Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I changed what I wrote about gay marriages because what I posted in the first place wasn't how I really feel. Don't ask how I did this, I haven't been all together today but I realized it just 5 minutes ago while laying in bed and imiditely rushed down here to change it. I don't believe gay couples should have any of the rights a normal couple has. You can say this discrimination but they have the same oppertunity to marry a person of the oppsite sex and have all the same rights as anyone else does. If we let gay people get married where will it end, soon we will have two stright men that live together asking for the same rights or one guy and his 3 wives or even weirder situations.

The point is sadam had to prove that he got rid of them, he didnt, inspectors couldn't find them so we had to assume that he was hiding them which he wasn't supposed to do or even worse he sold them to some terrorist group.

edit: I think Bush will win

[ March 25, 2004, 02:53: Message edited by: Combat Wombat ]

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">When did it become the responsibility of the US to "free" people from an evil dictator? Did I miss the announcement? And what sort of precedent does that set? Should the US now free folks all over the world from the "evil dictators" they live under? Do we have the right to impose our definition of who is good and who is bad on other coutries? What if the leader of another country woke up one day and decided that President Bush is an evil dictator and decided to free us from his rule? We'd call that a war of aggression. The only thing that keeps another country from doing that is our military power. So it boils down to "might makes right", and that's wrong. That's a bully mentality.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What gives the US the right to decide who can and cannot have WMDs? I'm not in favor of all countries having them, but the fact is the US has no more right to dictate to other countries about what they can and cannot have than other countries have to dictate to us. The purpose of having the WMDs is immaterial. A soverign nation has the right to do anything it wants to do, much the same as I have a right to do anything I want to do until my exercise of that right infringes on someone else's rights. There is no international law prohibiting WMDs, at least not that I'm aware of. If Iraq uses WMDs on its own people, then that's a problem for the Iraqis. There are many more people killed with conventional weapons by repressive regimes every day. Are we to invade and save all of them?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The tax cuts are a placebo. Does anyone really believe that the $500 most Americans receive as their tax cut is going to do anything to boost the economy? It's a joke. And yes, the cuts are for the rich. Is it a coincidence that the Bush administration has so many millionaires in it? Or that so many members came from Enron, a company that was cooking the books and defrauding its stock holders and employees? Is it just happenstance that umpteen billion dollars in contracts went to Halliburton, the VP's former company, without the normal bidding process? Bush and his administration is all about money, power, and the rich.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I believe Clinton left a balanced budget. The current administration has spent and spent and spent, and to what end? The budget deficit is less a problem for me. I'm older and won't be saddled with paying it off. That'll be left to the younger folk in this country. I wish them luck.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is more to life than money and business. It won't do businesses much good to make money if the planet dies and we go with it. Drilling in national parks, logging in national parks, repealing air pollution laws and treaties is about money and nothing else. It's about putting business before people. It's about paying off the political debts a candidate acquired on the way to the White House. Does it seem likely that businesses left to their own devices will do the right thing and take care of the environment? The only reason they behave at all right now is because of laws that force them to. As the Bush administration makes it easier for them to rape the enviroment, they most certainly will.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'd say Dogscoff's opinion is right on the money. Watch the news. We have representatives who speed through intersections and kill people and try to get off. We have senators who left a young woman to drown in their car to save their career. We have presidents who lie about sexual escapades. We have governors who take bribes. Need I go on? Someone please point out the noble politician who we can look up to. Where are the Lincolns and Washingtons today?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I disagree. A candidate's military service comes into the picture for two reasons. First, a candidate who has served in the military and potentially put his life on the line for the country can certainly be viewed as more patriotic than the candidate who dodged the draft, got his/her rich daddy to pull strings to keep them out of harms way. People who really care about something are willing to fight in support of it. It sends a bad message when a person dodges their nation's call to sevice and then aspires to lead that nation. Second, a candidate who has been in the military and especially one who saw combat is going to be much more judicious about sending troops in harm's way. They have an appreciation for what it is to fight, kill, see friends killed and are much less likely to send others off to die in frivilous wars or police actions. They are also much less likely to allow a war to be drawn out because they know the cost in lives and suffering that entails. Bush used his dad's position to avoid having to go. Kerry risked his life while Bush partied. Bush is certainly better than Clinton on that point but both of them appear cowardly in the face of Kerry.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, there is something wrong with it being there. It violates the separation of church and state guaranteed in the constitution. That aside, would you feel the same way if the pledge included something that was patently offensive to you so long as you weren't required to say it?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I love a good discussion. I appreciate your opinion, although I don't agree with it, and tried to stick with the issues and avoid any personal attacks.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ahh history is always forgotten when the rhetoric comes out. So Agent Orange, a chemical defoliant used in Vietnam was not a WMD?? What about its long Lasting impact on both Veterans and the Vietnamese still living there today? Lets not even consider WMDs like the Strategic Bombing campaign waged against Germany and Japan - Dresden or Tokyo anyone?
And if you can hide behind such farcical comments as 'we have only used them once' as a justification that is inhumane. The TWO atomic bombs dropped to test them on the Japanese have killed 100 000s of people - almost all civilians. There was no justification for their use, they did not end the war any earlier than it would have. As the only country to ever use atomic weapons surely the USA should not be allowed them still???
I have managed to avoid all previous debates like this, but sometimes things are said that just need commenting upon. So much for my five stars. At least we can debate these things.

