Topic awaiting preservation: Election Thread

Well did my duty and went out and voted today. I don't know about where you live but out here in San Francisco there seems to be much more of a buzz around this election than any previous. There's people all over the place pushing their city supes and their pet state propositions. (In this town the presidential election is pretty much a given for Kerry).

Anyone else seeing the same things?



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

I also did my duty this morning.
Aside from the general stuff, they've also been pushing the legalization of pot and a bill making bear baiting illegal.
Though, there have been quite a few people trying to push for the odd thing here and there. No doubt they're tryin to take advantage of the large voter turn out for this election. Fortunately, nothing stranger than pot and bear baiting made it onto the ballot here.

I'll be voting later this afteroon. I've heard from friends that there is a huge turn out. I think that the propositions here in CA have a lot of people more interesting in voting.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Has anybody else heard about Michael Moore setting up (I think was it) thousands of camera men at all the voting polls in Ohio just to make sure there was no voting discrepency? I think he's just doing this so if Bush wins, he'll have something to bitch about.

A little off topic, sorry. I'm not old enough to vote yet =\.

As I'm away in school I sent in my absentee ballot about two weeks ago.

I voted too, A big thing on our ballot in FL was raising minimum wage from 5.15 to 6.15. a lot of people are complaining about looong lines, but I live in a tiny precinct out in BFE so I didn't even have to wait in line =)

The "meadya" is full of it over hear in England too. It seems the concensus of opinion is that it will be either;
A) Too close to call, so decided by lawyers after weeks of wrangling
or
B) Bush scrapes in collecting the extra votes he needed from the relatively large turnout.
The world is watching....
On a lighter note *ding*. Reading Lacunas post

quote:

---

Aside from the general stuff, they've also been pushing the legalization of pot and a bill making bear baiting illegal.

---

put a picture in my head, so I fired up PS and dug it out.



Tao

(Edited by Tao on 11-02-2004 22:04)

I did my duty too. Our precinct is pretty big, but the best time to go is in the afternoon when every one else is working. The big vote here other than the president vote is kind of going to a ward system with our city council, so that every section has a voice in the council.

Tao: NICE ONE!


'Hey, take it easy and enjoy life.... or in your case, death.' -- Yoh Asakura, 'Shaman King'

Wolfen's Sig Site | WolfenMedia | Cell #226 | Fun Link | E-mails of Wisdom | Wolfen Deviantart

Community here in So Oregon has been conservative in the past. Turned in ballot last Friday and wiating to see what happens. I love this country and haven't missed an election in decades...

Insider, He is sending out 1200 people to film voting booths for irregularities.

However this is in response to the republicans ability to challenge voters .

Both sides are playing stupid tricks at the booths.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

For a French, seeing an election with an indirect poll is always odd.
But it's great to see the poll offices open as long as there's some people queueing(?) to vote.

I am not citizen...fuck....no voting for me....=(

A lot of jabs at the booths here in Detroit. Pugzly, my sorrows for turnouts in Macomb County (I'm sure you know what I'm referring to).

I'm glad I got up early and spent a total of 15 minutes at the poll. A very calm voting location walking distance from my digs.

Wow, I've heard an estimation of the vote of the muslim-american community. It looked like :
~93% for Kerry
~5% for Nader
~1% for Bush

It seems they don't appreciate the 100,000+ civil casualties of the war in Iraq.

in one of the "international" online elections iraq was one of the few countries that strongly supported bush...interesting.

i tried to vote this afternoon but apparently my registration was screwed up, i was still registered at my parents' old address and somewhere along the line my registration was moved to a town like 40 minutes away if i wanted to "provisionally" vote, which basically meant my vote wouldn't have counted anyway. bleah.

ah well, at least i'm not in a critical presidential state, texas is pretty clear cut...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Where did you hear that, poi?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I heard that on the French channel LCI and TF1 ( alas I don't have cable or satelitte TV in my flat ), covering the ballot during the whole night and having some reporters in the US and obviously keeping a close eye to the US networks ( ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, ... ) and websites ( I managed to see the URL of is c-span.org, not hard seeing the big header ).

Sorry I don't remember the source they cited for this estimation. It probably came from the CAIR ( Council on American-Islamic Relations ), but alas I can't claim that for sure. And notice that generally I prefer the tone of the public French channel who are a bit less after doing a lot of audience than private channel like LCI/TF1. Alas the special shows about the US elections stopped at 2:15 AM on the public channels and will start again at 6 AM



(Edited by poi on 11-03-2004 05:03)

If the source was CAIR, then the statistics you cite are not a surprise in the least.

I'm watching the election results here at home and plan to throughout the evening. It is soooo close. It does not look like there will be a clear winner tonight the way it's going right now.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Yep, I doesn't surprise me either, but even if the source really is the CAIR and they over estimated the vote of their community on Kerry, the trend is extremely clear nonetheless among them.

Like you I fear there won't be a clear winner in the next hours/days.

I've previously never been bothered longer than 5 or 10 minutes with voting and that's from not being prepared and having to read through all the questions; today it took 45 minutes at an "off time". The line I waited in was probably as long as a city block.

watching here too bugs, have foxnews.com and cnn.com up as well. its looking interesting, kerry has pennsylvania but it looks like bush may take florida by a pretty solid margin (about 250,000 votes) which should give him the state even with absentee votes factored in. if that happens i think things start leaning clearly bush's way.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Ohio seems to be the one to watch right now. Kerry needs Ohio to win this. If Bush takes it, I think he wins. If Kerry gets Ohio, there's still an outside chance Bush could win.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

hmmm...IMHO...bummer.

Ohio is looking like it is going to go to Bush... this could be it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Drudge Report has already called it for Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com

Kind of premature, even for Drudge.

Final Betavote result:

Kerry 421,770 (88%)
Bush 55,242 (11%)

We still don't know the final result in the United States, but the rest of the world is pretty clear...

*Crosses fingers*

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

So far the temporary results until the 11 days delay to sort if uncertain votes ( due to uncertain voter registration, distant vote ( including for militaries ) ) can be counted are :

BUSH : 254
KERRY : 252

The results in Ohio ( 20 great electors ), Iowa ( 7 ) and New Mexico ( 5 ) are either too close to call or not completely sorted or already in contested by some lawyers.

Btw CNN, ABC and CBS gives the same 254 vs 252 result while FOX gives 269 vs 242 for BUSH



(Edited by poi on 11-03-2004 12:41)

(Actually, I'd rather that they'd get this annoying monkey out of the oval office, but there's nothing anybody can do about it now. Guess we'll have to wait for the lawsuits.)

What I don't get is, shouldn't someone like a president have at least a couple of percent difference from the other candidate (s) ? Is it true that even if the percentages are 51 against 49, the winner still gets to take the president's seat, even if almost half the country is against him?

(Rewritten by mahjqa on 11-03-2004 15:11)

Edit: I did not write the sentence above - Hugh

(Edited by Hugh on 11-03-2004 17:31)

The winning president, because of how the Electoral College works, needn't get even 50% of the vote - even in a two candidate race. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote -- that is, he got more actual votes than President Bush -- but lost the Electoral College, and thus the election.

It looks like the Bush team is picking up where they left off in 2000 and just claiming victory. The majority of conservative media sources have already claimed victory too.

I have a fair understanding of the Electoral College and I know the word "half" may not have been accurate.. But the post above under my name doesnt contain a single sentence from the one I posted. Please disregard it. They're not my words.
Mahjqa, this seriously surprises me.
Bush IS a terrorist.

