Topic awaiting preservation: Election Thread (Page 4 of 5)

quote:

---

How do you win a "war" when your Commander-in-Chief is predictable?

---

DOH!

I guess I'll have to.... Oh..., wait..., you misquoted me.
So tell me, was it the phrase "Better Known" or "More Predictable" that you are misquoting into an absolute. I was pretty sure I had put qualifiers on those statements and upon careful re-reading...., 1 sec..., uh-huh..., yup! I never said the Commander-in-Chief is predictable. But "better known" and "more predictable".

Sheesh..., you almost had me there for a minute


[edit] see!? You rattled my cage but good and I made typos. You mean bastard... ROFL![/edit]

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

(Edited by UnknownComic on 11-05-2004 03:43)

meta, so what do you suggest we do to prevent another terrorist attack? You're obviously very good at criticizing but how good are you at advocating a better alternative? I'm all ears.

Dan, I'm not willing to go the Libertarian route just yet. I'm really not sure this country will ever have more than two parties. It wouldn't surprise me if a new party arises to replace one of our existing as has happened in the past though.

And I don't think there is the slightest chance that Cheney will run in 2008. In fact, he may choose to resign mid term thereby allowing Bush to appoint a new VP who is better able to go against Hillary.

Giuliani? Perhaps, hmm... I'll have to think about that. He just might be able to pull it off. How about Guiliani / Schwarzenegger ticket? I heard today that the native born rule does not, I repeat not, apply to a vice presidential running mate. Apparently it only applies to electing the president. Can anyone confirm that? If that is true, then Arnold really could be Guiliani's VP.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

That's it. I'm going to get me a green card and vote Hillary next time.

Giuliani/Schwarzenegger vs. Clinton/Edwards in '08

terrorism n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

For now, let's just pretend this means "diplomacy" while America is in any other country...everyone agree? Okie dokie...

I agree Thumper, we are the bad guys here. I feel so bad for those innocent "freedom fighters" and "benign" dictators. We are the true evil in this world. When will we learn? When.

quote:

---

Bugs: And I don't think there is the slightest chance that Cheney will run in 2008. In fact, he may choose to resign mid term thereby allowing Bush to appoint a new VP who is better able to go against Hillary.

---

Yeah, and let's be honest, even if Cheney could and would run, he wouldn't stand a chance. And think about all the times we'd have to hear about Halliburton corruption during that campaign. *shudders*

Him getting out mid-term is also a distinct possibility.

Speaking of getting out, and this is purely something from the political grapevine, but Ashcroft is said to be resigning soon.

Ramasax

I'm pretty sure Edwards wont be on the ticket, and quite frankly, Barak Obama looks to be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. The democrats likely wont try to go even further to the left with their next candidate, they're already far passed what Americans are willing to tolerate.

As for Schwarzenegger, it seems more likely to me that an amendment will be passed, rather than him settling for a VP role. Republicans will likely want to have a southerner on their ticket anyways.

quote:

---

Dan, I'm not willing to go the Libertarian route just yet. I'm really not sure this country will ever have more than two parties. It wouldn't surprise me if a new party arises to replace one of our existing as has happened in the past though

---

I actually agree with this. But with the changing face of America, it seems that it's going to be the Republican party that disappears. The Democrats are further away from the public right now, but they are definitely a more flexible party, and can adjust as Americans become more diverse, and more moderate. Republicans, on the other hand, don't seem ready to let go of their views that are becoming dated. Inevitably (although likely in the distant future), it seems that Democrats will drop the urge to want to regulate business, and fight for progressive tax/government programs long before the Republican party drops its ties to Christian groups, and social regulation, and I think that this will eventually switch public opinion in favor of the Democratic party.

Honestly, if Healthcare was the only social program the Democrats wanted, and they would do it the right way (not like Canada/Europe - don't allow state to state competition), and if they promised to keep taxes going down (not just keep them low) for all Americans, including the very rich, and promised to deregulate failing government industries, and not expand government in other areas, then I would have rather had Kerry than Bush. But protectionism + isolationism + anti-business + anti-trade = not right for the free world. Even if I do think they're better on social issues.

