PDA

View Full Version : The Spirit Kerry's on


merijn
08-14-2004, 08:30 AM
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen!

I have returned from beautiful Spain and I am fully refreshed with new inspiration! I thought, let's kick in with a ''hot'' issue. The Elections, are you fellow americans getting exciting? What do you expect to be the result, who will you vote for?

Let democracy do it's trick!

Over The Edge
08-14-2004, 09:18 AM
I was just reminded of the heated discussion between
Bert and Ryan (TABS) at the Keyfest dinner and in the
car the night before. :lol:


I can only predict that there's definitely going to be a
higher turnout on election night than in recent memory.
Long live democracy!



FL
www.franklucas.net

King_Ellesar
08-14-2004, 12:57 PM
Im sure many of you have probly already seen this (http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=this_land&preplay=1&ratingBar=off) but it makes me laugh everytime.

this being my first time being able to vote, im kinda excited about it. im not really excited about any particular candidate just yet, but as of right now, kerry doesnt impress me much from what ive seen of him at the convention and all. im starting to think that honesty and politics in general are becoming arch-enemies.

I was just reminded of the heated discussion between
Bert and Ryan (TABS) at the Keyfest dinner

is that what you guys were talking about? it seemed pretty serious and i saw some of you standing up and pointing and i think i saw one twirling around in a disargreement :lol: unfortunately, i was at the other table and was too shy to go over and start talking with you all too :oops:

Cary
08-14-2004, 03:33 PM
is that what you guys were talking about? it seemed pretty serious and i saw some of you standing up and pointing and i think i saw one twirling around in a disargreement :lol: unfortunately, i was at the other table and was too shy to go over and start talking with you all too :oops:

I could hear that "conversation" at the other end of the table! More like the JR Forum Gathering Debate Team. :lol:

evadedcadence
08-14-2004, 03:41 PM
heh. i heard that "conversation," too.. and i was at the OTHER table!

:P

Awake
08-14-2004, 07:37 PM
I don't get to vote, but I'm far from disinterested - I'm a US resident.

This site makes predictions as to the composition of the Electoral College based on the most accurate polling data in each state:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

This forum is dedicated to election issue debate:
http://www.bushvskerry04.com


It really isn't a great choice, but it is, in my view, a clear one.

King_Ellesar
08-14-2004, 08:06 PM
The Spirit Kerry's On


hahahahahahahahaha. i feel so dumb right now. i didnt know why you had named the topic this when i first replied. i read it as "the spirit kerry is on". now that you all are aware of my stupidity, i will run into my corner and hide. :cry:

Tabs
08-14-2004, 10:42 PM
HAHAHHAHAHA!!! Well, sorry to my misguided debate partners from Keyfest, but I am most assuredly voting for Kerry - we can't take another 4 years of Bush's policies IMO.

(Btw, lets not let this thread get ugly like similar ones have on other forums - remember that regardless of our policital stance, we're all friends, and in the case of those of us voting in this election, Americans.)

Over The Edge
08-14-2004, 11:58 PM
Oh yeah. We're still friends even though
we know that Finale is better than Sibelius. :wink:



FL
www.franklucas.net

Liquid Shadow
08-15-2004, 12:03 AM
Going off what both candidates are *saying*, Kerry would get my vote (if I were old enough...heh), but whether he can *do* everything he says he's going to remains to see. We all know the flip-flopping that Bush did since his campaigning and right now...

evadedcadence
08-15-2004, 12:06 AM
HAHAHHAHAHA!!! Well, sorry to my misguided debate partners from Keyfest, but I am most assuredly voting for Kerry - we can't take another 4 years of Bush's policies IMO.

(Btw, lets not let this thread get ugly like similar ones have on other forums - remember that regardless of our policital stance, we're all friends, and in the case of those of us voting in this election, Americans.)

Here! Here!

(on both points. :) )

merijn
08-15-2004, 08:26 AM
I don't expect this to be ''The Great Debate'', we all sort of agree. I would go for Kerry too. Few people have faith in bush now. Oh yes, and the word joke, it's just for the song, it had nothing to do with spirits! :wink:

Awake
08-15-2004, 02:47 PM
I don't expect this to be ''The Great Debate''lol - a political debate full of puns on DT songs. :p

Few people have faith in bush now. Actually, about 44% of those polled do:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/charting.html?nav=1b

However, that said, a candidate's agregate national popularity is moot; for the purposes of Presidential elections, the US is a Federal Repulbic, not a direct democracy. Which is why the site I posted above is a lot more valid a tool for looking at who's "ahead" in the polls, since it considers opinions polls in each state and creates a mock EC.

The White Raven
08-15-2004, 08:03 PM
Oh yeah. We're still friends even though
we know that Finale is better than Sibelius. :wink:



OMG!! no coments

i thought that someone like you was smart enough to see that SIBELIUS is much better than finale.

change to sibelius frank!!!
you're completely wrong!!!
convert yourself and you'll see the glory of god!!

merijn
08-16-2004, 05:16 AM
I don't expect this to be ''The Great Debate''lol - a political debate full of puns on DT songs. :p

Few <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a> have faith in bush now. Actually, about 44% of those polled do:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/charting.html?nav=1b

However, that said, a candidate's agregate national popularity is moot; for the purposes of Presidential elections, the US is a Federal Repulbic, not a direct democracy. Which is why the site I posted above is a lot more valid a tool for looking at who's "ahead" in the polls, since it considers opinions polls in each state and creates a mock EC.

Yes that that's true. I'ts not a direct democracy. I happened to study the american election system last year. Let's hope the votes come through well.

Last elections, the counting of votes went wrong in FLorida . That's the state where Bush's brother is governor right? And G W Bush won, by an inch. Strange...

Tabs
08-16-2004, 07:08 AM
Oh yeah. We're still friends even though
we know that Finale is better than Sibelius. :wink:


Blasphemy! Seriously - have you tried Sibelius 3? There's NOTHING Finale can do that Sib can't do 100X easier and more intuitively now... Finale needs to scrap their entire codebase and start from scratch if they want to compete - the only major publisher left using Finale btw is Warner Bros, Hal Leonard and Cherry Lane are both 100% Sib 3 now.

Awake
08-16-2004, 02:34 PM
Last elections, the counting of votes went wrong in FLorida . That's the state where Bush's brother is governor right? And G W Bush won, by an inch. Strange...Stories from Greg Palast on the Florida elections mess:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=4&row=2
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row=2
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=2

A clearly biased source, so apply Hanlon's Razor as appropriate.

Of course, for those counting, there were more votes against Bush than for him in two States: New Hampshire and Florida. In both cases, the vote was split between Gore and Nader, and so one could argue that the proximate cause of Gore's loss of the election had less to do with voter purging in Florida, and more to do with Ralph Nader.

Interestingly, Nader is running again this year, with the same objective seemingly in mind: defeating the Democrats at any cost. Consider this: as of right now, Bush and Kerry are tied on 47% for MN's 10 votes. Nader is polling 3%.In AR and OH - with 6 and 20 votes respectively - Bush is leading Kerry by the exact percentage of voters supporting Nader.

Incidentally, can we take the opportunity to dispell once-and-for-all one of the more absurd Election2k myths propagated over the internet with scant checking of facst: that a Supreme Court appointed by Bush's father ruled in Bush's favour. President G.H.W. Bush appointed two USSC Justices: David Souter and Clarence Thomas. In Bush v. Gore, of the two Justices appointed by Bush's father, only Thomas joined Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor and Kennedy in the majority. Souter dissented.

These elections aren't about policy - they're about math. Which candidate will be a worse President, and how to achieve an Electoral College balance in the favour of their opponent.

Over The Edge
08-16-2004, 02:37 PM
Ryan you nut, I was just pulling your chain.
I'm a Sibelius guy too, remember?

See how intense this guy gets!
Don't even get him started on the Bush/Kerry topic! :lol:


FL
www.franklucas.net

AcousticShredder
08-16-2004, 02:57 PM
Well, I can't in good faith vote for Bush. Let me tell you a little story.

When my daughter was born 6 years ago, my wife asked to be put on birth control. Keep in mind that the hospital we were at was a federally funded Christian hospital. Therefore, they refused to put my wife on birth control, because Christian beliefs do not allow any form of birth control. So, a federally funded hospital refused to give my wife birth control because of religious beliefs.

There's enough of a mix of religion and government as it is right now, I don't want anymore. I don't know who I'm voting for this year, but it will not be George Bush. I just can't stomach someone trying to assert religious beliefs on the country as a whole. Just can't do it.

