# How can you be a democrat?



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 6, 2007)

I consider myself independent. But I find myself agreeing with Republicans more than anyone else. I have to wonder though. How can you be a Democrat nowadays? Or maybe not be one, but how can you vote for them? They all seem to say one thing and do another. For instance:

Democrat Politicians in general: Voted for the war, now claim it was a mistake. Claim the soldiers should be pulled out, then wont act on it, actually vote for more money. Wasted time and money passing a resolution with no weight behind it...
Nancy Pelosi: Claimed to have a 5 day work week, since she was voted in it's happened once.
John Edwards: Two Americas - 28,000 square foot house
Al Gore: An Inconvenient Truth - Causes more greenhouse 
Bill Clinton: Lied on National TV. Charges the secret service to reside on his property the amount of the house payment?
Hillary Clinton: Wants to use Bill to further her goals but had the party issue a statement saying it would be innappropriate to use him against her? Was changing her voice emulating stereotypical black american speech during a recent speech?

This is just a little bit of everything I read and hear about a LOT more. I know 99.99% of politicians are crooked, but some of this is blatantly obvious. I'm curious to know if anyone has similar dirt on republicans? I can't seem to find anything other than the usual 'Bush is killing americans for oil'.... From what I've seen, Bush is doing a great job. The economy is doing great! He does what he says he will. He's not scared to say he is responsible for something, even when he's not. He admits when he's wrong. I kind of wish Condelezza Rice was running, I'd vote for her next election.


----------



## Mega Wolf (Mar 6, 2007)

Wow, I dont have a problem with your statement, but you might as well be painting bullzeyes and targets all over yourself posting something like this in General Chat. The others on here are going to rip you apart, or try to anyway.

*Tosses you a Helmet* G'luck.


----------



## Ryuusei (Mar 6, 2007)

I can't be a democrat - I'm Canadian.


----------



## Epsereth (Mar 6, 2007)

I'm independent but registered as a Democrat for primary voting purposes. I basically looked at a list of general party opinions and figured that most Dem philosophies synced up with mine to some extent. I vote according to the individual candidate, which is why I voted Green for the '04 elections - cos I hated both primary candidates equally.

But I do have to say ... presentation of this question is ... not the best. *zips up flame-proof suit*


----------



## capthavoc123 (Mar 6, 2007)

How the hell can you be a Republican with the sorry excuse for a president that we have right now?

The economy is not doing great, no matter what you think. It took Bush three years to admit he was wrong about anything, while he was claiming he was completely correct the entire time. And doing what you say you will do is not admirable when what you do is completely reckless and idiotic.


----------



## shy (Mar 6, 2007)

Our government is a farce and our country is rapidly spiraling into self-destruction. 

In other words, it doesn't matter "what side you're on" if its Left, Right, Fence up your ass, or all those other parties who get patted on the head when they stamp their feet and try to make people acknowledge their existence. They are all wrong. They all suck. Disband the party system. Every man, every vote for itself. I am not saying it would work, I am not saying it would not work either. I'm just pointing out that what we have going on right now is a bunch of expletive deleted expletives and we should all be ashamed of what we as a country have become.


----------



## foxkun (Mar 6, 2007)

I didn't bother to vote last election. Why? Because I knew I wouldn't be happy with it either way, therefore keeping myself out of the blame for it either way. 

And whereas I'm not one of those "hogtie and shank the president" types, I'm pretty close to it. When more than 50% of the people that I know lost their jobs due to cut backs, yeah, I'm pretty not so happy with the whole bit. I try to stay positive, but I've directly seen what bad politics can do.

I can't wait 'til next year when he's gone. But then I won't be drawing little fuzzy marks between the W legs on people's bumper stickers. Oh well.


----------



## Lobo Roo (Mar 6, 2007)

...because I have a brain. Your posts about Bush doing a great job leaves your possession of one in extreme doubt.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 6, 2007)

Dude. Democrats at least realized it was a mistake, and they respect "the people's" wishes.

I'm neither Rep or Dem, but I lean towards Dems, since the republicans' constituencies tend to consist entirely of corporations and the upper class.

In my opinion, the war on terror that Bush has sold to so many is a war of ignorance and misunderstanding. And continuing the way the republicans are leading us will only lead us to perpetuated violence and heightened tensions throughout an increasingly unstable Middle East, and it will spread.

Bush makes the US a democratic dictatorship. I don't think his inability to speak English, whether an act for comic relief or real, is cute at all.

But I hate the game of politics too. I hate how polarized things can become. I hate government all the same. But if I had a choice, it would very much DEFINITELY be democrat!

Democrats = freedom in the civil rights department.
Republicans = Obey our Christian God, and give us money! Raaar!


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 6, 2007)

I'm a libertarian. Basically, I believe both liberals and conservatives are too dogmatic. Even though I'm Canadian, it's basically the same shit up here. Every time an election is called, you're choosing between a few slightly different flavors of crap and you're expected to believe it's freedom. It's not. The moment a politician comes along who says what I want to hear, that "responsible government" should mean a government that channels it's resources into preparing a nation for a day when it won't need government, they'll have my vote. Until then, feck off.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 6, 2007)

I'm a Democrat, registered. I work for the DoD, support the *real* war - Afghanistan. In fact, that's where I am right now. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan supporting the war on terror. The real one. The one most people forget. =P


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 6, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> Democrats = freedom in the civil rights department.
> Republicans = Obey our Christian God, and give us money! Raaar!



Yeah, the folks who brought up such notions like thoughtcrime ("hate speech", anyone?), parents having no say in the upbringing of their children (it's trivially easy to get parents harassed by the local version of the Child Welfare Bureaucracy, just make a claim that the parents are abusing the child[ren]), speech being limited because it might offend someone (again, "hate speech"; also banning/censoring songs and video games "for the children"), and ignoring a constitutional amendment (guess which one the ACLU didn't print on its Bill of Rights pamphlet, years ago) are all about rights...

It's not a matter of one party being for rights and another being against them, but which party wants to do without which rights.

To borrow from the bard, a plague a' both your houses!


----------



## Surgat (Mar 6, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> From what I've seen, Bush is doing a great job.



Either you haven't really been paying good attention, or you have a very weird conception of a "good job."


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 6, 2007)

Well, I'd say, if you want gay marriage legalized.. you're best bet is through the democrats (If it were between Dems and GOP). Now, I support a movement called... oh, say, the legalization of marijuana, lol. This seems to come up a lot as of lately... I don't think that'll ever happen by your standard-issue republican or democrat.

Maybe I just can't stand the republican party because of its prominent iconic figures (at least the most vocal..), though... Bush, Cheney, McCain, Ann Coulter (even though she's a journalist) *shivers*... ugh...


Besides... more republicans than dems were pushing for that anti-gay ammendment. Look around at the world and learn what a civil union is, at least.

I guess it comes down to this: democrats tend to be more liberal, which suits me better. It goes more along the lines of a separation of church and state.. but that's not what we have.


----------



## DarkMeW (Mar 6, 2007)

How the hell can ANYONE be what I don't want them to be. Bastards! 
*shakes fist vigorously in the air*


----------



## TeeGee (Mar 6, 2007)

I am neither. Vote the issue not the party, people.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 6, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> if you want gay marriage legalized.. you're best bet is through the democrats










			
				Grimfang said:
			
		

> I support a movement called... oh, say, the legalization of marijuana, lol. This seems to come up a lot as of lately... I don't think that'll ever happen by your standard-issue republican or democrat.








And you said yourself you're a liberal, so while personally the rampant Liberalism in Canada sickens me, you'd probably feel right at home.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 6, 2007)

Aww, you disagree with me, but I somehow still feel warm and fuzzy inside from your comment. So kind of you to set up a guest room just for me. ^^

Actually, I really think I'd like to go to Canada someday. Moving to another country is scary though... >_>


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 6, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> I guess it comes down to this: democrats tend to be more liberal



Except when it's something they don't like, then they give the Puritan stereotype a run for its money for wanting to legislate it out of existence (or at least into hiding).

Mind you, prior to the '06 election, it was the Republicans that were being all "big government", mirror-imaging Clinton's "GOP Lite" that got him an 8 year residency at 1600 Penn Ave.

Like Heinlein said (via Lazarus Long), the real point of difference is between those who want people to be controlled, and those with no such desire. Political labels (Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, etc) aren't useful classifications.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 6, 2007)

shucks. I think you win. I'm not so much a political guy. I gave up on it when I collapsed into a disgusting heap of anarchistic mush. xD

They say it's cus I'm young, right? Liberals when you're young, conservative when you're old... so the saying goes. So I must be in that climax of liberalism. 20 years old. I'm a responsible and reasonably smart young man.. yet, I'm too much of an idiot to be allowed to buy alcohol, according to my beloved Uncle Sam.

Another thing is all this melodramatic war nonsense. Everyone knows they're right, or has been enlightened. No different from the rest, I have my views about this 'war on terror'. So, being a product of my environment, I guess the Catholic church and the USA have made a dishonorable citizen out of me.


----------



## soundhound (Mar 7, 2007)

As someone else in this post said, I'm too liberal to be a republican, too conservative to be a democrat.
However:


			
				Grimfang said:
			
		

> Republicans = Obey our Christian God, and give us money! Raaar!


Haha and you're calling the WAR ignorant???


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 7, 2007)

Well first of all, and you already said this, but 99.9% of American politicians say one thing and do another. Republicans are no more immune from this than Democrats, and it's a product mostly of the two-party, winner-take-all political system in our country. Candidates are constantly trying to keep satisfied the largest number of people, because if the other guy gets even one more vote than you, he wins...

That said, I identify myself as a Democrat because I align myself strongly with most of their stances on the issues. I.E. I am a democrat through and through on stem cell research, separation of church and state, legal status of marijuana, the environment and (USUALLY) on foreign affairs. I tend to waver, and sometimes cross into the "red" on issues like late-term abortion, the economy and affirmative action. There's even a presidential matchup that I'd almost certainly vote Republican in (and it rhymes with "Linton-Yuliani"...) However, one day when my hardcore, till-the-day-he-dies Republican friend said I was just another "America hater", I wrote the following on why I'm a democrat...

This has nothing to do with the personality of Democratic politicians (which you seems to have more of a problem with than their ideologies) - I say dump 'em all. But today, sadly, money IS power, and politicians generally have a shitload.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 7, 2007)

Oops... here's the thingy I meant to paste:

 WHY Iâ€™M A DEMOCRAT

Iâ€™m sick and tired of being called â€œanti-Americanâ€ and a â€œhopeless idealistâ€ when I turn on my TV, get online or flip through a magazine. Even FA is not totally free from political nonsense, as I found when I ventured onto the message boards and journal sections of the site. So let me lay it down for anyone who cares to know â€“ what I see as the difference between the two parties and why I come down so decidedly on the left. I should preface this by saying a few things. Iâ€™m not an expert on U.S. government, but I am currently earning a degree in political science, so I know a little bit about this stuff. I also know the statements Iâ€™m about to make do NOT hold true for all Democrats and all Republicans â€“ just their ideologies at large.

1) The Place of the U.S. in the World System

To Democrats, America is but one among a group of distinguished equals (i.e. the stable, established governments of the world). Republicans, however, will and often do go to their graves proclaiming â€œAmerica is the greatest nation in the worldâ€, and they believe that in every sense. They consider America not only stronger, but unquestionable wiser and more correct than any other state on the planet. Thatâ€™s quite a stretch for a country with a rich history of imperial rule, slavery and oppression of non-white non-Christiansâ€¦ This is not, however, to say that Democrats dislike America â€“ we love it. But we do believe we should learn from our past mistakes in order to enjoy a better future. And we totally understand why the rest of the world sees us as a rogue state with an ego problem.

2) International Relations

Democrats see the United States as one of the more influential members of an international society â€“ a system of nation-states in which communication and compromise can, for the most part, ensure a peaceful global existence. Republicans see the U.S. as the strongest and smartest individual state in a system of global anarchy. They are convinced that other nations have, at the heart of their intentions, nothing but their own power and self-interest. Thus they are paranoid of other nations that approach the status of America. They become convinced that other nations are out to undermine us, and they will do anything to suppress the relative wealth and influence of other nations, keeping America the only world superpower.

3) Economic Issues

Republicans have a very simple stance on economic issues: they shouldnâ€™t be messed with. The free market, they say, allows those ideas and people that are truly the best to â€œrise to the topâ€ and succeed, while inferior persons and ideas rightfully get left behind. Democrats, on the other hand, recognize an inherent problem with the free market: the mere fact that people get left behind. What may start out as a rightful disparity in wealth among a society, over several generations, spirals out of control and leaves entire sectors of society permanently and hopelessly disadvantaged. Democrats would say it is justifiable to take something away from those who are better off, so that the poor can be given assistance and shown opportunities they otherwise would have never known. Republicans? They tend to claim that the poor are always poor through some fault of their ownâ€¦

4) Religion

Democrats support the right of individuals to practice whatever religion they choose, however and whenever they choose, so long as it does not intrude uninvited into the life of others. Republicans, while generally supporting the right of individuals to practice whatever religion they choose, tend to impose Christianity onto citizens and public policy every chance they get. They have proposed the declaration of the U.S. as a â€œChristian nationâ€, attacked stem cell research as disregarding the sanctity of human life, and are leading the fight to severely limit gay rights, in accordance with the word of the Bible. To Republicans, the â€œfree exerciseâ€ and â€œestablishmentâ€ clauses of the U.S. Constitution often mean a great deal less than their literal wording.

5) Tolerance of Alternative Lifestlyes

In many respects, Republicans long for a return to a basically heterogeneous society, and if they had their way it would be one of white, conservative, heterosexual Christians. For reasons founded in religion, nativism and an inflated sense of self-importance, many Republicans find any slightly unorthodox or â€œun-Americanâ€ behavior repugnant. They are frequently disgusted by persons with dyed hair and/or tattoos, multiple body piercings, people who speak foreign languages in public, people who smoke pot, and gays. They would most certainly look down on the fur fandomâ€¦ But Democrats, FOR THE MOST PART, are open-minded enough to allow individuals to do what they want so long as it doesnâ€™t harm anyone else.

IN CONCLUSION

It took me many years to pick a side. Just ask my parents how I waffled during the 1996 and 2000 presidential electionsâ€¦ But with coming of age I have reached my own conclusions. To recap:

-Democrats are the party of HUMILITY, while Republicans are the party of ARROGANCE

-Democrats are the party of COOPERATION, while Republicans are the party of COERCISON

-Democrats are the party of COMPASSION, while Republicans are the party of â€œTOUGH SHITâ€

-Democrats are the party of religious TOLERANCE, while Republicans are the party of IMPOSED MORALITY

-Democrats are the party of the OPEN-MINDED while Republicans are the party of the CLOSED-MINDEDâ€¦ and Republicans are the party whose ideology would, if youâ€™re a member of this site, much more likely classify you as a sick and depraved individual than would that of the Democrats.


...and that's why I'm a Democrat - NOT because I "hate America".