Edit: link to dictionary.com.

(Edited by Hugh on 11-03-2004 17:50)

Kerry is conceding folks. Turns out Drudge, FoxNews and MSNBC were right afterall.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041103/D864GE6G0.html

4 more years. Guess most of you have to rest up so you can start Bush bashing all over again.

(Edited by Ramasax on 11-03-2004 18:23)

Hugh, the quoted part

quote:

---

What I don't get is, shouldn't someone like a president have at least a couple of percent difference from the other candidate (s) ? Is it true that even if the percentages are 51 against 49, the winner still gets to take the president's seat, even if almost half the country is against him?

---

was indeed written by me. How it ended up bing posted under your name is a mystery to me.

I think I've mistakenly pressed the "edit" instead of the "quote" button.

I suppose it's there for all to see; make something idiotproof, and nature will come up with a better idiot

well, how else could it work? i mean, the definition of a majority is more than half, isn't that how any election works?

whatever the case, in places like ohio the not yet counted/provisional votes aren't really an issue as they're not signigicant enough numbers compared to the current margin between the candidates. kerry/edwards seem to realize this despite edwards comments last night that seemed to indicate they would pursue every possible vote.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Oh okay, you can understand how baffled I was so. I didn't think total cencorship was your bag at all.

random interesting trivia: we know about bush in the 200 election, but bill clinton received a plurality of the popular vote but NOT a majority of the popular vote in his wins in 1992 and 1996. ross perot received almost 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and about 8% in 1996, giving clinton the win with about 43% in 1992 and 49% in 1996.

the last president to be elected by the electoral college and with a majority of the popular vote (until this election) was george bush in 1988.


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

Hugh said:

Oh okay, you can understand how baffled I was so. I didn't think total cencorship was your bag at all.

---

Indeed, it isn't. I'm very much opposed to any kind of censorship at all.

If I ever think something should be removed, I always consult the other MadSci's.

I am experiencing a profound sense of relief this morning. Not only did we win the presidency but we have gained more power in the Congress *and* this means we'll get to appoint some Supreme Court justices. And even the popular vote favored Bush by about 3 million. It is not a landslide by any stretch but it is a decisive victory.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

this country is going to hell along with all the rednecks it has inherited over time...way to go. hurrrahh for america !

U__U

This is even a sadder day than one can think. 11 states approved constitutional amendments to outlaw gay nuptials.

The only good point of W2 ( I tried hard to find one ) is that the world will have a monkey to bash for the next 4 years.

Like you care at all, you live in france.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

Like you care at all, you live in france.

---

I own Nike shoes. I eat at KFC and McD's. I watch Friends.

I read my papers. I even check the New York Times. When I wake up in the morning it's with a daily dose of CNN (although I find the BBC far more reliable).

My government supports the war in Iraq, where a relative of mine serves.

These are only the obvious examples.

So, in short, America influences a lot of my daily life, and I keep track of what happens there.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

Like you care at all, you live in france.

---

Most of what mahjqa said.

Regarding the gay marriage, I'm sad/disgusted that my own government cancelled a gay mariage though our law do not specify the need for a sex difference. The single positive point about gay union in France is that there's a legal recognition called the PaCS ( Pacte Civil de Solidarité ), but it doesn't provide the same advantages as the marriage. Whatever, I find it outrageous that 11 states take constitutionnal amendements to ban same sex marriage.


Regarding W2, I care because the US have an impact on the whole world, and latelly they didn't seemed to give a shit about the opinion of the other countries.



(Edited by poi on 11-03-2004 21:23)

mahjqa, I think InSiDeR directed his comment to poi. France is a special case because of its anti-American policies over the last several years. There is zero love lost between the US and France. That dynamic is not the same for any other Western European country it would seem.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugimus: Why on earth couldn't mahjqa answer if he feel concerned ?
And please stop confounding reluctancy to the BUSH administration and anti-americanism.


[edit] One day, I'll manage to write a post without a typo. [/edit]

(Edited by poi on 11-03-2004 21:42)

Thank you America for making us a global stain. I can only pray that my country learns from its mistakes.

Ruski, you don't like it here you are welcome to go back to Puerto Rico. Should have known as soon as you went to college you'd just be another brainwashed dumbass. Didn't take long at all.

God, are you all gonna whine for another 4 years?

poi, I was just pointing out that he had no reason to feel concerned. He can answer anyway he wants to, I wasn't trying to say otherwise.

Please understand me. I specifically pointed out France's policies, in other words, the position of France's government being anti-American. I was not referring necessarily to you or France's population. I do not think I am confused in the least about the situation.

I would hope that you would also understand that we are not obliged to follow your government's wishes. If we don't do as you wish, it does not mean that we don't give a sh*t about your opinions. It simply means we *disagree*.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:
If we don't do as you wish, it does not mean that we don't give a sh*t about your opinions. It simply means we *disagree*.

---

Yes, "disagree" is a more polite word, but I doubt it matches the reality when 75% of the world *disagree* with the foreign and environmental policy of one country, especially when the this country and its administration has the biggest amount of WMD and Nuclear weapons, does not follow the Geneva convention, refused to sign protocols to limit the amount of anti-personnal mines, ditto for the protocol of KYOTO ...

I don't need the approval of my government to make my own opinion.

Again, about my "... don't give a sh*t ..." expression, notice that english is not my mother language therefore it's not always asy to know the strength of one expression. So if that expression is really really strong and offended you, please excuse me.

[edit] You talked about Western European countries. The governments of countries like Poland, Spain, Italy and UK approved the BUSH administration, but their nations did not. [/edit]



(Edited by poi on 11-03-2004 23:30)

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

God, are you all gonna whine for another 4 years?

---

yep...

This isn't such a bad thing.
...Really, it's not.

From the view of someone living outside of the United States, I can say, even though I'm disappointed with the turnout in favor of Michael Badnarik, I'm pleased to have Bush remain in power rather than Kerry assume control.

Let's start with the world economic issues.
Canada and Mexico already enjoy a very beneficial (to all three parties) free trade agreement with the United States (NAFTA). The result is more than just money, it has a lot to do with the products and services, there is more goods, better goods, cheaper goods, and quicker development of new goods. Obviously this has also greatly, and positively affected the economies of all three countries. So it's easy to see why more countries want the borders opened wider, let jobs flow between countries, and let the exchange of goods flow freely. Next year the FTAA is set to be ratified, Canada will sign, Mexico will sign, all the Central/South American countries will sign, it'll be up to the United States to ratify it. It's clear that Bush will be onboard, it is after all a very beneficial treaty, freeing up billions and billions of dollars in trade to flow across the two continents. But had John Kerry won yesterday, we very well could see the start of his 'keep American jobs in America' policy, as the refusal to ratify the FTAA. This would obviously make it very difficult for Canada to freely trade with the South American countries, because we would not be granted free access through the U.S. boarders to do so. Even after the FTAA, it appears that Taiwan and Japan will very shortly be ready to negotiate a free trade agreement, and China is inching closer and closer as well. We could very well see a Pacific Rim Free Trade Agreement proposal before 2008. Again, this agreement would benefit greatly all the involved countries, through both the removal of tariffs and trade barriers, as well as ease of specialization. Could we really trust John Kerry to break his promise to the American labor workers, and pass an agreement like this that virtually ensures that manufacturing jobs will go to whoever can do them the most efficiently? From a purely economic standpoint, I can say I'd rather have Bush.

