# BUSH's latest "statement"......



## SvK (Sep 5, 2007)

In a series of interviews he gave to journalist Robert Draper, for the book "Dead Certain" . 


So Mr President what will you do when you leave office?


"I'll give some speeches, to replenish the ol' coffers," says Mr. Bush. "I don't know what my dad gets - it's more than 50-75 [thousand dollars a speech], and "Clinton's making a lot of money". -GWB


thoughts?

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 5, 2007)

The problem is that speaking isn't exactly his strong point.


----------



## SvK (Sep 5, 2007)

Nick,

I'm not referring to his lack of verbosity and coherence. I'm talking about his callous greed. How dare he talk about lining his pockets, while American kids are dying for what is mostly a "I'll show up my daddy" cause....I just want to punch his f$cking lights out.

"Replenish the ol' coffers" - G [email protected] W (soon to be ex-prez) Bush

SvK


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Sep 5, 2007)

I don't think that he should worry about replenishing his coffers.
With all the percs and favors he's done to his corporate buddies, including the military-industrial complex, I'm sure he's gonna get plenty of kickbacks...
0oD


----------



## SvK (Sep 5, 2007)

Nick......i just got your joke ....bit slow on the uptake.....

nice one 

SvK


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 5, 2007)

SvK @ Wed Sep 05 said:


> Nick,
> 
> I'm not referring to his lack of verbosity and coherence. I'm talking about his callous greed. How dare he talk about lining his pockets, while American kids are dying for what is mostly a "I'll show up my daddy" cause....I just want to punch his f$cking lights out.
> 
> ...



So...do you get even more outraged when Bill Clinton get's a minimum of $200,000 for a 1 hour speech to any group "when American kids are dying" in harms way? That is more than he made in a year's salary of being the president isn't it?

The selectivity in the outrage is amazing. :roll: 

That is one of the things former sitting presidents do. They go around and make a lot of money speaking to various groups (especially in that first year out) who are willing and able to pay for the privilege. 

Clinton does it and has made more money doing it than pretty much any former president. Yet no outrage at his fee or the fact that he has one that high. Just another thing to want to bash Bush about. hmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Sep 5, 2007)

> So...do you get even more outraged when Bill Clinton get's a minimum of $200,000 for a 1 hour speech to any group "when American kids are dying" in harms way? That is more than he made in a year's salary of being the president isn't it?



Everyone is entitled to be rich. But that's not what SvK is talking about. He's talking about kids dying in Iraq. Soldiers. Due to a "show daddy up" cause. What eh...it's not ALL that, but some.


----------



## SvK (Sep 5, 2007)

Brian,

Making money from speaking arrangements is fine..........but it's such bad form, taste to talk about it at this time......during a war. Surely you see that. 

You would NEVER hear Reagan, Clinton saying how they look forward to hitting the lecture circuit to "replenish the ol' coffers"

....thinking about it is fine, but please have the decency to not talk about it.....Please remember that there are people you've failed in New Orleans and Iraq , that unlike you, have no way of "filling their coffers".




As the president, he is supposed to be THE symbol of public-service NOT of self-service....

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 5, 2007)

"Just another thing to want to bash Bush about"

I for one don't care about speaking engagements. And I certainly don't *want* there to be anything to bash him about.

But alack...


----------



## José Herring (Sep 5, 2007)

SvK @ Wed Sep 05 said:


> As the president, he is supposed to be a THE symbol of public-service NOT of self-service....
> 
> SvK



I agree. I actually loved Bush Sr., but Bush jr. has been a nightmare. From day one in office it was visibly clear that he was just along for the ride. The presidency was just another thing handed to him by virtue of being a son of a successful dad.

He's done nothing of note and will go down in history as one of the worst pres. of all time. He was an unsuccessful spoiled rich kid growing up and he's been an unsuccessful president who can't even decently finish up a war.

All his top officials are now dust. All are unwilling to support him or went down in controversy.

His approval ratings are down to historic lows. 26% according to some polls. Yet this guy still thinks that he's going to get speaking engagements. He hasn't yet realized that those are tough gigs to get. I mean after all you have to have a fan base to justify the expense. :lol:


Jose


----------



## SvK (Sep 5, 2007)

"Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." - G W Bush

what a guy

SvK


----------



## SvK (Sep 5, 2007)

Jerry and Joe Long Mon Sep 3, 4:50 PM ET

Just when you feel impenetrably numb to the delusional ravings of our Punk In Chief, comes a sentence so multilayered in obscenity, so richly textured with arrogance and solipsism as to make Ayn Rand look like Albert Schweitzer.

Let's put aside the coffers of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis now eternally empty. Let's put aside the refugees who left their coffers behind when they fled. Let's put aside the amputees at Walter Reed who can no longer grip their coffers. Let's even put aside that his major domestic initiative centers on denying health care to children whose coffers exceed twice the poverty limit.

No, for any student of the career of George W, the true cause for projectile vomiting can be found in the word "replenish". This is a man who, from buying tropical plants to specializing in dry holes to responsibility-free board appointments to being given his own baseball team, has never done anything to plenish his coffers in the first place.

And...wait for it...he is going to give speeches. Speeches! Charitably, he has had perhaps three thoughts in the past seven years. And he has used them in every lip sucking spittle-encrusted yammer. Smugly flipping through his sentence per page binder, finding it "interesting" that Japan is now an ally and "fully" understanding that war is "tough". Ahh the comatose stares around the Carlyle Group's banquet hall, as member's struggle not to pass out in their omelets during the brunch speaker's power point presentation "Oceans Don't Protect Us".


----------



## david robinson (Sep 5, 2007)

we've the same problem here with howard.
except that he'll hopefully be gone within four months.
in our system the PM can stay as long as his party is in.
only his party can vote him out.
i'd like to see here the same as the US where the incumbent can only be around for two terms.

ppl here are sick of Iraq, etc.
they are more interested in buying their own homes, etc, and raising kids in a decent
situation with good edu and health options.

i hate to be a bit racist, but we've a lot of lebanese ppl in Sydney now, and they are trouble makers, for sure.
i don't think we should be letting anymore in here.
anyway,
best, DR9.
Bush is in Sydney, atm.
they've closed off most of the CBD, to cater for him.
the Queen didn't get this sort of treatment, then again, she's no war monger.


----------



## zonobono (Sep 5, 2007)

> Ahh the comatose stares around the Carlyle Group's banquet hall, as member's struggle not to pass out in their omelets during the brunch speaker's power point presentation "Oceans Don't Protect Us".



lol :!:


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 6, 2007)

Brian... 

How can you seperate policy and intellect in this specific case? Add in a good measure of nepotism and you have it. The fact that he is sitting his second term is in no way a proof of his intellect... I have noticed that being intelligent is not a prime-requisit when you elect presidents. To think that Bush beat (or almost beat) Al Gore or Kerry for that matter is quite an acheivement indeed.

Anyway - Earning money is fine, and I'm sure Bush will to in spite of his low approval ratings. But to say that this is what he will be spending his time on after his presidency is indeed poor, poor taste, and shows his complete lack of interest in making life better for anyone but himself and his allies (just like his presidency).


----------



## aeneas (Sep 6, 2007)

SvK @ Wed 05 Sep said:


> "I'll give some speeches, to replenish the ol' coffers," says Mr. Bush.


Maybe he should start by giving speeches to the families of each of these boys: http://photomatt.net/2004/04/07/mosaic/ . One speech/family per day will keep him busy for the next decade. Maybe that will help replenish his conscience.


----------



## almacg (Sep 6, 2007)

I would love to be able to say that Bush was an amazing leader, who made the right decisions in tough times. However, he wasn't and he made all the wrong decisions.
Anyone has the right to express their views be they contrary to my own or not, but what I will say is this; if you still support Bush at this point, you are either blind, stupid, or complete disgrace to humanity. 
If Bush really was 'dumb', then I guess that would make him a puppet, a complete buffoon who was illegally put in the whitehouse in order for the world's most devious and traitorous men to carry out their misdeeds. If, like Brian is saying, he is an intellectual man who was more than able to weigh up the consequences of going into two illegal wars, then he is one of the most despicable, calculating bastards on the planet. It's bad no matter how you look at it.
To think that the man who gave the go ahead for 'shock and awe' - the bombing of the country that rightfully belonged to the millions of families who just wanted to get on with their lives - is allowed to live the rest of his life outside the walls of a prison, just makes me sick. To think that in order to find a bunch of WMD's we had to use even more devastating weapons, causing destruction on an unprecedented scale, makes my stomach turn. 
This perhaps doesn't bother some people; the death of 600,000 people is just a statistic to people like Bush. 
People need to learn to treat others as they would themselves no matter what language they speak. Would you have someone bomb your own country in order to remove your leader, no matter how much you detested them? Would you specifically request them to add depleted uranium to the bombs, so that your children would potentially be born with missing limbs? Would you also ask them to steal your countries resources while they're at it?
How can anyone justifiably defend George Bush at this point? A single good word about Bush is devastating blow in the face of humanity.


----------



## Moonchilde (Sep 6, 2007)

Brian Ralston @ September 6th 2007 said:


> Criticizing policy is one thing...criticizing the intellect and capability of a Harvard business school graduate, who happens to be the sitting 2-Term president, with the occasional childish name calling thrown in for good measure really only reflects poorly on the person dishing it out.



Except that it is entirely possible he didn't really graduate of his own doing. Who knows how much pull outside references had? I have not done any research into that and I don't care to. Did he really get into the office because of his intelligence? There were plenty of people who said Kerry was "too smart" and they couldn't relate to him because of that. Can you imagine that? People actually wanted a so called dumb president because they couldn't relate to the smart one! I just think the Republicans had a better shit slinging team and Kerry was tarnished too early and too harshly to fix it before the election.

Either way, Bush isn't as dumb as a lot of people think. However, he certainly isn't a very smart person based on his actions.


----------



## almacg (Sep 6, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu 06 Sep said:


> SvK @ Wed 05 Sep said:
> 
> 
> > "I'll give some speeches, to replenish the ol' coffers," says Mr. Bush.
> ...



The lives of the innocent Iraqi's who died in this tragedy mean a lot more than the lives of the 'murderers' who were sent out to do the job. Why is it that people care so much more about the lives of people from their own country than they do of people from another? Those soldiers were a big part of the reason why so many lives were lost, lets not forget that, whereas the innocent Iraqi's were just minding their own business. If someone invaded England for example, I would prefer that the occupying force got wiped out rather than my neighbours.


----------



## Moonchilde (Sep 6, 2007)

Except its not the soldiers doing all the killing. Its suicide bombers... you can't say all those soldiers deserved to die. Suicide bombers are killing both soldiers and Iraqis.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 6, 2007)

almacg @ Thu 06 Sep said:


> The lives of the innocent Iraqi's who died in this tragedy mean a lot more than the lives of the 'murderers' who were sent out to do the job.


Perhaps you forgot to add that those lives mean a lot more (or less) to you. Weighing lives is exactly what warmongers do, so careful there. I personally can't really see how one life can be considered more important than another. The lives of GWB, of the Dalai Lama, and of the last bum on the planet are equally important, you can't weigh lives.

I would also be more careful with words like 'murderers'. Soldiers are no 'murderers', they don't murder, they don't kill civilians. The American boys who died there are more likely exactly the ones who defended Iraqis civilians' lives. I am not American and I am anti-war, but let us try to be fair and to ponder carefully those tragedies.


----------



## almacg (Sep 6, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu 06 Sep said:


> almacg @ Thu 06 Sep said:
> 
> 
> > The lives of the innocent Iraqi's who died in this tragedy mean a lot more than the lives of the 'murderers' who were sent out to do the job.
> ...



Their deaths are tragic, but I care more for the innocent civilians caught up in the war than the people sent out their to fight it. I wish that no-one would have died, but that isnt the reality. Ultimately it is George Bush, Tony Blair and their cronies who should pay, not the soldiers or Iraqi civilians.

I'll concede that 'murderers' was a bit too far over the line; I was a little too worked up after writing my last post, and I apoligise for it. In my view however, I cannot see how anyone rational person would want to join the military forces.


----------



## almacg (Sep 6, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Thu 06 Sep said:


> Except its not the soldiers doing all the killing. Its suicide bombers... you can't say all those soldiers deserved to die. Suicide bombers are killing both soldiers and Iraqis.



It was the act of the soldiers which led to the proliferation of suicide bombings. Iraq was a stable place before the invasion. If you invade a country, chaos will always ensue, especially if there are people with slightly different religious views (ie sunnies and shiites). 
I find it funny that recently a major step forward in the peace process in N. Ireland was headed by Tony Blair himself. You have to remember, that the IRA almost succeeded in killing the then English prime-minister, and planted numerous nail bombs in London. The whole N. Ireland situation was dealt with by means of negotiation. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Uk decided to bomb Belfast? Punish the lives of the many because of the misguided few?
The Catholics and the Protestants would almost certainly have started killing one another; the same thing would have happened. The outcome of Iraq was totally predictable; when you send men with guns (trained to kill, with a license to kill) into someone elses country they aren't going to give you an easy time.
Why was Ireland dealt with differently? Quite simply because they are white, speak the same language as us, and have the same religious beliefs as many of us do. This is the way of the world; the people who rise to power are always racist, evil, bastards, who just want a war (preferably in someone elses back yard) as part of their 'legacy'. 
My only hope is that Tony Blair, George Bush and the rest of them get what they truly deserve. I'm not instigating that they should be shot or anything(although as Galloway put it, it would be morally justified) but they should be in an Iraqi prison for ironies sake.


