|
| Thread: El Presidenté & The Governator |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Rindle
Tavern Dweller
|
posted November 24, 2004 06:34 PM |
|
|
El Presidenté & The Governator
America truly is the greatest nation on the face of the earth: a nation where the son of a rich former president can become the President without even winning the election, and a muscle man from Austria, who slept his way to the top, can become The Governor of a liberal majority state on a conservative party ticket with the help of massive media hype. In fact, it's so great, who cares about the freedom and civil liberties guaranteed by the founding fathers in the constitution! But wait, how can the President still claim to cling to those principles and at the same time so blatantly disregard them (remember the Patriot Act)? Easy, scare people ****less with some big-bad-scary..... "folks" who will come for you while you sleep, and use words like "freedom" and "liberty" so often and so loosely that they eventually lose their meaning.
How on earth can people be naive and dumb enough to buy this load of BS from a president with such transparent self-interest and lousy track record? That's what most of the world, and many Americans too, have been wondering since Bush's re-election. I saw a report on CNN where people who were interviewed on the streets of Manhattan openly considered moving to Canada, or other countries. The immigration authorities in Canada, apparently not too thrilled with the idea of Americans pouring across their boarders, issued a statement saying that Americans would have to get in line just like everybody else.
So what kind of people live in the reds states, people wonder? One man from New York said he wouldn't want to drive through those state, fly over them maybe but not drive through them!
In all fairness to the people living in those states, there is a very logical explanation for why many of the people in those state may have voted for Bush. Eric Fromm (renown psychologist) found in his studies that, when confronted with a choice between freedom and security most people chose security over freedom. It has been proven that freedom is a cause of anxiety and fear: the more choices people have to make, the more anxiety and uncertainty they feel.
This, along with signs of potential election fraud (only much smoother this time), may help explain the mindset and circumstances that helped secure Señor Bush another four years as the "leader of the free world".
"Our enemies never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we"
- George W. Bush
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 24, 2004 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I saw a report on CNN where people who were interviewed on the streets of Manhattan openly considered moving to Canada, or other countries.
Most New Yorkers are liberal and vote Democratic. Not exactly the place to objectively poll, is it?
Quote:
So what kind of people live in the reds states, people wonder?
People like me. 
I would say more to counter more of that foolishness you posted, but I don't feel like getting blasted by liberal, Bush-hater rhetoric right now...maybe later.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 24, 2004 11:34 PM |
|
|
I Love This Guy
Most bloggers turn me off but this guy tosses the spiel into a veritable X-File. I love watching the X-Files. I thought the show and movie were great. Scully is hot and Mulder is so cool. I haven't seen Moore's film yet but now that the election is over, I'm definitely going to go see it. I think it would be very entertaining. I love a good laugh.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Rindle
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 01:09 AM |
|
|
Wolfman wrote:
Quote:
Most New Yorkers are liberal and vote Democratic. Not exactly the place to objectively poll, is it?
Funny, I don't recall saying anything about an objective poll. What I said was "many Americans too" were wondering how people could vote for Bush, which is an accurate statement. And yes, as you so keenly observed, most New Yorkers are liberal and vote Democratic. Hence the feeling of resentment among many of the people there
Quote:
People like me.
If you don't mind me asking: what issues weighed on your mind before you voted. Is it just that you traditionally vote Republican, or would it be fair to say that terrorism and national security were among the issues that weighed heavily on your mind?
Quote:
I would say more to counter more of that foolishness you posted, but I don't feel like getting blasted by liberal, Bush-hater rhetoric right now...maybe later.
You haven't really said anything to counter my arguments. You're just resorting to personal attacks -- argumentum ad hominem: you can't argue well enough to give a valid reason to reject a statement so you direct your criticism towards the person instead.
Consis wrote:
Quote:
I love watching the X-Files. I thought the show and movie were great. Scully is hot and Mulder is so cool.
Me too. Although I thought the movie was a bit like a blown up episode of the show, but seen in context of the series, I'd say it was good.
____________
|
|
realitycheck
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 02:04 AM |
|
|
waaa waaa waaa
Bush is a mean man, he hates america, people who voted for bush are dumb, Americans are stupid, French people are smart, The rest of the worlds politicians do everything for the right reasons and bush only attacked Iraq for Oil, United Nations is soo smart and those who work there don't have thier own interests at heart they are true humanitarians, U.S. Citizens who actually move to Canada are creating a sucking sound that far exceeds that sucking sound from Mexico into the U.S.