Are economic issues really enough? I mean, Bush did declare war in his first term. This isn't exactly something we should just overlook. He actually invaded another country...
I'd agree that these reasons would justify someone in suggesting that Bush shouldn't be president. These reasons however, are not enough to suggest that John Kerry should have been. So lets look at:

Where the Democrats went wrong.
It's easy for us to look at the red and blue map of the United States, and say that "the banjo pickin' hicks decided this election." Is that really the case, however? Republican country didn't vote 100% in favor of Bush, not even 65%, he did better in 2000 in the south than yesterday, but he came away with a decisive win this time, the largest since the 1980's, even with a huge voter turnout. What is happening isn't that Bush "rallied his base" better, or that the religious fanatics/*insert whichever typical conservative group* came out strong. The truth is, the democratic party is slowly losing it's base. Not necessarily to the republicans, but in the last quarter century, there has only been one democratic president, and he was more of a fiscal conservative than Bush. This election, Bush gained huge in states like Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, Maryland, New England, California, Washington, and even New York. (He didn't win all these states, but he gained a much larger share of the vote in each of them when compared to 2000) These are states that one wouldn't describe as "conservative." So what's wrong with the democrats? Well, it most relates to their economic policies, which can at best be described as tired, and dated, and are probably more accurately described as medieval. As John Kerry so articulately pointed out over his campaign, labor and manufacturing jobs in the Unites States are disappearing. He was dead wrong on how to handle this issue, but that's not really important. What's important is we must begin to realize that the U.S. is morphing from what used to be a country with some small 'white-collar' areas, into an entire 'white-collar' country. The economic policies have to change to reflect this. No longer will government sponsored programs be an effective campaign, no longer will tax hikes on business be acceptable. As Americans take on their new identity as suit-and-tie business people, they will demand more and more economic freedom from their government, and quite frankly, if the Democratic Party of America is not willing to shift to the right of center (or even the far right) on economic freedom issues, then it very well may be that there are 0 democratic presidents in the next quarter century.

All in all, regardless of your position on social issues, the United States' social policy will not have an effect on those of us outside the U.S., however having a strong foreign economic policy is currently, and will always be beneficial to the entire world.

I would've posted this earlier but my net has been down since election day so I'm sorry if this has already been said but I'm saying it once again.

Well, it's official. President Bush will remain the President of the United States for another four years! This is a very satisfying outcome for me. First, Id like to thank everyone who voted this election. Id like to quickly give a couple of facts for this election.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-The majority of the population that voted this election voted for President Bush (R). A broad nation-wide victory for Bush.

-President Bush won the biggest number of popular votes in American/USA history!

-Record turn-out of voters!

-The majority of congress and majority of senate are now held by Republicans by an overwhelming number. Democrats lost more seats than they recieved. (Now the Democrats can't stand in the way of Bush)

-Gay Marriage was struck down in eleven states (major blow to gay rights).

-The Three Strikes Policy in California was slaughtered (thank god, Arnold rules!).

-Marijuana was legalized in Alaska (small ammounts anyhow).

-Medical Marijuana was legalized in 3 states I believe. (sweet!)

-Stem Cell Research was approved 3BILLION/yr in California (Thanks Arnold!).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now for awhile I supported Kerry. The night before elections, I was thinking about both candidates. Their pros, and of course, their cons. I agree with a majority of things that Kerry supported. However after careful consideration - I really didn't trust him. He "flip-flopped" too much on topics. It seemed like he would change his position on every subject to better fit public opinion. At least Bush does what he says he'll do and has for the most part, been honest. I didn't/don't believe Kerry was and I definately didn't/don't trust Edwards.

I was really surprised at how this election turned out - it was pretty amazing how much of the country actually supported Bush. I was honestly expecting Kerry to walk away with this election but I'm extremely happy he didn't. I know most of the democrats around are throwing a fit right now.

Hilary Clinton is currently nowhere to be found (MSNBC). Bill Clinton has vanished into the shadows (MSNBC).

Now I was very impressed with the concieding speech by Kerry. I thought he handled himself really well considering he just lost such a close (and when I say 'close', I mean it) race. I stayed up all night on election day and was present when every vote came in except for Nevada (my home state) because I already knew where Nevada would swing.

Again, thanks to everyone who voted this election! I do hope however that once you all hit 18, you all become politically active. The 'youth vote' in this election was pretty identical to the one back in 2000 meaning that a lot of the teenagers didn't vote. I just want to say:

"This is our generation. It is time for us youth to take control. Our parents, grandparents, ect, they have already had their turn. It is now time for us to make the decisions". Register to vote as soon as you turn 18 and I really hope that in the 2008 election, the youth vote will take up a good portion of the vote (instead of just 17% like during this election 04').

President George W. Bush's victory speech was awsome BTW!

To the countries that don't really care for President Bush - The MAJORITY here in the United States don't care what you think. We do like President Bush and that is why he was re-elected. He is a damn'd good president! So to those countries who "put the champaign" back in the fridge when the final results came in - might as well drink it! Alcohol makes all your problems go away; if only for a short time! You're stuck with Bush for another four years! Live with it. Deal with it!

Republicans control this country for another four years. They control the senate. They control congress. Then still control the presidency. This term, the next four years for President Bush - anything he does will meet with little to no resistance by the senate and by congress!

Oh yeah, and Osama Bin Laden, if you are reading this - your attempt to influance the elections in America [color=RED]FAILED[/color]; or at least the way you had planned! If nothing else, it influanced the vote of the public! You threatend us in your latest video by saying "Any state that doesn't attack you will be safe by default". Well guess what? The majority of the population told you where to shove it by voting for Bush so go ahead and attack us! When we find you (and we will find you), it'll be slow! The American people promise you that!

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery



(Edited by Black Hat on 11-04-2004 00:34)

Ramasx if you are aware...Puerto Rico is part of USA, and going back there won't mean any difference.

Now, before you start insulting me on whatever is going on with me in college. Let me clarify, you don't know shit. Before you shriek your stupid mouth of calling me democrat/liberal or pushing me to which ever political side you hate...just keep in mind. You don't know shit about me, or where I stand on politics...Way to go you homophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-abortionist hypocrite. Don't forget how full of bitching your posts are.

As for me being brainwashed...yeah, go ahead read the book of revelation, it will sure provide you with some useful "prophecies".

=)


{edit}:typo

(Edited by Ruski on 11-04-2004 00:55)

Im sorry but Ive seen a lot of bitching in this thread and it really is irritating.

Bush is president. He is republican. Congress is run by the republicans for the next four years. So is the senate. Face it. Republicans beat the democrats into the ground dis round. Deal with it. You are stuck with it. Stop bitching. jesus christ.

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery

quote:

---

Im sorry but Ive seen a lot of bitching in this thread and it really is irritating.

---

Unless Bush passed his "Force Black Hat to Read Irritating Threads on the Asylum Act" earlier than planned, I don't see anyone forcing you to read this thread.

I am Republican. I voted for Kerry and Republican on most everything else. I just don't like Bush. I simply do not have faith in his ability to run a prosperous America. I am however interested to see what becomes of the next 4 years.



(Edited by Thumper on 11-04-2004 01:49)

quote:

---

poi said:
11 states approved constitutional amendments to outlaw gay nuptials.

---

w00t++;

My faith is starting to be restored in the citizens of this monster of a country.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- P. David Lebling

(Edited by Iron Wallaby on 11-04-2004 02:34)

You and me both, bugs, about time we got around the fillibuster, or do we? Anyway, wether or not people like the results we have consistency in the White House when changing leaders could have been very dangerous. Especially when the opponent kept saying he had a plan but never said what it was.