----------



## Moonchilde (Sep 6, 2007)

almacg @ September 6th 2007 said:


> It was the act of the soldiers which led to the proliferation of suicide bombings. Iraq was a stable place before the invasion. If you invade a country, chaos will always ensue, especially if there are people with slightly different religious views (ie sunnies and shiites).



Except the Sunnis and Shiites have always been at each other's throats. Iraq was NOT stable, not at all. The people lived in fear and shiites were treated ill. Also, the suicide bombings come from outside influences of Iraq, it is not "Iraq" who is suicide bombing people even if some of the bombers may be Iraqi.



> The outcome of Iraq was totally predictable; when you send men with guns (trained to kill, with a license to kill) into someone elses country they aren't going to give you an easy time.



Actually, they did give us an easy time. I don't suppose you remember that Saddam ran and we walked right in without firing any shots? I don't suppose you remember when the Iraqis themselves tore down Saddam's statues? The death and suicide bombing didn't come until quite a bit later. We came pretty peacefully.



> This is the way of the world; the people who rise to power are always racist, evil, bastards, who just want a war (preferably in someone elses back yard) as part of their 'legacy'.



This isn't the way of the world, as you would like to believe. There are plenty of peace leaders out there who are not racist who have large followings. There are plenty of national leaders who are not starting wars.


----------



## synthetic (Sep 6, 2007)

Brian, here is the difference. One is a McPaper reporter estimating what Clinton will make when he reaches the lecture circuit. The other is a sitting president joking about making money while he's supposed to be overseeing his quagmire. That statement is incredibly insensitive to the soldiers dying in his war.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2007)

One of tragedies of this war is the number of brain injuries to soldiers getting nailed by "IEDs." I've heard horrendous numbers in the tens of thousands.

The whole thing is just too sad. And for what?

I just don't get it when people are so quick to support elective wars - any one, not just this one.


----------



## almacg (Sep 6, 2007)

> Except the Sunnis and Shiites have always been at each other's throats. Iraq was NOT stable, not at all. The people lived in fear and shiites were treated ill. Also, the suicide bombings come from outside influences of Iraq, it is not "Iraq" who is suicide bombing people even if some of the bombers may be Iraqi.



The country had problems like any other, and I am not excusing Saddam for executing his political enemies. (Although America does the same - good old blameless America) You could walk in the streets without fear of being blown up; the quality of life for the average Iraqi was good, there was law and order. People did not live in fear, save those who plotted to kill Saddam. We know about the terrible atrocities commited by Saddam, but he is no worse than George W, or Tony Blair. Dropping bombs on people is an act of terrorism, lets face it. Murder is murder no 'matter how it is carried out.
The same thing was going on in N. Ireland as I said. The Catholics and Protestants were always ''at each others throats'', but did that justify dropping 300,000 bombs on them? Absolutely not! Would many people have supported a war against the Irish? NO! Because a huge number of people favour white people to brown people without realising it.



> Actually, they did give us an easy time. I don't suppose you remember that Saddam ran and we walked right in without firing any shots? I don't suppose you remember when the Iraqis themselves tore down Saddam's statues? The death and suicide bombing didn't come until quite a bit later. We came pretty peacefully.



Shock and awe is not an example of 'coming peacefully'. Of course I remember the tearing down of Saddam's statues, is that supposed to make me feel optimistic about the war? They got rid of Saddam by having him executed by his own people. Weren't we so angry with saddam because of the fact that HE executed his enemies? ''Oh theyre animals in the middle-east!'' I've heard this kind of thing coming out of people who I though were decent, intellingent minded people. They accuse the Iraqis and Afghanistani's as being brutal in their approach to punishing criminals. These are the very same people who often end up losing their cool and calling for murderers to be ''put up against a wall and shot''. They accuse Saddam of being a monster, whilst supporting the illegal invasion of a country. What is the difference between Saddam and George Bush? It all boils down to skin colour, and the language they speak. This is the only reason I can think of as to why people can support one but not the other.




> This isn't the way of the world, as you would like to believe. There are plenty of peace leaders out there who are not racist who have large followings. There are plenty of national leaders who are not starting wars.



I certainly don't want to believe it, but I do because I am not blind.

You support one act of terror, the invasion of a country that resulted in 600,000 deaths. Yet you say 9/11 was a terrible act of murder. Both are the same; the supporters of the war have as much blood on their hands as the 9/11 bombers. How can you support one act of murder without supporting the other? The answer is that you are prejudiced against Middle-easterners, and view the life of your people to be much more important. This is the kind of mentality that resulted in the Holy Crusades, and its the kind of mentality that resulted in the invasion of Iraq. 
If the world was really run by peace-loving people, don't you think there would be no wars!? Why are we always led into war, upon war? Do you actually think the invasion of Iraq was an act of peace-loving kindness?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 6, 2007)

Have you guys seen the clip on youtube where Cheney predicts exactly what would happen if US forces took down Saddam? He did this in the 90's yet decided to go after Saddam years later - and look what happned - exactly what he predicted.

Also - and I'm not just saying this because I'm a Bush hater - I'm baffled how he hasn't been impeached. I mean, Clinton lies about getting a blow job, but Bush has done nothing but lying and misleading the world since 2001. I mean, the seriousness of the stuff he and his administration has lied about is scary, and he should be in punished (and again - to think that he was re-elected in 2004 in spite of all this blows my mind).


----------



## José Herring (Sep 6, 2007)

The word to describe Bush isn't "unintelligent". I believe he's no more or less intelligent than anybody else. He's about average. 

The word to describe Bush is simply "irresponsible". He had a complete inability to control anything or anyone. And he just completely bumbled through everything he tried to do. Who in their right mind would put a country at war with no end in site. No planned exit strategy. No real purpose for continued occupation. 

My Dad was in the military for 22 years and even he being a soldier is completely disappointed with the war in Iraq. He said that this was the first time that America engaged in a hostile attack against another country. Not in defense of anything. But just an outright assault. He says this is against what the military stands for.

I hope that when George Bush closes is eyes that this is what he sees:

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

This is not the America I grew up in. This is not the America I want to live in.

I have another word to describe the Bush Administration, "Insane".

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2007)

"The word to describe Bush isn't "unintelligent"."

Then you'd have to ask why his intellectual capacity is the subject of so many conversations. Did anyone ever question the intelligence of Clinton, Bush Sr., or Carter? (I'm leaving Reagan out of this...)

The President of the United States should be absolutely brilliant, not average. Average is mediocre.

And to me one of the most important items in the job description is being articulate.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 6, 2007)

To elaborate a bit on what Nick aslo seems to be saying... Bush may be average by regular standards, but he is the absolute bottom of the presidential scale of intelligence. In fact I would dare say you would have trouble finding any leader (democratic or otherwise) who "tops" him :D

Some of you have mentioned how he will leave office as one of the worst presidents.. well I dare say non of us really fathom the capacity of faliure. It will take historians and hindside to really grasp what damage that man has done (and try come to terms with how he got away from it).


----------



## Moonchilde (Sep 6, 2007)

almacg @ September 6th 2007 said:


> ... lots of stuff ...



Its really not worth replying to all that when you're not even staying on the topic of what you're replying to. 

You really need to start reading more material about the war. I don't know where you're getting 600,000 deaths from, not that many people have died in the Iraq war. Not even close. Check synthetic's post, he has a tally of the deaths so far. 

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/uploads/attachments/casual_222.jpg (http://www.vi-control.net/forum/uploads ... al_222.jpg)

I'm going to have to bow out of any further discussion with you on this topic.


----------



## midphase (Sep 6, 2007)

> So...do you get even more outraged when Bill Clinton get's a minimum of $200,000 for a 1 hour speech to any group "when American kids are dying" in harms way? That is more than he made in a year's salary of being the president isn't it?



Brian,

The difference is that Clinton is not the one who has caused those kids to die. As far as Iraq and the war, his conscience is pretty clean compared to Bush. This is not about selective outrage, this is about a guy who is causing all sorts of havok in the Middle East and has apparently no problems sleeping at night.

I respect your Republican stance, but I figure that by now, even you must have some problems with Bush.


----------



## midphase (Sep 6, 2007)

> You really need to start reading more material about the war. I don't know where you're getting 600,000 deaths from, not that many people have died in the Iraq war. Not even close. Check synthetic's post, he has a tally of the deaths so far.




I guess you're obviously not factoring in the civilian deaths....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2007)

We'll never know how many people have died or been injured. It's too many, that's for sure, and like all wars it's totally senseless.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Sep 6, 2007)

It tallies the civilan deaths as well, and that's not 600,000.


----------



## Lunatique (Sep 6, 2007)

I'm tempted to make a comment about how only good presidents get assassinated, but I'd hate to have the CIA start tapping my phones. LOL


----------



## Waywyn (Sep 6, 2007)

Every time I see Bush on TV I feel like crying, be afraid and laugh my ass off.

Like crying, because of all the shit he has done, especially in Iraq.
To be afraid, how far a stupid prick like this can come.
Laughing when I see his stoopid face.

Oh by the way, the truth about Bush: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xhqKoqqS0XI

"The Bushpilot"


----------



## Thonex (Sep 6, 2007)

Brian Ralston @ Thu Sep 06 said:


> And lastly from me...
> 
> When individuals (even those on this forum) immediately fall into the "Bush is dumb" name calling mantality, it severly tarnishes the impact of anything they have to say and really makes me turn a deaf ear to any point try to be made.
> Criticizing policy is one thing...criticizing the intellect and capability of a Harvard business school graduate, who happens to be the sitting 2-Term president, with the occasional childish name calling thrown in for good measure really only reflects poorly on the person dishing it out.
> ...



Brian,

Aside from invading Afghanistan right after 9/11, what policy or decision has Bush made that you feel demonstrates his intellect or capability or decision making to be anything beyond atrocious?

I agree... name calling (in general) is wrong. But GW Bush squandered any good will and support he ever had (both nationally and internationally) especially with Iraq and WMD, (not to mention taxes and stem cell research) and I believe people are just calling it as they see it. Nothing wrong with that. If you can't judge a president on his actions and policies, then what are we going to judge him on?

This latest statement about making money with speeches is just a continuation of his utter lack of sensitivity and "frat boy" personality.

My opinion.

T


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 6, 2007)

[quote:b013bf4948="Thonex @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:06 pm"]

Brian,

Aside from invading Afghanistan right after 9/11, what policy or decision has Bush made that you feel demonstrates his intellect or capability or decision making to be anything beyond atrocious?

I agree... name calling (in general) is wrong. But GW Bush squandered any good will and support he ever had (both nationally and internationally) especially with Iraq and WMD, (not to mention taxes and stem cell research) and I believe people are just calling it as they see it. Nothing wrong with that. If you can't IP Michael Jacksonú It's crazy how many people his music effected world wide...

And...

It's crazy he's been a HUGE celebrity his entire life...

Crazy life...

Not much of a fan but Dirty Diana was the one tune that caught my ear when I was a kid. Cool tune...  
 þp„  Wanted was stupid. effects were good. I cant remember the name of the recent film but I remember the review they used on the poster in big letters said nothing about the film or story or anything, simply that the special effects were amazing, Bad sign haha.   z þq„ &Re: Just saw Transformers 2. Good fun!K All those special effects in Wanted were created with pirated software heh.  X  þr„ *Re: LA Scoring Strings - Teaser and UPDATE%Hi Peter, I forget which example you just posted.... if it's the slow legato with divisi writing, then LASS excels at that kind of writing. That's not to say it's going to sound better than the London Philharmonic.. it won't. But I think it will fool a lot of people a lot of the time. 

AK‚ þs„
a2529b16d4*Re: LA Scoring Strings - Teaser and UPDATEE[quote:a2529b16d4="Colin O'Malley @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:35 pm"]My 2 cents. I do think LASS can get way closer to many of the examples posted in the right hands. Nothing like real living breathing human beings playing (we all know that) but it sure is a lot more inspiring and rewarding writing with a library like this. 

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet: for me LASS is a BRILLIANT la


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 6, 2007)

"Millions argue Clinton did the same amount of damage in his own ways...we are just seeing the afffects long after he is gone and are left with the mess."

I think that's a very hard argument to make, Brian, regardless of where on the conservative/liberal spectrum your beliefs lie. Now, I don't believe all our international problems are the Bush administration's doing, but as Chalmers Johnson puts it, they have led us into a cul de sac.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 6, 2007)

Brian Ralston @ Thu 06 Sep said:


> Most everyone here hates Bush.


I don't hate Bush, and I will totally love him after he shakes hands with the parents of those boys, presenting personal condolences.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 6, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Sep 06 said:


> "Millions argue Clinton did the same amount of damage in his own ways...we are just seeing the afffects long after he is gone and are left with the mess."
> 
> I think that's a very hard argument to make, Brian, regardless of where on the conservative/liberal spectrum your beliefs lie. Now, I don't believe all our international problems are the Bush administration's doing, but as Chalmers Johnson puts it, they have led us into a cul de sac.



