^That's where you addressed the republican thing.Quote:
2.) If campaigns were won on what is absolute, what is right, what is undisputable, then republicans would win every election!
...is inaccurate. The most honest, hard working president in MY lifetime was Jimmy Carter (D-Georga). The most compitent? Prob. not. But , from what I've seen, the mutch malligned peanut-farmer seems to be the only man who has held the office who cared two hoots about the people he served.
This one is for Tonia
Moderator: Admin
-
Bob-Z (kabre)
- Town Member
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:06 pm
- Contact:
Moo.
There has also been a Democratic President in that time as well.Bob-Z (kabre) wrote:^That's where you addressed the republican thing.Quote:
2.) If campaigns were won on what is absolute, what is right, what is undisputable, then republicans would win every election!
...is inaccurate. The most honest, hard working president in MY lifetime was Jimmy Carter (D-Georga). The most compitent? Prob. not. But , from what I've seen, the mutch malligned peanut-farmer seems to be the only man who has held the office who cared two hoots about the people he served.
Let's tick the Presidents off shall we (admittedly just the bad points
)Johnson: truely a lacky for the military/industrial complex
Nixon: attempted to illegally influance the election and can you say slush fund?
Ford: The only man to hold the office who was never elected to the Executive Branch in any capacity.
Carter: nice guy, but not really suited to the job.
Reagon: (Got my First vote for President )"I don't remember." Okay color me afraid.
Bush Sr.(Or, otherwise known as "Top Spook"): (got one vote) Ex-Directer of the CIA, er...um...no thankyou + "Hey, I inherited a booming economy...oops" (Yes I know that the President really has very little to do with the state of the economy, but...)
Clinton: (voted for him twice) Forget about cigars in the oval office, what about a string of murders and campain money from China.
Bush Jr.(Or, "Son of Top Spook"): Like most sequils you get all the stuff from the original, but not as good.
As you can see three of these gents are, or were Demicrats so the statement was not directed at Republicans.
And to go back to what is, or was on the record; Carter got elected for two reasons, both proven and on the record.
a: Georga was pulling out of the recesion faster than most of the rest of the country.
And heres the big one
b: FORD PARDONED NIXON, the most reviled man in the country at the time. What do you think the chances are of one of the members of the O. J. Simpson jury getting elected?
P.S. this is fun
Ignorance can be fixed...stupid you're stuck with
As a prefix I would like to stress that this is a freindly debate. That being said,I must have blocked this out the first time I read the post.
Yes, the war was the wrong decision. At least the way it started was. All the U.N. asked ( the U.N., you know, that organization the USA supported until last year) was to give the weapon inspecters one more go at it, but sence that wasn't what Son of Top Spook wanted to hear, what happened was the American people got inundated, in print and video, with "suspisions" of WMDs and "proof" of the ties between Hussan and Bin-Ladin. [see below] So I guess we were all misinformed.
So let's look at this misinformation. If Dubbya wanted proof of WMDs he should have just asked his daddy for the reciepts. From 1980 up until the invasion of Kewait the U.S. sold Iraq millions of tons worth of military equipment, including nerv agents.(you know, for that nasty Kerd infestation).
Which brings us to the ties between Hussan and Bin-Ladin. I know it gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that Americans are the ONLY people on this earth that Bin-Ladin hates MORE than Hussan. For religious, fiscal and documented personal reasons, if those two were left alone in the same room, neither would walk out. I knew this before the invasion, how did the CIA miss it? I guess they were misinformed.
Yes, Clinton could have prevented this, however, after being chased out of Somalia (not by the Somalians, but by congress) the only thing he was aloud to do in that part of the world was wring his hand over the Palistine/Isreal situation. He was not only nutered by congress, but let's be honest here, the American people would have gone up in flames had he put his hands into another powder keg.
The whole impeachment thing is old. Suffice to say that, despite a long string of "mysterious" deaths and campain financing from China the man got inpeached for a blow-job (yeah, yeah, I know, bla bla lieing to the grand jury, bla bla), but six years after the fact let's be honest with our-selves. Congress was up in arms because the President got his knob polished under the desk. That's just weak.
/rant_off
Any thing said here is not ment to offend and is only ment in the spirit of freindly debate.[/u]
/rant_on3.) If you think that war was the wrong decision, then you are completely misinformed, or haven't been keeping up. War also may have been avoided if our prior president was more concerned about world affairs than about keeping his own ass out of jail
Yes, the war was the wrong decision. At least the way it started was. All the U.N. asked ( the U.N., you know, that organization the USA supported until last year) was to give the weapon inspecters one more go at it, but sence that wasn't what Son of Top Spook wanted to hear, what happened was the American people got inundated, in print and video, with "suspisions" of WMDs and "proof" of the ties between Hussan and Bin-Ladin. [see below] So I guess we were all misinformed.