~allewyn

Anyway, you'll have to change the leader in four years. Why wait so long while one offered his services ?

Iron Wallaby: I prefer when you code, rather than when you agree with homo-phobic amendments.

Black Hat, you are incredibly ignorant of the politics of the Bush Administration. If a corporate executive did his/her job as poorly as Bush, they'd be fired instantly.

quote:

---

poi said:

homo-phobic amendments

---

poi, that is inaccurate to call them that. They are not designed to hurt gays but to defend marriage. There is a *huge* difference between those two concepts. The government has one, and only one, reason to get involved in sanctioning marriage between a man and a woman and that reason is to have a say how children are raised. If it were not for that one concern, I would advocate the government staying out of the business of defining marriage at all.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Id like to quickly give a couple of facts for this election......

-Marijuana was legalized in Alaska (small ammounts anyhow).

---

Blackhat, I would just like to point out that your "fact" is wrong. The measure was not passed. You can see the results on the Juneau Empire Newspaper.

Also, another interesting bit:

quote:

---

Alaskans have a varied history with marijuana. In 1975, a state Supreme Court decision made it legal to possess small quantities in the privacy of a home.
In 1990, voters chose to make possession a crime, a law that stayed in place until last year when the state Court of Appeals ruled that Alaskans had the right to possess up to four ounces of pot in their homes for personal use.
Marijuana advocates in 1998 used the initiative process to win passage of a medical marijuana law.

---

Even though the court of appeals made a ruling, the majority of troopers will still bust you for any amount unless you carry a medical exemption card.

As for the results of the election.... *sigh*
On the up side (if there is one), Bush can't run again. Though, I'm still considering defecting to Canada

Don't get me wrong. I hate Bush. I hate Cheny. I hate Edwards. I hate Kerry. They are all dumb. But Bush has this country on a set course and during wartimes - I trust Bush to finish the job, not Kerry.

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery

quote:

---

Before you shriek your stupid mouth of calling me democrat/liberal or pushing me to which ever political side you hate...just keep in mind.

---

I don't believe I used those terms. I believe I used the term dumbass-brainwashed-college-student, just to clarify. And I highly disagree with the other side on many issues, but there is no hate. And another thing, I don't shriek.

quote:

---

You don't know shit about me, or where I stand on politics...Way to go you homophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-abortionist hypocrite. Don't forget how full of bitching your posts are.

---

Your statement above and another recently in the silliness forum tells me all I need to know of where you stand on politics. And don't forget, we have had conversations in the past off this board. Homophobic, no. I am actually ok with gay unions, just not marriage because it means something to me, and according to the 11 states which voted on it, it means something to them as well. Can one be called homophobic because they want to protect something they hold value to?

Anti-Muslim. No. Anti-Muslim-Extremist, yes. My posts are not full of bitching, I make thoughtful statements oft times. Isn't that right poi?

I was not the one who just referred to the majority of the American people as rednecks. That is why I responded harshly. Had Bush lost, I would have been highly disappointed and lost faith in the people of this great nation, but I would not have whined about it. However sad, I would have respected the will of the people like a grownup.

The fact that you would threw the anti-abortionist comment in there when you know what you know about my past was pretty low. Or do you forget why I am so against abortion?

quote:

---

As for me being brainwashed...yeah, go ahead read the book of revelation, it will sure provide you with some useful "prophecies".

---

Who has the phobia? Anyway, if you want to throw some more insults at me go right ahead, you can't ruin my victory celebration.

Has anyone seen the county by county results map? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Now what do you suppose all those blue areas are?

Bugimus: I understand your point. But I don't see how two men, or two women couldn't raise children, or would do worse than a man and a woman. Homosexual couples can already have/raise some children aside a real and recognized union. Therefore I don't consider the marriage as a sanction to raise children, but as the recognition of a couple in love ( whatever the sex of both persons ) and the responsabilities and duties of each other. In the lack of marriage, if one of the parent of an homosexual couple have a severe problem ( disease, accident, handicap, death, ... ), the other parent has no right on the children. Add to that that it's not right that the gays and lesbians do not have the same right as the heteros. This is the 2 reason why I see the refusal of the right to gays and lesbians to marry with a bad eye.

Ramasax: the blue areas are urban areas with über high ( though not enough apparently ) population density.



(Edited by poi on 11-04-2004 04:21)

poi, I understand your point of view and I respect your right to advocate it. What I very much dislike is hearing people lumping all defense of marriage efforts into the "homo-phobic" label. I think that is unjustified and inaccurate. I hope you can appreciate that. Take Ramasax and myself as examples and proof that we want to keep marriage as is but also don't want to government to prevent gay unions.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

The whole argument between Bush and Kerry and their stance on homosexual civil unions is ridiculous. Kerry said many times that he opposed a federal ban on same-sex civil unions and Bush was in favor of them. That's a given.

However, Kerry had no plans to oppose state mandated constitutional bans. Of course, the spin doctors never really let you hear about that part of his stance.

:::11oh1:::

Bugimus has it right on the head.

I'd prefer the government stay out of it entirely, but look: the family has been (and currently is) the atom of human societal structure. If the family is changed, or worse, destroyed, society as it is will disintegrate.

I have seen it a number of times, in fact -- I know people who have been raised by gays/lesbians and are emotionally worse (sometimes to the point of suicide) for it. It's better to ban a self- and socially- destructive tendency than to allow it, if the government indeed MUST be involved at all.

If, poi, you prefer that I stay to coding, perhaps I can oblige.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- P. David Lebling

(Edited by Iron Wallaby on 11-04-2004 04:45)

poi: Yep, I realiazed that, was just being slightly sarcatic.

What is it about cities that causes people to lose touch with mainstream America...cough...err I mean vote socialist...cough...err I mean democrat? Could it be the concentration of poor people in these areas that want handouts from the public coffers? Could it be a lack of proper upbringing, instillment of traditional values and education? Those are my initial thoughts, though that is hardly covering everything, as New England is a semi-wealthy area. What is it?

As the map above shows it is the cities vs. everyone else.

If it weren't for that shithole of a city Philadelphia, my state would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for LA and SanFran, California would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for NYC, New York would have gone to Bush. You take the cities out of any of these states and the entire map would be red, except maybe Mass.

Colorado was talking about splitting the electoral votes into districts, Maine has already done so, and by the looks of that map above I am all for it because Democrats, unless they did an honest rethinking of where their party is heading, would not have a prayer.

And hey, everyone who voted for Kerry...you still have an '08 Hillary run to look forward to.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 11-04-2004 04:55)

Bugimus: Your intention to provide a legal status to gay unions is noble. Nonetheless I find it useless and discriminant to create a new status that mimic the marriage to legalize the gay unions while it could be fairly easy to specify that the "classical" marriage can be sanctionned whatever the sex of the 2 persons is. Not recognizing the same right as the heteros to the gays is a specific discrimination and has a name : homophobia. Sorry, I know this is a strong and bad word, but it's appropriate. Obvsiously I don't mean you're homo-phobic. What I say is that your position on gay union is discriminating this community.

[edit] Ramasax: Btw, do you have the results of the election in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Shanksville, Pennsylvania aka the cities touched by the 9/11 attacks ?