James

Spock's Theater
08-16-2004, 04:10 PM
I'm not a US resident but I would vote for anyone else than Bush, probably Kerry.

lighthouse
08-16-2004, 04:30 PM
I'm not a US resident but I would vote for anyone else than Bush, probably Kerry.


Agree



Juan Pablo

merijn
08-16-2004, 07:25 PM
It seems that Hollywood knows perfectly well who to vote for.


http://www.natalieportman.com/images/candids/rockthevote_portmanvote.jpg

Awake
08-16-2004, 11:59 PM
It seems that Hollywood knows perfectly wellPoliticians and actors are natural allies. One group are professional liars; the other is paid to fool people into thinking they're someone they're not.

Of course, determining which is which is a little tougher. ;)

Incidentally, if people are interested in seeing just how far off-base the GOP has wandered, check out any of Pat Buchanan's articles on www.amconmag.com, his book A Nation, Not an Empire, or read Newt Gingrich's book To Renew America. The Republican party described in their scribblings is unrecognisable as the GOP of George, Tom, Bill and Dennis. Something has gone very awry in the Republican party, and the single greatest catastrophe to befall that party in recent years was the defeat of Senator McCain by Governor Bush in the 2000 Primaries.

We're stuck for choices. Kerry / Edwards 2004; but McCain / Buchanan 2008. :)

merijn
08-19-2004, 06:16 PM
Yes that's true. It's just that I am so curious who s going to win, and especially what the winner will do in those four years. Be honest, americans are overall not really deep thinkers. I mean, they easlily change opinions and it mostly based upon great events. Winning 3 purple hearts can make the diffirence between victory and loss.

VintageMan
08-22-2004, 12:02 AM
In my humble opinion, it's time to USA change to direct elections... :roll:

metalman
08-22-2004, 03:45 AM
I just want you to know it urged me to register when I saw this thread.
Over the Edge- How quickly you forgot that I also was tag teaming w/ Burt on Tabs at the restaurant. :D

Ryan, don't get me started again :P As you sad earlier, we can discuss...argue and still be friends and in our case buisness partners :)

I also recall that debate in JR's car and in the studio, or was that on another day?

In any case, I'm glad I finally registered...well, re-registered actually but, I haven't posted on this board in a couple years so I was probably booted off at some point for being stagnant.

and if you can't tell by now, I'm a Republican and voting for Bush.

Hasta Lasanga,
Metalman

Georges
08-22-2004, 06:16 AM
However, that said, a candidate's agregate national popularity is moot; for the purposes of Presidential elections, the US is a Federal Repulbic, not a direct democracy.

Switzerland is a (Con)Federal Republic (whether federal or confederal, it's exactly the same) AND a direct democracy in almost all political matters, one of the very few such democracies in the world - so one system does not exclude the other.

These elections aren't about policy - they're about math. Which candidate will be a worse President, and how to achieve an Electoral College balance in the favour of their opponent.

This election will be a tough one for Kerry, not because of Bush's superb (*ironic*) leadership qualities or his outstanding (*ironic*) intelligence. No, it's rather because of his Bush family&friends network. Bush will use every means to be re-elected, even if it means manipulating the vote results (if at a 50-50 balance) la Florida (where his brother governs) during last elections. That's the dangerous thing about Bush ...

That's why I think that these elections will not be about policy, not about math but rather about good organized propaganda (see the current "Vietnam stories" launched by Bush against Kerry) and lobbying/corruption (but that's nothing new, money rules the world, even here in the supposedly European democracies).

That said, democracy (even in it's purest state) is very far from being a perfect system, though it's still better than the other options currently available.

merijn
08-22-2004, 08:27 AM
I just want you to know it urged me to register when I saw this thread.
Over the Edge- How quickly you forgot that I also was tag teaming w/ Burt on Tabs at the restaurant. :D

Ryan, don't get me started again :P As you sad earlier, we can discuss...argue and still be friends and in our case buisness partners :)

I also recall that debate in JR's car and in the studio, or was that on another day?

In any case, I'm glad I finally registered...well, re-registered actually but, I haven't posted on this board in a couple years so I was probably booted off at some point for being stagnant.

and if you can't tell by now, I'm a Republican and voting for Bush.

Hasta Lasanga,
Metalman

Ok, interesting! What's so good about Bush! :)

metalman
08-22-2004, 01:30 PM
Well for starters on the war, he liberated the citizens of TWO countries, and introduced a Constitutional Republic to them where both women and me are free, can vote, have rights which are equal to each other, are allowed an education, and Capitalism. Regardless of the negative spin the media is reporting on Iraq, the Islamo-facist terrorist enemy is only a small percentage of people that are not taking advantage of a free sovreign nation. I mean...come on...would you fight the people that helped you become free of a Dictorial Murder and his gov't like Saddam? More Iraqi citizens have running water, concrete roads, private businesses, education, and the GOD given right of EVERY human being to be a free thinking, free living person!

No, you can't expect anyone to snap there fingers and make it a perfect peaceful democracy. It take time and perservearnce, and a clear steadfast vision for peace. It will come.

Just think about WWII. If the allied forces of a few countries did nothing to stop a Dictorial Murder from taking over Europe everyone would be speaking German w/ a Nazi twist. The US was in the war for about a year but WWII lasted for a few years and we liberated France, Poland, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Germany, removed Italy from Facism...etc. I'm sure decades Europe is a bit better off.

But back to present day. We also now have Pakistan as a formittable allie, Libya revealed is't hidden stock pipe of biologial weapons and came clean with it's nuclear program. And Saudi Arabia is the most active it has been in persuing terroist criminals. We know Saudi's gov't is a bit querky, but it's a start.

On the economy here- Our economy is strong. Stop listen to the libral media and look at facts. Homeowner ship is up, unemplyment is down, taxes cuts are big, we are out of the recession that started in the first few months of Bush's presidency. I believe the recession handed to him by Clinton. I don't know about any of you but I got more back in my tax refunds that ever before, I don't know how the media bitching about a "sour" economy. I 5 jobs from five different employers, one of which I own. If you can't find a job these days, either you are just in that small unfortunate job market or your not opening yourself up enough to get one.

Education-I honestly can't really comment on ed. I haven't really focused on the education pionts. But I got mine. I have a BM in Music Education and will soon get my Masters. I the cost of my education wasn't to bad IMO. I'm not left with drowning debts I mean. The "No Child Left Behing" act is a good initiative that students get strong equal education opourtunity and makes sure teachers are qualified and always learning themselves. I just wish that individually, students are held more responsible for there actions. Certain things should be put on the schools systems and the teachers, but if a student is not learning because of their own accord then that's on the students. You cannot make a student learn. A teachers can provide them with all the information in the world but if they don't want to use it, what can ya do.

I think Bush is a decent, good man. Trustworth and type of guys you can sit down with and talk to. He definately can relate to more of the average American that Kerry can.

He is on of the richest men in the countries thanks to his wife. How the hell can he related to me personally and professionally, who makes a mid 30's salary.

I know Kerry has no core values. He's an oppourtunist and will be on whatver side of the issue that will best suit him at the time. And I can provide many instances.

For reading other posts let me say that I think faith, religion, and moral clarity are great attributes in a President and in any human being. Why do people down Bush for having faith and making that part of who his is. Why is religion bad is some of your eyes? The man is a practicing Christian (Catholic?) and has a strong faith. He is not a Bible thumping mad man that passes out Bibles at every press conferences and his trying to pass laws with hard edged religious structure.

BTW- the term seperation of church and state means that America cannot for a gov't that is structure on a certain religion. We are not a religious gov't. We are a secular gov't. But, that doesn't mean that "In God we trust" can be print on our money, or "under God" can't be said in the Pledge of Allegience to our country. Something like 97% of the world believes in one religion or another right? That means a higher power then oneself, yes? So, there is a God in Catholoism and Judism, and Islam, and Budism, and every religion. It does not say "In the Catholic God we trust". It says "In God we trust". That would be your God. Not the gov'ts God. Becuase our gov't doesn't have a God as some gov'ts in the middle east do

As Tabs know I can talk about this for a long time whole-heartedly with facts and conviction. Not just blatent belittling and name calling.

