Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War

[PvK]

Ya, good parenting does not need to include physical punishment. If the child values the parents' approval enough, serious disapproval about serious misbehaviour can teach plenty.

Maybe there are some families where some physical punishment can work well.

However, I know there are cases where physical punishment is used badly... and that can be really bad stuff, and do awful things to the parent/child relationship.

As for suggesting that intelligent and accomplished people ought to be forcefully violated because someone disagrees with their opinions, well, no.

When people disagree and can't get along, maybe they should just agree to disagree, and leave each other in peace. I tend to think the USA would be a happier place if the states were much more diverse in their laws and customs, and the Federal government cut back its roles a whole lot, so people could stop interfering with each others' beliefs and cultures, trying to pervert the system to try to control everyone else.

PvK

[Fyron]

Parenting that includes spanking (not to be confused with beating or other harsh punishments) is by no means bad parenting, of course. Just a different approach.

I tend to think the USA would be a happier place if the states were much more diverse in their laws and customs, and the Federal government cut back its roles a whole lot, so people could stop interfering with each others' beliefs and cultures, trying to pervert the system to try to control everyone else.

You must not be a Democrat then. Nor a Republican... they both tend to stand for more control by the government these days... ugh.

[ June 30, 2004, 05:55: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Atrocities]

Truth in Politics.

My official functions as one of your dually elected congressional DemO'Rep leaders will be to pass into a law obscenely stupid laws that protect you from your god given freedoms and constitutional rights.

Once elected I will completely forget all the campaign promises I have made and embark upon my quest to bilk you out of your hard earned money by raising taxes, reducing freedoms, accepting pay increases that I clear do not deserve, and enjoying the fringe benefits that come free to me but a cost to you. Oh yes, I shall secretly accept all bribes, kickbacks, and freebies that come my way.

When reelection comes I will lie to you again, smear my opponent, and embark upon my second term in office as I did the first. Eventually I shall become so powerful in the Washington political scene that I will run for the office of President where I will gladly accept any and all offers for sex from super models, female interns, and the occasional boy scout.

I will put my own interest ahead of the country and will continue the age-old tradition of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Thank You.

[ June 30, 2004, 07:56: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Truth in Politics.

My official functions as one of your dually elected congressional DemO'Rep leaders will be to pass into a law obscenely stupid laws that protect you from your god given freedoms and constitutional rights.

Once elected I will completely forget all the campaign promises I have made and embark upon my quest to bilk you out of your hard earned money by raising taxes, reducing freedoms, accepting pay increases that I clear do not deserve, and enjoying the fringe benefits that come free to me but a cost to you. Oh yes, I shall secretly accept all bribes, kickbacks, and freebies that come my way.

When reelection comes I will lie to you again, smear my opponent, and embark upon my second term in office as I did the first. Eventually I shall become so powerful in the Washington political scene that I will run for the office of President where I will gladly accept any and all offers for sex from super models, female interns, and the occasional boy scout.

I will put my own interest ahead of the country and will continue the age-old tradition of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Thank You.

That must a translation from Chirac's life.
Probably the only political line he keept following during his life.

[dogscoff]

Atrocities- I'd vote for you. I mean at least you're being honest about it...

[Randallw]

I have ignored this thread because I had no wish to get involved in a debate about some bloke who, in my eyes, is such a staunt democrat and is unhappy his side didn't win an election that he criticises and insults the person who fairly won the elction. Today though I must speak as he has started to insult the democratically elected leader of another country just because we allied with America. I don't think he would insult us if we had allied with a democratic party lead America. I am no fan of democracy, I see many things wrong with it most specifically making opposition parties compulsory. My ideal system would have one party with the best ability to run the country, but we do not live in an ideal world that would allow that. If we must live within a democratic system though, and if a person keeps going on about democrarcy, they should be willing to accept the truth not shout the virtues of democracy on one hand while wroking towards the downthrow of its results.
I am going to make my thoughts public knowledge, not something I usually do as I usually avoid conflict. Michael Moore is an idiot. I may not have much say as I am not American and am not involved in Americas internal politics, but as I said he has come out and started to insult the leader of my own country. I fully expect US democrats to support him, that is their democratic right I suppose, but personally he is an idiot. A few weeks back there was an uproar here because the US president "dared" to imply our opposition shouldn't be elected. This was our opposition supporters eager to jump on any chance to disparage our allies and government. I fully expect such people will turn around and support this idiots right to "dare" to imply our government is wrong.

Edit: look, I apologise for my rant. Usually I don't get so emotional, and in an hour I may have calmed down. For the moment though I am seriously annoyed (to put it politely)

[ July 08, 2004, 04:38: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[Will]

Randall, what's this about Michael Moore insulting Australia's leadership? I haven't heard anything about it, and a quick look at the Australian Version of Google news didn't bring up any headlines.

And just a note about his criticizing Bush: In your eyes, Bush might have 'fairly' won the election, but for a lot of people in the US, it is still not that simple. Bush did *not* get a majority of the votes in the country, and the only reason he did get the higher number of Electoral College votes is because in a closely contested election where Bush's supporters (Katherine Harris, the former Secretary of State of Florida, was responsible for counting votes, and she was the chairwoman of Bush's election team in Florida) were counting the votes, the courts finally stepped in to get some closure over the whole ordeal. So he might have been elected according to the law, but for a lot of people, he was far from being elected fairly.

Just had to throw that in for clarification. The real point of this post is to find out what this insulting stuff is all about. Since I haven't heard anything about it here.

[Randallw]

I have quitened down a bit so I'll return to being civil. first though, as you said technically Bush won. I said I disagreed with the democratic process a bit, but I am lawful, I believe laws are to keep order. According to the law, Bush won. Its a pity the system wasn't changed before hand if you disagree with the result, but society has to accept how things work if thats how its organised. If you suddenly find the results aren't what you wanted then if a majority agrees change the law afterwards. I thought the idea of a Democracy was majority rule. You might say "ah, but the republicans aren't going to change something that got them into power". Well if the republicans are the majority then according to democracy they choose.
You say Bush didn't get a majority?. Well them I'm sorry but it doesn't sound as if your democracy is organised correctly. At least in accordance to my idea of it.

to the matter at hand

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/co...55E401,00.html

basically he said our Prime Minister has half a brain, and he hopes that he is voted out. If he is going to intrude in our politics depsite having no right then I in turn hope whichever person he votes for in America never gets voted in.

significant statement
"And I hope the same thing happens to him (Mr Howard) as happened to the leader of Spain when he decided to be part of the coalition of the willing."

so he wants our Prime Minister to lose the election due to more than a hundred people being killed in a terrorist attack. The more I learn of this man the more I see he has no credibility.
"he's mad" my mother says.

[primitive]

Randall,
The AQ attack itself (in Spain) was not the reason the Spanish PM lost the election. He was thrown out of office because he tried to use it as a tool in his private war against the ETA/Basque. Most Spanish and Basque alike are way tired of the old conflict and want to patch the old wounds. A warmongering PM who tries to upgrade a conflict between a few hundred diehard terrorists (ETA) into a full scale war between ethnic Groups (Castilians vs Basque) was not what the Spanish people wanted.
Hmmm, strange how this reminds me of another politician who managed to upgrade a conflict with a few Moslem maniacs to a conflict involving Nations.

[Mephisto]

Randall, a democracy is not a democracy if you don't give the minority rights. The rule of the majority without any checks and balances over the minority is not democracy but dictatorship of the majority.