Educated people live in big cities. my turn to be sarcastic. Ok, that was easy. [/edit]



(Edited by poi on 11-04-2004 05:03)

Yes, that clarifies it...I am a"dumbass brainwashed college kid" and you are an adult who still lives with parents ...

poi, if you redefine marriage to include 2 men or 2 women, why would you stop there? On what possible grounds could you go on to discriminate against 3 person unions? On what possible grounds could you discriminate against polygamy?

And I still cannot accept your use of the term homophobic because they are NOT based in a "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men". I understand that many people are homophobic according to the definition you provided, but the defense of marriage initiatives themselves are just that, a defense of marriage as it currently stands and not an attack on gays.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Marriage is simply a legal contract that binds ("marries") the two individuals together for better or worse. Traditionally, it's a ceremony meant for two individuals of the opposite gender; however, considering this is the year 2004--we're way past the year of the End of the World--don't you think tribalistic traditions are a bit too primitive for such a technologically advanced society? You can attach all the emotional crap you want to marriage but in the end it always comes down to taxation and law. On what possible grounds could a government deny polygamy? Fairness in taxation and costs of change. In order to allow polygamy, there'd need to be a whole set of laws enacted to balance taxation of polygamic families and taxation of monogamic families. There would also need to be significant restructuring of society and organizational policies. If we set out to demolish our current government and establish a new one, it is only then could polygamy be introduced.

"No taxation without representation."

By the way, those eleven states are Bible Belt states.

(Edited by metahuman on 11-04-2004 05:47)

poi: Out of curiosity, where does the average French person stand on gay marriage? Are you all so progressive, or is what I experience here and elsewhere on the internet just a small sampling (primarily young, tech savvy types)? Are there many conservatives left over there?

Homophobia:Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.

Well, here is the thing. I feel neither fear nor contempt for gays and lesbians. I say to each his own, I ain't gonna try and change anyone, especially one that is doing no harm. If a couple of men or women fall in love, that is their business. Love is something that can cross the gender barrier obviously, so I have to accept it in the society in which I live.

What I do have a problem with is a small minority of people trying to unravel what I and many others consider a vital piece to the fabric of our society. There is also tradition, you may find it hard to believe, but some people still value this. Is that so wrong to want to hold onto to some things, things which mean a lot to us? Call it civil union or union, better yet make up a new name for it and define it as a union between a couple of the same sex. The tradition of marriage need not be altered, it is what it is, a tradition, just create a new tradition and have the government treat it equally to a marriage. Every facet of society needs its traditions, so perhaps the gay and lesbians should start creating some of their own. I pretty sure you won't agree, but I think that is a reasonable solution to this entire argument.

You cannot redefine the constants of our society.

Ramasax

quote:

---

By the way, those eleven states are Bible Belt states.

---

Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oregon are in the bible belt? North, South, East and West, If you think that makes a belt, you're one fat fucker. Not to mention it was both Democrat, and Republican carried states.

quote:

---

If it weren't for that shithole of a city Philadelphia, my state would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for LA and SanFran, California would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for NYC, New York would have gone to Bush. You take the cities out of any of these states and the entire map would be red, except maybe Mass.

---

Yes I guess if you got rid of half the voters ...

quote:

---

There is also tradition, you may find it hard to believe, but some people still value this. Is that so wrong to want to hold onto to some things, things which mean a lot to us?

---

Tradition? It seems like you're just making up these traditions as you go along.

(Edited by Jestah on 11-04-2004 07:00)

right...that silly marriage thing that's only been around for a few millenia. no tradition there.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

metahuman said:

...however, considering this is the year 2004--we're way past the year
of the End of the World--don't you think tribalistic traditions are a bit too
primitive for such a technologically advanced society?

---

If we're so advanced, why do we still speak words, write letters to people, construct houses from stone, eat using pointy pieces of metal, and do the same things people did thousands of years ago -- learn, grow, procreate, earn a living for one's family, die? To be honest, everyone is thoroughly grounded in so-called tribalistic traditions that we will never give up, because they define us as a species.

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not saying this specifically in reference to heterosexual marriage alone, but don't presume for a second that technology has changed humanity in any way. Our purposes and pursuits are the same today as they always have been; only the means of accomplishing those goals have changed.

Things are made "primitive" by their lack of scientific progress. Science's goal is not (and has never been) to change humanity's purpose, but rather, to strengthen it.

[edit: I tend to take things quite off-topic, don't I? Sorry about this, if it is a problem! ]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- P. David Lebling

(Edited by Iron Wallaby on 11-04-2004 07:13)

homophobia : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.


Bugimus: Let's start with same-sex marriage. We'll see later for polygamy if you want. As a side note, has a 3+ persons union of persons, for who polygamy is not in the culture, already asked the right to marry ?


Ramasax: I have no stats about the French people in average. Every person I know but 3 ( who actually are rather racists U_U and more religious than the others ) either don't care about or agree with gay marriage.

There's still some conservatives in France. The proof being that the gay wedding proclaimed in last july has been cancelled though the definition of the marriage in the French laws does not specify the sex of both persons. Few other gay marriages were scheduled but the mayors cancelled them by fear of legal pursuits after the affair surrounding the first one.

I agree that gays and lesbians should have their own tradition. But, if it is to recreate a type of legal union absolutely equal to the marriage with another name to please the heteros don't you think it would be a complete waste of time ? People linked to the tradition of the marriage should be proud that the gays and lesbians envy them and ask the same rights.

In France since october 2000 there is the "PaCS" which is a civil union between 2 persons whatever their sex. It gives some rights and advantages and is one step in the right direction but still the gays and lesbians does not have the same rights as the heteros and many consider the civil union as a second-rate marriage. The gays and lesbians don't want to be "registered partners" or "living with". They want to love and grow old with their other half and that thing already has a name : marriage.

The society is evolving. It's time to make the laws match the reality without creating second rate citizens.

quote:

---

Iron Wallaby said:

If we're so advanced, why do we still speak words, write letters to people, construct houses from stone, eat using pointy pieces of metal, and do the same things people did thousands of years ago -- learn, grow, procreate, earn a living for one's family, die? To be honest, everyone is thoroughly grounded in so-called tribalistic traditions that we will never give up, because they define us as a species.

---

Uh, no. Communication and construction are not tribalistic as the purpose of both is inherently selfish. Ceremonial marriage is tribalistic since it requires two individuals, witnesses, and a binder who is usually of a religious background--all whom should be familially related. Learning, growing, and procreation are basic human and inherently selfish behaviors, not traditions for the purpose of supporting a tribe. Death is merely a result of life; it is neither a behavior nor a tradition. Often traditions are applied to basic behavior which may produce most of the confusion regarding what is tribalistic.

quote:

---

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not saying this specifically in reference to heterosexual marriage alone, but don't presume for a second that technology has changed humanity in any way. Our purposes and pursuits are the same today as they always have been; only the means of accomplishing those goals have changed.

---

Technology has significantly altered the way humans live. For instance, early humans invented wooden and stone tools to forage, hunt, and communicate. Basic goals, which fulfill basic needs, clearly do not change but perhaps they will in the future. Regardless, there is no predefined purpose to life; one define one's own existence.

quote:

---

Things are made "primitive" by their lack of scientific progress. Science's goal is not (and has never been) to change humanity's purpose, but rather, to strengthen it.

---

That is a claim which is blatantly false. Not only is your claim deterministic and thus false, it ignores the multitude of scientific disciplines that abound and prescribes some sort of nonexistent goal to the study of nature. Ever heard of immortalism or transhumanism (1, 2) or nanoengineering?