Interesting analysis, Dan. But I'm not sure the Reps will fade with the likes of Arnold and Guiliani. They are fiscally conservative but very socially liberal. I think there may be a swing of power in the Repupblican party in the future but that it is well able to accomodate the changing tides. But that is just pure speculation on my part. It will take quite a few years for that to play out one way or the other.

I think the Dems can save themselves, I'm just not sure if they're willing. I think with just a few moves to the center they could definitely win the next election. However, Hillary is perceived (and for good reason!) to be even further left than Kerry is so I really don't know if she can convince enough Americans she can play the center. It will be interesting to see in '08.

I think someone as charismatic as Obama just might be the Dems ticket to the future. I don't know whether the country would be ready for a black male to be president in '08 coming from the Democrats. But I think running as VP just might work. I think Obama has a bright political future indeed. He reminds me of the type of Democrat I used to be proud of.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I stopped reading this thread at:

quote:

---

Bush IS a terrorist.

---

Dan,

quote:

---

It's because you continue to think that just because Bush failed, people should have voted for the other guy.

---

*shrugs*

It is irrelevant now, isn't it?

I read your posts, considered your words, agreed with some, disagreed with much. But that has no relevancy now.

quote:

---

UnknownComic said:

I guess I'll have to.... Oh..., wait..., you misquoted me. So tell me, was it the phrase "Better Known" or "More Predictable" that you are misquoting into an absolute. I was pretty sure I had put
qualifiers on those statements and upon careful re-reading...., 1 sec..., uh-huh..., yup! I never said the Commander-in-Chief is predictable. But "better known" and "more predictable".

Sheesh..., you almost had me there for a minute[/edit]

---

"More" and "less" are qualitative and quantitative adjectives which further clarify a given noun. In your case, you modified a qualitative noun qualitatively, which is a propagandic generalization, through "more predictable." I say it is a propagandic generalization because "more" or "less" cannot be applied to predictability qualitatively. What does "more predictable" mean? Predictable. One is either predictable or they're qualitatively not. If predictability were measurable, such as in human-computer chess games, then "more" or "less" could quantitatively appliy to predictability. If someone is less predictable, are they predictable or unpredictable? If someone is more predictable, are they predictable or unpredictable? Both are predictable. Stop. We need to go back and define "predictability." Is Bush predictable because you understand him or is he predictable because our enemies and allies understand what moves he'll make next? Since predictability is perceptually limited to the individual, I'll assume you meant the former. If that is the case, welcome to the club: Bush is more predictable, which inferences someone in history as an object for comparison; therefore, "more" or "less" can qualitatively be applied to predictability only if there exists an object for comparison. If not, then all we need to do is research the opinions of American foreign policy from foreign leaders to verify if Bush is predictable and therefore "not right for America" since your competitive advantage--your Commander-in-Chief--should never be predictable.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

meta, so what do you suggest we do to prevent another terrorist attack? You're obviously very good at criticizing but how good are you at advocating a better alternative? I'm all ears.

---

I don't think terrorism is important or dangerous enough to merit such large and sacrificial allocations of resources--at the cost of civil liberties--to the illusion of security from what is basically murder. There are far more dangerous risks we take for granted... using public hospital services, driving, smoking, drugs, electing fools to powerful positions in government... Our efforts would be better spent concentrated on issues in America, not on issues in foreign lands. We shouldn't be policing the world with active forces in every country (except African tribal-states.) It is not the duty of the American government to "spread Democracy" or to "make the world a safer place." Those are not our duties. Our founding fathers certainly made no mention of it in any of the United States' doctrinal foundations. Such behavior is reprehensibly ethnocentric and I reject all supporting notions. Indeed, anti-America terrorism even stems from American foreign policy. The American government has long-strayed from its duties to its People and I think it is near time for a new government to be established.

quote:

---

It is not the duty of the American government to "spread Democracy" or to "make the world a safer place." Those are not our duties. Our founding fathers certainly made no mention of it in any of the United States' doctrinal foundations.

