# Mccain



## Ed (Mar 27, 2008)

After reading about the apparent popularity of the man despite the fact that he's already been caught in several whoppers, I can only conclude that either Americans are generally stupid or the system is rigged. I even heard on TV the other day that there are a certain percentage of Democrats that would vote for HIM if their chosen Dem candidate didn't get the nomination!


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Mar 27, 2008)

I saw a pretty fun video on CNN about John "staight-talk" McCain and his telepromter. 

I think he will seem very, very old in a debate between him and Obama.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2008)

"I can only conclude that either Americans are generally stupid or the system is rigged"

Americans are no more stupid than anyone else; you have to take polls with a grain of salt. Usually - and I really do mean usually, not just occasionally - the questions are leading, multiple choice ones that don't allow you to give a meaningful answer.

There was a Pew poll recently about religion, and they actually asked questions like "Do you have a favorable/unfavorable opinion of Jew/Muslims/Protestants/etc.?" Pew is a major opinion research center, and I understand from a radio program I heard that candidates take this kind of poll to heart in their campaigns!


----------



## José Herring (Mar 27, 2008)

The truth of the matter is that McCain is a very good republican candidate. He's a politician for sure but as far as republicans go he's as good as they come.

If the democrats come into this election thinking that he's easily beatable then they are going to lose--again.

McCain is a very centered politician. Not conservative and not liberal. Dead down the middle. Which is going to appeal to a lot of people.

Obama and Hilary are way left of center. Hilary is running the same type of campaign that Bill ran by playing the center but in truth she's way left of center. 

I like Obama, but his tax plan is way, way communist in nature which scares me. If Karl Marx had written a tax code it wouldn't look any more communist than Obama's plan, maybe a little more communist than Hilary's plan but not much. Every time I look over those two plans I can see those Marxist principles, "From each according to his ability to give. To each according to his need."--Karl Marx

That slant is going to scare a lot of people. Especially people that make more than $60,000 per year which I hope everybody at least aspires to do. If Obama tries to push that tax plan in the general election he'll choke.

So dems have some serious reorganizing to do in order to beat McCain. Socialism in this country doesn't work. All we have to do is remember the Jimmy Carter days and the slums he created in the Bronx by trying to "reconstruct" it.

And, another thing. I hate the fact the Europeans think Americans are so stupid. For fuck sake people Europe has been and still is in shambles. Two world wars, genocide, ect. ect... America for being the newest country has the oldest continuous government in existence. I think we can figure things out pretty well.

I want you to remember that "stupid American" comment the next time one of your European "allies" elects your next dictator who happens to think that ridding Europe of an ethnic group is a good idea! Then we have to come in again and again to straighten it out. Quite frankly I'm tired of it. Europe, get your act together people.:roll:

best,

Jose


----------



## Ed (Mar 27, 2008)

Forget polls, someone apparently voted Bush back in and someone voted for McCain in the first place. 

If Americans arent the only dumb ones, that doesnt mean they arent still dumb. Im sure the British are generally dumb as well, but then we dont have such a right wing fundamentalist majority controlling politics. How anyone can vote for McCain is beyond me. We've got him openly saying he expects to and be happy about occupying Iraq for 100 years and we've got him blatently lying about Iraq, and he isnt even elected yet!


----------



## Ed (Mar 27, 2008)

josejherring @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> And, another thing. I hate the fact the Europeans think Americans are so stupid. For f#@k sake people Europe has been and still is in shambles. Two world wars, genocide, ect. ect... America for being the newest country has the oldest continuous government in existence. I think we can figure things out pretty well.
> 
> I want you to remember that "stupid American" comment the next time one of your European "allies" elects your next dictator who happens to think that ridding Europe of an ethnic group is a good idea!



Im British, we dont generally class ourselves as European. But even if you were right, that wouldnt stop them being generally dumb enough to elect such obviously crappy people into power, assuming its not vote fraud. 



> Then we have to come in again and again to straighten it out. Quite frankly I'm tired of it. Europe, get your act together people.:roll:



How about Vietnam? How about Iraq? American History doesnt seem to shine on them the way you make out.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 27, 2008)

Ed @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Im sure the British are generally dumb as well, but then we dont have such a right wing fundamentalist majority controlling politics. How anyone can vote for McCain is beyond me. We've got him openly saying he expects to and be happy about occupying Iraq for 100 years and we've got him blatently lying about Iraq, and he isnt even elected yet!



What about Thatcher?! The Falkland Islands. What about the British oppression of India and North Africa?

All I'm saying is that let he who is without sin cast the first stone baby!

I'm sure there are plenty of right wing nut jobs wanting to go back to the glory days of the British empire in England too.


----------



## Ed (Mar 27, 2008)

josejherring @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Ed @ Thu Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Im sure the British are generally dumb as well, but then we dont have such a right wing fundamentalist majority controlling politics. How anyone can vote for McCain is beyond me. We've got him openly saying he expects to and be happy about occupying Iraq for 100 years and we've got him blatently lying about Iraq, and he isnt even elected yet!
> ...



You seem to be under the impression that this is a Britain vs America argument. Im simply saying Americans much be generally dumb or the elections must be rigged. Im not saying the British arent also generally dumb. Though I think theres a case to be made that Americas public does have more fair share of religious nutters than we do and their political system is quite different to ours.


----------



## Niah (Mar 27, 2008)

Not that I like McCain but I don't think it's right to call a nation stupid just because they support him. The same reason is not right to call the french stupid for electing Sarkozy 



> Then we have to come in again and again to straighten it out. Quite frankly I'm tired of it. Europe, get your act together people.:roll:



How about Vietnam? How about Iraq? American History doesnt seem to shine on them the way you make out.[/quote]

Well you forget that alot of european countries supported the war in iraq and dispatched several troops.



@Jose I find disturbing that you say that socialism doesn't work in America, not to say that you are right or wrong. But one of the things that I find shocking is that one of the most developped countries in the world doesn't have free medical care or free college education. It just seems absurd to me that the general american population fear socialism. I mean are these things that bad? :mrgreen:


----------



## Ed (Mar 27, 2008)

Niah @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Not that I like McCain but I don't think it's right to call a nation stupid just because they support him. The same reason is not right to call the french stupid for electing Sarkozy



When McCain has already been caught in a big lie and openly wants a 100 year war I think Im justified as calling people supporting him as stupid that choose to ignore it. Because when he gets in and you have a load more lies and you're in Iraq indefinitely you sure cant complain about it, but they will, and they will pretend they had no idea he would be such a crappy president like Bush. I dont believe even Bush was stupid enough to come out and admit he wanted a 100 year war!



> Well you forget that alot of european countries supported the war in iraq and dispatched several troops.



There was a lot of anti-war feeling in Europe. In the UK we had the biggest protest since the poll tax riots. But even if Europe is dumb, it wouldnt stop America also being dumb.


----------



## Moonchilde (Mar 27, 2008)

Ed, there is a problem with your logic on America being dumb and electing a certain G.W. You claim Americans are dumb for doing so. Naive would be a more correct word, since many people believe the information broadcast to them on TV. They simply believed the swiftboat lies and other such non-sense because they trust the government and the media. They also trust their preachers who often lead them in decisions for every day life. Most folks who voted one way or another simply did so on merit to party loyalty or trust in the information presented to them.

I wouldn't call that dumb. I'd just call that naive for placing trust into things so easily. You can't blame them, either. Not everyone has access to unbiased information, and even if so, some people just won't believe it based on their upbringing, values, and loyalty. People do, and should be able to, trust the information in front of them as factual. Sadly, it isn't the case, but should be so.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 27, 2008)

Stupid or rigged doesn't leave much. 

Is "He wants war for 100 years," all you got? Do you really think that's what he means?

And if being caught in a big lie is gonna disqualify one for office, we're just gonna have to start over. Politics is politics.

I agree with Christian. McCain is probably gonna look rather old when he's sharing the stage with either of em. Will be interesting.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 27, 2008)

Niah @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> @Jose I find disturbing that you say that socialism doesn't work in America, not to say that you are right or wrong. But one of the things that I find shocking is that one of the most developed countries in the world doesn't have free medical care or free college education. It just seems absurd to me that the general American population fear socialism. I mean are these things that bad? :mrgreen:



America and Europe are fundamentally different. Personally I don't think that socialism works even in Europe but not living there I'll leave that to the Europeans to decide.

Europe is fundamentally setup up in a caste system imo. There's always been an upper lower class thing going there and I think that because of it things like Socialism are popular because of the fact that for so long only the royalty and the extremely wealthy had any quality of life at all.

America on the other had prides itself on the fact that no matter you're circumstances you can rise to be extraordinary. Laws are set up to make the system support that philosophy. In America you keep what you earn and we are protected in greater or lesser degree to be able to setup our own businesses and keep our profits, ect.

Obama said it best in his "race" speech. He said, "no where but in America is my story even possible". That's precisely what we are about. The ideology has it's flaws in that it will chew up the lazy and inept and spit them out on the street (literally). But if we damage a system to service the bottom 1% of society that really does us no good because they aint' doing much to create a society at the bottom.

So the more America moves towards socialism the weaker we get. Attacking the wealthy to feed to poor doesn't work here. Most of our wealthy were poor to start out. And the kids of our wealthy turn out to be like Paris Hilton. So they aren't much use either.

The foundation of our country is that we keep what we work for. It's the basis of our freedom. If we excessively tax the hard working earners to feed and cloth and take economic care of the not so hard working then we move towards that communist state where nobody wants to work and the few that do won't be able to make a living enough to support themselves.

Brutal as it is that's the way it has to be here. 

Also, an education is no guarantee of success. Compare me to Bill Gates. I have a masters he has a highschool diploma. I'd take his diploma over my masters in a heartbeat if it would get me Microsoft money. :mrgreen: 

Healthy care I'm divided. Having seen even middle class people go without health care is heartbreaking. But seeing Hospitals fail and doctors go hungry because of making health care "more affordable" is equally has heart wrenching. Plus the quality of health care in America is going in the toilet. Yes more people have affordable health care than ever before. But, going to the hospital these days is turning into a nightmare. Catch 22.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2008)

Jose, I don't agree with where you draw the line between left and right *at all.* McCain is conservative as hell! He doesn't have totally irrational, simplistic bumper sticker opinions on all issues, and that separates him from most Republicans, but he's certainly not down the middle when it comes to foreign policy (he's a major league hawk), and he's already complimented Bush for his excellent taste in appointing those two bananas to the Supreme Court.

Hillary is actually a conservative Democrat in my opinion, but what you're saying about Obama being all but Marxist is...well, I'm surprised you'd even post that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2008)

"Not that I like McCain but I don't think it's right to call a nation stupid just because they support him."

That's right.

It's not the entire nation.

[duck and run]


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2008)

"Ed, there is a problem with your logic on America being dumb and electing a certain G.W. You claim Americans are dumb for doing so."

But if I were European (well, I am but I've been here most of my life) I think I'd be tempted to come to the same conclusion. It's still beyond me how a blatantly mediocre person like that could possibly become President. When you compare him to every single candidate in the current election - that includes all the Republicans and Democrats who have since dropped out - he is clearly nowhere near the same calibre.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 27, 2008)

..........


----------



## José Herring (Mar 27, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> but what you're saying about Obama being all but Marxist is...well, I'm surprised you'd even post that.



Nah. He's not all Marxist. His tax plan is. Take a look. Then read the communist manifesto. But taxation is a Marxist philosophy to begin with. So it's not too hard to be Marxist when you propose any tax plan. The idea of taxing the wealthy to feed to poor may work in Robin Hood but I've never really agreed with it. And, I certainly don't agree with taxing anybody to feed the army.

I could go deep into it but you'd blame me for being a conspiracy theorist. Awe....hell...I'll do it anyway.

I've been studying money lately. The US use to not have taxes and use to sell t-bills and war bonds to support wars. Now it's so screwed up that the government practically has to tax hard in order to fight wars. 

Here's the screwed up part. The Federal Reserve owns all the money in America now. Not backed by gold the Feds buy t-bills from the Government. Based on that they create an account at the Federal reserve that that our Banks draw upon to distribute to society. So not only do they own excessive t-bills but they also hold the money. And the dollar that we have in our hand is an iou that you can exchange for products. So our dollar is an iou from the Fed backed by t-bills which they own. wtf!! It should be the other way around. They should give the money to the public treasury then the treasury should dispense the money to the people via banks.
That way our government might actually have money other than taxes to play around with, make interest on, ect...

But I digress and can't really get into it.

But it's totally fucked up. Turning our government into our biggest economic handicap via taxation. Ala communism.

Now Obama wants to erase taxes on those earning less than $60,000 to hit hard those earning more. Please that IS communism.

Sorry I like Obama but there I strongly disagree.

best,

Jose


----------



## madbulk (Mar 27, 2008)

Kinda wordy, Scott. 
I thought I'd covered all that. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. Better than I would've, let me add.


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 27, 2008)

Everytime I watch McCain speak I become transfixed by his jaw, looks like he could bite through solid steel.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 27, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> We were all meant to believe that somehow, over the course of 20 years of attending (with his wife and two young daughters) and financially supporting that bigoted, hate-filled "church", he had magically missed the bad stuff.



If you took the ACTUAL collective words of Reverend Wright into perspective, and not the tiny fraction of a fraction that is being represented to create this red herring, you would not be able to support any such conclusion. Even if you take larger portions of those sermons into consideration, you find that they're challenges to examine the rationale behind our actions as a country.

Blacks were systematically enslaved in this country just a few generations ago, and are still systematically held down in many ways as we speak. If a black man wants to be angry about the state of race in this country, I stand proudly beside him and share it with him.

Careful with your rationale, Scott. You must live in a very progressive community. Travel to some Texas town where blacks are still called niggers, often to their face, and really try to put yourself in the shoes of a man who is subjected to that. Reverend Wright plays it pretty mild compared to the degree of anger I would feel if I or my family were subjected to that kind of treatment.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2008)

". I mean, it's practically an international Olympic sport to badmouth the U.S. (that is, when we're not saving someone else's bacon), but we might have to do a lot less if only everyone else would/could do a little more...and a lot better. "

I see our international shenanigans very differently, Scott. Not WWII, I mean now. There's nothing altruistic about any of our entanglements. It's all about "energy security" (which is impossible to achieve with our current approach or lack thereof), not about saving anyone else's bacon.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 27, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Scott Rogers @ Thu Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > We were all meant to believe that somehow, over the course of 20 years of attending (with his wife and two young daughters) and financially supporting that bigoted, hate-filled "church", he had magically missed the bad stuff.
> ...



Well... this is only a tiny fraction of what Scott said too, and the point is still well taken... not that we necessarily have perspective enough to sum up the Rev nor his church, but that Obama has had to find a way to spin his way from this, some of those moves have been nimble and some less so. And some of them seem like they could well be outright lies. And again, I say, politics is politics. Clinton looks silly saying she dodged bullets, Obama probably sat through a lot of that sort of sermon for better or worse, and McCain has been inconsistent on Iraq and hasn't always distinguished himself during this campaign. Gonna have to look deeper folks.

"Deeper than honesty?!" "We have to look deeper than plain old honesty?!!!"
Yup. Fraid so.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 27, 2008)

I just want to say how much I appreciate the inciteful replies to this thread. Particularly the ones by all the stupid Americans.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2008)

Now don't make me get out the dueling glove, Outrageous One...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2008)

Jose:

"Now Obama wants to erase taxes on those earning less than $60,000 to hit hard those earning more. Please that IS communism."

What we have now is the reverse, with those making lots of money getting tax cuts. Do you prefer that?