Was about to say the same thing... No matter your political standpoint you can't honestly believe this? And even if you do think the two have done comparale damage (or good) then I dare say you are amongst a minority - one which will grow smaller after his presidency.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 7, 2007)

It is not that hard of an argument to make guys. The way Clinton's administration nearly dismantled the military through the 90's and his administration's drastic cuts in our intelligence (no wonder the CIA is so screwed up! - that does not happen over night!)...combined with the 90's mentality and laws that were passed blocking gov't agencies from speaking to one another about terror suspects and info here or abroad...combined with the fact that Clinton was nearly handed Bin Laden by the Sudanese Gov't (though he denies this in interviews, but it has been corroborated by a handful of people involved in the process)...As well as the decision to not respond to terror threats or direct attacks with ANY action (Trade Center '93 bombing, USS Cole, African Embassy Bombings, etc...), thus showing these radicals that the US won't do anything if pushed...plus arms deals with China that have ended up with U.S. weapons in Iran today (which are being used in Iran's defacto war against the U.S. on the streets of Iraq)...the list goes on and on. Please....I could buy you all a beer and go on and on. The democratic playbook smells and has been just as bad. You're giving Bush too much credit to think everything is his fault. Not one war has ever been perfect. They are always a mess and tragic. 

Next we are going to hear global warming was created by Bush so he can get even more wealthy. :roll: Oh wait...some in this country have already said that too. :roll: 

Good night folks! Keep writing music.


----------



## almacg (Sep 7, 2007)

It's worth noting that the nuclear bombing of Japan took place place under the democratic party.

Its also worth noting that Tony Blair*, was part of the Labour Party (Left wing like the democrats), yet he supported the incredibly right-wing views of GeorgeW. You cannot trust any politician, no matter what apparent political persuasion they have.

I don't think anyone is really saying that all Republicans are evil, and all Democrats are good. The point is simply that defending George Bush is bizarre no matter how you look at it. If you defend George Bush, you are defending the pointless deaths of Iraqi civilians. At a time like this, how could anyone NOT hate George Bush? How could anyone be satisfied by the way in which the world is headed? If a Muslim country had invaded America (as in bombed and ruined the country) would you not feel hatred towards those responsible? 

I guess in order to hate Bush it is necessary to empathise with people of a different race and religion.

*Disease be upon him


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 7, 2007)

Brian - I don't agree about the decisions "not to respond" to the Cole, etc. sending the message that we're weak. It shows much more strength not to dismantle our republic in response to a few smelly idiots who think the solution to the world's problems is to blow people up. Descending to these peoples' level is what's weak.

More importantly, terrorism isn't just something that exists in a vacuum. The problem isn't something you can eliminate by invading countries or getting tough (never mind that terrorism is only part of the real reason for the war in Afghanistan and none of the reason for the Iraq war). You have to avoid creating it, and you have to police it on a smaller scale. The aborted attacks in London and now Germany are the real "war on terror," not that I believe in that entire concept in the first place.

Nor do I agree that Iran is waging a de facto war against the US, despite Ahmadinejad's flapping big mouth. It's unrealistic to expect Iran - or any other country in the region - not to become involved in what's going on right next to their borders. This was widely predicted.

However I do agree that arms sales to China were a very bad idea. As I said, I don't blame the Bush administration for everything. The US h
in most cases, the electric guitar was my trusty *teuffel niwa*;
it feels great, & is very quiet when played in proximity to mucho local digital electronics
(including 2x22" LCD computer screens and a 42" "big picture"-screen).

the *lap-steel* (w/2 manually-manipulated pitch changers, á la pedal steel)
was a *duesenberg pomona 6*,
and was recorded through the same amp/pre-mixer chain,
but in mono, using a *RetroChannel mic-pre/comp-limiter/eq*.
the steel was stereoised in the mix, primarily using Reaktor5.

the capri air-organ was, on remembrance & recovery, a combination of performance & sampling:
the performed parts were recorded w/a *beyer 160 ribbon-mic* into the RetroChannel.

the *harmonium* was a *bina deluxe* (tuned to 440),
recorded as the capri was.

the *"mandolin"-esque* parts were played on a *hi-tuned 12-string gryphon*;
most were recorded "direct" via the RetroChannel, but some were recorded in the room
using a *beyer m500 ribbon* into the RetroChannel.

the *nylon-string guitar* is a student-grade rodriguez classica


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 7, 2007)

> The way Clinton's administration nearly dismantled the military through the 90's and his administration's drastic cuts in our intelligence (no wonder the CIA is so screwed up! - that does not happen over night!)



I also have to add that it seems rather curious to say that Clinton's administration nearly dismantled the military!

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics ... rySpending

And the CIA is a different story. It has a very unfortunate history of being the President's private army. The stuff that's been going on since 9/11 is just terrible, and it goes totally against our Constitution - extraordinary renditions, wiretapping, etc. (this is what I'm talking about when I say our republic is being dismantled and too much power is being focused in the hands of the Executive branch).


----------



## synthetic (Sep 7, 2007)

josejherring @ Thu Sep 06 said:


> The word to describe Bush isn't "unintelligent". I believe he's no more or less intelligent than anybody else. He's about average.



Bush has bad day at Sydney Opera House
Fri Sep 7, 6:49 AM ET
SYDNEY, Australia - [...] He'd only reached the third sentence of Friday's speech to business leaders, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, when he committed his first gaffe.

"Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit," Bush said to Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Oops. That would be APEC, the annual meeting of leaders from 21 Pacific Rim nations, not OPEC, the cartel of 12 major oil producers.

Bush quickly corrected himself. "APEC summit," he said forcefully, joking that Howard had invited him to the OPEC summit next year (for the record, an impossibility, since neither Australia nor the U.S. are OPEC members).

The president's next goof went uncorrected — by him anyway. Talking about Howard's visit to Iraq last year to thank his country's soldiers serving there, Bush called them "Austrian troops."

That one was fixed for him. Though tapes of the speech clearly show Bush saying "Austrian," the official text released by the White House switched it to "Australian."

Then, speech done, Bush confidently headed out — the wrong way.

He strode away from the lectern on a path that would have sent him over a steep drop. Howard and others redirected the president to center stage, where there were steps leading down to the floor of the theater.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 7, 2007)

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: 

Work with me fellas. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Btw, Brian. Talking about conspiracies. Your's goes on record as the most far reaching load of BS I've ever read.

Clinton had his crap for sure but I think you give Clinton too much credit. What you're suggesting would take an enormous amount of skill that I don't really think he's capable of. I just think he was more worried about scoring 20 year olds than "dismantling the military" and disrupting the CIA and forbidding government agencies to talk to each other. Most government agencies aren't really in communication anyway.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Sep 7, 2007)

My understanding that the military diminished in size by 30% during the Clinton administration. 

Spending since then has increased as has the size of the military force.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 7, 2007)

josejherring @ Fri Sep 07 said:


> Btw, Brian. Talking about conspiracies. Your's goes on record as the most far reaching load of BS I've ever read.



You've got to be kidding me.

And now...I am officially in the twilight zone. ~o)


----------



## José Herring (Sep 7, 2007)

Brian Ralston @ Fri Sep 07 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Sep 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Btw, Brian. Talking about conspiracies. Your's goes on record as the most far reaching load of BS I've ever read.
> ...



Blaming Bush's failures on the Clinton administration. No I'm not kidding. You're reaching.

Yes I'm aware that Clinton reduced the size of the military but Bush certainly beefed it up again.

Face it. Bush's administration blew it. Big time. The only thing worse than the current administration is the current congress >8o

For those reason's I think it's time to let go of quaint notions as "liberal" or "conservative". It's been proven time and time again that both "philosophies" don't work. Neither has been that workable in the past and certainly I don't see any reason to believe that either will work in the future.

Jose


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 7, 2007)

josejherring @ Fri Sep 07 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Fri Sep 07 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Fri Sep 07 said:
> ...



I did not blame all of Bush's problems (you call failures) on Clinton. I said Clinton had his own messes that were major and had longstanding implications that have now come to fruition. Bush has his own set of problems and mistakes. I am not reaching in the slightest. Go look it up...you like wikipedia so much.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 7, 2007)

"My understanding that the military diminished in size by 30% during the Clinton administration"

Military spending didn't, as I linked above.

But that reduction followed a massive buildup under Reagan! And it was totally appropriate: the Cold War was over! (Not to imply that the buildup had anything to do with the Cold War being over, contrary to popular belief. And not to imply that the buildup was completely undone, because it certainly wasn't. Nor to imply that this is the cause of any problems; on the contrary, our being overextended is probably preventing a US invasion of Iran right now.)


----------



## Jack Weaver (Sep 7, 2007)

Nick,

I didn't read that piece deeply that you posted. But the chart seemed to indicate (if it's indeed at all accurate) that the spending didn't start to increase until after 1998. Which indicates (1) it was low during the bulk of the Clinton era and (2) it was building up before Bush took office. 

Look, the Clintonistas did everything they could to excoriate the military. They practically banished them from the White House and any position of influence in that administration. They... well, whatever, I don't feel like getting into it. It's like punching the Tar Baby. 

All of your dislaimers in your last post make you sound like a lawyer hedging your bets. Maybe you missed your true calling. Why are you bothering with audio anyway? Maybe you could join the two professions together and be something like the barrister for Avid/Digidesign. They always need several. Honestsly, I think you have some talent there. 

Have a nice day, I'm retiring from this thread and going on to happier threads. When threads get so long as this one they always seem to morph from the original intent and people sometimes get bent out of shape. 

Best wishes for all of us here at VI,
Jack


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 7, 2007)

Barrister?! Not me.  I have to believe what I'm saying.

You're outta here, okay, but you should know that I'm not bent out of shape at all. And I'm not speaking legalese, I'm just putting my opinions in context.

To me it's important to be aware of what's going on in the world, because it affects us all. There's nothing wrong with discussing politics or in this case history. Brian and I have had lots of arguments about politics - because he doesn't realize that I'm always right - but that doesn't mean we don't get along.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 8, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Sep 07 said:


> And I'm not speaking legalese, I'm just putting my opinions in context.



Oh my God! Nick admitted he is putting forth *opinions*.

I am marking the date! 

:wink: :o =o =o o-[][]-o


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 8, 2007)

Even at the point when military spending was at its lowest during the Clinton years, the US military budget was many times higher than that of any other country, and likely higher than the military spending of all other countries combined.

The Military Industrial Oil Complex is insatiable.

BTW, whenever you hear about the government spending $1B, consider that $10 from the pocket of the average household. The Iraq war will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1T. That's $10,000 per household.

Can I get a refund? 

We don't even get T-shirts.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 8, 2007)

> JonFairhurst @ Sat Sep 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Even at the point when military spending was at its lowest during the Clinton years, the US military budget was many times higher than that of any other country, and likely higher than the military spending of all other countries combined.
> ...



I kind of like the Military Industrial Media Complex too. Here's a couple of interesting video on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KNMd38IX5o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D66pmaqHVqs

And lets not forget the bankster at the top of the food chain who lend the money to all countries at war. Might very well be the same bunch of guys i don't know but you can bet you ass these guys hang together... 

Not too many people know this but the Federal reserve and the central bank of England founded the Nazi. I hear they founded Communism too. Pretty much all central bank in the world our own by a small group of private investors called international bankers. In fact the only countries with a central banks not control by these international bankers are rogue nations like Iran, North Korea, Syria and Iraq.. Actually Iraq's central bank is now under there control since the invasion. Remember when we saw on the news a bunch of Iraqi trowing away and burning Iraq's money not to long after the invasion? That was probably stage but still very telling.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 8, 2007)

"Oh my God! Nick admitted he is putting forth opinions"

That's right, and your opinions are also correct when they agree with mine.

Now stop laughing! It does happen  occasionally...


----------



## david robinson (Sep 8, 2007)

politicians should not be paid as much money as they do.
they should not be rich people in the first place, which some are.
take money out of the equation - what do you have?
who are they really helping?
the job should be low profile.
political advertising in all media should be banned.
DR9.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 8, 2007)

Fernando Warez @ Sat 08 Sep said:


> The US do spend more on the military than all other country combine, which is ridiculous when you consider the US has no real enemy.


Enemies are not hard to create. Here is a simple and effective way: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/ (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/g ... on.terror/) No "enemies", no war industry. Actually, the US do have real enemies. We all have. Maybe one day those guys will choose to invest their money in fighting the real enemies, like cancer. RIP Luciano.

Dropping bombs is not an act of bravery. Saving lives is.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 14, 2007)

Here's some research that shows the death toll in Iraq may be more than 1 million people.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... &cset=true

I don't know the real number. I just know that it rivals Darfur as the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century.

9/11 was terrible, but the Iraq war could be on the order of 300 9/11s...

