduces tax-cuts, announcing that it's easing the burden of all people. One such cut is of the estate tax. Alright, so people owning a lot of property or with many investments get a tax break. This isn't a majority of the people, and certainly not a section of the populace that needs tax breaks.
I wasn't very fond of the Clinton administration. However, he did at least work his ass off trying to fix things. He introduced many excellent policies concerning foreign affairs, finance, and environmental concerns. The trouble with him was that he didn't make anything self-sustaining. As soon as his administration was out, his house of cards fell flat. He wasn't perfect, by any means, and was (like most others) deceitful, manipulative & concerned primarily with his own self-interest. He at least made some concessions. Bush, on the other hand, seems to smugly remind the common man of his insignificance. He doesn't care about the will of the people. I don't agree than any candidate's better than Bush. Lieberman, for example, would make for a frightening presidency. However, that will be one of my goals come November - to vote for a candidate that I think will do a good job, and to get Bush out of office. I'd love to seriously consider a 3rd party candidate but they only suck votes away from one of two parties that will win.
Before I end my lengthy, monotonous post, I must scream, "Hell yeah, down with the electoral college!"
Clinton lost his support because he had an affair. Bush lost support because he lied about WMD, killed innocent civillians (indirectly, I know, and it's unavoidable) and looks like a monkey.
Not hard to see which one belongs in the whitehouse...
P.S. Yakspit - Despite the fact that I agree with your post, and everything you have to say is poignant, it does sort of hurt my eyes when I have to SCROLL DOWN to read ONE message... *I can't cope*
It seems inevitable that this would become a political debate, mention Bush in any form and it seems to stir people up.
So I won't continue as I've stated my thoughts in other threads and am pretty sick of it all. So I'll just mention things common in any world election.
As far as the US elections go I can't really comment cause I have no Idea of the candidates. But I agree with DM about how polititions put each other down rather than telling what they would actually do.
But I can also see why they do it, in reality they have no idea what they will do, and if they do they don't want the public to know about it, cause it won't help them in.
If they told us their policies rather than what the other guy did wrong, wonder if it would help that person, It would make me more interested in what they had to say. wonder if this has ever been done, sure they announce some little boring things they'd do, but to predominantly do it, would be interesting, mature and intelligent (the opposite of a politician)
It's interesting that when it comes round to an election, a topic out of the blue is the thing most focussed upon by both sides, usually something that takes the focus off all the other important things, yet gets blown out of proportion, and then when the election is over, you don't even hear about it.
They really think that everyone else is so beneath them, to think they can trick us with these dodgey campaigns, well they're right really cause the common public fall for it everytime. Most peoples votes are already decided by the way they were brought up anyway, there needs to be more swinging voters, people with a brain in their own head to make their own decisions.
The Scarey thing is with the way the economy is in the USA, is that Australia is trying to follow in it's footsteps by privatising everthing, selling off all their major assets to private companies.
Once these things are sold there's no going back and it makes it seem like (temporarily) the government has wiped out the debt, but in reality they have just gotten rid of solid assets that could've establish the future. but now if a new govt. gets in, they have no assets to sell if they get into a bit of debt. It's just really misleading, but I'm sure it will be used in elections further down the track.
Also the thing that gets me so angry is that the govt is following the US in terms of college education fees. All these politicians had a free/cheap education to get where they are, they could buy nice houses on the water affordably and had not much fighting for places at uni. They had it fucking easy (they still may have worked hard, but only a handful get the chance now)
Now they expect the kids of today to have it tough, except the people that can afford it, their kids are more important, they must be smarter.
It's all down hill from now on and if you look into the future you can see it fail, but not in the rich's eyes, cause all they see is more money for them and their families.
and fuck Paris Hilton is an Ugly Bitch, a bad lay too
I'm a little hopeful after recent polling results. However, people tend to become a little bit more conservative (personally, not politically) as voting time nears. It's a bit depressing that half the country (about) still supports him. And I raise my imaginary mug o' beer in salute to Timosity for his insightful (and quite accurate) comments concerning Ms. Hilton. Which brings me to another frightening thought. Due to the difficulty of spelling my last name, I've received much mail addressed to Mr. Hilton. Makes me shudder.
Let's hope the half of the country that votes realizes what Bush is doing.