Plus - to change direction only slightly - a lot of our legislation is controlled by corporations with huge budgets to hire lobbying firms and pay huge campaign contributions aka bribes to get their way. Thus they're able to stack the deck to secure favorable tax rates, etc.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 27, 2008)

madbulk @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Well... this is only a tiny fraction of what Scott said too, and the point is still well taken... not that we necessarily have perspective enough to sum up the Rev nor his church, but that Obama has had to find a way to spin his way from this, some of those moves have been nimble and some less so. And some of them seem like they could well be outright lies.



Well, there is a difference. I didn't quote Scott's entire post because anyone can easily scroll up and read it.

Likewise I didn't quote your full post, which can also be read above.

Whether a person supports any of the three viable candidates is not the matter at hand. It's the obfuscation of the important deliniations, and the elevation of the cheap polemic nattering of idiots that is abhorrent.

We have a decision to make about the direction we feel this country should take in the coming years. It is no time to get dragged down into stupidity.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 27, 2008)

[quote:27237f4264="madbulk @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:09 pm"]Obama probably sat through a lot of that sort of sermon fòB¼   u+B¼   u+‘B¼   u+’B¼   u+“B¼   u+”B¼   u+•B¼   u+–B¼   u+—B¼   u+˜B¼   u+™B¼   u+šB¼   u+›B¼   u+œB¼   u+B¼   u+žB¼   u+ŸB¼   u+ B¼   u+¡B¼   u+¢B¼   u+£B¼   u+¤B¼   u+¥B¼   u+¦B¼   u+§B¼   u+¨B¼   u+©B¼   u+ªB¼   u+«B¼   u+¬B¼   u+­B¼   u+®B¼   u+¯B¼   u+°B¼   u+±B¼   u+²B¼   u+³B¼   u+´B¼   u+µB¼   u+¶B¼   u+·B¼   u+¸B¼   u+¹B¼   u+ºB¼   u+»B¼   u+¼B¼   u+½B¼   u+¾B¼   u+¿B¼   u+ÀB¼   u+ÁB¼   u+ÂB¼   u+ÃB¼   u+ÄB¼   u+ÅB¼   u+ÆB¼   u+ÇB¼   u+ÈB¼   u+ÉB¼   u+ÊB¼   u+ËB¼   u+ÌB¼   u+ÍB¼   u+ÎB¼   u+ÏB¼   u+ÐB¼   u+ÑB¼   u+ÒB¼   u+ÓB¼   u+ÔB¼   u+ÕB¼   u+ÖB¼   u+×B¼   u+ØB¼   u+ÙB¼   u+ÚB¼   u+ÛB¼   u+ÜB¼   u+ÝB¼   u+ÞB¼   u+ßB¼   u+àB¼   u+áB¼   u+âB¼   u+ãB¼   u+äB¼   u+åB¼   u+æB¼   u+çB¼   u+èB¼   u+éB¼   u+êB¼   u+ëB¼   u+ìB¼   u+íB¼   u+îB¼   u+ïB¼   u+ðB¼   u+ñB¼   u+òB¼   u+óB¼   u+ôB¼   u+õB¼   u+öB¼   u+÷B¼   u+øB¼   u+ùB¼   u+úB¼   u+ûB¼   u+üB¼   u+ýB¼   u+þB¼   u+ÿ              òB¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,	B¼   u,
B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u, B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u,B¼   u, B¼   u,!B¼   u,"B¼   u,#B¼   u,$B¼   u,%B¼   u,&B¼   u,'B¼   u,(B¼   u,)B¼   u,*B¼   u,+B¼   u,,B¼   u,-B¼   u,.B¼   u,/B¼   u,0B½   u,1B½   u,2B½   u,3B½   u,4B½   u,5B½   u,6B½   u,7B½   u,8B½   u,9B½   u,:B½   u,;B½   u,<B½   u,=B½   u,>B½   u,?B½   u,@B½   u,AB½   u,BB½   u,CB½   u,DB½   u,EB½   u,FB½   u,GB½   u,HB½   u,IB½   u,JB½   u,KB½   u,LB½   u,MB½   u,NB½   u,OB½   u,PB½   u,QB½


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2008)

"It's the obfuscation of the important deliniations, and the elevation of the cheap polemic nattering of idiots that is abhorrent."

The other point is that Obama's speech about racism after that was one of the best I've ever heard by a politician. He made the shitstorm totally insignificant - which is perfectly correct. Who cares what his pastor says.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 27, 2008)

I'm gonna half quote you here...



Bruce Richardson @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> madbulk @ Thu Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama probably sat through a lot of that sort of sermon for better or worse.
> ...



I find his assertions completely plausible. And I find your argument completely plausible. 

(I'm not persuaded though. I'm under the impression -- somewhat less so now -- that these snippets are extreme examples but not altogether misrepresentative of a message, which by your own insistence would be completely justified and maybe to be expected, that is in heard in black churches on any ordinary day. But I could give it another thought, and another and another, and I really wouldn't have much of an idea. Only know what I've been able to gather so far.)

Did Obama lie? Dunno. Did McCain say he wanted a 100 year war? Sorta, but... NO!
Does any of it belong in any kind of end argument? No!

As you said, "Whether a person supports any of the three viable candidates is not the matter at hand. It's the obfuscation of the important deliniations, and the elevation of the cheap polemic nattering of idiots that is abhorrent." This thread was premised on a silly misunderstanding -- that McCain wants a hundred year iraq war, and on the assertion that he has been caught in a lie so big that he's unfit for office.

Whether Rev Wright should be labeled as hate-filled and bigoted and/or would be justified regardless -- all a side issue to a side issue.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 28, 2008)

almacg @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> McCain only has the interest of Americans at hand. He doesn't care how many Iraqis or Afghanistani's die, and it's painfully obvious.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
> The mentality of everybody in that room is utterly cruel and bizzare, and in all honesty I wouldn't bat an eyelid if they all died tragically.



And i wouldn't care either! WTF is wrong down there? Are Americans so use to bombing other countries and violence that they've been completely desensitized? It certainly looks that way. People wouldn't laugh at this kind of jock in Canada and most developed country that i know. I mean no offence but theres something terribly wrong with America. And i don't blame the people so much but i do blame your leaders who are always looking for a target some how. Mccain is an idiot!


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 28, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Now don't make me get out the dueling glove, Outrageous One...



Well it's not like I'm from Argentina. The premise of the thread is that us Yanks aren't to sharp so why solicit answers as to why from said crowd? I must admit that the level of intelligence behind the question eludes my intellectual grasp.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2008)

"Fox just knows people will tune in day after day to hear thoughts with which they agree. Works for The Daily Show just as well."

That's a new subject, but I have to disagree vehemently about Faux News. The Daily Show, maybe. But Faux News is totally insidious propaganda. People think they're watching news, but they're not. They blend into and out of opinion seamlessly, they take stories and twist them (the one from the "Outfoxed" documentary was the endless repetition about Kerry's French Connection - right at the "freedom fries" time in the US), they make up stories that suit their propaganda where there aren't really stories, and they repeat horrendous lies over and over and over.

Faux News' mission is to disinform. They make a mockery of freedom of the press.

Plus it's all cheap, artless crap.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2008)

Dave! Are you really trying to say that all 300 million Americans aren't stupid?!

Does your outrageousness know no bounds?


----------



## madbulk (Mar 28, 2008)

The only part of the premise with which I have no problem.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 28, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> "Fox just knows people will tune in day after day to hear thoughts with which they agree. Works for The Daily Show just as well."
> 
> That's a new subject, but I have to disagree vehemently about Faux News. The Daily Show, maybe. But Faux News is totally insidious propaganda.



Ya think? 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1lu2WatT-E&NR=1

If we're so sure they're gonna get their hands nukes then we should be able to stop them. And considering the US spend more on intelligence than all other nation combine you'd think they could prevent this. But apparently they wont be according to the third rich propaganda channel.

I often wonder why Americans don't join together and boycott Fox news.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2008)

Actually the FCC should step in. Instead they're busy fining stations for showing Janet Jackson's breast and opening up the airwaves to monopolies.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 28, 2008)

Points well taken, but I'm just geared to see it primarily from the other side I guess.

I often wonder why people read Star/The Enquirer. But I never wonder why they print it. And no matter how much I may hate the publication, I don't blame them for printing it. I do however unapologetically frown upon the people who buy it.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 28, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 28, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 28, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 28, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 28, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 28, 2008)

..........


----------



## madbulk (Mar 28, 2008)

Am I beating this to death? Politics is crap! Politicians lie by accident and on purpose. Get over it. I'm not dumbing it down purposely... Task at hand is get elected. If a worthy man or woman wants to save the world she must first convince the electorate to give her the chance and this runs counter to being honest as I'd define it. The facts do NOT speak to the masses for themselves. They need to be spun if you wanna win. Play the race card. Play the gender card. Promise to lower taxes. Do what you gotta do.

"We're gonna level with America," is a punchline.

A well-meaning idealist is not electable. That we're caught up in this tangential minutiae is clear condemning evidence of what it takes to win. It's sad. It's even ridiculous. But nobody is fixing this in the few months we got left. But there's plenty of time to be a great man or woman after you get in the chair.


----------



## Ed (Mar 28, 2008)

Oh my god Ive written this post 3 times now. Each time it asks me to sign in again and I loose it.

First, Im not saying all Americans are stupid. Im saying you've got to be stupid to vote for such a terrible candidate, or the elections are rigged. I even said "generally" which doesnt mean "all". But in case if someone thinks Im being specifically xenophobic I'll readily call British people generally idiots as well. 

Secondly, I was being emotive on purpose when I said McCain wants a 100 year war, because what I actually said first apparently wasnt emotive enough to get noticed._"We've got him openly saying he expects to and be happy about occupying Iraq for 100 years"_. You have Bush, apparently the most unpopular president ever whos foreign policy is a massive contribution to that and you have McCain rubbing sholders with him and is *doubling *Bush's estimate for how long they will be in Iraq for. He also made a joke about bombing Iran http://tinyurl.com/27fmyt I will hesitate to comment on that one in case someone goes off again (Scott). I know its only my opinion but I think its pretty stuipid to go ahead and vote for him anyway. 

Thirdly, the big lie I was talking about was regarding McCains comments regarding his trip to Baghdad.

On Bill Bennets radio show he said:
"*There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today*"

In CNNs The Situation Room he is questioned about that and other related comments:

BLITZER: *Here's what you told Bill Bennett on his radio show on Monday. *

MCCAIN: Yes. 

BLITZER: "There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today." 

MCCAIN: Yes. 

BLITZER: "The U.S. is beginning to succeed in Iraq." 

You know, everything we hear, that if you leave the so-called green zone, the international zone, and you go outside of that secure area, relatively speaking, you're in trouble if you're an American. 

MCCAIN: You know, that's why you ought to catch up on things, Wolf. 

*General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee.* You want to -- I think you ought to catch up. You see, you are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don't get it through the filter of some of the media. 

Later CNNs John Roberts questioned him about his comments regarding General Petraeus. 

CNN’S JOHN ROBERTS: I wanted to talk to you about the situation in Iraq. Yesterday in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room. I want to play this back for you. You had this to say about the situation there. 

[McCAIN CLIP]: General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media.

ROBERTS:* Senator, did you mean to say that, that General Petraeus goes out every day in an unarmed humvee? *

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): *I mean that there are neighborhoods safe in Iraq and he does go out into Baghdad and the fact is there has been significant progress* and people are stuck in a time warp of three months ago. Of course, it’s still dangerous. Of course it’s still very dangerous. We only have two of the five brigades there and we are already seeing significant progress. 

ROBERTS: *Because I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored humvee*. You also told Bill Bennett on his radio program on Monday. *You said there are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhood today yet retired General Barry McCaffrey said no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection*. We’ve got two different stories here. Who’s right? 

*McCAIN: Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that*. 

Dont you just love the ridiculous spin he put on that and how he didnt answer the question? I didnt think anyone could buy that nonsence, but apparently a whole lot of people think its okay for him to be making things up like this before he's even in office. But apparently its not just Republicans but many Democrats would change their vote to McCain if their chosen candidate doesnt get in. 

But it gets worse. CNN reporter Michael Ware, who has been in Iraq for four years called McCains comments "_beyond ludicrous_"..."_To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely_". He said in the hour that McCain said that Petraeus travelled around every day in an unarmed humvee, that he had called military insiders to ask them if that was true and they *laughed down the line* and told him that theres "_*multiple humvees around it, heavily armed, attack helicopters, predator drones, sniper teams, all sorts of layers of protection*_". He said he wanted to know what part of Neverland McCain was talking about that you can go strolling around in Baghdad.

BLIZTER: Sen. John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate speaking here in The Situation Room within the past hour. Let’s go live to Baghdad right now. CNN’s Michael Ware is standing by. Michael, you’ve been there for four years, you’re walking around Baghdad on a daily basis. Has there been this improvement that Sen. McCain is speaking about? 

WARE: Well, I’d certainly like to bring Sen. McCain up to speed if he ever gives me the opportunity. And if I have any difficulty hearing you right now Wolf, that’s because of the helicopters circling overhead and the gun battle that is blazing away just a few blocks down the road. Is Baghdad any safer? Sectarian violence, one particular type of violence, is down. But none of the American generals here on the ground have anything like Sen. McCain’s confidence. I mean, Sen. McCain’s credibility now on Iraq, which has been so solid to this point, is now being left out hanging to dry. *To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll*. 

[And to think that Gen. David Petraeus travels this city in an unarmed humvee? I mean, in the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was *laughter down the line. *I mean, certainly the general travels in a humvee. There’s *multiple humvees around it, heavily armed. There’s attack helicopters, predator drones, sniper teams, all sorts of layers of protection*. So, no, Sen. McCain is way off base on this one.

BLITZER: ... Michael, when Senator McCain says that there are at least some areas of Baghdad where people can walk around and -- whether it's General Petraeus, the U.S. military commander, or others, *are there at least some areas where you could emerge outside of the Green Zone, the international zone, where people can go out, go to a coffee shop, go to a restaurant, and simply take a stroll*? 

 WARE:I can answer this very quickly, Wolf. No. No way on earth can a westerner, particularly an American, stroll any street of this capital of more than five million people. 

I mean, if al Qaeda doesn't get wind of you, or if one of the Sunni insurgent groups don't descend upon you, or if someone doesn't tip off a Shia militia, then the nearest criminal gang is just going to see dollar signs and scoop you up. Honestly, Wolf, you'd barely last 20 minutes out there. 

*I don't know what part of Neverland* Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad. 



http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... om.01.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/28/rob ... cain-iraq/
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/27/ware-mccain-iraq/


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 28, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Fernando Warez said:
> 
> 
> > Are Americans so use to bombing other countries and violence that they've been completely desensitized? It certainly looks that way. People wouldn't laugh at this kind of jock in Canada and most developed country that i know. I mean no offence but theres something terribly wrong with America. And i don't blame the people so much but i do blame your leaders who are always looking for a target some how. Mccain is an idiot!
> ...



Yea? Well I'm not the only one:



> Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.





> ''It's a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false''
> 
> Paul Craig Roberts, Father of Reaganomics




And here is World Trade centre project manager talking anout the strength of the towers:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/911-w ... 1338092948

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4837634583766795751&q=controlled+demolition+proof (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... tion+proof)



> World Trade Center Towers - Recorded on 1/25/2001 Frank A. DeMartin...i - Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management is on record stating the Towers were designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. He goes on to say that he believes the towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners. The structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen door.