Did I miss anything???? PLEASE, I am amazed that a bunch of Pacifists really beleive they have the answers to "REAL WORLD" questions.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 02:30 AM |
|
|
Rindle:
Quote:
Funny, I don't recall saying anything about an objective poll. What I said was "many Americans too" were wondering how people could vote for Bush, which is an accurate statement. And yes, as you so keenly observed, most New Yorkers are liberal and vote Democratic. Hence the feeling of resentment among many of the people there
I know you didn’t say anything about an objective poll, but I think it’s ridiculous and fairly irrelevant how some New Yorkers feel. I think it was a waste of airtime for CNN to put something like that on the air. Of course some people are going to be upset about the election, the losing candidate’s supporters usually are. And they threaten to move to Canada, it seems to be a popular choice.
Did CNN send a reporter on the streets of Omaha Nebraska to see what they thought of the election results? Nebraska is, as Khaelo put it earlier, a Republican stronghold. Again, I would say it’s a waste of air time, but at least it would stop the impression that most Americans are upset about the results of the election, as I’m sure was the motive even if CNN would never come out and say it.
Quote:
If you don't mind me asking: what issues weighed on your mind before you voted. Is it just that you traditionally vote Republican, or would it be fair to say that terrorism and national security were among the issues that weighed heavily on your mind?
I notice you’re new here, so you don’t know much about me. I’m only 17 so I can’t vote, 7 lousy months older and I could have. But I have been following the election over a year before Election Day. I watched everything, all sorts of news; I watched polls conducted by many different sources (Gallop, Zogby). I would be willing to bet I know more about the process than a vast majority of the American public, and I can’t vote…most annoying.
I would have voted for Bush, which is no secret to anyone on HC.  After everything I’ve seen, heard and researched, I reached my decision. I came to a different conclusion than other people, but that’s what a democracy is all about, everyone has an opinion and gets to voice it…except me it seems. (other than on these boards)
Quote:
You haven't really said anything to counter my arguments. You're just resorting to personal attacks -- argumentum ad hominem: you can't argue well enough to give a valid reason to reject a statement so you direct your criticism towards the person instead.
I wasn’t attacking you, I said your points in your post were foolish. “I don't feel like getting blasted by liberal, Bush-hater rhetoric right now...maybe later.” That wasn’t targeted at you either, but at the board as a whole. I think there may be five people on this board that support Bush, the rest hate him, that’s where that came from.
(Consis, I won’t count you in that five, as you had other motives for voting for Bush. )
Not a whole lot I can say to counter your arguments. But I’ll se what I can do.
Quote:
In fact, it's so great, who cares about the freedom and civil liberties guaranteed by the founding fathers in the constitution!
Most people, excluding groups like the KKK and the ELF and the like, support the Constitution and what it stands for. It’s in the interpreting of it that leads to controversy; I think it’s fairly obvious where you stand on these issues.
Quote:
But wait, how can the President still claim to cling to those principles and at the same time so blatantly disregard them (remember the Patriot Act)?
Like I said above, it’s in the interpreting. I also think it has something to do with what you feel about law enforcement in general. I personally think bureaucracy should be cut between jurisdictions to make things run smoother; the Patriot Act did this. I think it should be easier for law enforcement to contact suspects and get a hold of them; the Patriot Act did this. If you have something to hide, of course you would object to the Patriot Act. I have nothing to hide, and I want the terrorists and other criminals caught. That makes it good in my eyes.
Quote:
How on earth can people be naive and dumb enough to buy this load of BS from a president with such transparent self-interest and lousy track record?
That’s a ridiculous question, you’ve made up your mind what you think of Bush and what he stands for, so I won’t waste my time with that.
One more thing:
Quote:
…people ****less with some…
Next time censor yourself please; I don’t like to do it. First time it’s a warning; second it’s a penalty. I don’t want to do that to you.
Mr. Realitycheck:
Quote:
United Nations is soo smart and those who work there don't have thier own interests at heart they are true humanitarians,
I had a good laugh at that one. Can you explain Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, North Korea, and other such places to me?
The rest is ridiculous.
I think you did miss something in that post by the way: the truth.
This is the first time in a long time I’ve enjoyed writing a post, thanks Rindle. 
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 07:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
a nation where the son of a rich former president can become the President
Show me a country where the son of a powerful person doesn't have a major advantage. I'm not saying it's OK, just that it's reality and certainly not unique to the US. And it's not unique to conservatives either....ever heard of the Kennedy clan?
Quote:
a muscle man from Austria, who slept his way to the top, can become The Governor of a liberal majority state
Slept his way to the top??? That's ludicrous, you're just bashing.
I'm not so sure about the liberal majority part either. California is a political mix. They have a recent history of voting Democrat in the presidential elections and currently have two Democrat Senators. But, if I'm counting right, five of the last six terms for Governor have been Republican.
As for the Patriot Act, I agree. There are parts of it that amount to "unreasonable search and seizure". IMO the government CAN NOT under any circumstances perform random searches without probable cause. They CAN NOT do wire taps or any other violation of privacy law without due process.