So let's look at this misinformation. If Dubbya wanted proof of WMDs he should have just asked his daddy for the reciepts. From 1980 up until the invasion of Kewait the U.S. sold Iraq millions of tons worth of military equipment, including nerv agents.(you know, for that nasty Kerd infestation).
Which brings us to the ties between Hussan and Bin-Ladin. I know it gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that Americans are the ONLY people on this earth that Bin-Ladin hates MORE than Hussan. For religious, fiscal and documented personal reasons, if those two were left alone in the same room, neither would walk out. I knew this before the invasion, how did the CIA miss it? I guess they were misinformed.
Yes, Clinton could have prevented this, however, after being chased out of Somalia (not by the Somalians, but by congress) the only thing he was aloud to do in that part of the world was wring his hand over the Palistine/Isreal situation. He was not only nutered by congress, but let's be honest here, the American people would have gone up in flames had he put his hands into another powder keg.
The whole impeachment thing is old. Suffice to say that, despite a long string of "mysterious" deaths and campain financing from China the man got inpeached for a blow-job (yeah, yeah, I know, bla bla lieing to the grand jury, bla bla), but six years after the fact let's be honest with our-selves. Congress was up in arms because the President got his knob polished under the desk. That's just weak.
/rant_off
Any thing said here is not ment to offend and is only ment in the spirit of freindly debate.[/u]
Last edited by McEwan on Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ignorance can be fixed...stupid you're stuck with
-
Onyksi Rin'oviryn
- Town Member
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:34 pm
- Location: six underground
I'm not getting into this, however...
Hey Bobby.. ever hear of the Kyoto Agreement? The environmental act that all the rest of the world loves and has signed, even newly industrialized countries whom it could seriously injure, but yet Bush won't even let Congress vote on?
That's it, I'm done. Irish pub rules.
Hey Bobby.. ever hear of the Kyoto Agreement? The environmental act that all the rest of the world loves and has signed, even newly industrialized countries whom it could seriously injure, but yet Bush won't even let Congress vote on?
That's it, I'm done. Irish pub rules.
-
Bob-Z (kabre)
- Town Member
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:06 pm
- Contact:
Yes, I’m familiar with the Kyoto protocol; but, your zeal against Bush has distorted the truth. The senet DID vote on the Kyoto protocol when it was initially presented to them. The results: 95 - 0 AGAINST it. Now that was a few years ago. To say that "everyone loves it" is total bullshit, because even 4 years after it was conceived not 1 single industrialized nation would agree to it. Only after years of revision have countries started to change their minds, as the revisions start to suit their cultures better. Russia just ratified the bastard like yesterday, and it's speculated that the main driving force was the acceptance of their bid into the World Trade Organization.
What would happen if congress were to vote on it tomorrow? It wouldn't pass. Why? Because as the worlds biggest economic superpower, under the current iteration of the KP, it would be nothing less than devastating to our economy (MUCH more than any other economy), then you'd be bitching about Bush for that when you can't find a job, and are driving a 2-cylindar pod, half the size of a Geo that you die in when you hit something.
. The U.S. is working on different alternatives for world climate concerns, but as the KP is written, its not feasible.
This is neither here nor there, but many respected scientists have hypothesized that the warming of the earth is part of its natural cycle, that is doing what it has done for the past few thousand years, and that greenhouse emissions are not as huge of a threat as some think.
What would happen if congress were to vote on it tomorrow? It wouldn't pass. Why? Because as the worlds biggest economic superpower, under the current iteration of the KP, it would be nothing less than devastating to our economy (MUCH more than any other economy), then you'd be bitching about Bush for that when you can't find a job, and are driving a 2-cylindar pod, half the size of a Geo that you die in when you hit something.
. The U.S. is working on different alternatives for world climate concerns, but as the KP is written, its not feasible. This is neither here nor there, but many respected scientists have hypothesized that the warming of the earth is part of its natural cycle, that is doing what it has done for the past few thousand years, and that greenhouse emissions are not as huge of a threat as some think.
Moo.
-
Donovan Thynedar
- Town Member
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:18 am
- Location: With his beloved at the end of all things.
- Contact:
All right, dammit. You've all provoked me into speaking up.
Quick salvo:
-Of course the US is going to be reluctant to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. As a nation, the US is responsible for 36.1% of global emissions. Considering that those emissions are coming from less than 8% of the world's population, serious questions must be raised about American consumption and resource management.