As for the original point - Nader to win allthough he has a snowballs chance in a supernova. Otherwise Kerry, the USA cannot continue on this go alone foreign policy strategy, Kerry might just return to multilateral and UN actions.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Sorry about not replying sooner.

Been busy at the courthouse. Those dimwits don't know thier left from thier right. Oh well.

Atrocities, I do agree Iraq was a possible threat, but bush's way of going about it was idiotic. The entire shock and awe campaign was a joke (I would prefered to see a MOAB go off just outside the city limits then a couple of cruise missiles). Of course, had the Iraqi army put up an actual fight....

Realistic threats are places like Somolia, Ethiopia, Syria, and Quebec (kidding on the Last one). And the Bush Administration turns a blind eye.

While bush cannot be held at fault for Clinton's mistakes, Bush has to be made accountable for not preventing it. In the Last year my income taxes have gone up by almost 500 dollars while my income itself has gone by nearly 9000. No one can say 'tax relief' helped me unless it was a relief from my income tax refund!


As for some of his laws, and this is also a fault of the Clinton Administration, are flat out unconstitutional. I understand the need to protect america, but tossing aside the highest laws of the land shows contempt for America itself. Laws of Ex Post Facto were forbidden because of thier usage during Colonial Occupation for a reason.

Kerry, I have to agree with. He's not totally the right man for the job, but he's better than bush. Kerry has been to war, unlike bush how got waivers to stay stateside, and seen what it does to people and families. Bush has not seen this with his own eyes and, imo, lacks the fortitude to properly direct our military.


Now if only both candidates could be reasonable enough to actually discuss thier platforms. Maybe a debate where bashing each other is forbidden and mentioning 9/11 is a foul. Then maybe we'll actually see the real candidates.

Kwok,
The two party system, no amtter how messed up it is, works because it's stable. That's why Nader, Perot, etc never have a chance. Multi-Party nations (more than 2 main parties) typically build coalition governments and that always seems to be a disaster in the making. One wrong move and the entire gov't goes to pieces. Then again, the politicans actually have to work in those systems...

Renegade 13,
Canada? Self Defense? what! Impossible! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

eol,
I agree with you on the other threats. What is needed in Isreal is a democratic government, not a one-sided government. Give everyone equal represenation and a government mandate to remain religiously neutral and let's see what happens. Maybe instead of dividing people into different countries the US should try uniting them.

That is how you build a nation, Last time I checked.

However, keep in mind the loss of civil liberities here will effect you. I'll direct your attention to the Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. As a result of the actions of an american, tim mcvay, and his bombing of a federal building, immigrants to the US now face deportation from things as little as a littering fine, DUI, or even bad credit. Is that fair to people coming to the US for business, work, or pleasure? I think not. By turning low level crimes into felonies foreigners, people can unkowningly be arrested and held in the immigration deportation system for any number of stupid reasons. And if you think that's bad, they can use anything from the 20 years prior to the date of the law going into effect just to make sure. Then we got the Secret Evidence Act, guess what that is used for http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Plus 9/11 is a reminder that jsut because it doesn't happen in my back yard now doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

As for the skull and bones, it might be more surprising to learn that GWB's grandfather, Prescott Bush was fined a million dollars for aiding the Nazi's in WW1. It's funny how the California recall brought up arnold's father being a Nazi armyman, but no one ever mentions Prescott Bush. Then again, the Bush Family shares a line to King George the III and that's amusing because Powell's family does too.


Geo,
I'll bet you there isn't enough money in the world to pay the US to take Chirac.