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 7, 2007)

soundhound said:
			
		

> Grimfang said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol, I'm sorry. I can't put up a totally serious debate on politics anymore. 

But I've done a lot of reading and research on the Middle East, and that's another big thing that has led me pledge loyalty to no leader. Atrocities, lying, cheating.. everyone is guilty, yet holds no remorse for their past actions. I don't see the US or Israel as liberators in the Middle East. I don't think they're the ones fighting the good fight.

All my own humble opinion though ^^


----------



## rowanwand (Mar 7, 2007)

Heh.  Come on, man.  Obama.  Need I say more?

Actually, yes I do.  Let me just state for the record that 'wingnuts' scare the living daylights out of.  Hard leftists and rightists both, but yes, I do lean toward the Dems.

I suppose I lean toward the Dems because in my humble opinion, the conservatives all have large spiky sticks up their asses.  The Cons excuse for not legalizing gay marriage?  I quote (loosely) "Oh noes! Christian values! The Bible!"

Get a clue, Cons.  Christians are not the only religious group in America.  I once read a post by a hard-ass Conservative Republican woman petitioning to have Atheists thrown out of the country. It seems to me that the Cons are all about seeing things from their own twisted point of view, whereas Liberals (who tend to be in the Democratic party) support things like gay marriage and pro-choice.

Pro-choice.  Don't even get me started on pro-choice.  I realize that in a way I'm just as bad as the Cons (as far as tolerance goes) in saying "Screw you, it's her body, let her do with it what she will, now kindly please f* off and leave her alone" but that is truly the way I feel.  The government should not be allowed to regulate that sort of thing.

And now the Freepers (Free Republic. something or other, scary bunch of right wing nuts) want Libby pardoned. Excuse me?  The man clearly committed a crime.  "But...but...but...Bill!" Bill Clinton was not /convicted/ of a crime, he was merely indicted. There /is/ a difference.  If Libby had been a Dem, I bet the left would've been like, "Oh well, tough sh*t, let's move on."

So...how I can be Dem?  Because I love this country.  And I think Bush is doing a whack-up job of running it.  And by whack-up I mean something much, much more...inappropriate.  I'm not actually registered yet but you can be sure that I will be registering Dem.  *pumps fist in air* Obama! Obama!  Obama for Pres!

...
quick edit: I would like to add that "Liberal" is not a curse word, would the Conservatives please stop using it as such.


----------



## wut (Mar 7, 2007)

Democratically


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 7, 2007)

I think it would be kinda cool too have Obama for pres.

.. although, probably just cus I'm imagining Sameul L Jackson in office...

"I AM TIRED OF THESE MOTHERF***IN REPUBLICANS IN THIS MOTHERF***IN OVAL OFFICE!"


----------



## Sylvine (Mar 7, 2007)

Hmh. I'm aware that all this is only tangent to me, as America is a long way away from where I live ( and yet, so remarkably close... hm. Worth a thought or two. ), but there's a thing that bugs me here - the comment about Obama. 

We~ell... he sounds okay. Sure. But with the progressing tendency in politics to "just win the elections, and we'll see about everything else later", I find it hard to put faith in any of the politicians here in my country - so I'd apply that to american politics too, if not even more so. With that in mind, we really can't tell whether a politician will do a good job or not _a priori_. And since along with that public-relations-trend, the trend to mix up politics amongst the parties is on the rise as well ( After all, those elections have to be won! We have to put some compromise in our programs, otherwise people won't vote for us because they don't like what we want to do! [/irony] ), I sometimes think it makes little to no difference where we place our votes. I'm probably wrong about that, it's just... sometimes, I just feel that way about all this. At least here in Germany, it's a case of "Whatever", since the parties will form coallitions, anyway, so whomever You vote for, YOu almost certainly get  a Party You don't agree with in the end as well; the way I see it, it's similar in America - the republicans tend to be a bit on the extreme side, whereas the democrats seem to lack backbone to actually do anything...

 Okay, I notice I'm getting rather pessimistic here. Maybe I should get into politics and try doing a better job instead of complaining =) 

~Sylv


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 7, 2007)

I may have views that align myself with conservatives/libertarian/republican, however, I don't really consider myself a Party Line girl. Reason being, is that once you do, you fall in the pitfalls of guilt by association.

So for example... saying I'm a Republican, then it's like playing school sports where everyone talks a bunch of dirty shit about the other team to see who is winning >.<;;;; "Oh yeah your player did this!" To be honest there quite a few f'ups on both parties.

I believe in less laws except where needed like new technology causing infringements on people's rights. ex - people posting upskirt shots through camera phones etc. I also believe in fiscal responsibility and accountability. Neither party seem to adhere to at the moment.

Most of the laws passed are starting to conflict with old laws, and they really do need to do a cleanup sometimes.

Right now we elect the same officials over and over for their experience, yet it's their experience that also brings corruption, that doesn't mean there aren't some good guys out there, but come on now, Bush Clinton, Bush...and now we might elect another Clinton. NEW BLOOD PLEASE. No More Bush, no more Kennedy, no more Clinton.

I always love how Pro Choice/Life seems to be the major factor to decide what party to be in. What the hell people, there is a reason for the Supreme court decision. Vote for a party or person that respects your tax dollars. Not one or two issues that are more likely to be decided by our judicial system ;;;


----------



## rowanwand (Mar 7, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> I think it would be kinda cool too have Obama for pres.
> 
> .. although, probably just cus I'm imagining Sameul L Jackson in office...
> 
> "I AM TIRED OF THESE MOTHERF***IN REPUBLICANS IN THIS MOTHERF***IN OVAL OFFICE!"



Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha*gigglesnort*hahahahahahahahahahaha.

Best post I've read in ages.  Thank you.


----------



## skunktoy (Mar 7, 2007)

I have to be Democrat, we only have a 2 party system and I don't like the republicans.
Besides the Democrats have the best joke.

"I belong to no organized politcal party, I'm a Democrat!" W.R.


----------



## Mega Wolf (Mar 7, 2007)

I'm a moderate, some what of an independent but I see the good points in both parties and get annoyed by the bad. I just tend to find myself agreeing with republicans more often though there are a lot of things that they stand for that I donâ€™t. I DO support the idea of cloning, I DO support the idea of stem cell research, I DO support pro-choice, and I agree on a few other things.

However, there are many things that the democrats do and continue to do that I utterly cannot stand. For one the democrats continue to launch attacks on, what is a sacred cow for me, Video games. They can all go to hell and burn for constantly trying to ban video games or censor them into next year and then some. And then there is the fact that while everyone considers democrats liberal they will fight for their right to remove yours. You can say whatever you want so long as it does not offend anyone, anywhere, at any time; otherwise they will keep you from saying it. Of course lets not forget gun control and further attempts to prevent people from having a 2nd admendment. And then there is the fact that I have a natural tendency not to like charismatic individuals, and many of the head members of the Democratic Party are just that. I consider Obama, Kennedy, and Clinton to fall into this category, they seem to be so 'pretty' that no matter what they do no one takes it seriously, so we tend to ignore it... except with the case of Clinton who messed up so badly that he cannot sweep it under the couch... but then again for some reason that seems to make him more popular then he was before. Their leaders, like Clinton, are just the kind that could kick you in the teeth, screw your wife, and shoot your dog, and the only thing you could think to say would be 'Wow, they should change the constitution to allow him to run for a 3rd term.'

Also unless you are listening to talk radio constantly or watch only Fox news, you will notice that the democrats are the 'can do no wrong' party while the republicans are always shown as the 'For their interests only' party, which is why we always see them as 'we support the rich and love war' party when everyone seems to forget they are the 'less big government, less taxes, more spending' party. Of course, everything is subject to change and that may change in the next few years as it is.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 7, 2007)

Don't forget how Democrats, at least in our state are trying to bring in what I call "nanny" taxes. Taxes on your lifestyle because it's not the way to live.

One good one is the Soda tax, sure someone thinks "soda is bad and we shouldn't be drinking it!" but that's reading those bills on their face. What they don't tell you is that they mean juice drinks too. If a product didn't contain a certain amount of juice, or had a certain additive in it, TAX.

I'm sorry to say but my eating habits, and daily habits getting taxed weighs much heavier on who is going to stay in their offices than pro choice/pro life because it's not a decision that affects me on a daily basis.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 7, 2007)

Pro choice/life doesn't really affect me at all, but you're right. It's sad how this becomes the hinge of many elections.

I wish we had a system where the people could vote on issues and such, instead of voting on the candidate that most well represents your views. And I guess we do have that power... but democracy isn't working as beautifully as it is made out to be.


----------



## rowanwand (Mar 7, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Don't forget how Democrats, at least in our state are trying to bring in what I call "nanny" taxes. Taxes on your lifestyle because it's not the way to live.
> 
> One good one is the Soda tax, sure someone thinks "soda is bad and we shouldn't be drinking it!" but that's reading those bills on their face. What they don't tell you is that they mean juice drinks too. If a product didn't contain a certain amount of juice, or had a certain additive in it, TAX.
> 
> I'm sorry to say but my eating habits, and daily habits getting taxed weighs much heavier on who is going to stay in their offices than pro choice/pro life because it's not a decision that affects me on a daily basis.



It's all well and good to try and lower taxes but don't forget that taxes help to support the country.  I for one have no problem letting the Dems raise taxes if it means better school systems, a country headed out of debt, a better place to live, etc.

Taxing sodas and juice drinks is a good way to raise taxes without a majority of people realizing that it's happening.  If you went and tried to raise income taxes, sure, lots of people would complain.  But these so-called "nanny taxes" are a good way of raising some extra money that the government would not otherwise be able to raise.

I also say we raise taxes on cigarettes and legalize/regulate the use of marijuana, and of course put taxes on that as well.  Like it or not, money makes the world go round, and the government can always use some more money.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 7, 2007)

What the hell?! So Democrats over all don't want to mess with a woman's right to have an abortion, but they want to discourage people from drinking anything but Ital beverages?


----------



## Mega Wolf (Mar 7, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Don't forget how Democrats, at least in our state are trying to bring in what I call "nanny" taxes. Taxes on your lifestyle because it's not the way to live.



Oh yeh, they are bringing them in in bunches down here. They are calling them 'Luxury' Taxes. But they are taxing snack foods, soft drinks, and video games (VIDEO GAMES!!!).


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 7, 2007)

I don't think it's necessarily a discouragement to drink soda. Otherwise, the taxing would be poinltess when everyone decides they shouldn't buy soda. Rather, it's a way to grab a little loose change from people.

And poor smokers... taxes are always being raised on tobacco. And everyone thinks it's fine like "Ya, go tax those bastards!" but dammit! I'm a person too! xP

I say raise taxes on the rich if anything. It balances out, and then we don't have a serfdom driving the nation's economy. I mean, most of what I say is total nonsense, but it sounds good to me.


----------



## rowanwand (Mar 7, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> And poor smokers... taxes are always being raised on tobacco. And everyone thinks it's fine like "Ya, go tax those bastards!" but dammit! I'm a person too! xP
> 
> I say raise taxes on the rich if anything. It balances out, and then we don't have a serfdom driving the nation's economy. I mean, most of what I say is total nonsense, but it sounds good to me.



I smoke.  I don't mind that it's expensive because I'm not a chain smoker.  (Gah, unlike most of my friends who can't go ten minutes without a cigarette...I limit myself to maybe one a week at most...but that's just me.)

And yes, taxes on the rich would be the way to go.  But if I remember correctly, some of Bush's stances on taxes let the rich off a little easy...am I remembering that correctly?


----------



## Sylvine (Mar 7, 2007)

Problem is, if You raise taxes on the rich, they move their companies to a country which doesn't. Which is kinda conter-productive, then. 

Taxes are a thing people have to mature for. Then again, they are also a thing that shouldn't be abused so that the people don't get the impression of being _milked_ or _controlled_. We get those "nanny taxes" in Germany, too. They also try to ban violent video games. And as much as it isn't really an issue to fight it - I mean, okay, I can live without carmageddons and postals ( even if it's laughable that they don't try to ban horror movies, splatter films, thrillers in film and book form, etc etc.), and I can personally stop drinking cola, no problem - , it's the premise, the notion per se that is highly questionable. I mean, what's next? Taxes for staying home? Not doing enough sports? Being overweight? ( You'll laugh, but some people in germany plan on doing the latter  ) Taking a dump outside of the regular, perscribed hours? 
Sheesh. 

~Sylv


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 7, 2007)

rowanwand said:
			
		

> It's all well and good to try and lower taxes but don't forget that taxes help to support the country.  I for one have no problem letting the Dems raise taxes if it means better school systems, a country headed out of debt, a better place to live, etc.
> 
> Taxing sodas and juice drinks is a good way to raise taxes without a majority of people realizing that it's happening.  If you went and tried to raise income taxes, sure, lots of people would complain.  But these so-called "nanny taxes" are a good way of raising some extra money that the government would not otherwise be able to raise.
> 
> I also say we raise taxes on cigarettes and legalize/regulate the use of marijuana, and of course put taxes on that as well.  Like it or not, money makes the world go round, and the government can always use some more money.



No, actually spending wisely helps our government. 90% of these taxes get funneled to a program that it was never intended for. That's exactly what happened with the taxes on cigarettes. Many of these nanny taxes are done by states and governments who are not fiscally responsible.

We have a lot of money in our educational system, but our students still do poorly because it is not being spent properly. We have unions that lock down any kind of change to make it competitive. Now why make it competitive? If you know that there is more incentive for having kids educated properly instead of sitting on your fat ass as you get tenure I think the educational system will do well.

Taxes help bureaucracy - we get more people who are in position who do nothing. 

Why do we punish a few people for their lifestyles to get a money grab. Budget properly.


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 7, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Problem is, if You raise taxes on the rich, they move their companies to a country which doesn't. Which is kinda conter-productive, then.



See the luxury yacht tax from the 1980s as Exhibit A. Yachts had taxes added onto already not-insignificant luxury taxes (which was supposed to only harm the "feeeelthy rich who stole their way to the top"... but that's another rant entirely), so what did rich people wanting to buy yachts do? They took their money to offshore boatmakers, not only depriving the government of the taxes it wants, but putting domestic boat makers out of business or forcing them to majorly reduce their employee rolls, sending many regular J. Random Bluecollarworkers whose skillsets were somewhat limited outside of yacht making to the unemployment line.

But, hey, only rich people were affected, right?

(The tax was quietly repealed later that decade, IIRC.)


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 7, 2007)

Dirt on republicans?  You got it.  The following stuff rubs me just as bad as (possible moreso than) your dirt on various democrats.  While I agree that some of those criticisms noted are disappointing, some downright annoying -- some of the criticisms seem pretty silly if you're actually using it to say "how can you be a democrat".  -As-if- someone's drawl was ever a serious criteria for me to decide whether they should get my vote or not.  lol

Lying about the WMD's and the true intentions on going to war with Iraq is just the latest one, and I believe the american public did pin that on this (Republican) administration.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_document_leak_18_September_2004 is one of the more memorable incidents in my recent memory, but it wasn't "huge" news by the time it got to the US cause everyone already "knew" or believed it for a while anyway.  Bush is doing a shitty job, and according to Gallup polls this opinion is held by over 60% of americans (if you've ever seen another poll that contradicts this, it was probably a straw poll)

Duke Cunningham -- corruption out the wazoo, and there's a bunch of ones like this, but it's not like there weren't any corrupt democrats either (see dan rostenkowski for example)

Let's not forget good old Ronnie and the Iran Contra affair.  How the heck did he manage to slip out of that one?