Now how can a building that was design to sustain jetliner impacts and fires could collapse at virtually free fall speed? How could it collapse in the first place? Or even better, how could 2 airliners bring down 3 building? Which leads us to World trade 7, What happened to WTC7 Scott? How come they don't mention WT7 in the 911 commission report? How come the NITS report doesn't mention WT7 either?Here is is WTC7 that was not hit by a plane coming down at free speed from different angle:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=o8w0cWFJuEQ

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=V5rAfxL-5Bk

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=osSdofWzuh4

If you enlarge the image of the third video you can even see the shock wave, what more do you want?

And here you can clearly see debris going up during the collapse of the towers. There's a small arrow so you cant miss it. Aren't debris suppose to go down in a collapse? That's evidence right there that the towers were brought down by way a demolition.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=lLXn0w3ZmOc

So what happened to WT7 Scott? And how can debris go up in a collapse? Don't runaway and answer the questions please? If you're so smart?

P.S. All videos but one are very short. like under a minute so there's no excuse not to watch them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2008)

"It's bad enough for an individual to think like this, but to promote it to a willing audience that soaks it up like a sponge is far worse."

...hence my tirade about Faux News.


----------



## Ed (Mar 28, 2008)

Fernando, whether or not the towers were brought down by explosives is irrelevant to a conspiracy. I think its a non sequitur. Debunking nonsence no-plane theories doesnt mean there isnt a conspiracy either. I dont know whether there is or isnt anymore, but I know it doesnt follow.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2008)

> When I look at the U.S., for the sake of perspective, I tend to look at the whole picture. Not just our "shenanigans". There is so much more to this country than that. A pity that not nearly enough people, both foreign and domestic, seem to understand that. It is interesting that so many the world over are more than willing to silently accept our voluminous good, but distort and overemphasize our errors. I suppose it really is true that no good deed goes unpunished.



Well, I don't consider it distorting or overemphasizing our errors. We do fund UNICEF and lots of humanitarian efforts, but we also have an imperialistic foreign policy and a history of acting in our own perceived self-interest when it comes to international relations. I'd like to believe that we're completely altruistic, but there aren't any countries that are.

And that doesn't mean I don't appreciate living here, because I certainly do.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Mar 28, 2008)

Fernando.. you would be a pretty funny guy if I didn't know you were dead serious :D


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 28, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Fernando.. you would be a pretty funny guy if I didn't know you were dead serious :D



You did not look at the videos Christian. There's evidence in there the towers and WT7 were blown up. At least look at the video were debris are going up...

I cant believe you guys haven't picked up on this yet. 911 is the easiest conspiracy theory around.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 28, 2008)

Ed @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Fernando, whether or not the towers were brought down by explosives is irrelevant to a conspiracy. I think its a non sequitur. Debunking nonsence no-plane theories doesnt mean there isnt a conspiracy either. I dont know whether there is or isnt anymore, but I know it doesnt follow.



Maybe but Ed, tell me you can see the debris going up? and tell me you can see the shock wave prior to the collpase of WT7 in one of the videos I've provided? It evidence right there and ''i'' can see it!


----------



## almacg (Mar 28, 2008)

Scott, who put Saddamm in power? You are suggesting that Iraq needed to be invaded to get rid of Saddamm, but the CIA put him there in the first place. Maybe America needs to be invaded to get rid of Bush, who is responsible for destroying Iraq? Maybe they need to be invaded because of the 50+ other defenseless countries they have meddled with for their own selfish gain? 



> Ron Paul - That's what they (The Republican Party) wanted, and they even talked before 9/11, not that they planned it or expected it, but they always saw a 'lucky' event - could be another Pearl Harbour event, they talked about it being a 'lucky' event - it fell right into their lap



9/11, well its obvious they wanted it to happen, that they let it happen, that they enjoyed it happening.


----------



## almacg (Mar 28, 2008)

the collapse of WT7 was even reported 22 minutes ahead of schedule by the BBC. Something funny happened on that day.


----------



## Ed (Mar 28, 2008)

Can we take the 911 Conspiracy stuff to a different thread, please? I dont mind pitching in again, but I dont want my topic here to be sidelined in favour of a more contentious subject.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 28, 2008)

Ed @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Can we take the 911 Conspiracy stuff to a different thread, please?



or could we not?


----------



## madbulk (Mar 28, 2008)

rats. you went and did it. damn you.


----------



## Ed (Mar 28, 2008)

madbulk @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Ed @ Fri Mar 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Can we take the 911 Conspiracy stuff to a different thread, please?
> ...



I decided to delete my post, but why not? I dont want to talk about that here, its only barely relevant to the topic.


----------



## almacg (Mar 28, 2008)

You're right its almost a cliché now.

Back on track... McCain = bad


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 28, 2008)

Ed @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Can we take the 911 Conspiracy stuff to a different thread, please? I dont mind pitching in again, but I dont want my topic here to be sidelined in favour of a more contentious subject.



No problem, but tell Scott to stop provoking me. :wink:


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 28, 2008)

Ed @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> madbulk @ Fri Mar 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Fri Mar 28 said:
> ...



I wish i had seen that post tho... :mrgreen:


----------



## Ed (Mar 28, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Scott Rogers @ Thu Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > We were all meant to believe that somehow, over the course of 20 years of attending (with his wife and two young daughters) and financially supporting that bigoted, hate-filled "church", he had magically missed the bad stuff.
> ...



Huckabee defends Barack Obama on Rev. Wright controversy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ


----------



## Ed (Mar 28, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Ed @ Fri Mar 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Can we take the 911 Conspiracy stuff to a different thread, please? I dont mind pitching in again, but I dont want my topic here to be sidelined in favour of a more contentious subject.
> ...



You can reply, just address a new topic to him and add "split from McCain thread" or something


----------



## Ed (Mar 28, 2008)

[quote:112034fc86="Scott Rogers @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:19 pm"]For your reading pleasure, here is a little more perspectivòC>   uEåC>   uEæC>   uEçC>   uEèC>   uEéC>   uEêC>   uEëC>   uEìC>   uEíC>   uEîC>   uEïC>   uEðC>   uEñC>   uEòC>   uEóC>   uEôC?   uEõC?   uEöC?   uE÷C?   uEøC?   uEùC?   uEúC?   uEûC?   uEüC?   uEýC?   uEþ[email protected]   uEÿ[email protected]   uF [email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF	[email protected]   uF
[email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF [email protected]   uF[email protected]   uF[email protected]   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uFCA   uF CA   uF!CA   uF"CA   uF#CA   uF$CA   uF%CA   uF&CA   uF'CA   uF(CA   uF)CA   uF*CA   uF+CA   uF,CB   uF-CB   uF.CB   uF/CB   uF0CB   uF1CB   uF2CB   uF3CB   uF4CB   uF5CB   uF6CB   uF7CB   uF8CB   uF9CB   uF:CB   uF;CB   uF<CB   uF=CB   uF>CB   uF?CB   [email protected]CB   uFACB   uFBCB   uFCCB   uFDCB   uFECB   uFFCB   uFGCB   uFHCB   uFICB   uFJCB   uFKCB   uFLCB   uFMCB   uFNCB   uFOCB   uFPCC   uFQCC   uFRCC   uFSCC   uFT              òCC   uFVCC   uFWCC   uFXCD   uFYCD   uFZCD   uF[CD   uF\CD   uF]CD   uF^CD   uF_CD   uF`CD   uFaCD   uFbCD   uFcCD   uFdCD   uFeCD   uFfCD   uFgCD   uFhCD   uFiCD   uFjCD   uFkCD   uFlCD   uFmCD   uFnCD   uFoCD   uFpCD   uFqCD   uFrCD   uFsCD   uFtCD   uFuCD   uFvCE   uFwCE   uFxCF   uFyCF   uFzCF   uF{CF   uF|CF   uF}CF   uF~CF   uFCF   uF€CF   uFCF   uF‚CF   uFƒCF   uF„CF   uF…CF   uF†CF   uF‡CF   uFˆCF   uF‰CF   uFŠCF   uF‹CF   uFŒCF   uFCF   uFŽCF   uFCF   uFCG   uF‘CG   uF’CG   uF“CG   uF”CG   uF•CG   uF–CG   uF—CG   uF˜CG   uF™CG   uFšCG   uF›CG   uFœCG   uFCG   uFžCG   uFŸCG   uF CG   uF¡CG   uF¢CG   uF£CG   uF¤CG   uF¥CG   uF¦CG   uF§CG   uF¨CG   uF©CG   uFªCH   uF«CH   uF¬CH   uF­CH   uF®CH


----------



## Ed (Mar 28, 2008)

More Mccain flip flopping
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFVatXy8Bhc

It reminds me of all the lies and distortions the Bush administration told over the WMDs and Iraqs involvment with terrorism. Unbelievable. Vote this guy in and America really will go down the tubes and drag the rest of the world with it. Hilary seems scary to me and Obama as a few problems but it all seems insignificant compared to this warmongering nightmare.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 28, 2008)

..........


----------



## almacg (Mar 28, 2008)

You cannot punish the innocent lives on civilians who have NOTHING to do with the evil acts of their government. The point I was trying to get across was that in the eyes of some people it's ok to just go dropping bombs on people's cities and not care about the innocent lives of civilians that inevitably get destroyed in the process. If I was to to adopt this logic, I could legitamately drop bombs on Washington in an attempt to 'rid America of George Bush'. Instead of seeing my point, you start making jingoisitic references to American military might! 

Of course America is not the sole evil of the world, but right now it's pretty difficult to accept anybody even coming close to saying anything good about the American administration, because the bad far outweighs the good.

The one thing that proves to me the most that the administration is not a force for good in the world, is Saudi Arabia.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 28, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> ..... Please let us know which European nations are coming after us so we'll have a good idea how many Boy Scout troops to put on alert.



Now you gotta admit. That's pretty funny. /\~O


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 28, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Dave! Are you really trying to say that all 300 million Americans aren't stupid?!
> 
> Does your outrageousness know no bounds?



No not saying that at all because I know how dumb I am. It's the broad-brushing stereo-typing based upon the 'other.' To me that's a stupid thing: thinking people aren't thoughtful, considerate or concientious because they may think a certain way that differs from someone. All governments (read 'people') that have insisted upon a uniformity of thought have been and are despotic. It is not workable but oppressive. How often history does not inform people's viewpoint. 

McCain's going to get votes from a certain number of people because they will simply be voting against the similar economic policies of the two other candidates (or whatever other basic reasons.) That doesn't make them dumb if they are thinking their taxes are going to go through the roof and want to avoid it. We all know people will vote on a singular issue they consider paramount. Obama said just that yesterday. They're not stupid they just may have other priorities.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2008)

I don't think voting for McCain is stupid. He's wrong about a lot of things in my opinion, but he does have a command of the issues and has opinions that are based on thought rather than lunatic ideology.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 28, 2008)

..........


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2008)

"North Korea can enjoy the nukes which Clinton/Carter enabled, and Iran can develop their own as they talk of the destruction of Israel, and again, this is all great"

Both of those points are highly debatable. Iran actually isn't developing nukes according to the IAEA (Mohammed ElBaradei). Never mind that we removed the biggest counterbalance to them when we got rid of Saddam Hussein.

And from what I've read, North Korea stepped up development when they saw how Bush behaves. Plus weapons are their only crop - they're starving - and that increased the pressure to do it.

Also, when you list all those bad regimes throughout the world, I think you're making the same point that...well, I forget who said what, but at least the point that I'm making, which is that we're supposed to be the leader of the free world and not behave like an empire.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 29, 2008)

Iran never threaten to wipe out Israel of the map. This is the result of a miss translation that is being use as propaganda by every media outlet in the west. It was a big misunderstanding. He hopes for the end of the Zionist regime not the country of Israel. Iran has been very clear about this but the medias keep selling us this line. And thet fact that the medias is doing this should worry all of us. 



> Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?
> 
> The òCq   uP»Cq   uP¼Cq   uP½Cq   uP¾Cq   uP¿Cq   uPÀCq   uPÁCq   uPÂCq   uPÃCq   uPÄCq   uPÅCq   uPÆCq   uPÇCq   uPÈCq   uPÉCq   uPÊCq   uPËCq   uPÌCq   uPÍCq   uPÎCq   uPÏCq   uPÐCq   uPÑCq   uPÒCq   uPÓCq   uPÔCq   uPÕCq   uPÖCq   uP×Cq   uPØCq   uPÙCq   uPÚCq   uPÛCq   uPÜCq   uPÝCq   uPÞCq   uPßCq   uPàCq   uPáCq   uPâCq   uPãCq   uPäCq   uPåCq   uPæCq   uPçCq   uPèCq   uPéCq   uPêCq   uPëCq   uPìCq   uPíCq   uPîCq   uPïCq   uPðCq   uPñCq   uPòCq   uPóCq   uPôCq   uPõCq   uPöCq   uP÷Cq   uPøCq   uPùCq   uPúCq   uPûCq   uPüCq   uPýCq   uPþCq   uPÿCq   uQ Cq   uQCq   uQCq   uQCq   uQCq   uQCq   uQCq   uQCq   uQCq   uQ	Cq   uQ
> Cq   uQCq   uQCq   uQ Cq   uQCq   uQCq   uQCr   uQCr   uQCr   uQCr   uQCr   uQCr   uQCr   uQCr   uQCs   uQCs   uQCs   uQCs   uQCs   uQCs   uQCs   uQCs   uQ Cs   uQ!Cs   uQ"Cs   uQ#Cs   uQ$Cs   uQ%Cs   uQ&Cs   uQ'Cs   uQ(Cs   uQ)Cs   uQ*              òCs   uQ,Cs   uQ-Cs   uQ.Cs   uQ/Cs   uQ0Cs   uQ1Cs   uQ2Cs   uQ3Cs   uQ4Cs   uQ5Cs   uQ6Cs   uQ7Cs   uQ8


----------



## almacg (Mar 29, 2008)

Nobody here is an anti-american bigot. Firstly I am well aware that America makes a huge contribution technologically and also culturally to the world. However, since at this current time white Christian soldiers are taking part in yet another holy war I think I'm justified in turning my attention to the American and British administrations. I have not come here to try to turn this into a Europe vs America battle. Firstly I am well aware that the current British government is not only incompetent on an embarrisingly huge level, but also played a part in the Iraq War. 

All I really want is to express is that a vote for McCain clearly is a vote for American Imperialism. I just cannot understand how you can condemn the actions of one people, and try to defend the actions of your own. The Iraq war has made the world a far more volatile and dangerous place and it has ruined the lives of countless Iraqi civilians. 



> The middle east can live in primitive barbarism and cognitive dissonance for their culture not being the beacon of light their religion told them it was supposed to be



Your leader said that "God told me to invade Iraq". You have a religious, right wing nutcase dropping bombs on innocent people. If this isn't barbaric I don't know what is.
Even if terrible things are being commited in the middle East, how can you possibly ever justify arming thousands of hateful people (of course I recognise that there are also many good, honest brave soldiers - but let's not forget that many join so that they can indiscrimantely kill) and sending them in to a foreign land? 50 years ago when we used to hang children would it be legitimate for a foreign, albeit morally superior nation to invade us? When is it ever right to drop bombs on innocent people, steal their resources, and destroy their law and order, just so that we can 'save' them? China has commited many atrocities, but we can't just go in and invade their country, because the innocent people who play no part in governmental acts, just want to get on with their lives. 
Would you want a morally superior nation to invade America? 
No matter how bad Sadamm Hussein was, the people of Iraq did NOT want to see foreign soldiers with weapons parading their streets. How do I know this? Because even if I lived under a dictatorship I would rather solve the problem through fighting my own battles than having my family potentially killed in so called collateral damage.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 29, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> I don't think voting for McCain is stupid. He's wrong about a lot of things in my opinion, but he does have a command of the issues and has opinions that are based on thought rather than lunatic ideology.