If 9/11 was a heinous crime, then what is the Iraq war?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Sep 15, 2007)

Brian Ralston @ Thu Sep 06 said:


> Respectfully, like I said, I don't want to get into it. You are entitled to your opinion. Millions around the world have the same as yours and millions have a different one. To think others can't have a different opinion on how to handle the war...terrorism...the world's problems, etc...is just shortsighted. Good people can disagree. And I put Bush in that category too.
> 
> What is true for you and how you see the world is true for you because of where you came from, how you were raised...your life experiences, etc... What is true for me and how I see the world has all of the same influencial factors...which are just unique and different than yours or anyone elses. That does not make it wrong or right for either of us. They are our core beliefs. Bush has his core beliefs just like you do. Millions argue Clinton did the same amount of damage in his own ways...we are just seeing the afffects long after he is gone and are left with the mess.
> 
> ...



Brian, your posts would carry a lot more weight if they seemed to reflect an independent, non partisan mind.
Unfortunately, your partisan views are obviously displayed every time you voice a political opinion...

I sincerely hope that Hilary Clinton is not the next US president, since the Clintons have demonstrated time and again that they are corrupt politicians...
but to defend arguably the worst US president and administration in history reveals your inaptitude to have a detached political thought...

You're right: you'd be better off writting music...


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 15, 2007)

Patrick...EVERYONE is partisan in their own way. It is called having an opinion on politics. Those here who are vehemently opposed to conservative principles and ideals are also partisan. And yet, you do not address them? Come on...be honest here. NO ONE HERE is of an "independent, non partisan mind". o-[][]-o That would imply that no one has or will come to a conclusion on anything. 

Unless you are trying to imply that I (or all the other individuals here) simply form their own political conclusions and opinions WITHOUT any thought or consideration to the subjects at hand? I give these things a lot of thought. Probably more than the average person. Hence my passion about my beliefs, politics and the direction of future generations. I would expect everyone here who is passionate about their ideals and principles to feel the same as well. For example, I may disagree with Nick about his politics...but I respect that he has come to his own conclusions with a lifetime of care and much thought. He wants the world to be a better place. He just has a different opinion on how to make that happen. I want the same thing...I just think there is a different way to go about it. Hence, I think he is wrong. He thinks I am wrong. C'est la vie. That does not mean that I don't listen to what he has to say because he is a Democrat. I listen to it...think about it...usually disagree...state that (sometime with an attempt at humor because I find it the only way to get through)...move on. 

There is nothing wrong with having a political opinion and a set of core beliefs and principles that cause you to see and interpret the world around you in a certain way. Everyone falls in that catagory in some fashion and everyone is hence...partisan in their own way. The challenge is to be able to debate those ideas and principles without taking the discourse into the toilet while still maintaining respect that there are individuals out there who have a different opinion. Especially here in a forum of colleagues on an international board. 

How many U.S. conservatives do you see on this board specifically coming here to start a post containing an insult or slam against the other political party...or another country and their political problems? It just doesn't happen. 

o-[][]-o


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Sep 15, 2007)

I have to disagree Brian.

To have an independent, non-partisan mind simply means that you are willing to looks at life events objectively, no matter what political party you or the leader you are observing belong to.

I did address "those here who are vehemently opposed to conservative principles and ideals" by voicing my mistrust of the Clinton clan.
But I can't help noticing over and over your refusal to admit to Bush administration's utter disrespect for life and democratic (or republican, if the word democratic erks you) principals. Your blindness to these well established facts - and I'm talking well-established not just by the US democrat propaganda but by the world at large; just read the posts here by people from all over the world - confirms to me that you are in denial. And you'll have a hard time tagging me as a member of the democrat party as a justification for my views, since I wasn't born here and didn't have parents that conditionned me to be either republican or democrat.
I don't care for either parties: I look at human qualifications...

As a matter of fact, from the readings that I've done, I would like to say that the true republican principles that were at the origin of the birth of this nation are being trampled over and over by this administration (and were also trampled by Nixon, Reagan, Clinton...etc) But this time around, the abuse has been so blatant and arogant and damaging to the future of this nation that I am shoked at your blindness to reality.
If you were a true republican (in the good sense of the term) you should feel repulsed and disgusted right now...

We know what the pack mentality does to people's intellect and that's exactly what party leaders want: they want to lower the individual's intellect so that no questions are asked and so that they can keep a free hand at ruling the world.
That intelligent people like yourself still adhere to this mass propaganda doesn't bode well for the future of the world as we know it...


----------



## aeneas (Sep 15, 2007)

Brian Ralston @ Sat 15 Sep said:


> NO ONE HERE is of an "independent, non partisan mind".


I am. ~o) 

When a set of beliefs is confronting a different set of beliefs, such a confrontation cannot become rational as long as those beliefs are mistaken for facts. A set of beliefs cannot successfully be opposed to another set of beliefs. A set of beliefs can be opposed in only one way: simply pointing to its very nature - by continuously, stubbornly, and clearly stating that what is so vehemently affirmed as true, it actually is not true, but only a set of beliefs. We are only blind men trying to describe an elephant - so let's stick together, and not fight each other.

Nietzsche said that there are no facts, only interpretations. I think he has a point. If we accept that as true, if we admit that we hold nothing more than imperfect interpretations, then what would follow as a necessity is that one can never be right AGAINST someone else. When that will be embraced as a logically correct point of view, that is when the end of all wars will happen. 

Peace.

EDIT
I hope that GWB's very last statement will be exactly this: "Peace" - while rising the V fingers. And, of course, followed by calling all US soldiers back within US borders.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Sep 15, 2007)

Some good points there, aeneas.

Please explain these concepts carefully to the Islamic jihadists and we'll be set. 




.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 15, 2007)

Jack, I've noticed that most people who are in favor of military solutions to terrorism (and all kinds of problems for that matter) have very generic viewpoints. You know, anyone who doesn't believe in that is totally unrealistic about "the threat," and the answer is very simple: go get 'em.

Unfortunately, reality is a lot more complicated than that - as are the actual reasons for wars in most cases.

Now, you haven't said enough for me to be sure your opinions fall into that category, of course. Just an observation.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 15, 2007)

Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Sep 15 said:


> I have to disagree Brian.
> 
> To have an independent, non-partisan mind simply means that you are willing to looks at life events objectively, no matter what political party you or the leader you are observing belong to.



And yet...that is pretty much what I do...whether you believe it or not. Your perception of what I believe or not is really off here Patrick...it is. I have not even really gone into a lot of details about the Iraq war on the board here. A bit months and weeks ago...but you make it sound like I come on here and defend Bush's actions and decisions at every turn and I really don't think you will find that coming from me. Especially since the NSS days. 



Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Sep 15 said:


> I did address "those here who are vehemently opposed to conservative principles and ideals" by voicing my mistrust of the Clinton clan.But I can't help noticing over and over your refusal to admit to Bush administration's utter disrespect for life and democratic (or republican, if the word democratic erks you) principals. Your blindness to these well established facts - and I'm talking well-established not just by the US democrat propaganda but by the world at large; just read the posts here by people from all over the world - confirms to me that you are in denial.



I am sorry Patrick, but I see the world differently than you do. I see our presence and intentions in the middle east differently than you do. I do not believe the U.S. is a force of evil but a force for good in general. I acknowledge that there have been mistakes. I do not think war is pretty. I do think the loss of innocent life is tragic and should be avoided. But, I do not see the current terrorism situation in this world as a zero sum game, but one where the U.S. is going on the offensive to deal with this war that has been waged against us long before we really started fighting back. Sorry, I just don't see it that way. My opinion. I don't care if it is the party line or not. I don't subscribe to an idea just because a political party "in general does"...I choose to associate with a political party because my ideals and principles are more in line with being a conservative than a liberal democrat. 



Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Sep 15 said:


> And you'll have a hard time tagging me as a member of the democrat party as a justification for my views, since I wasn't born here and didn't have parents that conditionned me to be either republican or democrat.
> I don't care for either parties: I look at human qualifications...



I never did try to call you a democrat. And don't think I am conservative because my parents "conditioned" me either. They were both life long democrats (born in 1928 and 1933) till pretty much Reagan and only changed their official registration in 2000. There are many Democrats I wholly support...so it seems we have a similar view on that. I respect Joe Lieberman A LOT. And I respect Barak Obama a lot. I don't agree with him on much and think he is kind of a boy scout and not realistic, especially when it comes to foreign policy...My respect for Nancy Pelosi went up this week when she condemned the MoveOn.org NYTimes add besmirching General Patreus.



Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Sep 15 said:


> As a matter of fact, from the readings that I've done, I would like to say that the true republican principles that were at the origin of the birth of this nation are being trampled over and over by this administration (and were also trampled by Nixon, Reagan, Clinton...etc) But this time around, the abuse has been so blatant and arogant and damaging to the future of this nation that I am shoked at your blindness to reality.



I am not blind to what is going on. I just don't interpet what is going on as "abuse" like so many people are quick to do because (in my opinion) their party lost 2 elections in a row where they expected to win. I tend to think a lot of sour grapes and people who could not deal with the loss of political power really drove a lot of this hatred of Bush early on and it has not stopped since. 



Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Sep 15 said:


> If you were a true republican (in the good sense of the term) you should feel repulsed and disgusted right now...



I am, just not about the things you are disgusted about. Illegal Immigration and border security issues being one of the topics I am disgusted with. Taxes are another. Education...etc...



Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Sep 15 said:


> We know what the pack mentality does to people's intellect and that's exactly what party leaders want: they want to lower the individual's intellect so that no questions are asked and so that they can keep a free hand at ruling the world.
> That intelligent people like yourself still adhere to this mass propaganda doesn't bode well for the future of the world as we know it...



Again...you are really mistaken Patrick.  Everyone who knows me knows that I am probably the most level headed, respectful, thoughtful and compassionate person they know. Including many of my friends and colleagues in the entertainment industry who are hard left democrats who agree with me very little on political issues...and yet they love me. They work with me. They respect me. Not because they think I tout some party line....but because they know and have experienced that I think things through a lot and speak from the heart with passion and compassion. And I as their friend don't want to change them at all...and also respect that they have their own heart felt opinions on things. And that is truly...diversity at its best. If only the world were so tolerant. o-[][]-o :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 15, 2007)

"I see our presence and intentions in the middle east differently than you do. I do not believe the U.S. is a force of evil but a force for good in general"

You're talking to Patrick, Brian, but I don't see how it's possible to view any country as good or bad. Countries behave in their own interest. Haven't you read Machiavelli?

Of course Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam Hussein are way more brutal than anyone we've seen in our country, but people are basically the same everywhere. We're all just hairless apes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 15, 2007)

Some of us more hairless than others...


----------



## almacg (Sep 21, 2007)

Brian Ralston @ Sat 15 Sep said:


> I see our presence and intentions in the middle east differently than you do. I do not believe the U.S. is a force of evil but a force for good in general. I acknowledge that there have been mistakes.



Sorry but that's one of the most sickening things I have ever heard. A force for good? Just where were you when you're so called force for good was dropping napalm bombs on innocent civilians back in nam? Where were you when the USA overthrew the first democratically elected leader of Iran in '53 and installed the shah? Where were you when the USA gave 3 billion to the Taliban to stop Russia invading? What about the billions of aid in weapons USA gave to Saddam Hussain to invade Iran? Where were you when America invaded Panama removing a democratically elected leader, resulting in 3000 casualties (all because he disobeyed washington). 
America used depleted uranium on both ivasions of Iraq. This is a WMD and it is NOT allowed to be used in war according to practically every humans right act ever drawn up. 

People are being born in Iraq with considerable birth defects, and you have the tenacity to sit at your computer in your lovely, safe country, away from the horrors of war which are being inflicted by your government, and call these atrocities 'unfortunate'? It makes me incredibly angry that anyone could be so insensitive. 



Brian Ralston @ Sat 15 Sep said:


> I do not think war is pretty. I do think the loss of innocent life is tragic and should be avoided



How can you possibly say this, whilst supporting the actions of your government. You are contradicting yourself at every turn. The American government has crapped on the world enough times, and we're fed up with it. Anyone who supports their actions should get on the first plane to Iraq, book into the Baghdad hotel, and experience so called 'liberation' at first hand. 

WAKE UP!


----------



## aeneas (Sep 21, 2007)

Me also thinks US troops are a force of good. It only depends on which side you are. If you are not with them, then you are against them. (o)

I see that you are located "inside your cpu", so probably you too think to be safe. Beware, though - I heard Pentagon has developed a computer-virus-bomb that automatically targets recalcitrant guys like you. 
World, wake up! - the brave Chinese rabbits are endangered! >8o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2007)

"Where were you when the USA gave 3 billion to the Taliban to stop Russia invading?"

I don't know about the 3 billion (not that I'm disputing it), but the reason we supported the mujahideen that later became Taliban was precisely to induce the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. As I posted before in this thread, this was Zbigniew Brezhinsky's policy, and the idea was to give them their own "Vietnam." It was what finally broke the back of their empire; while I wouldn't like the idea so much if I were Afghani, it did work.

...not that I disagree with your overall point of view about American behavior. As I said, there's no way to call any country good or bad, at least not on a consistent basis. England has a rather nasty colonial history too, of course.

Human beings have always behaved like animals. The difference between me and Brian is that I believe we don't have to give in to the beast within all the time, while he believes it's the way of the world and we need to be beasts proactively.


----------



## rgames (Sep 26, 2007)

Whenever I get involved in discussions about the current administration there are a few facts that fail to get mentioned:

1. Regime change in Iraq was made official policy (unanimously) under the Clinton administration. All Bush did was come along and act upon that policy.

