| #1 La Hire[152842] |
| ca-glendora-cuda1-c8a-a-94.arcdca.adelphia.net |
| Interesting. |
| #2 Luckylefty01[152843] |
| adsl-69-106-243-218.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net |
| Interesting take on it, thank you. |
| #3 [152844] |
| c68.187.82.164.eau.wi.charter.com |
| I find this to be more appropriate to this site than any fan fiction ever was. |
| #4 MuLepton[152845] |
| pc41.e18.physik.tu-muenchen.de |
| I concur with #1 and #2. Good analysis of the speech. |
| #5 ? : ([152846] |
| h64-141-27-82.sunwave.net |
The invasion of Iraq was supposed to ‘Save America’. The Americans had everything in place for another of their famous invasions of small countries whose name their populace can barely pronounce. I mean, what could go wrong? An evil dictator (whom the Americans had installed into power) was ruling an ‘oppressed’ people. It would be simple - the Americans would charge in jet planes roaring, napalm flying and ‘liberate’ the country. The populace would rejoice and heap praise upon their saviors. The threat of a madman would be ended and the world’s opinion of the US would skyrocket. There was no possibility that a year later the Americans would be battling ever increasing numbers of ‘insurgents’, the country would still be in ruins, the Iraqis themselves would be clamoring to be allowed free elections rather than be ruled by a US installed provisional government, the Americans would be accused of launching the war as an oil grab and, of course, there was no chance that the world would begin referring to the US president as “Moron”.
Wait, something’s wrong with this picture. Somewhere between the altruistic goal of liberation and the bloody reality of the occupation of Iraq we know today part of the plan must have gone awry. How did this whole fiasco start anyway? Well, as early as 1998 a USA committee known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) penned a letter to then president Bill Clinton advising him to seek ‘regime change’ in Iraq as soon as possible. For what reason? Morality? Terrorism? Part of the letter says, “We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the USA and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”. What exactly were these interests and who exactly were these friends? To be blunt, ‘Oil’ and ‘Oil Companies’. Oil furnishes about forty percent of the USA’s energy needs and fifty-five percent of said oil is imported from the middle east. As Michael T. Klare of the Interhemispheric Resource Centre writes, “This dependency is a weakness for American power: unless Persian Gulf oil can be kept under American control, our ability to remain the dominant world power would be put into question.” Further he writes, “Whoever controls the Gulf automatically maintains a stranglehold on the global economy.”.
Yet wait, what about all the other wonderful reasons the US urgently needed to invade Iraq? According to the US, Iraq allegedly possessed ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (of which no traces have been found). Iraq was ‘oppressing it’s own people’, which coincidentally, also happens in about one hundred other countries in the world. Iraq was undemocratic as well! Apparently it never occurred to the Americans that not all people were Americans, and perhaps there was a slight chance that they would prefer to live in a non-Americanized system. This last, however, cannot come as a surprise considering the history of the US. Less than thirty years ago, the US benevolently set up democratic elections in the South American country of Chile. However, when the unprecedented happened and the people elected a communist, the US rapidly sponsored a coup d’etat and installed a new dictatorship into power, which if not particularly humane, was at least pro-American. This is just one of many other wondrous results of US foreign policy such as the Vietnam war. What it eventually comes down to is that the US, for all of it’s ostensibly high minded (and highly publicized) goals, was in fact taking a page out of Hermann Goering’s book. The Field Marshal of Nazi Germany once had this to say, “Brainwashing a people is a simple task. First give the people someone to hate. Then bombard them unceasingly with propaganda to convince them that this someone is a real threat to them and must be destroyed. Then assure them the only way to destroy them is to trust in the government, your government. Finally, denounce all who disagree as unpatriotic and thus wise utterly discredit them.”
Sound familiar?
.. Nah, not at all. God bless America.
|
| #6 PeaceableGhost[152847] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
Problem: This whole election is a mess.
If I listen to Bush, I don't see how I can vote for him - war in Iraq? Not, I think, justified. (On the other hand, if we& the UN had just finished the job 13 years ago, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, we wouldn't have to deal with the whole mess now.)
Tax cuts? If we've got a budget surplus, maybe it's time to worry about the enormous national debt or something, rather than play "feel-good" politics.
War on Al-Quaeda: We still haven't got Osama. Mostly people seem to have forgotten about it - but wasn't that the original target, after Sept. 11?
On the other hand, Kerry doesn't really encourage me that much - I disagree with him on stuff like abortion and gay "rights" and a bunch of the other liberal stuff that strikes me as more important, in the end, than foreign policy.
Or maybe its not.
Anyway, re #5: You know, I think that a lot of our foreign policy woes are traceable in great measure to Teddy Roosevelt. "Speak softly and carry a big stick," sounds good. But the stick's used for defense, not to go laying about all over the world.
Random thoughts, I know. I'm conservative, yeah (okay, was that obvious?) but not necessarily in line with any "party line". |
#7  [152849] |
| 68.79.174.39 |
| I predict this report was an attempt by Praetor to simply become the biggest comment whore in history, thanks to its political nature! |
| #8 Simply_Eugene[152850] |
| pool-138-88-144-221.esr.east.verizon.net |
| I second that Johnny! :-D |
| #9 mick[152851] |
| bri-pow-pr1.tpgi.com.au |
| A lot of people don't realise that the US doesn't just TAKE the oil from Iraq, they purchase it. Up till a year ago the profits from Oil export were used to line the pockets of Saddam and friends, but with a stable government(give it time) the entire country will prosper. |
| #10 Maniacmarine[152852] |
| d146-16-93.home1.cgocable.net |
*clap clap*
Very interesting read, but I've recently gotten the idea that Mccain (e)? resents being in the same party with bush. Not that he doesn't like being a republican, but that he wishes bush weren't president. I wonder how other republicans feel about bush in this manner, if had it been another candidate, would things would have been different? |
| #11 [152853] |
| 68.79.174.39 |
As for this not being a report, that's ok. Praetor posted it and he's earned the right. In the future with the new website this would be an article posted in the "rant" category.
|
| #12 RubiksCube[152854] |
| mail.de.randstad.com |
New Website?
Did I miss something? |
#13  [152855] |
| 129.142.195.30.ip.tele2adsl.dk |
Liked it.
"It is my frank belief that Bush can only win the election if enough people are apathetic, ignorant, or fanatically religious."
That was my favourite bit :p
Some thoughts:
What's wrong with flip-flopping (to a certain degree)? Everyone makes rash decisions, and should be able to tell when they're making a mistake, and change position.
Why is the word "liberal" being used negatively? Liberalism is defined as:
A: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity.
B: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard.
C: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
You don't like a self-regulating market? Free competition? The autonomy of the individual? Then move to NORTH KOREA for gods sake. And about abortion - I've never understand why anyone wouldn't want free abortion. Obviously they're all very old men with no empathy or sense of reality.
I've started to get very angry every time I hear someone say "liberty", "freedom", "united we stand", "national security" and "war on terror". First of all, no amount of warring will ever make anyone safe, nor will it increase their freedom.
There are so many things wrong with this speech that it would take a long time to discuss - you sure did a great job pointing them out.
Seriously tho, someone answer me why being a liberal is bad -.- |
| #14 I_am_Nitros[152856] |
| h64-141-27-82.sunwave.net |
| The Republicans somehow think not wanting to enforce your will on the world makes liberals "pussies" |
| #15 Some_God[152857] |
| ool-18b8c5a0.dyn.optonline.net |
Oh no... WHY IN GODS NAME DO YOU DO THIS?!?! Now in come a shit-load of people who give a shit and the comment number will rise to like 800 from people bitching that you're gay and your opinion sucks.... why couldn't you just post a BR like we wanted you to? :(
Anyway.. I think this could have went into the forums because:(1)This isn't a game and it doesn't have any set of rules to go by (2) This isn't a fanfic... (3) NO PICS... WTF?!?!
Do you know who likes basketball? |
| #16 Some_God[152858] |
| ool-18b8c5a0.dyn.optonline.net |
| And yes I am a fucktard... |
| #17 I_am_Nitros[152859] |
| h64-141-27-82.sunwave.net |
reposting with more paragraphs on lings insistence : [
The invasion of Iraq was supposed to ‘Save America’. The Americans had everything in place for another of their famous invasions of small countries whose name their populace can barely pronounce. I mean, what could go wrong? An evil dictator (whom the Americans had installed into power) was ruling an ‘oppressed’ people.
It would be simple - the Americans would charge in jet planes roaring, napalm flying and ‘liberate’ the country. The populace would rejoice and heap praise upon their saviors. The threat of a madman would be ended and the world’s opinion of the US would skyrocket. There was no possibility that a year later the Americans would be battling ever increasing numbers of ‘insurgents’, the country would still be in ruins, the Iraqis themselves would be clamoring to be allowed free elections rather than be ruled by a US installed provisional government, the Americans would be accused of launching the war as an oil grab and, of course, there was no chance that the world would begin referring to the US president as “Moron”.
Wait, something’s wrong with this picture. Somewhere between the altruistic goal of liberation and the bloody reality of the occupation of Iraq we know today part of the plan must have gone awry. How did this whole fiasco start anyway? Well, as early as 1998 a USA committee known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) penned a letter to then president Bill Clinton advising him to seek ‘regime change’ in Iraq as soon as possible.
For what reason? Morality? Terrorism? Part of the letter says, “We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the USA and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”. What exactly were these interests and who exactly were these friends? To be blunt, ‘Oil’ and ‘Oil Companies’. Oil furnishes about forty percent of the USA’s energy needs and fifty-five percent of said oil is imported from the middle east.
As Michael T. Klare of the Interhemispheric Resource Centre writes, “This dependency is a weakness for American power: unless Persian Gulf oil can be kept under American control, our ability to remain the dominant world power would be put into question.” Further he writes, “Whoever controls the Gulf automatically maintains a stranglehold on the global economy.”.
Yet wait, what about all the other wonderful reasons the US urgently needed to invade Iraq? According to the US, Iraq allegedly possessed ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (of which no traces have been found). Iraq was ‘oppressing it’s own people’, which coincidentally, also happens in about one hundred other countries in the world. Iraq was undemocratic as well! Apparently it never occurred to the Americans that not all people were Americans, and perhaps there was a slight chance that they would prefer to live in a non-Americanized system.
This last, however, cannot come as a surprise considering the history of the US. Less than thirty years ago, the US benevolently set up democratic elections in the South American country of Chile. However, when the unprecedented happened and the people elected a communist, the US rapidly sponsored a coup d’etat and installed a new dictatorship into power, which if not particularly humane, was at least pro-American. This is just one of many other wondrous results of US foreign policy such as the Vietnam war. What it eventually comes down to is that the US, for all of it’s ostensibly high minded (and highly publicized) goals, was in fact taking a page out of Hermann Goering’s book.