-Kyoto currently has 125 signatories, which is numerically sufficient to put the Protocol into force. However, due to Article 25 of the agreement, countries representing 55% of the total emissions (by 1990 figures) must ratify the Protocol for it to come into effect. With the Russian Federation's ratification (Yes Bob, it was yesterday) countries representing ~61% of global emissions will have signed on, and thus the Protocol will come into effect. Unfortunately, the United States withdrew from the Protocol in 2001. Even if we hadn't, the Protocol was passed through the General Assembly, meaning it is not a binding treaty.
-Though I have come to like the man for his personality, I was thoroughly pissed at Clinton for lying under oath. I didn't like the idea of a sex scandal in the White House, nor did I necessarily agree with people who made it the end-all-be-all of crimes against the nation, but the lying under oath made me advocate the impeachment regardless of partisan concerns. I don't care who it is or for what reason, if the President of the United States is found to have lied to a legally convened grand jury, then the man should no longer be President. Period. It's not about privacy, sex, or what the prudish right thinks about either: it's about truth, respect, and responsibility. That's not weak, it's fucking essential.
-On the subject of truth, right now no one can truly say what W knew or didn't know in respect to Iraq, and I can't demonize or exonerate him based off of spin and half-reported intelligence. He could have gone to war with the best of intentions, he could have gone with the worst, and from my observations there is no accurate way to know why he really went. People choose to believe one version or another, and whatever decision they make they find that there is a heap of spin in support of it.
Once you get past the pundits trying to make W into either the second coming or the devil himself, you look at the war in terms of utility. IF the goal of a free and democratic Iraq is accomplished, THEN is the amount of resources (both human and economic) put into accomplishing that goal a good use of US assets? How you answer will determine your opinion of the war, and since it's subjective, there's no right or wrong answer. Luckily, a right or wrong answer is not required. We all make our own decisions and make them known on November 2nd.
-Everyone is concerned with how 9/11 might have been prevented. They want to know who they can blame, who is at fault, and the closer to home, the better. To use a baseball analogy, it's like blaming the outfielder for not catching home run that goes a foot over the fence. Sure, if they just happen to be really skilled and get really lucky, they can catch it, but don't count on it. Who do you blame? The pitcher? He's doing the best he can for the team. The batter? Can't blame him, he's just responding to having a ball thrown at him. It's a round of "pass the blame", and in my opinion it's rather pathetic for people to need some sort of witch-hunt to make themselves feel better about something like 9/11. The real culprit is a combination of policy, attitude, circumstance, and idealism that is far to complicated for most people to cope with comfortably. Moreover, blaming the things that are actually responsible does nothing to advance a party agenda or give people that self-righteous perk they love so much, so people point fingers and revel in their indignation.
-Face it, aside from personal preference and empathy, there is little to tell us about the character of either candidate. Most people can't accurately judge the character of the people closest to them, much less someone they don't know and who is being promoted and vilified by millions of dollars worth of advertising. When it comes down to it, people have the candidate's record, platform, and their own opinion of the candidate as rational factors in their decision of whom to support. Neither man is the spawn of evil, nor is either a paragon of virtue. Find out whom you agree with, and support them.
-By and large, I abstain from political discussions nowadays because no one wants to talk about how to actually solve anything. No one is interested in discussing the finer points of pubic policy or the intricacies of international diplomacy. All people want to do is leap into their prescribed roles on either side of the isle and lob shit and spin at one another. Outside of a few select circles, I would shit a golden kitten if I actually saw people arguing the merits of one candidate's solution in comparison to their opponent without using character attacks or pseudo-scientific generalizations. It's never "John Kerry's plan is wrong because it does not account for adequate funding for his social initiatives", it's "John Kerry is a liberal asshole who will leave America defenseless against terrorists". You don't hear "President Bush's foreign policy threatens to destabilize the United States in an increasingly international world", you get "W is a warmongering Nazi racist!"
... I laugh to keep from weeping.
Quick salvo:
-Of course the US is going to be reluctant to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. As a nation, the US is responsible for 36.1% of global emissions. Considering that those emissions are coming from less than 8% of the world's population, serious questions must be raised about American consumption and resource management.
-Kyoto currently has 125 signatories, which is numerically sufficient to put the Protocol into force. However, due to Article 25 of the agreement, countries representing 55% of the total emissions (by 1990 figures) must ratify the Protocol for it to come into effect. With the Russian Federation's ratification (Yes Bob, it was yesterday) countries representing ~61% of global emissions will have signed on, and thus the Protocol will come into effect. Unfortunately, the United States withdrew from the Protocol in 2001. Even if we hadn't, the Protocol was passed through the General Assembly, meaning it is not a binding treaty.