Just would like to say, I live in Florida, and Gore requesting for a revote, didn't seem so babyish at the time. There were a lot of things that were fishy with the first count, and there still remains some fishiness on that issue (I mean look at who's governor of Florida, Jeb Bush). The numbers were sooo close, and Florida was so important, I can understand the mans intentions. And who wouldn't want all their votes to be counted?
As to the original post, I think I'd honestly save Bush. And, politcally I hate the man. I don't know, I couldn't bring myself not to save him, not that I wouldn't think of it, but it's still almost killing a person if you can prevent their death with no harm to yourself. That would bother me.
As to hatred of Bush, I just watched an interview with him today on Meet the Press. Now think of the economy in the U.S.. And guess what he proposes to do about it? Lower taxes...yay! Oh wait, that doesn't really help the economy at all, as taxes will be taken out in other places when Bush realised he needs money to run a government. This is what I hate. How can you ignore common sense?
As to using Iraq as a reason for hatred of Bush. Why does this argument suddenly become void of it's importance? Because it's in the news all the time? If that was his only mistake, that mistake would be enough for me to hate him. He spent my money on a war most people never desired or were partial to, and it turns out he did it for no good reason. Thousands of Iraqi's died.
Hey, but in the end that's what's great about this country, and many other countries now. We can say, "The president sucks" and I won't be gassed tomorrow/shot down/improsoned. We have the right to an oppinion, whether it be against our country/president.
-MillsJROSS
Bush is ANYTHING but a conservative.
Quote from: Jackhammer on Mon 09/02/2004 06:53:03
Bush is ANYTHING but a conservative.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Quote from: Squinky on Mon 09/02/2004 02:03:13Yeah, I'd like to say that I'd like the electorial college thing gone, it seems like my vote dosen't mean crap here in Idaho...But there must be a good reason for it?
There
was a good reason for it. It gave small population states an "equal" (proportionally) ammount of influence on the election. It was designed in a time when people didn't have radio or TV and if the president didn't campaign in their area they'd have no real clue who he was.
Now, with mass media, it's a tool corrupt politicians can use to put the wrong man in office.
It made NO sense what-so-ever that a state can have the majority of the popular vote going to Gore yet somehow still go to Bush because of the electoral college. There's NO sense/logic in that at all and in my opinion makes voting completely useless.
We have the technology to tally EVERY single vote that is cast and actually elect the person who gets the most.
That's how it
should work.
then again DM, always always always oppose any voting system that doesn't have a paper trail.
especially one for president of [insert country]
Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 09/02/2004 07:05:35
Quote from: Jackhammer on Mon 09/02/2004 06:53:03
Bush is ANYTHING but a conservative.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
I second that.
(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!)
Seriously, Jackhammer, what the hell are you talking about?
i think he means that he isn't conserving anything
He might be confusing Conservative with conservative and perhaps even old skool Conservatism because of the radical Conservatism that led those that invent and promote the use of misleading floating signifiers to term this school of thought, such as it exists in any comprehensible form, Neo-Conservatism.
or he's being witty
/me checks the density of the ags forums
hey it's going up!
Quote from: MrColossal on Mon 09/02/2004 08:07:30
/me checks the density of the ags forums
hey it's going up!
And again with confusing dual-meaning words. I've got a hunch we've got some natural politicians here.
Bah.... don´t want to enter in this conversation because I can´t, I am not really aware of the U.S. politics.
I am quite conservative, because in my country the "good old socialists boys" came saying that they were going to create 1,000,000 employes. What happened after 12 years of socialism? Spain had 8,000,000 of unemployed (22% of the population) and the highest rate of corruption in history.
Now, with the "fascists" popular government, the uneployment rate is at 9%, and Spain is said to be the 8th economy in the world.
In my country, socialism=lie to the people with good intentions to get corrupted once in the government. (And bad, awful management...)
In the U.S. is different, the republicans and democrats are not so radicalised in his economy management, and sometimes the differences can just be seen in their attitudes and way of behave.
What I am saying is that I would probably have vote Kerry/democrats in the next elections, and I would haven´t voted for nobody 4 years ago (If I were american).
But if I haven´t voted for nobody, I wouldn´t be heavily complaining because I didn´t use my chance to decide when I had my change. That´s democracy.
People is so used to it that they´re relaxed when they´re in front of a ballot box... Voting has to be an exercise of reflection. It is funny when somebody complains with long posts about politics and when you ask him:
"What did you do when you had your opportunity? Who did you vote for?"