The Field Marshal of Nazi Germany once had this to say, “Brainwashing a people is a simple task. First give the people someone to hate. Then bombard them unceasingly with propaganda to convince them that this someone is a real threat to them and must be destroyed. Then assure them the only way to destroy them is to trust in the government, your government. Finally, denounce all who disagree as unpatriotic and thus wise utterly discredit them.”
Sound familiar?
.. Nah, not at all. God bless America. |
#18  [152860] |
| 129.142.195.30.ip.tele2adsl.dk |
About the oil interests, partly @ mick.
No, they don't just take it, but the more suppliers of oil on the market, the lower the price. Just like more car manufacturers = cheaper cars. The more we can move oil production away from saudi arabia (and OPEC in general), the cheaper oil we will get.
And those precious few dollars per barrel of oil translates into huge amount of money for countries with a high oil usage - namely USA. |
#19  [152861] |
| c-24-8-188-140.client.comcast.net |
| It's a shame Bush is going to win again. I really hate that administration. |
| #20 MuLepton[152862] |
| pc41.e18.physik.tu-muenchen.de |
"What's wrong with flip-flopping (to a certain degree)? Everyone makes rash decisions, and should be able to tell when they're making a mistake, and change position."
I think the issue that .Preaetor wants to point out, is that Republicans accuse Kerry of flip-flopping, although they themselves (as most politicians) do it more or less regularly. Hypocrisy. |
| #21 Decay[152863] |
| dyn57-005.res-hall.ndsu.NoDak.edu |
| I have disliked the Bush administration for a long time, but you brought up even more interesting points that I had not even thought of in this... umm... ranty report thinger. I thank you for that. And I will thank you to make that damn civ3 report. Now. Gogogo. |
| #22 PeaceableGhost[152864] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
On abortion - just to be a nuisance - the reason people object to abortion is that we believe it constitutes murder, being as a fetus is a human being. Of course, you can argue the scientific/medical evidence for that reason, but the argument, as it stands, is perfectly reasonable. I used "reason" too much in that paragraph.
The sensible thing to do about the oil crisis (if these is a crisis...) is to actually drill in places where we know there's oil, rather than forcing ourselves to be dependant on the Middle East, which area, as I suspect we all know, is rather unstable. Suppose OPEC decides it doesn't like us...
Now, the original question. McCain is not exactly my favorite politician. Actually, I don't really like politicians period. Flip-flopping, inconsistency, currying favor left and right, not to mention middle, and... yeah.
Or my whole rant about the party system - are times I'm tempted to vote for some nut like Nader just because he's neither Republican nor Democrat. Hah. |
| #23 .Praetor[152866] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
Ok, working backwards. Detomaso, thanks for the tip.
Peacableghots - yeah, it makes sense to oppose abortition if you think human life begins at conception.
There's not really an oil crisis (and won't be for at least a decade), unless the major producing countries have domestic problems. Even when both Iraq and Venezuela essentially stopped producing oil for a month or two, we only saw a small increase in gas prices. As for drilling for more oil, sometimes it's not actually that cost-productive because the oil is expensive to find. Investing in proven other technologies (wind) with the same subsidies we give oil and coal, and doing things like increasing mileage standards could do far more than looking for supply, especially in making energy cheaper.
Yeah, McCain is an odd duck. He did a good job selling himself in the 2000 primary, causing the press to give him job of 'honorary bipartisan truth man'. That's mostly because he's not afraid to cross the isle on issues (like Kennedy for the D's) and he's played the part with certain soundbites. Liberal commentators think he's angling for the 2008 pres. primary, but eh.
In 2000, I actually voted for Nader (won't in 2004). Of course, I'm in California so my electoral votes were actually going to Gore anyway. I still vote Green in many local elections. |
| #24 .Praetor[152868] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
Decay - working on Civ3 report. Promise :).
Mulepton - nothing wrong with changing your position after thinking about the issue. It's just well co-ordinated name-calling.
I_am_Nitros - I'll the Project for a New American Century this: all their crazy empire-talk is at least put forward publicly on their website.
Zerg~Ling - "Flip-flopping" is just a two-bit sound bite that sounds bad, so they use it.
Liberal is used as a dirty word as part of a decade-long campaign to literally change the meaning of words in America. In the early 90's Newt Gingrich came out with a list of 70 (or so) words & phrases that should always be used by Republicans when describing Democrats. In addition to liberal, there was 'tax raise', 'traitor', 'slimy', 'under-handed', etc. But this has only been partially successful. People who are actually liberal have no problem being called liberal. Like me.
"Free Market" is another one of those phrases the Republicans like to bandy about. When you look at their policies, most of what they do is regulate to skew the free market to certain interest groups (usually corps) in the US.
I can't say there's never a time war wouldn't increase safety and freedom (I've actually supported a military intervention in the Sudan for a few years now). But this war on Iraq is just very very bad. |
| #25 .Praetor[152870] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
Manicmarine - actually, many Republicans agree with you. In fact, state Republican legistators in New Hampshire recently held a press conference en masse stating that they did not endorse Bush and would be voting for Kerry. No doubt they're deathy afraid that Bush's policies will rub off on them in state elections. My own friend who's generally an outspoken Republican (and voted for Bush based on his campaign in 2000) is very angry that Bush lied so much about what he would do. But anyway, yeah, McCain detests Bush personally (despite this speech). That's why I say McCain is Bush's bitch.
Mick - that's true, kind of. Until the recent changeover in Iraq, the occupation government had allocated Iraqi oil funds to pay U.S. contractors, bribe local officials in Iraq, and generally used it when they needed money that wouldn't be subject to accounting standards. It's a minor scandal that few pay attention to - but is one of the major beefs both the new Iraqi govn't and the insugents in Iraq have with the US
Rubikscube - you're wrong. In your example, it is the fear and worry (which, BTW, is unjustified - we take bigger risks every day without thinking about it) that would restrict liberty, not the terrorists. I suppose that's a bit of semantics, but meh. |
| #26 Chris[152871] |
| router.dvc.edu |
| McCain: 1, Reason: 0 |
| #27
[152872] |
| 129.142.195.30.ip.tele2adsl.dk |
The funny thing about oil crisis: It just weakens OPEC, because it forces people to come up with sustainable alternatives (and looking for oil in other places). Obviously OPEC have a lot of smart people who realize this now, but they didn't back when the first oil crisis hit.
I just saw a long show here in Denmark, about the coming election. They talked a lot with voters nationwide. A few things I noticed:
- Apparently, some people would rather have a president are more like themselves, and don't like politics in the first place - than someone who has dedicated their life to politics, and knows all about how washington works.
- Some people think voting for either candidate will improve their security. In the show, we followed a paranoid american middle class family in Washington, who had stockpiled canned food, planned escape routes, bought gas masks for the family and were still somewhat afraid of flying.
- The American social security system is fucking nuts.
The security issue is especially interesting for me. The way I see it, anyone who is willing to sacrifice their own life, will be able to do anything. This includes bombing skyscrapers and miniature midwest cities. There is absolutely nothing anyone can do about that - so stop worrying about this statistically insignificant threat, and start worrying about social security, the school system and (as praetor said) your fucking seat belt. |
| #28 Polter[152873] |
| pcp02245726pcs.sftmyr01.fl.comcast.net |
Tell em to go to current events and then opinion forum
www.delphiforums.com
www.delphiforums.com/pc-opinion/start |
| #29 .Praetor[152874] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
That's interesting that other countries have long, informative shows about our elections. We sure don't have anything like that :).
It's true 'washington insider' is considered a dirty word. *shrug* I think the general idea is that people who have been in Washington for a long time have had more time to sell their souls to whoever. Of course, the record fund-raising by California's Governator ought to prove that newcomers can sell out in extraordinary ways as well, but that would require attention and intelligence.
I actually think voting for Kerry will increase America's security from terrorist attack (however amazingly low the risk to me is). I just figure he's more capalbe of not pissing off muslims by the hundred-millions and might (gasp) give a high priority to chasing down Al-Qaeda and similar groups.
Heh, what about the social security system is so nuts? I mean, it's just a simple mechanism for shifting wealth from the young to the old. |
| #30 BlueRibbon[152875] |
| 65.167.44.21 |
Personally, I believe neither of the candidates that are running are fit to be president. They both put too much emphasis on how they would do something "better" than the other (i.e., fight the war on terrorism, restructure our foreign policy, tax cuts, repair the enormous national debt). Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing about how you "might" be able to do something better than your opponent.
It would be nice for a change to have someone lay down their ground rules for how they plan to fix our nation debt. Considering that the United States has never been out of debt since its creation, I find it laughable that both candidates continue to tell people that it’s fixable. Under President Clinton, we had 8 years of Surplus to our economy. That's a good start, but with all of the fanatic spending that President Bush has been doing since he was elected ($87 billon dollars to rebuild a country that doesn’t even frankly want us there in the first place), any start on finding a way out of the sea of debt was expunged.
Kerry continues to tell people about how he could fight a better war on terror, and to this I say, "BAH!" To fight a war on terror, you need a whole lot of rabbit's feet, and four leaf clovers. To quote Zergling: "The security issue is especially interesting for me. The way I see it, anyone who is willing to sacrifice their own life, will be able to do anything. This includes bombing skyscrapers and miniature Midwest cities. There is absolutely nothing anyone can do about that - so stop worrying about this statistically insignificant threat, and start worrying about social security, the school system and (as praetor said) your fucking seat belt." This has a mass of truth to it. You cannot fight a war on people that have no fear of dying, as they can quite frankly do whatever they want. I go to school in a pathetic school in northeastern Pennsylvania that needs serious changes. The children are all uneducated and don’t frankly care to be educated. All of the teachers are either just a dumb as the students or have a huge aneurism from the moronic children that attend the school. Our curriculum is from about the 1940’s and is quite outdated as well. This, I think, is a much bigger crisis then the unavoidable terrorist threat.
I can't simply figure how either of these two were chosen as candidates. Nor can I figure out how President Bush was elected. This coming Friday near Scranton Pennsylvania I am going to attend a speech by President Bush. I want to listen to everything he has to say, and listen to him answer (or quickly dodge) questions about his stance on this, and how he'll do something better then someone else.
Truthfully, I would have to vote for Kerry so far as he is at least a democrat, and therefore, as a standard, will benefit the economy.