I don't what you guys to read this and think I'm "yelling" at any of you. I writing this with a calm, clear, discussive manner. The one thing about the internet is you can't hear the writers tone of voice. :D

Peace,
Metalman

merijn
08-23-2004, 07:33 AM
Metalman, I must confess I really enjoyed reading your piece. And I haven't got the feeling that you are yelling at people. You have explained perfectly well why you support Bush, and yes! You DID free me in the WO II! :D Good thing. But what I think that isn't good, is the attitude america is suffering from. It's not the big ego attitude but it comes close. Ofcourse, the US is a superpower with a big army and influence. But I think that america considers itself too much ''Police of the World''. The attacks on the World Trade Center was awful, back then on 11 September I really felt compassion for the people who lost their lives. Such an attack is inhuman. And I truly felt that this Bin laden and his gang needed to be ''removed''. Ok, what has happened from then untill now? Well, Bush started a war in a country which doesn't come first in the war against terrorism. He went after Saddam. That's good, Europe thinks he's a terrible man too but he did it rather uncarefully. That's how Blair lost his reputation. Blair and Bush started a war on false groundings. The reasons for starting the war appeared to be invalid later on. That's a risky move if you aks me. Sure, they got saddam! Great! But Iraq is still a mess. The first weeks the Iraqi were glad that they were libirated of the dictator. But it is obvious that the people have rather ''enough'' of the americans in their country. That's why there are some militia who still attack the american army in Iraq. I mean, the situation is far from solved. That's a result of a lack of thinking. I think they didn't plan enough to make it work. They have got the big guy, and the rest isn't that important. That's the impression I get. And I predict that it will take years before the real peace returned.

The funny thing is that I'm not really a republican, nor a democrat. I'm in a country where I don't vote on a man unbehave of a president candidate. We have direct democracy here. And it works, we have too many rules because every layer in the population wants to have SOME idea of them to be a law. On the other hand, that's the best way to please most parties.

Now, democrates and Republicans all want the same thing when it comes to war. Only, they have diffirent methods. And I must confess that I can't stand a speech of Kerry. He always goed like ''Bush did this, and this''. He never looks really forward of what he has to do. That's the lack of politicians these days, and not only in the US. In europe we know them very well too. Politicians are good at three things:

1. emphasizing all the bad things of the past, including the former president

2. Speaking in 879 sentences while it can be said in 2.
3. Holding silent of the plans they will be executing. They say what they will do but not with details. Plus they don't have a ''plan B'' if plan A doesn't work.


That's why I think it's good for to see how an actor would do. Indeed, Arnold.

I hope I haven't given the feeling to be yelling at anyone :wink: . Metalman, you will vote for bush. I respect that, and you certainly must vote for him. Because our ideas of an ideal situation aren't so diffirent! :wink:

AcousticShredder
08-23-2004, 11:49 AM
For reading other posts let me say that I think faith, religion, and moral clarity are great attributes in a President and in any human being. Why do people down Bush for having faith and making that part of who his is. Why is religion bad is some of your eyes? The man is a practicing Christian (Catholic?) and has a strong faith. He is not a Bible thumping mad man that passes out Bibles at every press conferences and his trying to pass laws with hard edged religious structure.

Excellent post, metalman! I do want to comment on this paragraph, however. There is nothing wrong with Bush for being a practicing Catholic/Christian. But when he takes those religious ideals and tries to put them into law, a law that governs everyone regardless of what they might believe, that is where I draw the line. He is, in fact, forcing his religious beliefs on the country. Take a look at the recent attempt at banning gay marriages. This was attempted by Bush because of his religious ideals. He is trying to force America to live their lives the way that his religious ideals see fit, and that's not right. That's my biggest beef with Bush, honestly. I don't mind religious folks. I'm not what one would consider to be religious, as I am a practicing Buddhist. I do not agree with the Christian/Catholic ideology, and I do not think that the leader of this country should be trying to make me or anyone else follow his religious views.

But I can certainly respect your opinion, because it is a well thought out, considered response, and not just a knee-jerk reaction to us Bush haters :wink: . I will not be voting for Bush because of my personal convictions, and you will be voting for him because of your personal convictions. And that's why this place they call America isn't such a bad place to live.

Rock on, man!

James

merijn
08-23-2004, 06:54 PM
For reading other posts let me say that I think faith, religion, and moral clarity are great attributes in a President and in any human being. Why do people down Bush for having faith and making that part of who his is. Why is religion bad is some of your eyes? The man is a practicing Christian (Catholic?) and has a strong faith. He is not a Bible thumping mad man that passes out Bibles at every press conferences and his trying to pass laws with hard edged religious structure.

Excellent post, metalman! I do want to comment on this paragraph, however. There is nothing wrong with Bush for being a practicing Catholic/Christian. But when he takes those religious ideals and tries to put them into law, a law that governs everyone regardless of what they might believe, that is where I draw the line. He is, in fact, forcing his religious beliefs on the country. Take a look at the recent attempt at banning gay marriages. This was attempted by Bush because of his religious ideals. He is trying to force America to live their lives the way that his religious ideals see fit, and that's not right. That's my biggest beef with Bush, honestly. I don't mind religious folks. I'm not what one would consider to be religious, as I am a practicing Buddhist. I do not agree with the Christian/Catholic ideology, and I do not think that the leader of this country should be trying to make me or anyone else follow his religious views.

But I can certainly respect your opinion, because it is a well thought out, considered response, and not just a knee-jerk reaction to us Bush haters :wink: . I will not be voting for Bush because of my personal convictions, and you will be voting for him because of your personal convictions. And that's why this place they call America isn't such a bad place to live.

Rock on, man!

James

James! Glad you posted. I can't agree more with you!! Banning the gay marriage is a measure which doesn't make any sense! I'm mostly catholic raised by my parents, and I am perfectly at the same line with a buddist! That's how the world must be. Religion is a big thing, but we must avoid religion to make a diffirence.

Georges
08-24-2004, 01:56 AM
But I think that america considers itself too much ''Police of the World''.

First, by America I don't mean the American people but I refer to the American Government. I believe that America (see definition here above) uses the Police of the World too often as an excuse to do something completely different. Of course, it does not say so openly, it's more a suggestion in consequence of its actions.

When it entered Afganisthan, one could understand why under some circumstances, even though vengence is not what America suggests other countries to do in case of a similar situation.

As for Iraq, one cannot speak however about freedom at all, it's rather about the black gold and a tactical military position in the Eastern world. Furthermore, it increased the barril price to horrendous levels (above 45 USD, as opposed to the petrol shock in 1973/74 USD 41 max.), so economically the 2nd Iraq war was a mere catastrophy.

Finally, one word to WWII - there are quite many historics who claim that a certain AH would never have gotten control of Germany if the Americans had let Europe become an organized community la EU already in 1927 (which Europe wanted), but they were not allowed for the fear of another superpower. After 1945, the project was accepted by everyone - after millions of lives had been wasted. Even if all this cannot be proven (as it happened the other way round), it still provides an interesting thought.

I don't want to persuade anyone here by saying the above - it's rather that I want to put a "?" on what is claimed outside. There's always a difference between what I say and what YOU think I say.

metalman
08-25-2004, 12:48 AM
There is nothing wrong with Bush for being a practicing Catholic/Christian. But when he takes those religious ideals and tries to put them into law, a law that governs everyone regardless of what they might believe, that is where I draw the line. He is, in fact, forcing his religious beliefs on the country. Take a look at the recent attempt at banning gay marriages. This was attempted by Bush because of his religious ideals. He is trying to force America to live their lives the way that his religious ideals see fit, and that's not right.


The problem I have with this statement is this: When your (Collective "you") parents give you morals and ideals of thought to live with for the rest of your life, and when your own personal experiences and choices in life mold your personal values, how can you possibly separate them from your decision making. You can't-the choices you make in life and what you believe is right in life come from your past lessons, the morals of your parents, your own experiences-Including the the values learned from your particular faith. Not by some isolated neutral, unbiased area of your brain.

Certain things that President Bush belives for instance about gay marriages comes from his values as a Christian. You can't seperate your soul (well, some religions do :))from your body and you can't seperate personal beliefs from your desicion making.

If I were to plug in the word "Ideas" into the above quote it just would make sense:

There is nothing wrong with Bush for having ideas. But when he takes those ideas and tries to put them into law, a law that governs everyone regardless of what they might believe, that is where I draw the line. He is, in fact, forcing his ideas on the country. Take a look at the recent attempt at banning gay marriages. This was attempted by Bush because of his ideas. He is trying to force America to live their lives the way that his ideas see fit, and that's not right.

see what I mean?

Now in our government, we have a system in which laws are proposed, reviewed, edited, and passed. Bush is not forcing anything. If he proposes a law or a Constitutional Amendment. It need to go from him to the Congress, if passed by the Congress then is gets passed to the Senate, which if passed by them, then can become law. Our president does not have the totalitarian right to force anything into law.

On a side note-The Pilgrams left England to the "New World" to get away from Religious persicution. And our forefathers wrote a Constitution that forbids religion to dictate our laws.