I didn't mean to imply you were saying anything like that Nick. The author of the thread has that wacky idea as his premise.


----------



## Ed (Mar 29, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 28 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think voting for McCain is stupid. He's wrong about a lot of things in my opinion, but he does have a command of the issues and has opinions that are based on thought rather than lunatic ideology.
> ...



Its not so wacky, McCain as a president is a pretty scary idea. I can already see he will be worse than Bush.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 29, 2008)

Ed @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> What makes them dumb is voting for someone that is already having his own scandals before he is even in office. But these arent minor things, the stuff Scott brought up about Obama is trivial compared to this. A 100 year occupation of Iraq, and a promise for more wars. Many thousands will die over this if Americans vote him in. Ed



McCain is merely saying what both the other candidates won't regarding Iraq: he is not going to pull the troops out overnight and allow a level of bloodshed that may last 100 years. No president can do this and none will. McCain is trying to let all relevant players in the world know we won't quit and walk away. This is a Reagan-esque ploy to influence a resolution to the conflict rather than extension. If Iran thinks or knows we aren't going away till things are stabile and that they will get their hand slapped by an annoyed US for gross interference, they may be inclined to abandon their ambitions towards Iraq.

However one comes down on the Iraq invasion (most Americans see it as a mistake at this point) turning loose a proxy conflict between Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and even Turkey (not to mention Bin Laden's people) is not a good idea in that volatile region.


----------



## Ed (Mar 29, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Ed @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > What makes them dumb is voting for someone that is already having his own scandals before he is even in office. But these arent minor things, the stuff Scott brought up about Obama is trivial compared to this. A 100 year occupation of Iraq, and a promise for more wars. Many thousands will die over this if Americans vote him in. Ed
> ...


Maybe the other candidates are lying when they are saying they will try and withdraw the troops, but McCain isnt even trying he's saying he will keep them there until they "win" and that could last a 100 years and that he'd be happy about that. It doesnt seem very sensible to vote the openly bad candidate just because you assume the others are worse and just arent open about it.



> McCain is trying to let all relevant players in the world know we won't quit and walk away.


It was an illegal war to begin with based on distortions and misrepresentions. And they cant win a war of ideas, the terrorists wont ever quit. Either Bush is stupid for thinking otherwise or had alterior motives for the war. Same with McCain. 

I see no ones addressed the topics I brought up on the previous page.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 29, 2008)

Ed @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> I see everyone who pounced on me earlier now hasnt replied.
> 
> Ed



I'll reply you sanctimonious Brit. You say McCain has been caught in "huge" lies. You say that he's Mr. Flip Floppy. But you don't mention what lies or what he's flip flopped on.

You continue to misquote him based on You tube clips and then assert that it's the truth.

We won't or can't pull out of Iraq until Iraq has a government that's stable. In McCains defense he has stated repeatedly that American policy has gone way off in regards to this and that if Bush had listen to Powell's advice we won't be in this mess.

But, now that we are Iraq at least has to have a stable government and at least has to be able to defend itself against its neighbors or Iran will come in take it over and establish a literal empire of tyranny in the middle east.

You're probable it bit young to remember how bad Iran was and in many ways still is. Iran is the birth place of Hezbolah. Hezbolah follows the doctrines of radical Islamism set forth by the Iatola Hummanie (I won't even bother with the correct spelling). 

Iran can be kept in check by American forces in Iraq. If Iraq can't defend itself at this point we must stay. If Iran captures Iraq then forms an alliance with Hezbohala in Syria, Israel is doomed and Israel has Nuclear missiles. 

Just look at a map. Once in it's hard to get out. If Saddam did anything right is was that he was a major road block to Iran.

Dems are just playing public sentiment. Once in they won't leave Iraq either. At this point we can't. If we want to pull out we need to establish at least a military strong hold in the region. 



best,

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2008)

"The Unites States is so much more than the sum total of a Presidential administration"

I think the issue is that this administration's adventures had the enthusiastic support of so many people in the nation. Bush could easily have led us into war with France if that nonsense had continued just a few days more!

People are the same everywhere, though, and that's both the hopeful and the depressing thing about humanity.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 29, 2008)

Ed @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Maybe the other candidates are lying when they are saying they will try and withdraw the troops, but McCain isnt even trying he's saying he will keep them there until they "win" and that could last a 100 years and that he'd be happy about that. It doesnt seem very sensible to vote the openly bad candidate just because you assume the others are worse and just arent open about it.



I've come around to actually enjoying that you keep trotting this 100 years thing out. You slay me.


----------



## Ed (Mar 29, 2008)

josejherring @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Ed @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > I see everyone who pounced on me earlier now hasnt replied.
> ...


I wasnt the one calling all Americans stupid, thats just what people assumed I meant. And please calm down you misunderstand my tone, I like you Jose. 



> You say McCain has been caught in "huge" lies. You say that he's Mr. Flip Floppy. But you don't mention what lies or what he's flip flopped on.



Yes I did and yes I did. The long post with colours and the last post on page 2. 



> You continue to misquote him based on You tube clips and then assert that it's the truth.


What misquotes?



> We won't or can't pull out of Iraq until Iraq has a government that's stable.


McCain doesnt want to do that, he wants to stay until they "win" the war on terror in order to make sure Americans arent being hurt, injured or killed. 



> In McCains defense he has stated repeatedly that American policy has gone way off in regards to this and that if Bush had listen to Powell's advice we won't be in this mess


What advise did Powell give? 



> But, now that we are Iraq at least has to have a stable government and at least has to be able to defend itself against its neighbors or Iran will come in take it over and establish a literal empire of tyranny in the middle east.



According to all the reports Ive read Iraq cannot be called stable, despite McCains nonsence claiming there are some safe streets where you and I can walk around freely. Its not going to get better, the terrorists arent going to stop and we'll be there indefinitely.



> Iran can be kept in check by American forces in Iraq. If Iraq can't defend itself at this point we must stay. If Iran captures Iraq then forms an alliance with Hezbohala in Syria, Israel is doomed and Israel has Nuclear missiles.
> 
> Just look at a map. Once in it's hard to get out. If Saddam did anything right is was that he was a major road block to Iran.



People trying to defend the government and guys like McCain always seem to come up with reasons to go to war and to stay at war, but miss the point that these people didnt give these reasons as their reasons to go to war. 



> Dems are just playing public sentiment. Once in they won't leave Iraq either. At this point we can't. If we want to pull out we need to establish at least a military strong hold in the region.



Dont worry its already happening, I heard about them engaged in building permanent military bases for a while now. .


----------



## Ed (Mar 29, 2008)

madbulk @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Ed @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the other candidates are lying when they are saying they will try and withdraw the troops, but McCain isnt even trying he's saying he will keep them there until they "win" and that could last a 100 years and that he'd be happy about that. It doesnt seem very sensible to vote the openly bad candidate just because you assume the others are worse and just arent open about it.
> ...



Please tell me what I said that isnt true?


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 29, 2008)

..........


----------



## madbulk (Mar 29, 2008)

Ed @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> madbulk @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> ...



Sigh. Really? While the quote might be more or less accurate, truth and certainly fairness lies elsewhere, but if you truly don't see it (while I'm humbly inclined to believe that you do but choose not to give in) as I said, I've decided to just start digging it.


----------



## Ed (Mar 29, 2008)

madbulk @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Ed @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > madbulk @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> ...



Ive responded to Scotts source. Why dont you chck out my post on it on the previous page? Its the second one from the bottom. Whats wrong with what I said?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 29, 2008)

> We won't or can't pull out of Iraq until Iraq has a government that's stable.



I keep earing this nonsense. For America to say they have to stay to fix things is like
having a paedophile babysit someone's daughter he raped, while the parents are off to work or something. It's insane. Now i don't mean you specifically Jose but who the hell do you think you are America? Get out and the Iraqi will do just fine. :roll: They'll sort out their trouble! There was a civilization 1000s of years ago before America was born over there. How the hell can you stay and fix something when it's clear you are the cause of this turmoil. The Iraq wants you out! They've been very clear about it.


----------



## cc64 (Mar 29, 2008)

josejherring @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Also, an education is no guarantee of success. Compare me to Bill Gates. I have a masters he has a highschool diploma. I'd take his diploma over my masters in a heartbeat if it would get me Microsoft money. :mrgreen:



Bill Gates is a very intelligent man for sure but more than any diploma, what got him where he is, many people ignore or forget, his Mom was on the board of directors of IBM when he licensed DOS to IBM. Now that's what got him there in the first place but what has kept him there is his talent.

CC64


----------



## Ed (Mar 29, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > I see everyone who pounced on me earlier now hasnt replied.
> ...



Dark red tells you its a quote and red and bold tells you its an especially relevant part. Not that complicated. 



> The other problem is that, unless it was in red typeface, I didn't see you concede anywhere that you had lied about McCain "wanting a 100 year war", but instead you just went on to other things while avoiding your failure. If you're going to lie, you shouldn't be going on and on about someone else doing it.



If you're going to accuse someone of lying, at least read what they write:

"_Secondly, I was being emotive on purpose when I said McCain wants a 100 year war, because what I actually said first apparently wasnt emotive enough to get noticed:"We've got him openly saying he expects to and be happy about occupying Iraq for 100 years". You have Bush, apparently the most unpopular president ever whos foreign policy is a massive contribution to that and you have McCain rubbing sholders with him and is doubling Bush's estimate for how long they will be in Iraq for. He also made a joke about bombing Iran http://tinyurl.com/27fmyt I will hesitate to comment on that one in case someone goes off again (Scott). I know its only my opinion but I think its pretty stupid to go ahead and vote for him anyway. "_



> Lastly, tòCª   u`,Cª   u`-Cª   u`.Cª   u`/Cª   u`0Cª   u`1Cª   u`2Cª   u`3Cª   u`4Cª   u`5Cª   u`6Cª   u`7Cª   u`8Cª   u`9Cª   u`:Cª   u`;Cª   u`<C«   u`=C«   u`>C«   u`?C«   u`@C«   u`AC«   u`BC«   u`CC«   u`DC«   u`EC«   u`FC«   u`GC«   u`HC¬   u`IC¬   u`JC¬   u`KC¬   u`LC¬   u`MC¬   u`NC¬   u`OC¬   u`PC¬   u`QC¬   u`RC¬   u`SC¬   u`TC¬   u`UC¬   u`VC¬   u`WC¬   u`XC¬   u`YC¬   u`ZC¬   u`[C¬   u`\C¬   u`]C¬   u`^C¬   u`_C¬   u``C¬   u`aC¬   u`bC¬   u`cC


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 29, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> McCain is merely saying what both the other candidates won't regarding Iraq: he is not going to pull the troops out overnight and allow a level of bloodshed that may last 100 years. No president can do this and none will. McCain is trying to let all relevant players in the world know we won't quit and walk away. This is a Reagan-esque ploy to influence a resolution to the conflict rather than extension. If Iran thinks or knows we aren't going away till things are stabile and that they will get their hand slapped by an annoyed US for gross interference, they may be inclined to abandon their ambitions towards Iraq.
> 
> However one comes down on the Iraq invasion (most Americans see it as a mistake at this point) turning loose a proxy conflict between Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and even Turkey (not to mention Bin Laden's people) is not a good idea in that volatile region.



If we would leave them to themselves, they would busy themselves fighting each other to the death. It's what they do, it's what they've done longer than any of us have been alive. It's what they've done longer than the USA has existed.

How many colonizations, how many crusades, how many imperialistic excursions does it take for people to simply wake up? We've wasted now, what, trillions of dollars? Doing what? The same thing these people would simply do to each other without our financial investment?

The policies towards North Africa/Middle East by civilized nations should be simply one of containment. Let them stew in their religious lunacy. Stop interfering with their ignorance, their primitivity, and their hatred. Let it go. Only when they literally fight each other to the death will some sense of order emerge in that region. Attempting to somehow paint this turd pink just costs us trillions in pink paint, and we've got nothing but a pink turd to show for it.


----------



## Ed (Mar 29, 2008)

JB78 @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> tobyond @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's 2 things (of the many) that concern me about McCain:
> ...



That story is hilarious. But its not a surprise coming from Flip Flopp McCain.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 29, 2008)

You guys are being very short sighted!!

We can't leave it to Iraq to "rebuild" after we tore down the only stable government that they had. They can't handle it themselves. They have no military or no functioning government left.

Fernando,

I think invading Iraq was a mistake. I didn't agree with it at all. It was wrong to go in. But, now that we are there we can't leave the country in the state that its in. We have to clean up our mess. Right now if we left there would be no Iraq in a month. Syria and Iran would pounce on it.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 29, 2008)

josejherring @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Right now if we left there would be no Iraq in a month. Syria and Iran would pounce on it.



So who cares? Then Syria and Iran would pounce on each other, and likely the rest would jump in as well. Who cares?

If these people want to be totally consumed in their hatred and religious lunacòCÖ   ujrCÖ   ujsCÖ   ujtC×   ujuC×   ujvC×   ujwC×   ujxC×   ujyC×   ujzC×   uj{C×   uj|C×   uj}C×   uj~C×   ujC×   uj€C×   ujC×   uj‚C×   ujƒC×   uj„C×   uj…C×   uj†CØ   uj‡CØ   ujˆCØ   uj‰CØ   ujŠCØ   uj‹CØ   ujŒCÙ   ujCÙ   ujŽCÙ   ujCÙ


----------



## Ed (Mar 30, 2008)

josejherring @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Right now if we left there would be no Iraq in a month. Syria and Iran would pounce on it.



Even if you dont agree with Bruce on this, Bush and McCains reasons for going to war with Iraq was about Iraq being an immediate threat to the US, that Saddam had WMDs, and that staying in Iraq is to "win" this war on terrorism. Its not to stabalise the Middle East and frankly theres a case to be made that we are only exacerbating the problems. You arent fighting a war with a country, you arent fighting a war with a group. You are fighting an "idea". If we need to help clean up our mess we dont need Bush or McCain doing it, they will only make things worse.

Ed


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 30, 2008)

Ed @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> frankly theres a case to be made that we are only exacerbating the problems. You arent fighting a war with a country, you arent fighting a war with a group. You are fighting an "idea". If we need to help clean up our mess we dont need Bush or McCain doing it, they will only make things worse.



I agree with that thought, that's exactly right. But I don't agree that there is any "cleaning it up." This outcome was perfectly predictable. Anyone with a marginal grasp of history knew this was exactly where we'd end up. Yet, the George Bush administration thought that somehow they were powerful enough to rewrite history by force.

I keep trying to imagine what kind of result would come from investing three trillion dollars into peacemaking...what if we'd build three trillion dollars worth of schools? Of hospitals? The money would still cycle back into the US economy, no different than it does with military expenditures. But what a remarkably different outcome...


----------



## Ed (Mar 30, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> Ed @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > frankly theres a case to be made that we are only exacerbating the problems. You arent fighting a war with a country, you arent fighting a war with a group. You are fighting an "idea". If we need to help clean up our mess we dont need Bush or McCain doing it, they will only make things worse.
> ...



Oh I quite agree, I was being diplomatic 



> I keep trying to imagine what kind of result would come from investing three trillion dollars into peacemaking...what if we'd build three trillion dollars worth of schools? Of hospitals? The money would still cycle back into the US economy, no different than it does with military expenditures. But what a remarkably different outcome...



Some people are making a lot of money out of the war like defence contractors, but the government keeps needing to borrow more and more money in order to pay for it (as if the the national debt wasnt enough). But even if you dont agree that this is a war for oil rather than peace, it has helped give them massive amounts of control over the population. The Patiot Act pretty much lets them do anything they want to you and its incredible that they managed to get away passing such legislation.