Currently the way this country is headed, I plan on moving to England as soon as a graduate. I can't take this crap much longer and I am only sixteen. |
| #31
[152876] |
| 129.142.195.30.ip.tele2adsl.dk |
Canada seems like a fair place too :)
About the social security: In Denmark (and indeed, Scandinavia and most of Europe), social security is just something you have. Any treatment you might receive (broke a leg, got cancer whatever) is treated cost free, no matter what your job is, if you ever held a job and who your husband works for. We pay a bit for some of the expensive medicine we take at home, but 80-90% of it is covered by the government, so that's never really a problem.
The whole idea about "hey if I work for this company, I get free health care, but if I get fired I'm screwed" is just insane to me -.-
Of course, our income tax for a normal family is about 40%, but I (and pretty much everyone else) agrees it's fair because we get so much in return. And you might say, "well I don't get sick very often, that's unfair!" and yes, it's supposed to help those who need it. This also in a huge way prevents resentment/hate towards society.
BlueRibbon: Good idea :) Actually everyone speaks english anyway so come to Denmark instead ^_^ |
| #32 PeaceableGhost[152877] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
Social Security, more popularly known as Social Insecurity. Don't tell the government that I said that. Medicare, popularly known (to me) as "what the heck?"
Basically, we got caught on the short end of both sticks - we got stuck between a capitalistic, free enterprise, small-government mentality and a more "big-government", almost-socialistic, whatever type of government like most of the ones in Europe or whatever. Not that I know much about European politics. :( |
| #33 [152878] |
| 68.79.174.39 |
*sigh* already past Who'sGotLag.IDO's excellent Laser Squad Nemesis report.
Comment whoring indeed! |
| #34 .Praetor[152879] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
Ok, now your comment makes sense Zerg~Ling. I got confused by what social security stands for in europe (which is apparently your health system). Yes, our health insurance system is massively fubared. It just sucks.
In America the term social security stands for a government-run quasi-retirement system whereby retired people get a check from the government paid for by working people's taxes (this was started by FDR in the 30's). |
| #35 Lithium[152880] |
| pool-141-153-52-94.char.east.verizon.net |
I had but one small arguement on the whole thing.
The whole terrorists taking away our liberties. I know RubiksCube already touched upon this but I see it from a different standpoint. The word liberty means freedom. Now, freedom can also include the "right to life", as in physically being alive. Terrorists most certainly can take that away from us. However, that's terribly debateable, and liberty and freedom have become more diluted with various meanings. Not really an argueable point, just a nice arguement on the words itself.
Actually, I think if I'm elected President, every thing would be fine. |
| #36 badme[152884] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
"On the other hand, Kerry doesn't really encourage me that much - I disagree with him on stuff like abortion and gay "rights" and a bunch of the other liberal stuff that strikes me as more important, in the end, than foreign policy."
Please explain why you feel that gays should not have the rights entitled to straight couples. |
| #37 mattzarella[152885] |
| 162.7.33.65.cfl.rr.com |
fags are soooo gay omg
yeah, i should probably die in the hurricane |
| #38 Some_God[152886] |
| ool-18b8c5a0.dyn.optonline.net |
| Yep... |
| #39 kane[152887] |
| c-67-170-196-151.client.comcast.net |
what's this doing in the reports section
incidentally, kerry's stance on gay rights is that it's a states rights issue |
| #40 Reverse[152888] |
| h0000949954c7.ne.client2.attbi.com |
Meh...I was watching World Series of Poker.
Anyways, I'm sick of hard-core Republicans/Democrats. What we need are moderates (whether Rep./Dem., doesn't truly matter at this point in time). Sadly, I do not have the right to vote yet (not 18), and thus my views are considered to "hold no water". |
| #41 user[152889] |
| CPE00508d5bb46b-CM00e06f16610c.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com |
yeah, mccain's an idiot
so what? |
| #42 badme[152890] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
"incidentally, kerry's stance on gay rights is that it's a states rights issue"
Which is especially why I laughed rather hard at PG's stance. Of course, I'm of the opinion that both candidates are dead wrong on this issue. |
#43  [152891] |
| d141-165-127.home.cgocable.net |
Nice report, and a great disection of your opinions. You're an intelligent guy, and I like your angle. I too, am a democrat, a very moderate one who doesn't agree with the concept of abortion, but a democrat nonetheless.
That said, I do admire John McCain - he has a long-established reputation as a bipartisan war hero who speaks the truth first, and I've known someone ( a fervent liberal )who has interviewed him and been impressed by the man and the strength of his character. Although perhaps he's exploited his generally favourable reputation to some degree, I still think he's an admirable figure.
I really don't know if this can be rated - well it probably can, given that Michael Moore's films have been judged as well. I'd say 8.4 - rounded to 8. |
| #44 Reverse[152893] |
| h0000949954c7.ne.client2.attbi.com |
| Ironically, right now I'm listening to American Idiot by Green Day. |
| #45 snowyday[152894] |
| 24.107.144.155.charter-stl.com |
A great song :D.
Seriously though, while I'm not in any way/shape/form opposed to debate of political or philosophical basis, you all REALLY should get a forum. BR.com just isn't the place for these arguments. |
| #46 [152896] |
| user-12l2ep3.cable.mindspring.com |
I have Praetor on auto-ban effective in 3 days, due to his political report in an attempt to garner the most comments ever at Br.com. The only thing that will disable the auto-ban is the posting of the next part of his Civ 3 series.
Sorry what's done is done, I can't turn off the auto-ban! |
| #47 You played wrong noob[152897] |
| bbcache-17.singnet.com.sg |
You should have gone carriers. Carriers rule marines, tanks, and all Terran ground except Goliath, and even the USA is nowhere near close enough to getting any Goliaths.
One interceptor > Bush |
| #48 Whoha[152899] |
| c-24-1-140-147.client.comcast.net |
| We have too many wraiths though, so it wont work. |
| #49 [152900] |
| d141-165-127.home.cgocable.net |
| actually we just have one, his name is Cheney |
| #50 You played wrong noob[152901] |
| bbcache-10.singnet.com.sg |
| Anyway it's obvious that the dark angel (i.e. Dark Archon) Bush has MindControl'ed McCain (MC>MC, pwned) hence we must use Science Vessels to EMP this new-age Lucifer. |
| #51 Gyro[152902] |
| dhcp024-208-197-215.indy.rr.com |
| Praetor: Where do you get your news from, as you mentioned mainstream media as sound-clip mongering? |
#52  [152903] |
| 67.176.104.160 |
I'm predicting 300+ comments.
I refuse to add to this....
Oh god dammit. |
| #53 PeaceableGhost[152904] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
badme: Well... here's the trick.
Religiously, I can put up a consistent anti-gay position. But I won't get into that here, more than mentioning it.
Politically, in the US, I can't put up any sort of anti-gay position that holds water in our culture. We're "inclusive", and I realize I have to live with that.
*disclaimer* I have nothing against gays/lesbians as people. That would be like saying I have something against Muslims as people, or something. People are people. I do have a religious conviction on the subject, which influences what I think, but saying I disagree with a position taken by someone is not the same thing as saying I hate the person? Got that? Sorry to bother with all this, you all are probably smart enough to figure that out, but the last thing we need is the ACLU pressuring br.com to control what people say. The 1st Amendment's there for a reason. *end mini excuse/apology/rant*
Anyway, back to the political thing: I have a vaguely (as in not thought-out or well-defined) anti-homosexual position because I agree with St. Paul that the homosexual act is "against nature" and therefore deserves a penalty under any political system. However, that premise is denied by most of out politicians, so the argument is kind of moot. Any sort of argument that "it's against tradition" or "the majority of Americans disagree" is logical fallacy.
Oh yeah, one more thing: I realize you have the right to call me an idiot, religious hick, or whatever you want. ;-) Free speech, ain't it wonderful? |
| #54 kane[152905] |
| c-67-170-196-151.client.comcast.net |
HOW
THE
FUCK
DID
ANYONE
THINK
IT
A
GOOD
IDEA
TO
GIVE
THIS
SHORT-ASS
NO-EFFORT
POLITICAL
RANT
AN
8?
WHAT THE BLOODY FUCKING HELL? |
| #55 PeaceableGhost[152906] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
I'd have given it a seven myself...
And look at it in perspective. I give your comment a 6 just for the effort it had to have taken. All that hitting "enter", you know. Pulling apart McCainian "logic" had to take more effort. <g> |
| #56 mattzarella[152907] |
| 162.7.33.65.cfl.rr.com |
my problem is that politics and politicians themselves think they have the right to intrude on someone's life. in my opinion, it's a MAJOR infringement on rights to blatantly disregard someone their *right* to engage in a civil union. it shouldn't make a difference what they want to marry, whether it's a man or a woman or a wall or a book. it sounds awfully liberal (and repetitive) of me to say this, but rights are rights.
not to be insulting, but when someone tells me that they have a religious conviction during a political debate it means absolutely nothing to me. gay rights is really the only political issue i devote any amount of my time to, and it's safe to say that i argue with people about this ten times more than i agree with them.
so, going off of that, most of the people (99%) i've debated with have some kind of religious background that somehow prevents them from accepting a homosexual union. that's fine, i don't really have any thoughts either way on that. but when they start to preach to me, it gets downright silly - they start spouting off reasons why homosexuality is disgusting, and not why they think it's *politically wrong*. people have actually said to me that "fags can't make babies, so they shouldnt marry". it's hard to think of a rebuttal to an argument that makes no sense to begin with.
by now i'll throw out something related to the Bonoba Chimpanzee, because they tell me that God didn't intend for homosexuality to happen - that it's not passed down through genetics. i think i've said this on the forum (i dunno), but every single Bonoba Chimpanzee is bisexual. they're born that way, and they will die that way, with no mentality or politics to tell them otherwise. i suppose this could be a mistake in God's plan, but then it would counteract his omnipotence :P
regardless of what religious convictions you and others may have, i'll just ask you this : can you set aside your beliefs for long enough to decide what simply sounds right? by banning gay marriage, you're denying people a freedom of sorts, what this country is based on, blah blah blah blah. i could pull tons of figurative liberal bullshit out of my ass all day but it wouldn't do any good. all i'm saying is to try and think outside of the religious box and begin to think politically, especially during arguments such as these. it can be a big handicap.
anyway, before i get completely off topic, i'm not liking either of the candidates this year. bush has vehemently declared that he doesn't like homosexuals.. and i don't even know where the hell kerry stands on it. i'd like to know what he actually thinks about it, as opposed to believing that it's a states right issue. but that's just me - after all, he's got his own right to not be a good candidate. it IS a free country.