2. When nations are thrown into political upheaval, they go to war. The US fought for its identity as a nation on and off for about 100 years (1776 - 1865). We shouldn't expect Iraq to be any different.

3. Bush's academic record at Yale was better than Kerry's. Look it up! (There are plenty of bright people who are not particularly articulate.)

For the record, I am not a fan of Bush, but I am less a fan of misinformation and incomplete information, and these are important points that seem to get brushed aside...

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 26, 2007)

Gee thanks Richard, you just made me spit coffee all over my monitor. And not just once for each of your important facts, but several more times when I read the last sentence.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 26, 2007)

Imo mankind can't handle force. Military force or any other force only gets "evil" when it can't be handled properly. Bush, Chaney and the former Secretary of State Rumsfeld proved time and time again that they can't handle force properly. Force not handled gets out of control and more often than not goes sour. That's what happened in Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq.

At one point in American history America could handle force. It takes ethical people with high intelligence to do that. Unfortunately these days those are few and far and certainly aren't running for political office.

Newton's laws of force apply in this universe for all actions. It simply states that for any action there's an equal and opposite reaction. We as sentient beings can and should live above the physical universe. But, since 1900 or so there's been a serious attack in public opinion and in private on the mind of mankind(formerly know as the spirit: The seat of intelligence and feelings separate from the body) that has left his ability to reason and rationalize things in serious jeopardy. Most people are convinced that they are animals. Thus you get people acting more and more like animals. Thus was the case in Germany, thus was the case in the former Yugoslavia, in many parts of Africa, and in the US.

Where you deny people the right to think and feel and reason then you get all sorts of insanity like Abu Ghraib. No thinking feeling person would ever do that to other human beings.

The military is a force out of control. The soldiers are not taught to think Ethically but to react to the commands of superiors. When those superiors are for the most part insane then these soldiers for the most part are acting on insane orders.

Again for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. War begets War. Violence begets more violence. Hatred begets more hatred and thus the world continues down the dwindling spiral until one day there's so much violence that the world becomes inhospitable to all life. Thus we have the atom bomb and Russian's new bomb--the vacuum bomb. Both of which capable of wiping out life whole sale.

So then what are we left with. We're left with people who would ultimately get along except for the fact that people who would pray on others fear of others using that to gain more and more political power. Because with fear you can control people. With fear people can't think. Thinking people ask questions. Thinking people know right from wrong. Those who use fear or reduce mankind to a whimpering animal afraid incapable of thinking and afraid to speak out. Remember when confronted by a bully at school, many of us just cowed down and could barely speak up in defense. Fear is crippling. 

Ultimately the burden rest on us. Will we continue to support leaders that aren't ethical enough and aren't sane enough handle force? Should we require politicians to do psychological profile test to determine the sanity of the potential leaders?

There are Burmese monks protesting in the streets opposing a military regime. I can't stop thinking about that. The only way to solve man of these hideous problems and these materialistic force based solutions is to convince man once again that he is not a one life animal. That he can rise above gang warfare. The the problems of the world can be solved if one once again believes in the human spirit. A spirit crafted in love, intelligence and understanding. A spirit that isn't part of the physical universe and that can rise above it. A spirit that is strong and that can change whole courses of civilization on one inherent fact. That fact being that one's integrity to oneself and his ideals are more important than his immediate life. That no group can control you if you yourself take it upon yourself to figure out what's right for you regardless of how dangerous it may be to voice your own thoughts and feelings. Thus the monks protest without guns in hopes of convincing enough minds that they can oppose too. It may be dangerous and you may lose your life, but the cause of peace and freedom are more important than your immediate life.

Martin Luther, Ghandi, these monks and many other religions and religious people stand for something. They stand for at least the hope or idea that we can rise above the blood thirst and use of force to "solve" our problems. They made great changes. Though force was applied to them they didn't react with force. The reasons for protesting more important than their immediate life. Acting in the name of good more important than following the unjust laws. They acted by uniting the minds of people for a cause. Much harder. Takes much more guts and intelligence to do that. But in the end well worth the effort.

It has been said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Of course that was said by the dictator Napoleon. Why that fact isn't pointed out more is a mystery. Where religion has gone wrong it has gone very wrong and so has lost it's grip on mankind. But where it goes right it's the only thing that can go right. It's the only thing that reminds man that there's more to live for than your home, your land, your oil and the price of gas. Where you make these material things your gods and live solely for those things you then are subject to all the cruel forces of the material world. And all the forces of the laws of Newton then act upon you. Forces that these days very few are equipped to handle mentally. The amount of worry caused by not making a bill on time is enough to prove to most that they can't handle the pressures of our world.

So good politicians go insane. Who wouldn't with the weight of the world on your back. It's a cruel world ready to kick apart anybody who stands for peace. Ready to crucify anybody with the message, "we can love eachother". No matter how hard that is. Ultimately it's better than the endless downward spiral of continuous war.

Iraq is fighting for survival. Most of which people are good. They know if America pulls out its neighbors will collapse upon it. Yet who would want to live with a foreign enemy military running around torturing and killing it's people. I certainly wouldn't. So the forces go uncontrolled. Bush just waiting now to hand over the problem to somebody else. Hopefully that next person is ethical enough and intelligent enough to handle it. But since we don't know the mental state of any of the candidates really. Who knows how that will play out?

But one thought does give me comfort. If the game wasn't so brutal it would be quite an amusing comedy to watch these buffoons try to weasel their way out of every gaff and misstep. Every time I turn on the news I'm constantly reminded of a circus gone out of control. Or an out of control train with clowns at the wheel. It would be funny if that train wasn't headed right straight at us.

Do we have enough time to make a change? I don't know. Do I have faith that any government will ever do the right thing. Hell no.

Jose


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 26, 2007)

> 1. Regime change in Iraq was made official policy (unanimously) under the Clinton administration. All Bush did was come along and act upon that policy.



That fact is not really much use though is it? I mean there are many ways to support and push for a regime change. You cant hold the Clinton administration accountable, which in part is what I assume you are trying to do? If not the fact has no meaning.


----------



## peru (Sep 26, 2007)

*Arundhati Roy's and Naomi Klein's statement*

We - documentary about world politics of power, war, corporations, deception and exploitation.
Words of Arundhati Roy on terror, corporate globalization, justice and the growing civil unrest.

http://www.weroy.com/watch.shtml (options)

Windows Media - 100mb: http://ia300215.us.archive.org/0/items/ ... __256k.wmv (also avail at UT part 1-7)
_________________________

The Shock Doctrine - http://www.naomiklein.org/ (*edit - not an easy short film to watch - perhaps the interview with Amy Goodman at http://www.democracynow.org/index.shtml would be less upsetting. (archives: shock doctrine) - transcript / watch 256k stream / printer-friendly

Hi, I've learned a lot from this forum - thanks, All. Above are a few links that may be of interest to this discussion.

Love and charity.


----------



## rgames (Sep 26, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Sep 26 said:


> > 1. Regime change in Iraq was made official policy (unanimously) under the Clinton administration. All Bush did was come along and act upon that policy.
> 
> 
> 
> That fact is not really much use though is it? I mean there are many ways to support and push for a regime change. You cant hold the Clinton administration accountable, which in part is what I assume you are trying to do? If not the fact has no meaning.



Well, Clinton ordered the first attacks on Iraq that were a result of this policy. He initiated "Operation Desert Fox" with the stated goal of beginning the process of removing Saddam Hussein from power in December 1998. So the manner in which the Clinton administration decided to push for regime change was, in fact, military force.

Better yet, Clinton's primary justification for the attacks was because Hussein "will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." Sound familiar?

So why is it that nobody ever brings this up? Well, here's another bit of info: it happened the same week as the Clinton impeachment hearings. And, let's face it, sex is much more interesting than war .

Again, I think Bush could have made better decisions and I'm not defending him (or Clinton, for that matter). My point is that there was significant anti-Iraqi sentiment that predates him, including the use of military force to remove Hussein from power and get rid of his (supposed) WMD capability.

rgames


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 26, 2007)

rgames @ Wed Sep 26 said:


> Clinton blah, blah, blah . . .
> 
> So why is it that nobody ever brings this up?


Because Clinton didn't thumb his nose at the U.N. and actually declare war on Iraq. What GW did is a whole different matter than just being in the _planning_ stages and still taking _and listening to_ input from other sources, which is where Clinton was.

Sometimes military action is necessary. But if everybody else (except for your yes-men) is advising against it, you need to thoughtfully consider those dissenting opinions. GW doesn't do that and that's his fatal flaw.

Besides, I don't recall hearing GW Bush mentioning that this whole thing was just a matter of carrying out "The Clinton Plan." This whole argument sounds to me like classic Rush Limbaugh "Oh yeah, well what about Clinton!" kind of stuff.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 26, 2007)

Richard, earlier in this thread I wrote that countries behave in their own interest - they're never entirely good or bad. What I wrote was slightly wrong. I should have said that they behave in their *perceived* interest.

Now, when people talk about US being a superpower, that's really a euphemism for being an imperial power. Not like the Ancient Romans, of course, but we do have an empire with military bases all over the world.

WMD is only a small part of the reason for wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The real reason is to reshape the region in a way that suits our interests. Sure we're all offended by his disgusting behavior, but it's really the pursuit of "energy security" that's behind all this. Throughout human history, wars are always fought about resources or control over them.

It so happens that having military bases all over the world and getting into wars to ensure the continued flow of cheap oil is absolutely not in our interest - in fact it's going to lead to the end of our empire. Not only does it breed deep resentment, it's sidestepping the most important issue facing civilization right now, namely getting started on a new energy economy. 

Clinton wasn't as imperialistic as Bush, and he tended to exercise our imperial powers financially (for example by sending Argentina into ruin) rather than militarily, but he wasn't a saint either.

Bush on the other hand has taken this to a whole new level, and it's extremely dangerous. I quoted Chalmers Johnson earlier in this thread when I said that Bush didn't lead us into this mess, but he has led us into a cul de sac.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 26, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed 26 Sep said:


> Throughout human history, wars are always fought about resources or control over them.


That is why, after losing the Vietnam war, America got kinda short on shrimps and noodles. o=<


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 26, 2007)

Actually that should be "...wars have always been fought..."


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 26, 2007)

aeneas @ Wed Sep 26 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed 26 Sep said:
> 
> 
> > Throughout human history, wars are always fought about resources or control over them.
> ...



:lol: ....

But Nick is right. I don't understand why most people don't get this. I guess those in charge of propaganda are well organized... 

But there seem to be an other factor in modern history and it's the weapon industry. This industry is one of the biggest if not the biggest in the world. 

Speaking of witch, here's some interesting fact about this administration. There are 16 former or current Lockheed Martin executive serving on the Bush administration, including Lyn Cheiny the vice president's wife. Lockheed Martin is said to be the biggest weapon dealer in the US. Also, it's the first time that the president, the vice president and the secretary of state are former oil/energy officials. Mrs. Rice served on the board of Chevron for ten years. 

Here is where i got that information. That little girl did her home work. The sad thing is we would all have learn this years ago if only the media did their job. Where's the liberal media when you need them? :lol: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gv9tH0N ... ed&search=

I just found this on google when searching for Lockheed Martin. I just read a small part of it but though that part was interesting.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/TiesThatBind.html (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arm ... tBind.html)



> Ties That Bind – Contractor Connections to the Bush Administration: When the Bush administration first took office, it appointed 32 executives, paid consultants, or major shareholders of weapons contractors to top policymaking positions in the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the Department of Energy (involved in nuclear weapons development), and the State Department. Since that time, the "revolving door" has continued to spin, including a high profile scandal in which Air Force procurement official Darleen Druyun pled guilty to criminal charges for negotiating for a position at Boeing while simultaneously negotiating with the company on the terms of a controversial scheme to lease 100 more Boeing 767 airliners for modification and use as aerial refueling tankers. Another controversial move involved Pentagon acquisition chief Edward "Pete" Aldridge’s decision to move straight from Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon to a position on the board of Lockheed Martin.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 26, 2007)

Another thing Chalmers Johnson says is that we used to be a towering industrial power, but now our industry has all been sent overseas. The only thing we have left is the arms industry, and our entire economy is propped up by "military Keynesianism" - i.e. the only thing that keeps us going is that the government spends money on arms.

A little over the top, I think, but unfortunately not as far out as one wants it to be.


----------



## tobyond (Sep 26, 2007)

rgames @ Wed Sep 26 said:


> 3. Bush's academic record at Yale was better than Kerry's.



That speaks volumes about the state of education in this country.
:(


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Arundhati Roy's and Naomi Klein's statement*



peru @ Wed Sep 26 said:


> We - documentary about world politics of power, war, corporations, deception and exploitation.
> Words of Arundhati Roy on terror, corporate globalization, justice and the growing civil unrest.
> 
> http://www.weroy.com/watch.shtml (options)
> ...



Thanks for the video peru. I enjoy them, ...if you can call it that.

I saw the first movie before or should i say i hear here speech and i like that Indian women a lot. She is sweet and smart.