The excuse of stopping terrorism does not justify it. If another 9/11 is the price we have to pay, then so be it. There is a price for freedom. To give up our freedom in the name of security is a slap in the face to those who have already given their lives to secure those freedoms. They put their lives on the line, and so must we, whether we are civilians or military.
Quote:
If you have something to hide, of course you would object to the Patriot Act. I have nothing to hide, and I want the terrorists and other criminals caught. That makes it good in my eyes.
Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
So you have nothing to hide. If this amendment were not in place, having "nothing to hide" would be entirely irrelevant. This Amendment applies to everyone. If this creates a loophole to allow a terrorist to get through, I say again there is a price to freedom.
You say it's a matter of interpretation. It seems pretty clear to me. How are you interpreting this to allow for random searches?
You say that you want the terrorists and other criminals caught. So do I. Sometimes the provisions of the Constitution are hard to swallow when a criminal is out on the street killing and raping. We just want the criminals caught and stay caught. But we must ask ourselves at what price. The Fourth Amendment is not there to protect the criminals. It's there to protect you and I who have nothing to hide. Please don't give up our long term protections for short term solutions.
One last thing. If I'm not mistaken, Realitycheck's post was entirely sarcasm.
____________
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 01:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bush is a mean man, he hates america, people who voted for bush are dumb, Americans are stupid, French people are smart, The rest of the worlds politicians do everything for the right reasons and bush only attacked Iraq for Oil, United Nations is soo smart and those who work there don't have thier own interests at heart they are true humanitarians, U.S. Citizens who actually move to Canada are creating a sucking sound that far exceeds that sucking sound from Mexico into the U.S.
Did I miss anything???? PLEASE, I am amazed that a bunch of Pacifists really beleive they have the answers to "REAL WORLD" questions.
And I'm amazed that a bunch of militarist capitalists believe they are the only ones to have the answers to what they so arrogantly call "'REAL WORLD' questions".
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
realitycheck
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 05:12 PM |
|
|
I'm amazed that a bunch of militarist capitalists believe they are the only ones to have the answers to what they so arrogantly call "'REAL WORLD' questions".
Take World History- Go back as far as you want and please quote for me eveytime that the Pacifist Attitude Won a Conflict against a Military Enemy, Or an Enemy of Violence as Terrorists.
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 05:16 PM |
|
|
Ghandi?
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
realitycheck
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 05:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ghandi?
Just ten days later on the 30th January, he was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic who could not forgive Gandhi for his belief that Muslims had equal value to Hindus and no-one was better than anybody else. "taken from a Gandhi Website"
Good Try, Actually a tough one to argue with but in the end he was Violently killed by what I so "Arogantly" refer to a "real World" issues.
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 05:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Take World History- Go back as far as you want and please quote for me eveytime that the Pacifist Attitude Won a Conflict against a Military Enemy....
Hmmmm....
What about John F. Kennedy in the 60´s in the Cuba crises?
How would the world look like today, when he would have decided to attack Cuba?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
realitycheck
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 06:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hmmmm....
What about John F. Kennedy in the 60´s in the Cuba crises?
How would the world look like today, when he would have decided to attack Cuba?
Not sure I quite understand your point BUT- I would hardly call JFK and the Cuban situation Pacifist. The Bay of Pigs Invasion was his biggest violent disaster and He did a Great Job In the Missle Crisis playing chicken with the Russians and making them Blink First!!
____________
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 07:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm amazed that a bunch of militarist capitalists believe they are the only ones to have the answers to what they so arrogantly call "'REAL WORLD' questions".
Take World History- Go back as far as you want and please quote for me eveytime that the Pacifist Attitude Won a Conflict against a Military Enemy, Or an Enemy of Violence as Terrorists.
Well quite blatantly you can mention all the velvet revolutions in the former communist states in eastern Europe.
DDR, Chechoslovakia, Georgia and perhaps as we speak Ukraine.
As a counter question I might ask: "When has military intervention ever solved any dispute?".
Ponder abit, before you jump the gun and answer WW2, because as PH pretty quickly will point out to you, that was not an intervention.
And please do notice how I choose the alter your wordings, and ponder abit about that aswell.
Ohh, and do try to brush up on your world history before you use it as an argument.
Defreni
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2004 08:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Take World History- Go back as far as you want and please quote for me eveytime that the Pacifist Attitude Won a Conflict against a Military Enemy, Or an Enemy of Violence as Terrorists.
I quote myself. I quote you. I quote everyone at HC. I quote virtually all people of the world. I quote the human conscience. I quote the human aversion to violence and killing.
Yes, wars have been around since the beginning of history. It's the human condition which starts those wars. But it's also the collective human conscience that inevitably ends those wars. If it weren't for that conscience, it's quite possible none of us would be here. I quote the fact that we are all still alive.