----------



## Ed (Mar 30, 2008)

madbulk @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Ed @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > madbulk @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> ...



I've comeòCý   urÀCý   urÁCý   urÂCþ   urÃCþ   urÄCþ   urÅCþ   urÆCþ   urÇCþ   urÈCþ   urÉCþ   urÊCþ   urËCþ   urÌCþ   urÍCþ   urÎCþ   urÏCþ   urÐCþ   urÑCþ   urÒCþ   urÓCþ   urÔCþ   urÕCþ   urÖCþ   ur×Cþ   urØCþ   urÙCþ   urÚCþ   urÛCþ   urÜCþ   urÝCþ   urÞCþ   urßCþ   uràCþ   uráCþ   urâCþ   urãCþ   uräCþ   uråCþ   uræCþ   urçCþ   urèCþ   uréCþ   urêCþ   urëCþ   urìCþ   uríCþ   urîCþ   urïCþ   urðCþ   urñCþ   uròCþ   uróCþ   urôCþ   urõCþ   uröCþ   ur÷Cþ   urøCþ   urùCþ   urúCþ   urûCþ   urüCþ   urýCþ   urþCþ   urÿCþ   us Cþ   usCþ   usCþ   usCþ   usCþ   usCþ   usCþ   usCþ   usCþ   us	Cþ   us
Cþ   usCþ   usCþ   us Cþ   usCþ   usCþ


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 30, 2008)

..........


----------



## Ed (Mar 30, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > Since you're suggesting Im not being truthfull or fair to McCain, I would really like you to show me where, along with anyone else that thinks the same. You seemed to have agreed with Scott, but Scotts wrong, Ive seen his source (see second to last post on page 2)
> ...



Their argument about the 100 years thing sounded a lot like what you said, so it doesnt really make any difference if it was or wasnt your source or not. You cited it as a good source so I assumed you agreed with them



> It was a pretty easy thing to do. You said one thing, and John McCain said another. Get it? YOU - were wrong. Now, for the umpteenth time, you claimed that McCain "wants a 100 year war." That is a manifest lie.



Like I said last time I said that to get a reaction because no one was addressing what I said before. Wasnt the smartest thing to do but I do believe he wants a wants a 100 year war. What he said wasnt that far off however, he openly doubled Bush's estimate for how long they will occupy Iraq to 100 years, and said that he'd be happy about that. He wants to stay until they "win". This is what I started off saying. 



> And all you came back with was [email protected]#t political spin of your own by saying you were being "emotive." What a load of horse [email protected]#t! If a politician you didn't like tried to get by with that sort of thing, you'd be all over him in a heartbeat. You lied, Ed. It's painfully obvious that you lied. Okay? And when caught in it you tried to weasel your way out of it with the same sort of cowardly political spin that you criticize others for doing. Hypocrite! Deal with your own failures and stop obsessing over other people. Self-awareness!



Sheesh. I accept McCain never said he wanted a 100 year war, happy now? How about addressing my other points instead of using this one thing as a reason to reject everything Im saying.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 30, 2008)

I, too, am trying to figure out why the color of the type impeaches the input. I see only reasonable behavior from Ed. Since we're allowed to post in whatever color we wish on this board, I'm not sure what objection can be raised.

In fact, I think I am beginning to like red a lot.

On the other hand, I see a lot of rudeness coming from Scott. Doesn't negate his points (their content does a better job than ad hominem ever could), but certainly makes me wonder why Ed's reasonable observation of a very flawed presidential candidate could trigger such animosity.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2008)

> If these people want to be totally consumed in their hatred and religious lunacy, who are we to stand in the way? They're containable, they have no real technological means of hurting anyone except themselves. So, let them have at it. All the civilized world needs to do is contain them where they are, and let them just wipe each other out. Godspeed.



Bruce, I agree 100% with what you said in all your other posts - the part about Eisenhower especially. Just about the only industry we have left here is weapons manufacturing - everything else has been "outsourced." There are different ways to look at what's happening with the rise of Asia (I've posted about it before), but this aspect of it is especially frightening.

However, I don't agree with the quote above. Most of the people getting consumed by the hatred and religious lunacy are victims who don't want it, and it wouldn't be right for us to let those freaks take over.

That's tempered by unease I have about the talking head analysis of what would happen if we just up and left. You really don't know who or what to believe these days, in other words maybe the country wouldn't break even further. But I think it would, and as I said earlier, neither Hillary nor Obama can just pull out like they say they will.

Got that?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2008)

On a related tangent, I'm reading the book about Blackwater right now. Talk about frightening - a private army of 20,000 mercenaries from all over the world (including former secret police types from right-wing dictatorships), with no legal restraint whatsoever, and with a huge fighting force in Iraq that operates independently of our own armed forces. It's not only Iraq either.

That's Rumsfeld and Cheney's legacy.

These people are i n s a n e. Insane.


----------



## Ed (Mar 30, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> I, too, am trying to figure out why the color of the type impeaches the input. I see only reasonable behavior from Ed. Since we're allowed to post in whatever color we wish on this board, I'm not sure what objection can be raised.
> 
> In fact, I think I am beginning to like red a lot.




Thanks for the support Bruce. Its not like Im using random colours for no reason, I used them to make it easier. I could have chopped out all the dark red parts, but I wanted to show the context. I could have used no colours at all, but that would have not make it quite so obvious which parts were quotes or not or which parts I was highlighting as the important sections. 

All the people that went off at me earlier now dont seem to have anything to say about what my actual point was with the 100 years thing, and now I showed what the lie was I was talking about we've heard nothing. Yet Madbulk is still suggesting Im unfair and and untruthfull about me saying that McCain expects to be in the war which may take 100 years, and that he'd be happy about it, that he wants to stay until they "win". I'd like to know how they can suggest Im misrepresenting him there.


----------



## Ed (Mar 30, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> But I think it would, and as I said earlier, neither Hillary nor Obama can just pull out like they say they will.
> 
> Got that?



At least they saying they are going to *try*, if McCain is voted in, we have him saying that there will be more wars and that he expects to be in Iraq for maybe 100 years. But its even worse that that, because he wont *ever *be able to pull them out, because it will never get the the point where they will "win" this war on terror. I think at least choose the candidate that understands that. What people dont seem to understand is the government needs to borrow more money to fund their futile war. Better hope they get some oil pumping


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 30, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 30, 2008)

..........


----------



## tobyond (Mar 30, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> and when I throw his lying crap back in his face and unapologetically stand up for my country



Please explain how this is standing up for your country?


----------



## blue (Mar 30, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> unapologetically stand up for my country (golly, how un-cool and un-postmodern of me)



What does that even mean? What exactly are you "standing up for," the ideal of America or the reality? Does patriotism mean unconditional allegiance? Does criticism leveled at management constitute disloyalty to the whole institution?

When you say you're standing up for your country, it sounds less like patriotism and more like a cheap way to discredit opposing opinions. It certainly doesn't sound like the ideal of America to me.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 30, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 30, 2008)

..........


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2008)

> At least they saying they are going to try, if McCain is voted in, we have him saying that there will be more wars and that he expects to be in Iraq for maybe 100 years. But its even worse that that, because he wont ever be able to pull them out, because it will never get the the point where they will "win" this war on terror. I think at least choose the candidate that understands that. What people dont seem to understand is the government needs to borrow more money to fund their futile war. Better hope they get some oil pumping



Oh, no question. Permanent occupation of Iraq is an absolutely terrible idea. And don't think that it wasn't a part of the original plan - these people have been talking about permanent bases there all along.

I'm just saying what I don't like hearing myself say: that it's hard to feel secure with the idea that we can just withdraw and let the chaos become even more complete.

And believe me, I'm voting for Hillary or Obama. No more Alitos and Roberts on the Supreme Court. Presidents leave after four or eight years, but these terrible people are appointed for life.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2008)

> One of the many troubles with far left loons (oops, I meant to say, "progressives") is that they think they ought to be able to shovel [email protected]#t in your lap and you're just supposed to sit there, fold your hands meekly, smile, and tell them "Thank you. That smells good. May I have some more please?"



Scott, repeating variations of how you think liberals don't entertain opposing viewpoints over and over and over only undermines everything else you say. You're obviously very well informed, and I don't know why you have to do that.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 30, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> On a related tangent, I'm reading the book about Blackwater right now. Talk about frightening - a private army of 20,000 mercenaries from all over the world (including former secret police types from right-wing dictatorships), with no legal restraint whatsoever, and with a huge fighting force in Iraq that operates independently of our own armed forces. It's not only Iraq either.
> 
> That's Rumsfeld and Cheney's legacy.
> 
> These people are i n s a n e. Insane.



And what do you think the democrats will do about it when they are in office? That will be fun to see... Ooops! They have the majority now and they aren't doing anything about it. In fact there are more soldiers in Iraq now. We shall soon find out there are as much neocons in the democrat party than there are in the republican party

The private armies and mercenaries, even the Nazi didn't do this. Not that i know off. 

The world is run by criminals and people don't have a clue.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2008)

"Ooops! They have the majority now and they aren't doing anything about it."

Neocons in the Democratic party? That's just silly.

However, you certainly won't hear me saying that the Democrats always stand up for what's right. After all, they rubber stamped the Iraq war too (because they didn't want to be the party that was labeled "weak on terrorism").

But you have to remember that they don't have a big enough majority to get much done in either house. Bush just vetoed a bill banning torture, for heaven's sake!

And when he doesn't veto legislation, he issues signing statements, which are even worse. But that's another subject.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2008)

> I'm not going to just sit here on my hands and let some foreign cocksucker badmouth my country and call Americans stupid because not all of our opinions are in perfect alignment with his own. And if anyone doesn't like that, they can go f#@k themselves. Is that clearer now?



Unfortunately I'm not limber enough...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2008)

> The private armies and mercenaries, even the Nazi didn't do this.



Having just returned from a week in Munich during which I visited the Dachau concentration camp, Fernando, I have to point out that privatizing the armed forces is somehow not as bad as murdering millions of people.

Sometimes you kinda shoot from the hip.

Edit: Re-reading this I can see that I'm overreacting a little. Sorry about that. Dachau was slightly overwhelming, and I'm jumpy.


----------



## blue (Mar 30, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> Well guys, I tried it the reasonable way - several times - and that didn't work. So let me put it this way now:
> 
> I'm not going to just sit here on my hands and let some foreign cocksucker badmouth my country and call Americans stupid because not all of our opinions are in perfect alignment with his own. And if anyone doesn't like that, they can go f#@k themselves. Is that clearer now?



Your sentiments have always been clear, but I still don't understand how they equate to standing up for one's country. If I happen to agree with "some foreign cocksucker" badmouthing my country, does that mean I'm not standing up? I don't see how unconditional allegiance to anything can lead to reasoned debate, just as I can't see the logic of questioning an entire country's intelligence based on presidential polls.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2008)

"Unfortunately I'm not limber enough..."

But seriously, the real point is that there's lots of anti-American sentiment around the globe. While we're obviously not all stupid, I don't think it's completely irrational that people overseas would feel that way.

Why?

Because our government has a long history of unjust foreign behavior - and as I said, it's often with the enthusiastic support of the American public. That behavior spans administrations in both parties, going back...well, going back to Teddy Roosevelt's big stick, but it's been getting worse in recent years and logarithmically worse in the past 7-1/2.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 30, 2008)

Categorizing tens of millions of people as being stupid based upon how they would vote in an election is a preposterous premise. However it does confer that moniker upon us who are taking it up as even mildly legititmate. By rights in that case everyone who would vote for Obama is stupid? This is a fair point of departure for reasoned debate? A legitimate question to him in say a national debate? So Anderson Cooper begins a question to the candidate, "Hey stupid, what if....?"

If one cannot except the above reasoning then you should at least acknowledge that the premise here of McCain wanting troops _fighting_ in Iraq for a hundred years is patently false. That's not what he said and obviously so. If people are so smart why has Scott had to post that correction ten times?

Also, why do people assume that non-Democrats want anything other than our military personnel there back home? The problem is gettting out and whoever is president is going to have to be very careful about it. There will be plenty of time and opportunity for recriminations concerning Bush's policy (which senator Clinton supported.) For now we need a better plan than bringing the troops home on election day because that will end up a very bloody affair. Are Americans stupid for not wanting to compound the bloodshed over there? No, yet they stand accused by that kind of arrogant simplistic thinking.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 30, 2008)

John Kerry is a good example of what I'm talking about regarding the US voter: why didn't they vote for him? He's a bright guy, war veteran, experienced politician etc. Something about the or his policies or whatever did lead people to elect Bush again. That wouldn't make them stupid. Regarding Iraq I think most Americans and most people in the world were happy to see Saddam go (even the French said so!) But booting Saddam was the easy part and the no-policy way of dealing with the aftermath was a complete disaster that very few Americans would have approved of had they known ahead of time.

We will finish this discussion over a nice Waldorf Nick.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2008)

I WANT A WALDORF SALAD, DAMN IT!


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 30, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> Categorizing tens of millions of people as being stupid based upon how they would vote in an election is a preposterous premise.



Not really. Isn't stupidity defined by doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome?


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 30, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> tobyond @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Rogers @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> ...



If you want to launch pseudo-points loaded with hyperbole and ad hominem as an excuse for debate, you get what you pay for. (read: ridicule)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2008)

> Isn't stupidity defined by doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome?



hahahaha


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 31, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> > The private armies and mercenaries, even the Nazi didn't do this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually i was kind of shooting from the hip here. :lol: 

The thing is this private army thing bothers me a great deal. I mean hiring thugs and killers to impose your will on others is what gangster do! So in that sense my comparison wasn't so bad i guess.

BTW, i found some interesting info regarding the holocausts the other day, but it's a whole other topic.


----------



## artsoundz (Mar 31, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > > The private armies and mercenaries, even the Nazi didn't do this.
> ...



Please consider giving that one a rest, Fernando. Why don't you go upstairs and talk about music for a while?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 31, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> "Ooops! They have the majority now and they aren't doing anything about it."
> 
> Neocons in the Democratic party? That's just silly.
> 
> ...



Yea! Emperor Bush is something else. :wink: 



> because they didn't want to be the party that was labeled "weak on terrorism"



I never bought in this tho. I think it was a slick Media PR stunt to make it look OK for the dems to vote for the war. I was pretty angry at the time... I'm still angry a bit. And it kind of killed the anti-war movement. 

There may be no neocons in the democrat party but i don't see huge difference with the GOP when it comes to foreign policies. But of course, compare to the current administration the dems look like a bunch of nice guys. :lol:


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 31, 2008)

artsoundz @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> ...



WTF? I didn't say anything yet!


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > Sheesh. I accept McCain never said he wanted a 100 year war, happy now? How about addressing my other points instead of using this one thing as a reason to reject everything Im saying.
> ...



So in other words you have nothing more to say regarding any of my actual points re: McCain? 



> And like I say, your s.o.p. is very often a mixture of _argumentum verboseum_, proof by assertion, selective evidence, selective outrage and other fallacies,



Prove it, you and Madbulk in your collective outrage at me on McCain havent done it you just keep telling me I am. 


> I haven't even read the red stuff.



Of course not, thats why you can tell me my arguments are bad. . . :? :roll: 



> For all I know, you may be making points with which I agree.



And yet you still feel like you can list off fallacies Im making? 



> It is not exactly news to me that McCain's "straight talk" shtick is just political marketing fertilizer. I bet my list of things I don't like about McCain is about as long as anyone's. But It seems like maybe you just want to spar with someone for the hell of it - kind of like Aeneas.



So aside from that one thing I said Im one of my posts, do you actually have any problem with anything else Im saying?


