|
|
balcough_dra...
Supreme Hero
unlucky? i want to pump you up
|
posted October 17, 2004 10:57 PM |
|
|
pay go pay go pay go
yes lets talk about that pay go program
want some wood?
all i have to say is " jack ass "
____________
slayer
whos your daddy and what does he do?
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted October 18, 2004 12:35 AM |
|
|
Lots to read ...
... but well worth it.
Click HERE for the best reasons I've found yet to vote against George W. Bush.
The second essay in that thread, in particular, is of great importance to the future of America.
Please vote on Nov. 2!
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted October 18, 2004 06:06 PM |
|
|
Sorry, had to post this ...
It's just too funny!
no offense intended to any reasonable, intelligent republicans out there ...
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 18, 2004 06:47 PM |
|
|
Didn't Kerry see what such enthusiasm can do to a campaign? Remember Howard Dean...
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 18, 2004 07:15 PM |
|
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted October 19, 2004 10:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
IQ table by Svarog on page 2...
I don't know where you have gotten it from, but this is complete nonsense. There is too much difference between the states and there shouldn't be because all the states are big enough to give an extremely large statistical sample.
Either the measuring system is seriously bugged (I really do not know much about the US, but maybe the questions were more suitable for some people living under some circumstances) or it's a simple lie.
BTW, the lower numbers suggest that for example a very big percentage of missisipi population is mentally retarded (85 is dangerously close to the limit of being xxxxx (insert the appropriate english word here)), which I very much doubt (though I've never been there).
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 20, 2004 10:50 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 20 Oct 2004
|
It Almost Happened
I was seriously considering voting for Kerry. The debates were amazing but the more time I spend online, the more I realize how meaningless debates truly are.
I had many reasons that were causing me to lean towards him. Most importantly, I had to research until my brain collapsed on what the chances were for Iran becoming a serious opposition to the new democratic Iraq. So it was that I finally concluded that only through the use of the Saudi royal family could Iraq and any other islamic nation be dealt with in a reasonable manner.
It didn't take me long to realize that North Korea is no threat to anyone but its neighbors. I quickly found that this country is on the verge of an economic collapse.
Kerry convinced me that his policies would be new and fresh. I whole heartedly believe this without any question. I do, however, worry about administration transition at this point in our country's history and economic crisis.
Our debt is spiralling out of control and it's because it was all we could do to recover successfully from our recession. I've come to know debt, as most americans have, as a part of life. Making payments for the things you own is what almost everyone does, realistically speaking. Debt was big on Reagan's ticket and it'll be just as large in Bush jr.'s, But I believe this to be the only realistic solution to recession recovery.
As for healthcare, it's virtually an unknown. It's like talking about taxes. Raising them means less money in your pocket but the govt can take better care of you, while lowering them means having a less capable govt while having more money to spend. One healthcare plan over another is really quite circumstancial, and I was happy with 'Hillary care'.
Although I am a democrat, I know the national govt is vital to the stability of this country. The whole cheaper drugs in Canada thing is a joke and so is the marriage amendment thing. Those aren't real campaign issues for the president. I believe the states can handle those successfully.
As for the out-sourcing of jobs, yes it is happening and I personally feel that's part of life. Any nation of the world knows, that in order to survive, it must export/import via healthy trade restrictions to be a world power. This is the price we pay to be a superpower.
Kerry almost had my vote mostly due to his testimony after he came back from Vietnam. I really enjoyed hearing him testify to the truth of what war is really like. Many people were enraged and called him a traitor but I never felt so close to him. Because of my military experience, I know what it means when your captain tells you to "take him out". Over and over have I heard civilians, politicians, and even soldiers say this but I find this to fall far short of the actual meaning of the command. When given the order to kill someone, if you don't do it then you go to jail for the rest of your life. If you decide to loyally follow it then you literally, and I mean literally, use any means necessary to kill the soldier opposing you. That's gruesome, horrifying, and so completely true for any war. But alas, Kerry's voting record truly bothered me. It wasn't because he was a flip-flopper, as the bush campaign has painted him out to be, but instead because of his consistent trend to raise taxes to pay for his idealogical views. We're in a serious economic recovery and I say 'steady as she goes' will see us through it, not some wild new idea for raising taxes.