Your quotes also have no connection to the issue of primitive tribalistic behavior, which in this case regards restrictive marriage ceremonies.

(Edited by metahuman on 11-04-2004 07:54)

argh...i hate when you write something long and then accidentally lose the window somewhere...

anyway, my question was with regards to why we've decided that marriage needs to be redefined based on a trend. only over the last 20 years or so has homosexual culture and more recently the idea of homosexual marriage come to the mainstream, simply a blip on the timeline in any culture. homosexuality has been around for millenia, prevalent in biblical times and the roman empire. what happens if another sexual trend, as bugs has aluded to, presents itself in another 20 years and demands legal recognition? now we think of incestual relationships or transgenerational relationships and sick and disgusting, but they slowly became common as the roman empire degenerated sexually.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

So, let us mark the end of Mr. Bush's first 4 years, and take a look at the balance, shall we?

100 Mistakes for the President to Choose From

Well, that is a good start.

Ok, but Mr. Bush is a war President, right? Well, apparently he doesn't know much about that, either - comparing the
casualties with the same amount of time frame with the Vietnam War, we have much higher casualties than then. US War Dead in Iraq exceeds Early Vietnam Years

Heh.

And now, Mr. Bush doesn't want Global Warming to be true - as if just saying it isn't so, will make it go away. NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence and U.S. Wants No Warming Proposal.

Well, I wonder what surprises are awaiting us in the next 4 years. With the balance that Mr. Bush has shown us the last 4 years, I am very glad that I will not be in the US during them.

I already see a huge polarization of the American People that has taken place. Knowing Mr. Bush (and his incompetence), instead of attempting to lessen it, he will stumble about, and make it worse. Just viewing this thread is an interesting indicator of such a polarization (I don't think we need to talk about the Global Outlook, do we? ).

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-04-2004 08:25)

quote:

---

poi said:

Let's start with same-sex marriage. We'll see later for polygamy if you want. As
a side note, has a 3+ persons union of persons, for who polygamy is not in the
culture, already asked the right to marry ?

---

Thanks for your honesty. I think you've answered my question. This would only be the beginning of who would be allowed to marry. I predict that not only would it involve more than 2 persons, but there would be some who would want it extended to minors, and I know you don't believe this but most certainly extended to pets.

And, yes, there is a man in the news right now that had multiple wives who is in trouble with the law. In the early days of Mormonism, polygamy was practiced by members of the church. While the church has distanced itself from that position, there are still hold outs who still practice it. It is currently illegal to do so in this country. He and his wives would very much like to be legally recognized and not discriminated against. Would you discriminate against him and his wives if you were making the laws, poi?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

^ You really think he'll live that long, with his heart condition?

ha ha ha..., I wonder why Bush didnt use him in his campaign more?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Because the Pacemaker battery has to be recharged on a regular basis!!!

I think there are some Americans that are fed up with the bad press about America, and decided to elect some scary guys to flex the American muscle.

Famous quote question:
Who said it is better to be feared than loved?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

uhhh...Stalin?

quote:

---

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

---

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Bugimus: I was kinda ironic when I said : "We'll see later for polygamy if you want.".

Honestly I have no clear idea about polygamy. What I know is that marriage is about the union of 2 persons and that gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to marry though they go by 2 and accept the responsabilities and duties involved by the marriage. To go back on polygamy, if one can proove every person of the union consent to it and they feel a prejudice from the refusal of a legal status, there's no way to not consider their request. If that kind of request grow to a phenomenon of society, it really needs to be further examined and eventually give it a legal status.

Regarding the age of marriage, I don't know for the other counties but in France, anybody can marry as long they are 18+ with no restriction ( except of sex difference ), and as long as they are 13+ and have the concent of their legal tutor. That law applies to everybody so it makes no discrimination. Children below 13 are not considered legally responsible.

WebShaman:

Oh, and it looks like I forgot to add the coalition of the willing is slowly turning into the unwilling Hungary to remove 300 troops.

Nice one.

WS, forgive me for putting it this way, but if Bush decided to pull out of Iraq tomorrow and then subsequently bomb Iran and the DPRK, is that what it would take to make you think he was on the right track? I ask this because it seems your biggest argument is not that he attacked another country but that he attacked the wrong country.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I was pretty sure Kerry would win but oh well...yay! Bush won!

"You know you have been doing 3d too long when you walk into a church and think, "God, the polycount of this place must be huge!"

??

Pull out of Iraq tomorrow? Uhhh...no, I never said that (nor have I recommended that!) If the US pulled out tomorrow, the place would fall apart in an instant. I don't think that would help anyone. I am highly critical of Mr. Bush and his administration because it is so incompetent
(and I am not alone - the facts speak for themselves, and even Mr. Bush admited to making mistakes). His biggest failure - Bin Laden is still out there! What the hell was Mr. Bush thinking, of going into Iraq, with Bin Laden still out there? I remember you saying, Bugs, that we would do all three (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bin Laden). Guess what? You were wrong! "We" did not do all three. The Taliban and Al Qaeda has quietly snuck back into Afghanistan, and is making trouble there, Bin Laden is still out there, and probably even influenced the vote in America a bit.

That is Mr. Bush's biggest failure. We should have sent in massive numbers of troops, until we had either Bin Laden, or his body. Due to Mr. Bush's total incompetence, we let him slip away TWICE!!! That you (and a majority of Americans) continue to support the incompetant fool is just beyond me.

Iran and North Korea are really dangerous. I find it very strange, that Mr. Bush is willing to attempt to "talk" with Iran and North Korea, both lands that have continually defied and taken American lives, and have certainly made no secret of their desire to see America destroyed, as well as their direct support of Global Terrorism, but a land that didn't have the capability to harm anyone, was invaded.

I think that Iran was, and is, a much better target as Iraq. And so is North Korea, for that matter.

Mr. Bush has already failed so miserably at so many things, I no longer trust him to do anything competently, other than mess things up further. His choice for his "new" cabinet says everything. He is not interested in attempting to heal the divide in the country, but will attempt to "go ahead" as before - a disaster. Perhaps for you neo-con far right-wingers, you see it differently. I speak as a moderate Republican...and I think I represent an alarmed part of the Republican party, that sees it getting hijacked by the far-right. Well, there was never a better time for your part of the REpublican party. You have all that you need - A Republican President, a major gains in House and Senate, and the chance to swing the Supreme Court to the far right. You better hope that the country turns out for the better. Because if it doesn't, there is going to be a huge backlash.

We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he attacked the wrong country! Iraq is nothing, will be nothing, irregardless of whether or not America succeeds in installing a Democracy there, because Iran will have Nuclear Weapons (if they don't already). The influence that they will have on the region will be immense, because of that. We had a chance to stop it. Mr. Bush fumbled the ball, now Iran has made up for the lack of attention on it. Or are you now seriously suggesting, that we should now go into Iran, with Iraq in the mess that it is?

Do I even need to go into detail on North Korea?

That is foreign affairs. On the homefront - I don't think Mr. Bush could do any worse (well, hacking down what is left of the forest, and plundering the Artic Wildlife Reserve for raw materials is worse).

But maybe Mr. Bush will turn around, and suddenly fix everything!

Right.

And tomorrow, I will win the lottery.

How many barrels of oil is an Iraqi life going for these days ?

Maybe, Iraq was necessary to take as a forward position...

Now that we have Iraq, we can launch attacks on Iran from several fronts.

Then, once we secure the resources of Iran... err, liberate the people of Iran, then we can move on toward Korea.