---

They didn't make mention of spreading Democracy or making the world a better place, but they did make mention of this :

quote:

---

In January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or relected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

---

Blocks are mine. "All enemies, foreign and domestic."

And that is directed at the Constitution of the US.

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-05-2004 12:47)

meta, thank you. It helps for me to understand where you're coming from on this issue and what you said helps. I'm sure you realize I seriously disagree with your position but that is nothing new. If I feel up to discussing the terrorist issue in more detail I'll do it in the Philosilly section.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

metahuman said:

I say it is a propagandic generalization

---

Yes, you do say a lot dont you... however just because you say it, doesnt make it so. disect the shit out of whatever, and it still turns out that you are just using a lot of space to say ... well, not very much.

Thank you for the lesson in semantics but I think you erred on the side of verbosity.

quote:

---

metahuman said:

If predictability were measurable

---

If? Dude, get a fucking clue. I think you may even be able to find whole science books on measuring predictability. Besides you went off on this semantic self aggrandizing merry go round and never once mention the second part of the equation. It was a comparison of two seperate entities. So yeah one can be more predictable than the other without actually being fully predictable. The idea that so simple of concepts elude you tends to make me think you are just copying and pasting out of text books without any real comprehension.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Blocks are mine. "All enemies, foreign and domestic." And that is directed at the Constitution of the US.

---

Sure; however, when was the last time you saw congressmen drafted or even volunteer for military service? If that physical defense isn't what is meant, what does it mean? When was the last war waged for defense of the U.S. Constitution? There are far superior ways to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution without resorting to violence and infringing the natural and inalienable rights of others. Until the governmental weenies figure that out, this country will continue heading the wrong direction.

quote:

---

UnknownComic said:

Yes, you do say a lot dont you... however just because you say it, doesnt make it so. disect the shit out of whatever, and it still turns out that you are just using a lot of space to say ... well, not very much. Thank you for the lesson in semantics but I think you erred on the side of verbosity.

---

Much of what I say is true. Apparently, understanding much of what I say requires a much more active brain than yours. Sorry, I thought you'd at least be civil in your response.

quote:

---

If? Dude, get a fucking clue. I think you may even be able to find whole science books on measuring predictability.

---

Regardless of macroeconomic theories of predictability measurement, measurement infers accuracy. Since the future is unknown, predictability cannot be measured accurately. Such measurements require faith and as you should know, I am not a man of faith.

quote:

---

Besides you went off on this semantic self aggrandizing merry go round and never once mention the second part of the equation. It was a comparison of two seperate entities. So yeah one can be more predictable than the other without actually being fully predictable. The idea that so simple of concepts elude you tends to make me think you are just copying and pasting out of text books without any real comprehension.

---

If someone is more predictable than another, they remain predictable. One is either predictable or not despite qualitative emphasis.

Here reread this crap you posted and tell me if you can find the faults in it:

quote:

---

metahuman said:

"More" and "less" are qualitative and quantitative adjectives which further
clarify a given noun. In your case, you modified a qualitative noun
qualitatively, which is a propagandic generalization, through "more
predictable." I say it is a propagandic generalization because "more" or "less"
cannot be applied to predictability qualitatively. What does "more predictable"
mean? Predictable. One is either predictable or they're qualitatively not. If
predictability were measurable, such as in human-computer chess games, then
"more" or "less" could quantitatively appliy to predictability. If someone is
less predictable, are they predictable or unpredictable? If someone is more
predictable, are they predictable or unpredictable? Both are predictable. Stop.
We need to go back and define "predictability." Is Bush predictable because you
understand him or is he predictable because our enemies and allies understand
what moves he'll make next? Since predictability is perceptually limited to the
individual, I'll assume you meant the former. If that is the case, welcome to
the club: Bush is more predictable, which inferences someone in history as an
object for comparison; therefore, "more" or "less" can qualitatively be applied
to predictability only if there exists an object for comparison. If not, then
all we need to do is research the opinions of American foreign policy from
foreign leaders to verify if Bush is predictable and therefore "not right for
America" since your competitive advantage--your Commander-in-Chief--should never
be predictable.