It is with no small amount of personal satisfaction that my mind can finally rest; at ease with sound judgment and clear thoughts. I will be reinforcing my candidate for 2008 when I write her name on my ticket. She'll be the first woman president ever in the history of this country. The extreme islamic terrorrists of the world will know my idealogical war will have its bold new representative. Hillary Clinton, the woman who:
1. Votes
2. Is Educated
3. Reads Books
4. Is entitled to own land
5. Is most certainly a Woman
6. And will lead this nation into a new era of democracy and freedom in the world, to keep america the beacon of hope for the free peoples of the entire world.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 21, 2004 01:53 AM |
|
|
Thank you for not voting for Kerry, I agree with just about every reason you said not to. 
However, Hillary Clinton is much worse than Kerry. She will never be president, the first woman president will not be her. Plus, I hold a firm belief that the first woman, black, hispanic, etc. to become president will be assassinated. There are a lot of extremists in this country who won't stand for it.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 21, 2004 06:47 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 21 Oct 2004
|
One Moore Thing
Personally, I detest right-wing christian fanatics who call themselves conservative. I'm from Texas. That should be well enough to explain my distaste for people of that nature. But one thing that irked me more than anything was that Michael Moore film. In my opinion, it is one thing to make a film ridiculing the elected president of the free world and an entirely different matter to use that film for political favor and gain. I'm a huge fan of "Saturday Night Live" comedy. They've been poking fun at every president they can think of, but the difference is they aren't going out to the american people and telling them that their jokes aren't jokes but actually facts. I despise Moore for his film and I am ashamed that he is a fellow democrat.
I sincerely hope Moore is kept from gloating a democratic victory. Jack Valenti was right when he said that entertainers mostly belong in entertainment, not politics. The only exception was Reagan but he'd been out of making movies for 20 years when he started toward his political candidacy. I agree that entertainers should stick to entertainment.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted October 21, 2004 04:18 PM |
|
|
That's strange ...
You and I must have seen different movies. When I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, I didn't notice any lies or factual errors. Of course, there was a lot of conjecture, but that's different.
CONJECTURE: "Saddam Hussein might have weapons of mass destruction."
LIE: "We know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
What the Bush administration said, as you can see, was a lie. What Michael Moore does in F 9/11 is to offer a lot of conjecture.
CONJECTURE: (Moore, as narrator) "I wonder what he was thinking as he sat there for 7 minutes reading My Pet Goat? Was he thinking ... ?"
Etc. Lots of conjecture from Moore, sure. Lies? Factual errors? That I didn't see (and if there were errors, they were minor).
just my 2 cents ...
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted October 21, 2004 08:45 PM |
|
|
Some Things To Think About...Or Not
Laelth wrote:Quote:
CONJECTURE: (Moore, as narrator) "I wonder what he was thinking as he sat there for 7 minutes reading My Pet Goat? Was he thinking ... ?"
I forced myself to go watch Farenheit 911, and I have to laugh whenever I hear people criticizing Bush for sitting there for seven minutes after being informed about the situation. From my limited experience, this is my take on what really transpired during this situation:
President Bush's Security Agent: (whispers) "Mr. President, we have just recieved confirmation that the World Trade Center has indeed been attacked. We are trying to get more information on this right now, along with estimated casualty numbers. Your security team is taking all necessary precautions to ensure your safety, and your spokespeople are making preparations for a statement release. Just sit tight, try to act natural, and we will continue to make preparations and keep you updated."
That's what I believe happened. In my experience and training, it seems like the most likely explanation. I draw this from the below information:
Unwritten Security Rule #1: Do not move anywhere until it is confirmed that the area is secure (unless, of course, you have already been targeted).
Unwritten Security Rule #2: Remain calm as to not create chaos or further disorder.
Unwritten Security Rule #3: Once the area is secure, do not do anything to make yourself an soft target.
The President was merely following the recommendations of trained professionals during this situation. I guess some people expected him to jump right up out of his chair and make a mad dash for his limo to take him to Air Force One (just so he could fly back to Washington, which was also under attack, might I add). Did the thought of a sniper awaiting his departure from the school ever enter anyone's mind? How about the possibility of suicide bombers waiting for him on the school grounds? Or better yet, what if someone had slipped past security as was actually inside the building? There are numerous things to think about besides My Pet Goat, but people who are not educated in urban warfare and counter-terrorist measures would never know this.