Watergate.  'Nuff said.

Jack Abramoff should ring a bell in your recent memory.  Dirty lobbyists with all the power, I need to find more left-wing parallels to the severe amount of astroturfing and shitty fake think tanks that exist in right wing politics.  Big businesses have all this power and operate in a highly ethically-questionable manner.  I suppose the closest analogue to it from the left are the crooked unions.  From the wikipedia page:

_Abramoff was a top lobbyist for the Preston Gates & Ellis and Greenberg Traurig firms and a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, and Toward Tradition, a religious right organization, during his criminal enterprise. He was College Republican National Committee National Chairman from 1981 to 1985. He was a founding member of the International Freedom Foundation, an "anti-communist think tank" which operated from 1986 to 1993._

You don't have to be a democrat to be corrupt.  Stay independant, if not free of party ties at least free of closed-minded ideology.  Vote for who you think is the better candidate, or in a worst case scenario where you don't know your candidates, I suppose vote for the platform you think is going to screw you less.  Tons of people do it, and I'd say that it's better than throwing your vote away and giving it to someone else who might have a less noble agenda than your own.

I'll have more to talk about later, after I read this thread or something.


----------



## SFox (Mar 7, 2007)

I honestly don't know how anyone could say, with a straight face, that Bush is doing a great job.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 7, 2007)

/me points to Nobu's post as the perfect example of her earlier statement of the "your guy my guy" team stuff :roll:


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 7, 2007)

hey, he just asked for some counter-dirt, now that it's out there I don't really need to play mudslinger anymore.  Though, I suppose I could have just as easily given an answer to "how can you be a democrat" stating that there's a whole lot of different types of democrats out there, so a lot to choose from that isn't mutually exlusive, etc.  Lotta other people already did a great job talking those points up, and I'm glad to hear it, too.  

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, everybody.  They do help when it comes to formulating a political opinion, or to validate your existing ones by comparing your priorities in politics with everyone else's.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 7, 2007)

Thanks nobuyuki, I was wondering if anyone would come up with real people and examples. I don't know who Duke Cunningham is. Abramoff rings a bell. And of course Reagan, but I was looking for more recent stuff and figures higher up the chain. Seems like all the Democratic candidates are horrible.

Seems like most voted Democrats simply because they have those one or two issues that are really important to them that the Dems party line agrees with. But I can't vote for someone simply because one or two things. And I definately can't vote for someone who says one thing and does another. 

The WMD thing appears to me to be just as much a fault for the Dems as the Reps. I wonder how much Bush actually knew.

I'm asked how can I believe Bush is doing a good job. I have to say the same reasons from the first post. He does what he says he'll do. He admits it when he makes a mistake. The economy is doing really great. But most importantly, he does what he says he's going to do. I can't see having someone representing me who is going to lie to my face. Every one makes mistakes but at least I know what mistake he's going to make... On top of all this, think of what he had to deal with as soon as he came into office (i.e. 9/11). Like I said, I have all this information that is bad about Dems, but nothing about Reps. So what do you think the person with 1/2 a brain should choose? Someone who lies to their face, or someone who screws up but you know exactly what they are going to do. If it were up to me, we'd do away with politicians completely and vote on everything. Theirs too much crap like 'pork' out there. I think they should be forced to keep things to single concepts to prevent this. Then we wouldn't need line item vetos.

PS: I'm still not entirely convinced the War is a mistake. I truthfully can't decide. I think this is a question more for the soldiers who are on the front line. They are the ones making the sacrifice, and also the ones seeing first hand whether or not a difference is being made.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 7, 2007)

On the economy thing, it's doing well, however two things.

Someone please remind me the term for this but basically there is a percentage splitup (GP funding?)

The majority about I think in the 60's in percentage range went to the employees
Another percentage to the employer and company.

What happened now is while more money is coming in, less of it and the percentage went down for the employee, it went more for the employer.

The other problem is, while the economy "is doing great" inflation is also not being factored. Employees wages are not increasing to keep in line with inflation while inflation has risen dramatically. In some cases Employee wages have decreased. 

Having said that, Bush really has nothing much to do with the economy. I said the same for Clinton too, the DotComs were helpful in a quick inflation but its crash has also affected the economy.

I do find it humorous though, when Gas prices go up, Bush's approval rating goes down, and the reverse happens too. XD Gas costs he has the least control over, but he can put into action a plan for weaning our dependency on foreign oil.


----------



## Moon-Baby (Mar 7, 2007)

I registered Republican so I could Vote in a primary to vote against somebody I really didn't like.
So I'm technically not Democrat.

In my opinion, both parties can bite me. They spend so much time fighting each other that they don't actually get anything worthwhile done.

And rofl @ the potleaf canadian flag. I've been trying to make one of those for myself for forever.


----------



## Stitch (Mar 7, 2007)

Oh, man, I am so sick of all the partisan wedge-driving that's going on these days. Seriously, it makes me want to vomit. "Republicans are all stooopid!" "No, Democrats are!" "No, Republicans are times infinity!" "Well, Democrats are stupid times infinity plus one!" And on and on and on. 

Here's the deal, and it's really, really, reeeeeeally simple: both parties are corrupt. Both parties lie. Both parties stomp on civil liberties, small businesses, minorities, majorities, human dignity and the law in general whenever it suits their interests. Both parties are full of hypocritical, crass, cynical opportunists who toss blame around like napalm while simultaneously absolving themselves of the very same wrongdoing they're gleefully accusing others of doing. Both parties are beholden to money and power, and both parties would gladly rake you over flaming hot coals if it meant they'd save so much as a nickel for their re-election campaign funds.

This is not big news to anybody who's been paying attention for the last hundred years. This is, in every sense of the term, a no-brainer. The big question that ought to be asked is not "Why are Republicans so bad," or "Why are Democrats so bad," but rather "How did our political system devolve into the rancorous, corrupt sludge it is today?"

Answer: because you, the American people, have let it. Every single time you vote on a party line without thinking about the issues at hand, every time you toss rabid accusations at the 'other side' while turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of 'your side', every time you make excuses for your preferred candidates while they screw over the values you hold dear, every time you let some windbag political 'commentator' on tv tell you how you ought to think, every time you say something like "I can't even understand how you can support YOUR party, because everybody knows they're stupid and wrong about everything, whereas MY party is righteous and saintly and perfect," the politicians give themselves a pat on the back and a little piece of America dies.

It's your fault, people. You've traded objectivity and rationality for a big old pair of horse blinders. You've given a free pass to a mass body of corrupt officials who are entirely dependent on your willingness to look the other way when they do something wrong (and then blame someone else for it). They're counting on your faithful, unquestioning obedience, and they know they'll get it because they've figured out how to tell you what you want to hear. The very concept of 'Republican' versus 'Democrat' is a giant smokescreen, fueled by wedge issues and mindless party-line accusations, that serves only to keep you, the American people, riled up and unthinking when it comes time to vote the jerks back in for another term. 

You don't listen. You don't think. You don't even pretend to be objective. You choose only to see what you want to see, and to hell with anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions. You dismiss those you don't agree with as fools and traitors while canonizing those on 'your side' as saints. Ultimately it isn't the politicians who are the problem - it's you.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 7, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> On the economy thing, it's doing well, however two things.
> 
> Someone please remind me the term for this but basically there is a percentage splitup (GP funding?)
> 
> ...



I tend to disagree, I think that some of the policies he's had a hand in do play an important part in the economy. I agree, he's not the major driving factor. Perhaps a good analogy would be if the economy were a car, and the person driving were businesses. Blue and white collar workers woould be the gas and he would be one of the people working for the highway department planting signs that give directions.

I disagree with raising the minimum wage nationwide because this would result in inflation with the companies merely passing the additional cost off to the customer. I don't believe the minimum wage is meant to be a wage you can live off of. 16 years olds don't need to make enough money to live off of. And there's plenty of opportunity to get an education and a high paying job. Anyone, regardless of race, sex, or beliefs can get a student loan and apply for grants. You could argue that you don't want to build up the huge debt of a student loan, but a community college or even small university doesn't cost too much. So you end up with 30,000 in student loans, when most college graduates make more than 20,000 a year more than non-college educated individuals.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 7, 2007)

Stitch said:
			
		

> Oh, man, I am so sick.....



QFT and 100% agreed. What I really wanted to accomplish with this post was get some ideas of what corruption occurs among high level Republicans or Republican presidential candidates. I read a lot of news and listen to talk radio. All I ever hear is about the corruption of Democrats. I know as a general rule, politicians are corrupt. But I can't seem to find anything MAJOR along the lines of corruption and falsification among Republicans. I hear Democrats doing one thing and saying another. But from what I see, most Republicans are in line with their party views. It's like the Democrats are saying what people want to hear while the Republicans are sticking to the party line? Funny thing is, I don't even see anything about the Republicans on any News, which seems to jump at the chance to post even the smallest Republican scandal. I probably should have titled the post differently, looking at it, it makes it look like I'm saying I'm against democrats. I'm not really, I just haven't seen any Democrat that is doing and saying the same thing. Like I said before, it would be a lot easier and cheaper if we got rid of the senate and the house and just had a few 'lawmakers' that came up with solutions and allowed the general public to vote on them. You could argue the general public is stupid, but seriously, you know where you stand on issues. And if you voted on something, you'd have only yourself to blame if it was a mistake.


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 7, 2007)

Stitch said:
			
		

> Answer: because you, the American people, have let it. Every single time you vote on a party line without thinking about the issues at hand, every time you toss rabid accusations at the 'other side' while turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of 'your side', every time you make excuses for your preferred candidates while they screw over the values you hold dear, every time you let some windbag political 'commentator' on tv tell you how you ought to think, every time you say something like "I can't even understand how you can support YOUR party, because everybody knows they're stupid and wrong about everything, whereas MY party is righteous and saintly and perfect," the politicians give themselves a pat on the back and a little piece of America dies.



Here you are lecturing the 40% or less of the population who actually votes when 60% just sit there and let shit hit the fan for doing nothing.  Sheep exist everywhere whether we lecture em or not, but if you don't vote you're simply letting someone else make an opinion for you.  At the very least, the 40% of people actually voting have made up their minds to know that politics matters, and that's a step above NOT voting.  Consider since there will always be sheep that you as a more intelligent voter may be able to use them as your tool to get your opinion out to people who's opinions actually matter, or something.  I'm not saying to astroturf, but it's like being the salesman of a philosophy.

Seriously, though, way to condescend on the voting populace.  This is as much the fault of people who have too much apathy to vote as it is people being sheeped around, because the majority of the former makes the latter's influence that more disproportional to the actual will/proper representation of the people.

===========================
Edit:  BTW rostam, I can see how minimum wage could possibly hurt small business owners in theory, but there's a lot of unlikely circumstances I think have to come into play for that to occur, and I disagree that the costs will end up going back to the consumer as if they weren't already.  This country favors shit to LOOK cheap, that's why companies outsource it and shuffle cash around to make items in like China, then sell it back to you for 89 cents and you think you're saving money while all the while the value of your cash goes down and so does the US economy.  On the macro scale, anything you can think to do to close the wealth gap in this country will simply have the wealthy outsource it to get around it anyway, it seems.  Costs of many items are below their actual value, it's just a matter of time before this catches up to us :I

That besides the current minimum wage is waaay below the earnings of your average american worker, which wasn't always the case.  The elasticity of minimum wage workers in this country is low (we need a certain number of unskilled labor jobs regardless of their pay).  I believe that market power needs to be balanced more between the companies and the consumer, and that minimum wage increase would be a way to promote that more healthy relationship (or, it could promote companies to try and get around the law by outsourcing or hiring more illegals -- either way it will make the situation much less ambiguous as to what we SHOULD be doing to fix a fxcked up economy).  I Am Not An Economistâ„¢ but I did just google this issue and I found out that economists in general seem to prefer Antitrust litigation over minimum wage increases to "get the job done" restoring power balance to the consumer.  I think antitrust litigation's been busted ever since SBC started consolodating Ma Bell (and let's not forget Microsoft's slap on the wrist which basically did nothing to stop their monopoly), so maybe minimum wage hikes will get the snowball rolling to tell the bigshots that we the american people mean business. 

Sorry, I'm getting off track..... :T


Edit2:  





> I read a lot of news and listen to talk radio. All I ever hear is about the corruption of Democrats.



Talk radio's the realm of the conservatives -- the news, while often painted as liberal, generally tries to follow guidelines of journalistic ethics towards things like ad hominem attacks.  Generally.  Talking heads like Wolf Blitzer are increasingly blurring the line between NPOV and obvious opinion.  Still, Even a little bit of slander can slip underneath the radar on talk radio thanks in part to its fluidic nature -- you can't get away with that on TV unless your name is Fox News (whereby nobody with more than half a brain takes you seriously anyway).

BTW, I am _shocked_ that you claim to listen to a lot of news and barely know who jack abramoff is.  I'm not super surprised you don't know who Duke Cunningham is, but I am somewhat disappointed -- that also made news and his name should be about as well-known as William Jefferson.

Finally, Hypothetical question.  What's worse to you, a corrupt politician who doesn't deny some of his comrades might grease the wheels, or a corrupt politican that claims that his comrades are all saints? (Personally, I think the flat-faced liars are the lesser-trustworthy of the two, and much more dangerous to the american people)


----------



## capthavoc123 (Mar 8, 2007)

There's one thing I find confusing about any sort of debate about the presidency, Democrat or Republican or whatever.

Blaming or crediting the economy to the president. The president has no authority over the economy, the stock market, or anything else like that. Nothing the president does dictates economic policy, that kind of thing is the business of Congress and businesses themselves. Pretty much the only effect the president can have on the economy is if he makes a comment on something and it causes stocks to fall, just as if someone like Alan Greenspan or the CEO of some huge corporation had said it. That's all the influence the president has on the economy, and it's ignorant and foolish to think otherwise.


----------



## Jelly (Mar 8, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Student loans have been *severely* reduced in how much the government doles out recently.

It does sort of depend on what you major in (a job with 20,000 buckaroos post-college) - I'm majoring in Anthropology and with a BA of Anth, you really can't do anything. I mean, you can flip burgers...make pizzas? As far as student loans, as well, you have to take into account the amount of interest that goes into loans. For people like myself who need a PhD to do anything they can get pretty up there, and the government after a point gives you very little. Under the Federal Pell Grant you can be authorized (I'm not sure about this anymore, but this is how it was when I was a freshman) for up to somewhere around 2,000 dollars. The rest depends on the state government (this usually can get up to [really, tops] about 5,000 dollars including federal work study), generally.