sorry if i offended anyone, blah blah blah, this post is mostly directed at PeaceableGhost (though i understand his wish to keep religious conviction out of this - i'm just bringing it up because i think it's a terrible thing to inject in politics). a downloadable .pdf of this post may be found at
www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com |
| #57 mattzarella[152908] |
| 162.7.33.65.cfl.rr.com |
here's a quote from a website on the Bonobo Chimpanzee (sorry, spelled it wrong in the last post)
"Bonobos are highly "promiscuous", often engaging in sexual behaviors outside of that for reproduction. This is thought to be one of the main reasons that bonobos are so infrequently aggresive as the sexual interactions reduces tensions. Mating postures include face to face and dorsoventral as well as others. There is also a large occurence of female-female genital (G-G) rubbing throught the age groups, again including face-to-face positions. The only aparent sexual "taboo" being mothers mating with their mature sons."
i'm going to leave this to your own interpretation. it's not meant to be a perverse post in any way, i just want to grab your attention by throwing facts at you. unfortunately, this species is so incredibly sexually active that it's hard to not have a giggle at what you read. another quote:
"Females will lay on top of each other face-to-face and move their pelvises so that the clitoris of each rubs together. Also juvenile males will rub each others genitals and place their mouths on each others genitals. Young bonobos often join in with the adults when they are having intercourse."
if you don't believe me, which you probably don't, this information can be found at "http://members.tripod.com/uakari/pan_paniscus.html"
it really is amazing what these little chimps do to communicate different feelings. bisexuality is not often strictly love between the same gender; it also expresses comfort and other such emotions that could otherwise not be.
whether you take this into account or not, it's nice to know that Bonobo Chimpanzees also share %99.6 of the human genetic makeup. i've come to the conclusion that we're all just really fucked up. |
| #58 kane[152909] |
| c-67-170-196-151.client.comcast.net |
| this belongs in the forum |
| #59 PeaceableGhost[152910] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
Someday, someone will come through this stuff, which will be "old" by then if it's left here, and make a br on the political fight in br.com. Yes, I'm sarcastic, but I'm just predicting... I mean, we get all sorts of brs on odd topics.
Anyway, re mattz: Eh, I still think you're making the chimp stuff up. *g* Actually, I don't have enough evidence to think anything about it. Be that as it may, I dunno how as it really says much at all to the immediate question - oh... wait. If we posit an evolutionary tree (of whatever sort), said chimpian allegation removes the "against nature" argument, unless we also posit that the chimps are screwed up. Whatever.
Main point: as I believe I stated, I can produce, defend, support, whatever, a religious argument against homosexual behavior, but when it comes to politics, especially in our modern culture, I don't have one. Which is (horrors) more or less to say that on the whole "gay marriage" thing, I'm almost ambivalent. I think it's a bad idea, but then, free country and what not. Just so long as no one arrests me for saying I think it's a bad idea. ;) (Talk about tying oneself in rhetorical knots.)
Incidentally, bananas share 97.3% of our genes or something too, so whatever. I guess all the jokes about getting into fruity situations are really closer than we thought?
As a last note: I really am saddened by the transmogrification of the word "gay". Anymore, you can't use it in its original sense of "happy" or "joyful". Not sure who's to blame, but whatever. |
| #60 PeaceableGhost[152911] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
| Actually, that wasn't my last comment. New last comment: Why the heck does the government have to get involved in the marriage process at all? Or should I ask why religions have to get involved in it? We've got another case of American schizophrenia here. Most, if not all religions have their own marriage rites (or relative lack thereof), but we also have this government-gives-marriage-licence thing going on. Maybe it's not limited to the US. But it sure creates a lot of confusion, esp. with the whole "gay marriage" issue tossed in. |
| #61 WarLeaderJustin[152912] |
| adsl-64-171-77-143.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net |
| bitch bitch whine whine |
| #62 Napoleic[152914] |
| 221.208.247.171 |
fun!
I don't see what all the hating on Kerry is about though. What's he actually done that's so bad? Like Praetor says, look at the specifics. CNN has a front page article right now with the tagline 'Kerry Campaign Adrift'. I read it and nowhere in the fucking article did anything substantial get said anywhere. It was littered with gems like 'Party officials admit some changes may occur' -- holy shit stop the presses!, and 'Party officials strongly deny that Kerry's campaign is in serious trouble' --implying, of course, that not only is Kerry's campaign in serious trouble, but his officials are either too incompetant or too dishonest to admit it. 'According to some party sources' is repeatedly used. Some party sources might include the fucking janitor for all we know. It turns out the entire article is about how Kerry's campaign has not effectively responded to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. How about the fact that Bush evaded the draft in that war while Kerry was off getting fucking medals?
But the bottom line is that people won't even read that article, and if they do they still won't get it. They'll just be left with a vague, somewhat hazy impression that Kerry is incompetant, and that people do not support him, and that as obviously evil as Bush is, at least he's more decisive and whatever. God I hate how stupid people are. |
| #63 Avail[152915] |
| c-65-97-24-49.va.client2.attbi.com |
| I'd join in the fun-loving political debate but it's 4 A.M. and I need to be up in 3 hrs! |
| #64 PeaceableGhost[152916] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
| 4 AM here and I should be up at 6... can you say "all-nighter for no good reason"? |
| #65 .Praetor[152919] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
Three days, that ought to do it. Dag, yeah, I give McCain props for doing what he thinks is right rather than plays well sometimes - that's part of what I meant by being willing to cross the isle (and work with D's) when he thinks its right. But I often watch c-span during lunch too, and during committee hearings I've seen him take the opportunity to make a statement obviously designed for media consumption when it adds nothing to the debate and wastes everyone else's time. Not that other politicians don't do this.
Overall, I have no doubt that he's in government in order to promote the common good, no doubt about war heroism, etc. But I think he often lets his goals override his values. Meh. I think you can see what I'm saying.
|
| #66 PeaceableGhost[152921] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
IOW, sometimes McCain lets ends justify the means, and you don't like this?
...I seriously need to learn more about the political scene. In fact, as of now, I'd have to qualify myself as a political idiot - I go by what I pick up here and there, rather than my own research or listening. |
| #67 badme[152923] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
Two problems, PG:
1. Homosexuality has been observed in many species of ape, hence, it is not unnatural.
2. Why the fuck are you using whether it is 'natural' or not as an argument against it? Does that somehow make it wrong? Toiletpaper is unnatural: you have hands for a reason, dumbass. |
| #68 PeaceableGhost[152924] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
Re: badme
1. Whatever. Afraid I'm not a scientist.
2. There's "unnatural", meaning it doesn't happen in nature, and "unnatural", meaning it's against what's usually termed "natural law" (philosophic term), which means a certain order in the world that one should follow. (Usually this "natural law" principle is derived from some belief in the divine, but not always, witness Lucretius.) Basically, saying it's not "natural" in this sense is saying it's a thing like murder, that just about anybody would/should agree is morally wrong. |
| #69 RubiksCube[152926] |
| mail.de.randstad.com |
"Rubikscube - you're wrong. In your example, it is the fear and worry (which, BTW, is unjustified - we take bigger risks every day without thinking about it) that would restrict liberty, not the terrorists. I suppose that's a bit of semantics, but meh."
Oh well. So its fear and worry. Fear and worry both the terrorists AND your government seeded after September 11th.
Basically, what you're saying is right, it's not justified, cause chances that you'll get hurt in a terrorist attack are slim. But hey, chances that a 2 squarecentimeter-tall spider will kill my girlfriend aren't justified, too, still she fears them and violates my liberty to sleep, sending me out to kill that bloody beast.
Ok, that was a bad joke.
Every fear and every worry limits our freedom. And terrorists feed both of them. And if they don't your very own government will make friggin' sure that you'll never forget that there are terrorists, so they feed them, too.
I wasn't trying to argue with you, I'm actually of your opinion.
I just think terrorists DO limit or freedom/liberty by their mere existence. It's not that I won't cross the street because there could be terrorists, it's just the possibility that limits my liberty. And the US are the country that had to worry the least in the past, so I guess being attacked WITHIN their own country is more of a sledge hammer on the head of the people than it would've been in any other country.
Basically you're saying "No it's not the terrorists, it's the fear of terrorists", which indeed is a ridiculous argument against my point since the terrorist are the reason for fear and worries. |
| #70 mattzarella[152927] |
| 162.7.33.65.cfl.rr.com |
"1. Whatever. Afraid I'm not a scientist."
you can't just ignore something like that, it's a fact! that's like saying you refuse to believe that apples exist, so, therefore, you won't eat them or look at them. regardless of whether you are a scientist or an appleologist or a practicioner in fruitistry doesn't mean shit to me or anyone else, becuase we're not either - but we can still see something for what it is.
i'm also pretty upset that you believe i "made the chimp stuff up" even after i gave you a link to a website. i could have been a dick about it and not given you one, whereby you could do a google search on it and realize how many other websites there are on the subject. or, you could buy a book. i'm sure there are plenty of those out there.
everyone agrees that murder is morally wrong, but your definition of "natural" is weird to me. but, since it's what you believe - do you believe love is morally wrong? do you believe that it shouldn't be followed by people because it's "unnatural"? that's pretty much all you're saying when you deny two people the right to marry.
|
| #71 [152928] |
| 68.79.174.39 |
I can't say I agree with Dagomar's rating of 8 for this report. Considering this was largely copy and pasted from an existing document, with Prae's comments interspersed I can give this no higher than a 6. And also there was the fact that it wasn't a battle report.
If people could ring up 8's by posting these types of reports then we'd be overrun by political debate potentially.
I don't mind Praetor posting this, its not something I encourage to others in the future though.
I give it a 6 based on what it is content wise, and am not judging the political reasoning, etc...
A report that took the similar amount of time might get a 6 as well. I almost gave this a 5, but since so many people are enjoying commenting on it I gave it a 6. |
| #72 you're a fucking tool[152929] |
| cdm-66-76-229-175.tyrd.cox-internet.com |
| this website is not the place for political discussion and no one cares about your opinion |
| #73 PeaceableGhost[152930] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
mattz:
1. Fair enough, I was being a jerk. Sorry. I meant the "you're making this up" to be a joke, but... it wasn't clear, and that would have been kinda lame anyway. I didn't mean, though, that I was rejecting the evidence - merely that I don't have any good way to counter it right now, and so I was practicing being a politician (read, jerk) and ignoring it.
2. Not weird, just not the definition used all the time. Basically, for a long time in the history of the world, the homosexual act was viewed as a perversion, something against this "natural law" in the same way as theft. Theft is viewed, this way, a perversion of the desire for something good.