They ask:
"I didn´t vote"
(This is not refered to Jackhammer, of course, I am talking in general... I am thiking that probably Jack wasn´t old enough when the previous elections)
I´ve been told before that I am quite conservative. And I told also before that voting should be an exercise of reflection. Aren´t this sentences contradictory? If you´re conservative you should allways vote conservative... Well, no. None of the systems is perfect and sometimes is necessary to change the management system to another. As you can see, I am envolved in politic in my country, I can express my oppinion... But expressiong your oppinion without having voted of being foreign is, at least... dare.
The dangerous thing is that many americans tend to think Bush is just a humourous figure, a harmless moron who, by a quirk of nature, ended up in the white house, end of story.
They say "Come on, he's just a nice countryside boy who got a job too complicated for him, give him a break! He's quite fun after all!"
"Anyone would make mistakes in such a stressful position!"
"He means well, deep inside."
I think this is the dangerous thing; people wave him off as harmless, childish but entertaining, quite handsome, not worse than any other president candidate.
Please don't patronise him. Support him rather than think of him as harmless.
I myself think he's actively made the world a worse place to live in, by a number of decisions, and cannot think of him as a hilarious jester.
Minimi, since I know your opinion isn't the prevailing one in Holland (I've been there myself and enjoyed hearing other ordinary hollanders' views on the issue, despite the friendliness expressed in the phrase "Amsterdam, my favourite country", coined by mr Bush) I'm not worried, just a bit surprised.
The original question is interesting though. I guess most people would have problems seeing somebody die, even if it was Hitler himself.
My dictionary definition (I use a program called wordweb, usually very similar to webster, etc.)
Conservative
(noun)
1. A person with conservative ideas and opinions
(adjective)
1. Resistant to change (I can think of a lot of changes)
2. Opposed to liberal reforms (that he sort of is)
3. Avoiding excess (Not hard to see he doesn't do that)
4. Unimaginatively conventional (conventional wisdom would suggest that respecting the UN and stripping constitutional rights would be a bad thing)
5. Conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class (I honestly see him as catering to large corporations and the wealthy)
Liberal
(noun)
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties (NOT that)
2. A person who favors an economic theory of laisez-faire and self-regulating markets (he favors that, since he's getting rid of our pollution laws and letting companies choose profit or cleanliness)
(adjective)
1. Showing or characterized by broad-mindedness (nope)
2. Having political or social views favoring reform and progress (Difficult to say, depends on whether you mean good or bad reform and progress)
3. Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition (while he poses as being very religious I'd call spitting in the face of the world and doing whatever we want a little untraditional)
4. Given or giving freely (to companies like Halliburton and Enron)
5. Not literal (i'd change this one to not literate)
I'd say he's neither, he has the worst of both worlds. I'm speaking strictly by the dictionary definition though.
This is quite funny while we're on the topic
http://transload.net/~zaphod/text/pointcpoint.html
Funny, even if rather one-sided. I, for one, stopped seeing Bush as a harmless dolt shortly after his election. I read an post on another forum that sounds a bit paranoid. The author wonders whether Bush would give up the presidency readily or whether he might not declare a state of emergency or somesuch instead. A little far-fetched, but creepily within the realm of possibility. After all, we've only recently learned how conditional free-speech can be. "If you protest anti-terrorist activities, you are a terrorist." (Paraphrased Bush administration statement)
QuoteBut if I haven´t voted for nobody, I wouldn´t be heavily complaining because I didn´t use my chance to decide when I had my change. That´s democracy.
People is so used to it that they´re relaxed when they´re in front of a ballot box... Voting has to be an exercise of reflection. It is funny when somebody complains with long posts about politics and when you ask him:
"What did you do when you had your opportunity? Who did you vote for?"
They ask:
"I didn´t vote"
Can't you exercise your right as a citizen to abstain from voting? if i don't support any candidate, isn't my denying them my vote just as valid and democratic a decision as someone who votes for a candidate?
And as far as all the bush-bashing goes, i think a most of it is so completely juvenile and nonsensical that it doesn't even merit responding to.