It was during Bush's latest term that federal university loans had the largest cut.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 8, 2007)

jellyhurwit said:
			
		

> It was during Bush's latest term that federal university loans had the largest cut.



Ya... I got a 2,500 for this year in student loans... the rest, I had to get out of myrichuncle. Just the name scares me.. it screams "SNEAKY FEES AND RATES but up-front, we've got great interest rates!"


----------



## Mega Wolf (Mar 8, 2007)

capthavoc123 said:
			
		

> The president has no authority over the economy, the stock market, or anything else like that. Nothing the president does dictates economic policy, that kind of thing is the business of Congress and businesses themselves.



How come one of the main things I hear when people say good things about Clinton is "The economy was good when he was president." or "He helped the economy." or even "He was the reason the economy was so good."... But when we think of the upturns in the stockmarket and any positive market changes while Bush is in office, people love to say "The president has nothing to do with the economy"?


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 8, 2007)

Mega Wolf said:
			
		

> But when we think of the upturns in the stockmarket and any positive market changes while Bush is in office, people love to say "The president has nothing to do with the economy"?



I hate Bush. And I like blame all kinds of stuff on him.

But I make an honest effort not to BS stuff about him. I think some people just like to blur things like that, and assume no one will ask the question you just asked. Damn... that bias is exposed now >_<


----------



## Mega Wolf (Mar 8, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> Mega Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats anouther thing I dont like about democrats, they love pull anything they can to defame or insult a republican, reguardless if it's true or not. What was a reason a democrat was doing a good job one term is suddenly not something a president can control when a republican is in office, and when a republican effects something in a bad or negetive way, when a democrat is in the same shoes it's "not their falt, totaly out of their control".

Granted, precived powers is a big problem with the presidency, and by that I mean the ignorant masses tend to think the president can do a LOT more then he can really do. But far to often I hear this used to defend democrats and defame republicans. -.-


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 8, 2007)

Mega Wolf said:
			
		

> Thats anouther thing I dont like about democrats, they love pull anything they can to defame or insult a republican, reguardless if it's true or not. What was a reason a democrat was doing a good job one term is suddenly not something a president can control when a republican is in office, and when a republican effects something in a bad or negetive way, when a democrat is in the same shoes it's "not their falt, totaly out of their control".
> 
> Granted, precived powers is a big problem with the presidency, and by that I mean the ignorant masses tend to think the president can do a LOT more then he can really do. But far to often I hear this used to defend democrats and defame republicans. -.-



Well, I think it goes both ways. I think republicans make the same kinds of arguments. Right now, Bush isn't in a very popular spot, so everyone is ganging up on him. But I'm sure there'll be a democrat in office in 2009, and if he falls into a spot like Bush is in right now, he'll have the same kind of deal. Unfair and inaccurate arguments and blame.

It's politics - never pretty.


----------



## Mega Wolf (Mar 8, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> Well, I think it goes both ways. I think republicans make the same kinds of arguments. Right now, Bush isn't in a very popular spot, so everyone is ganging up on him. But I'm sure there'll be a democrat in office in 2009, and if he falls into a spot like Bush is in right now, he'll have the same kind of deal. Unfair and inaccurate arguments and blame.
> 
> It's politics - never pretty.



True. Maybe its simply a matter of my enviroment. I may live in Texas, but I live in an area that is VERY democraticly controlled. As if that is not bad enough, I've been in various colleges since 01, so all I EVER FRIGGAN HEAR is 'Bush is evil this' and 'Bush bites the heads off of babies' that and 'There would be no aids if only Clinton was still in office' and I am F'ing sick of it!


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 8, 2007)

I understand. People who have a shallow understanding of what's going on in the world just dismiss it as "Oh, well of fking course.. Bush is in office."

While Bush may have to do with many things, there's this thing called a cabinet, and also the other millions working for the executive branch of the government.


----------



## Epsereth (Mar 8, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> I understand. People who have a shallow understanding of what's going on in the world just dismiss it as "Oh, well of fking course.. Bush is in office."
> 
> While Bush may have to do with many things, there's this thing called a cabinet, and also the other millions working for the executive branch of the government.



At the same time, Bush also has the big ugly Vetomobile...


----------



## Hanazawa (Mar 8, 2007)

Epsereth said:
			
		

> At the same time, Bush also has the big ugly Vetomobile...



can I get one of those? I wanna go chug-chug-chuggin' down the street in my sweet sweet Vetomobile. It's probably a white van.

I don't know why.

I just read Vetomobile and thought "white van".


----------



## Epsereth (Mar 8, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> can I get one of those? I wanna go chug-chug-chuggin' down the street in my sweet sweet Vetomobile. It's probably a white van.
> 
> I don't know why.
> 
> I just read Vetomobile and thought "white van".



Like the one the DC Snipers of 2003 used? 

Wow. "I VETO YO' LIFE, BETCH!" 

*winces at own lame joke*


----------



## SFox (Mar 8, 2007)

Mega Wolf said:
			
		

> Thats anouther thing I dont like about democrats, they love pull anything they can to defame or insult a republican, reguardless if it's true or not.



Whoa whoa whoa, hold it right there. You can't go pointing at democrats like only they do this. Oh jeez man, the things that republicans tried, and still try to pin on Clinton, you'd think he was Satan walking the earth himself.


----------



## Epsereth (Mar 8, 2007)

somberfox said:
			
		

> Mega Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yyyyeah, politics is politics and mudslinging goes both ways. XD


----------



## Jelly (Mar 8, 2007)

Hey, hey...I know this is a bit off-subject...

However, has anybody else seen the latest FoxNews thing? They take various liberals and analyze every single hand and eye movement in a slow motion tape of an interview. They try to interpret (postulate) how this means that liberals are lying, or have no idea what they're talking about.

...well, I got a kick out of it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 8, 2007)

Mega Wolf said:
			
		

> capthavoc123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Umm how come you didn't even read post #48 http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=7032&pid=118681#pid118681

I said that Clinton had little to do with it either.

The economy just has its natural turns. What made the boom different during Clinton's time was the dot com explosion. However, while it needed to be done, Clinton passed into law something that caused an economic downturn, which in this case has a direct effect on the economy until it re-adjusted itself.

That was, more honest stock reporting. That's also why a lot of those companies in the dot-com era went bust. Rightfully so, but it did cause quite a ripple. Before there was little accounting and auditing when companies reported earnings, they were more estimate based than factual based. 

So the person in office isn't really directly in charge of the economy, he might be able to pass laws to affect it, but most of the laws passed, not to many have direct effects but ripples.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 8, 2007)

omg! For some reason, my heart has been hurting today. I had blood work done before and doctors said "No, you's fine"... Anyways. My heart is hurting today, and I'm reading all this shit and you guys crack me up.. and this laughing is doing a number on my heart. Not making it feel any better. I love you all.

*hugs everyone except dong*
xP 



			
				jellyhurwit said:
			
		

> Hey, hey...I know this is a bit off-subject...
> 
> However, has anybody else seen the latest FoxNews thing? They take various liberals and analyze every single hand and eye movement in a slow motion tape of an interview. They try to interpret (postulate) how this means that liberals are lying, or have no idea what they're talking about.
> 
> ...well, I got a kick out of it.



That's funny. I didn't see it, but I can imagine it.

"Now, once he was asked about Bush's blabla policy, you may have noticed" *slow motion replay* "his left eye began twitching... not only that, but also on-camera was a FIST he made!!"



ok ok... *hugs Dong too* I would've left you out to be funny, but I felt too guilty.

Plus, if I die of a heart attack, I can't die knowing I was being mean...


----------



## Mega Wolf (Mar 8, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Umm how come you didn't even read post #48 http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=7032&pid=118681#pid118681



I did, but I mean in general. Whenever someone strikes up the daily 'How republicans are going to destroy the world today' debate at my local college, someone passing by usualy mentions something about the economy and one of the bush haters spouts 'Well how can you say Bush had anything to do with the economy!? Clinton was the one who had the economy running so well!'. And not just at the college but everywhere I go I usualy hear stuff like I mentioned in my post. Some of you on here seemed to notice, but 2 or 3 out of the hundreds I have heard still does not constitute a 'fair distribution'.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 8, 2007)

Mega Wolf said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I totally understand that. People generally have an ignorant argument to make.

I was going to one school, and there were always students protests that always started these big arguments.

"HOW CAN YOU SAY TO ME THAT I'M GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOR MY BELIEFS?"
"HOW DO YOU KNOW THE FETUS IS A LIVING THING?!"

I dunno... one time, I wound up arguing devil's advocate (normally, I say women should choose if they want an abortion or not, but I could NOT argue on this dude's side...). Somehow, his argument was that animals are smarter than people, therefore abortion should remain legal.

I didn't get it. But, yes, I can relate with what you're saying, Mega Wolf.


----------



## Mega Wolf (Mar 8, 2007)

somberfox said:
			
		

> Mega Wolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True, both sides are guilty of this, and I am aware and have heard BS arguments against Clinton, but whenever I hear the republican side, its always dismissed as 'conservative banter' and therefore rendered as pointless, but see it from the otherside of the fence and suddenly everyone is paroting it like the god given truth. When was the last time you listened to anything on conservative talk radio and actualy even mildly considered it true in any way, shape, or form? If you answer 'never' then you see my point. If you answer 'Only if what they are saying is ACTUALY true and not just something they made up' then you would be a bit more open minded to both sides of the argument, which is more then I can say about everyone that lives in my brainwashed town.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 8, 2007)

Mega Wolf said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is funny, is that an IRC channel I founded long ago, most of us were high school/college age. This was the time we were idealists and thought our views could change the world. So our ideals were more democratic, and thought those darn conservatives were evil.

Then we had to pay off those loans, or move on and live on our own. I come back years later to this channel and we're more conservative, we want the government interfering less with our lives and most definitely our paychecks.

Not everyone is going to go through this turn in life, but I thought it was interesting to note.


----------



## Razzor (Mar 8, 2007)

Okay time for my personal opinion.  BUSH IS AN IDIOT!  Get that moron out of office, he's a freaking puppet for Cheney, and he's been lying his a** off about the purpose of the war in Iraq for ages.  
Seriously the man is borderline retarded.  I would also like to point out, something concerning Bill Clinton.  He lied, yes, he apologized too.  Guess what else, why do people seem to make a big deal about private life?  That's something you do and don't tell people!
Guess what, both situations are immoral, but George Bush's lies have gotten countless people killed.  Iraq is well on its way to being the next Vietnam.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 8, 2007)

Razzor said:
			
		

> I would also like to point out, something concerning Bill Clinton.  He lied, yes, he apologized too.  Guess what else, why do people seem to make a big deal about private life?  That's something you do and don't tell people!



Umm having ORAL in the OVAL office is NOT Private. XD

Last I recalled, I could get fired for having some nice hot and heavy office sex on my desk and making copies of my butt, while I'm doing the grind. 

Also, someone else has to use that office after him so yeah I'd like to know if you're releasing certain fluids in the chair I may sit on next XD


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 8, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Last I recalled, I could get fired for having some nice hot and heavy office sex on my desk and making copies of my butt, while I'm doing the grind.



You can also get fired for having the wrong political bumper sticker on your car, smoking even if you don't do it at work, drinking even if you don't do it at work, having a blog, having provocative pics of yourself on the net, and probably the galleries of most FA users would be enough to get them canned. Hope everyone here that values their futures is doing a good job of preserving their online anonymity, btw.

Sorry for potentially derailing the thread here, but it's really disheartening how so many people still bitch about Bill Clinton keeping his job when other politicians have done much worse and stayed in office, yet remain apathetic to the reality that they close lose *their* jobs for things far more trivial. A trend which seems to be on the rise in the post-9/11 era, suspiciously.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 8, 2007)

I already discussed in past threads that people are getting googled as a way to do background checks. So this actually isn't lost on me.

I'm saying however, what Clinton did in the Oval office was NOT a private matter. Him having sex with Monica in the movie theater and he gets busted for it, that's more of a private matter. It also constitutes as sexual harassment in some cases if other interns could plead a case that this person was getting benefits (other than sex) that promoted her position. (haha no matter how you word that the context of if sounds bad)


----------



## Sylvine (Mar 8, 2007)

Hm, well, to be fair... the way I see it, sure - Clinton should had been dismissed from his office for that whole action. 

However, by that standards, Bush deserves getting straight into jail, ASAP, for actions that ultimately led to pointless deaths of thousands of people. 

Personally, I don't think a BJ is such a big deal, but I understand how people were and are outraged by that incident - it was quite definitely neither the place for any practices of that nature, nor were the circumstances admirable - far from it. However, a war IS a big deal, and although I can accept the afghanistan war as being justified ( though I wince at the thought, since I'm a bit on the naive side and resent wars in general ), the one in Iraq is simply a crime. 

Going to bed now... before I stop making any sense =) 
~Sylv


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 8, 2007)

Yup. If you look at international law, Bush would be in deep piss. Somehow, the US has the ability to exclude itself from international law though... for the sake of national security. -_-


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 8, 2007)

Well Iraq wasn't following the resolutions, to me this was an eventuality that something was going to happen. However, the misinformation and changing of facts did not make me happy.

The way the war was handled, was really bad. You don't go into a place and make sure everyone can LOOT it afterwards. That's how the insurgents are getting weapons. The Army hospitals is another thing that is upsetting, however, this has been going on far longer than the war in Iraq. I think someone not protecting our borders, is grounds for immediate termination too, especially if you're saying we're trying to protect our country from future terrorism.

I'm not going to disagree that Bush's performance is poor and some of the things should have caused termination, or possibly jail time. The thing is I think Clinton should have been terminated too.

There needs to be better "pink slips" for people in office  That's the biggest problem with government bureaucracy . If people were held accountable more quickly I'm sure they'd think twice about the amount of crap they pulled.

There is a situation where two US Border Patrol Agents are now in prison for shooting an illegal alien drug runner in the butt. The drug runner got immunity, one or two of the agents that testified against the border patrol lied. So now they're uncovering more evidence that the trial was a set up against the Border Patrol Agents doing their job.

However, we have Scooter Libby who was just convicted on obstruction of justice.

The question is, who will get the pardon first, the agents or Libby?

You know who I'd like to see


----------



## Mega Wolf (Mar 8, 2007)

I'll admit we where lied to about the Iraq war, but it had to be done eventualy. I do agree with most that it was a big Fubar on Bush's part to lie about the reason for going into Iraq, if he had just said the real reason why, I would have appretiated it. And NO, I dont think he went in because Sadam was out to get his 'daddy' or some stupid BS like that, he probably just figured that out of all our potential problem countries we had on our hands (Iran, N. Korea, etc.), Iraq was the most vulnerable and easiest to take down. I often hear 'Well if he wanted to take out a terrorist nation, why not take out N. Korea?' Well thats because they are so friggan dug in and well fortified and ready for anything, that would like be trying to knock down a 8 foot thick wall with a rock.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Mar 8, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I already discussed in past threads that people are getting googled as a way to do background checks. So this actually isn't lost on me.