As for those Senators who proclaimed "nobody could think for forty-five minutes" after they heard about the Twin Towers on the news, well, you can draw you own conclusions about that.
*Note to Laelth: I understand that you were using this only as an example of conjecture. I totally understand and agree with your explanations. I just wanted to address the misconceptions of the security-ignorant masses on this particular incident. Just my two cents...
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 22, 2004 12:19 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 21 Oct 2004
|
Just because someone happens to be on the same part of the political spectrum doesn't mean you have to like them. If Republicans can put up with the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Democrats can deal with Michael Moore.
I walked out of Farenheit 911 about the time that he started on his "oil pipeline through Pakistan" conspiracy theory. The points he made in the movie were very similar to those in his book Dude, Where's My Country (which I also put down out of sheer irritation). There's conjecture, and then there's conjecture on top of conjecture on top of conjecture. The guy may be a Democrat, but he's hardly the norm.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 22, 2004 03:11 AM |
|
|
He’s not saying he’s a democrat. He’s saying he’s a socialist, from what I now.
Even worse. We don’t want him, take him back.
OK, I’m not saying he’s some kind of noteworthy intellectual or politician. He’s more like a show-maker, a clown, parader. However, all the obvious propagandistic methods and stupidities aside, I believe he makes some strong and valid points, which the American public fails to take into account, even though they’re clearly before their eyes (i.e. on the screen).
In all the three movies I’ve seen by him (Bowling for Columbine, the one about Corporate America, and Farenheit 9/11) he displays some heavy criticism on America (and rightfully so). That’s why, I think many people don’t want to face the truth and immediately choose to ignore his points.
For example in the latest film, he speaks about how Iraq was planned to be attacked before 9/11 (valid), how Bush used 9/11 to provoke fear (very valid), the connection Bush has with the Saudis (suspicious, nor proven nor disproven, but with a lot of smoke, as was seen), the companies which profit from the war and their owners connections (valid again). What more does it take to put at least a little suspicion in the minds of trench-rooted republicans about the motives for the war? Draw a children’s picture book?! Even then, they’ll still believe the reason why Bush went to Iraq were WMDs and spreading democracy.
Khaelo, I too, don’t like the way he’s delivering “his” message. However, inasmuch as I try, I cant deny that it’s a reasonable and important message he’s delivering.
PS: Voting for Bush is a sin the IPU will never forgive.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 22, 2004 08:04 AM |
|
|
Moore does make good points, but then he takes things too far and ruins it for himself and his subject. People, as a mass, are idiots. I don't know where the idiocy comes from, as the people I meet individually tend to be intelligent, rational beings. However, when you deal with the public at large, stupidity just springs up like weeds. Politics and entertainment both are all about dealing with the public at large. That's part of the problem with Moore. The public is often dumb enough to confuse the credibility of a fact with the credibility of the fact's messenger. When Moore makes the point about Bush & Co. gunning for Iraq pre-9/11 but couples it with the My Pet Goat reaction shots and the pipeline conspiracies, he loses credibility for the whole shebang.
Yeah, I'm feeling cynical today. 
As for Clinton, I won't vote for her until she's on the ballot. If one side is scattered and the other centralized, guess who wins? Let's not forget what happened with Nader. Whatever the problems with Kerry, my first priority is No More Bush!
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2004 09:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I had many reasons that were causing me to lean towards him. Most importantly, I had to research until my brain collapsed on what the chances were for Iran becoming a serious opposition to the new democratic Iraq. So it was that I finally concluded that only through the use of the Saudi royal family could Iraq and any other islamic nation be dealt with in a reasonable manner.
It didn't take me long to realize that North Korea is no threat to anyone but its neighbors. I quickly found that this country is on the verge of an economic collapse.
Unfortunately this analysis is not completely correct. Mostly due to the fact that Iran has shown absolutely no inclinations at attacking their neighbours.