Most of the anti-bush rhetoric tries to simplify extremely complex issues into 5 word sound bites.
bush kills thousands of afghanis
bush creates trillion dollar defecit
bush lets companies destroy environment
people have no idea how complicated all of these issues are. by simplifying them down to nothing you create a nation of ignorant people with uniformed opinions on everything.
it's fine to criticize bush, but i agree with squinky
QuoteI really don't think Bush is as stupid as everyone claims. How did he get to be president if he's so dumb? I don't get that part..
when you just call him stupid you trivialize your argument. i mean he graduated from harvard AND yale. he's obviously not a mildly mentally retarded person (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=moron)
there are plenty of issues that you critcize bush on without broad generalizing and infantile insults.
like his AWOL period http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/10/bush_credited_for_guard_drills/
or about the 28 blanked out pages of the 9/11 report
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/world/main565782.shtml
anyway hate bush or love bush, what he's done is not deserving of a place in the seventh santum of hell. if you want to criticize somone you have to offer alternatives to their actions of ideas. that's what's known as "constructive criticism" (http://www.peaceandhealing.com/criticism/constructive.asp)
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
- Albert Einstein
Constructive criticism can easily be derived from any of the comments I've made. Merely take the negative of said action and you've got it. I mentioned environmental issues, part of that section concerning the Kyoto convention. My constructive criticism was mentioned there. I thought that even if he didn't think it wise to agree wholeheartedly, he could've delayed the decision or suggested a compromise. Instead, he choose tactless tactics and smug refusal.
Broad generalizations are perfectly appropriate for this forum. It's a general discussion area. People aren't expected to go into depth. I rather thought that my post was long and specific enough but I suppose I could've quoted magazine articles, web-links & books upon the subject. I didn't because 1) would've involved re-proving what many people know 2) would've lengthened an already verbose post and 3) anybody can quote similar sources directly disproving my own (and vice versa). I assume your post wasn't directed at me, just defending my portion of it. I, for one, didn't use any of your "sound bites," and did mention some of the 3rd but inserted a fact as well.
These are some of my conclusions about him: Bush is more for the corporations than for the people. While this is nothing new to presidency, he has flaunted his decisions and justified them in the name of patriotism. With regard to his competency, he didn't perform well in either of the colleges you mentioned, acted irresponsibly and delinquently with his friends, he was given companies to run which he thoroughly killed, and makes errors in speeches & statements that are not simple mistakes but show that he doesn't understand half of what he says. Trying to come up with positives, he handled the immediate post-9/11 era well, most of what he's doing is trying to strengthen the nation, and while I don't agree with the motivations behind it or war itself, he's at least done a decent job of showing terrorists that the US won't back down and will pursue vengeance at nearly any cost.
On an entirely different note, the non-voting statement you made makes a good point. I can't claim that I was quite that high-minded when I didn't vote last election. It was more of a feeling of: I don't like either of these guys and don't have enough information. If I had voted, it would've been as a blindfolded person deciding that he had to take a step in some direction, despite the fact that it's probably safer to stand still. Since then, especially because of the quality of this administration, I've tried to educate myself better politically so that I can make a more informed decision.
The Squinky re-quoted makes a decent point. It's a very logical response to claims of Bush's stupidity. I also (sorry) have to consider it a bit naïve. I don't want to persecute people's faith that the system works, so... I'll agree in principle. He's not unintelligent. He's incompetent. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=incompetent)
I'm willing to consider other points but the primary reason Bush pisses me the hell off is that he's got a constant attitude (as demonstrated by his legislation, actions, statements & demeanor) that says, "You, the people, do not know what's best for you. I do."
QuoteAnd as far as all the bush-bashing goes, i think a most of it is so completely juvenile and nonsensical that it doesn't even merit responding to.
Then why are you responding?
QuoteMost of the anti-bush rhetoric tries to simplify extremely complex issues into 5 word sound bites.
bush kills thousands of afghanis
bush creates trillion dollar defecit
bush lets companies destroy environment
So what? Pro-Bush propaganda does the same thing!
In fact, you can even do it in under 5 words with pro-Bush propaganda!
See:
Bush reduced unemployment (wow, that was three words!)
Bush opened free trade (wow, four words!)
Bush captured Saddam (3 words again!)
Quotewhen you just call him stupid you trivialize your argument. I mean he graduated from harvard AND yale. he's obviously not a mildly mentally retarded person (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=moron)
And Hitler was a vegetarian, hardly drank, didn't smoke and was an artist, so obviously he must have been as peaceful as a Hindu cow!
Just because someone graduates from Harvard AND Yale, doesn't mean they're intelligent.