If it's not too much of a hassle for ya, could you direct me to them? I've been having a bit of an internal crisis / paranoia lately as to how I'm going to partake in the joys / lulz of furrydom and not get outed as a terrorist.


----------



## sunshyne (Mar 8, 2007)

I'll say this: I hate Bush, I hate the way he's taken our country (in the areas that he DOES have control in, such as foreign and many domestic policies decided by the executive)... but I don't think he's evil. I just think he's dumb. I think he genuinely believes he is doing what's best for America and the world, but suffers from a massive inability to process pertinent information and look at two sides of an issue... Now Cheney, and other cabinet members, I have a serious character problem with. But I could say the same about so many politicians.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 9, 2007)

capthavoc123 said:
			
		

> There's one thing I find confusing about any sort of debate about the presidency, Democrat or Republican or whatever.
> 
> Blaming or crediting the economy to the president. The president has no authority over the economy, the stock market, or anything else like that. Nothing the president does dictates economic policy, that kind of thing is the business of Congress and businesses themselves. Pretty much the only effect the president can have on the economy is if he makes a comment on something and it causes stocks to fall, just as if someone like Alan Greenspan or the CEO of some huge corporation had said it. That's all the influence the president has on the economy, and it's ignorant and foolish to think otherwise.



So you don't think that if the President came up with a plan to decrease minimum wages it wouldn't affect the economy?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 9, 2007)

jellyhurwit said:
			
		

> Student loans have been *severely* reduced in how much the government doles out recently.
> 
> It does sort of depend on what you major in (a job with 20,000 buckaroos post-college) - I'm majoring in Anthropology and with a BA of Anth, you really can't do anything. I mean, you can flip burgers...make pizzas? As far as student loans, as well, you have to take into account the amount of interest that goes into loans. For people like myself who need a PhD to do anything they can get pretty up there, and the government after a point gives you very little. Under the Federal Pell Grant you can be authorized (I'm not sure about this anymore, but this is how it was when I was a freshman) for up to somewhere around 2,000 dollars. The rest depends on the state government (this usually can get up to [really, tops] about 5,000 dollars including federal work study), generally.
> 
> It was during Bush's latest term that federal university loans had the largest cut.



Yes, but my point was there is no excuse no one in the US cannot go to college unless they just can't get accepted. If they can't get accepted, there are plenty of jobs they can take that are non-minimum wage jobs. Sure it may not be what they want to do... But how many people actually want to work?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 9, 2007)

Clinton should have been impeached when he went on TV and lied to everyone in the nation. That's my feeling on that. If Anyone, ANYONE that's a politician, including Bush, purposefully and intentionally lies to the public, they should be sent to jail... without passing go. I don't mean forget or misinformed, I mean lie.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 9, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Clinton should have been impeached when he went on TV and lied to everyone in the nation. That's my feeling on that. If Anyone, ANYONE that's a politician, including Bush, purposefully and intentionally lies to the public, they should be sent to jail... without passing go. I don't mean forget or misinformed, I mean lie.



Definitely. Unfortunately, it seems that issues just kind of fizzled about, because many times, Bush just doesn't acknowledge it. He can stand up in front of everyone, and give the same old spiel on all the 'evil' in the world, and isn't forced to respond to all those burning questions and statements we'd love for him to respond to/hear.

The answers he gives at press conferences just drives me crazy. If there is a question that he can't answer without it becoming a headline and negative PR, he'll ramble on for a minute and just get lost in a slightly relevant subject.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 9, 2007)

Something I thought was funny were the Democrats blasting Bush about the war.

(paraphrasing)

Democrat A: Bush needs to stop with his ever changing policies on the war!
Democrat B: Bush needs to realize he can no longer "Stay the course"

I mean come on, I agree about the war but...like if you're going to be upset and say things about Bush...like PICK A LANE.

Either he's inconsistent with the war or he's staying the course.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 9, 2007)

This is gonna turn into "What pisses you right the !@#$ off? (political version)"/

Yes. I also hate how it seems democrats are trying to seize the moment and oppose anything Bush does, in hopes of gaining the "Saves the day" title.

I hate a lot of just about everything both sides do, but at least Bush can't run rampant anymore and do whatever he wants.

Didn't the minimum wage raise get shot down? I dunno what ever happen to that... but it's been quite a few years since it has been raised. Last time it was raised, gas was a buck a gallon. I don't think we'll ever see it under 2 bucks again. So many other things I've seen get so much more expensive over the years... I think it is time for a raise for the little people :


----------



## Sylvine (Mar 10, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Clinton should have been impeached when he went on TV and lied to everyone in the nation. That's my feeling on that. If Anyone, ANYONE that's a politician, including Bush, purposefully and intentionally lies to the public, they should be sent to jail... without passing go. I don't mean forget or misinformed, I mean lie.



Well...yeah. I guess I understand the notion here. 

But what You need to understand is that to some people, hardcore republicans coming up with Clinton as an argument to defend Bush is like a slap in the face. I mean, compare 

"I did not have sex with this woman." 
to
"We know there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." 

Now, I'm no expert in this matter, but I was under the impression there is evidence out there that this was not misinformation, but that the people responsible for this mess damn well knew that what they said was not true. Also, as already stated, Clinton got himself a Blowjob in his Office. Bush started a war. Even if, in reverse, the latter should not be taken as an excuse to act as if Clinton didn't do anything wrong, I think it's clear both things are uncpomparable. Hell, if Clinton killed his Wife and ate her for dinner it would still be incomparable. War sits at the very top of the pile of possible crimes - it's hard to argue against that. 

About the resoultions, Nei - You are right. I, too, am concerned with, for example, the possibility that Iran could have nukes. Then again, I'm also not happy about the fact that the USA have them. My point is that it's irrational to attack people because they pose a potential threat - that would be declaring war to the whole world, really. 

~Sylv


----------



## darkdoomer (Mar 10, 2007)

Republicans, Conservateurs, Liberals, Democrats, Nationalists... same shit for me.

i'm french. and seriously the country has never been worse since the republicans ares at the power. the last 12 years have been more catastrophic than the eighties with Mitterand. 
no, seriously; Republicans ares the cancer that is slowly killing democracy.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 10, 2007)

I like you darkdoomer 

So, do you feel that you have no political affiliation?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Rostam The Grey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't trying to use a straw man. I was mearly stating that any politician, Bush included, that is in office and lies should be locked up. A lie is a lie, there are no levels of lying. There are levels of criminal activity, but a lie is a lie. So, lets say for arguments sake that Bush did lie. They both would be equally guilty of lying. Clinton commited adultery which is a crime. But Bush took us to war... I don't know that I consider this a crime. But I also don't know people in Iraq, or their situation before and afterwards. Even if he lied to convince people to go to war, but it was to remove an evil man from power? He's still guilty of a lie, but I'm not convinced the war is a criminal activity. Now if he went to war simply to gain land, or oil, that'd be different. I don't see that we're getting anything out of this war other than installing a democracy and removing a dictator that constantly threatened the US. I think most people's biggest problem with the war is that it doesn't appear that we are getting anything out of it and most Americans today are selfish. But if we leave, I think the people that are currently instigating attacks in Iraq would resume activities in the US. Not to mention we'd leave Iraq helpless for Iran to take over and in chaos, causing more people to hate us.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2007)

darkdoomer said:
			
		

> Republicans, Conservateurs, Liberals, Democrats, Nationalists... same shit for me.
> 
> i'm french. and seriously the country has never been worse since the republicans ares at the power. the last 12 years have been more catastrophic than the eighties with Mitterand.
> no, seriously; Republicans ares the cancer that is slowly killing democracy.



replace Republicans with Politicians and I'll agree.

i.e. Politicians ares the cancer that is slowly killing democracy.


----------



## darkdoomer (Mar 10, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Sylvine said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



come on, what is worse ? getting a blowjob or invading a country ?

( haha! i'm using Common*Sense*â„¢ )




> So, do you feel that you have no political affiliation?



well; not anymore. i think we've came to a point where politics aint the answer.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2007)

darkdoomer said:
			
		

> come on, what is worse ? getting a blowjob or invading a country ?
> 
> ( haha! i'm using Common*Sense*â„¢ )



But that wasn't what it was? It was adultery or liberating a country. Invasion implies taking it over. And I'd rather get a blow job then commit adultery.

Which is worse, getting a blowjob or invading? Invading of course.
Which is worse, commiting adultery or liberating a country? Adultery of course.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 10, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> darkdoomer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now it gets ugly.

Which is worse?

We have to consider both possibilities in their entireties.

Adultery. Ok. So a man had sex with a woman, cheating on his wife.

Invading/Liberating. American death toll is about 3,000. Iraqi deaths range from like 100,000 - 655,000 according to various estimates a while ago. Destabilized region, which is having a massive impact on politics and tensions around the world. Soiled American reputation.

((I saw a list of polls taken from citizens of different countries around the world from before and after the war in Iraq. Afterwards, there was an EXTREME drop in positive views towards Americans. Many feared America would invade their country))

I think I'd rather have an adulterer than an unjust, war-mongering president. He was just finishing up what daddy started.. :


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> Now it gets ugly.
> 
> Which is worse?
> 
> ...



Well, this goes back to what I said before. I can't really judge what has been accomplished in Iraq. You can't really judge based on the media. Just as you can't trust the death toll that the media has released. You'd have to ask the soldiers and iraqi citizens about what was accomplished in the liberation. I say liberation and not invasion. The definition of invade is to march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation. That's not what we did, we removed the existing government and then helped them to start a new government that was a democracy. Was this right? I don't know. It certainly didn't look like it helped immediately afterwords when everything was complete chaos. It almost seemed like they needed a dictator to keep order. But now everything appears to have calmed down except for the terrorist, and even these are slowing down. I know that I personally would not want my rights refused by a dictator. I would not want to live in fear that me or my family could be killed for stupid reasons like disagreeing with the government, or being born the wrong religion... I would welcome being liberated, even if it meant a period of instability. But on the other hand, I do know adultery is wrong. And he obvious commited adultery and then lied about it.


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 10, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> darkdoomer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here comes a history lesson.  France is now at its 5th republic since the french revolution, and it has a serious love-hate relationship with authoritarians, fascism, and other right-wing things.  The distinction to be made here is what kind of Republican (capital R) we're talking about.  Even moreso than the US,  ever since De Gaulle, france has had very strong executive power and I wouldn't blame anyone in that country who seriously distrusts putting all that power in the hands of one person.  Republicans in france are authoritarian -- Since fascist is a politically-incorrect word now and days, I'd say they're not unlike a US Neoconservative.

Furthermore to that point, fascism is a major point that scares the bejeezus out of me regarding the US Republican party.  It would probably never get to that extreme a point, but there's still a large number of people who vote republican on the premise of "small government and less taxes" when what they're actually getting is rammed in the ass by the neocons who actually want more executive power and do a "tax dance" by shuffling the numbers around a bit then spinning it like it will help the economy.  Do we really want to have as much political instability as France?  Yes, since De Gaulle I doubt anyone has considered their system as illegitimate, but in essentially the same period of time since the American revolution, France has had FIVE republics and several more authoritarian regimes.  This is enough for me to set my own opinion to the idea that a strong executive (a neocon/big "R" Republican mainstay) are the source of a lot of their problems.  Not unlike admins on the internet (yes I know, silly comparison), the best ones are on the honor system to only use those sweeping powers when it is absolutely necessary.  Otherwise trust in the entire system breaks down.

Finally:

I just want to throw out there that I _like_ the government out of my business, and I _like_ less taxes, but there will always be taxes and there will always be big brother breathing down your neck to some extent.  So, it really is just a matter of your opinion on who's going to screw you more. And in a Winner-take-All system like the US, that means everyone wants a winner -- so they either vote for one of two parties.  Many people will not so much vote FOR a party as they will AGAINST what the other party stands for or try to punish them for doing a piss poor job.


P.S.  Liberating a country is an ex-post facto justification -- I'd say adultery is a moral sin and not necessarily an ethical one, and let's not forget all of our money they wasted "liberating" iraq.  But shit, I shouldn't be getting baited into another straw man argument and chucking back red herrings, should I :V

Anyone ever notice how much politics is about trying to sneak in logical fallacies?  Spin is great, isn't it?  </sarcasm>


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 10, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Well, this goes back to what I said before. I can't really judge what has been accomplished in Iraq. You can't really judge based on the media. Just as you can't trust the death toll that the media has released. You'd have to ask the soldiers and iraqi citizens about what was accomplished in the liberation.



I don't go by the news... at least what's on TV. But I'd say the media, in general, is much more reliable than listening to Bush's press conferences and speeches. He's a chronic liar -- mostly due to the fact that he only says part of the truth. I'm not even going to go into the whole "We know Iraq has WMDs and we know where they are." There are many news sources though, and they all have a bias in one direction or the other. With that, you can get a fairly accurate picture of what's going on.




			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I say liberation and not invasion. The definition of invade is to march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation. That's not what we did, we removed the existing government and then helped them to start a new government that was a democracy.



It depends on how you look at it. An invasion could be the same thing -- charge into a country, take out the government and establish an ally.

Much of the world refers to what we call the 'War in Iraq' as the 'US occupation of Iraq'. That's what it is. Bush has been denying that Iraq is heading into a civil war (even though world leaders have been saying the opposite for some time), until recently. Now he hints that Iraq is at risk for civil war. So, there is no war in Iraq. We took out the government and established a democracy. Bush came home, waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner.



			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> It almost seemed like they needed a dictator to keep order. But now everything appears to have calmed down except for the terrorist, and even these are slowing down.



Well, now there's a new government, and with that, there is fear among sects about who will hold the power. That's one source of conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_in_Iraq

Daily death counts and events in Iraq for 2007. It doesn't seem too calm, unfortunately.




			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I know that I personally would not want my rights refused by a dictator. I would not want to live in fear that me or my family could be killed for stupid reasons like disagreeing with the government, or being born the wrong religion... I would welcome being liberated, even if it meant a period of instability. But on the other hand, I do know adultery is wrong. And he obvious commited adultery and then lied about it.



It is tragic that people have been oppressed over such things. But, I feel that this period of instability could just continue to feed anger and resentment, leading to a rise in attacks -- even if not in Iraq (although we are seeing that right now), in the long run too.


And, about the adultery.. well, we all have our vices. If you're religious, then you most likely see it as a sin to masturbate, have sex out of wedlock (and with others than one's own partner in wedlock).... I don't see how that compares to the war going on though. Even if he did lie.. he's not the first president to have a hot, steamy scandal :


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> I don't go by the news... at least what's on TV. But I'd say the media, in general, is much more reliable than listening to Bush's press conferences and speeches. He's a chronic liar -- mostly due to the fact that he only says part of the truth. I'm not even going to go into the whole "We know Iraq has WMDs and we know where they are." There are many news sources though, and they all have a bias in one direction or the other. With that, you can get a fairly accurate picture of what's going on.