With the axis of evil under our military control we can then move to the next problem country... And with oil at $75US per barrel our corporate war sponsors will be able to fund a massive strike anywhere in the world. The American dream can become everyones dream.

[Edit]
in reply to:

quote:

---

uhhh...Stalin?

---

tsk, tsk, noooo!

It was Machiavelli who said it is safer to be feared than loved. I believe Stalin took the concept a little too far.
[/edit]

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

(Edited by UnknownComic on 11-04-2004 19:08)

quote:

---

If it weren't for that shithole of a city Philadelphia, my state would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for LA and SanFran, California would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for NYC, New York would have gone to Bush. You take the cities out of any of these states and the entire map would be red, except maybe Mass.

---

You take the cities out of any of these states and you have no America my friend.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I remember you saying, Bugs, that we would do all three (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bin Laden). Guess what? You were wrong! "We" did not do all three.

---

Correction, we *are* doing all three. I totally disagree with you that we can only do one thing at a time. We fought an entire world war in Europe *and* in the South Pacific. It can be done and it has to be done in parallel when you have so many problems that need addressing.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You better hope that the country turns out for the better. Because if it doesn't, there is going to be a huge backlash.

---

Don't you see that the backlash is already happening? We are witnessing the backlash from the extremist Left wing that has been so powerful in the last half century. The Democrats are in disarray, their party is the party of extremism. The fact is that this country is just not that leftist and that is why Bush won in spite of everything the media and 527s threw at him. The Republicans don't need to move center, it's the Dems who need to wake up and realize they are losing their base because the party is led by extreme left wing idealogues. But if the Dems continue down that path, it is fine by me because it just means the Republicans will just continue to prevail. We'll have to see what Hillary comes up with in '08 to see if she has as much sense as her husband when it comes to moving to the center to win elections.

And I do believe the policies of the Republicans are going to help this country. Of course I do. I don't just switch parties on a whim! I was a Dem and saw that all the rhetoric about helping the "little guy" was not working and that is why I switched to a party that had a better approach to that ideal. Face it, the moral weight has switched from the Dems to the Reps over the last few decades. Slowly but surely the traditional Democrat base is realizing the Republicans are the ones that are coming up with new ideas and new approaches to our problems. All they get from the Dems is the same tired worn out cliches. It is almost like a litmus test for being a Democrat these days is to see how many times you can repeat "tax cuts for the rich". As Dan mentioned earlier, the Dems *must* reinvent themselves or they risk going the way of the dodo bird in the coming decades.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Correction, we *are* doing all three.

---

Oh, we captured Bin Laden, and brought him to justice? *hurries off to Google it*

*Comes back*

Nope.

Untruths, Bugs. Untruths.

We had TWO very distinct opportunities to do it. Too few soldiers, too many mistakes. Why are you in denial over this? The FACTS here are plain and simple. Had we devoted more soldiers the first time (instead of devoting them elsewhere), we would have nailed him.

In this, you are very, very wrong. Everything points to the fact that you are wrong. Support your postion, please.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Had we devoted more soldiers the first time (instead of devoting them elsewhere), we would have nailed him.

---

You explain to me why more soldiers would have accomplished it. More soldiers would have been swallowed up in Afghanistan. It is not always a matter of more soldiers doing a better job. It's like the mythical man month concept. Managers in companies often believe that if a project is behind schedule that adding another person to it will double the results. There is a reason why that mentality is called "mythical".

I saw an interview a few weeks ago by a commanding officer operating in Afghanistan (sorry I don't remember his name) who stated just that. He said that more soldiers was NOT the problem in Afghanistan. He said that you could be in one valley and have absolutely no clue what was happening in the very next valley over due to the very difficult terrain there. He was the one who used the language of throwing more soldiers into the effort as being swallowed up.

As I understand it the special ops were working with the local warlords in those operations. Is that not the case?

In either case, the fact that mistakes are made during these operations does not mean that we are not making progress and learning from those mistakes. If you insist that it is simply a numbers game and too many forces were diverted to Iraq then we just have to disagree on that. I don't buy it, it seems far too simplistic to be our main problem for me to accept it.

Also note that I said we *are* doing it. It is a process. One thing I know to be true and that is if we stick to it, we will prevail. The only thing that will cause us to fail is if we give up on this effort. We are our own worst enemy when it comes to giving up on things, dare I mention Vietnam?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

We had TWO very distinct opportunities to do it.

---

Ok, I need to ask you a very important question on this one. We now know that Bill Clinton had THREE clear opportunities to capture and/or kill Bin Laden. In each of the three cases, he chose not to take the shot. Are you willing to berate him with equal if not more vigor as you are with Bush? Can't you see that our problems began before Bush even came onto the scene? And for that matter I'm not even saying it began under Clinton's watch because it didn't. It began during the Cold War but we were too busy with bigger fish at the time to notice or care. Then when the Cold War was won we simply did not want to deal with the growing threat of Islamo-fascism.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

...uh...I almost don't want to step in here. Well, almost.

quote:

---

Then when the Cold War was won we simply did not want to deal with the growing threat of Islamo-fascism.

---

[my emphasis]
Many of the people on the so-called "far-left" were talking about Islamo-fascism/radical Islam for a long time...including during and immediately after the end Cold War.
So, I guess it all depends on who one calls "we".

(Just here to keep everyone mostly honest. Other than that, have fun. =)

Ok Bugs, here we have Tora Bora :

Tora Bora falls, but no bin Laden

quote:

---

Though Mr. Rumsfeld has said that the two dozen or so US Special Forces are helping to block exit routes, that number of US military personnel can only be considered a token of the real figure needed to cut off all the mountain passes surrounding the mountain enclave. The number of possible passes is in the dozens, if not the hundreds.

---

So, if Bin Laden was there, we had nowhere near the troops that we needed! Two Dozen or so? And some Afghan troops?

You are really surprising me on this Bugs. You normally do a very good job of researching these things, then deciding. You are not doing it this time. I am pretty shocked.

This just proved you wrong. This alone. And there is more, much, much more. I could fill pages here with more. But I don't have to. This is enough.

quote:

---

We now know that Bill Clinton had THREE clear opportunities to capture and/or kill Bin Laden. In each of the three cases, he chose not to take the shot. Are you willing to berate him with equal if not more vigor as you are with Bush?

---

To a point, hell yes! But remember, Bin Laden hadn't just sent two jumbos crashing into the Twin Trade towers, Bugs. But what has this got to do with Clinton? I'm a bit puzzled about that. As I recall, 9/11 didn't happen during his presidency. Clinton didn't know that Bin Laden was going to do that. Had Clinton made the same mistakes that Bush has made, I'd roast him. Bugs, I would roast ANYONE, irregardless of who it was! I think you are misunderstanding me. I think you believe that somehow I have something personal against Mr. Bush.

This is not true. I have explained this before. I don't know the guy personally. I am evaluating his performance as a war president. If it was anybody else, the'd be getting the same evaluation irregardless of who or what they were.

Welcome to last year.

Gee WS, I wonder why anyone would think you had something personal against Bush?

*goes back and reads your posts in this thread and others*

Oh yeah, that's why.

:::11oh1:::

Does it matter if he has something personal against Bush? Not really. The invasion of Iraq was based on a personal vendetta. Bush is even quoted saying, "He tried to kill my dad." If Americans aren't going to hold their President accountable for waging a personal war based on lies, then one would reason holding a concerned citizen of the U.S. accountable for waging a personal war against Bush using facts, not lies, is simple-mindedly hypocritical and arrogant.