Besides, why's a Harvard and Yale graduate spouting stupid shit like this:
"More and more of our imports are coming from overseas." (Yeah, no shit, genius!)
"If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything!" (Holy crap, he's right!)
"I want to have a ballistic defense system so that we can make the world more peaceful, and at the same time I want to reduce our own nuclear capacities to the level commiserate with keeping the peace." (Brilliant! He wants to raise the level of nuclear defense as well as lower it! He is such a magician!)
On Gore's tax plan: "It's going to require numerous IRA agents." (I love trade agreements with the Irish!)
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully." (I am not fucking you: He actually said this! PEACE TO FISHES!!)
You see, when someone becomes famous for spouting such stupid shit (i.e. "Bushism"), then you have to wonder if they actually are retarded or not.
In comparison, Bush makes Yogi Berra seem gifted and Sam Goldwyn eloquent.
Quotethere are plenty of issues that you critcize bush on without broad generalizing and infantile insults.
Great, that saves me having to type them!
Quotelike his AWOL period http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/10/bush_credited_for_guard_drills/
It's not that I'm against what Bush has done in the past...
Quoteor about the 28 blanked out pages of the 9/11 report
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/world/main565782.shtml
Nor am I against Bush's shifty politics...
It's just I think he's an evil robot sent back from the future come to kill us all.
Quoteanyway hate bush or love bush, what he's done is not deserving of a place in the seventh santum of hell.
Yeah, Bush wouldn't want to move back home with the folks.
Quoteif you want to criticize somone you have to offer alternatives to their actions of ideas. that's what's known as "constructive criticism" (http://www.peaceandhealing.com/criticism/constructive.asp)
So, you're saying we should offer "constructive criticism" on how Bush can be a better president?
Okay, step 1: resign
Done!
QuoteThe world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
- Albert Einstein
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
Taryuu: Of course people have the right to abstain, but if they do, they loss in some way the reason to complain.... It sounds harsh, but you can´t say, FUCK! Bush has been elected? I hate him!!! if you haven´t voted, specially in the past U.S. elections when the abstention meant an implicit agreement with the final result. If you know that a politician is going to do it awfully bad, you can vote the other, even if you don´t completely agree with him.
I think another good aspect to Taryuu's point is that not voting is also part of your voting right. We have the freedom to choose not to participate. Nobody comes around and forces us to make a choice. Not voting really isn't too much different than workers going on strike. There is some wisdom to be found in not making a choice when you have no idea what choice to make, leaving it to the more educated/devoted people to choose. Of course, this argument is someone suspect since it takes for granted that the majority of voters know what the hell they're voting into office. Farl, your argument is valid but not absolute. It is, however, the reason I'll be voting this election. I want to be able to say either, "I didn't vote for him," or, "I'm, sorry, I helped put him there."
I find the every-vote-matters argument a bit frivolous. Due to the workings of our system, the majority of people didn't vote for Bush. However, our chosen Voting Guys did. What worries me most, particularly during this administration, is that most Americans don't seem to give a shit about their freedoms. No massive protests after anti-Bush protests were held in check by the FBI. No uproar after the Electoral College voted against the populous. The majority didn't bat an eyelash at the passing of the Patriot Act and the others passed soon afterwards. Recommendation: Rename the USA to the United State of Apathy.
Quote"More and more of our imports are coming from overseas." (Yeah, no shit, genius!)
This isn't really 'spouting shit' ... Imports from Canada and South America aren't considered 'over-seas'. We import a lot from the Americas.
Now, the rest of that
is 'spouting shit' ... you'd think his advisors would 'advise' him to think before he speaks ;D
YakSpit finally pointed out what has been bouncing around in my head. The man
is imcompetent.
Having said that, I still respect the office of the president. Not necessarily the man, but the office.
Do I wish it was somebody else? Yes.
Do I have a clue who I wish it was? No.
Does it make a difference what I want? No.
United States of Apathy indeed :)
FarlanderQuoteOf course people have the right to abstain, but if they do, they loss in some way the reason to complain
In some way, but they can still say "I didn't vote 'cause I didn't want either of them in there!" I don't think not liking one is a good reason to vote the other if you just dislike him less.
There's 2 things that GeeDub has done that I've wanted to see a President do for a long time:
1) Send a big "Fuck You" to global terrorists
2) Remove Saddam
At least he accomplished that much.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 10/02/2004 12:16:55
The man is imcompetent.