Here is the inside story about the gay marriage issue that some of you might not here:
First and foremost a marriage is a sacred, holy, religios union between two people... and what comes of that is the creation...or procreation of a family, and how does that happen...Between and man and a women. Men are born with the "----" women are born with the "O" and they work together :)

A Legal Union is made by the government for records, tax perposed, census. Not religious.

If your from Germany, you know that you go the the justice of the peace first to be legally united, then get married in the church to be religious bonded, right. Two different things.

in America, when your married in a church then all the papers are filled then, religious and legal.

OK, I'm long winded, sorry...

If the the US were to OK gay marriages, then that would also open the door from Polygamists (multiple wives), and other "alternative" bonds. Then we'd have people into beastiality wanting to marry there dogs. As to not be discriminative, we'd then have to allow them marriage as well. If that was OKed by our President then that is diluting the sacred institution, And that's not gonna happen here.

Pres. Bush has stated in an interview with Larry King (I summerizing here) that he's not against gay living and creating a life together but against then married

That is more or less the issue w/ the gay marriage thing.


--------------------------------------
On another issue-
If we wanted "black gold" to be have for ourselves. Don't you honestly think we could have taken it by now if we really wanted to. America is not a country of occupancy, we historically have been still are a country of liberation and freedom. We have just liberated 25 million ppl in Iraq and helped them to become a soverign nation. They will not become the 51 state in the US, neither will Afganistan, neither did S. Korea or France, or any other country that we have fought in. We have historically fought TO remove an occupier and liberate it's people and spread every man's born right to be a free thinking person.

A great man once said, "With great power comes great responsibility." If Spiderman just let the great atrocities happen around him without helping, just as he did in the 2nd movie, I'm sure all of you were saddened by it and were kinda like, "wow, that sucks". He can totally help these people, but he's choosing not to. That is America. We are undoubtedly a great power in the world and because of that we have a great responsibility put on us, inherently. If, like Spiderman, we pulled all our military power out of every place on the planet, cut off funding to every country that we give to. Cut of food and material and medical aid to every other continent on the planet. That would SUCK. For the world and honestly for us as well.

Sure, there's a line from helping to looking like a bully. But looking at were people or countries come from, there is the benifit of doubt that you should consider.

If I was in trouble I would hope that people who were stronger than me would help me out and pick me up and not just look at me getting my a** kicked.

America needs helps too and when we call for help, our friends are gracious enough to respond, not throwing their suits away.

Do I make sense?

Putting this stuff into text is kinda second rate from me being able to speak it to you. But, I hope I get my points across.

Thanks for reading.

Peace,
Metalman

Cary
08-25-2004, 08:59 AM
Do I make sense?

Putting this stuff into text is kinda second rate from me being able to speak it to you. But, I hope I get my points across.

Thanks for reading.

Peace,
Metalman

Wow. Another excellent post. Agree or disagree, you present your thoughts well and don't just regurgitate rhetoric and mass-media bullsh*t. Keep up the good work.

AcousticShredder
08-25-2004, 10:46 AM
Damn, metalman, you rock! Great points, though I do have to dispute them.

You made a distinction between marriage and legal unions. That's all well and good. If that's the way it should be, then completely take the legal aspect out of religious ceremony. The state gives priests power to not only spiritually join a couple, but also legally join them. If we are to draw a distinction between a spiritual join and a legal one, then make it separate.

I can understand the Church not allowing gay marriages. They are, in every sense, a private group. One allowed to make their own rules, as it were. But since these religious institutions are given legal rights, then that clouds the issue. Is marriage a religious ceremony or is it a legal one?

But by drafting a change to the constitution to keep "marriage" a sacred union between a man and a woman, then it should be "marriage" that is bound to that, not legal union. But since the two are so intertwined, what goes for one goes for the other, and at that point, it's discrimination against sexual orientation.

If the Church deems that marriages should be a sacred union between a man and a woman, that is fine. But keep the legal aspect out of it. A church does not have to perform a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. But our government should not be able to discriminate that, because that's restricting personal freedom. That's the point I'm trying to make, and I hope it's understood as well.

Oh, and no fair changing my words and having them make more sense to me than when I originally wrote them. That was slick, but it did open my eyes to what you were trying to prove. Well done, my friend. Well done!

\m/

James

Georges
08-25-2004, 02:12 PM
If we wanted "black gold" to be have for ourselves. Don't you honestly think we could have taken it by now if we really wanted to. America is not a country of occupancy, we historically have been still are a country of liberation and freedom. [...]We have historically fought TO remove an occupier and liberate it's people and spread every man's born right to be a free thinking person.
[...]
Do I make sense?

To your last question, my answer: no.

As for taking the black gold, that's what America (remember: I refer to the government and not its people!) has tried to do since the 60ies and they failed so far because the Arabs do not want to be controlled. The oil crisis in the 70ies was mainly due to the conflict between the Arab world and the Americans' support to Israel. Besides from that, claiming territory or resources openly these days is no more really popular among the developed countries. There always needs to be some kind of excuse - this time, it's the freedom of the native people, how noble, don't you agree ?

America is historically a country of many ambiguities. Already consider its re-birth under the name USA, which was preceded by many deaths of its native people, the real Americans. Actually, all the countries in the world are historically full of ambiguities - there is no holy freedom fighter around, forget that idea. Even modern so-called democracy governments do not act out of reason and ideology, their main motives are money (economy), power (military) and keeping power (elections).

There is a difference between what a government says and what you think it says. Your ideas are ideal and or logical thinking and not political (where reason and ideology falls apart). I urge you to read e.g. Hobbes's essays about state philosophy.

I can't stress enough that I am NOT saying that the European Union would be better or holier. I can only stress that one has to take distance in order to be able to judge about a situation. Always ask yourself why a politician acts as he/she acts; they are normal human beings.

Awake
08-26-2004, 02:05 PM
Well for starters on the war, he liberated the citizens of TWO countries, and introduced a Constitutional Republic to them where both women and me are free, can vote, have rights which are equal to each other, are allowed an education....

No, you can't expect anyone to snap there fingers and make it a perfect peaceful democracy. It take time and perservearnce, and a clear steadfast vision for peace. It will come.I completely agree with everything you say that I've quoted here. I agreed with and publically supported, loudly and vocally, the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, against overwhelming scepticism in the UK at that time, and on various message boards I visit which were also overwhelmingly opposed to the liberation.

None of this changes the fact that institutional arrogance led the Pentagon to ignore an exhaustive State Dept. report on the situation in Iraq and how to stabalize it, and thus make a number of huge, endemic mistakes during the course of the operation. It doesn't change the fact that things happened that shouldn't have happened, such as the demobilization of the remnants of the Iraqi army, or the Abu Ghraib abuse scandals, and the fact that Rumsfeld has kept his job over it. It doesn't excuse the failure to secure Iraq's borders, which was itself a direct result of another failing: the fact that we invaded Iraq at least two divisions light, just to satisfy Rumsfeld's flawed vision of a personnel-light combined-arms technology-driven invasion. You can only do so much with air power, as we learned in Kosovo. You can invade a country and smash its military and political infrastructure with a limited number of ground troops backed by vast ariel supremacy, which was ably demonstrated in Iraq, but you cannot occupy that country and train its forces to stand on their own with a limited number of troops - especially if political bungling compounds the situation.

Bush ordered Iraq's liberation, something that John Kerry would never have done. Bush is withdrawing US troops from obsolete bases in Europe for redployment from US bases, something Clinton signaly failed to do. I far more agree with Bush on foreign policy than I do with Kerry's. Ironically, given I tout a McCain/Buchanan ticket, I fundamentally disagree with Pat's anti-war position also. But none-the-less, I think that the mistakes that Bush and his administration have made require his removal from office. Often, these problems stem from an over-simplistic view of the issue, which leads to bad policy, in areas as diverse as right-to-life, the economy, the rebuilding of Iraq, and numerous others. That simplistic outlook makes him a loose cannon; John Kerry, by contrast is a de-activated cannon. Neither is what we really want, but that's the choice we have.




But back to present day. We also now have Pakistan as a formittable allyPakistan is still a dangerously tinpot military dictatorship with a horrendous human rights record and very little progress towards cleaning up its act - and one that has been in a protracted nuclear standoff with India ever since it developed WMD.

Libya revealed is't hidden stock pipe of biologial weapons and came clean with it's nuclear program.I agree that this is a direct result of American foregin and diplomatic policy.


Saudi Arabia is the most active it has been in persuing terroist criminals. We know Saudi's gov't is a bit querky, but it's a start.The Saudi regime is even worse than the Pakistani regime in terms of human rights and political rights. Since virtually every hijacker involved in the 9/11 plot was Saudi, and since most of the money financing the operation was Saudi, one can put together a not entirely unconvincing attack that the next nation on the table for the war on terror after Afghanistan should have been Saudi Arabia. I personally see that country as a far, far greater threat than Iran.