The second one is the one I'm really happy you posted as i saw Naomi's interview this week. That women is brilliant and her work is so important and greatly needed. 
I'm going to watch Democracy Now now ... :? :lol: 

Thanks!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 26, 2007)

tobyond @ Wed Sep 26 said:


> rgames @ Wed Sep 26 said:
> 
> 
> > 3. Bush's academic record at Yale was better than Kerry's.
> ...



It probably means Bush had better connections. :wink:


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Sep 27, 2007)

So, I'm curious.

Someone speculate what the situation in the Middle East would be if we had not gotten involved. I'm curious to what you think.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 27, 2007)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Thu Sep 27 said:


> So, I'm curious.
> 
> Someone speculate what the situation in the Middle East would be if we had not gotten involved. I'm curious to what you think.



You mean in Iraq? Well there would be 1 million less dead Iraqi for one thing! :roll:


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 27, 2007)

almacg @ Fri Sep 21 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Sat 15 Sep said:
> 
> 
> > I see our presence and intentions in the middle east differently than you do. I do not believe the U.S. is a force of evil but a force for good in general. I acknowledge that there have been mistakes.
> ...



1. Vietnam although perhaps understood in context of the times (cold war - stop communism) was a mistake of the highest order and does indeed represent the worst of the American character. Not the soldiers in the field but the politicians and business men who profited.

2. The deposing of the Shah may be viewed as some awful thing but one should understand that nations and tribes have been doing this kind of thing for thousands of years. It's just not tolerated anymore as acceptable. Don't forget a fundamentalist religious regime took over, instituted repressions and gave way to the present whack job who echoes Hitler on treatment of the Jews.

3. We gave billions to ALL the Muhajadeen including Mahmoud in the north and Saudi's such as Bin Laden. Also intelligence et. al. These are the people who in their thanksgiving murdered 3000 US citizens. So when America DOES do something good we still get accused of hideous behavior as your post does.

4. Panama was another terrible blunder and shameful in my opinion. Even Britain wouldn't go along with us and protested.

5. Yes we backed Saddam against Iran just like Iran is backing the Shiites against us. We also backed Britain and France against Germany. It's extremely naive not to think that everyone is backing someone else throughout the world and that somehow is always criminal - it's not.

So yes, the US has done criminal things and yes the US has done great things. Is their a single nation that doesn't fit this description?


----------



## aeneas (Sep 27, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Thu 27 Sep said:


> So yes, the US has done criminal things and yes the US has done great things. Is their a single nation that doesn't fit this description?


A somewhat similar question: Saving 1000 lives and deliberately killing one, does that make one 'great'?

I would call a great nation one that respects and does not occupy other nations. Norway, for instance. Ireland. Canada. Australia. New Zealand. Switzerland ... And other peaceful nations. Also, the United States of America, hopefully.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2007)

I've posted my explanation for #3 too many times: it was intended to give the Soviets their equivalent of a Vietnam - and it worked, contributing greatly to the implosion of their empire. It's hard to call that doing something good - especially if you're Afghani - because it was realpolitik in its highest form.

But your last sentence is exactly what I'm saying to Brian. It's naive to believe that we're a "force for good," because we're not. We're a force for ourselves just like every other country. I'm happy I live here rather than Burma, of course, but go ask the people in Okinawa whether they think we're a force for good. Or any other place where we have a military base.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2007)

aeneas, every one of those countries has good and bad things in its history too. As I said, it's human nature. The beast within.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 27, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu 27 Sep said:


> aeneas, every one of those countries has good and bad things in its history too. As I said, it's human nature. The beast within.


Right, but I was talking recent history, say last 100 years, and not the barbarian periods. Some countries are still living with barbarian mentalities, also allowing aggressive megalomaniacs to reach to power. Not the countries that I mentioned.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Sep 27, 2007)

> You mean in Iraq? Well there would be 1 million less dead Iraqi for one thing!



Ok so basically. Your saying we're responsible for 1 million deaths. Why?

Has everyone even forgot that there are numerous suicide bombings? Hell when we DID bomb the place, we dropped leaflets for crying out loud.

Sure there were casualties, but I will not subscribe to the idea that we purposely killed civilians.

Everyone is forgetting that this is a religious based war. Not because we think so, but because they think so. We're pro Israel, and they've ALWAYS hated that. Therefore we have always been a target. They have declared their holy war on us, and they won't stop. If we hadn't intervened they would be in a much more powerful situation.

And by they I mean that large percentage of Islamic people that are extreme in their beliefs (which some islamic people I know, believe is a result of mis-interpreting the Quaran)


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 27, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Sep 27 said:


> Dave Connor @ Thu 27 Sep said:
> 
> 
> > So yes, the US has done criminal things and yes the US has done great things. Is their a single nation that doesn't fit this description?
> ...



Who said that? If the _one_ is Hitler and the 1,000 is 10,000,000 I would say yes. (The question is too vague and does not allow for a single principle to be applied.)





aeneas @ Thu Sep 27 said:


> I would call a great nation one that respects and does not occupy other nations. Norway, for instance. Ireland. Canada. Australia. New Zealand. ...


These nations are not strong enough to dominate others so there's no telling what they would do if they could. Norway's hands were dirty in WWII on many counts and the Irish bombed and killed British citizens and each other a whole bunch.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 27, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Sep 27 said:


> It's hard to call that doing something good - especially if you're Afghani - because it was realpolitik in its highest form.



As you said Nick, all nations act in their interests. Helping a small third-world nation defend itself from one of the greatest military powers in all of history couldn't possibly be called _bad._ I dare say most Afghani's considered it a good thing in the extreme.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2007)

And then we gave them the Taliban.



> Right, but I was talking recent history, say last 100 years, and not the barbarian periods. Some countries are still living with barbarian mentalities, also allowing aggressive megalomaniacs to reach to power. Not the countries that I mentioned.



As Dave says, only because they don't have the ability. Recent history hasn't changed things as much as we like to believe.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 27, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Thu 27 Sep said:


> aeneas @ Thu Sep 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Thu 27 Sep said:
> ...


The principle is very basic, some religious people would call it 'the first commandment': man has not the right to take another man's life. But it is probably hard to think that way in a state that allows civilians to bear guns. In a state that has not abolished the death penalty. In a state that some 60 years ago has deliberately dropped two atomic bombs on civilians, women and children, on the explicit purpose to make such a massive and horrible kill that the other - honorable - army would see the futility to fight a monster capable of that. I think the US don't value human life enough. War and violence is the cowards' way. The truly brave are the peacemakers like Gandhi. 

Hitler was a coward nut, he lived and died as a coward. You think killing Hitler would be okay. I don't. First, killing is NEVER okay. Second, Hitler would have deserved a far worse punishment than being executed. He should have lived to see the ruin of his crazy dream and to see his country destroyed, divided, and invaded by the two things he hated most: democracy and communism. He should have lived to see Jewish people prospering in the US, and the state Israel rise again, mainly as a side consequence of the nazi policy (!!). He should have lived very long, and see many things. But that is another discussion. 

Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of American people (mostly artists, especially musicians  ), I love the American frankness, the American sense of humor and the American $$ :D , among other things . I don't quite like the part of the American ideology which says that it's okay to kill and it's okay to invade other countries, that's all I don't like.

EDIT - my point with that questions was: deliberately killing a human would only make one a murderer and murderers can never be great. 



Dave Connor @ Thu 27 Sep said:


> aeneas @ Thu Sep 27 said:
> 
> 
> > I would call a great nation one that respects and does not occupy other nations. Norway, for instance. Ireland. Canada. Australia. New Zealand. ...
> ...


I am not talking civilians killing each other. AFAIK, the Republic of Ireland was never involved in bombing the UK. "Not strong enough"?? On the contrary, I'd say, they are very strong, also respected - without being feared. Those nations I mentioned simply don't find that is civilized to military dominate others nations - and I consider their attitude as a sign of strength. In our times, willing to military dominate is a sign of weakness, and violence always was the behavior of cowards. I see nothing to admire in the ability to drop bombs wherever you like, whenever you like, even against UN's will. I think, in problematic regions, UN troops would be a better alternative. There can be Americans soldiers among them, but obeying UN orders.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2007)

"I don't quite like the part of the American ideology which says that it's okay to kill and it's okay to invade other countries, that's all I don't like."

Remember, it's only half the country that voted to support that ideology, and most of those people didn't realize what they were voting for. That still leaves 150 million of us.

So you have to be careful when you call something an American ideology.


----------



## rgames (Sep 27, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Sep 27 said:


> "I don't quite like the part of the American ideology which says that it's okay to kill and it's okay to invade other countries, that's all I don't like."
> 
> Remember, it's only half the country that voted to support that ideology, and most of those people didn't realize what they were voting for. That still leaves 150 million of us.
> 
> So you have to be careful when you call something an American ideology.



Killing and invading are not part of the "American Ideology." However, there are times when Americans are willing to accept it as a consequence of our ideologies.

When the president authorized the start of the attacks to remove Hussein from power, it was done with unanimous support from congress and something like 80% approval of the public. It was also written into law.

But that doesn't mean that America places "killing and invading" among its ideologies. I believe part of the American Ideology is to 1) Protect our interests as a nation and 2) Spread democracy. In the course of protecting their interests, most nations believe it is OK to kill and invade. And if there is a group of oppresed people who would benefit from a free and modern democratic society, and the benefit to those people far outweighs the cost of war, then it is also OK to kill and invade the forces of oppression.

The case for invading Iraq, and the reason for the nation's overwhelming support for the decision at the outset, was that both of these ideologies were being challenged. The US had security concerns because of Hussein's past involvement with WMD programs, his stated desire to harm the United States, and his ties to terrorist organizations. His ability to upset a critical US need, oil, was also substantial. And he led an opressive regime that placed no value on its people and their desires.

No one of these reasons was sufficient justification to invade Iraq and remove Hussein, but the combination of them, according to most Americans at the time, was. So the American ideology is not to kill and invade, but those are options that most Americans (and citizens of most countries) leave on the table in order to fulfill their ideologies.

Consider this: never in recorded history has there been a nation with such overwhelming military might as the US over the past 50-60 years. If it is our ideology to "kill and invade", why have we not chosen to expand our borders? We certainly could if we wanted to, and yet we don't. History has shown dozens of nations that have "killed and invaded" with much worse odds of success.

The reason is simple: it's not part of the American Ideology. It's a consequence of it in some situations, but it is not the essence of it.

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Sep 27, 2007)

I remember the polls very clearly in the lead up to the war against Iraq. Every single poll leaned against it - until one popped up in late February or early March 2003 that was worded something like this:

Do you believe that
1) The US should go to war with Iraq, or
2) do nothing

Not surprisingly, the "do nothing" option lost - but by a small margin. The "go to war" preference was just barely over 50%. Had the options been to go to war or "intensively pursue diplomatic solutions", I'm sure that the war option would have lost - yet again.

Sure enough, war was on the fast track after the false dichotomy poll.

As Nick said, the war wasn't truly an American ideology. The whole thing was a manipulation.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 27, 2007)

rgames @ Thu 27 Sep said:


> "killed and invaded" ... it's not part of the American Ideology. It's a consequence of it in some situations, but it is not the essence of it.


True. I never meant it that way, as a _general_ American ideology, sorry for being unclear. I was referring more the actual administration apparent ideology. I know that no sane individual can think that it's 'okay to kill', except maybe some power-blinded politicians and generals. I am in fact a big admirer of the civil part of America, I couldn't bring such an offense to a whole nation, that would be silly. But there are two things that still bother me: bearing guns and the death penalty. They are part of a more general ideology, right? (not that every American agrees with them though...) I mean - I don't know of any other civilized country that does not condemn those two things...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2007)

"If it is our ideology to "kill and invade", why have we not chosen to expand our borders?"

Because that's old school. Our empire is constructed with military bases, CIA shenanigans, and all kinds military and economic coercion. It's way too expensive to expand borders, and we don't need to go into Canada and Mexico as long as they sell us the bulk of our oil at a low price anyway. Plus we do have an ideological bond with Canada, and we don't want to have to support poor Mexicans.

Besides, we won Texas fair and square.

With all due respect, Richard, your arguments are the cover stories that have been fed to us by a mainstream news media that's very much under corporate control. Whatever truth there is in those arguments is only a tiny percentage of the real story. Our motivations for military intervention are rarely as just as we'd all like to believe.

Consider this: if spreading democracy is of any interest to us at all, why did we not intervene in Rwanda (which would have been easy - they only had machetes), Darfur, now Myanmar...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2007)

aeneas, there are also some states that don't have the death penalty. Lots of Americans are opposed to it (myself included).


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Sep 28 said:


> Consider this: if spreading democracy is of any interest to us at all, why did we not intervene in Rwanda (which would have been easy - they only had machetes), Darfur, now Myanmar...



Again, spreading democracy was not the only reason to remove Hussein. There has to be a confluence of reasons, and there is not the confluence of reasons in Darfur or Rwanda that there was in Iraq.

Yes - Darfur and Rwanda were terrible situations and we could have done more to help. But the US can't position itself to try to fix every human injustice that pops up; it's just not possible. So we pick the ones where there is injustice combined with threats to our national security, as in Iraq.