Suitable moment for typo, DM :)
I agree of course. Although Taryuu thinks George's graduating from Yale guarantees a certain amount of intelligence, I think that's more a question of money donations and similar.
I can't understand how any thinking, normally talented person can consider Bush an intelligent man. Even if many of my previous standpoints may be expressions of subjective political opinions, this remains for me undisputable - whatever you think of his policies or his performance in the white house;
that man is not intelligent!
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 10/02/2004 12:16:55
Quote"More and more of our imports are coming from overseas." (Yeah, no shit, genius!)
This isn't really 'spouting shit' ... Imports from Canada and South America aren't considered 'over-seas'. We import a lot from the Americas.
Actually, I think you meant to say Canada and Mexico.
Bush's quote goes as follows: "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."
The US imports nearly 49,000,000 barrels of oil from Canada and Mexico each.
The US imports hardly any oil from South America.
See it right here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/txt/table_35.txt
Also, the term "overseas" is sometimes used to describe foreign markets, not just markets "over the sea": http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overseas
And since Mexico and Canda are still foreign markets to the US, the phrase "More and more of our imports are coming from overseas" is still stupid shit from a very powerful retard.
QuoteThere's 2 things that GeeDub has done that I've wanted to see a President do for a long time:
1) Send a big "Fuck You" to global terrorists
2) Remove Saddam
Meanwhile, he's fucked the ecomony, withdrew from countless peace and environmental treaties, alienated minorities, and tried to place laws that invade privacy more so than they do now.
But yay! He got Saddam! He said "Fuck you" to terrorists! Everyone rejoice!
I'll just repost what Timosity posted, put my feet up and let the good times roll: http://transload.net/~zaphod/text/pointcpoint.html
I think that the sense of Darth Mandarb´s post was "At least, that moron has done 2 good things :(", better than "He has done the 2 things that America needs more and I love him! :)", Daniel...
Yes, I got the gist of DM's post.
My post means to say "So what?" regarding those two "great" things Bush has done.
Oh! Ok then... :)
Edit: Out of topic, but I´d like to see your "fuck you suit" (The one with the guy saying "Garda!") in your AGS webpage design...
http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/MyAGSSite/ (http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/MyAGSSite/)
Oh yes, I am totally going to win the competition!
Quote from: Andail on Tue 10/02/2004 12:52:05
Suitable moment for typo, DM :)
Ha! Well it
was like 7 in the morning and I'd been up all night cramming for a dead-line. :)
QuoteAlso, the term "overseas" is sometimes used to describe foreign markets, not just markets "over the sea": http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overseas
To me that is just stupid. Mexico and Canada are connected to the US and are not overseas. I'm not going to argue the semantics though ;)
QuoteAlthough Taryuu thinks George's graduating from Yale guarantees a certain amount of intelligence, I think that's more a question of money donations and similar.
I couldn't agree more here! College (uni) here in the states is a big joke. It's a waste of time and money in my opinion. It has become, rather than a place to prepare you for the real-world, a place to learn how to party and put your career (be it academic or professional) secondary to your social life. Granted there are those the truely benefit from college, but I'd have to say they're in the minority. I've heard kids actually say "I wanna go to Michigan State ... they have awesome parties there." Talk about pathetic.
Then again, the influential youth of America have great role-models to look up to. Like ultra-classy 50-cent who stormed the stage at the Grammy's because he didn't win. Or barely legal pop-stars dancing around looking like whores. Or movie-stars marrying/divorcing like it's going out of style. Talk about positive role-models.
The trade relationship between Canada and the US is the largest trade relationship between two countries in the world, which says a lot. Our overseas trade is largely in manufactured electronics in countries like China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc. Japan used to send us lots of cars, but now there's Honda America and it's slowed a lot, I don't know about the others (Toyota, Hyundai (sp?)).
Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 10/02/2004 13:18:13
And since Mexico and Canda are still foreign markets to the US, the phrase "More and more of our imports are coming from overseas" is still stupid shit from a very powerful retard.
I wouldn't say retard. I'd say spoiled rich boy and dry drunk (http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html).
I wouldn't necessarily say colleges here in the state are a joke. My income increases 60% for getting a major here. And though my school was #1 party school three or four years ago, it's renoun in several fields of study (music for one). And those who go to school for parties either end up realising what the uni is about, or they are booted out when they don't pass their classes.