#75: If JV and the other admins don't just delete this report, I think they're saying that in this one case a limited amount of political discussion is allowed. |
| #74 theissue[152931] |
| dialup-4.227.41.18.Dial1.Dallas1.Level3.net |
I would think the prospect of a draft to bolster U. S. forces might be part of the discussion here. Just the fact that's it's being talked about as a non-possibility means that somewhere someone has been thinking about it as just the opposite.
It's safe to say I'm voting for whoever will get us out of Iraq the quickest. |
| #75 detomaso72[152932] |
| firewall.awhc.com |
Please my friends let Mr. Vegas voice of reason prevail in this matter. The Opinion Forum site that I am a co-editor on has close to two thousand posts a day on just such topics as are being addressed here. I come here to read awesome battlereport on my lunch hour because of being enamoured by the game of Starcraft. Please carry this over to the forum for which it was intended. I have seen such horrific discussions ruin friendships and alienate many a poster.
Mr. Vegas has worked on this wonderful site for many years. Please do not ruin it for him. If you must disscus politics go to
http://login.prospero.com and to the Opinion Forum. But here let us revel in the joy that is StarCraft. |
| #76 badme[152933] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
PG:
"2. There's "unnatural", meaning it doesn't happen in nature, and "unnatural", meaning it's against what's usually termed "natural law" (philosophic term), which means a certain order in the world that one should follow. (Usually this "natural law" principle is derived from some belief in the divine, but not always, witness Lucretius.) Basically, saying it's not "natural" in this sense is saying it's a thing like murder, that just about anybody would/should agree is morally wrong."
No, murder is wrong because it causes undue objective harm (durr, someone just died). Demonstrate how homosexuality harms someone or concede. |
| #77 badme[152934] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
PG:
"2. Not weird, just not the definition used all the time. Basically, for a long time in the history of the world, the homosexual act was viewed as a perversion, something against this "natural law" in the same way as theft. Theft is viewed, this way, a perversion of the desire for something good."
Appeal to tradition followed up by a false analogy. Theft is wrong for the same reason as murder: it causes objective harm. Demonstrate the same for homosexuality or concede. |
| #78 [152935] |
| d141-165-127.home.cgocable.net |
| Hah, don't worry detomaso72! Praetor has contributed a great deal to this site, and I do think that sometimes these sorts of reports can be helpful and "cool". However I generally agree that it should be constrained to the forum. |
| #79 Chris[152936] |
| astound-66-234-209-235.ca.astound.net |
| DO NOT BLAME ME I AM VOTING FOR NADER LOL |
| #80
[152937] |
| 129.142.195.30.ip.tele2adsl.dk |
I liked this "report". I feel that all of this discussion would have been lost if posted in the forum, which absolutely fails in long discussions because you have to click a million times to follow along.
And detomaso, I followed your link from both of your posts, but ended up in a somewhat confusing front page of prospero, which apparently do a lot of things, but doesn't show me how to get to anything relating discussions or forums. |
| #81 badme[152938] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| *cough phpBB cough* |
| #82 Dampiere[152939] |
| port0055-s-adsl2.cwjamaica.com |
*Deep Breath*
.Praetor "this war on Iraq is just very very bad" .. not bad. Illegal!
I actually think voting for Kerry will increase America's security from terrorist attack (however amazingly low the risk to me is). I just figure he's more capalbe of not pissing off muslims by the hundred-millions and might (gasp) give a high priority to chasing down Al-Qaeda and similar groups.
hmmm.. so when they were blowing up train stations from Belfast to Japan it was hunky dory?
BlueRibbon I can't simply figure how either of these two were chosen as candidates. Nor can I figure out how President Bush was elected
Bush was not elected.
Lithium definitions of terrorism - dude... cmon now.. do you realise when this HYPE was at its peak, people tried to lump everyone they didnt like under the terrorist umbrella? even hacker? i mean really? if the brakes arent put on, where does it end? if i have warez on my computer, am i destined for Guantanamo Bay? in the Caribbean, American politicians and diplomats are pushing the envelopes they have always pushed re everything for America and nothing for anyone else under the umbrella "anti terrorism legislation"
Mattz - fags are soooo gay omg - LOL
You played wrong Noob - You should have gone carriers. Carriers rule marines, tanks, and all Terran ground except Goliath, and even the USA is nowhere near close enough to getting any Goliaths.
One interceptor > Bush - LOL
Kane ... have you been reading the comments? and what exactly is it you disagree with?
War on Terror... sigh... jesus christ... so.. when are the US troops headed to the Sudan? .. lets rename this, shall we?
the War on anyone who affects the US CORPORATE profit margins by having the ability to deny access to what we want when we want it. no?
ok.. thank you .praetor. for the past 4 years i have watched this drama unfold. from the stolen election to the rampant burning of record surpluses to the questionable events of 9/11 (who flew the planes/why was there no military response when the planes were hailed and didnt respond etc etc etc) to the trumped up war with a militaryless opponent to the disrespect of the United nations to the sending to war of thousands of scared citizens to the terror alerts to the rape of civil rights to enemy non combatants... why the hell arent these people on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity? or even criminal negligence?
yet here we are, 4 years later waiting to see if another election will be stolen.
and i dont even live in america. but i am scared... i mean, the horrible misuse of power and misleading of people.. the PM of England tried it and they wanna tear him a new one.. in the US.. georgie boy is up for re election. christ... I was in DC when the war had barely started.. when people were separated from loved ones and sent off to war, people i had met and befriended. simple, good people. scared people.
how can you vote for someone whose excuse for ripping into peoples lives like that is "Ooops?"
what is this? Britney for President?
anyone remember Al Gore? Florida? ok.. fuck it.. no more ranting. again, thanks .praetor.
1 thing i will say about George Bush... for the first time ever, i feel safer in Jamaica than i would ever feel in any part of the states.. and i have no reason to fear any so called terrorist, unless his name is ashcroft/cheny/powell/bush/rove/wolfowitz or rice.
bastards
May the Terrans Prosper
D
*EXHALE* |
| #83 Blitzkreig_[152940] |
| 102k-desktop1.apl.washington.edu |
just a picky little thing PG:
"but the last thing we need is the ACLU pressuring br.com to control what people say. The 1st Amendment's there for a reason. "
The point of the ACLU is to protect our amendments. Did you know that ACLU actually stands for American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union? apparently not.
|
| #84 Desert Demon[152942] |
| user-0ce2ktk.cable.mindspring.com |
PG, you mentioned St. Paul. But as I recall, Jesus never mentioned it, and was all "love thy brother." Of course, you pointed out you don't hate them as people, but personally I feel it's kind of silly to look down on someone or restrict their rights over something they have no control over.
Sidestepping how natural it is for a second, a lot of people I know come out with "I have nothing against gays as people, but I don't think they should be allowed to marry" or whatever. But, isn't that the same as saying "I've got nothing against colored folks, but I don't think they should be allowed to piss in my urinal?" I thought restricting rights went out in the sixties.
The government wasn't put into place to dabble into the union of peoples. Whoever they may be, and whoever they may end up screwing in the end. I guess that means that yes, I'm not anti-polygamy. I'm not saying that I'm gonna go marry six or seven girls (I'll be lucky if I can get one -_-) but I'm not gonna condemn someone else for doing this.
Y'know what's annoying though? Logging onto battle.net and seeing stuff get called gay left and right. That makes me rather sad...if Al'Qaeda acts up again are we gonna start calling things muslim insultingly?
To the topic at hand...this year I don't think we got a very good crop of candidates. I personally feel that Bush will win (I've got money riding on it, but knowing the people I bet this will probably get called off) regardless of how much I want him to lose. I think he's got enough support and Kerry is a weak enough candidate to pull him through the election.
How I long for the Clinton days...
-DD |
| #85 Lithium[152944] |
| pool-151-205-66-151.char.east.verizon.net |
| OK, I'm pretty religious, and I have no problem with gay marriage. In my opinion, it may be against your religion to be gay, but making it illegal in a country that was founded upon the liberties of "Freedom of Religion", which include freedom FROM religion, is just plain unconstitutional. I won't go into the arguement about whether being gay is natural or not, but I will say that you shouldn't even make it illegal if it was unnatural. I mean, cross-dressing isn't natural is it? What about being morbidly obese(under most circumstances)? We don't have restrictions on those do we? |
| #86 [152947] |
| d141-165-127.home.cgocable.net |
| btw, my 8 was NOT an endorsement of this as battlereportable content. I think political works should be done in report format, or reserved for the forums. That said, this was pretty good, hence it deserved a gold. But please, no more! |
| #87 [152953] |
| pcp0010194681pcs.peru.in.indy.comcast.net |
Good job putting everything Al Franken, Michael Moore, and Ted Kennedy ever said the last 4 years into one gigantic story-o-graph.
Please don't hang yourself when Bush wins re-election. |
| #88 PeaceableGhost[152954] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
Okay, mulling over everything: obviously (religious conviction), I still believe the homosexual act to be wrong. Sorry if this offends anyone, but there it is.
Politically, though, we have another matter: if homosexuality is not outlawed (impossible right now, and... obviously the question of whether that would even be desireable is way open), then there is no ground to deny said homosexuals "marriage" or whatever they want to call it. |
| #89 You played wrong noob[152960] |
| bbcache-14.singnet.com.sg |
Why is the USA so anti-Protoss?
A few zealots pop up with "My life for Mecca... I mean Aiur" and they decide to clamp down on the entire race. Their first target? The key building: the Templar Arqaeda. Then they decimate an entire base.
Maybe next time they'll take out the Cybernetics Kore(a).
Okay okay I know a lot of these jokes are very bad taste, but with tempers starting to flare a little on this comment section we could all lighten up a lil. |
| #90 [152963] |
| d141-165-127.home.cgocable.net |
| too bad that was pretty lame :( |
| #91 Raider[152964] |
| ip68-100-182-95.dc.dc.cox.net |
| haven't read the other comments, but I found this an interesting read. Definitely a good breakdown. Worth an 8 at least imho. |
| #92 .Praetor[152968] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
| I was actually pretty surprised that gay people (and happy long-term gay sex) ended up dominating my comment section. Obviously, I'm still a BR.com newb. |
| #93 [152972] |
| 67.176.104.160 |
| you definitely drove people to comment. Politics don't belong here. Opinions, either. |
| #94 badme[152975] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
I'm noy gay, Prae. Just a supporter of gay marriage ;)
BTW, PG...'Gay Marriage' does not refer to marriage in any religious sense. Your church can still deny gays the right to have a religious marriage (I'd consider that discrimination, but...), but legal marriage is the real issue here, because it brings not only the ability to state 'We're married', but also the tax benefits.