-Though I have come to like the man for his personality, I was thoroughly pissed at Clinton for lying under oath. I didn't like the idea of a sex scandal in the White House, nor did I necessarily agree with people who made it the end-all-be-all of crimes against the nation, but the lying under oath made me advocate the impeachment regardless of partisan concerns. I don't care who it is or for what reason, if the President of the United States is found to have lied to a legally convened grand jury, then the man should no longer be President. Period. It's not about privacy, sex, or what the prudish right thinks about either: it's about truth, respect, and responsibility. That's not weak, it's fucking essential.
-On the subject of truth, right now no one can truly say what W knew or didn't know in respect to Iraq, and I can't demonize or exonerate him based off of spin and half-reported intelligence. He could have gone to war with the best of intentions, he could have gone with the worst, and from my observations there is no accurate way to know why he really went. People choose to believe one version or another, and whatever decision they make they find that there is a heap of spin in support of it.
Once you get past the pundits trying to make W into either the second coming or the devil himself, you look at the war in terms of utility. IF the goal of a free and democratic Iraq is accomplished, THEN is the amount of resources (both human and economic) put into accomplishing that goal a good use of US assets? How you answer will determine your opinion of the war, and since it's subjective, there's no right or wrong answer. Luckily, a right or wrong answer is not required. We all make our own decisions and make them known on November 2nd.
-Everyone is concerned with how 9/11 might have been prevented. They want to know who they can blame, who is at fault, and the closer to home, the better. To use a baseball analogy, it's like blaming the outfielder for not catching home run that goes a foot over the fence. Sure, if they just happen to be really skilled and get really lucky, they can catch it, but don't count on it. Who do you blame? The pitcher? He's doing the best he can for the team. The batter? Can't blame him, he's just responding to having a ball thrown at him. It's a round of "pass the blame", and in my opinion it's rather pathetic for people to need some sort of witch-hunt to make themselves feel better about something like 9/11. The real culprit is a combination of policy, attitude, circumstance, and idealism that is far to complicated for most people to cope with comfortably. Moreover, blaming the things that are actually responsible does nothing to advance a party agenda or give people that self-righteous perk they love so much, so people point fingers and revel in their indignation.
-Face it, aside from personal preference and empathy, there is little to tell us about the character of either candidate. Most people can't accurately judge the character of the people closest to them, much less someone they don't know and who is being promoted and vilified by millions of dollars worth of advertising. When it comes down to it, people have the candidate's record, platform, and their own opinion of the candidate as rational factors in their decision of whom to support. Neither man is the spawn of evil, nor is either a paragon of virtue. Find out whom you agree with, and support them.
-By and large, I abstain from political discussions nowadays because no one wants to talk about how to actually solve anything. No one is interested in discussing the finer points of pubic policy or the intricacies of international diplomacy. All people want to do is leap into their prescribed roles on either side of the isle and lob shit and spin at one another. Outside of a few select circles, I would shit a golden kitten if I actually saw people arguing the merits of one candidate's solution in comparison to their opponent without using character attacks or pseudo-scientific generalizations. It's never "John Kerry's plan is wrong because it does not account for adequate funding for his social initiatives", it's "John Kerry is a liberal asshole who will leave America defenseless against terrorists". You don't hear "President Bush's foreign policy threatens to destabilize the United States in an increasingly international world", you get "W is a warmongering Nazi racist!"
... I laugh to keep from weeping.
One should rather die than be betrayed. There is no deceit in death. It delivers precisely what it has promised. Betrayal, though ... betrayal is the willful slaughter of hope.
-
Bob-Z (kabre)
- Town Member
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:06 pm
- Contact:
RE: the last paragraph (good post btw). If John Kerry would let us in a little bit on his actual PLAN, then it might be possible to bash or praise it (thus giving us more to say about him other than "he is a liberal asshole") Right now we have little more than his past record as a Senetor, and his assurance that he has a damn good "plan".
BTW this thread was supposed to have lost momentum after Tonia and I had a brief banter about it. It was essentially a little joke in response to her republican joke thread. I probably shouldn't have posted it at all, because, as Taki said, what this thread has evolved into is just a bunch of opinionated, argumentative garbage. We're all pretty defensive about our beliefs, and nobody is swaying anyones vote in here so I think we should abandon it.. (feel free to comment on the first half of this post though... I dont wanna be one of those guys that posts something and then isn't willing to back it up with further discussion 
.