Now as to Bush in Yale. That doesn't say anything to me. I have a friend who got into a college through family connections once he was at first declined.
The argument to the economy being complicated, I agree fully. Lucky me I've taken both Micro/Macro economics. And I know a little about the subject (as I was considering it for a major at one time). I never argued that everything bad in the economy is Bush's fault, it isn't. However, he hasn't done much to improve the economy after 911 as I feel he should have. He went to war when we were economically depressed, and people were opposed to a war. His tax cuts have only manages to raise prices of goods, which in the end doesn't do much for an economy.
I would agree, perhaps that he has average intelligence, comparative to the dolt we make him out to be. But a man of average intelligence shouldn't be running the country.
And what's this I hear about being constructive when we critisize? Because Bush is going to go to the forums and say "Well, gee, he put it so nicely, How could I not do it?"
And I'll be one of the first to admit that I don't know the complexity of everything that is involved in running a country. But fortunatly, there are people who do, who give me their oppinions on the news or through other forums, and from them I can make an educated decision. It's like complaining people are idiots for not knowing how a computer works, when you get really deep down into it, and that those people are incapable of using Word because they don't know binary.
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 10/02/2004 18:48:47
QuoteAlso, the term "overseas" is sometimes used to describe foreign markets, not just markets "over the sea": http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overseas
To me that is just stupid. Mexico and Canada are connected to the US and are not overseas. I'm not going to argue the semantics though ;)
But it's true -- When financial analysts refer to "overseas markets" they also refer to Canada and Mexico, even though both are a drive away.
Our analysts save the trouble by not refering to thise nations that border us as Overseas.
I dunno about that -- Tasmania seems like a foreign market at times. ;D
I think I've seen that cartoon.
To quickly distract people before they get so argumentative that they spontaneously combust:
Interesting Saddam article in The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/4006/top_story.html)
This thread is an evil thing by itsself.
On the first page, DGMacPhee said about president's
public support and work efficency is related.
The more popular he is, less he has to do something useful to gain more popularity.
Sounds logical. Let's agree.
Now, until today, I didn't give a hell about Bush. World goes downhill anyway, AIDS, drugs, kids with guns, ozone holes, rainforests, endangered species, lack of oil & ore, nuclear waste, orient people - who are only able to reproduce while other races slowly get old and die, etc - It's all pretty obivous that were fucked already.
Bush is one of guys who has been chosen to mop this mess up, (which he actually can't do) and take damage/responsibilty for not being able to stop/slower our doom. So telling that he's a moron should be okay. He chose the job. He knew this will happen. And he probably won't give a shit. He gets paid for it.
Back to DGMacphee's argument - so, if he has at least some power to save humanity, and being popular decreases even that microscoping chance, blabbering in this thread makes things worse. We're talking about someone. There's lots of us. Whole community! If someone is told about often, and even in good way (some posts here...), then we can surely use word "popular". And popular president means shitty president.
Thanks, guys. You have successfully helped to destroy planet Earth.
TeH d00|\/| 15 n3@r!!1! :o
Quote from: InCreator on Wed 11/02/2004 11:06:59
On the first page, DGMacPhee said about president's
public support and work efficency is related.
The more popular he is, less he has to do something useful to gain more popularity.
. . . (some posts here...), then we can surely use word "popular". And popular president means shitty president.
Thanks, guys. You have successfully helped to destroy planet Earth.
Fortunately, his popularity has dropped such that much of the public is stating that they're voting for Kerry simply because he's the most likely to beat out Bush. Not a great voting stance but I suppose they could do worse. I just wish they'd do some research on their own instead of going with generalizations. In either case, his popularity is halfway down the shitter and he's going to have to impress a lot of people to even attempt to keep his job.
Okay, I know English isn't your first language and (given that) you do quite an excellent job. Jeebus knows I only speak English and some halfway-intelligible Spanish. Even so... what the fuck does this mean? This, down here \/
Quote
orient people - who are only able to reproduce while other races slowly get old and die, etc - It's all pretty obivous that were fucked already.
I get most of that.. environment, toxic waste, nuclear winter, violence, disease, teletubbies, etc. I don't think my interpretation of the above segment can actually be correct so could someone clarify?
Quote
I get most of that.. environment, toxic waste, nuclear winter, violence, disease, teletubbies, etc. I don't think my interpretation of the above segment can actually be correct so could someone clarify?