Im not condoning Iran stoning of women in any way, but matter of the fact is that Iran has succesfully concluded 2 defensive wars since the Shah`s fall in 1979. First against Iraq, and then a smaller border war against Afganistan under the Taleban. If you look at the reason why Iran wants WMD, is imho a defensive measure, considering that Iraq used gas against them in the 80ies and both India, Pakistan and Israel have nuclear capacity. So dont rule out the deterent factor.
Regarding North-Korea, you say it yourself, an extremely impoverished nation, with nuclear capacity. Why wouldnt it be a likely scenario that at some points a group like Al-Qaeda bought some of those nukes (Probably with Saudi money).
Bush actually said that he would follow through on Clintons policy towards North-Korea. A policy that strongly supported South-Korean leader Kim Dae Jung in his tentative moves to get a peace accord with North-Korea.
All this was shattered on the 7 March 2001, when Bush(43) at a lunch with Kim Dae Jung, said about North-Korea that "We`re not certain as to wether they or not they`re keeping all terms of all agreements".
Nottice the plurals, at that point they where only one agreement with North-Korea. An accord from 1994 that froze plutonium processing. An agreement which where being held by North-Korea at that point.
Quote:
Our debt is spiralling out of control and it's because it was all we could do to recover successfully from our recession. I've come to know debt, as most americans have, as a part of life. Making payments for the things you own is what almost everyone does, realistically speaking. Debt was big on Reagan's ticket and it'll be just as large in Bush jr.'s, But I believe this to be the only realistic solution to recession recovery.
There are 2 points I would like to make concerning the deficit Bush(43) has turned up.
First and foremost. Bush didnt make his first tax-cut in 2001 as a measure against a recession.
It was made because at that point the estimated surplus on the US economy was 5.6 trillion dollars during the next 10 years. Alan Greenspan actually supported a tax-cut at that point, but he said it would be most prudent to tie the tax-cut to the surplus. If the surplus dropped, no tax-cuts. A trigger-mechanism. Most economists agree that this is not a very good move, but it is the best tool we have when budgeting with projected surplus. Offcourse such a trigger-mechanism wasnt part of the tax-cuts. So when the recession hit, and the surplus dropped, the projected record large surplus became a record large deficit in the matter of a year.
Secondly. Tax-cuts have never been shown to be any good against recessions. Only data in support of this thesis is when you taylor-sut the cuts to the lowest income, where the tax-cuts immediatly will be spend at consumming.
Tax-cuts for the wealthier part of a given economy doesnt lead to more consumming but rather to people saving those money for a rainy day.
If you want to crank up a huge deficit to counter a recession, the government have to spend the money, so it directly goes to increase money spending in the economy. This can be done in several ways. One of them being large investments in infra-structure. Like building a new power grid in California etc.
Quote:
It is with no small amount of personal satisfaction that my mind can finally rest; at ease with sound judgment and clear thoughts. I will be reinforcing my candidate for 2008 when I write her name on my ticket. She'll be the first woman president ever in the history of this country. The extreme islamic terrorrists of the world will know my idealogical war will have its bold new representative. Hillary Clinton, the woman who:
1. Votes
2. Is Educated
3. Reads Books
4. Is entitled to own land
5. Is most certainly a Woman
6. And will lead this nation into a new era of democracy and freedom in the world, to keep america the beacon of hope for the free peoples of the entire world.
Well here we definetly agree on something.
I would have love to see Hillary as the President of the USA.
But when you cant have the best, you might aswell take the second best. (Actually I cant take it, seeing as Im not a citizen in the US  ).
I had my qualms about Kerry aswell, but after he took over most of Clintons staff, Im hopefull that he will continue Bush(41) and Clintons policy of fiscal responsibility, aswell as opening up the avenues of dialogue to the rest of the world once again.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 22, 2004 04:23 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 22 Oct 2004
|
**sigh**
Now that's what I call selective responding. I don't know any other way to say this so I'll simply come right out and say it.
Defreni, you have some very uninformed views of how my country should be run. Thanks for the input and I'll try to keep that in consideration while indirectly voting for President Bush, an american republican, to be re-elected for four more years.
Frankly, I think your ideas of raising american taxes to counter a recession are outright flawed.
Also, you seem to be one of those people who blames this country's president for our recession. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the president of the united states can barely affect the national economy.