----------



## almacg (Mar 31, 2008)

I think they just don't want to accept/hear the truth, even though it's proven than McCain is a complete warmongering jerk. 
Its much like the way that the American Government invaded Iraq, and completely ignored everyone's protests.


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> But the initial basis for Ed's thread was that John McCain "wants a 100 year war," and also that Americans are stupid. (How perfectly reasonable and un-rude, eh?) This has got to be one of _the_ dumbest bits of spin I have ever heard.



I was mifted no one was addressing what I said about it earlier, so I just expressed my opinion which I still hold - in one post only. I believe he wants a 100 year war. I apologise. 

Now, do you or do you not have a problem with anything else Ive said?



> I Have you considered the practicalities of having an agenda of a 100 year war? Achieving a 100 year war is something that would take the hyper-coordinated collusion of generations of leaders and citizens who put them in power who have yet even to be born - to hop on board and agree to see it through.



I dont see why. Bush estimated being there for 50 years, McCain said he would be happy to stay there for 100 years and said there would be more wars.



> And for what purpose would we want a 100 year war?Was he _really_ talking about a war, or just a security presence - as in South Korea and Japan (which again, is a separate issue on which reasonable people may disagree)?


He knows the difference between that place and Iraq. Im actually giving him the credit of not being stupid enough to think that he can maintain a security presence there and not have the situation there is at the moment. But he is of the mindset that they need to win this war on terrorism, so maybe he is that stupid. 



> And was his "100 years" a real number, or was it just something he picked out of the air on the spur of the moment for the simple purpose of making an argument



Exactly, of course it was pulled out of the air. What it showed is 50 years might not be enough, make it a 100! He is saying it doesnt matter how long it takes, he would be happy for them to stay there 100 years. He wants to win the "war" on terror to supposedly protect US citizens. 



> The list of impossibilities of the 100 year war myth could go on and on. But who cares - right? Because to some people it just sounds good to say it. It's for "emotive" purposes, after all.



Scott, can you or cant you address the argument Im making about his 100 year war and his lying about his trip to Baghdad? 



> So Ed can come here and start talking out of his ass about how dumb Americans are, because some of them have the unmitigated gall not to see things _his way_,



Of course not all Americans are stupid, not all Americans are stupid enough to vote for McCain. There are a lot of intelligent Americans. 



> And when my patience runs out with Ed's untenable lying and subsequent spin, and with the 911 conspiracy geniuses, well, I've really gone too far now.



Aside from that one thing, you freely admit you dont read my posts but can still make judgements about how good my arguments are and say Im lying. 



> One of the many troubles with far left loons (oops, I meant to say, "progressives") is that they think they ought to be able to shovel [email protected]#t in your lap and you're just supposed to sit there, fold your hands meekly, smile, and tell them "Thank you. That smells good. May I have some more please?"



Im sure this will piss you off. Another stupid thing about American culture is this weird left right liberal conservative nonsence.


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> blue @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Rogers @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> ...



Where on earth did you respond reasonably??! lol


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 31, 2008)

"Im sure this will piss you off. Another stupid thing about American culture is this weird left right liberal conservative nonsence."

There's nothing weird about liberalism. The weird part is that that there are so many conservatives, who are consistently wrong about almost every issue. What's especially weird is that you can make intelligent, cohesive arguments for some conservative positions, yet they're totally unfounded in reality.

For example, Scott and Brian R make great arguments for not helping poor people, saying that aid only "enables" them to stay where they are. There's a grain of truth in that, but it's clearly not the whole picture.

Conservatives basically want to let money rule everything, and then when it does rule everything and the predictably disastrous results occur, they say it's only because the market isn't truly free - as if money/power had no ethical blind spots. And they don't believe in leadership, saying that "small government" is good. So when our entire finance system collapses and crashes the economy because of bad real estate loan practices, they want the government to do nothing!

They also tend to believe in using force when it's not absolutely necessary - case in point: Iraq. Usually it's conservatives who believe that climate change is all a hoax perpetuated by Al Gore (although McCain isn't in that category). And then there's the highly influential political wing of the Christian right, which of course is neither Christian nor right. 

It's obviously more complicated than that, but the reason the country is divided is that there are so many people with a belief system that flies in the face of everyones' best interests. It looks to you like there are two equal sides, but really what we have is a battle for sanity. That's why the country is so polarized.

Most of Western Europe takes the liberal point of view for granted - even though they all have established churches. Liberalism is not nonsense, it's what modern western civilization is founded upon.


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Nick, you misunderstand. Im not saying there arent liberal and conservative people. Im saying in the UK we dont have such a strange situation as you do in the US. We would never have Fox News or the opposite equivalent. We dont talk about politics the way you guys over there do. I find it pretty strange.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 31, 2008)

Well, you did have Margaret Thatcher.

But the point is that it's very hard for shades of grey to prevail when you have such a strong force pulling our politics over toward the dark side. I don't consider myself an extremist, but I never used to hear myself shrieking like I do now.


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Well, you did have Margaret Thatcher.
> 
> But the point is that it's very hard for shades of grey to prevail when you have such a strong force pulling our politics over toward total black.


Trust me its very different over here  Our whole system is a shade of gray. I remember looking a a political map and Labour was even more Right Wing Than Hitler. Probably a mistake. But the point is the two main parties are basicaly the same and just as crappy as each other.. with maybe conservative being a little crappier.

And we cant be sure what McCain really thinks about climate change, he contradicts himself all the time and has to apparently ask his advisors what his view was on an issue.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 31, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 31, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 31, 2008)

..........


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 31, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Categorizing tens of millions of people as being stupid based upon how they would vote in an election is a preposterous premise.
> ...



Voting over and over again which is a political/scientific exercise of course couldn't be construed as stupid (I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that.) Voting for inept candidates over and over is more to your point no doubt. The problem is that the Democrats (over and over again) haven't been able to present an obvious superior contrast or flat out just haven't been able to win. It seems they can't even run a proper primary (Florida, Michigan.) My point is that to call all Democrats (the American people) stupid because they can't defeat the likes of George Bush in two general elections (i.e doing something over and over: losing) is a trite, pat, simplistic answer that is no answer at all. You could say that this or that leader or this or that administration is dumb or doing dumb things. But to indite the intelligence of a mass of people (Democrats or Republicans) is at best unscientific and worst one step away from genetic appraisal and we know what that leads to. (I don't belong to either of the two main parties FWIW.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 31, 2008)

Is that me, Bruce, or both?

Because I'm not self-loathing, far left-wing, or a hippie, and I certainly have no plans to age - no matter how old I get!

If you do mean me, I don't characterize saying that all Americans are stupid as perfectly reasonable. I say the causes for that are perfectly understandable, even though it's obviously not rational to think 300 million people are all the same - and in fact Ed backed down from that. What I say is that people (at a more fundamental level) are the same everywhere, which is why I don't like the Pledge of Allegiance. There are many, many great things about this country, it's worth contributing to, and I'm thankful that I live here rather than well over half the places in the world. But that doesn't mean I think we're better than anyone else, and I don't get upset if an Englishman thinks anyone who votes for McCain is stupid. Nor would I get upset if he thought anyone who voted for Hillary or Obama is stupid. Who cares; it's not sacrilege to me.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 31, 2008)

..........


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 31, 2008)

Whew.

Now stop bogarting that joint, man.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 31, 2008)

Okay let's get back to Stravinsky's middle period: I say it's the shit and share the composer's annoyance with an over emphasis upon his first period (Le Sacre etc.)

Or do I have the wrong thread here?


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Ed, I just don't think there is anything productive for me to talk about with you, Mr. McGreary or Fernando - the 3 Musketeers of 911 conspiracies.



Dont know where you get that idea, I disagree with them quite a bit it seems. 



> What you fellas lack in knowledge, background in political philosophies (i.e., the constrained vs. the unconstrained vision, etc.), intellectual curiosity, critical thinking skills, a broad historical perspective (whose default position is _not_ that Western civilization, and especially, America, is bad) - you more than make up for in hand wringing, finger wagging, arrogance, obnoxious self-flattery (playing prosecutor, judge, and jury), and self-righteous moral preening.
> 
> You guys are so very busy solving the world's problems with your obviously considerable geopolitical expertise, that you are tone deaf to your own foul tune. I have pretty much zero patience for that sort of thing, and I make no apologies for that. In short, your kind is not the sort with which a reasonable debate can be had, because you're too high on your own fumes and too unaware of your own ignorance.
> 
> But I guess the lesson that can be learned from this thread is that when you start badmouthing Americans, the results can be unpredictable and beyond your control.



Blah Blah Blah. Scott, do you have any objections to anything Ive said against McCain other than the "he wants a 100 year war" thing? Yes or no. 



> And about the only thing more nauseating than some foreigner arrogantly insulting my countrymen, is when some self-loathing, far left-wing aging hippie not only tolerates it, but cheers it on and characterizes it as perfectly reasonable.


What amazes me is the blind faith some people seem to exibit in the defence of their government and people like McCain.



> Lesson over.



Thank you teacher. Please spank me. Mmmmm... harder.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 31, 2008)

artsoundz @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> ...



You know, it seems to me you're telling me to get off the off topic section. On what authority? Well i don't think i really want to know. And, not that i own you an explanation but I've read everything I'm interested in up there. In fact I've asked question yesterday but got no reply. Also, i spent most of my time sitting in front of
Kontact these days and the off topic section helps me to relax a bit... And if you think i spend too much time in here please consider i write about 1/20 of what i would like to say. It's not that i censure myself it's because i end up reeding mostly and don't have the energy to type a response. And believe me i have counter arguments in MANY threads here that i just kept for myself because I'm tired and don't feel like typing it.

In the end i think that maybe it's you who needs to get off the off topic section if you cant handle it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 31, 2008)

"Okay let's get back to Stravinsky's middle period: I say it's the [email protected]#t and share the composer's annoyance with an over emphasis upon his first period (Le Sacre etc.)"

You stupid American!

L'Histoire du Soldat is the shit, as is Pulcinella. But Dunbarton Oaks is also the shit, and it was from his middle period, so you're clearly not as stupid as you and all Americans seem.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 31, 2008)

..........


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 31, 2008)

[quote:1c3cfcc39c="òD·   uœD·   uœD·   uœD·   uœD·   uœD·   uœD·   uœD·   uœD·   uœ D·   uœ!D·   uœ"D·   uœ#D·   uœ$D·   uœ%D·   uœ&D·   uœ'D·   uœ(D·   uœ)D·   uœ*D·   uœ+D·   uœ,D·   uœ-D·   uœ.D·   uœ/D·   uœ0D·   uœ1D·   uœ2D·   uœ3D·   uœ4D·   uœ5D·   uœ6D·   uœ7D·   uœ8D·   uœ9D·   uœ:D·   uœ;D·   uœ<D·   uœ=D·   uœ>D·   uœ?D·   uœ@D·   uœAD·   uœBD·   uœCD·   uœDD·   uœED·   uœFD·   uœGD·   uœHD·   uœID·   uœJD·   uœKD·   uœLD·   uœMD·   uœND·   uœOD·   uœPD·   uœQD·   uœRD¸   ušqD¸   ušrD¸   ušsD¸   uštD¸   ušuD¸   ušvD¸   uœSD¸   uœTD¸   uœUD¸   uœVD¸   uœWD¸   uœXD¹   uœYD¹   uœZD¹   uœ[D¹   uœ\D¹   uœ]D¹   uœ^D¹   uœ_D¹   uœ`D¹   uœaD¹   uœbD¹   uœcD¹   uœdD¹   uœeD¹   uœfD¹   uœgD¹   uœhD¹   uœiD¹   uœjD¹   uœkD¹   uœlD¹   uœmD¹   uœnD¹   uœoD¹   uœpD¹   uœqD¹   uœrD¹   uœsD¹   uœtD¹   uœuD¹   uœvD¹   uœwD¹   uœxD¹   uœyD¹   uœzD¹   uœ{D¹   uœ|D¹   uœ}D¹   uœ~D¹   uœD¹   uœ€D¹   uœ              òD¹   uœƒD¹   uœ„D¹   uœ…D¹   uœ†D¹   uœ‡D¹   uœˆD¹   uœ‰D¹   uœŠD¹   uœ‹D¹   uœŒD¹   uœD¹   uœŽD¹   uœD¹   uœD¹   uœ‘D¹   uœ’D¹   uœ“D¹   uœ”D¹   uœ•D¹   uœ–D¹   uœ—D¹   uœ˜D¹   uœ™D¹   uœšD¹   uœ›D¹   uœœD¹   uœD¹   uœžD¹   uœŸD¹   uœ D¹   uœ¡D¹   uœ¢D¹   uœ£D¹   uœ¤D¹   uœ¥D¹   uœ¦D¹   uœ§D¹   uœ¨D¹   uœ©D¹   uœªD¹   uœ«D¹   uœ¬D¹   uœ­D¹   uœ®D¹   uœ¯D¹   uœ°D¹   uœ±D¹   uœ²D¹   uœ³D¹   uœ´D¹   uœµD¹   uœ¶D¹   uœ·D¹   uœ¸D¹   uœ¹D¹   uœºD¹   uœ»D¹   uœ¼D¹   uœ½D¹   uœ¾D¹   uœ¿D¹   uœÀDº   uœÁDº   uœÂDº   uœÃDº   uœÄD»   uœÅD»   uœÆD»   uœÇD»   uœÈD»   uœÉD»   uœÊD»   uœËD»   uœÌD»   uœÍD»   uœÎD»   uœÏD»   uœÐD»   uœÑD»   uœÒD»   uœÓD»   uœÔD»   uœÕD»   uœÖD»   uœ×D»   uœØD»   uœÙD»   uœÚD»   uœÛD»   uœÜD»   uœÝD»   uœÞD»   uœßD»   uœàD»   uœáD»   uœâD»   uœãD»   uœäD»   uœåD»   uœæD»   uœçD»   uœèD»   uœéD»   uœêD»   uœëD»   uœìD»   uœíD»   uœîD»   uœïD»   uœðD»   uœñD»   uœò              òD»   uœôD»   uœõD»   uœöD»   uœ÷D»   uœøD»   uœùD»   uœúD»   uœûD»   uœüD»   uœýD»   uœþD»   uœÿD»   u D»   uD»   uD»   uD»   uD»   uD»   uD»   uD»   uD»   u	D»   u
D»   uD»   uD»   u D»   uD»   uD»   uD»   uD»   uD»   u


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Ed, I just don't think there is anything productive for me to talk about with you, Mr. McGreary or Fernando - the 3 Musketeers of 911 conspiracies. What you fellas lack in knowledge, background in political philosophies (i.e., the constrained vs. the unconstrained vision, etc.), intellectual curiosity, critical thinking skills, a broad historical perspective (whose default position is _not_ that Western civilization, and especially, America, is bad) - you more than make up for in hand wringing, finger wagging, arrogance, obnoxious self-flattery (playing prosecutor, judge, and jury), and self-righteous moral preening.
> 
> You guys are so very busy solving the world's problems with your obviously considerable geopolitical expertise, that you are tone deaf to your own foul tune. I have pretty much zero patience for that sort of thing, and I make no apologies for that. In short, your kind is not the sort with which a reasonable debate can be had, because you're too high on your own fumes and too unaware of your own ignorance.
> 
> ...



I am again wondering why you cannot merely assert your points, rather than launch personal attacks and ad hominem.

Even if I were the person you describe me to be--and I can assure you that you lack sufficient data to even venture a guess--that would still not impeach my input on the subject.

To presume you have a "lesson" to teach anyone is quite a stretch. But I am more concerned with your name-calling. Jingoistic fervor is not an excuse. It's not only rude, it's a direct violation of this forum's policies.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Bruce Richardson said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to launch pseudo-points loaded with hyperbole and ad hominem as an excuse for debate, you get what you pay for. (read: ridicule)
> ...