---

Maybe you need a hint?
He is more predictable than Kerry.

And the last tidbit is just rediculous: My Commander in Chief Better be predictable in some areas. For instance if someone attacks our country it should be fairly easy to "predict" that there will be a response from the Commander in Chief.

Your use of absolutes is like a child who says "Yuck! I'll never get Married!" the child just doesnt have the capacity to really know what will happen. Likewise your childish use of circular logic has locked you into a struggle with your longing to control the enviroment with vast tracts of obfuscating semantical jibberish.

Yes Meta, we know you have vocabulary words you can use in context. YAY! Hurrah for you!

Too bad they are only in context for the inane circular logic loops that only you see as pertinent. For in this particular instance and several others you've been interjecting your own false perceptions and railing against them as if they were actually written by the individual poster.

Your perception of reality is off, and your response to it is likewise off. Take a chill pill, relax, and try to actually read what people are writing.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

The burden of proof is on you, UnknownComic, not I.

errr..., Not Really. Like I said, I voted Libertarian.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

So did I but I don't see how that's relevant.

You claimed all sorts of things about my logic. Now it's time for you to support your claims.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

I thought it was pretty clear;

You went on and on about adjectives, propaganda, and the infeasibility of applying "more" to the word predictable. Yet when I say Bush is more predictable than Kerry you simply avoid the discussion and ask me to prove something that really needs no further proof.

Your blatherings were irrelevant to the original context.

What's to prove? Your words are posted up there to see, anyone can see they are narrowly misinterperting what I wrote. You have constructed a straw man that has nothing to do with my first post and then tore down the straw man and said, HAH! Well, I say, Ha Ha! It is just a lot of diction with very little or no substance and absolutely nothing to do with what I originally posted. What more proof do you want?

What is it that you are seeking here? Kudo's? Recognition? For what? For being arrogant? Obtuse? Or for just being a verbose blowhard? What? What is it that you want?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

You have constructed a straw man that has nothing to do with my first post and then tore down the straw man and said, HAH!

---

How very well stated, UC.

If you observe long enough, you will see that it is about the extent of what metahuman does. I don't say that out of any sort of silly emotional response. It's a very well established pattern.

Of course, he'll simply find an appropriately irrelevant issue with which to brush this aside, and declare loudly his "victory".

Sad, but, somewhat funny at times too.

quote:

---

UnknownComic said:

You went on and on about adjectives, propaganda, and the infeasibility of applying "more" to the word predictable. Yet when I say Bush is more predictable than Kerry you simply avoid the discussion and ask me to prove something that really needs no further proof.

---

Nope. That's definitely not what I asked.

quote:

---

Your blatherings were irrelevant to the original context.

---

Says whom? You? DL-44? That's a laugh. You claimed I misquoted you when in fact your sentence structuring skills are inadequate. You assume predictability can be more or less or absolute? One is either predictable or they're not. "Bush is predictable" does not mean "Bush is absolutely predictable" for absolutes are impossible. "Bush is more predictable than Kerry" is ambiguous and perceptually limited to your understanding of Bush and Kerry. Additionally, it also means "Bush is predictable." I care not to explain this further. You're probably not ready to understand.

quote:

---

What's to prove? Your words are posted up there to see, anyone can see they are narrowly misinterperting what I wrote. You have constructed a straw man that has nothing to do with my first post and then tore down the straw man and said, HAH! Well, I say, Ha Ha! It is just a lot of diction with very little or no substance and absolutely nothing to do with what I originally posted. What more proof do you want?

---

I'm arguing from semantics. What are you basing your arguments on: thin air? Seems like it.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 11-06-2004 04:26)

quote:

---

Sure; however, when was the last time you saw congressmen drafted or even volunteer for military service?

---

quote:

---

* Congressman Larry McDonald was killed on September 1, 1983 when his plane was shot down by the Soviet air force

---

Here are some more members of both the Congress and the Senate that have served Who Served?