JonFairhurst said:


> I remember the polls very clearly in the lead up to the war against Iraq. Every single poll leaned against it



You're probably thinking of the most recent activity since Bush became president. I was referring to the initial attacks in December 1998, right after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed and when the US initiated its policy of regime change. It was actually about 74% support, and 13% against, according to this story:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... iraq.poll/

The actual polling questions and responses are down the page a bit.

When looking up that info, I realized I misspoke about the unanimity of support for the Iraq Liberation Act - it was unanimous in the senate but passed 360-38 in the house. :oops:

rgames


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 28, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Sep 27 said:


> The principle is very basic, some religious people would call it 'the first commandment': man has not the right to take another man's life.


Yes, so if someone violates that law and you catch them in the act (say lunging toward your mother's throat with a hunting knife) and your an American citizen and have a gun within reach what would you do? I mean if you had say 1.5 sec's to act before your mother's head is rolling around on the floor (which her grandson - your son - is sitting on and whom he intends to kidnap, molest and then bury alive? My Christian soul tells me to blow the m-fer's head off.

Nobody _wants_ to kill anybody except psycho's and sometimes you have to stop them. Saddam certainly qualified as such so the essence of the principle of taking him out is not inherently bad. The problem is what are you left with? A quagmire of bloodshed as a result is not considered acceptable by most Americans and this is why we are in a precarious situation today. We can only hope a worse result is not coming but some sort of sovereign stabile nation over there.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 28, 2007)

"So we pick the ones where there is injustice combined with threats to our national security, as in Iraq."

There was never any threat to our national security in Iraq. This was strictly a strategic invasion.

And our Senate and House passed measures giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq (a subtle difference) practically without debate. That has everything to do with why I say we have a mockery of democracy in which everything is manipulated by media that are under corporate control. What politician is going to allow opponents to buy ads that make them look "soft on terrorism."

By the way, it's not true that the Senate vote was unanimous.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 28, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Fri 28 Sep said:


> aeneas @ Thu Sep 27 said:
> 
> 
> > The principle is very basic, some religious people would call it 'the first commandment': man has not the right to take another man's life.
> ...


I see your point, or at least I believe so. If I understand it correctly, the reason for bearing guns would be to stop psycho's with knives. But what if your psycho has a loaded gun in his hand, instead of a knife? How about gun-equipped psycho's, huh? A state that allows civilians to bear guns implicitly allows psycho's to bear guns. A psycho's can pop up anywhere. But it is ONLY the U. S. of A. that equips psycho's with guns. It is not a very comforting thought to know that your government allows psycho's to bear guns, is it? (o)

IMHO, guns, and generally lethal weapons designed to kill from distance - should be restricted only to policemen. Those fellas are psychologically tested and 'certified', and they are highly unlikely to attack someone.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Sep 28, 2007)

> There was never any threat to our national security in Iraq.



Do people actually believe this? There was a threat to Jerusalem, which we support therefore it's a threat to us. 

You can't just assume the terrorists are going to sit over there and NOT build more weapons, bombs, etc to cause more damage on us.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 28, 2007)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Sat 29 Sep said:


> > There was never any threat to our national security in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jerusalem, ah yes. An excellent, classic excuse for war and aggression. Hear: The bastards were "Threatening Jerusalem' woa! - where is my sword and my horse? Uhm, I mean my bombs and my planes? They are all planning to _terrorize_ us - so let's just nuke 'em all! >8o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vb0Mu0mhlw 0oD (just skip the 1st minute blah blah)

Meantime, the terrorists can sit very well in regular quiet apartments in any town on the US territory. Terrorists don't "Threaten Jerusalem", they 'only' make malicious plans and then they go and kill people. A terrorist can be one single person equipped with a gun and who can terrorize a college and shoot plenty of people. So your president is sending soldiers for fighting what? - faceless fanatics and psycho's who can be anywhere, even walking in Washington DC? - That is a ridiculous "solution", IMHO... What can soldiers do? Mr president can make a whole nation of soldiers and paratroop them ALL into the Middle East, what would that solve? 

OTOH, in my opinion, the US media is in a way responsible for spreading fear, misconceptions, for lying, and for terrorizing - yes, terrorizing people. Plus, for supporting warmongers while misrepresenting the good American people who demand other kind of solutions. 

0.02


----------



## rgames (Sep 29, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Sep 28 said:


> There was never any threat to our national security in Iraq.



That's definitely the crux of the argument for the US attacks on Iraq - whether or not you believe there was a threat to the security of the US. And there's no way to come up with a definite answer.

You can, however, play the odds. And I'm willing to say that the odds are that there was a security threat. Hussein clearly hated the US, and he undeniably used chem/bio weapons on a number of occasions. Whether or not he had them when we started or effort to oust him under Clinton or later under Bush is really immaterial - he most likely would have gotten them sooner or later. The fact that we found none means we made the decision at the right time.

And his ties to terrorism - it's the ages-old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage. Groups like al-qaeda had the manpower and the will, but needed resources. And Hussein had the resources but not the manpower (he had a well-defined state and the associated international scrutiny, so he had difficulty hiding things). So, put two and two together on that one... Again, whether or not there was a connection to terrorist organizations at the time is irrelevant; the only relevant question is whether he would make that alliance at some point. He allegedly funded suicide bombers in Israel, so it's not too much of a stretch to think that he would join up with the likes of al-qaeda at some point.

So, clearly anti-US, clearly anti-Israel, demonstrated use of WMD, likely connections to terrorist organizations (existing or future): I'm willing to call that a credible threat.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 29, 2007)

The entire Mid East is anti-US and anti-Israel, he had no connections to terrorist groups, future ties have nothing to do with anything...and while all the stuff you're saying sounds logical, it's not based on a real situation. Saddam Hussein was totally contained.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 29, 2007)

Future crimes? Possibilities? Preventing things to happen? Thought crimes? Let's arrest them before they do _it_? "Oh, no weapons, oops... but wait - that means we have moved fast, BEFORE they got them!"

Have you guys seen Minority Report?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 29, 2007)

"Do people actually believe this? There was a threat to Jerusalem, which we support therefore it's a threat to us. 

You can't just assume the terrorists are going to sit over there and NOT build more weapons, bombs, etc to cause more damage on us."

This is exactly what I meant when I posted earlier that people still wildly enthusiastic about the Iraq war tend to have totally generic "let's get 'em" opinions. Iran, terrorists, Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah - there's no difference between any of them in their minds. And in my experience it's usually Israeli people or irrationally pro-Israeli Americans who think that way. That's somewhat understandable given the constant threat Israelis live with, but it's also very wrong.

Plus your attention has been misdirected, as I also said before. This isn't about Israel or terrorists, it's about "energy security" (which is totally elusive).


----------



## Ed (Sep 29, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Sep 29 said:


> Plus your attention has been misdirected, as I also said before. This isn't about Israel or terrorists, it's about "energy security" (which is totally elusive).



Yes, its about sustaining a war with an enemy that cannot be beaten. Bush said it himself, its a war against "evil". What a dipstick.


----------



## Ed (Sep 29, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Fri Sep 28 said:


> My Christian soul tells me to blow the m-fer's head off.


 :?


----------



## Ed (Sep 29, 2007)

rgames @ Sat Sep 29 said:


> So, clearly anti-US, clearly anti-Israel, demonstrated use of WMD, likely connections to terrorist organizations (existing or future): I'm willing to call that a credible threat.


We *know *the government misrepresented the data in regards to WMDs in order to take us to war. We have them documented as a matter of public record claiming they didnt say things we know they said. 
i) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z0gOgDu ... ed&search=
ii) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYmEFoN8 ... ed&search=
I also think that _*at a minimum *_they were at least negligent and incompetent in regards to 911, claiming they had no idea terrorists might use planes as weapons to fly into buildings, when we again know very well that they did know. You cant trust their spin.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Sep 29, 2007)

> "Oh, no weapons, oops... but wait - that means we have moved fast, BEFORE they got them!"



Actually my thoughts are that they had them, but that had plenty of time to move them. Probably in Syria and such. I mean...they did keep delaying the inspections.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 29, 2007)

My theory is that nobody was able to tell Saddam Hussein they didn't have them, and that was why they delayed the inspections.

But it doesn't matter. At the time I believed he did have them, and that the only thing that was preventing him from using them was the threat of being regime-changed. So there went his restraint.

I'm very glad I was wrong.

...not to say that was the only reason I was opposed to it.


----------



## VonRichter (Sep 29, 2007)

I'm sick of people blaming me personally for what the government does. I'm just living my worthless gutter existence. It's not my damn fault I was born in America. I'm not a "cowboy", I'm trying to write a cycle of 13 symphonies for future generations. I vote scrupulously.

People are the same garbage everywhere.

Nations are imaginary baloney.

Most people across the entire planet are selfish, jealous, power hungry easily brainwashable idiots who can't see past their own noses.

The whole human race needs to grow up and stop acting like 2 year old crybabies.



"and biplanes bombed, with fluffy pillows"


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 29, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Sep 27 said:


> "I don't quite like the part of the American ideology which says that it's okay to kill and it's okay to invade other countries, that's all I don't like."
> 
> Remember, it's only half the country that voted to support that ideology, and most of those people didn't realize what they were voting for. That still leaves 150 million of us.



While I agree with you - what I dont get is how the fuck Bush could win twice, inspite of his pretty evident faliure in Iraq in 2004. That shook my belief in the American people as a whole :D. It's kind of like "damn guys - you deserve it now" :shock: 

What was it Bush said about "fool me twice"? :lol: 

disclaimer: I love America, and I beleive that you can again be the land of the great and once again show the way in the world. But not yet - the next president has an unbeleivable mess to clean up... 

Now do me a favor and vote Obama!


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 29, 2007)

aeneas @ Fri Sep 28 said:


> A state that allows civilians to bear guns implicitly allows psycho's to bear guns. A psycho's can pop up anywhere. But it is ONLY the U. S. of A. that equips psycho's with guns.



Guns are like drugs in that if you criminalize them it doen't stop people from getting their hands on them. So only law abiding citizens would be without guns which would be exactly what the criminals and psyhco's would want. The problem in this country is gun safety. I have owned guns since my childhood and never had and accident or misused them in any way which is true for millions and millions of people here. 



aeneas @ Fri Sep 28 said:


> IMHO, guns, and generally lethal weapons designed to kill from distance - should be restricted only to policemen. Those fellas are psychologically tested and 'certified', and they are highly unlikely to attack someone.


 We don't want a lot of government control and intrusion here such as illegal wire tapping and surveillance. The concept of _only the government gets guns_ makes me shudder.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 29, 2007)

Maybe we shoudl ahve a new thread on gun control? I have some questions on this issue but things here what get seriously derailed.


----------



## VonRichter (Sep 29, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Sep 29 said:


> While I agree with you - what I dont get is how the f#@k Bush could win twice, inspite of his pretty evident faliure in Iraq in 2004. That shook my belief in the American people as a whole :D. It's kind of like "damn guys - you deserve it now" :shock:



I do not deserve it in the slightest.

This is exactly what my post above is about. I'm tired of people blaming everyone in the entire country. I didn't vote for any of this baloney. _I do not deserve any blame for it._


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 29, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Sep 29 said:


> Maybe we shoudl ahve a new thread on gun control? I have some questions on this issue but things here what get seriously derailed.



There has been much discussion about America basic's stance in the world, our government policy, the attitude of American's towards the world etc. It was brought up that one of our major flaws is our attitude towards guns so I simply addressed the issue.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 29, 2007)

I have to agree with VonRichter. People are the same all over the world.

Plus you have to remember that Bush won by a small margin the second time, and there's a very good chance he won by only one vote (pick one of five criminals on the Supreme Court) the first time. I'd also like to feel better about the integrity of the voting in certain places like Ohio; there's also a reasonable chance he didn't actually win the second. (I'd be equally outraged by what happened in 2000 if a Democrat had been escorted in - it was a total crime for the Supreme Court to do what they did.)

Of course, if people in this country were rational he would have lost by a landslide the first time. The Republicans put up the least credible candidate in history twice in a row; hopefully they won't put up that know-nothing jackass Guiliani next year.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 29, 2007)

VonRichter @ Sat Sep 29 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Sat Sep 29 said:
> 
> 
> > While I agree with you - what I dont get is how the f#@k Bush could win twice, inspite of his pretty evident faliure in Iraq in 2004. That shook my belief in the American people as a whole :D. It's kind of like "damn guys - you deserve it now" :shock:
> ...



Hi Von... I agree - of course you cannot hold the nture US population accountable, even those who voted Bush. But it was still an eye-opener in many ways. The majority of US citizens have elected Bush twice, in spite of all his short-comings and obvious failures. This makes it ring a little hollow when these people now bitch about his disasterous policies. They are basically the same as in 2004. So in a way I do think it is fair to say, that it says something about the US citizens and what they are willing to put up with - what issues matter to them and which dont. And again, I would like to say that it does not say anything about YOU or many others... It's like when the apllestinians voted Hamas to lead the country. Many did not, but it still leaves an impression. 