How can you simply say he's a liar? What if everything he says he believes is the truth? I haven't seen anything that proves to me he knew there weren't any WMDs. Just curious though, have you read any Iraqi news? Beyond that though, news is news, they are going to report what sells. So no matter how much you want to get an accurate picture from it, News will not give you an accurate picture.



			
				Grimfang said:
			
		

> It depends on how you look at it. An invasion could be the same thing -- charge into a country, take out the government and establish an ally.
> 
> Much of the world refers to what we call the 'War in Iraq' as the 'US occupation of Iraq'. That's what it is. Bush has been denying that Iraq is heading into a civil war (even though world leaders have been saying the opposite for some time), until recently. Now he hints that Iraq is at risk for civil war. So, there is no war in Iraq. We took out the government and established a democracy. Bush came home, waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner.



I've seen just the opposite, that is, the mission is not accomplished. But what do you think is more appropriate? Taking out a countries government and then leaving them high and dry? Or sticking around and trying to help? Yes, I agree, it's no longer a war. Now we are trying to stabilize the country. So we are occupying it in an attempt to keep another dictator from taking over.



			
				Grimfang said:
			
		

> Well, now there's a new government, and with that, there is fear among sects about who will hold the power. That's one source of conflict.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_in_Iraq
> 
> Daily death counts and events in Iraq for 2007. It doesn't seem too calm, unfortunately.



I didn't say it was calm. I said it was slowing. If you look at 2005 this is very obvious.



			
				Grimfang said:
			
		

> It is tragic that people have been oppressed over such things. But, I feel that this period of instability could just continue to feed anger and resentment, leading to a rise in attacks -- even if not in Iraq (although we are seeing that right now), in the long run too.



Agreed. It could feed it. But if we remain to help stabilize things we will go far in reducing the resentment.



			
				Grimfang said:
			
		

> And, about the adultery.. well, we all have our vices. If you're religious, then you most likely see it as a sin to masturbate, have sex out of wedlock (and with others than one's own partner in wedlock).... I don't see how that compares to the war going on though. Even if he did lie.. he's not the first president to have a hot, steamy scandal :



Agreed, but I wasn't comparing the lie to the war. I was saying a lie is a lie. Adultery is a crime, I don't really care if it's a sin or not, I'm not a religious person. Starting a war with good intentions is not a crime. That is what I was comparing, a crime to a non-crime. Not only that, a non-crime that was approved by congress. You could argue they didn't know either, but I don't see how you can argue that the president knew and congress didn't without proof either way.

I don't really like this argument because it sounds like I'm for the war and am backing the president. I'm not either. I don't know enough to back the war one way or the other. I'm not risking my life to help or risking it as a citizen there. I also don't know that the president has lied. All I see is that, even though I may not agree with all of his decisions, he's doing what he believes is right. I might be wrong, but I have to go on what I've seen.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> I just want to throw out there that I _like_ the government out of my business, and I _like_ less taxes, but there will always be taxes and there will always be big brother breathing down your neck to some extent.Â Â So, it really is just a matter of your opinion on who's going to screw you more. And in a Winner-take-All system like the US, that means everyone wants a winner -- so they either vote for one of two parties.Â Â Many people will not so much vote FOR a party as they will AGAINST what the other party stands for or try to punish them for doing a piss poor job....



I 100% agree with this. I wish everything would just be made legal. Why waste millions trying to fight drugs when you can estinguish some of the appeal by making them legal and taxing them. Not only that, you remove the criminal element. If we got rid of politicians and went to a nationwide vote we'd reduce government payroll costs and get rid of 'pork' and lobbying.


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 10, 2007)

I almost completely agree with that stance, 'cept I think you gotta be careful of a US Libertarian Party level of controlled anarchy, cause with a governmental power void comes the big corporations telling us what's good for us.  And, if the consumer were really able to dictate the market as well as they're supposed to, we wouldn't have monopolies.  So we might be replacing one corrupt institution for another if we went that way.  Balance is hard to achieve, lol  :I


Edit:  Also, when the gov't decides it would be a "moral good" to tax the thing YOU like, in an effort to improve your lifestyle, it again becomes somewhat of an invasion.  An acceptable one?  You be the judge.  Notice the government's level of involvement in taxing cigarettes and alcohol, both of which we consider vices, (and of course the destruction of roads and environment means extra taxes on gasoline) but I mean what if they were to start taxing, like... television sets, like they do in the UK to fund the BBC?  I heard the taxes on those things are outrageous.  But in this particular case, I don't mind the government taxing weed at all, because legalizing it would bring in extra money and hitting the druglord's pocketbooks with legal competition will be so much more devastating to them than this trumped-up "war on drugs", but I digress....

*Edit2:*


> Adultery is a crime, I don't really care if it's a sin or not, I'm not a religious person. Starting a war with good intentions is not a crime.



You got that completely upside-down.  It's considered a crime in many religious parts of the world, but here in the US it varies from state to state -- I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say by how the laws (where applicable) are enforced, adutery being "not a crime" in the legal sense is the de facto standard.  On the other hand, starting a war is in direct violation of the UN charter, the Kellog-Briand pact before it (ratified by the US with special exceptions for self-defense, and we still would be violating it!), and numerous other things.  WMD's are a nation's sovereign right, of course, and you don't see us going to war with any other country just because they possess them.  Hell, out of all the countries, we got the most so you'd think some other people could view us as a threat.  WMD's were in the end just a cover excuse to go to war, and the liberation shit was just some lame justification after the fact.  So then the question becomes, in the absence of any satisfactory ideologue:  "what was the real reason we went to war pre-emptively"?  

Should we care?  Or, should we just focus with the mess on our hands now and hope the guys that got us stuck into it (you know, the ones who ORIGINATED the idea) can pull us out of it?  Honestly, at the very least I don't have to be happy at all with all the mildly apathetic people who went along with the president's warmongering because it didn't sound that bad.  I put more blame on the leaders though cause they had the larger responsibility.  We _should_ care about the ideology behind all this.  The end result for the american people is that his lie hurt us the people WAY more than Clinton's ever could have.  I mean, holy crap, Clinton's lie only ended up hurting himself, and then he goes and does a complete 180 and apologises for it and people still want to impeach him.  Do you know that the only other president in history ever impeached was Andrew Johnson?  Comparatively speaking, this is meager stuff!  It's amazing that the Democrats aren't taking their chance to be vindictive little puppets over the whopper of all lies -- a lie to start a war -- but then again, if Democrats were as petty as the Republicans were during whitewater, this nation would never have any progressive drive to it whatsoever.  Revenge doesn't belong on capitol hill, both parties are supposed to serve the people, dammit.

 If you're still doubting the lie, go back to the first post I made on this thread and re-read the article on the Downing Street Memo, if you bothered to read it at all.  That's all the proof you need to know that they were flat out _lying_ to the public for their reasons on starting this war.  When it was first leaked to the media, I felt rather sick at how little press coverage it got.  It should have been headline-busting news, but instead it just got a brief near top headlines.  Pundits had already beat the "war lie" horse dead, so I suppose enough people already believed it that they didn't really need hard solid evidence.  (this was in 2005, and 2006 may confirm this as many voters swung to punish republicans over the war.  "Passion" voters think with their gut, so you really _really_ have to fxck up something fierce to get them to change their vote)


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 11, 2007)

About the Adultery thing.

Several things. 

One of which is if you're in the military and you commit adultery, you are in BIG trouble. It isn't just some discharge, they do put you on trial/tribunal. It's a little aggravating to be part of the military while you got the commander in chief doing that crap in the Oval office. Regardless of your opinion on ethics, you do have to recognize how it can really mess up morale.

Second of which isn't the adultery so much as lying under oath. I could care less how many men cheated on their wives in office so much as when you have a trial, committing perjury when you have a history of sexual harassment that doesn't look really good to me either.

Now the final of which I mentioned before, he wasn't finding some random woman to do the nasty with, he was doing an INTERN. That just reeks of unprofessional behavior. Like I said before that's grounds for sexual harassment if you're another person trying to get a more permanent position in office. It was also done IN the office, just EW. 

Keep in mind that many in the service may have been here longer than those people have been in office.

With Bush, he really hasn't done much to respect those in the service or in positions of enforcement. I mean we have those Border Patrol agents in prison for DOING THEIR JOB. The morale is low because there have been lies about how long these guys were supposed to do their tours too. 

Then we have the hospitals, while combat emergency care has been good, Bush has looked the other way about fixing the VA hospitals. This should have been one of the priorities to fix when you go to war.

The other problem is now you have gangsters (though this has been going on for a while, it's just increasing) going into the military to learn how to use those weapons and kill because the morale, pay and respect level is so low when you do your duty in the service. 

I just felt like saying this because again, people are going to probably go for a Clinton or another Bush in office, and I think it's really just time for change.


----------



## Wakboth (Mar 11, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I consider myself independent. But I find myself agreeing with Republicans more than anyone else. I have to wonder though. How can you be a Democrat nowadays? Or maybe not be one, but how can you vote for them?



I'd ask you the same question about the Republicans, who I deem are by far the greater evil.

Remember Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, and Randy Cunningham; the whole Enron mess; Scooter Libby and the outing of Valerie Plame for political reasons; the recent firings of the US attorneys for what seems increasingly clear were political reasons; the whole goddamn PATRIOT Act and its trampling of your civil rights; the illegal NSA wiretapping; the sorry mess of Terri Schiavo; the drowning of New Orleans and the criminally bad response to that; and, most importantly, the bogus "evidence" for the invasion of Iraq, and the catastrophically messed-up occupation, which together have cost more American lives than the 9/11 attacks (not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis), and from which _nothing_ good has come out.

Most of the world hates the Bush administration, and for very good reason. And, by now, most Americans are starting to figure out that they've been screwed.


----------



## blackdragoon (Mar 11, 2007)

well i am neither as i usually hate politics in all it's forms so as of right now i am still not registered at all. but if i ever do it will be some independant 3rd party and not democrat or republican. would go with federalism if it were still around. i remember reading about that party in my history class back in highschool.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 11, 2007)

Yeh, I think I'm going to agree to disagree with you here, Rostam. I don't doubt your intelligence on these issues. We have differing opinions on the issues and have our minds set.

And, dammit, you never totally blew me off just because I have my ideas and support of anarchistic ideas. lol


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 11, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> Yeh, I think I'm going to agree to disagree with you here, Rostam. I don't doubt your intelligence on these issues. We have differing opinions on the issues and have our minds set.
> 
> And, dammit, you never totally blew me off just because I have my ideas and support of anarchistic ideas. lol



Agreed... eh... Disagreed!


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 11, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> With Bush, he really hasn't done much to respect those in the service or in positions of enforcement. I mean we have those Border Patrol agents in prison for DOING THEIR JOB. The morale is low because there have been lies about how long these guys were supposed to do their tours too.
> 
> Then we have the hospitals, while combat emergency care has been good, Bush has looked the other way about fixing the VA hospitals. This should have been one of the priorities to fix when you go to war.
> 
> ...



Excellent points! The border patrol thing pissed me off. But I take a hard line. I think that if anyone for any reason runs from a cop the cop should have the right to shoot him/her. Also the whole military hospital thing was aggravating. We should be treating these people like millionaires at them!


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 11, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> *Edit2:*
> 
> 
> > Adultery is a crime, I don't really care if it's a sin or not, I'm not a religious person. Starting a war with good intentions is not a crime.
> ...



I think so many people are commiting adultery that we take a lax view on it. But concerning those papers, you can't simply argue it was a lie because a ews agency printed papers saying otherwise.


----------



## Sylvine (Mar 11, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I think so many people are commiting adultery that we take a lax view on it. But concerning those papers, you can't simply argue it was a lie because a ews agency printed papers saying otherwise.



Wait a second. Wait. 

Don't You think maybe there are also so many wars going on that we take a lax view on that, too? 

Maybe Clinton commited adultery with good intentions? 

... sorry to post in such a condescending manner, but I am hoping for a specific reaction here. And to use the shock therapy a bit further: I'm sure Hitler had good intentions, too. I mean, seriously, a few hundred years later we'd be all happy, purebreed germans. It'd be only a matter of time, right?

~Sylv


----------



## canadianbacon (Mar 12, 2007)

im independent but am going to register democtatic for candidate elections 


			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Democrat Politicians in general: 1. Voted for the war, now claim it was a mistake.
> 2.Claim the soldiers should be pulled out, then wont act on it,
> 3. actually vote for more money. 4.Wasted time and money passing a resolution with no weight behind it...
> Nancy Pelosi: Claimed to have a 5 day work week, since she was voted in it's happened once.
> ...



1. we supported the war yes....then when it veered from osoma to saddam we thought "ok this county has terrorists, a dictator that kills his own people and poor liveing condidtions well sitck around take out saddam set up a stable government and get back to osoma." didn't happen bush wouldn't let it since he's makeing daddy oh so proud. what we wanted was to leaveÂ Â when the government was set up. bush took HOW long to set one up? then once the country was on the verge of civil war(one we ought to but out of) bush sees an oppertunity to reenforce the american pride in the redneck population. and digs his heels in and says he's going to keep peace. so what hapened to osoma? sure there are terrorist training camps over there but take out osoma and their hearts will sink.

2. bush made it nearly impossible to bring our boys home by pinning them in a civil war.

3. for themselves? one of the reasons im independant but don't all parties do the same? moey is one thing you need to get stuff done

4 the guilded age comes to mind. there were many a legislateure passed that didn't do anything untill someone saw the GOOD IDEA behind it and gave it teeth. that too was done by the democrats.
during the depression (guilded era) the republicans were very corrupt im quoteing an un bias website with this " Some Republicans united in a group known as the â€œMugwumps,â€ reformers unhappy with the high level of corruption.Â Â They abandoned Blaine during the campaign and were then known as â€œgoo-goos.â€ The Mugwumps claimed they would support an honest Democrat. Cleveland, the reform-minded governor of New York, met the test. With the platforms virtually identical, the election was very close; Clevelandâ€™s margin of victory was 25,000 votes out of 10 million cast and 37 electoral votes out of 401.

President Cleveland was a rigid, self-righteous, haughty individual and thus did not inspire affection. However he was honest, courageous, and possessed of integrity. Had fought the New York City Tammany Hall machine and had become famous as the â€œveto mayorâ€ of Buffalo and later the â€œveto governorâ€ of New York.Â Â His stalwartness was both a blessing and a shortcoming once he was in office. People said of him, â€œWe love him for the enemies he has made.â€ the link is here http://www.sagehistory.net/gildedage/GildedAPolitics.htm

would you rather a corrupt republican or an honest democrat?

nancy pelosi: i don't quite know where you're going with this remark a five day work week for us or them? please be more direct

john edwards: what does the size of a house have to do with polotics? alsong as he's able to get things done for the betterment of america or is able to get someone else to do so who cares? don't we all want a bigger house?
al gore an inconvinient trute: it causes green house what? panic? gas?
panic,yes but it is justified the world is going to hell and we need to do something about it. the republicans just imagine the problem isnt there because it wont effect them in their life time.
bill clinton: he lied on tv BIG WHOOP bush lies on tv all the time! "we won" "the alqueda is our target" sound familiar? even if clinton lied it doesn't erase the good he did. and he still has his secret service, every president retains their secret service in case of an assassination attempt.
hillary clinton: every one uses what they have to ensure their advancement. be it money power or contacts. can you really blame her? put yourself in her shoes. as for the emulation? i can't really defend her. but you know what she will pay for it because you always do.

yeah you know economy is great when gas is 2.50 a gallon thanks uncle george. everything he said he is responsible for he is! and it took him three years to say he was wrong about ANYTHING!
i don't know ms. rice so i can't say anything about her but if she does run let's hope she does a FAR better job.