Again, I am referring to your actions, and you are responding with ad hominem. It is rude.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott, would you give a rest to your patriotic rant please! 

And I'm sorry but your so called great country has been involve in 72 armed conflict since WW2. 72 not including Iraq and Afghanistan. Could it be that we are not American basher but that you deserve strong criticism? Is there something worse than wars? And you're always bombing the hell out of some country or an other. To you America may stand for something great(..or you are unknowingly repeating the PR of which your country is the subject perhaps i don't know), but to us, foreigners, America is doing a lot of bad stuff and i don't think it's fair for you to call us American basher for pointing that out.

P.S. I don't really blame Americans for this. As far as I'm concern American has been hijacked by by international bankers and have made your country what is is today. Yes it's a conspiracy and I'm not ashame to say it.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 31, 2008)

Ed @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm i the only one here who thinks Scott is not very respectful of others? :?
> ...



Shut up you cock sucker! :lol: :wink:


----------



## JB78 (Mar 31, 2008)

I don't get why most right wingers seem to think that the U.S is the most amazing country on earth, and that everyone in the rest of the world are just dying to get a green card. I lived in the states between august-95 and september-96 (hollywood) and had a great time and met lots of great people, would love to visit again but I wouldn't want to live there permanently. I just mention this so I don't get the "you haven't lived here you foreigner you!!". Granted, I haven't visited every place but that's probably the case with most americans as well.

Scott, you seem to feel that the rest of the world is one big 3rd-world-country with 1 biased anti-american news source. 
I can get every big news channel in the world here in Sweden without a problem, even such classic channels like fox news. Even most radio shows are available over the net, and I don't have to mention the abundance of information on the net itself. 
Aside from all that I also get the various news sources here in Sweden, so I hardly think I'm in the dark when it comes to information.

With that in mind it pisses me off to no end when you end every argument with either: "you have to do your homework", "you can go fuck yourself" or the all time classic :"insert cool sarcastic remarks here". Why the aggression? You're clearly a smart and articulate guy judging from most of your posts.

The reason why people in general is pissed off at your government is that your adventures around the world with the "war on terror" is affecting everyones lives, for some in a minor way for others in a truly lethal fashion. I know you do great stuff as well but after 9/11 it has been mainly negative things, hopefully that will change starting with the next administration. 

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 31, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Sun Mar 30 said:
> ...



Semantics aside, let me clarify that I believe a 2004 vote for George Bush was a pretty stupid thing to do.

A few points:

1) The Florida primary debacle was not caused by Democrats. It was caused by a Republican-controlled legislature...political gamesmanship that is now being blame-shifted onto the victims of the slight.

2) re: indicting the intelligence of a mass of people.

Like it or not, the statistics are very clear on this country's "intelligence." We have precious little of it. Countries that many Americans think of as "third world" are turning out smarter people. Our economy is faltering more and more because we lack the broad intellectual-skills base to transition to an information economy.

So, yes. We can make a case for a disturbing lack of intelligence in a mass of people.

How would you suggest Democratic/Progressive candidates defeat the likes of George Bush?

We're in a strategic catch-22. Republicans can, and have, launched millions of dollars worth of attack ads which are factually nonsensical. Take the attacks on John Kerry's patriotism as a perfect example. He is an enormously capable man, who could, I believe, have extricated us from this unprofitable war by now. Yet a group of Republican supporters were able to fabricate and spread outright nonsense about a wartime event none of them witnessed, and severely damage his canidacy.

And this is where the "stupidity" of the general public does indeed come into play. Look at the 2004 electoral map. The Red/Blue dividing line almost directly coincides with the population centers we would informally deem as "sophisticated versus meat/potatoes" citizenry. Most people would, likely correctly, assume that the cognitive abilities of those populations would roughly match the intelligence demands of the jobs available in those markets.

This is not rocket science. We all know that fear and prejudice take hold in the absence of knowledge. The types of tactics that work well for Republican candidates are equally well known. Shrill ads about "tax and spend" Democrats work well, even though Republican spending is ALWAYS demonstrably higher (and, as well, for less worthy projects, like slaughtering people). "Tough on Defense" is another favorite, which can be fairly translated as "too unimaginative to avoid violent outcomes" by the evidence we have.

So, I'm open for suggestions...how would Democrats, or any intelligent alternative, sell itself in a political atmosphere where to be reasonable is judged by nonsophisticated voters to be "effite," and where being blind to fact and shooting from the hip is somehow construed to be "strong leader?"

That's why I have a lot of hope for Barack Obama. I think he has a chance to build a coalition that bridges some traditionally opposing citizens into joining hands, and that might be enough to usher in a new generation of voters that don't fall into the same tired polemics that result in a candidate like George Bush ascending to the presidency. Surely no one here, at least no one who is honestly assessing the results of his administration's actions, can make an argument that this has advanced the cause of US interests.


----------



## artsoundz (Mar 31, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> artsoundz @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Fernando Warez @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> ...



don't get paranoid. I was just dreading what you might have to say. I was just suggesting you step back for a minute before you started a conversation on something so important.


Considering the credibility of your posts,I can handle it Go for it. May I ask- where are you from?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 31, 2008)

Okay, I'm going to argue Scott's position now, because I see this going around in circles down the toilet while people don't understand what he's saying. And it's not because he's unclear, it's because people are reacting to what they think he's saying but isn't.

Scott too is opposed to many of our government's policies, although from a different angle than we liberals are (most people in this thread seem to be liberal). His position is that for all our government's misdeeds, America is still the strongest power in West - which is more enlightened than most of the rest of the world - and he objects to the anti-American sentiment that's flowing around the world. After all, America also does a lot of good in the world; I mentioned funding UNICEF and in fact we fund a big part of the United Nations in general, but it runs a lot deeper than that.

So if you look at the big picture, America is still the largest and (for now) dominant democracy in the west, and people who ignore that the democracies in the west are far more enlightened than, say, Myanmar, are failing to count their blessings. He finds it offensive when people overseas jump on the popular dissing the US bandwagon instead of acknowledging that.

While I personally feel more international and have a hard time dividing the world into teams the same way, I understand how he feels like the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater, and that people who insult the whole country don't understand the totality of the nation.

Again, I don't feel the same way, but that attitude doesn't seem so far out there to me. A lot of people everywhere feel the same way about their countries.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 31, 2008)

May cooler heads prevail, in other words.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 31, 2008)

artsoundz @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > artsoundz @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> ...



No you may not.


----------



## Lunatique (Mar 31, 2008)

I feel very conflicted about politics these days. On one hand I feel guilty for not participating, especially when so many people in the world live in countries where their voices are squashed and suppressed. On the other hand, I'm completely disillusioned by politics--especially after two terms of Bush. I still cannot believe the average American allowed that to happen. It shows me just how different I am from the "mainstream" and how little my voice actually counts when going up against the mainstream. It's all a big circus to me, and a popularity contest involving the best liars in the world backed by large sums of money. And what choice do you really have? Do you want the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right? Can we vote on the "really" influential people around the puppets as they are the ones making all the real decisions? 

So when you feel this helpless, the only thing to do is do nothing? I've lived in China where saying the wrong thing can get you into a lot of trouble, and if you say it loud enough and to enough people, it can get you killed. But that did not make me want to participate more in politics when I returned to the States, because I feel like I have just as little choice or voice here anyway simply because I do not agree with the average American on most issues, and they are the ones voting for our leaders, and non-mainstream thinkers like me have no chance in hell. 

When I read about history, such as the civil rights movement, I feel like I'm being a wimp, because those people stood up to the mainstream and they managed to change things. But so many issues today are not drastic ones of basic equality like back then--today nothing is black or white--all shades of grey, and the religious inclination of this country dictates so much of it all. Being a non-religious person, I feel like I'm often the only sane person in an insane world. 

I don't know--I'm just ranting.


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > What amazes me is the blind faith some people seem to exibit in the defence of their government and people like McCain.
> ...


I wasnt necessarily talking about you. I was talking generally. Your position of I MUST DEFEND MY COUNTRY seems rather like faith though, becuase I recognise that most people in Britain are ignorent and dont know what it is they are voting for. Many of them are stupid and have stupid reasons for believing the things they believe in. But I wont be apologetically patriotic about it. You apparently, would. Or at least, thats the impression you give. 



> You sound like a BBC parrot - squawking off your daily dose of anti-American bigotry. I am routinely a consistent critic of my own government and would like a lot less of it. Ideologically speaking, I'm about 80% libertarian (but officially an "Independent").



Dont like the BBC either? Im parroting becuase you wont address my actual points. Why not? If you arent going to, then you need not keep replying. 



> But you slandered my countrymen, and I'm simply not going to tolerate it. And if that "amazes" you, then that'll just have to be.



You mean libel. But I never said you are all stupid. I said the people that support McCain are stupid. People that support Bushs war on terror are also stupid. Have a problem with that as well? Maybe you'd rather I call them misguided and ignorent. I'd be happy with that, but Im just annoyed and frustrated that such a large number of American people, after years of Bush seems to be wandering into several more years of the same by electing McCain. 



> Now give it a rest. You're obsessing, and you've got ASS (Aeneas Sophistry Syndrome).



You're funny. You keep saying you dont want to go back and forth and only came into this thread to correct me saying that McCain wanted a 100 year war. So since youve done that, do you have anything left to contribute or are you just going to keep trying to insult me with every reply you continue to make telling me theres no point replying?


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 31, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Is there something worse than wars? And you're always bombing the hell out of some country or an other. To you America may stand for something great(..or you are unknowingly repeating the PR of which your country is the subject perhaps i don't know), but to us, foreigners, America is doing a lot of bad stuff and i don't think it's fair for you to call us American basher for pointing that out.
> 
> P.S. I don't really blame Americans for this. As far as I'm concern American has been hijacked by by international bankers and have made your country what is is today. Yes it's a conspiracy and I'm not ashame to say it.



I agree with you. America has been hijacked by the war industries, and they've succeeded in getting their politicians elected at all costs--none so great as what I consider the sin of having started this recent war against Iraq.

It is unthinkable to me that an American Administration could have been so tone-deaf to the outpouring of support from the world at large post 9-11, and then could have been so ham-handed and opportunistic to have blown that unprecedented opportunity by invading Iraq...a country with no dog in the fight, which was being very successfully contained by U.N. resolutions and enforcement. As an American, I continue to express my apologies to individual citizens of other countries, and to express my assurances that most Americans of solid character and reasonable intelligence reject this administration's war policies.

When two people disagree, there is always a point where the disagreement can become physical. In human relations, we look down on that person who allows a disagreement to escalate into a physical fight. We call him a brute, or a ruffian. We come to the conclusion that he lacks the imagination to strongly advocate his position without attempting to coerce.

Yet, a broad range of American citizens has somehow managed to disconnect this basic concept from the broader perspective of our country's behavior towards other countries.

Some people have not traveled, and are just ignorant. Others are easily mislead by jingoistic, patriotic fervor...most 20th century public educations were saturated in "patriotism" lessons that had the undesired side effect of reducing critical thought when it comes to our nation's actions.

It's tough, but there is nothing to do except try to continue revealing the truth. In politics it is difficult to change someone's basic concept, but sometimes we can "nudge" it sufficiently to open a mind or two. As long as there is opportunity to combat ignorance with knowledge, there is potential to reverse the rather alarming behaviors of the US Administration towards the world at large.

Especially if we succeed in electing a liberal/progressive administration, I have hopes that new leadership can only help.


----------



## blue (Mar 31, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> So, yes. We can make a case for a disturbing lack of intelligence in a mass of people.
> 
> How would you suggest Democratic/Progressive candidates defeat the likes of George Bush?



I see it more as a problem of laziness than intelligence. Many people here are capable of being informed and making rational decisions, they just haven't bothered to do the legwork. If they take any interest at all, they rely too heavily on unreliable sources of information (cable news networks, for instance). Sources that wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the fact that people here are lazy about any current event that doesn't have anything to do with celebrity crotch shots.

I've always thought apathy was a byproduct of our perception of freedom and pursuit of wealth in this country. Unlike a lot of other parts of the world, many people here aren't tuned in because they don't feel they have to be. Then, when that bubble is burst by an actual attack on our mainland, you have all the energy of fear and outrage without any of the opposing forces of knowledge and perspective. In other words, you have a public ripe for manipulation.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Mar 31, 2008)

blue @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > So, yes. We can make a case for a disturbing lack of intelligence in a mass of people.
> ...



I see this point. I also see some dissonance between attributing only to laziness, though, because one would assume that there is still a stretch between laziness and the specific direction in which "electorate manipulation" has been effective.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm still coming from the perspective of living in a large Texas city.

Drive 60 miles in any direction, and you can find communities where people of color are afraid to come out at night. You can find black people being called niggers to their face, and taunted until they lose control, then beaten senseless and left for dead. This happens here. People fly Confederate flags here, and it's not because they're fond of their great uncle who fought for the confederacy. It's an icon, with a specific brand of hatred attached. Otherwise, who in good conscience could want another human to be oppressed/suppressed by exposing them to it?

It's easy for us to imagine that this is just some matter of opinion or broad political orientation, but that is not true. There is a large rural population in this Republic which lives in a time that is nearly 100-years past. Yet, because we elect leaders in a fashion more akin to a republic than a straight democracy, those concentrations of people have a larger say in national election results.

And we see the outcomes...and they aren't good.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 31, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there something worse than wars? And you're always bombing the hell out of some country or an other. To you America may stand for something great(..or you are unknowingly repeating the PR of which your country is the subject perhaps i don't know), but to us, foreigners, America is doing a lot of bad stuff and i don't think it's fair for you to call us American basher for pointing that out.
> ...



Well it's good to hear this from an American Bruce. As a Canadian, it doesn't always feel right to say these things even tho i know I'm doing the right thing. I just don't want to offence anyone you know...

I would like to add an important point here. On paper America is probably one of my favourite country. What i mean by ''on paper'' is what the US was meant to be. It took me a while to realize it but i must say it was going to be something. It's what it has become i don't like so much. There are still things i like about the US of course and things i find charming about Americans, but being the liberal that i am and the constant fighting... I think you know where I'm going with this.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 31, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Not really. Isn't stupidity defined by doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome?





"1) The Florida primary debacle was not caused by Democrats. It was caused by a Republican-controlled legislature...political gamesmanship that is now being blame-shifted onto the victims of the slight."

I was referring to the present debacle of delgates from Florida and Michigan not being seated. You're referring to this as well? The Democratic leadership was behind this punishment as I understand it.

"2) re: indicting the intelligence of a mass of people.

Like it or not, the statistics are very clear on this country's "intelligence." We have precious little of it. Countries that many Americans think of as "third world" are turning out smarter people. Our economy is faltering more and more because we lack the broad intellectual-skills base to transition to an information economy."

"Statistics"? Here's my point. I teach music to pre-school to 6th grade. These are highly intelligent people and to say otherwise would be baseless and unprovable (to me at least.) Now if for whatever reason when they become voters and decide they don't want to vote for someone like a John Kerry or a George Bush it won't be do to an impaired intellect and may be in fact the result of an intense investigative process that led up to their decision. That decision may differ from you and I but does that make either party stupid? I hear arguments from the left and right all the time by bright articulate people. It's disengenious for one side to say the other's stupid because they differ. Even brilliant people can do stupid things (Bill Clinton) or fail terribly (Clinton sights the genocide in Africa as his greatest failure in office.) I don't think the problems in this country are due to millions of dumb folks - that's a dumb theory hardly worthy of debate imho. People just come down differently on things for too many reasons to count. I give equal weight and validity to both sides of _any_ argument and just make my own call. I think this what most Americans do in either party.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 31, 2008)

..........