I'm not naive enough to believe wars will end. I'm not naive enough to think that war has not changed the course of the world.
But in the end, the wars end. They end for one reason, and one reason only. They end when the human conscience steps in with a voice of reason. When our collective aversion to human suffering finally says "enough".
I call that pacifism.
____________
|
|
realitycheck
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 26, 2004 12:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well quite blatantly you can mention all the velvet revolutions in the former communist states in eastern Europe.
DDR, Chechoslovakia, Georgia and perhaps as we speak Ukraine.
As a counter question I might ask: "When has military intervention ever solved any dispute?".
Ponder abit, before you jump the gun and answer WW2, because as PH pretty quickly will point out to you, that was not an intervention.
And please do notice how I choose the alter your wordings, and ponder abit about that aswell.
Ohh, and do try to brush up on your world history before you use it as an argument.
Defreni
LOL-- You need a Hisory lesson, not me!! If you want to clinton over the word INTERVENTION- a word you used not I we must agree to disagree. But the use of force has solved numerous conflicts throughout history lets just ask the forefathers of Hiroshima what they think. (A little shout out to the movie Stormship Troopers)
|
|
realitycheck
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 26, 2004 01:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Take World History- Go back as far as you want and please quote for me eveytime that the Pacifist Attitude Won a Conflict against a Military Enemy, Or an Enemy of Violence as Terrorists.
I quote myself. I quote you. I quote everyone at HC. I quote virtually all people of the world. I quote the human conscience. I quote the human aversion to violence and killing.
Yes, wars have been around since the beginning of history. It's the human condition which starts those wars. But it's also the collective human conscience that inevitably ends those wars. If it weren't for that conscience, it's quite possible none of us would be here. I quote the fact that we are all still alive.
I'm not naive enough to believe wars will end. I'm not naive enough to think that war has not changed the course of the world.
But in the end, the wars end. They end for one reason, and one reason only. They end when the human conscience steps in with a voice of reason. When our collective aversion to human suffering finally says "enough".
I call that pacifism.
I like that very much and its realistic, to bad many people in the world are conditioned to hate and will need that suffering to change thier mind.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted November 26, 2004 07:40 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 26 Nov 2004
|
Since this sorta, kinda seems to be a topic about understanding across US party lines...
The following article has been on Beliefnet for a while now: Understanding the Truth (and Lies) about liberals and conservatives.
I liked the author's explainations of where many liberals are coming from. I'm curious to know if HC conservatives think the author represents their side's generalities accurately, or if it's balanced. It feels to me like it has a left-tilt, but it's more important to know if it's a solid summary of the red-state positions. The "How could anyone vote for Bush?!" question has come up with disturbing frequency in my house, and I'd like to promote true understanding if at all possible.
Edit: unfortunate addition to article title removed.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 26, 2004 09:32 AM |
|
|
First, I thought the guy was a poor writer. Some things were pretty clear, but others I had to read a few times to figure out what the heck he was saying.
To answer your question, I think I would answer "no" he didn't do a very good job of stating the conservative point of view. But I have to clarify that statement.
First, the article was based almost entirely on the fundamental religious point of view. From that point of view he may have been somewhat accurate. But the thing is that it perpetuates the liberal's view of conservatives as being a bunch of religious fundamentalists. I don't claim to know the numbers, but my guess is that the fundamentalists are a minority of Republicans and probably even a small minority. I would go as far as saying the average Republican thinks the "born again" Christians are just as nutty as the liberals do. Does that surprise you?
Actually I had more to say on this and, in a way, I think it's an important subject. But the truth is, I'm REALLY tired and struggling with the words. In other words, my brain is in shutdown mode. So I think I'll stop.
But one last thing. I pretty much attack both sides (as I have in this thread). I do that because IMO when people throw around half-truth's, rumors, unfounded accusations and the like, it completely invalidates their argument. If we are going to debate, we should debate on merit, not on garbage tossed around out of hatred and misunderstanding of the other side.
____________
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2004 02:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
LOL-- You need a Hisory lesson, not me!! If you want to clinton over the word INTERVENTION- a word you used not I we must agree to disagree. But the use of force has solved numerous conflicts throughout history lets just ask the forefathers of Hiroshima what they think. (A little shout out to the movie Stormship Troopers)
And as you write something I have trouble understanding, you very conveniently skip the part where I show you to be wrong.
And forefathers of Hiroshima??
And quite frankly I cant think of any conflict that was solved by force, perhaps save WW2. But WW2 is a tricky bit, because while it did alot of good to get rid of Hitler, you can see that his ascendsant to power in Germany is directly linked to the Versaille-Treaty. No Versailly-Treaty, no Hitler.
My advice is to start reading some history books, and do try to look at conflicts in a bigger picture, instead of glorifying the winners.
Defreni
____________
|
| |
|
|