You need to SERIOUSLY get your facts straight, MH. I'm quite frankly getting sick and tired of your suggestings, and untruths, and then your denying them.

quote:

---

I only return fire. I do not initiate conflict.

---

from A Fake President for a Fake Nation

However in Voices of Iraq you say

quote:

---

I'm surprised that creature hasn't shown up to attack you yet.

---

Now that is a direct attack. Unprovoked. No return fire, but an attempted initiation of conflict. Unfortunately for you, it was ignored.

Once again, your untruths, MH. Illogic. Wrong again, and caught with your pants down.

Don't you ever get tired of getting your behind whipped?

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-06-2004 08:56)

WS: You misquote me consistently and then act as though you've made a point. Sorry, creature, you failed.

When was the last time you saw congressmen drafted or even volunteer for military service? Before they became congressional representatives doesn't count.

I see you're already making "creature" a synonym for yourself. How arrogant of you.

quote:

---

Now that is a direct attack. Unprovoked. No return fire, but an attempted initiation of conflict. Unfortunately for you, it was ignored.

---

If you subjectively interpret what I said the way you want to support your assholic agenda, sure.

quote:

---

Once again, your untruths, MH. Illogic. Wrong again, and caught with your pants down.

---

You wish you caught me with my pants down, Mike.

quote:

---

Don't you ever get tired of getting your behind whipped?

---

Never happened.

Heh. Touched a nerve, as always with you. I remember the days when DG and Michael and TwItch^ used to spank you on a regular basis, and you would fall apart.

quote:

---

When was the last time you saw congressmen drafted or even volunteer for military service?

---

quote:

---

* Congressman Larry McDonald was killed on September 1, 1983 when his plane was shot down by the Soviet air force

---

So, 1983. Before that, Davy Crockett.

quote:

---

Before they became congressional representatives doesn't count.

---

Obviously that was not before. You should really read the posts, before stating idiocies.

Again, caught with your pants down. I thought you were supposed to be intelligent?

quote:

---

I see you're already making "creature" a synonym for yourself. How arrogant of you.

---

Before, I didn't know you were referring to me as creature. Thank you for clearing that up. You'll see that I said

quote:

---

Now that is a direct attack. Unprovoked. No return fire, but an attempted initiation of conflict. Unfortunately for you, it was ignored.

---

. I made no references whatsoever as to who was being attacked. Again, you need to get your facts straight, before you start fertilizing the boards with your verbal dung.

All in all, whooped again. It is actually becoming easier and easier. Are you some sort of masocist? Maybe you are actually enjoying it?

Whatever.

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-06-2004 13:58)

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-06-2004 14:21)

*ignores insults currently going on*

Sorry for being a bit late on this topic...

I'm a bit disappointed that Bush was reelected. From the statistics I have seen, during for yours he managed to neglect education, health issues, unemployment and wealth imbalancies... Without even mentionning this bloody, unjustified war, and the constant degradation of the relations between the USA and the rest of the world. A few days ago, a french person even evocated autism when speaking about the attitude of the USA towards France about ITER (the international prototype of a nuclear fusion power plant). Bugs, it is not just disagreement. Your governement actually doesn't even listen to the French inside the context of an international project because we once disagreed with it.

I wish many Americans realized that we are all living on the same planet, on a stance of equality, and that their decisions affect the whole world. I wish they put their over-developped ego about their country aside and realized that a war concerning Americans also concerns the whole world, as well as environmental decisions...

But if a majority of Americans do not understand or do not agree with this, I'm not surprised Bush was reelected. For he incarnates the contrary of what humans should strive for. He's definitely not concerned with other people's opinions and the future of this planet, and I find it innaceptable for a president. I also find it sad that Bush incarnates the values and opinions a majority of Americans feel comfortable with. Nonetheless, he was elected legitimately so I guess we'll have to stick with him for another four years... My bet ? He has the time to wage another two wars

----
If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

I agree pretty much completely with your sentiments, Moonshadow.