And as long as you recognize that you truly have no logical argument to defend your feelings on gay marriage, well, not much I can do to change your opinions. |
| #95 Some_God[152977] |
| ool-18b8c5a0.dyn.optonline.net |
| What did I say before... the comments are going up. Its sad that this is happening. Back in the old days these kinds of "reports" were deleted and went to the forum. : |
| #96 [152978] |
| firewall.awhc.com |
ZERG LING. My apolgies for the confusion. Once on the Delphi Forums you must create an account which involves little more than giving your email account. Once your account has been created you search for the opinion forum. The reason I can not at this time give you a direct link that will take you to the forum is you must first have an account.
The forum is hosted by a man named Polter. He built the forum from scratch and it has won awards from Net magazines. It has topic folders for general political, non political, gay and sexual issues, racial issues, war on drugs, europeon issues, religion, conspiracies and more. I have been posting there for sevral years now and spend a great deal of time there.
The reason I expressed my concern here is that I like this place as a break from all of that. Disscusions on these subjects can get very heated. I know that .preator has posted here for ever, but these things can draw bitter disputes amongst the best of friends.
In the forums over on Delphi they have had some very serious problems regaurding this. There have been people who have attempted to carry out real life threats made in the heat of dispute. Police agencies have had to get involved as well as lawyers galore. It is not a pretty sight and has become regulated as a result. Now I know that here there is much playful banter and I really do enjoy it myself. But when it is topics such as religion and politics being disscused people go nuts. They can no longer control themselves. We have one regular poster who is so hopelessly addicted that he is on almost 24/7. We feel sorry for him, because the forum has become his "everquest".
I am expressing my concern from experiance. This is a wonderful forum, I love it here. I do not want to see it destroyed. So I am offering an outlet to all those who wish to vent their political frustrations. Believe me I vent plenty on the opinion forum and most of what I say would make the comments expressed thus far here seem pretty lame by comparison. It might surprise you.
I am only speaking up to help preserve something I treasure, which is Battlereports. com. |
| #97 .Praetor[152979] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
| Don't worry, BR.com has survived me before... and everyone will love me again when I finish the Civ3 report. |
| #98 Decay[152981] |
| dyn57-005.res-hall.ndsu.NoDak.edu |
| Until you do finish it, though, I remain very pissed. >:( |
| #99 .Praetor[152982] |
| dhcp65.des.ucdavis.edu |
| Hah :). Tonight. |
| #100 PeaceableGhost[152983] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
| A religious argument can be logical. :P But yeah. |
| #101 Lithium[152984] |
| pool-151-205-66-151.char.east.verizon.net |
| Well, I'm kind of glad because I can at least post comments. I can't use the forum because I'm a bad referrer! Johnny needs to help meeeee. :P |
| #102 FlyingSquirrel[152985] |
| pc-24-151-22-092.newm2.ct.charter.com |
| 105th |
| #103 [152986] |
| 68.79.174.39 |
| Alright alright please don't post for the sake of posting, that means you FlyingSquirrel. |
| #104 mattzarella[152988] |
| 162.7.33.65.cfl.rr.com |
i think religious argument can be logical if you keep it within the bounds of religion. i mean, think about it: if someone doesn't believe that there is a God, and they don't follow the bible, you're not going to get across by telling them that an invisible man says that homosexuality is bad. to some people, the very idea of religion (or at least worship of the unseen) is downright silly. it's a very touchy subject, and everyone disagrees with each other to some degree, so i think it is best left out of political debate (things are confusing enough already).
unfortunately, this can't happen. our president has said that he reads from the bible at least once a day, and that really lowers my view of him - not because he's religious, but because he lets it control his views. if he gave me a real reason opposing homosexuality, i'd leave him alone and stop trying to run planes into buildings.
SHIT |
| #105 [152990] |
| d141-165-127.home.cgocable.net |
As a religious person I would say God is not unseen or an invisible man or any of that, I believe God uses the tools of the material world to influence it.
In addition, to this religious person it seems silly to believe that a closed system like the Universe can somehow spawn out of nothing with a quick big bang. Nothing can be created from nothing, it is a physical impossibility, so there had to be something that created our Universe.
That's just a response to a thing or two that offended me in your post Matty. However, I think everyone would be well advised to try and seperate religion from politics in any political system other than a theocracy.
That said, the reason most Americans oppose gay marriage is because marriage, in and of itself, has the definiton of being between a man and a woman, both through millenia of societal tradition and millenia of religious experience. In my opinion, I don't see what's wrong with creating an official union between partners that's called something different than "marriage."
Well that's a very barebones description of a lot of things on my mind after reading your post. I hope you flee Frances OK matty!
Man, this comment section will just keep filling up I suspect. |
| #106 .Praetor[152991] |
| dhcp65.des.ucdavis.edu |
I'll interject my first comment into this gay marriage debate. And that is that using historical 'this is what marriage has always meant, darn it' arguments is not good. Societal definitions are always problematic. I don't think you'd like to go back to this country's one-time societal definition of marriage being between 'a man and a woman of the same race'. Nor do I suspect you want to see polygamy (let alone polyandry) just because a number of societies and religon in history think that form of marriage is just peachy.
If you're going to add to this comment section in the future, please state whether or not you favor civil unions that would transfer upon gay couples all tax benefits married people get, make applicable interhitance laws & visitation rights, etc.
I ask because that seems like the legal argument for gay marriage or civil unions - at least one state's supreme court agreed with me. If the government didn't give out marriage licenses with all sorts of major effects, the whole debate wouldn't even take place on a national or state level. |
| #107 LameJoker[152992] |
| pool-141-149-15-11.alb.east.verizon.net |
| I just think the old axiom of democracy applies here: your rights end where someone else's rights begin. Does gays getting married interfere with my marriage, my job, my school, my way of life? Of course not. Why shouldnt they be able to do whatever the hell they want as long as its not infringing on the rights of others? |
| #108 Desert Demon[152993] |
| user-0ce2kdn.cable.mindspring.com |
Dag - The *Christian* definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. If we look beyond that, we see a man and many women in for example Islam, two men or two women in a gay relationship, etc. etc. etc. Many of the founding fathers of the USA weren't Christians, they were Deists, and believed that religion shouldn't enter into gov't at all. Therefore, they wouldn't apply the Christian definition of one man and one woman (in theory) and gay marriage-none of this civil union stuff, the real deal-would be allowed. I fail to see why they should have their unions called something different.
Heh...not sure whether you were arguing any of those points or presentin someone else's argument. Nevertheless, there's my response.
And, while I agree that the whole "nothing was there then it blew up and then something was there" theory...
"Nothing can be created from nothing, it is a physical impossibility, so there had to be something that created our Universe."
Who created the creator?
-DD |
| #109 Desert Demon[152994] |
| user-0ce2kdn.cable.mindspring.com |
| Prae - As to polygamy, I personally wouldn't do it, but I also feel that we should drop restrictions on that too. Marriage after all is not forced upon anyone, so clearly people wouldn't go into it unless they were comfortable with it. It also makes getting out legally easier, as it's rather hard to legally break a bond that isn't legal. Just my views on the subject :P |
| #110 LameJoker[152995] |
| pool-141-149-15-11.alb.east.verizon.net |
| How do you know nothing can be created from nothing? Were you there? BTW the big bang theory does not hold that something was created from nothing, but that an infinitely dense particle the size of the Plank length, or 10^-33cm, was what went bang. |
| #111 [152996] |
| d141-165-127.home.cgocable.net |
the very definition of an infinite creator is that he doesn't have to be created - being beyond the laws of science or nature, and human understanding, he has a scientific "loophole" around the issue of creation. The inifinite, being infinite, is increatable, for it is eternal.
And nothing being created from nothing is a fundamental principle of basic physics - saying "were you there" is rather dumb. Also, I am aware of the 6-dimensional universe that supposedly existed before the big bang, but current theory also holds it was created from a big bang from another universe before it, and so forth, eventually culminating in one principle creation event far into the past. Of course nothing is certain, but there must have been a beginning.
it's pretty simple actually. And that's the last I'll say, this is becoming annoying. |
| #112 [152997] |
| d141-165-127.home.cgocable.net |
| annoying, that is, because the only thing worse than a political debate in this part of the site is a religious debate. And THAT is the last I'll say. |
| #113 Desert Demon[152998] |
| user-0ce2kdn.cable.mindspring.com |
Granted, you could say that. I personally don't go either way, and believe in a universe without beginning or end. I assume the need to define a beginning is because we think in finite terms, and something not having a beginning is difficult to conceptualize. And our science is of course very restricted by our limited view of the universe.
And as you say, enough of that :) |
#114  [153001] |
| ip68-230-2-63.ph.ph.cox.net |
ok, well, here goes:
im going to assume your primary motive in posting this was to vent your frustrations and educate the br.com youth...correct?
i say this because im going to give you a very bad rating. if those were your two motives it wont bother you though, the sheer number of comments here should tell you you've reached the minds of an awful lot of people, and were able to vent anyway.
none the less, this most certainly does not belong here. being a fanfic/story writer, the same could be said of what i've done, but i write to entertain. this was most certainly not entertaining. educational? yes. interesting? yes. entertaining? no. this belongs on a forum, or perhaps to be sent in to a magazine or newspaper to be published there. no one can deny you are an amazing writer, the phoenix legion chronicles displays that, but none the less...the same could be said of maya angelou, but i highly doubt one of her great poems would be looked upon favorably in a magazine like maxim, right? it simply does not belong.
im giving it a 3, but look at it this way...its a pretty amazing thing that you could get 3 very different yet very deserved ratings. the educational and thought levels of this report, mixed in with the quality of writing certainly deserves an 8. the quality of writing alone despite how short it is deserves a 6. and the fact that it does not belong as a battle report at all deserves a 3. |
| #115 .Praetor[153002] |
| dhcp65.des.ucdavis.edu |
Actually, I think JV should just delete the ratings (perhaps with Dag's and your permission). I don't think they're deserved at all :).
Sorry you didn't think it was worth your time :(. |
| #116 [153003] |
| ip68-230-2-63.ph.ph.cox.net |
well no, dont get me wrong, i thought it was a great read.
it just doesn't belong, that's all |
| #117 LameJoker[153004] |
| pool-68-236-155-72.alb.east.verizon.net |
"it's pretty simple actually."
This stuff is the physics problem that is the prime focus and obsession of hundreds of the greatest minds in the world, but its simple for you. Glad to hear it. No offense, but that seems kind of smug. I'll admit "were you there?" was pretty moronic. |
| #118 .Praetor[153006] |
| dhcp65.des.ucdavis.edu |
| ATTENTION EVERYONE. Please continue gay sex & big bang, nuclear non-proliferation, and other not-McCain conversations in the comment secton of Who'sGotLag.IDO's LS:N report two comments sections below. By special request of me. |
| #119 Asmodues[153009] |
| fltg-dslttc1-30.fltg.net |
If it doesn't hurt anyone, let them do it.
