US Election 2004

[Joe Mamma]

Who would/will you vote for?

[DiverDan]

Not that Kerry is a God send, or maybe he will be, but Bush is all about protecting his oil cartel buddies....and that's all he's done. Let's see, the price of gas has gone way up, we had a war with an oil producing country that didn't see the same way as us (quote: "He's an evil person"), the economy has gone to #####....He got elected (if that's what you call it) by a miss count from...his brother (the governer of Florida). And more and more....

Maybe Hillary should run for President, she did a great job before.

[MikeJ]

No Badnarik?

[Nerseus]

From things like this article, Nader might not even be an option.

 

-ner

[Jay1b]

I think Sly should run for Prez, after all his good mate Arnie got Cali :)

[quwiltw]

Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka.

[ThePentiumGuy]

Blah I'm really not big on politics... but I do know that bush destroys the english language :).

 

"Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?"

"They Misunderestimated me"'

"I agree, the past is over"

"I know how hard it is to put food on your family"

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test"

"We're concerned about AIDS in the White House, make no mistake about it"

"We're ready for any unforseen event which may or may not happen"

"I have made some good judgements in the past, I have made good judgements in the future"

 

Heh - the list goes on, but I listed the ones which i've heard him actually say... because most of the ones you find on the internet (http://www.politicalhell.com/bush-quotes.htm) are probably fake.

 

Now - I'm NOT implying that I wouldn't vote for bush becuase of this. I mean his ideas and stuff matter. So what if he's not a good public speaker.. heh. Anyways I can't vote so it wouldn't matter :).

 

-The Pentium Guy

[MikeJ]

Over on XVBT, we've been having a lively discussion/debate/shouting match on the subject:

http://www.xtremevbtalk.com/showthread.php?t=191539

[ThePentiumGuy]

If the Redskins win Bush wins... If the Packers win Kerry wins...:).

Proof: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskinspolitics-list&prov=ap&type=lgns

 

-- 2004: Redskins host Green Bay Packers on Sunday. Bush faces John Kerry on Tuesday.

[rifter1818]

I personally can't see how bush has so many supporters

 

Im sorry im oppinioned so here it goes.

1)removed because i was in error.

2) its no big secret that bush is manipulating everything he can to get his friends (and himself) richer than they allready are. now i agree aiming to get richer is not a bad thing, screwing over your nation and most of the world to get your little possy rich on the other hand.

3)A person on the http://www.xtremevbtalk.com/showthread.php?t=191539 said that Suddam Housain offered to harbor Osama bin Ladan, proof of this i would like to see they hate each other only marginally less than they hate america. Also on this site someone argued that america shouldnt dissarm its nukes to assure the MAD(Mutually assured distruction) Well lets see first of MAD is a very stupid policy but im not here to argue America should scrap it, id just point out they dont need nukes for MAD they have more than enough other weapons to blow the *** out of any CONTINENT that pisses them off. Not only that but Nuclear warheads arnt designed to take out military targets Nukes are designed to kill civilians plain and simple. NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE WEAPONS OF TERROR! its what they were designed for ex Nukes were first used (by america no less) to kill enough japanese CIVILIANS to scare them into submission.(not only that but the radiation.....)

4)Bush is using the fact that he has power to commit War crimes.

Lets say north korea got pissed of one day, really pissed of, so they went off to the UN and said "look boys those damn *random people*Vietnameese are really pissing us off so we want to take out there leader" as is predictable the un said no we'll work it out some other way. Anyways little while later north Korea decides enough is enough and invades Vietnam (chosen for no real reason by the way i have nothing against the people of vietnam) what do you think would happen? UN would sit by while North Korea killed over 7000 Vietnameese civilians? I think not.

5)Bush is single handedly (well not quite) destroying the american economy, this is bad not just for america but for the world as much of the global econmy is influenced by the american economy.

6)WAR on terror = BAD IDEA. Why WAR CREATES TERRORISTS. If i had an army and it was my goal to make a group of people hate me, hate me as much as i possibly could how might i do it? KILL SOME OF THEM. then occupy thier country, and through in one of my buddies as leader. Im sure afghanistan loves america now.

7) War in Iraq again bad idea, want Suddam hussien dead assasinate the ******* dont invade his country, while it wouldnt be easy im sure a large scale special ops sorta deal would have done it better, and not lost 1000 american troops, who knows how many iraqi troops and over 7000 civilians.

8)want to make sure that justice is done to those responcible on 9/11 ive got just the ticket, 1st fly out any and all members of the Ringleaders family without proper questioning, Second try and shut down any and all private investigations into the incident. Third when a large group of victims decide to sue one of the nations from which the terrorists came supply your layors... to fight AGAINST this lawsuit. then release some military records, itll make you look credible, just censor out the parts that link you with the Ringleaders folks, that'd really look bad. While your at it annex the oppertunity to invade some oil country, then shift all of the focus over to this new war and away from the fact that you havent even caught the ringleader yet.