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 12, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> I think so many people are commiting adultery that we take a lax view on it. But concerning those papers, you can't simply argue it was a lie because a ews agency printed papers saying otherwise.



I agree with you that so many people are committing adultery that we take a lax view on it.  I don't see what your point on this is, however.

And I suppose that if you can't accept a memo which all the respectable news agencies have run with (and never issued a retraction on) as proving anything, then anything short of a straight up confession won't sway you.  I'd even go so far to say as it wouldn't even matter, because you'd be about as apologist to Bush's ill-conceived war as I am for Clinton's ill-conceived knob slobbing.  'Cept I feel that if we HAVE to compare these two things in a debate (two things which to most people aren't even in the same league), I'd have to continue to stress my point that the country was hurt more both morally (on our values), ethically (on how other countries view us), AND physically (on number of people who died as a direct result of the actions of the respective president in each situation).

I'm probably not going to entertain the adultery vs. war ethics debate with you further. You have pretty much implied that news agencies can't be trusted even though the memo was _an official government document_, which says to me that this is evidence you simply don't want to hear, and after several posts, probably didn't even bother to read.  I'd go so far as to even say that your implications of media bias are the opposite, because of how poorly reported in terms of coverage it was at the time.  This article from the Christian Science Monitor might help to explain some of that general lukewarm reaction, but I think a more simple explanation can apply:  People don't want to accept things outside of their control after the fact, and if denial is impossible, they will of course try to dismiss the relevance. Take the reaction with a grain of salt, since it is only opinion, after all.  The memo itself, however, IS an authentic document.  (The British government does not deny its authenticity)

The only part of this current debate I'll talk about anymore, if you wish to talk about it, is explaining what you mean on the whole "lax adultery" thing -- a philosophical side debate, if you will, on whether it is inherently a bad thing or not.  (I, of course, propose that it's not, but mainly on the grounds that adultery is an outdated double standard which is meant to treat women as property.)


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 12, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Rostam The Grey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I might have missed something but I'm only aware of one war at the moment? Also, the road to hell is paved with good intentions  I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. I'm simply saying you can't really on the media to tell the truth. They aren't reporting the truth, they are reporting the stories.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 12, 2007)

canadianbacon said:
			
		

> would you rather a corrupt republican or an honest democrat?



Honesty for the win!



			
				canadianbacon said:
			
		

> nancy pelosi: i don't quite know where you're going with this remark a five day work week for us or them? please be more direct



One of the broken promises she made if elected speaker was they would work 5 day work weeks.



			
				canadianbacon said:
			
		

> john edwards: what does the size of a house have to do with polotics? alsong as he's able to get things done for the betterment of america or is able to get someone else to do so who cares? don't we all want a bigger house?



Quite a bit if your base for running is you understand the working man.



			
				canadianbacon said:
			
		

> al gore an inconvinient trute: it causes green house what? panic? gas?
> panic,yes but it is justified the world is going to hell and we need to do something about it. the republicans just imagine the problem isnt there because it wont effect them in their life time.



This winter was the coldest in quite a while. But not only this, scientists are saying that Mars is heating up. This means that our planet heating up may not be the result of us, but actually our current solar cycle. I'm still not sure if I believe the Global Warming hype. Not to mention you skipped around my point of if he's so worried about it, why is he contributting more to it in a month than the average american does in a year?



			
				canadianbacon said:
			
		

> bill clinton: he lied on tv BIG WHOOP bush lies on tv all the time! "we won" "the alqueda is our target" sound familiar? even if clinton lied it doesn't erase the good he did. and he still has his secret service, every president retains their secret service in case of an assassination attempt.



When the most important person in your country gets on national TV and lies I think it's a pretty significant event. We know for a fact he lied. But we don't know for sure if Bush lied.



			
				canadianbacon said:
			
		

> hillary clinton: every one uses what they have to ensure their advancement. be it money power or contacts. can you really blame her? put yourself in her shoes. as for the emulation? i can't really defend her. but you know what she will pay for it because you always do.
> 
> yeah you know economy is great when gas is 2.50 a gallon thanks uncle george. everything he said he is responsible for he is! and it took him three years to say he was wrong about ANYTHING!
> i don't know ms. rice so i can't say anything about her but if she does run let's hope she does a FAR better job.



I think the Gas companies have seen a hole and are exploiting it. No one's stopping them so they keep on. Record profits last year, probably the same this year. As long as we let them do it, they're going to keep on...


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 13, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> I agree with you that so many people are committing adultery that we take a lax view on it.Â Â I don't see what your point on this is, however.



Someone made the comment that adultery isn't really treated as a crime any more and that even where it's illegal it isn't acted upon very often. Or at least, that's what I took the comment to mean?



			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> And I suppose that if you can't accept a memo which all the respectable news agencies have run with (and never issued a retraction on) as proving anything, then anything short of a straight up confession won't sway you.Â Â I'd even go so far to say as it wouldn't even matter, because you'd be about as apologist to Bush's ill-conceived war as I am for Clinton's ill-conceived knob slobbing.Â Â 'Cept I feel that if we HAVE to compare these two things in a debate (two things which to most people aren't even in the same league), I'd have to continue to stress my point that the country was hurt more both morally (on our values), ethically (on how other countries view us), AND physically (on number of people who died as a direct result of the actions of the respective president in each situation).



I read lots of news, CNN, Fox, was reading Pravda for a while. As well as some less respectable news agencies. I don't remember reading about this memo? That's why I'm less than accepting of it. And if it were true, why hasn't something more been made of it? I dunno. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I won't say you're right either. I'm open on this, I think I stated earlier that I wasn't sure whether he knew or not. I don't consider that the nation was hurt morally, other than soldiers being told constantly what they are fighting for is nothing. All the countries that currently hate us, already hated us... As for physically, people die in war. Do you think we should just turn the other cheek to every country that threatens us?



			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> I'm probably not going to entertain the adultery vs. war ethics debate with you further. You have pretty much implied that news agencies can't be trusted even though the memo was _an official government document_, which says to me that this is evidence you simply don't want to hear, and after several posts, probably didn't even bother to read.Â Â I'd go so far as to even say that your implications of media bias are the opposite, because of how poorly reported in terms of coverage it was at the time.Â Â This article from the Christian Science Monitor might help to explain some of that general lukewarm reaction, but I think a more simple explanation can apply:Â Â People don't want to accept things outside of their control after the fact, and if denial is impossible, they will of course try to dismiss the relevance. Take the reaction with a grain of salt, since it is only opinion, after all.Â Â The memo itself, however, IS an authentic document.Â Â (The British government does not deny its authenticity)
> 
> The only part of this current debate I'll talk about anymore, if you wish to talk about it, is explaining what you mean on the whole "lax adultery" thing -- a philosophical side debate, if you will, on whether it is inherently a bad thing or not.Â Â (I, of course, propose that it's not, but mainly on the grounds that adultery is an outdated double standard which is meant to treat women as property.)



I'm not closed. I'm more than willing to debate. I don't like that this entire thread makes me seem like I'm defending republicans. My point was actually to get something more against them. I hear all this dirt daily about democrats. But surely republicans cant be the golden children. All I ever hear about Bush seems like opinion. Sure you pointed out the memos? But like I said, it seems the memo isn't a big news story. I tried searching to find a larger news agency that reported on it other than the London Times and I couldn't find any. I did find plenty of small conspiracy theory reports on it. I would think if it were true, the news would have latched onto it and it'd be splattered everywhere. Well, anyways, if you truly decided not to discuss this anymore, it's been great talking so far! You were the only person who really pointed out some faults with Republicans, which is really what I was looking for. Thanks!


----------



## canadianbacon (Mar 13, 2007)

i have a question what the hell does adultery have to do with polotics? people in both parties do it. and normally everyone in the affair gets their just desserts.



ok so nancy broke the five day work week promise. does ANY politition keep any promise?

ever stop to think maybe mr. edwards had to work for a liveing BEFORE becomeing successful?

i wasn't sure of your critisism of mr. gore at first. but how is he makeing more greenhouse gasses again? i belive in global warming... because of the fact that there are holes in the ozone that wernt there before humans started killing our planet.

"we don't know for sure bush lied."? he went on national tv and said "we won." why the hell are we still there if we won? why are the terrorists still bombing if we in fact won?

george bush has the power to stop gougeing at the pump but he wont because as long as gas prices are up his shares in those companies are worth more and in his mind he is sitting on a cooshy retirement. did he honestly thing america would forget about his alledged look into the gas companies and how it halted altogether?


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 13, 2007)

okay dudester, since you say you're open to discussion, I guess I can continue to try and convince you that the downing street memo should have been huge.  It's just that at the time it was released it was really beating a dead horse and people were in a "well we already know that's true, so now what are we gonna do about it?"  type of phase.  It really did sadden me how strangely silent the news agencies were on this bit of gold.  Everyone was waiting for AP or Reuters to cover it but that didn't exactly happen, so the big guys mainly gave it side headlines.  I'm guessing it got a lot more attention in Britain, where the leak initially occurred (and where Blair's involvement in the war is even more dubious than bush's reasons for going to war).  

I first heard about the memo on CNN, and for the rest of the week I was waiting for that "trickle surge", if you know what I mean.  When a small headline snowballs downhill into a huge thing.  There's two kinds of "big news", the breaking kind and the snowball effect, and this seemed like the latter -- that it would be HUGE in the long term.  But, it seemed to become irrelevant as the general public already seemed thoroughly convinced that the war was a lie.  This was released shortly after the "false pretenses" drama in the media was starting to become a dead horse issue.  

If you noticed that up until the october surprises of '06 and after the downing street memo, the media was trying to focus on some things other than iraq for a change, and it almost seemed like they were doing it on purpose.  I seem to remember north korea and lebanon being big distractions throught 06, the Jack Abramoff thing, the immigration thing, Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face (oops, not really political but it was still big news!), Hamas getting democratically-elected in Palastine (thus hopefully making many americans who pay moderate attention to the news realize things aren't just black and white), and some other stuff.  Maybe Iraq just didn't seem like such a burning hot issue after going on and on about it all throught most of 2005 and '06 as much as it was a "smoldering hot" issue.  

You might have to look for it to find when and where the memo was mentioned in the big media outlets -- aside from the live news briefs (usually not publically archived), the talking heads shows mentioned it a few times.  It made headlines on CNN world news online, as well as most of the big guys' online stuff, and mentioned mostly when regarding "buzz in the blogosphere".  It's unfortunate that it got relegated to blogosphere chaff, because that makes it lose a bit of credibility to some people, but regardless of the memo's authenticity, it is true that the allegations are hearsay because they weren't made by the president or prime minister.  Maybe that has something to do with it?


*1 May 2005:*  http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/01/iraq.election/index.html  -- here's when it was reported on CNN's world edition.
*18 May 2005:*  http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/ -- as you can see now a little over a week later it finally catches the attention of local politicians.


That was, save for the internet, the last I heard of the memo from the "big guys".  My little google search did turn up something interesting though,  you may be familiar with the watchdog group "Media Matters for America" -- I recently became reacquainted with them when a representative from there appeared on Countdown with Keith Olbermann --  this article  they put out says that by June 19, the only media outlet still looking for answers regarding the memo was ABC.  Here is Secretary of State Rice's reply from that interview:  http://mediamatters.org/items/200506200001

It's a damned shame that there's tons of guys like you all over the US who appear to be at least modestly interested in politics and the media in general, and yet never heard of such things as the downing street memo.  It really does blow my mind, especially if I were to believe all the accusations of "liberal bias in the media" that spinmasters always huck my way (considering I'm not unbiased myself, I cannot really see _all_ the fuss they're talking about, but I _do_ spot instances where there may be what may appear to be an unintentional, subtle bias).  No matter what the bias, someone's bound to criticize the media on how it chooses to report what it does... "everyone's a ref" I suppose when it comes to framing the issues XD

Anyway, if you have any other doubts you wanna chuck my way, or questions to ask, I apologize about earlier.  You wanna know about my personal politics even is fine, ask away.  Just like you, I also wish to have an open political discussion.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 13, 2007)

canadianbacon said:
			
		

> i have a question what the hell does adultery have to do with polotics? people in both parties do it. and normally everyone in the affair gets their just desserts.



I hate it when people don't read previous replies and does a rinse, lather, repeat cycle. :/


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 13, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> okay dudester...



On my way to my daughter's soccer practise. I'll try and read the links tonight!


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 13, 2007)

canadianbacon said:
			
		

> i have a question what the hell does adultery have to do with polotics? people in both parties do it. and normally everyone in the affair gets their just desserts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I probably shouldn't keep going because I've already answered some of this but basically I'll sum it up. Lying is a big difference from lying about campaign promises and lying about your innocense to the entire nation on TV.


----------



## WhiteKnightWolf (Mar 14, 2007)

If you ask me, America is screwed.  Both sides are dumbasses and traitors to the nation.  America died as a country durring the "civil war", so why bother voting, it's going to end up another Nazi Germany as soon as they take away our guns.


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 14, 2007)

Campaign promises getting broken.... it depends on the nature of them, but obviously the ones I loathe to see broken are the ones most important to me!  Working 5 days a week is what all congressmen should be doing but I'll eat my hat if they actually ever start doing it without being forced to :lol:


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 14, 2007)

WhiteKnightWolf said:
			
		

> If you ask me, America is screwed.  Both sides are dumbasses and traitors to the nation.  America died as a country durring the "civil war", so why bother voting, it's going to end up another Nazi Germany as soon as they take away our guns.



/me is laughing pretty hard at the absurdity of the statement.


----------



## Calorath (Mar 14, 2007)

WhiteKnightWolf said:
			
		

> If you ask me, America is screwed.  Both sides are dumbasses and traitors to the nation.  America died as a country durring the "civil war", so why bother voting, it's going to end up another Nazi Germany as soon as they take away our guns.



I can't wait!


----------



## SFox (Mar 14, 2007)

WhiteKnightWolf said:
			
		

> If you ask me, America is screwed.  Both sides are dumbasses and traitors to the nation.  America died as a country durring the "civil war", so why bother voting, it's going to end up another Nazi Germany as soon as they take away our guns.



The government has tanks and other heavy weaponry. Guns aren't going to save you from your government if they decide to swing that way dude.


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 14, 2007)

corporations are going to kill this country... you can't eat a gun and you sure as hell can't access the internet with one!*



*unless you get the new apple iRifle


----------



## DarkMeW (Mar 15, 2007)

What ever happen to my constitutional rights to carry dooms day weapons?!