If it's not harming anyone else, do you really have a right to do anything? Religion: doesn't hurt you. Opinions: doesn't hurt you. |
| #120 kane[153010] |
| c-67-170-196-151.client.comcast.net |
| these raters are more inconsistient than a chinese diving judge |
| #121 PeaceableGhost[153011] |
| 198.109.221.15 |
| That's the whole fun of posting a report here, kane. |
| #122 .Praetor[153012] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
| Hey, our raters are pretty good. |
| #123 badme[153027] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
"the very definition of an infinite creator is that he doesn't have to be created - being beyond the laws of science or nature, and human understanding, he has a scientific "loophole" around the issue of creation. The inifinite, being infinite, is increatable, for it is eternal." ~Dagomar
Special Pleading Fallacy. The universe is infinite, hence it doesn't need a cause. So you shoot yourself in the foot, either way. |
| #124 badme[153028] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
"That said, the reason most Americans oppose gay marriage is because marriage, in and of itself, has the definiton of being between a man and a woman, both through millenia of societal tradition and millenia of religious experience. In my opinion, I don't see what's wrong with creating an official union between partners that's called something different than "marriage."" ~Dagomar
Seperate but equal does not have much historical weight supporting it. Not differentiating between homosexual and heterosexual marriage grants validity to the former, while not harming the latter, so why not do it?
BTW, appealing to tradition is also fallacious logic ;) |
| #125 kane[153043] |
| c-67-170-196-151.client.comcast.net |
| i was mostly looking for an excuse to compare something to a chinese diving judge |
| #126 [153066] |
| ip68-230-2-63.ph.ph.cox.net |
| wait! since when was the universe infinite? |
| #127 badme[153068] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
1. Its birth marked the creation of space/time, and therefore it existed for as long as time has.
2. If the Big Crunch occurs, space/time goes with it.
3. If the Big Crunch does not occur, then the universe will continue to expand, and therefore time will never end.
No matter which of the options occurs, time's existence is dependent upon the universe. Hence, it literally has no end. |
| #128 [153070] |
| ip68-230-2-63.ph.ph.cox.net |
| so is time infinite? |
| #129 [153071] |
| ip68-230-2-63.ph.ph.cox.net |
or here's a better question:
if the universe is infinite, why does it expand? |
| #130 kane[153074] |
| c-67-170-196-151.client.comcast.net |
things can be infinite and expanding
but the universe is quite finite |
| #131 [153078] |
| ip68-230-2-63.ph.ph.cox.net |
| how so kane? |
| #132 badme[153079] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
Depends upon definition of 'infinite'. I'd rather not bog this down into semantics.
If the universe does not experience the Big Crunch, then time should indeed be infinite. If it does, then actually time has a definite beginning and end. But for all intents and purposes, it's infinite; it's literally impossible to have causality outside of time. Without a 'before' at the beginning, you can't have a creator.
A much better conclusion is that the universe has always existed (factually true), and sprang from nothing.
Anyone know how we went from McCain into Big Bang theory, on a Battlereport comments section, no less?
|
| #133 [153080] |
| ip68-230-2-63.ph.ph.cox.net |
| well then give me your definition |
| #134 LameJoker[153120] |
| pool-68-236-150-179.alb.east.verizon.net |
| Of course, there is the theory that just like an ant crawling across the surface of a balloon, if you go far enough in the universe you will end up back where you started, so it really is spacially infinite from the perspective of the observer. |
| #135
[153125] |
| 129.142.195.30.ip.tele2adsl.dk |
I find it funny that we are discussion whether or not the universe, or time, is finite.
When in fact, noone here (or anywhere, for that matter) actually knows.
The thoughts boggle the mind, though: How can something come from nothing? How did this (infinite or gigantic) universe come to be? Can something have been here "forever"? It's funny to think about how huge everything is, and that we're discussing it here, online, in a comments section on br.com. |
| #136 kane[153166] |
| c-67-170-196-151.client.comcast.net |
| i'm omniscient |
| #137 mattzarella[153187] |
| 162.7.33.65.cfl.rr.com |
everything in the universe is held up on the shell of a giant turtle. what holds up that turtle, you ask?
why, it's turtles all the way down!
seriously though, just like ling said, you can't argue anything about how big the universe is because nobody knows where it ends. it could be finite, and it could be infinite. it could be nonexistant. it could be voluptuous. it could be omniverous. it could be cantankerous. who the fuck knows?
all i know is that we should live here until we run out of recyclable water, then we can decide on what planet to move to. i'm calling dibs on uranus
GG?!?! |
| #138 Desert Demon[153189] |
| user-0ce2km0.cable.mindspring.com |
My friends make fun of me for discussing this here ._.
I still fail to see why the universe has to spring from anything. Creationism states that God is eternal, therefore doesn't need to be created, and creates everything. Why the heck can't the universe be eternal?
As to infinite and expanding, are we talking in a temporal or a spatial sense when we say "infinite?" Spatially seems rather confusing, however temporally is most definitley possible. I'd say probable. Makes a lot more sense to me to say "there's no beginning or end, it's just there" than "it began...but I have no fucking clue how." A la the stack of turtles. Although if you believe Zork Zero, the earth rests upon the head of a giant, who's coincidentally standing on top of the earth.
He's a contortionist, you see.
And mattz, you can have it so long as I get *ur*anus :o
-DD
|
| #139 [153198] |
| ip68-230-2-63.ph.ph.cox.net |
well i think it would be much more accurate to simply say science has yet to find a proper explanation for the existence of this universe, as opposed to the universe just is.
i still dont understand how something can be infinite yet expanding. infinite time with the capability of expansion = infinite expansion no? infinite expansion = spatially infinite no? spatially infinite = impossible to expand (since something cant be spatially infinite yet grow) right? it sounds like a paradox to me, so i would really love for it to be explained. im sure im missing something! |
| #140 kane[153212] |
| c-67-170-196-151.client.comcast.net |
| actually, you can prove that under einstein's equations of general relativity, the universe must be fininte and must have a beginning. |
| #141 kane[153213] |
| c-67-170-196-151.client.comcast.net |
and what is this nonsense about "something can't be infinite and growing"? just because you lack imagination doesn't make something impossible.
imagine a cartesian plane. now imagine zooming in on it. there, you have something infinite and growing. satisfied? |
| #142 [153225] |
| ip68-230-2-63.ph.ph.cox.net |
| kane you're so silly |
| #143 kane[153233] |
| c-67-170-196-151.client.comcast.net |
| ok xeno |
| #144 [153234] |
| ip68-230-2-63.ph.ph.cox.net |
xenogears was an excellent game.
thoughts? |
| #145 mattzarella[153237] |
| 162.7.33.65.cfl.rr.com |
these are my thoughts on the xenogears issue:
since the Clinton administration cut funding to the Squaresoft Government Organization (SGO), they've been releasing shitty titles left and right. Look at Final Fantasy X-2 - I firmly believe that this was an act of direct terrorism on the United States, but do we respond? of course not! do you know why? because liberals are all tree hugging hippie pussies.
adversely, the number one exporter of these foreign crappy titles (also known as Enix Fucked Us - EFU) happens to be the United States of America. this is obviously a conspiracy - land of the free, indeed! how do you expect to live your daily lives knowing that companies are forcing illigetimate Vietnamese children to work in sweatshops making these ass garbage games, pixel by pixel, midi file by midi file?
this is why i say this to you : FOUR MORE YEARS!
do we trust the whining, camping, gameshark-using l337 speaking Democrats? or the manner Republicans, whose only crime is wanting a safer gaming environment by upping monthly MMORPG costs to 10 oil barrels a month?
as if to further reinforce this:
recent polls have indicated that the nation stands firmly behind the president in sodomy related issues.
if that doesn't convince you, i don't know what does. |
| #146 .Praetor[153289] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
You make good points YRM. If more people like you could make that kind of response, I'd have an immense respect for the American voter. I won't deny I'm a bit partisan.
I realize there are bad things about Kerry as a candidate. But I don't agree with all the charges you lay out in your post, and I hold at least to the position that the bad things you can say about Kerry pale in comparision to the things Bush has done while in office.
As to whether I'd heard the about warning to Kerry about Logan Airport, yes, I have. I remember that coming up in the primary, and I say Kerry respond to a question about that by saying something to the effect of: 'I remember that, and I think I did what any Senator should have. I took the concerns of my constituent to the relevant Federal agency and asked them to look at it.' He goes on to say that with foreknowledge of 9-11 he obviously could have done more, but he certainly didn't ignore the letter. I also no doubt paraphrased badly. But in any case... yes, I was aware. I would compare that to how much Rice payed attention to Sandy Berger (Clinton NSA) warning terrorism would be her number 1 concern (not to mention Bush and the much-ballyhooed PDB).
As for the $87 billion funding bill - he didn't get railroaded into a bad vote (as were most Dems). That bill IS fiscally irresponsible. Is it a minor hypocrisy to reverse what you said on TV: yeah. But except for saying that, I think I may well have done the same thing in his position. It's not like there was a question about the bill passing - which is why he may have felt a protest vote was affordable. And as for the flip-flop charge... that is most emphatically NOT why Kerry is labeled so. Cheney confirms this in his speech. The famous quote is 'voted for the $87 bil before I voted against it', which has then been twisted to voting for the Iraq war before voting against it. The charge as laid out by Republican speakers IS ridiculous. You have a point - but they dont' use it because the R's dont' think it's an effective attack.
I will say you bring up some questions about Kerry that are probably valid. For instance, I'm impressed with your knowledge of his positions in the first Gulf War. It's rare people bring up topics in politics I'm ignorant on.
I want to make two more points. The thing about al-Sadr is colored by recent events (I think). I'm fairly certain the statement you bring up is from when we shut down his newspaper. It's a giant leap from saying a newspaper is legitimate voice to saying the 'Mahdi Army' is a legitimate voice... I just didn't want that to be implied.
The second, since you called it mind-boggling, is that I really do think No Child Left Behind is a terrible program. Sure spending went up: it's an underfunded mandate, not an unfunded one. It simply costs more than it's worth. Second, it sounds like you're saying Pennsylvania had a good educational system before NCLB, and (what do you know) it has a good system after. I'll admit, for all I know the bill reformed the state. I DO know (as I said, and you didn't respond to) that it's considered terrible by the teachers I know and by the education systems of the states I know.