"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." saying something like that really inforces the fact that your out for justice.

and the list goes on and on, anyways folks just my humble oppinion, Dont Like Kerry or Nader perticulary just bush has to go! (not for "Gods Sake" for everyones sake)

Edited October 29, 2004 by rifter1818

[Nerseus]

You(the american public) kicked(leavered) Clinton out

Bill Clinton was in office for 2 full terms - that's the limit for a US president. He didn't get kicked or leavered (?) out.

 

I didn't read any more of your post as that first part made you sound like an ***. Just my opinion.

 

-ner

[rifter1818]

Bill Clinton was in office for 2 full terms - that's the limit for a US president. He didn't get kicked or leavered (?) out.

 

I didn't read any more of your post as that first part made you sound like an ***. Just my opinion.

 

-ner

Fair enough. He was Impeached.... Id argue that your choice to ignore the rest of my post was in error but oh well.

Edited October 29, 2004 by rifter1818

[DiverDan]

There are a lot of very, very scary things about George Bush Jr., his brother and their father. But, remember that they are where they are NOT because of their intelligence or integrity, but because of their alliance with oil and "the family" (not meaning the Mafia, but the real family that economically runs the world). Both Kennedys and Perot (a group of very intelligent folks) opposed this family and look what happened to them.

 

My opinion is to keep voting away from the oil cartel (a term usually associated with drug dealers). Only that way will we really start to heal the Earth and the global economy (don't mistake our involvement in Iraq as anything other than economics...and, of course destroying the "Bush is a criminal" mosaic on the Baghdad hotel floor for all to walk on).

Edited October 29, 2004 by DiverDan

[Jay1b]

Is this a competition on who can make the most uninformed comments about a situation they truely know very little about?

 

Democracy is doomed to fail, people they strive to be leaders are just power hungary. For that reason they will all do want ever they can to benefit themselves more. Whatever party, whatever country. Unfortunately there is no other system which works either.

 

Monarchy is great if u have a strong leader, but usually there is 2/3 weak leaders for every strong one. Depotism and Dictorship are usually run by the power hungary, therefore corrupt. Communism well nuff said....

 

We need to derive a way of finding a non-corrupt method of government, based around the current democracy principle. A system that removes the power more from individuals and puts more power to the people.

[Joe Mamma]

Fair enough. He was Impeached.... Id argue that your choice to ignore the rest of my post was in error but oh well.

Where is the post?

 

Was it censored?

 

these 'Xtreme' boards are inherently thin skinned, so I wouldn't be suprised.

[quwiltw]

Is this a competition on who can make the most uninformed comments about a situation they truely know very little about?

This forced me to comment -- the irony.

 

Democracy is doomed to fail, people they strive to be leaders are just power hungary.

Fortunately for us, we live in a Republic not a Democracy.

 

We need to derive a way of finding a non-corrupt method of government' date=' based around the current democracy principle. A system that removes the power more from individuals and puts more power to the people.[/quote']

The interesting thing here is that this "new" system you describe sounds much like a true democracy -- a system our forefathers studied enough to know it wouldn't work.

 

Joe Mamma, go back and re-read, the post wasn't removed, Nerseus just decided it wasn't worth his time to read any more than the first couple sentences of it.

[Jay1b]

This forced me to comment -- the irony.

I didnt state anything i didnt know about, but u have.

 

Fortunately for us, we live in a Republic not a Democracy.

 

Do WE??? Personally i live in a Monarchy, well in name at least. Also your President refers to your country as a Democracy, so thats good enough for me.

 

a system our forefathers studied enough to know it wouldn't work.

 

You mean YOUR forefathers? Dont you think time and technology has moved on since then? Also dont assume everyone is American.....

[quwiltw]

I didn't make any assumptions about where people are from. I did make an apparent faulty assumption that the reader could use context to figure out what I meant by my pronoun usage.

 

Also your President refers to your country as a Democracy' date=' so thats good enough for me.[/quote']

So do a large part of our (my country's) population -- passing civics class is apparently a requirement for neither citizenship nor the presidency.

 

Dont you think time and technology has moved on since then? Also dont assume everyone is American.....

Technology, or the lack thereof, had little to do with the selection of a Republic over a Democratic form of government.

[Jay1b]

I did make an apparent faulty assumption that the reader could use context to figure out what I meant by my pronoun usage.

 

You assumed i was American, thats an incorrect assumption. I am sure most readers could figure out what you meant, myself included. But if it wasnt pointed out to you, then you would continue sounding pompous.

[quwiltw]

You assumed i was American' date=' thats an incorrect assumption. I am sure most readers could figure out what you meant, myself included. But if it wasnt pointed out to you, then you would continue sounding pompous.[/quote']

The fact is that I looked at your location before making my comment and I think if you sat back and gave it some thought you'd see that nothing I said made any such assumption. I'm going to repeat what I said with clarifications for the pronouns. Now take a deep breath and re-read it.

 

Fortunately for us (Americans), we (American citizens) live in a Republic not a Democracy.

...

 

The interesting thing here is that this "new" system you describe sounds much like a true democracy -- a system our (American's) forefathers studied enough to know it wouldn't work.