On the economy here- Our economy is strong. Stop listen to the libral media and look at facts. Homeowner ship is up, unemplyment is down, taxes cuts are big, we are out of the recession that started in the first few months of Bush's presidency. Okay, let's look at the NON liberal media.

Starting with the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bpderugy.pdf
The Cato Institute? Criticizing Republican fiscal policy?! WTF?!

How about the NeoCon bible, the Weekly Standard? Them too!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/716kzuei.asp

Does the American Conservative Union like Bush's economic policy? No!!
http://www.conservative.org/judges/spending.asp

How about the Federal Government's OWN findings??
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Or the Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27055-2004Aug23.html

NONE of these even vaguely qualify as "the liberal media", and most of them are either run by the GOP or largely affiliated with it. ALL of them have absolutely castigated this Administration and its lunatic Congressional allies (particularly Dennis Hastert, a man who isn't fit to sit in the same chair as his predecessor, Newt Gingrich, IMO) over their economic policy. There is NO evidence that the Bush team has even the beginnings of a strategy to deal with a stagnant employment outlook, and the rising strategic economic threats of outsourcing and China. Furthermore, Bush wants to effectively rubber-stamp illegal immigration - a practice which already drives down wages for American workers and fails to provide structure for other countries to advance. These are not the hallmarks of an administration that has a handle on the economy!



If you can't find a job these days, either you are just in that small unfortunate job market or your not opening yourself up enough to get one.I don't think that's entirely fair or accurate. Now, I moved to the USA in February, and so I expected to swallow my pride, forget my experience, and start from the bottom. I was fully prepared to start working in Family Video for minimum wage, because I knew my place. As it turned out, I got offered a job that was a direct career progression from my previous position, and after three months on the job, I'm already making at least as much as I made in the UK. I got lucky, and I had the experience that company was looking for. But you're saying that jobs are available - I got real lucky and had experience to capitalize on luck. You're asking someone who has stumped up a huge amount of money for College to go and work in Famlily Video? That isn't fair. You're trading on the difference between "unemployed" and "underemployed". Yes, jobs are out there, but most of the jobs available aren't "good jobs", i.e. those with benefits and decent salaries. A graduate working at McDonalds is not a graduate who is gainfully employed.



I think Bush is a decent, good man. Trustworth and type of guys you can sit down with and talk to.This I agree with.


He definately can relate to more of the average American that Kerry can.This I don't agree with. I see no grounds for that opinion.


He is on of the richest men in the countries thanks to his wife. How the hell can he related to me personally and professionally, who makes a mid 30's salary.Bush is a failed businessman who grew up in his father's shadow, got alcoholism, beat alcoholism with the grace of God Almighty, and won political office in the same way Nixon did: trashing his opponent. Kerry was a soldier for this country who made himself a hero in the field, came home to try and stop the war, and then became a very rich Senator. I don't think EITHER of those guys can relate to many people here, so the point of which is the least capable is moot.



I know Kerry has no core values. He's an oppourtunist and will be on whatver side of the issue that will best suit him at the time. And I can provide many instances.I 100% agree with you, but just for fun, let's have a look at the instances you have in mind.


For reading other posts let me say that I think faith, religion, and moral clarity are great attributes in a President and in any human being. Why do people down Bush for having faith and making that part of who his is.Indeed - it's crucial to remember that church and state are and can be separated. Personal faith and politics, however, are inseparable.



Why is religion bad is some of your eyes? The man is a practicing Christian (Catholic?) and has a strong faith. He is not a Bible thumping mad man that passes out Bibles at every press conferences and his trying to pass laws with hard edged religious structure.James has already addressed this issue.

Tabs
08-26-2004, 02:53 PM
We have just liberated 25 million ppl in Iraq and helped them to become a soverign nation.

Like it or not, Iraq was a soverign nation before we got there too. In fact Iraq marks the first time we've invaded a soverign nation without being attacked by them...

I hope for our sake that democracy does take hold there but I think it's going to be extrortdinarily difficult to force a culture centered around theocratic rules to submit to self government and tolerance of the differences in others. I still have a very big issue with the notion that you can force feed democracy onto a country. Can you imagine another country invading the US and telling us that our system, culture, and values are all wrong and that we have to trust them that their way is better? Would Americans really submit to that? I think not, and that's exactly what you're seeing now in Iraq with this cleric Al Sadr and his fighters.
[/quote]

Tabs
08-26-2004, 03:04 PM
The Saudi regime is even worse than the Pakistani regime in terms of human rights and political rights. Since virtually every hijacker involved in the 9/11 plot was Saudi, and since most of the money financing the operation was Saudi, one can put together a not entirely unconvincing attack that the next nation on the table for the war on terror after Afghanistan should have been Saudi Arabia. I personally see that country as a far, far greater threat than Iran.

Agreed 100% - Saddam Hussein was not the destabilizing, terrorist producing force in the Middle East, the House of Saud and the radical brand of anti-Western Wahabbi Islam that their state-run religious schools pound into kids heads is. That and the Israel/Palestine conflict are nearly entirely the reason we have Islamic terrorism. Saddam even comes from a rival faction in Islam to Osama Bin Laden's and Bin Laden stated many times that he hated Saddam because he was TOO secular and didn't espouse Taliban-style theology.

If we wanted to effect real change in the region, we should have taken out the House of Saud, not Saddam. This of course will never happen with anyone even remotely related to Bush in power, because the ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royalty go back almost 40 years. They're literally like family to eachother. And if you want to get into liberation and humanitarian motives, consider the fact that the Saudi Religious Police forced 15 girls at a school a few years ago to burn to death in an accidental fire because they didn't have the proper religious shrouds on to be allowed to escape the building. That is just as sick and twisted as anything Saddam Hussein ever did and possibly moreso.[/quote]

Awake
08-26-2004, 04:58 PM
We have just liberated 25 million ppl in Iraq and helped them to become a soverign nation.

Like it or not, Iraq was a soverign nation before we got there too. In fact Iraq marks the first time we've invaded a soverign nation without being attacked by them... And yet, for all that, those who opposed the liberation of Iraq - when it was advocated at the close of the Gulf War, when the founders of the PNAC wrote their famous letter to President Clinton advocating regime change, and when Bush II finally made the decision to liberate - have never once offered an escape strategy for those oppressed under Saddam's regime. When we sold Saddam weapons in the 1980s, when we stood silently by when he used them on his own people, When we perfidiously turned our backs on the Shi'Ite uprising at the end of the gulf war, when we carelessly imposed sanctions, when we accepted as inevitable the corruption of the oil-for-food program - when we did all these things, we created an incumbency upon ourselves to pay back those debts, an even greater incumbency than America alreay has inherited as the torch of liberty.

When America broke free from Britain, it could not have done so without the armed assistance of France (how's them beans for historical irony) in their support. Why do you think virtually every major city has a road named after LaFayette? When the British surrendered to Washington, whose troops do you think Washington commanded? At the moment of America's birth, France - one of the world superpowers of its day - lent armed support to free America of oppression. Now America has inherited France's status as a superpower, and yet there are forces in America who would deny to countries like Iraq that same assistance which created this great nation.

If the argument is that liberating Iraq broke international law, then my argument must be that if international law is impotent in the face of tyranny, then that law is contemptible, and can carry no moral force whatsoever.

Awake
08-26-2004, 05:08 PM
The Saudi regime is even worse than the Pakistani regime in terms of human rights and political rights. Since virtually every hijacker involved in the 9/11 plot was Saudi, and since most of the money financing the operation was Saudi, one can put together a not entirely unconvincing attack that the next nation on the table for the war on terror after Afghanistan should have been Saudi Arabia. I personally see that country as a far, far greater threat than Iran.

Agreed 100% - Saddam Hussein was not the destabilizing, terrorist producing force in the Middle East, the House of Saud and the radical brand of anti-Western Wahabbi Islam that their state-run religious schools pound into kids heads is. If we wanted to effect real change in the region, we should have taken out the House of Saud, not Saddam.In my view, it isn't just an indoctrination issue. Whether a person is free under a democracy, or whether a person is oppressed under tyranny, they still suffer from all the usual pressures of life. They have feelings and opinions on issues. The difference is that, in a democracy, there is a legitimate avenue for redress of greivances: one may take legal action against a person or an entity; one may run for political office to change a law or form a political party to seek election to change an entire nation's foreign policy. Under a tyranny, these avenues do not exist, and the pressures are usually multiplied. I don't have to worry about getting arrested and tortured for buying a beer or letting my wife out of the house. With no legitimate political, legal or economic avenue to serve as an outlet to frustration and anger, people become easy targets for fundamentalist recruiters. These recruiters present exatly what everyone secretly wants: someone to blame. The root of their problems, says the recruiter, is America. And we have a way you can help get back at them. Depositism and tyranny are the breeding grounds of terrorism.