As for why McCain fired me up - it's precisely because Kerry was one of his best friends in the Senate and he was considered moderate. To hear him become a shill takes away his integrity and credibility - hypocrisy and blind allegiance makes me angry, and that's what I saw.
You say it's one-sided politicing. I don't deny it. I still stand by the comments I made in McCain vs. Reason. |
| #147 .Praetor[153294] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
One question I forgot to ask you YRM: will Bush's new overtime regulations affect you?
I've been trying to take an informal poll with people I know out of CA (state laws trump Bush's decree here) but not many people respond when I ask so far... |
| #148 YRM[153295] |
| 11.crrg2.xdsl.nauticom.net |
No white collar worker that I've known, before Bush, during, or after, was paid for working overtime at any company that I worked at.
I take that back... for my first two months at my last company, (6 years ago), I was eligible for overtime.
I'm not now, or for the past 5.99 years, eligible to make overtime money, although my salaries have been fairly good.
However, I want you to know that the idea that CEOs who have laid off people to outsource the work get paid 50% more than CEOs who don't DOES bother me. I'm just not sure that Kerry's regulations will correct the habits of these ruthless bastards or if we simply would be better to let the free market work itself out in possibly a quicker fashion.
On another positive personal note, after surviving 9 layoffs at my last company, (e-Learning was hit hard in the DOT com burst and our parent company lost offices in 9-11), I thought the job market would be tough.
I didn't get laid off, but I started looking and basicly had to choose between two much higher paying offers. I'm no better than anyone else, so I think if you position your skills correctly and work hard to stay current and work hard to find a new job, you can do it and the market isn't as bad as some have said.
Of the people who were laid off at my last office, only one of them who'd already started looking for work did not get hired yet, and 90% of them are making more money.
I do not love George Bush, but my personal experiences have shown me that things aren't as bad as some Democrats are trying to paint (though not as rosey as some Republicans tried to paint either).
The economy and job market is slowly and steadily rebounding, and we've just about returned to the point where we were under Clinton before the Dot.Com boom really took off.
Probably more of an answer than you wanted, but I won't duck any question, ever. (unless I don't see it)
Also I wanted to say that I really enjoyed chatting with you and it's nice to have a polite political debate in this rabid election year. Kudos to you Fred, for being civil and rational.
|
| #149 .Praetor[153314] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
| Thanks Joe, great answer. I also thought our conversation was good. |
| #150 YRM[153318] |
| 11.crrg2.xdsl.nauticom.net |
Oh, I wanted to make a few other points about the Iraq war funding.
- A few months ago, Kerry said he'd spend more money, as much as it took to get the job done correctly, and I agreed with him then.
- Now, Kerry is talking about what we could have done with that money instead.
You can't really have it both ways. He actually makes two decent points, but unfortunately, he should have just picked one and stuck with it.
As for any funding related to Iraq. You must at least recognize by now that we're not acting in an imperialistic fashion. We haven't taxed Iraqis or even asked them to pay us back for rebuilding as Democrat's wanted.
If we'd rebuilt Iraq on a loan, critics could easily and rightly say that we were taxing Iraq for rebuilding that wouldn't be necessary if we didn't invade, and those critics could rightly call us imperialist.
I view the attempts to "loan" money to Iraq and change the tax cuts as part of the Iraq funding bill as tactics that would have enabled the Democrats to truthfully say two things about Bush right now:
1 - We're imperialist. We're taxing Iraqis while profitting from rebuilding their country. (just like we tax ourselves for new roads and infrastructure)
2 - Bush broke his promise and raised taxes.
Can't you imagine any reasons why Bush Jr. wouldn't want to fall for either of those Democratic Plans?
---
As for NCLB, my question is, do you know any teachers who are not registered Democrats who are horrified by NCLB now that it's an election issue?
Kerry wants, according to his website, NO QUESTIONS ASKED funding for schools.
SOme teachers are great. Some aren't. Accountability is good though... even though the people with the money (taxpayers) aren't teaching experts, it's perfectly fair to ask to see positive results for increased tax dollar output.
I had lots of good teachers, and I also had some horrid burnouts who didn't deserve the paycheck they were stealing for the last 30 years. (maybe at some point, they cared about their jobs)
No Child Left Behind isn't perfect, and of course it's not, because the best solution to education problems today is a several front effort to provide a better environment for kids, all around.
- School rules use common sense rather than "no-tolerance" policies.
- Communities are made safer by collective efforts of their own residents.
- Families take more responsibility for raising their kids. In this regard, responsible two parent households are USUALLY the better environment for kids.
- This means that people in general need to be less selfish and take marriage more seriously, as something that is a commitment that you work at.
All of this involves people looking around and thinking about the greater good of something beyond themselves, like, their kids, their neighbor's kids, their kid's teachers, their spouse's feelings, etc.
So no, a government bill isn't going to fix the cycle of poverty and government dependance and personal lack of responsibility that's existed for decades in this country...
But you don't fix the problem by making teachers LESS accountable, as John Kerry proposes with his "no questions asked" funding.
Definitely, education is an important, but extremely difficult issue that can't be fixed in a single generation. A cultural change has to occur.
Sadly, we actually had this more correct in the past (WW2 Generation) than we do now, when households put the needs of their children aside or ahead of their own desires. Things weren't perfect then either, but people actually worked for the betterment of future generations rather than themselves.
People of influence need to speak up to their own communities, whereever they are, and encourage more responsible behavior.
If that would happen, teachers would have fewer kids that NCLB applied to, because they'd have parental support. |
| #151 randomcommenter[153448] |
| dialup-4.226.165.62.Dial1.Dallas1.Level3.net |
YRM,
I think most people would agree with your arguments in principle. But life tends to deal in situations that aren't so easily resolved with logic.
In Iraq, for instance, I think most of what you say discounts any ulterior motive the U. S. might have had for invading the country -- oil being the most often cited reason. Make what you will about Haliburton getting recontrstruction contracts, the bottom line is that the U. S. invaded Iraq in part to secure an interest in Iraqi oil resources. Also, it seems likely that the U. S. or its interim gov't is spending money made by selling Iraq's oil to rebuild the county that it in part destroyed. Imperialism or not?
Second, concerning the family, I don't think anyone just gives up on a marriage without trying. Usually people get divorced after exploring their options, so to speak. I think it's too easy to view divorce solely as the product of selfishness.
I realize I don't have the list of citations and what-not that you probably expect, but argument at this level just isn't worth all the much ado.
Happy surfing to you. |
| #152 .Praetor[153454] |
| dhcp148.des.ucdavis.edu |
Well, to your first point YRM... Kerry can have it both ways. Kerry is talking about where we could have spent money instead of on Iraq because if Bush hadn't screwed up diplomacy the war wouldn't have been necessary. Now that Bush screwed that up (last resort my ass), Kerry would at least have had a plan for winning the peace that would have worked (even if it meant the higher numbers of troops some Pentagon leaders prefer).
So I don't see that as contradictory. As for cost of the war, I totally agree with you that it's terrible for Democrats to suggest Iraq should pay for the occupation through a loan. Of course, it was worse for Wolfowitz (bush administration) to suggest the whole Iraq war and reconstruction would cost 1.7 billion since oil revenues would pay for everything. Bush also swore up and down he wouldn't need emergency supplemental bills to pay for the war (total now passed: 2 for a total of about $200 billion cost).
Personally, I don't think the imperialist argument is a good one. (Though it can be made.) What is an excellent argument is the complete screw-up of a job that Bush made in attempting to win the peace in Iraq.
As for raising taxes, I don't think the democrats would hammer Bush on that like I did his father. Reason one: no good sound bite the equivalent of "read my lips..." Reason two: they've been railing against the deficit and Bush's horrendous tax cuts for awhile now. Reason three: Bush has a great excuse for them - same excuse he gives for all his flip-flops (everything changes after 9-11). Reason four: it would take away the Dem's issue of Bush being so amazingly for corporate welfare.
As for NCLB: No, I don't know any current teachers who aren't registered democrats who really dislike NCLB. However, the teachers I do know expressed their frustration months ago, before the end of the democratic primary. Three retired teachers I know (all Republicans) also very much dislike NCLB.
It seems we just have very different information sources regarding NCLB. I don't doubt you see benefits to the bill, although I don't know why. Please don't assume I attack NCLB on a purely partisan standpoint. There are better and more important reasons to dislike Bush.
By their friends you shall know them: How many presidents would have the chutzpah to appoint a felon convicted of illegally providing weapons to terrorists (and lying to Congress about it) our new ambassador to Iraq? Decisive, Bush is. Harmful, his actions are. |
| #153 Napoleic[153699] |
| 221.208.250.35 |
Just asking for a little clarification YRM: Do you actually support the republicans and Bush, or are you just playing devil's advocate here?
If you really do intend to vote for Bush, you must be the only intelligent (outside of the uber rich) person in america who is. How can you point to Kerry changing his mind over a 15 year period as reason not to vote for him while ignoring the fact that Bush lied about Iraq in order to pad his buddy's pockets and keep the proles in line with a little 1984 style perpetual warfare/terrorism threat.
Bush is no idiot, he's sinister. He needs to be taken out of power on principle alone. If a guy like that can get elected twice, it's a scary world. |
| #154 wakiki[154042] |
| cable-24-158-230-168.mtv.al.charter.com |
| 158th. I was way too lazy to join in on this, but I thought your points were well thought out, Prae. |
| #155 [165566] |
| d57-202-181.home.cgocable.net |
| This still owns. |
| #156 Possumo[166998] |
| 115-69-12-153.dyn.comcen.net.au |
How depressing that even the many of the people here, the vast majority of which seem intelligent, rational people, would support a Bush because he is a republican and shares their religious beliefs. It's not like the democrats are that amazing, in fact it seems that your two party system is almost as bad as our Liberal/Labor parties in Australia, which each successive generation becoming more conservative. However, they certainly can't be worse than the republicans. I guess conservatism is inherent in some families and societies and all of the education and intelligence will be channelled into certain lines of thought.
Cheers for the entertaining read!
P.S. Oh and you need to jump on the Green Party bandwagon that the majority of Europe and Australia has jumped on. The Green party in Australia now holds the balance of power in Australia and is poised to actually achieve some positive stuff, and the recent 2009 EU elections in Europe, the majority of Green parties increased their vote significantly, some even doubled their vote up to around 16% of the total vote, close to that of the major parties.
I think the biggest change needs to happen in your electoral system, which I'm amazed hasn't really been debated that I'm aware of. Moving away from a polarized two party system has been shown to bring far better democratic and representative outcomes in politics, if you take Europe as an example.
|
Home
Forum
Starcraft Tournaments