It is sad indeed.

quote:

---

mh: You misquote me consistently and then act as though you've made a point.

---

Now that sounds oddly familiar......who have we been talking about doing an awful lot of that lately.....?

Oh....except one problem: WS actuall quoted you. Your words. What you generally present is your subjective interpretation of people's words to try tearing apart.

Nice to see you trying to ape the arguments presented against you, but it doesn't work so well that way.

Especially when you throw in your personal, emotional, and subjective insults.

Not very becoming for a person who prides himself on his strict adherence to objectivity and reason.

=)

MS, we have very different views. That is just the way it is and it will not change anytime soon. In the mean time, we can only try to get along the best we can. I still view this as a disagreement between friends and that is my prerogative to see it that way. It is a subjective stance on my part but I prefer it to viewing France as an "enemy" which is starting to be said over here. I was shocked the first time I heard it but the more I look at the facts the more I see why some are viewing it that way. I fear that you tend to see us as an enemy too. Do you? I hope not. I don't think that will help us to reconcile. I am sorry it is like this.

I believe one of the reasons we don't see eye to eye is that for most of Europe and most of the Americans who voted for Kerry come from a position of radical egalitarianism. In other words, the highest ideal is equality. In that frame of mind, equality trumps values. I think for people like myself and people who voted for Bush, we believe values are the highest priority. I KNOW that the values are seriously questioned by many but that is NOT MY POINT. I am trying to explain why and how such vast differences have arisen between us. I will leave it to other threads to explore the merits of the respective positions.

But if you look at each of the things you mentioned; education, environment, rich vs poor and health care. If equality was the main priority, one would normally side with Kerry. Examples are poor school districts are doing worse than rich districts so let's correct that by closing the gap, educational standards take a lower priority. For the environment what is charged? That some countries pollute more than others and it must be equalized. In the area of rich vs poor the main concern is that there is a difference in personal wealth, Kerry wanted to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, a traditionally attractive and noble thing to do in many minds yet it is nothing short of theft. And what is the problem with health care? It is that a certain portion of Americans don't have it. This *is* a problem but what does the egalitarian side offer as a solution? Provide everyone health care by reducing the overall quality as opposed to finding a solution that gets health care for those who need it without bringing the entire system down.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs indeed we're no ennemies and you have the right to disagree with me

Yet... I would like to correct a few things

First, I do not want everything to be equalized. It is in my opinion a good ideal, but ultimately, such a behaviour would lead to systems like socialism or communism which are bound to collapse for now because of our nature. However, we still should strive for a better equality and I think some of the imbalancies have to and can be decreased.

About money... Currently, most of the wealth in this world is concentrated in a few hands. So what I really don't get is why should a few privilegied people hold billions of dollars unused and safe in a bank account for the sake of being rich, whereas billions of people die of hunger, disease or whatever ? Even with a few taxes the rich *will* remain rich, yet it could help reduce poverty all over the world. I am not for eliminating wealth imbalancies. Anyway it is impossible. However I don't understand why rich people refuse to grant poor people a decent life, id est a decent place to live, a minimal education, and a health care.

Money is not the problem. Have you ever heard of the Tobin tax ? It consists in taxing all the world exchanges with 1%. 1% is not that much, is it ? Yet, the resulting money would be $1.2 trillion of dollars a day. I am not speaking of applying to the USA, what I want to stress is that there is much money out there that could serve other purposes, without bringing the system down. Frankly, there wouldn't be any problem in finding the money in the USA to improve education in poor districts or grant health care without impairing the rich privileges if the governement really wanted to. Alas, I fear that a majority of Americans just don't want to. And Bush is one of them.

About environmental decisions I also have to disagree. The United States are responsible of what... About 40% of the pollution in the world ? Yet, the problem is not that you pollute more than other countries. And we do not want you to pollute as much as we do, we do not want to "equalize" pollution ! Your country is bound to pollute a lot since it is developped and very populated. When China will be as industrialized as you are now, it'll be polluting four times as much as you do currently. No, the problem is that something could be done about it. As mentionned by Poi, the USA refused to sign the protocol of Kyoto and various treaties to limit polluting... just on principle. Even though it would only cost a a few thousands dollars (a dropplet in an ocean, really) to set up filters on your factories and halve their pollution. This is this behaviour that I can't accept. The USA and its companies are deaf to anything that would "decrease" their profits and GW Bush showed no sign of changing this policy.