BTW this thread was supposed to have lost momentum after Tonia and I had a brief banter about it. It was essentially a little joke in response to her republican joke thread. I probably shouldn't have posted it at all, because, as Taki said, what this thread has evolved into is just a bunch of opinionated, argumentative garbage. We're all pretty defensive about our beliefs, and nobody is swaying anyones vote in here so I think we should abandon it.
. (feel free to comment on the first half of this post though... I dont wanna be one of those guys that posts something and then isn't willing to back it up with further discussion .Moo.
Please forgive me
I seem to have a defect that causes me to use political and religious debates the same way some people use getting someone drunk (ie. you don't know how someone really is until you've seen them drunk). This is and was all in good fun.
Taki, I agree with me co-debater, good post. Althooooo....[see defect above ] I agree that liying before the grand jury was inexcusible I also don't believe the question should have ever been asked, It was ilrrelvant to the case to which the special prosicuter was hired. To put it another way. Could any President servive the scutiny of a special prosicuter with the powers he was given?
Washington slept around
Jefferson had an affare with a slave
Lincoln's wife was insane
Jackson was a mass murderer
Teddy Rosivelt(sp) took vacations with Ford and Firestone
FDR had polio
Kennidy was a womanizer
None of these men would have servived a special prosicuter, none of them, and prob. non of us. I just feel holding the President to a higher standard is one thing, but holding him to an impossible standard is another.
As for the flu vaccine discusion, I am torn. A $5 million settelment is excesive to say the least, but so is the refusal to provide a vital medication. So who is at fault the attorney, or the pharm. company? Neither. Like it or not we live in a capitalistic scocity, where the driving force is to make money, you and I included. Both sides were just doing their jobs. The Phar. company is out to get as much money as they can for the product they produce and Edwards was out to get as much money for his client as he could. Those are their jobs. Wether, or not you or, I agree with their jobs, the possisions and the numbers would stay fairly constant considering the situation and the scociety no matter who is in the courtroom.
Some things are inevitable.
When that litigious bastard decided to sue over getting the sniffles, that court case was going to happen and the outcome and the settlement would have remained similar no matter who the attorney was.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the U.S. would have entered WWII no matter who the President was, and when 9/11 happend we would have gone into Pakastan no matter who the President was.
Cause and effect is a constant and is presant more offtain than we think, or probably would like.
P.S. please don't kill this thread. noone is posting on the continueing adventures and this is the most fun I've had in a long time
lol
I seem to have a defect that causes me to use political and religious debates the same way some people use getting someone drunk (ie. you don't know how someone really is until you've seen them drunk). This is and was all in good fun.
Taki, I agree with me co-debater, good post. Althooooo....[see defect above
] I agree that liying before the grand jury was inexcusible I also don't believe the question should have ever been asked, It was ilrrelvant to the case to which the special prosicuter was hired. To put it another way. Could any President servive the scutiny of a special prosicuter with the powers he was given?Washington slept around
Jefferson had an affare with a slave
Lincoln's wife was insane
Jackson was a mass murderer
Teddy Rosivelt(sp) took vacations with Ford and Firestone
FDR had polio
Kennidy was a womanizer
None of these men would have servived a special prosicuter, none of them, and prob. non of us. I just feel holding the President to a higher standard is one thing, but holding him to an impossible standard is another.
As for the flu vaccine discusion, I am torn. A $5 million settelment is excesive to say the least, but so is the refusal to provide a vital medication. So who is at fault the attorney, or the pharm. company? Neither. Like it or not we live in a capitalistic scocity, where the driving force is to make money, you and I included. Both sides were just doing their jobs. The Phar. company is out to get as much money as they can for the product they produce and Edwards was out to get as much money for his client as he could. Those are their jobs. Wether, or not you or, I agree with their jobs, the possisions and the numbers would stay fairly constant considering the situation and the scociety no matter who is in the courtroom.
Some things are inevitable.
When that litigious bastard decided to sue over getting the sniffles, that court case was going to happen and the outcome and the settlement would have remained similar no matter who the attorney was.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the U.S. would have entered WWII no matter who the President was, and when 9/11 happend we would have gone into Pakastan no matter who the President was.
Cause and effect is a constant and is presant more offtain than we think, or probably would like.
P.S. please don't kill this thread. noone is posting on the continueing adventures and this is the most fun I've had in a long time
lolIgnorance can be fixed...stupid you're stuck with
-
Bob-Z (kabre)
- Town Member
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:06 pm
- Contact:
It's politics. People believe and feel what they do and will defend it to the death even if one point is wrong or what have you. This is why well political debates on any level in this type of environment is not really a good idea for people's feelings can get hurt even if this is only meant "as fun".
Dead pirate betrayed by Corbyn...ah well least I made him do his own dirty work when he killed me.