 

Now in your mind's eye, imagine that we were having this as an in person conversation. I could say exactly the same thing (pronouns and all) and you'd not assume that I'm making assumptions, so why now? Actually, don't answer that -- it's probably time this thread either gets back on topic or drops into the archives forever.

 

To that end... I'll say again: Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka

[ThePentiumGuy]

Both Kennedys and Perot (a group of very intelligent folks) opposed this family and look what happened to them.

Oh man... Politics is muddy.... I had no idea that things were like this even in today's world (sheesh, the world seems like a dangerious place now ;p)

 

Rifter1818: I'm gonna have to say that your post is very biased. Heh, no further comment.

 

In my opinion, there will be terrorists, no matter what. There will always be people who hate each other, this is human nature. Although we can wage war on countries to stop terror, this will lead to a huge waste of resources ... sort of like a phyrrich victory - because terrorists, unforuntatly, will always exist. There's no real way to stop them. So my opinion is opposite to Bush's, we must stay on the defensive against terrorists. While we're attacking them, they could be planning a large scale attack on us. So, to wrap things up - the war on terror might help reduce the amount of terrorists, but (agreeing with rifter1818), there's a high chance that it will cause even more to occur.

 

I'm beginning to notice that we're distrupting the Balance of Power set forth by the treaty of Westphalia (I beleive). Ever wonder why France isn't supporting us in this war? There are a multitude of reasons, but I beleive that the main reason is that the US is gaining too much power (I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just stating a fact). As we've seen in history, we'll probably be attacked (:() sooner or later, by other countries which beleive that we're gaining too much power.

For example, when France was about to inherit Spain (sorry, forgot the date), all the major countries in Europe (feeling that France was gaining too much power) attacked France and created the treaty of Utrect, basically claiming that the ruler of France (Louis XIV's son) cannot inherit both Spain and France, it must be passed down through different descendants. A quick comment on this, if this war does happen, I dont expect (nor want) it to be in my lifetime ;).

 

So, I beleive that putting down our nuclear weapons will be probably the best solution(hence, not upsetting the balance of power). That does not mean that we shouldn't stay on the defensive.

 

Now, about the whole Monarchy vs Checks and Balances issue - I agree with Jay1b when he said that 2/3 of absolute monarchs are corrupt. Checks and balances (hence, Democratic Republic) may be the best way to go. About the "placing power into the people's hands" issue - yeah that would be cool, but imagine how crazy it would get. The government acts (or should act, according to Locke) for the good of the people. There's a lot of information that the government knows that we don't - this is only for our benefit. I'd say let the govt handle this... seriously.

 

C'est my 2p.

 

-The Pentium Guy

[rifter1818]

Rifter1818: I'm gonna have to say that your post is very biased. Heh' date=' no further comment. [/quote']

I agree compleatly, note i started my post with "Im sorry im oppinioned so here it goes."[on a side note should have read oppinionated but thats my quality english at work]

In my opinion, there will be terrorists, no matter what. There will always be people who hate each other, this is human nature.

Very true, however if one wanted to really stop terrorists, they would attack them but instead would attack thier backing. A single radical leader isnt really that much of a threat, now if he has thousands of people backing him there might be a slight problem. Dont focus on the leader as the problem the problem is people (en mass) are following him. In other words instead of sending bombs send aid, make the general public agree with your cause and less of them will join in against you.

... A quick comment on this, if this war does happen, I dont expect (nor want) it to be in my lifetime .

One way to insure that it does happen in your lifetime might be [for the US]to continue invading countries with stratigic resources.

 

As for economic/goverment systems, my suggestion has allways been a community level (or maybe province/state level) elected communism (yes you can have democratic communisms(well more socialism but that difference is mostly in how communism has been slanderd to try and justify the cold war)) which then makes up a parlement like system with equality between each community leader and no "top dog" it might be harder to get some things done but it makes it much harder for large scale corruption.

[Nerseus]

I mostly skimmed these posts - no time to read them all.

For those interested, check out this link to Alex De Tocqueville's Democracy In America. While it IS a hard read, it's very inciteful. The most interesting part is that it was written at the time the USA was "born", and from a Frenchman's perspective. It's mostly unbiased - he's no sure whether democracy will work or not.

 

Personally, I think it works as good as anything. It's funny to hear someone talk about power hungry leaders in a democracy... as if there aren't power hungry leaders in any government (dictatorship anyone?).

 

I don't mind if no one reads this - it would be only fair :)

 

-ner

[mike55]

Europe would vote for anyone but bush...

[Nerseus]

I can't believe anyone who's seen Farenheit 9/11 would vote for Bush, or so I've heard. I haven't seen the movie yet...

 

If you like Nader or the "Red vs. Blue" series, check this out:

Real Life vs. Internet. About halfway through there are two sketches about "Talking Politics": real world versus the internet.

 

If you don't know anything about "Red vs. Blue", it's NOT political in any way. I'd say it's about as far from politics as you can get and about as funny as it gets (on the internet). The full link is:

http://www.redvsblue.com/home.php

 

-ner