Last thing worrying me is the relation between France and USA. I'd like to see it as a disagreement between friends too, nonetheless when one side stops listening to the other... Is this still an adult behaviour ?

These are the some of the reasons why I didn't want Bush to be reelected. I don't know whether Kerry would have done a better job in these fields or not, but I don't think he would have done worse.

----
If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

quote:

---

The burden of proof is on you, UnknownComic, not I.

---

should be: 'The burden of proof is on you, ..., not me'. the pronoun here is receiving the action of the verb 'is' (qualified by the preposition 'on') and therefore should be expressed in the objective.

there you go. i've now contributed about as much to this conversation on US politics as MH has.. =)

[insert fabulous sig here]

edit: wow! i like your flashy lights sig, MoonShadow!

(Edited by LaSun on 11-07-2004 00:38)

I'm in agreement with Bugs; it would have been very dangerous for this country to change leaders at such a time. There is an axiom that says, "..a house divided will fall". We are under scrutiny by our remaining allies, the ones with enough courage to make a difference, and Kerry was sending all the wrong signals. They are involved with us in the fight against terrorism because they are threatened too and Kerry believes it was a mistake? I say he represents cowards. What does that say about the involvement of 34 other countries? How could they back him when he is one of the ones making a mistake (an American). No, no time to undermine those standing with us in this fight. Russia, France and Germany had the chance to show some gratitude toward the US for helping to win their freedom when they were threatened by tyrants. Yet they have the gall to criticize and undermine. They would back Kerry and lose thier own destiny of self-rule. They can't even see it! And moon shadow wonders why talks are quieting between our countries? Wake up and smell the coffee.Tthey can't control it so they aren't for it and they try to make us look bad. Be thankful for the result - our allies, those who are brave enough to stand with us, would not have backed Kerry and this country would be more vulnerable to outside influence than ever.

Another reason to be grateful: if Kerry had won, our own troops would eventually be held accountable by a world court based in the Hague. Don't get it? Ok, in small words, the Hague would control our military justice system and all our brave men could be accused by literally anyone for any reason, pulled out of a war zone, and left to rot in the Hague, awaiting trial. Yeah that's good for this country alright. That's what Kerry wanted too. I'm extremely happy that we didn't wind up with a marxist pig like Kerry just because the French don't like Bush. For the French, the Germans, and the Russians, this is how you spell it in American English: GRATITUDE for the freedoms you enjoy today.

(Edited by Allewyn on 11-07-2004 03:41)

^

quote:

---

Allewyn (+Ramasax) said:
For the French, the Germans, and the Russians, this is how you spell it in American English: GRATITUDE for the freedoms you enjoy today.

---

will you ever grow up and realize that because your grand parents helped us 60 years ago does not obliges us to buy every single thing the US (government) says ? and especially if it is to engage an illegal war based on bogus evidences. Give me, us, a break.

And do not even try to go on the "would you prefer to let Saddam Hussein safe and torturing its people" road. That was not the reason invoked by the US government to justify or ignite this war at the UNSC.

quote:

---

Allewyn said:
Another reason to be grateful: if Kerry had won, our own troops would eventually be held accountable by a world court based in the Hague. Don't get it?

---

Why on earth the US troops wouldn't be as accountable as all the others troops of the UN ? If your troops engage internationnal conflicts, they must comply to internationnal right. The refusal of the US government(s) simply allows their, your, troops to do war crimes and not respect the conventions of Geneva at will. This is insane.



(Edited by poi on 11-07-2004 11:41)

Poi, just ignore those two - they don't have a clue about such things, as has been proven time and again. Hot air.