That and the Israel/Palestine conflict are nearly entirely the reason we have Islamic terrorism.I certainly agree that American blank-cheque support for Israel must end immediately, but we should not go so far as some argue; the US government must open its eyes to Israeli provocations and outrages, but not at the expense of closing those eyes to the outrages carried out by the Palestinians. This is a WHOLE other debate... We could be here for a while if we get onto Israel / Palestine. ;)

Awake
08-26-2004, 05:17 PM
Incidentally, Philip Bobbit's distinctions between nation-states and state-nations in his book The Shield of Achilles are of great relevance to the discussion of whether or not Iraq was a sovereign nation under Saddam Hussein.

Awake
08-26-2004, 05:20 PM
In my humble opinion, it's time to USA change to direct elections... :roll:I would strongly disagree. I think the Electoral College serves a useful function.

For a good primer on the arguments for and against, refer to Wikipedia's article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Supporters_of_the_college

Georges
08-26-2004, 05:26 PM
Can you imagine another country invading the US and telling us that our system, culture, and values are all wrong and that we have to trust them that their way is better? Would Americans really submit to that? I think not, and that's exactly what you're seeing now in Iraq with this cleric Al Sadr and his fighters.

That's a very important point about which I have also been thinking recently. If the Iraqis had really wanted a democracy, they would have started a revolution themselves. They don't need any Americans to do that. The French farmers didn't need any Americans either 215 years ago. Why would Iraqis need them today ?

If Bush really wants to play the world's liberator, then he should turn his attention to Africa, those people need his help more than the Iraqis.

Awake
08-26-2004, 05:52 PM
That's a very important point about which I have also been thinking recently. If the Iraqis had really wanted a democracy, they would have started a revolution themselves.That's entirely inaccurate. They tried - in 1992, after the Gulf War. We promised our support. They rebelled. We reneged on that promise, and they were slaughtered.

The upshot of your argument is this: if the Germans really wanted democracy, they would have started a revolution themselves when Hitler's bought-and-paid-for Reichstag passed the Enabling Act. If the Russians really wanted democracy, they would have fought off Stalin's secret police. If Czechoslovakia really didn't want to be annexed by Germany, they could have fought themselves. That's basically what you're saying - and it's patently ridiculous. To form a revolution requires an incompetent state and a people who believe that they can succeed.


If Bush really wants to play the world's liberator, then he should turn his attention to Africa, those people need his help more than the Iraqis.I have no argument that the the transition from colony to republic in Africa was horrendously botched by Britain and France (worse by the former), and that this has resulted in a huge legacy problem as the world economy has grown interdependent. Nor would I oppose the use of military force to stabalize and install democracies in Sudan or Zimbabwe, for example.

Kyo
08-26-2004, 06:52 PM
The upshot of your argument is this: if the Germans really wanted democracy, they would have started a revolution themselves when Hitler's bought-and-paid-for Reichstag passed the Enabling Act.

Funny you should mention the Germans. We just had a revolution here, 15 years ago. The people of Eastern Germany brought down the regime in their country without help from outside. Same goes for Romania where dictator Ceaucescu's reign was ended violently in a revolution more or less around the same time. Both of those countries had some serious secret police and security troops protecting their governments' interests but once the time came for the people to really rise up, they didn't stand a chance or even dissolved into nothingness as they weren't really fighting for anything they truly believed in.

I think that Hussein's regime in Iraq could have ended in a similar way.

Tabs
08-26-2004, 08:40 PM
Can you imagine another country invading the US and telling us that our system, culture, and values are all wrong and that we have to trust them that their way is better? Would Americans really submit to that? I think not, and that's exactly what you're seeing now in Iraq with this cleric Al Sadr and his fighters.

That's a very important point about which I have also been thinking recently. If the Iraqis had really wanted a democracy, they would have started a revolution themselves. They don't need any Americans to do that. The French farmers didn't need any Americans either 215 years ago. Why would Iraqis need them today ?


This is exactly what I'm saying - this whole concept of forced democracy is shaky at best, especially in a part of the world where fundamentalist theocracy and dictatorship have been rule of thumb forever. True democracy, at least in the sense that Bush thinks he can bring about in Iraq and presumably elsewhere if reelected, does not come about from the will of a world superpower being imposed with bombs and guns. France assisted us in declaring independence from Britain, yes, but France did not FORCE us to do so.

What exactly are we supposed to do in Iraq if the people actually want a fundamentalist Islamic state? There's a lot of support for that among the Shiite majority there. If a majority says they want that, what are we going to say "No sorry, you can only do democracy when the outcome is in our interests?"

Tabs
08-26-2004, 08:46 PM
Nor would I oppose the use of military force to stabalize and install democracies in Sudan or Zimbabwe, for example.

And you would be volunteering and signing up to possibly die doing this?

Awake
08-26-2004, 08:59 PM
The upshot of your argument is this: if the Germans really wanted democracy, they would have started a revolution themselves when Hitler's bought-and-paid-for Reichstag passed the Enabling Act. Funny you should mention the Germans. We just had a revolution here, 15 years ago. The people of Eastern Germany brought down the regime in their country without help from outside. That's true within the confines of what you wrote, but the implication itself is inaccurate. What happened was that the Soviet Union made a deal with NATO and the East German Government that the wall could be torn down without Soviet intervention, which had previously happened twice (Hungary, Czechoslovakia) and been averted only by military dictatorship (Poland). The only way this experience could be made analagous to Iraq is if, for example, Kurdish leaders had obtained from Saddam a guarantee that he would not militarily crush them.

Another thing that has to be kept in mind is that East Germany and the Soviet bloc had reached the end of their rope. They were in economic ruin, their credibility was slipping, and their leaders had lost the will to retain power through overwhelming bloodshed. The gulag was far in the past. Their control over their armed and security forces was slipping (this was most evident of all in East Germany during the fall of the wall, and in Moscow during the 1991 coup). None of the regimes I mentioned, nor the Hussein dynasty in Iraq, had reached that point. Any - Hussein Snr., Hussein Jnr., Hitler, Stalin, Franco...Heck, even Tito - would have supressed an uprising with brutal force. Hussein already HAD, at least once, within the last 12 years. You can't begin to compare Iraq to the collapse of tired, ruined regimes in eastern Europe and Russia. The people who rose up in 1989 knew, as Hitler said of the USSR, that "the whole edifice is rotten to the core; one good kick, and it'll fall in on itself". Anyone attempting to kick Saddam's door would have been brutally disabused of any notion that Saddam's regime was on the way out.



I think that Hussein's regime in Iraq could have ended in a similar way.Then you're wrong, and the complete lack of any evidence of a coup being attempted since the last time Saddam brutally put down a revolt speaks for itself. The only conclusions that we can draw from the repeated failure of a coup to emerge would be a) the Iraqis wanted Saddam in power or b) they were too scared of the consequences of revolt, something that wasn't going to lessen under Saddam or his successors.

Awake
08-26-2004, 09:12 PM
Nor would I oppose the use of military force to stabalize and install democracies in Sudan or Zimbabwe, for example.

And you would be volunteering and signing up to possibly die doing this?Isn't that rather like using that tired old cliche that one shouldn't criticize Dream Theater for making a technical metal album if you can't play taht stuff yourself? I always figured that was rather like giving up on trying to make a good argument and making a logical fallacy by appealing to emotion.

Besides, even if I accepted for an instant your suggestion that one must be willing to serve in uniform as a pre-requisite to advocating the use of the military - which I do not, and neither did either Wilson or FDR - I'm inelligible for US military service in any instance. I can't even register with selective services until I'm a permanent resident, and as far as I know, I couldn't volunteer (which I wouldn't) until I'm a citizen.

Georges
08-27-2004, 04:38 PM
The upshot of your argument is this: if the Germans really wanted democracy, they would have started a revolution themselves when Hitler's bought-and-paid-for Reichstag passed the Enabling Act.

I can see from what you say that you need some serious lessons in history and economics.

It all started with WWI, which was not only Germany's fault - at that time there was a general war lust in Europe (because it was quite calm since the 1871 Belle Epoque) and suddenly, someone high up got killed in a foreign country and there you go - German then initiated WWI but everyone followed to have some nice war action (I hope you understand that I am being ironic). In the end of WWI, Germany got blamed unjustifiably for everything which happened during and made happen WWI, and their price to pay afterwards was really high. This raised people's overall discontent within the country.