Atrocities, David,
On my Last vacation abroad in 95, I found the easiest way to get through customs is to look exhausted and half awake and to have about 30 suitcases loaded on one trolly. Works best if you are entering at a Miami, LA, Texas, or Pheonix airport. The heat and the sweat will get anyone stinking up the high heaven and they'll wave you through with the air freshner can. lol

Wombat,
The tax cuts didn't help me. Don't assume everyone was helped just because the president keeps saying so. Myself and a number of my friends all got hit hard by the tax relief.

As for the debt, In real life, when someone runs up a huge debt and doesn't pay for it, it goes into collections. This is one way wars have started. I do recall Mexico was invaded once for not repaying thier debts. One of the causes of Hitler's rise was the fact Germany was placed into collections at the end of WW1. Going from a 5 trillion surplus to a 5 billion debt means a lot of money was lost real fast and someone wasn't keeping a tab on the account balance while writing bad checks.

Oil drilling does harm the enviroment. Of course, greenpeace using disel-powered boats doesn't help it. Take the tundra where it takes over a century for a footprint to fade in some places. What would oil drilling do to that ecosystem and all the frozen freshwater there? I like my ice without texas crude.

Forest fires are also a natural process of nature. By preventing them with logging operations we risk making the forest fires worse, or even speeding up growth of various deserts. A simply solution would be to make it mandatory that for every tree cut down, two or three saplings must be planted and left to grow.

Hydrogen fuel cells development, like Mars Mission and Moon Base and immigration visas for illegal workers are all fallacies produced for gaining votes. It simply won't happen. Gas prices can rise up to 10 bucks a gallon, and it still won't happen. Not until law makers get decisive.

Abortion, I can agree with you on. However, it should be allowed incase the mother's life is in danger and nother can be done to save the fetus. I have serious moral concerns about gay adoptions as it may hidner a child's emotional and social development.

Gay marriage I'm half and half, but not because it's supposed to be between a man and a women, but because it shouldn't be an issue. Leave it to the states to decide and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution to enforce. Issue resolved. To me, civil unions is jsut a way of saying 'common law marriage' and de-politicalize it. Safe way out for bush.

Anyways, now my arm is gonna hurt because I typed too damn much in one sitting.

As for who will win, I say whoever takes Dixieville Notch in upstate New Hampshire. Last year was bush and the year before was clinton. Hopefully they are back into thier stride because up until 50 years ago, they always predicted the outcome of every election.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">At least it sounds like you *want* to vote, which is refreshing, even if I don't agree with most of your points.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Soon, hopefully... Unfortunately, the US will be in Iraq for some time to come, and there will not be a solid government there for even longer. Ditto for Afghanistan, which most people seem to have forgotten about. Not to mention all the other places we have "peacekeeping" troops (IIRC, N/S Korea border, former Yugoslavia (sp?), various locations in Africa, all over Latin America, etc.)

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, if you will kindly look back at your history textbooks, you will see that we in fact used them *twice* in World War II. And I'm not sure on this point, someone who has more military knowledge than I can confirm or deny, but the US Military currently uses low-yield nuclear bombs as a part of it's regular arsenal. I recall seeing a bomb used in Afghanistan which was designed to penetrate the ground several feet deep near a cave network, then detonate, and it was something on order of 1/20th the power of the "Little Boy" Hiroshima bomb.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Drilling for oil has other impacts on the surrounding environment. I know, I grew up in Northwest Pennsylvania where the whole oil thing started. While most environmental Groups severely underestimate the ability of an ecosystem to recover from "oil exploration", that still doesn't mean that it's an OK thing to do.

As for the "hydrogen economy", most people who have more than superficial knowledge on the subject will tell you that it is largely a chimera. To have a hydrogen economy, you need energy to split hydrogen off of other molecules. One way to do this is split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and so far, most of the energy to do this is derived from... fossil fuels. Another way to get the hydrogen is put fossil fuels through an expensive chemical process to extract the hydrogen. So everything you've heard hyping hydrogen powered cars and the like has been just that: Hype. Hydrogen costs more energy than it generates.