That comment was rather uncalled for. I know you are superior and all, but come on. Proven? When, where? You think you have proven the case against this argument? How? By attacking people and telling them they are stupid or they don't have a clue? Get a clue yourself.

ruski, I just can't resist. Alot of whom you call rednecks have laid down their lives so that a sorry-ass like you could spew filth on Amercia. That's gratitude for ya. Not a citizen yet? Can't vote? Good. Don't need no more insurrectionists here. You insult every man and woman in our armed forces who cares enough about you to die for your freedom and that's the best you can do? You have the right to move about and speak freely in this country and that's the best you can come up with? I guess you'd rather be living in the USSR, having all your needs met by the state, as long as you didn't speak against the state, the kind of place Kerry sees as right for America. That the kind of change you want for America? A place where we have to check with everyone else to see if its ok if we defend freedom in our country and others? I shudder to consider to depth of depravity you would condone if you don't like what's going on in America. Course, I'm speaking to an eggshell so whatever. Shame on you and your marksist friends.

quote:

---

will you ever grow up and realize that because your grand parents helped us 60 years ago

---

Helped?

That's a fairly mild term. My Grandparents are also the ones who told me I should not stand idle when bad things happen to other people. I can remember my Grandmother saying "I don't care who they are, you cant just stand there and do nothing."

Those same people who "helped" your country a short 60 years ago are still alive today. And they frequently lament that kids today dont care. But they do. Yet, when we speak of our grandparents and their bravery we meet criticism and recriminations of not being our grandparents.

Naturally we are not those who went before us. They are themselves, and we are ours. However we are the sum of their genetics and experience. It is with their guidance and knowledge that we have formed our thoughts and opinions today.

While there are some similarities...
In WW2 we were isolationists until attacked.
On Sept 10, Terrorism was europes problem.

But now, it has come to our land. My Grandparents also taught me another thing, don't quit. So, chances are those Americans who have grandparents like mine are probably remembering the same lessons. And voting not to quit, but to press on and get this dirty business done.

Of course I know this is not going to be something simple to eradicate... and hell, I am sure I dont have all the facts. But I damn well better have the stomach to allow those who do, do what it is that needs to be done.


Kerry wasnt that man, Bush may not be that man either but he is willing to act as if...

So we might not have the best answer on how to tackle this problem, but we are going to tackle it anyway. We may not win tomorrow, but we wont stop because of that. And I'll bet that many in america were just waiting for an excuse to say enough is enough!

Terrorists don't care about economic sanctions, political solutions, or democracy. They care about action. Well, we are active now. If you want us to put down our swords, why dont you pick yours up and tell the people who want to hurt us that you wont stand for it? That's what allies do.

In the meantime, we will now probably take this fight to anyone who rattles us. We are geared up and ready. What else would you expect?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Another lesson many people learnt from WW2 and its 55,000,000+ casualties is that war is to be avoided as much as possible. And in the case of Iraq, the war was avoidable. There was an alternative to make sure Saddam had no WMD, nuclear weapon program ... the UN inspectors did a good job, later confirmed by the US inspectors. And actually since the US claimed they had satellite pictures prooving that Saddam had stock piles of WMD, why didn't they gave those pictures to the UN inspectors who were already in place ?

I, and actually the vast majority of countries in UN and the UNSC, agreed with the war in Afghanistan after 9/11, but the war in Iraq is a completely different story and has little if anything to do with it.

Allies are also here to say their friends when they think they are wrong and misbehaving. I doubt the 100,000+ civil casualties in Iraq will help to eradicate the roots of terrorism.



(Edited by poi on 11-08-2004 00:46)

The war would have been even more avoidable, and our allies even more persuasive, if some of those allies weren't breaking resolutions and making financial deals with Saddam.

Also, the guy tried to assassinate one of our Presidents. So I really dont care what pretext was used. He had to go. And, it was quite fitting that the Presidents son was the one who got it done.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Well, the election is over, and irregardless of how it went (and how one feels about it), it is done and gone.

As such, this thread has pretty much run its course.

I won't be closing it; there may be others who wish to add their mustard to it. But I'm done with it.