Then came the '29 crisis, world economic depression, which soon became an crisis way beyond economical aspects. After that, people having lost all their hopes needed a new economic motor. Hitler's government was an economic genius indeed and made 4 million people unemployment almost disappear with huge projects such as building highway network (mainly to provide an easy transport way for tanks) - that was before WWII. Then came WWII, but if Germany's people had known before what would have followed, they would all have done something before. All this would have ended sooner or later with a revolution in Germany.

Hitler betrayed his people, but it was already too late for them to act. Once you are at war with other countries, there is no going back and first you'll turn your head to the enemy outside (in the hope to make it stop as soon as possible), even more if you are convinced that there is no other solution. Germany's people before WWII wanted to get out of depression and deep misery, they didn't care whether it would be a democratic state or not.

To form a revolution requires an incompetent state and a people who believe that they can succeed.

You are absolutely right, a revolution requires an incompetent state and people who believe that they can succeed. It requires nothing more and nothing less, no need for a Georgie Porgy to mix himself in there. People who don't believe that they can succeed are not yet sufficiently desperate to revolt; as long as the economy runs, everyone is happy and no one asks questions ...

Iraq was made by poor by the global trade embargos - this increased the anger against the Western countries. Most of the Iraqi people blame us for their misery and they are completely right to blame us. Do really think that, under those circumstances, they want anyone to interfer ?

merijn
08-28-2004, 01:52 PM
Ok, Georges. You taught him well of the history. Few unclarity's though.

First, that ''High person'' was the Crownprince of Austria. Germany didn't just go to war because they felt like it! Germany had a great bond with Austria, and they went to war because of treaties. But there is something in your point though. In 1914, it was still emperor Wilhelm who was in charge. To be honest, he felt like war. He had a need to proove germany's worth. Well, we all now what came out of that.

Secondly, the whole Hitler thing is overrated. Did you know that Hitler's best friends were jews? Before the WW1 there were facist people who already told that the Jews were the ones to blaim. After the WW1, Hitler took over those Ideas. Remember that his WW1 experience as a Corporal had really changed him, he saw the terrible happenings in the trenches. That defenately changed him, in a negative way. Hitler wasn't the brightest one around, but he was the most convincing. That factor had the most impact and was the important one in taking over germany. He took out the regular election system step by step. And the brilliancy of economics? Nah, I don't believe in that. It was just that people were willing to do everything, just to make things better. By any means necessairy. This was also described by Georges, but a little to soft. It was PURELY a matter of the circumstance. Time prooved that Hitler was stubborn and foolish. I can tell you about that for houres! :roll:

Irish
08-28-2004, 05:30 PM
I don't necessarily possess the knowledge it would take to jump in on this conversation with regard to wars and historical knowledge, but I will be one of the few that is going to vote for Bush this year.

I understand this forum is extremely diverse, with people from all over the world. I understand many countries do not like America, and I'm sorry you feel that way, but I can understand where that comes from.

However be that as it may, I am currently serving the country and the President in the United States Air Force, where my primary function is the defense and security of this country which I have lived in my entire life and have grown to love. Our benefits and pay largely depend on who is President, and it's a well-known fact within the ranks of the soldiers that during the terms of Republican Presidents, morale, pay, and benefits are higher and better than during other terms.

In any event, it'll be a close race!

Georges
08-29-2004, 05:03 AM
and it's a well-known fact within the ranks of the soldiers that during the terms of Republican Presidents, morale, pay, and benefits are higher and better than during other terms.

Logical because military budgets were higher during Republicans' terms, so high that educational policy sometimes "reached" the ridiculously low level of 0,3% in terms of budget.

merijn
08-29-2004, 06:44 AM
I don't necessarily possess the knowledge it would take to jump in on this conversation with regard to wars and historical knowledge, but I will be one of the few that is going to vote for Bush this year.

I understand this forum is extremely diverse, with people from all over the world. I understand many countries do not like America, and I'm sorry you feel that way, but I can understand where that comes from.

However be that as it may, I am currently serving the country and the President in the United States Air Force, where my primary function is the defense and security of this country which I have lived in my entire life and have grown to love. Our benefits and pay largely depend on who is President, and it's a well-known fact within the ranks of the soldiers that during the terms of Republican Presidents, morale, pay, and benefits are higher and better than during other terms.

In any event, it'll be a close race!

They have tought you well in the army. You come originally from Ireland right? That makes it easier to understand why some people hate the american behaviour. You are going to be one of the few who will vote for Bush. Tell me, is that because you are a republican or did the last 4 years excite you? I can understand that if you work at the airforce, war is your job. Although I think you were in computers right :roll: ?

Irish
08-29-2004, 04:06 PM
They have tought you well in the army. You come originally from Ireland right? That makes it easier to understand why some people hate the american behaviour. You are going to be one of the few who will vote for Bush. Tell me, is that because you are a republican or did the last 4 years excite you? I can understand that if you work at the airforce, war is your job. Although I think you were in computers right ?

To start, in reality I was born and raised in America, the whole Irish thing is just because it's kind of a family heritage and I'm proud to be part of it. I understand why people hate our behavior because I see what we do, and I can put myself in other people's shoes and understand why they think that way, whether I agree with them or not. As far as reasons why I'm voting for Bush, one is because I'm a Republican, and the other is because of my military standing, life for soldiers is better under Republican Presidents. Like you said, war is my job. I do work computers, I'm a computer programmer for the Weather Agency. I do data collections, taking data from satellites and translating into meaningful data for use by the weather channel, news programs, etc.

Hopefully that clears up some stuff about me.

VintageMan
08-29-2004, 05:18 PM
really, its funny when in brazil(and in the whole world) we have to worry about who's going to be elected in another country. and it's even worse since you can't do anything about it... i hope kerry wins.

edit:and the other is because of my military standing, life for soldiers is better under Republican Presidents.

tell me, are you in iraq?

merijn
08-29-2004, 06:43 PM
No man, he means figurly spoken. Irish, you job is probably your philosophy that's why it's easy for you to decide your opinion. But explain to me, how do you become a republican or democrat. Are you raised in a certain ''believe'', or can you deside for yourself?

Georges
08-30-2004, 06:34 AM
Just a precision for some Europeans. In the US:

Democrats => conservative, demand-oriented, market failure principle, regulation
Republicans => liberal, supply-oriented, market optimisation, deregulation

I only say that because here in Europe the Democrats tend to be liberal in general, while it's the opposite in the US.

merijn
08-30-2004, 12:45 PM
No kidding, the republican party looks more attractive to me. Conservative? Wow, thanks man. We Europeans are missing out something.

AcousticShredder
08-30-2004, 01:11 PM
I like pie.

What??!?!! It works on the MP forum. :wink:

Politics is one of those things I stay away from. First off, I'm terribly uneducated when it comes to politics, so I don't try to talk about stuff I know nothing about.

But also, it's just too much of a breeding ground for dissenting opinions turning into all out flame wars. I'm amazed at the level-headedness of this forum, especially this thread. I'm used to seeing these things degenerate into name calling. Kudos to you guys!

James

Irish
08-30-2004, 01:19 PM
I became a Republican partially because of how I was raised, but largely because I agree with many of their philosophies, such as not letting the government control you, less taxes, greater military support.

VintageMan: No, I am not currently in Iraq. However, I fully support my brothers that are over there fighting evil. Also, if you're about to say what it sounds like, and downplay my service to the country because I'm not currently holding an M-16, save yourself the trouble and don't do it. I am very proud of what I'm doing, and it does offend me when people try to discredit what we're doing. If you weren't intending to say something along those lines, I apologize but it serves as a good warning to the rest of you. You may not agree with the politics of our country, but don't chastise me as a person for wanting to fight for freedom and glory like my forefathers have done.

lighthouse
08-30-2004, 01:56 PM
I fully support my brothers that are over there fighting evil

What do you define by evil?.....some people from the United States (I`m not calling it America cause America is a big continent and not just one country) is so fast in telling what is evil....in most cases they define "Evil" as the countries that think different from them, or have another religion or culture or whatever.....like the Indians who ocupied their actual territory.....they say they fight for freedom, but as soon as other countries decide to adopt other ideologies thay`re defined as evil......like what happened to Cuba......thay where isolated by the US cause they think different and that made them evil......


Juan Pablo

Georges
08-30-2004, 04:48 PM
I became a Republican partially because of how I was raised, but largely because I agree with many of their philosophies, such as not letting the government control you, less taxes, greater military support.

Less social security, less work stability, etc.