The Bush energy policy tries to drive a middle road between what the industry wants (making it easier to increase supply) and what the environmental lobby wants (making it easier for consumers to conserve energy). It has been critisized a lot since it was first released because it does not promote conservation much. The issue has largely disappeared from the media since the energy plan was released, but the huge "energy crisis" it was designed to combat turns out to have not really existed, so we're left with a plan that is mostly short-term supply increase, and little effort into the long-term strategy of increasing efficiency.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The Judeo-Christian religious definition of marriage that we use is between man and woman, yes. But just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it can't change. I direct your attention to the slavery debate...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I find many other things with the Bush presidency disturbing, other than the Patriot Acts championed by Mr. Ashcroft. For one, the extreme secrecy and lying about various issues: Clear Skies Initiative, which loosened pollution requirements on industry, Healthy Forests Initiative, which loosened logging restrictions, the continued refusal to release who had a hand in creating the administration's energy policy, pressuring intelligence agencies to come up with convenient facts about other countries' weapons, releasing severely underestimated costs for the healthcare bill and the Iraq war to Congress, on, and on, and on... Then there's the economy. You can say that the current economic situation is not the fault of the current administration all you want, but it doesn't matter when the economic policy consisted only of huge tax cuts that could not be afforded by the government, and largely ignoring the economy the rest of the time unless media started reporting on the lack of attention to the economy too much. Then a few speeches are made, and nothing is really done, and the media reports go away. Bush has absolutely no idea on how to deal with foreign policy, his economic ideas are a joke, and the military aspect of his administration is largely handled by other people, who are far too trigger-happy for my tastes. I really cannot wait for the election, so Bush can be replaced by someone who will actually *DO* something.

As for Democrats not having any "proof" of Bush going AWOL... I thought the fact that Bush didn't show up for something like 7 months for his National Guard duty was enough to show that he was Absent With Out Leave. That's the definition, in fact.

For the other charges against Democrats, I (sort of) agree. I don't like either of the two parties, but I side with Democrats far more often than I do Republicans.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok, here I think you're just flat out wrong, at least in the case of a US Presidential election. Military service has everything to do with the position, since the President is Commander in Chief of the military. I would highly prefer a military leader who actually has some military experience. A President with no military experience will have less support from the very troops he commands, and that is not a good thing for the country. I also think a President who knows what the military life is like will be a little more hesitant to send soldiers into combat situation, and be more concerned with the duration of a conflict. These are things I think Bush has largely ignored.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry, but little chance of this happening. There is still a very large portion of the population around that would not take kindly to a President that is not what my friends call a WASP male (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male). Predjudice still exists in many places in the US, and it is very hard to overcome.

For the Pledge, what most people seem to ignore is the fact that "under God" was inserted during the McCarthy witch hunt era, in addition to the "In God we Trust" on currency, etc. This can barely scratch by the Constitutions prohibition on the government from respecting the establishment of any religion, by arguing that it is a 'spiritual' god mentioned, and not the Christian god in particular. But anyone who truly believes this, in my humble opinion, is being very naive. Would it really harm someone if the pledge was reverted back to "I pledge allegience to the Flag, and to the Republic for which It stands, One Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All"? I personally think the original is far more patriotic and inclusive, which is what the US is supposed to be. All those who are complaining about changing it back also happen to be Christians it seems...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh, I'm sure we all can remain civil.

There's probably some stuff in this post that could be considered flamebait, I'll be editing later to make things a bit more civil... but I gotta run now. Apologies in advance, no intention to insult anyone was intended (really!). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I am rather stunned by what I am reading here. Some of the people I respected have said such horrible and senseless things. Have they been mislead? Are they willfully ignorant? I have been trying to set up a rebuttal for these (IMHO) bad arguments, but my mind is so aghast with horror, it starts to cloud with every reading. Furthermore, I am not very glib to begin with. Fortunately, someone else has done a decent job, and I agree with most of what he says on his website. So I'm putting a link to him in my sig, and I hope it will at least encourage debate, if not enlighten.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

Here's my opinion of politicians:

The people who want to be politicians make the worst leaders. Only the truly good people (the ones who DON'T want to be the politicians and leaders) make good leaders. That's why we don't have the Lincolns and Washingtons, because they were good people forced to do something they didn't really want to do. But they made some damn good leaders.

That I think is the real problem with the political leaders.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So um....are you going to tell us up front whose opinion you agree with?

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

I think he means the link in his sig. Which, at quick glance, seems to be anti-Bush, and wants Kuchnich as President.

Re: OT: Election 2004
 

*sigh*

The endless debate. Never ending because people view the world and events differently.

Every time I hear Kerry speak I fear for this country. And Hilary makes me even more scared.

I am voting for Bush because America is in danger. 3000 people were murdered on 9/11. Most were Innocent civilians just going to work. Only the Pentagon was a legitimate target.

Wake up boys and girls we are at the beginning of the next World War. There are Groups out there that hate the free world and are moving to destroy us. And so far Bush is the only candidate who has done something and stands his ground. I would rather fight 5 Wars abroad then have to fight one on our own soil. And if you think that it will end with Iraq then you have not been paying attention.