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 15, 2007)

When did Nazism ever become a BAD thing?!


... oh, right... sometime around WWII...

pff, whatever.


----------



## yuriatayde (Mar 15, 2007)

WhiteKnightWolf said:
			
		

> If you ask me, America is screwed.  Both sides are dumbasses and traitors to the nation.  America died as a country durring the "civil war", so why bother voting, it's going to end up another Nazi Germany as soon as they take away our guns.



I agree with this wholeheartedly, politics are a game, nothing more. Just a gimmick to make us think we're helping. I'm so tired of arguing over politics, nobody is ever going to change anybodies mind, if you don't agree with them then you're part of the problem, etc etc. The most horrible of all, "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain" gimme a break... How can people complain when they're the ones putting these people in power?

You can't trust anybody on either side, why do people get so passionate about choosing between two people equilly as likely to lie and [...do unpleasant things to our hindquarters]?

Don't mind me, this subject has just been rubbing me the wrong way lately. ^.^; *wields towershield now, just in case*


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 15, 2007)

I know I'm not exactly unknown for cynicism, online or off, but I find the "everyone sucks, everything's rigged, everything's going to hell" generic cynicism thing kinda tiresome, as well as its bestest friend "nothing I do will change anything, so I won't bother doing anything but piss, whine, and moan". Whining and posturing about how hard the world is, or how it's doomed or whatever, does nothing. Hell, I can't even call it virtual masturbation, as there's a practical purpose to spanking off.

Though, for those of the "I can't change anything evar" opinion, judging from some the writings in here maybe it's better that they _don't_ do anything besides complain where no one other than their "fellow travelers" will care. Some of y'all are downright embarrassing to be associated with.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 15, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> What ever happen to my constitutional rights to carry dooms day weapons?!



I think this is rather effective! 
http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/753d/


----------



## XeNoX (Mar 15, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> What ever happen to my constitutional rights to carry dooms day weapons?!



I think crime figures would go down if everybody had one!
Worked in large scale!


----------



## darkdoomer (Mar 15, 2007)

now i wonder where this thread is going . . .


----------



## pepermintrhino (Mar 15, 2007)

i stopped paying attention to the parties a long time ago. ur right democrats do have a tendency to do the oppsite of what they say they intend to. but at the same time republicans arnet much better, they're supposedly opperating in a government thats impartial to religion(s) yet they claim to be "the party of god" and if you look at the majoirty issues that make up their platform, guess what? theyre based heavily on religion

against legalizing gay marriage- man shall not lie with another man the way he lies with a woman ( btw, if u really wanna discuss the sanctity of marriage, give me 5 minutes to go to youtube.com and pull up at least 2 dozen videos of a mariage being preformed by an elvis impersonator)

illegalizing abortions - its still a life, youre stopping a beting heart, you should be celibate if u dont want a child etc... (but what about the people who cant afford contraceptives but still want to be intimate, what about the life of the 15 year old, shouldnt she be given the chance to a good life, instead of forsaking hers in order to have a child who will most likely be underprivelaged, neglected, and maybe even orphaned?)

the long and the short of it is that the republicans have imposed christian philosophies on a secular government time and time again and it needs to stop because most of these republicans are living in a world thats over 40 years behind and times do in fact change, and most of them are too stuborn to realize that not everyone believes in chrisitnaity and that the government was intened to be secular. 

i may not be a democrat, but im by no means a republican either. i think both parties have major issues, and they need to shut up and do whats best for the country, not their parties.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 15, 2007)

yuriatayde said:
			
		

> The most horrible of all, "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain" gimme a break... How can people complain when they're the ones putting these people in power?



Everyone has the right to complain. I was too young to vote at the time, but I actually supported Bush during his re-election. (I've come a long way since then.. heh) Right now, I would be pissed! I would definitely be complaining. I wouldn't blame other voters. If a president becomes unpopular, it's because he's letting down his opponents, as well as his supporters.

And, people can still complain even if they decide to abstain from voting. But if you didn't vote, you didn't make an attempt to change anything. It's so easy to scapegoat and justify a "do nothing because it's hopeless anyways" stance.

I used to feel that way. I hate government. But I'm still gonna vote... maybe one day, I'll support what the government enforces, but right now, I absolutely despise it.

C'est la vie!


----------



## canadianbacon (Mar 15, 2007)

the whole thing is a cycle of unending stupidity. even if we disband the parties and make an evey man for himself election people would still rally behind their candedate in a partyesque fashion. a former republican would run and a former democrat would run and we would have the party system once more. this infact means the independent runners, though they would have good ideas of comprimise, would infact fall and be ignored while the party machines would get revved up again. the whole election is rigged against change. and change is EXACTLY what this country needs.


----------



## DarkMeW (Mar 15, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> DarkMeW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Heyyy, I made one of those when I was a kid. Of course mine had and ignition source in front and the foam balls I used were soaked in gas, but the principle is the same.


----------



## yuriatayde (Mar 16, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> [size=xx-small]Everyone has the right to complain. I was too young to vote at the time, but I actually supported Bush during his re-election. (I've come a long way since then.. heh) Right now, I would be pissed! I would definitely be complaining. I wouldn't blame other voters. If a president becomes unpopular, it's because he's letting down his opponents, as well as his supporters.
> 
> And, people can still complain even if they decide to abstain from voting. But if you didn't vote, you didn't make an attempt to change anything. It's so easy to scapegoat and justify a "do nothing because it's hopeless anyways" stance.
> 
> I used to feel that way. I hate government. But I'm still gonna vote... maybe one day, I'll support what the government enforces, but right now, I absolutely despise it.[/size]



Yay for once somebody actually replied to what I said instead of going all patriotic on me XP Then again, I only say that to people who bring it up, and the ones that do are usually trying to tell me how to vote.

I don't intend to say it's hopeless, there's plenty of hope; always hope! You just gotta be optimistic to see it. I actually do think I'm helping by not voting; you can choose to not choose somebody they parade infront of you with their cheap lies. If enough people stopped justifying the way they handle it by continuing to vote, they'd probably at least notice. It would take alot of people doing this to notice though.

I hope I'm not being included with the "whining that there's nothing we can do" party, cause I'm honestly not like that. I just think we'd be doing more good by protesting, rather then playing along. Lookit all those people lining up to replace Bush... *snickers* This'll be an amusing election to watch...

Posting this actually made me feel alot better, I'm not sure why... Maybe I just needed to get this subject off my chest. I hope I didn't come off as too ranty about it.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 16, 2007)

yuriatayde said:
			
		

> Posting this actually made me feel alot better, I'm not sure why... Maybe I just needed to get this subject off my chest. I hope I didn't come off as too ranty about it.



Isn't it nice to post something without getting rilled to death in a thread? Hehe...

Nah.. Really, I'd salute the American flag the day the US burned down. But, seeing as how it's not very house-like, I don't think that will happen.

I kinda get you though... sort of. Hah. I guess I'm so far left that no possible candidate will represent my interests.

My interests will probably not be represented for many years, due to the imposing nature of the uber-religious and the slow, but steady progression towards the next obtained civil right. :


----------



## Icarus (Mar 16, 2007)

I'm borderline Anarchy, I guess I could be most easily described as a Liberal though....

none of them seem to do it right without being corrupted by power, then they forget why they were set up in those postions in the first place:  Helping their Nation.  Not:  Sending thousands of your nations Poor to die in war.  Or:  Seeing how we can exploit the working and middle class for extra money because the Rich evade Taxes and the Poor can't pay for them.  And Definately not:  We have the technology to make Engines and Vehicles 1,000x better than they are right now, but because it may piss some of the oil companies off a bit, we won't do it.  That way their crazy suicide bombers don't take out the Empire State Building.

I predict the Apocolypse soon.
We are in the End of Days.
Why doesn't anything try to correct this poor and horrid race?!
We allow tons and hundreds of trees in the rainforest to be cut down every day just so we can have more technology, but the rainforest holds thousands of animals and plants that haven't even been discovered yet.
We allow the Breeding of genes and desieses we do not need because it's a necessity.
Our young date not for love, but for the sake of being in the "in crowd" or just as a necessity that you can do it.
Divorce rates are skyrocketing, because humans have forgotten what love is due to their troubled childhoods.
Desiese and Pestilance reside in smaller third world countries just because they're far away.
WE HAVE ENOUGH FRIGGEN NUKES TO DESTROY THE PLANET FIVE TIMES OVER but yet we continue to stockpile and create more...

I hope I live to see a full f***ing life.
And at times I wish I don't.

And you know what?  Even if there wasn't a government telling us who to attack, we would still attack.  Why?  BECAUSE WE'RE HUMAN.  We have spent so much time and money trying to find the most clever ways to kill off one another.  It seems that since we have no preditors, we have to result to our own preditation.  The human race is DYING, it's being eaten by itself.  Resistince is Futile, Assistance is Death.  There is no way to win.

You know what?  I sort of hope for an alien race to come and start attacking, I truly do.  That way, It might be like "Independence Day," where the whole world FINALLY got together to try and stop the invaders.  But heck, we might try to kill off our neighbor just to give us a few more precious seconds of life.

People ask me, "Hey, Kevin, Why do you believe in Anarchy?" and I reply, "I've given up hope."

so for all you TL;DR's out there:
I've given up hope in Humanity, so I am an Anarchist.


----------



## Jelly (Mar 16, 2007)

Icarus said:
			
		

> I'm borderline Anarchy, I guess I could be most easily described as a Liberal though....
> 
> none of them seem to do it right without being corrupted by power, then they forget why they were set up in those postions in the first place:  Helping their Nation.  Not:  Sending thousands of your nations Poor to die in war.  Or:  Seeing how we can exploit the working and middle class for extra money because the Rich evade Taxes and the Poor can't pay for them.  And Definately not:  We have the technology to make Engines and Vehicles 1,000x better than they are right now, but because it may piss some of the oil companies off a bit, we won't do it.  That way their crazy suicide bombers don't take out the Empire State Building.
> 
> ...



You need to start thinking about fixing as opposed to crying, because I somehow doubt you don't go through shitloads of paper daily, eat economically and agriculturally unsustainable foods, and generally don't cause your own amount of damage.

You are a part of humanity, you are humanity - if you have the propensity to piss and moan about what others are doing, you should probably, at this moment, try and realize that everyone is doing what you're doing. It's a part of our culture, and it's difficult to navigate. So before you tell another cry-baby whinefest about how you're "borderline anarchy (which sounds just as bad as "suicide chump")," you best realize that means "I'm a piece of shit, but maybe I'll feel better if I say everything else is a piece of shit, too. Oh joy."

"so for all you TL;DR's out there"
:cry::cry::cry::cry:WAAAAAAAHHHH.:cry::cry::cry::cry:

S-sorry, thread continue.


----------



## Hanazawa (Mar 16, 2007)

jellyhurwit-


----------



## Bokracroc (Mar 16, 2007)

I highly doubt you're the perfect human either. If you place an animal in our place, do you think they'll be totally perfect and run the world without a hitch?


----------



## yuriatayde (Mar 16, 2007)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> I highly doubt you're the perfect human either. If you place an animal in our place, do you think they'll be totally perfect and run the world without a hitch?



*daydreams* No, but we'd be a hell of a lot sexier.

Actually, I like to think one point of being furry is being in touch with instinct; it wouldn't cause world peace or any such fairytale, but the new problems would maybe be more logical, and definitely more interesting =3

Hehe~ EEK don't reply to me, I risk knocking this thread offtopic XD


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 16, 2007)

if animals could do it better, we wouldn't be having this conversation!  Instead, they mostly relegate themselves to the following things:

1. living in the wilderness
2. pooping
3. being pets
4. being part of my sandwich


----------



## quark (Mar 16, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> if animals could do it better, we wouldn't be having this conversation!  Instead, they mostly relegate themselves to the following things:
> 
> 4. being part of my sandwich



Hahaha oh dude, you win my award for funniest thing I've read online all day.
Also, jellyhurwit wins my award for most excellent truth all day.  Seriously, all those people whining about what horrible creatures humans are need to do a lot less whining, and start being a lot more proactive.


----------



## Drake_TigerClaw (Mar 17, 2007)

If your a commie democrat look out, stain head is back! And he wants souls!


----------



## Icarus (Mar 18, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> if animals could do it better, we wouldn't be having this conversation!  Instead, they mostly relegate themselves to the following things:
> 
> 1. living in the wilderness
> 2. pooping
> ...



hey...
i'm going to study those things in the future.  And last time I looked, it pays pretty good.


----------



## Khimaira (Mar 19, 2007)

they say that money cant bring you happinness, love or more life...so send all your money to me and i will suffer instead of you


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 19, 2007)

Icarus, I used to feel like you. But then I realized (not to bash you... my own opinion of myself at that time) that I was speaking hypocrisy.

So, did I start helping the planet, people in poverty, and working for global peace?

No! That's stupid! Instead, I changed views. Now I just look and laugh! It's funny! We're pretty sure (but not totally) that the Earth is having some kind of meltdown. Yes, more and more countries are getting nukes, it seems. War is more of a possibility with new neighbors everyday. We're all so damn wasteful. And nobody cares.

It's such a hopeless situation, how can you not laugh? xD

Same goes for government. Ya, I'll vote for whoever best represents my views. Do I care?

pff.. naaah! All that's left is the here and the now. Go ahead and indulge! Grab a few extra toilet paper squares to wipe your ass! Otherwise, you're only conserving for someone else to waste more...


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 19, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> Icarus, I used to feel like you. But then I realized (not to bash you... my own opinion of myself at that time) that I was speaking hypocrisy.
> 
> So, did I start helping the planet, people in poverty, and working for global peace?
> 
> ...



"why fix social security, I'll be long dead before there's not enough money to help the next generation of seniors"

That's why I'm sure everyone loves paying such a huge amount to a system that feeds our old ass politicians and will be bankrupt by the time guys like me actually need it.  Thanks a lot for contributing to that short-sighted attitude, even if it's not on my dollar, I'm sure future generations will appreciate your apathy.  It's the same thing.


----------



## Icarus (Mar 20, 2007)

Grimfang said:
			
		

> Icarus, I used to feel like you. But then I realized (not to bash you... my own opinion of myself at that time) that I was speaking hypocrisy.
> 
> So, did I start helping the planet, people in poverty, and working for global peace?
> 
> ...



Government is good for one thing in my eyes:  Great System of a Down Songs.  (they broke up...:cries: )

I don't want nuclear war.  That's like, the end i mean THE END.  The power of Nukes nowadays?  yeeeesh...o.=.o


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 20, 2007)

Most nukes nowadays are actually kind of on the small side compared to the megaton monsters from the early/mid Cold War. Targeting accuracy has increased a lot over the years, mostly negating the need for the earlier expensive and inefficient city-busters.

(Not that multi-megaton warheads don't still exist, mind you. Supposedly, a couple of Soviet 25MT warheads, at the height of the Cold War, were targeted on NORAD HQ, for turning Cheyenne Mountain [seen in the movie Wargames] into Cheyenne Lake.)


----------