About not letting the government control you, Big Brother is watching you ... :wink: No kidding, every country has its secret police, even "anti-war" countries such as France.

Irish
08-30-2004, 06:43 PM
lighthouse: I think of evil as people like Saddam Hussein, who slaughtered his own people. Bin Laden, who committed the absolute tragedy that was the attack against the World Trade Center, and of all terrorists who seek to kill Americans for no reason other than the fact that they disagree with us. I personally believe they are jealous of our freedom and our lifestyle, but I don't know exactly why else they may hate us so.

Georges: Agreed, every country certainly has some degree of secret police, some not-so-secret. We have things like the FBI, OSI, etc.

(PS, I'm talking about the Office of Special Investigations, not the Office of Strategic Influence for all you proggers out there :roll: )

VintageMan
08-30-2004, 11:07 PM
I became a Republican partially because of how I was raised, but largely because I agree with many of their philosophies, such as not letting the government control you, less taxes, greater military support.

VintageMan: No, I am not currently in Iraq. However, I fully support my brothers that are over there fighting evil. Also, if you're about to say what it sounds like, and downplay my service to the country because I'm not currently holding an M-16, save yourself the trouble and don't do it. I am very proud of what I'm doing, and it does offend me when people try to discredit what we're doing. If you weren't intending to say something along those lines, I apologize but it serves as a good warning to the rest of you. You may not agree with the politics of our country, but don't chastise me as a person for wanting to fight for freedom and glory like my forefathers have done.

sorry if i made you think what you did. in fact, i consider you function (whatever it may be) more meaningful than your brothers at iraq that still don't know what they're there for(and some died without knowing). i just asked, without any irony, if you were on iraq. it just seems to me contradictory to see someone saying that bush made life easier for the military when thousands of troops are invading other country(i believe some are there for more than one year now), without any plausible reason. i served at the aeronautic and i know how you must make your job your life. and for this i totally respect your opinions and ideology. but... i damnly hope kerry wins. Bush messes too much with the whole world, and that scares me. i don't care about north america's freedom or glory, since i know when the world's water supply grows thin, you'll come for us(USA even proclaimed that brazil had secret nuclear stations that could have been used for "non pacific ends"!). Brazil has the largest drinkable water reserve of the world, and the most valuable biodiversity too. as they say, "Bear and Moose will share their shelter until food is scarce. When that time comes, be sure you are not Moose." i care for "my" freedom. i think the idea bush has of freedom is "freedom to do whatever he wants with the world going impune and without caring about the consequences, like getting terrorist threats". i don't have a clue of how kerry would governate your country, but i sure as hell don't want to see what bush may do.

but as i said... i can't vote so i can only wait...

Georges
08-31-2004, 07:13 AM
What's interesting in this discussion is the fact that non-US people here want Kerry to win, while the US-Americans are still 50-50 in their decision. This shows the negative image that Bush has outside his country.

Is it the influence of the media inside or outside of USA or maybe a good interior policy which Bush has almost never conducted ?

AcousticShredder
08-31-2004, 08:32 AM
and of all terrorists who seek to kill Americans for no reason other than the fact that they disagree with us.

Time to step in. If that is your definition of evil, then we are no better than those terrorists. Vietnam, anyone?

I personally believe they are jealous of our freedom and our lifestyle, but I don't know exactly why else they may hate us so.

They hate us because we are a power hungry hypocritical nation who portrays this image of wanting nothing more than to take over the world. We are constantly sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong while at home schools are being closed, kids are killing kids, no one can afford health care, and it seems that all our president can think about is getting revenge on someone who tried to kill his father.

K, I'm done for now.

James

merijn
10-20-2004, 03:48 PM
Ok, I am replying because the moment of truth is getting closer. We had a few debates, Kerry is a little ahead. But just like an inch. In Pensylvania they are already voting. I believe in florida too. Experts say that Kerry might win not because he's such a good candidate, but because people hate bush. There are also people who claim that Bush's charisma is bigger. 2 weeks will reveal the answer and show which speculations were true.

merijn
11-03-2004, 12:20 PM
OK, we've had the votes. Not everything is counted, and it's not official but we all assume thaty bush is the winner. Happy?

Scrap
11-03-2004, 01:36 PM
Bin Laden, who committed the absolute tragedy that was the attack against the World Trade Center, and of all terrorists who seek to kill Americans for no reason other than the fact that they disagree with us. I personally believe they are jealous of our freedom and our lifestyle, but I don't know exactly why else they may hate us so.

Let's just point out for the peanut gallery that the 2 biggest targets in the nation, NYC and D.C., both did NOT support Bush. Luckily, all of the people living in areas that terrorists wouldn't attack in 100 years are looking out for our safety.

And, I'm still sickened by how, at least according to NPR, among some 80% of recently decided voters, fucking Moral Values was the stated basis for their decision.

Don't forget, Bush is against those icky faggots and against chopping up babies for science! Because, you know, that's what's important in the fucking executive head of state.

:roll:

Ael
11-03-2004, 01:51 PM
I agree with Scrap...and btw, to those who don't know, Kerry conceded, Bush is the winner. I"m moving.

evadedcadence
11-03-2004, 01:54 PM
I became a Republican partially because of how I was raised, but largely because I agree with many of their philosophies, such as not letting the government control you, less taxes, greater military support.

Not letting the government control you? Umm.. have you heard of The Patriot Act that basically gives the government the right to come into your home and search it for no particular reason! Gee, that sounds like the government is all about controling.

No, I am not currently in Iraq. However, I fully support my brothers that are over there fighting evil.

What is Evil? Sure, terrorists are "evil." But don't you think that in the eyes of some countries the US looks like a terrorist? Countless innocent lives have been lost in this "war on terror." On BOTH sides. Yes, I fully support the men and WOMAN (it's not just men, dear Irish) who are protecting our country. . . I just do NOT support the orders that sent them where they are.

I pray that these four years pass as quickly as possible and that Bush does not do any more to harm our already tarnished reputation in the global community.

Ehren
11-04-2004, 03:14 AM
I'm sorry to offend anyone, but whether you're joking or not, claiming to move to another country based on the result of this presidential election is by far the most obnoxious comment you could possibly make.

AcousticShredder
11-06-2004, 08:37 AM
I'm sorry to offend anyone, but whether you're joking or not, claiming to move to another country based on the result of this presidential election is by far the most obnoxious comment you could possibly make.

And why would that be? Me, if it was actually feasible for me to pack up my things and move to Canada, I would. I hate Bush, I think he's a discriminitave, religious zealot, and I don't like the idea of him running this country. But as I don't have the money to do something like that, I have to stay. But according to the freedoms of this country, I have every right to voice my displeasure at this election and say that I would like to leave the country. I don't see what's so wrong with it.

James

Deceit
11-06-2004, 09:04 AM
Bush is one of the greatest idiots on this earth - just watch Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and you'll have a different view of what happens in America.
Americans are becoming, IMHO, more and more ignorant about what are the real purposes behind a war, which causes, day by day, new deaths in the name of oil and, what matters the most, CONTROL right into the north-african region, where they want you to believe there's Evil and it should be fought to death. The "war against terrorism" seems much like the Crusades to me...I read recently an interview to Elton John and I totally agree with him...what they are really doing is a struggle for supremacy and influence over more and more regions of the world, for the sake of being powerful.
I think igniting this fire was one of the greatest american errors EVER - they cannot kill every single terrorist out there, they have to think WHY people make themselves blow up, the ideals behind - and how hard is it to kill an ideal?
I'm no commie, I'm no taliban, I'm a free 100% european thinker.
Deceit.

merijn
11-06-2004, 09:43 AM
Indeed 4 years of Bush, I will watch it with great interest. I thinkk things will go wrong, and that the voters over-estimated Bush's capabilities.

metropolis2k
11-06-2004, 10:29 AM
Bush is one of the greatest idiots on this earth - just watch Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and you'll have a different view of what happens in America.

Don't be drawn in by that film too much. Michael Moore is very good at what he does - dress up his opinions as fact using sections of film that often have no relevance, to further his point.

Do a bit of digging about Farenheit 9/11 and you'll see it's not as true as Michael Moore wants you to think.

Deceit
11-06-2004, 06:00 PM
Don't worry, I got informed and I have a couple comments telling what IS and what IS NOT true in that documentary. And I think what's true is pretty sufficient to show Bush shouldn't be where he is.
Don't think you're talking with a blindfolded child, I am not. And time will show how things will get worse and worse in this world. Arafat has died, America has NO real control over Iraq, and now we have this ignorant cowboy for four more years...at least I hope Berlusconi doesn't stay any longer in my country's government...this world is really getting full of these idiots, and I'm really fed up.
Deceit.