Actually, It's more european-nation related.
Europeans are getting old, less children born every day (abortions, condoms, AIDS and low income) and statistics'n'research people say that most of european nations can be declared already as endangered, which is opposite to asian people, where's birth rate is too high. Heard it on TV and at school (sometimes even educative place, uh?).
"Asian" is the word that I couldn't remember - so there's this confusing "oriental"... And yes, closest english-speaking nations are thousands of kilometres away from me, that's why 4 posts of 5 of mine are usually re-edited...
P.S. Oh, and never ever take any of my comments seriously, not here or any thread else. Usually I'm joking or just bored and picking a fight. Like - my overcreative underslept insomniac brain can even calculate a theory how the fact that you're reading *this text* right here, would be a part of big conspiracy which would destroy whole world... ;)
But then again, It's a skill which is quite handy when putting together story for an adventure game, right?
...
omg increator, you are one wise man! Amen to every word of you! ;D
No serious, I do think you are right, with the fact that we are fucked anyway
Quote from: InCreator on Wed 11/02/2004 11:06:59
This thread is an evil thing by itsself.
On the first page, DGMacPhee said about president's
public support and work efficency is related.
But, I didn't say that.
I said the opposite, that they aren't related:
"A president (or any politician) doesn't perform any better if they gain higher public support."
In other words, a president still has the capacity to do a good job, or a crap job, despite whether the public support him or not.
A president's performance is (theoretically) based upon his resources: such things as who is he (intelligence, history, etc), what he stands for (his ideal, politics, etc), and the people he has working for him (cause even if the president has shit-for-brains, he still can perform well if he has good staff).
And granted, I could get into a whole chunk of text on whether the president is a puppet of his staff (such as Cheney and Rumsfled), but that doesn't detract from the fact that public support does not affect Bush's performance as a president.
It does however affect whether Bush BECOMES president or not, but NOT his actual performance.
And even then, public support doesn't always decide who becomes president because...
QuoteHe chose the job.
No, the Supreme Court chose him over Al Gore for the job. HAR HAR HAR!
QuoteBack to DGMacphee's argument - so, if he has at least some power to save humanity, and being popular decreases even that microscoping chance, blabbering in this thread makes things worse.
Oh, I get it -- you think because I said "Being popular doesn't increase your performance" interprets as "Being popular decreses your performance".
Sorry, no, you got the wrong idea, even if you are joking.
Having public support has NO AFFECT on what a president can do -- neither positive or negative.
Public support is only a measure of political performance.
In other words, one way we can gauge a president's performance is through public support.
But public support itself has no affect.
It's like pitting a popular 9 pound weakling against a butch army jailbird rapist -- We can tell the 9 pound weakling is more popular (there's the guage), but no matter how popular the 9 pound weakling is, he's gonna get fucked by the army rapist bigtime (and there's the acutal performance).
So, whether I, or anyone, supports Bush or condemns him, he's still going to do the same shitty job he always does.
And my criticism of him isn't going to hurt the world -- cause when you look at the reality of it, all I'm doing is posting an over-simplified argument on (of all things) an adventure game forum!
Yeah, we're going to change the world!
ALL ABOARD THE REALITY TRAIN -- NEXT STOP, THE AGS FORUM! TOOT TOOT!!!
QuoteThanks, guys. You have successfully helped to destroy planet Earth.
I re-read your post several times and I still don't know how you came to this conclusion, even it you weren't taking it seriously.
Look at it like this: don't blame us for destroying planet Earth for just writing in an anti-Bush thread on an adventure game forum -- If you what to blame us for detroying planet Earth, pick something better, like us farting too much and it's destroying the ozone layer.
And once again, a fart joke has helped us travel the path to true enlightenment.---
Quote from: InCreator on Wed 11/02/2004 12:00:52
Actually, It's more european-nation related. . . .
P.S. Oh, and never ever take any of my comments seriously, not here or any thread else.
I probably seemed more agressive than my post was meant to be, partially do to using the fuck-word. Anyway, that segment was reading a bit like a fascist conspiracy-theorist wrote it, inspiring fear of oriental subjugation. It still sounds like something taught in schools to inspire nationalism. Still too damn tired for this shit.
I still wonder what you think Bush is doing to "mop [that] mess up". I'll show good fate and attribute it to a poor choice of words.