You have much to learn about my country. Good day to you sir.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 22, 2004 11:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Only data in support of this thesis is when you taylor-sut the cuts to the lowest income, where the tax-cuts immediatly will be spend at consumming.
Tax-cuts for the wealthier part of a given economy doesnt lead to more consumming but rather to people saving those money for a rainy day.
Yes! If you're going to play the tax-cut card, at least give the money to the people who will spend it right away. It's not only social justice, it makes economic sense, too.
That said, I don't blame Bush for the recession. The economy goes in cyles. Whoever got elected in 2000 was pretty much doomed to see an economic downturn in his term. Back in 2000, my dad half-joked that he hoped Bush would get elected so that the projected downturn would happen on the Republicans' watch (he had no idea what Bush would become, obviously). The high-flying market of the late 90's couldn't last forever, and that's not Bush's fault. However, I do blame Bush for his mismanagement of the situation and making things worse than they needed to be.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2004 03:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now that's what I call selective responding. I don't know any other way to say this so I'll simply come right out and say it.
Defreni, you have some very uninformed views of how my country should be run. Thanks for the input and I'll try to keep that in consideration while indirectly voting for President Bush, an american republican, to be re-elected for four more years.
Frankly, I think your ideas of raising american taxes to counter a recession are outright flawed.
Also, you seem to be one of those people who blames this country's president for our recession. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the president of the united states can barely affect the national economy.
You have much to learn about my country. Good day to you sir.
Frankly Consis, you make the same mistake you are accusing me of making. Selective responding.
Where did you see me say that taxes should be raised in order to counter the recession??
My main point was that tax-cuts are NOT a counter to recession as you assume, unless they are taylored specifically to do just that.
I point out some factual mistakes in your post, such as Bush`s first tax-cut was to lessen the recession. This was not his target, which I clearly stated.
So instead of brushing me off, it would suit you to see what I write, and then if you dont agree, point out why you dont agree, and what your arguments are.
This could lead to a productive debate where you enlighten me and vice-versa.
If you have no interest in that, well its your perogative not to answer my post.
Regards
Defreni
PS: Where exactly did I blame Bush on the recession.
I simply pointed out how he took a bad situation and made it worse. Eventhough a better path was clearly pointed out to him, by amongst others some of his fathers economic advisors.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 31, 2004 02:17 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 30 Oct 2004
|
I Voted Today
As I voted for the same sex marriage amendment, so too have I voted for president.
My vote took the leap of faith that I feel is the most important one. I voted for President Bush to be re-elected for several reasons:
1. The troops in Iraq need this president to remain in office. I won't let them down by electing Kerry at this time. I think Kerry is an absolutely honorable man but I won't send a confusing message to the troops who are fitting the international bill with human lives. They need their commander and chief that led them into this terrible war. It's a horribly wrong war but I believe this president is their best hope with their needs first on his mind.
2. A vote for Bush is a vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. If Kerry wins this election, I fear we'll lose this country's best hope for democracy. She is and will be one of our greatest presidents. I know this in my heart.
3. Tax cuts are helpful. I believe we need them. I also believe a national debt is part of being a world superpower. Our economy is strong because of the strong entrepeneurial spirit which I believe resides in the heart of american business men and women. I believe tax cuts allow us to spend more as individuals should. We american citizens are the ones that determine the health of the country, not the government. The government wouldn't be able to have such an enthusiastic and dependable military without such promising democratic capitalism. Our people manufacture and construct the things our soldiers need for fighting terrorism. Our people break their backs to feed their children. Our people vote freely to regulate a good sense of business relationships. Our people know what it takes to be a successful world leader in economics and business. No system is perfect but ours is one of the world's greatest.
Our country is the strongest for many reasons. I believe the president is right for these times and other countries respect his word. When he says something, they know he means what he says. I like that in a president.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 31, 2004 04:44 PM |
|
|
Wow, I almost fell out of my chair when I read that, then I had to read it over a few times to make sure I read it right.
Consis voted for Bush? For reasons that are true even, wow.
The only problem with that post is reason #2. H. Clinton will never become president, there's no way. Plus I get to vote next time, so she definetly wouldn't get my vote.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