However, I think many have learned their lessons and that the past 8 years have challenged their priorities, and perhaps changed a few.

ps: I find it amazing that only just above 50% of the elligiable voters actually vote. That's just crazy :D. Size obviously plays a role but still! Vote for someone who will actually try inform/reform whatever is needed to get that number up. The US should start by spreading democracy in the US.... _then_ take on the world!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 29, 2007)

He are some interesting videos about the last elections etc.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8112825559202389150 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9202389150)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WmC4grXdIk&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gcJOhCH ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhMUtzOxjJY&NR

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6165561321612417255&q=Sex (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7255&amp;q=Sex)


----------



## nikolas (Sep 30, 2007)

God...

I wish I'd seen the thread from the begining... I would be able to follow closely. Now with 138 posts and so many different ideas on board I just want to check on something.

How many of you here are Americans and how many not? Cause I see "half" posts like "guns should be outlawed, blah blah, Iraq, blah blah, you deserved bush, blah blah, etc", and "half" post like "outlawing won't work, peace, blah blah, bush, but I didn't deserve it, blah blah".

somehow I feel a weird deja vu here. And with simmilar threads all over the internet. 

I just feel tired as well (being Greek, and European, living in the UK) to see everytime opinions about the States and Americans, which seem to be totally off somehow. I mean, come on! It can't be that all the idiots are gathered in the States! Because the rest of the world seems to think so, but I certainly don't agree and don't think so!



If I was to blame anything I'd blame education (lack of) and nothing else.

and yes, do start a thread about guns. I'd love to join THAT thread, from the begining! :D


----------



## VonRichter (Sep 30, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Sep 29 said:


> Hi Von... I agree - of course you cannot hold the nture US population accountable, even those who voted Bush. But it was still an eye-opener in many ways. The majority of US citizens have elected Bush twice,



I'm afraid that's inaccurate. He has only been voted in once. Unfortunately, the system is structured so that the person who receives the most votes is not necessarily the winner. For more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

The relevant quote from wiki: 
"The nature of the process and its complication have been critiqued, with its detractors raising several alternative means of electing the president. This issue was revisited following the Presidential Election of 2000 when Democratic candidate Al Gore won the majority of the national vote, but failed to win the majority of the Electoral College."


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 30, 2007)

Yup, I know how that works - and you are right, that does better things a bit :D

I find it a pretty odd system actually, but I guess it has it's reasons (although most likely historical, and the ones who can change it are likely those who dont benefit from it) :(


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 30, 2007)

Although it may not translate as such in elections it's obvious to me that America is more left wing than right. The difference is the Republican party is much better organized and have more money and know how to get the òöž   bÓ5öž   bÓ6öž   bÓ7öž   bÓ8öž   bÓ9öž   bÓ:öž   bÓ;öž   bÓ<öž   bÓ=öž   bÓ>öž   bÓ?öž   bÓ@öž   bÓAöž   bÓBöž   bÓCöž   bÓDöž   bÓEöž   bÓFöž   bÓGöž   bÓHöž   bÓIöž   bÓJöž   bÓKöž   bÓLöž   bÓMöž   bÓNöž   bÓOöž   bÓPöž   bÓQöž   bÓRöž   bÓSöž   bÓTöž   bÓUöž   bÓVöž   bÓWöž   bÓXöž   bÓYöž   bÓZöž   bÓ[öž   bÓ\öž   bÓ]öž   bÓ^öž   bÓ_öž   bÓ`öž   bÓaöž   bÓböž   bÓcöž   bÓdöž   bÓeöž   bÓföž   bÓgöž   bÓhöž   bÓiöž   bÓjöž   bÓköž   bÓlöž   bÓmöž   bÓnöž   bÓoöž   bÓpöž   bÓqöž   bÓröž   bÓsöž   bÓtöŸ   bÓuöŸ   bÓvöŸ   bÓwöŸ   bÓxöŸ   bÓyöŸ   bÓzöŸ   bÓ{öŸ   bÓ|öŸ   bÓ}öŸ   bÓ~öŸ   bÓöŸ   bÓ€ö    bÓö    bÓ‚ö    bÓƒö    bÓ„ö    bÓ…ö    bÓ†ö    bÓ‡ö    bÓˆö    bÓ‰ö    bÓŠö    bÓ‹ö    bÓŒö    bÓö    bÓŽö    bÓö    bÓö    bÓ‘ö    bÓ’ö    bÓ“ö    bÓ”ö    bÓ•ö    bÓ–ö    bÓ—ö    bÓ˜ö    bÓ™ö    bÓšö    bÓ›ö    bÓœö    bÓö    bÓžö    bÓŸö    bÓ ö    bÓ¡ö    bÓ¢ö    bÓ£ö    bÓ¤              òö    bÓ¦ö    bÓ§ö    bÓ¨ö    bÓ©ö    bÓªö    bÓ«ö    bÓ¬ö    bÓ­ö    bÓ®ö    bÓ¯ö    bÓ°ö    bÓ±ö    bÓ²ö    bÓ³ö    bÓ´ö    bÓµö    bÓ¶ö    bÓ·ö    bÓ¸ö    bÓ¹ö    bÓºö    bÓ»ö    bÓ¼ö    bÓ½ö    bÓ¾ö    bÓ¿ö    bÓÀö    bÓÁö    bÓÂ


----------



## VonRichter (Sep 30, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> Yup, I know how that works - and you are right, that does better things a bit :D
> 
> I find it a pretty odd system actually, but I guess it has it's reasons (although most likely historical, and the ones who can change it are likely those who dont benefit from it) :(



The system is definitely pretty silly. It's just a leftover from the past that is still used simply because it's the standard. 1 vote should = 1 vote, period. It's a little annoying to know when I vote that my individual vote doesn't precisely matter as it should.


----------



## VonRichter (Sep 30, 2007)

Axed.


----------



## tobyond (Sep 30, 2007)

aeneas @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> Nothing good can come out, and EVER came out of a religion



Agreed


----------



## aeneas (Sep 30, 2007)

tobyond @ Sun 30 Sep said:


> aeneas @ Sun Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing good can come out, and EVER came out of a religion
> ...


Hey, I hear ya! :D But don't put it on me, for that is not what I said, the nuance is kinda important to me: nothing can come out of a religion _that has lost its spiritual purity_. Conversely, a whole lot of good things come out of the spiritual side of religions, and I mean of ALL of them. It is when the religious 'leaders' attempt and succeed to manipulate individuals and masses through mischievous interpretations, when religious texts are turned into malign ones. Religions are not bad, but some people are. The bitter irony is that the religions founders were all aiming at turning bad guys into good guys, and not the opposite. Now some "spiritual" leaders are filling baby-feeding-bottles with drugs, and even with poison. :shock:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 30, 2007)

"I find it [the Electoral College] a pretty odd system actually, but I guess it has it's reasons (although most likely historical, and the ones who can change it are likely those who dont benefit from it)"

That's exactly right, and the ones who don't benefit from it are the Republiòöë   båûöë   båüöë   båýöë   båþöë   båÿöë   bæ öë   bæöë   bæöì   bæöì   bæöì   bæöì   bæöì   bæöì   bæöì   bæ	öì   bæ
öì   bæöì   bæöì   bæ öì   bæ


----------



## VonRichter (Sep 30, 2007)

Hey, I'm not taking sides. Just relating my limited personal experience.

I recognize that in the version of reality that some people experience, there is apparently no correlation between religion and voting statistics. 

I have no opinion whatsoever and I am sorry I have offended Jason Willis with the concept of religion influencing votes.

The intention was merely to spark discussion on the subject.


----------



## rgames (Sep 30, 2007)

Since it has come up for discussion, I thought it might be instructive to explain a couple of things about the election process as used in the US:

1. No US citizen votes for a president. Citizens vote for _electors_ who claim to represent a particular candidate, but it is actually the electors who elect the president. The electors are not actually required by law to cast a vote for their claimed candidate and sometimes they don't! That happens very infrequently, but it does happen.

2. US law dictates how many electoral votes there are but state law dictates how they are cast. So if you want to change the electoral process, talk to your state lawmakers, not your fedreal lawmakers!

3. The election process is governed by public law, and just like any other public law, it can be changed. So ask your senator/representative to draft legislation to amend the appropriate sections in the US constitution and your state constitutions. And then get the laws passed. It's simple! That's the great thing about the US - if you don't like it, and enough other people don't like it, you can change it!

4. The US is not a strict democoracy; it is a republic that is built on democratic principles. In a democracy, everybody votes on everything, and that's just impractical for any nation of reasonable size. In a republic, you use representatives to vote for you; in the US, those representatives are elected based on majority vote. So, we democratically elect our representatives to the republic (but then there's the Senate, and it's a bit more complicated; see 3). Make sense? In the three basic layers of governmet in the US (federal, state, and local), the system is more democratic (the system, not the party) as you move towards the local and more republican (the system, not the party) as you move towards the federal.

4b. When the US constitution was written, it was structured so as to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" as it was called. For that reason, the US system has a balance between the interests of the majority of the population (via the House of Representative) and the interests of the individual states (via the Senate and the electoral college). This prevents states from "ganging up" on other states with smaller populations. For example, what if the majority of the country decided to stop federal funding for roads in the upper midwest? Heck, they never go there, so why should they pay for it? The implications are obvious, so the US maintains some power in the minority by dividng the balance of power between an individual-centric system and a state-centric system. The electoral college is also an example of this system of balance.

5. So, given 2 and 3, the US form of government is set up (on many levels) so that it is perfectly possible that the majority does not define public law. It's designed to work that way!

6. I love political science! I could go on for days...

*OK - Here's how you fix the electoral college:*

Simply divide the electoral votes based on the percentage of votes for a particular candidate in that state (I think one or two states actually do this - remember, state law decides how the electoral votes are cast). For example, if a state has 9 electoral votes and each of three candidates got 1/3 of the popular vote, give each one 3 votes in the electoral college. As it is right now, the one who gets the most votes gets all 9 and the other two get 0.

rgames


----------



## Journeyman (Sep 30, 2007)

VonRichter,

Your mistake is in mischaracterizing "modern Christian churches of the USA" as being of like mind. Not only do the numerous denominations see things very differently, but there are opposing viewpoints within denominations as well as within individual churches. Please avoid painting with a broad brush.


----------



## VonRichter (Sep 30, 2007)

Journeyman @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> VonRichter,
> Your mistake is in mischaracterizing "modern Christian churches of the USA" as being of like mind. Not only do the numerous denominations see things very differently, but there are opposing viewpoints within denominations as well as within individual churches. Please avoid painting with a broad brush.



To make you feel better, I went ahead and erased the whole post, so any argument you want to have, consider yourself victorious in advance, and me completely foolish/wrong/satanic etc. Congratulations! 0oD

However, dismissal of religion+voting correlation as inconsequential is an _extraordinary_ claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence to have any impact on a rational mind. I'll leave you to make that case if you so desire.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 30, 2007)

VonRichter @ Sun 30 Sep said:


> the preacher dude was saying there is a time when killing is OK


I can almost hear him: "Yaknow, it's true that God told Moses that it's not okay to kill, and that Jesus said his followers should love their enemies, but then whaddayawant - the gas price to double?" 0oD


----------



## Journeyman (Sep 30, 2007)

VonRichter,

I don't know what you're in such a huff about; nor I intend to take your flame bait. You just seem to want to take your limited experience and that of a friend, and allow it to color your perception of all modern church going Christians. Sorry, but it's not going to fly. But do have fun continuing to spout your rhetoric....


----------



## VonRichter (Sep 30, 2007)

I forget one little word ("some", in this case) typing, and end up with this. Gorgeous! 

Jason Willis, I have already endeavored to concede all imaginary battles you might want to have based on false assumptions of my position (in this case, a complete lack of position). Like I said before, _you win._ _Please accept your victory graciously._ (no sarcasm is involved with this genuine acceptance of defeat, please take your very important win, and all _automatic future wins_ as an _incontrovertible fact_.)

Off-topic question about the Church of Bruce Springsteen... does it get tax breaks?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 1, 2007)

"OK - Here's how you fix the electoral college: 

Simply divide the electoral votes based on the percentage of votes for a particular candidate in that state (I think one or two states actually do this - remember, state law decides how the electoral votes are cast). For example, if a state has 9 electoral votes and each of three candidates got 1/3 of the popular vote, give each one 3 votes in the electoral college. As it is right now, the one who gets the most votes gets all 9 and the other two get 0. "

Or better yet just eliminate the whole antiquated system. But I already explained why nothing is going to happen.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 1, 2007)

"Our government would be very different if voters had to pass some sort of test to prove that they had a clue what each and every candidate stood for before voting. "

Or perhaps more realistically if we abolished paid political advertising - especially on television - and had mandatory debates that were real discussions of the issues rather than staged nonsense. That would remove the need for campaign contributions a.k.a. bribes, plus it would eliminate character assassination committees like the Swift Boat Liars and Karl Rove types. (My favorite is when he got out the story about John McCain having an illegitimate black child - when in fact he and his wife adopted a child from Mother Theresa's orphanage!)

We don't allow cigarette or alcohol advertising on TV, so why not do the same with political advertising and save our republic.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 1, 2007)

> We don't allow cigarette or alcohol advertising on TV, so why not do the same with political advertising and save our republic.



Good idea! Let's all write... oh damn.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 5, 2007)

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=109136&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload ... large=true)

From Nixon to Mr. Burns :D


----------