(Edited by metahuman on 11-04-2004 23:13)

*shrugs*

If that is what you think. If, however, that is the impression that you have gotten, then I apologize, for that was not my intent. I just get tired of digging up thing after thing that directly supports my conclusions, only to have them be bluntly ignored concerning a number of things that Mr. Bush has made mistakes on.

I suppose I should just let it slide. It will not make any difference, and will not change things.

That is probably the only thing to learn here. It won't change things, to point out that someone was wrong. The deed is done.

*shrugs*

WS, I am not saying there were no mistakes. And you're right I am not totally up on all the details. But that is because I agree with the overall effort. I am saying that there is no way you can do something of this magnitude without making mistakes. Look an any and every war that has ever been fought and I'll show you mistakes upon mistakes. But the winners were the ones who learn from and move quickly from those mistakes and perservered. Before any of the wars began, I always pointed out that they would be messy and horrific but that they were justified and necessary. I won't spell out all my reasons here again. We've been there the two of us.

[edit]One more point I forgot... When were the two towers attacked originally? Was that not sufficient heads up? [/edit]

mobrul, we refers to the country and the leadership collectively. You are absolutely correct that those on your side and on the right as well were warning of the danger all along. I remember the warnings years ago. I remember the hearing where experts testified that it wasn't a question of if we would be attacked but when we would be attacked. We (collectively as a people and nation) did not take the appropriate steps to head it off. Would you agree with that?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-04-2004 23:28)

quote:

---

I just get tired of digging up thing after thing that directly supports my conclusions, only to have them be bluntly ignored concerning a number of things that Mr. Bush has made mistakes on.

---

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

That's absurd. John Kerry was completely out of touch with the American people. He had bad political plans, terrible social plans, and frankly, stupid economic plans. That's why Bush won, because he was the better of the two candidates that could win the election. There's no reason to believe that everyone who voted for Bush did so because they "continue to support the incompetent fool", it was just unimaginable letting someone like John Kerry sneak into power through anger at Bush, and then beat up on America with a ridiculous platform.

Absolutely agree with it =)
(Just hadn't posted in a while...itchy fingers... )

There is no such thing as a war on terrorism

The fallacy of the war on terror

Here's some polls to consider: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

Two Nations Under God

(Edited by metahuman on 11-05-2004 00:08)

I know I'm entering into this a little late... well, a lot late really... But I just wanted to interject my opinion into the quagmire...

It took me until just a few days before the election to finally decide who to vote for. I wasn't happy when I filled in the little oval next to President Bush's name. Ultimately it came down to one thing for me - the Iraqi people. Regardless of the reasons we went over there, and regardless of the mistakes that had been made I felt that come what may, we had to finish what we started. Senator Kerry was an unknown quantity - I couldn't trust that whatever his "plans" were included doing the job in Iraq. I felt that we couldn't just pack up and leave and expect the Iraqi people and/or the UN to come in and clean up the mess.

I made this decision despite the fact that the majority of what President Bush stands for goes against my core beliefs. It irritates me to no end that he lets his faith dictate the policy of the United States. <Hands over can opener for Can 'o Worms> If there had been a better, more competent opponent than Senator Kerry, I may have found myself in the "Anybody but Bush" camp...

On a side note - a movie just recently opened in our area that I am planning to go and see. It's called Voices of Iraq (not sure if info has been posted about this yet or not... I may have missed it) Basically the film maker sent a bunch of people over to Iraq with 150 camcorders. They gave them to the Iraqi people with instructions to tape their daily lives, interview each other, basically give the outside world an inside view of their lives. They received something like 70 of the cameras back. I'll post info about it once I go and see it...

People shouldn't vote if they haven't researched the candidates.

Wikipedia: George W. Bush

Wikipedia: John Kerry

Regardless of who occupies the Throne, business will continue to run America and America will continue to run on business. I'm not worried.

_____________
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!

meta,

quote:

---

There is no war against terrorism. There can be no such thing against an enemy that remains dormant most of the time and is almost never visible. It's simply another of life's inevitable troubles, and all we can do as we continue to combat it is repeat Cervantes's famous phrase "Paciencia y barajar": "Have patience, and keep shuffling the cards."

---

Emphasis was added by me from your link above meta. This is a key disagreement I had with John Kerry. I believe he subscribed to the bold text I quoted. I do not think we should treat this particular brand of terrorism as a bump in the road of life. Like it or not, the US under Bush's leadership has embarked on a global attack on this "bump". I believe we can drastically reduce and possibly eliminate this particular brand of terrorism from our world if we persevere. I very much want us to to do that because I have seen what happens when we allow it to fester. I do not wish to see more 9/11s as a result. Spain, to their utter shame, has emboldened Islamist terrorists by their policy of appeasement.

Anyway, just so you don't think I never agree with you, I agree 100% with:

quote:

---

metahuman said:

People shouldn't vote if they haven't researched the candidates.

---

Trey Parker and Matt Stone would be very proud of you having that position too

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-05-2004 01:22)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Like it or not, the US under Bush's leadership has embarked on a global attack on this "bump". I believe we can drastically reduce and possibly eliminate this particular brand of terrorism from our world if we persevere. I very much want us to to do that because I have seen what happens when we allow it to fester.

---

As usual, evidence exists contrary to your beliefs. Worldwide terrorism has increased, the rate of growth of terrorist groups have increased... Bush serves as a recruiting poster for terrorists. It's only a matter of time before there's another instance of terrorism in the United States thanks to your incompetent president, George "the Burning" Bush. I've seen what happens when you fight fire with fire. The fire simply grows.

_____________
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!

Please welcome King George of the United States.



(Edited by metahuman on 11-05-2004 02:23)

I voted in California... 55 electoral votes and no one bothered to campaign here. [OK, that's hyperbole but fairly mild hyperbole]

I myself saw very little difference between Kerry and Bush, if my vote would have actually counted for anything I probably would have voted for Bush. Not necessarily the lesser of two evils, the more predictable of two evils. He is gonna do some Saber Rattling, some international offending, and some downright despicable things. But I believe Kerry would have also done more damage than good. Hell, they'll both as likely to do more damage than good. At least I know a little more with Bush so I would've gone for the better known of two evils.

But, I voted in California so... I voted Libertarian. It's the lessest of all evils. Too bad they will never get by the corporate juggernaut that is powering our two party system... Oh well, only four short years till we see the Cheney 2008 bumper stickers.

I hope someone can prop up a sock puppet or SOMEONE that can nip that in the bud.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

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

You don't really believe it'll be Cheney in 2008, do you? Rudolf Giuliani might have something to say about that... Arnie too if he can get the amendment passed.

Congrats on voting libertarian though. If more people would take the initiative, maybe they could actually break the two party system. You need to keep voting for the best candidate, and not voting to prevent one from winning, it's the only way the system will improve.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

nope, not doing much to convince me who the international moral giant is here. at least the one about the grandfathers helping those countries brought out the warm fuzzies ...

as for my 'mustard', i'm still a little surprised that even with so much international opposition, Bush managed to win another term. that's gotta count for something, i guess.

i've always been impressed with the patriotism of American people and am convinced that it has contributed much to the fact that the US is still a super-power in the world.

while i can see why Kerry wasn't elected, i just hope Americans made their collective decision with serious consideration and foresite and that this president will have their allegience no matter what the next four years brings.

(Edited by LaSun on 11-08-2004 10:59)