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Rogers said:
> ...



<snip>

No you mean libel, slander is spoken. Its true I didnt _need _to correct you but I wasnt the one calling people names so its not that insulting. Oh and if you're going to use a legal term you cant just pretend it means something else. It wasnt some big point, just that you seem to think you know it all. 

But I guess its easier to snip away all my post apart from this. I suppose I finially have my answer though. You really arent going to argue against any of my points, okay. 

I wonder if anyone else will though? Because in fact no one has addressed any points Ive brought against McCain apart from getting all hot under the collar about me saying people are stupid to vote for him. 

Ed


----------



## almacg (Mar 31, 2008)

erm, racism isn't excusable in any circumstance and that is so blindingly obvious that I don't think we even need to discuss it. 

Maybe if Rev. Wright's forefathers weren't treated like subhuman slaves his preaching would be less centered around race? I'm not accusing him of being a racist I'm basing this on some things I've heard.


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

I'd like to know how Huckabee defending Obama on the Rev Wright thing fits Scotts views. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ


----------



## blue (Mar 31, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> I also see some dissonance between attributing only to laziness, though, because one would assume that there is still a stretch between laziness and the specific direction in which "electorate manipulation" has been effective.



You're right. It's wrong -or maybe even lazy- to attribute it all to laziness. Putting someone in office requires action that in turn requires some thinking and accountability. But between a formidable Republican campaign machine, a timid Democratic party and a press asleep at the job, I wasn't surprised to see even intelligent people succumb to the fear mongering. If major media outlets were incapable or unwilling to challenge the bs coming from the administration, how could we have expected people too lazy (or, as they might say, too busy) to diversify their information sources to make intelligent decisions?


----------



## almacg (Mar 31, 2008)

blue @ Mon 31 Mar said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I also see some dissonance between attributing only to laziness, though, because one would assume that there is still a stretch between laziness and the specific direction in which "electorate manipulation" has been effective.



You're right. It's wrong -or maybe even lazy- to attribute it all to laziness. Putting someone in office requires action that in turn requires some thinking and accountability. But between a formidable Republican campaign machine, a timid Democratic party and a press asleep at the job, I wasn't surprised to see even intelligent people succumb to the fear mongering. If major media outlets were incapable or unwilling to challenge the bs coming from the administration, how could we have expected people too lazy (or, as they might say, too busy) to diveròE   u±{E   u±|E   u±}E   u±~E   u±E   u±€E   u±E   u±‚E   u±ƒE   u±„E   u±…E   u±†E   u±‡E   u±ˆE   u±‰E   u±ŠE   u±‹E   u±ŒE   u±E   u±ŽE   u±E   u±E   u±‘E   u±’E   u±“E   u±”E   u±•E   u±–E   u±—E   u±˜E   u±™E   u±šE   u±›E   u±œE   u±E   u±žE   u±ŸE   u± E   u±¡E   u±¢E   u±£E   u±¤E   u±¥E   u±¦E   u±§E   u±¨E   u±©E   u±ªE   u±«E   u±¬E   u±­E   u±®E   u±¯E   u±°E   u±±E   u±²E   u±³E   u±´E   u±µE   u±¶E   u±·E   u±¸E   u±¹E   u±ºE   u±»E   u±¼E   u±½E   u±¾E   u±¿E   u±ÀE   u±ÁE   u±ÂE   u±ÃE   u±ÄE   u±ÅE   u±ÆE   u±ÇE   u±ÈE   u±ÉE   u±ÊE   u±ËE   u±ÌE   u±ÍE   u±ÎE   u±ÏE   u±ÐE   u±ÑE   u±ÒE   u±ÓE   u±ÔE   u±ÕE   u±ÖE   u±×E   u±ØE


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > No you mean libel, slander is spoken. Its true I didnt _need _to correct you but I wasnt the one calling people names so its not that insulting. Oh and if you're going to use a legal term you cant just pretend it means something else. It wasnt some big point, just that you seem to think you know it all.
> ...



Dictionaries also have several incorrect and inaccurate definitions of scientific words as well, all proper sources say slander is spoken. 

But good lord, why is this even relevant? Why do you persist in this fantasy that you dont really like engaging in these arguments when you keep replying to me, not even regarding the actual arguments Im posting here? If you dont want to argue, dont. 

You only make yourself look worse the more you snip everything away and try and argue semantics about irrelevant comments. 



> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to know how Huckabee defending Obama on the Rev Wright thing fits Scotts views.
> ...



Apparently you miss the point, probably on purpose. Huckabee is a Republican, and a Right Wing Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian preacher. Why then would he defend Obama? What motivation would he have? As much as I disagree with him on proably everything, I have to respect him for that. But according to how you've made out, apparently only loony ignorent biased liberals would defend Obama here. 

Ed


----------



## blue (Mar 31, 2008)

almacg @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Well maybe fear has something to do with it. But when an Irishman actually nearly killed our prime-minister, I don't think people would have been quick to support an immediate invasion of Ireland!



No, that work was done long ago.


----------



## Lunatique (Mar 31, 2008)

When I lived in China, I heard anti-American conversations often, and after a while I stopped trying to explain anything, because I realize no matter what you say, people will always associate a country's citizens with the actions of their government. It's ironic because it's not like the Chinese people support their government's oppression of human rights, yet they are quick to believe all Americans support the U.S. government's foreign policies.

Racism is too easy, and it is also lazy because you don't have to know the moral character of a person, what his priorities are in life, how he treats those around him, or even his religion. It's a shorthand that's very convenient for assigning hatred to something that's easily identifiable, as opposed to having to investigate into why something is worth hating. If humans have to hate, I'd much rather that hatred be based on something worthwhile, such as hating people who litter, or people who don't use their signal lights whilòE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµ	E)   uµ
E)   uµE)   uµE)   uµ E)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµE)   uµ E)   uµ!E)   uµ"E)   uµ#E)   uµ$E)   uµ%E)   uµ&E)   uµ'E)   uµ(E)   uµ)E)   uµ*E)   uµ+E)   uµ,E)   uµ-E)   uµ.E)   uµ/E)   uµ0E)   uµ1E)   uµ2E)   uµ3E)   uµ4E)   uµ5E)   uµ6E)   uµ7E)   uµ8E)   uµ9E)   uµ:E)   uµ;E)   uµ<E)   uµ=E)   uµ>E)   uµ?E)   uµ@E)   uµAE)   uµBE)   uµCE)   uµDE)   uµEE)   uµFE)   uµGE)   uµHE)   uµIE)   uµJE)   uµKE)   uµLE)   uµME)   uµNE)   uµOE)   uµPE)   uµQE)   uµRE)   uµSE)   uµTE)   uµUE)   uµVE)   uµWE)   uµXE)   uµYE)   uµZE)   uµ[E)   uµ\E)   uµ]E)   uµ^E)   uµ_E)   uµ`E)   uµaE)   uµbE)   uµcE)   uµdE)   uµeE)   uµfE)   uµgE)   uµhE)   uµiE)   uµjE)   uµkE)   uµl


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Do we have any quotes?

I dont see anything inherently wrong with saying that, but it would depend on what he said and what he meant when he said it.


----------



## almacg (Mar 31, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue 01 Apr said:


> One of the things he said was that 9/11 was our actions coming home to roost. I actually think he's probably right - we'll probably never know - but the problem is that he was just going off rather than being outraged at the murders of all those innocent people.



Well I'm sure some people would take it out of context, much in the same way they had a go at George Galloway for saying that it would be morally acceptable for somebody to assassinate our then Prime-minister Tony Blair.

Basically what they are both saying is, "what comes around goes around". The Swiss never had any problems with terrorists.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 31, 2008)

..........


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Uh, well, I hate to break it to you, but you are the one that brought it up in the first place. And now all of a sudden you're telling me that it's irrelevant,



What I didnt do is snip away your entire post and argue semantics, if I had done that to you, you might have a case. 

I'll ask you again, are you going to address my actual points about McCain or arent you?



> and anyway, my dictionary is wrong on your say-so.



No based on every legal source I can find. If you were a creationist and wanted to tell me evolution was just a guess because your dictionary says theory means guess, then you'd be wrong as well. Theres a lot of medical and scientific words in dicitonaries that have inaccurate definitions. I dont know why Im bothering, you are obviously using this as an excuse to keep arguing but not have to actually address the topic. And you had such a lot to say earlier, now you seem to have nothing.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 31, 2008)

..........


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Ed, if it is irrelevant, then you were mistaken for bringing it up in the first place, and you are mistaken for obsessing over it now. Do you have OCD? Seriously.



I corrected you, it was irrelevant, but I didnt snip your entire post doing it. Where did you reply to the other points in my posts? Oh thats right, you ignored absolutely everything. 

I'll ask you again and since you keep ignoring me its getting to be pretty funny, especially for someone that claims to not want to get into back and forth arguments:

_Are you going to address my actual points about McCain or arent you? _

EDIT: 



> And by the way, there are different kinds of dictionaries than all of those law dictionaries you have sitting on your shelf. Don't be such a anal retentive twit



Uh, I know that, thats what Ive been telling you. Dont look for scientific definitions in non-scientific dictionaries and expect them to be accurate.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 31, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Mar 31, 2008)

..........


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know why Im bothering, you are obviously using this as an excuse to keep arguing but not have to actually address the topic. And you had such a lot to say earlier, now you seem to have nothing.
> ...



Nonsence. You've ignored every single one of them, Scott. But heres a couple I started with . 

McCain being happy about a 100 year occupation of Iraq

McCains lie regarding his trip to Baghdad. 



> I think a big part of your problem is that you want to set the agenda here, and I'm not letting you do that, and it really grates on your delicate psyche. But you best get over it.



All I want you to do Scott is addòE6   u¸E6   u¸ŽE6   u¸E6   u¸E6   u¸‘E6   u¸’E6   u¸“E6   u¸”E6   u¸•E6   u¸–E6   u¸—E6   u¸˜E6   u¸™E6


----------



## Fernando Warez (Mar 31, 2008)

Ed @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Do we have any quotes?
> 
> I dont see anything inherently wrong with saying that, but it would depend on what he said and what he meant when he said it.



Could it be his comment about the conflict between Israel and Palestine? I too I'm curious about this. I know there's a few clip of him on YouTube, but preachers ain't my cup of tea. :mrgreen:


----------



## José Herring (Mar 31, 2008)

Ed @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> almacg @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you automatically assume that absolutely everything I say has an anti-american slant, and that I will not admit the faults of the UK and Europe? I'm not even remotely patriotic, and I deplore the british government.
> ...



I just have a problem with some foreigner calling all Americans stupid when in fact the very computer you're using wouldn't even exist had it not been for the efforts of "stupid" Americans working under rights granted to us by our government. Rights that I don't want to see stripped away no matter who's in office.

Then I have a problem with people judging John McCain based on a few news clips. I happen to have grown up in Arizona and was there when Senator McCain was first elected. I know for a fact that he's always been a man of impeccable principle. Perfect. Not by a long shot. But, he is one of the few people that has little to no dirt on him as a politician. No skeletons in the closet. Nothing. You have to dig hard to find even one thing that's even remotely scandalous about John McCain. And, even then the "scandals" the press tries to dig up are minute.

So this idea that he's all bad and that he's this and he's that other thing are just wishful thinking. He's as good as politicians come. Better than most. He's the man that stayed behind with his men as a POW even though he was given a chance to leave.

Dems are going to have a hard time beating him in Nov. 08. Not because "Americans are stupid". But, because McCain is a good candidate who unless he sticks his foot in his mouth like last time will most likely sweep in Nov.

But, don't take things personally Ed. I like you too. Just a lively debate. Americans are fired up this election. This country hasn't been this rallied up in a long time.

For me personally I've never hated Republicans or conservatives...until now. Sometime in the future that may change but just looking at Scott's post one can plainly see that the conservative thought in America has gone as close to mad as the liberals once where in the late '70's.( No offense Scott. I like you too). So let the revolution happen. Reps have to reorganize and find a better message. And nothing will make them do that faster than losing.

And as much as I like McCain he must lose! The fact that he's considered too liberal for the conservatives only proves my point that conservatives have gotten too conservative for their own good. Time to shake up the party. Time to decimate conservative thinking in America. We can't grow and are stifled by conservative thought. Make them reconsider their dying, heartless, cold, outmoded Victorian based puritan principals. I hope in November that America opens a new chapter. We've been living with the stench of musty conservative values for nearly 3 decades now and plainly it ain't workin'. And, funny enough they're still blaming the liberals.

Dems have congress. Now it's time to take it all!!

best,

Jose


----------



## gregjazz (Apr 1, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> Then I have a problem with people judging John McCain based on a few news clips. I happen to have grown up in Arizona and was there when Senator McCain was first elected. I know for a fact that he's always been a man of impeccable principle. Perfect. Not by a long shot. But, he is one of the few people that has little to no dirt on him as a politician. No skeletons in the closet. Nothing. You have to dig hard to find even one thing that's even remotely scandalous about John McCain. And, even then the "scandals" the press tries to dig up are minute.



This is an interesting read about McCain.

http://www.wcltam.com/news/special/articledetail.cfm?articleid=23261 (http://www.wcltam.com/news/special/arti ... leid=23261)



> And as much as I like McCain he must lose! The fact that he's considered too liberal for the conservatives only proves my point that conservatives have gotten too conservative for their own good. Time to shake up the party. Time to decimate conservative thinking in America.



Since when is big government and big federal spending a conservative value? It's like most of the conservatives have tried running middle-grounds to appeal to more people at the sake of conservatism. Now we have people like Bush, who ended up combining the worst traits of liberalism and conservatism.

And then when you look at the big picture you realize that there really isn't a two party system. Just one party, but we get our choice of flavors. They use different terms for things, but ultimately they have the same goals and alliances.

And you know what, a new president is not going to change things to the amount we think he/she will. There are much larger forces at play.


----------



## Ed (Apr 1, 2008)

josejherring @ Mon Mar 31 said:


> I just have a problem with some foreigner calling all Americans stupid



Can you show me where I called all Americans stuipid? Because I definitely didnt do that.



> Then I have a problem with people judging John McCain based on a few news clips.



Im judging him based on what he's said. You have yet to address what he's said. 



> For me personally I've never hated Republicans or conservatives...until now. Sometime in the future that may change but just looking at Scott's post one can plainly see that the conservative thought in America has gone as close to mad as the liberals once where in the late '70's.( No offense Scott. I like you too). So let the revolution happen. Reps have to reorganize and find a better message. And nothing will make them do that faster than losing.



Hey I agree


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

"Now we have people like Bush, who ended up combining the worst traits of liberalism and conservatism. 

And then when you look at the big picture you realize that there really isn't a two party system. Just one party, but we get our choice of flavors. They use different terms for things, but ultimately they have the same goals and alliances. "


I disagree with that. There's a lot of crossover - partly because the parties pull each other over to their sides - but if you look at McCain's platform vs. Hillary's and Obamas you'll see a huge difference. Sure there are larger forces at play - we live in an oilocracy, for one - but I think you're not looking closely enough if you think it makes no difference who you vote for. The past 7-1/2 years have proven that the wrong person and party can ruin our world.

And - not directed at you specifically - I always find the words "big government big sending" repugnant. It's totally vague conservative bullshit that's trotted out whenever something good is proposed.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 1, 2008)

Like I said to you before, people that support McCain are stupid. People that support Bush's "war on terror" are stupid. I would say ignorent or misinformed, but I cant believe an intelligent person could really come to those conclusions.[/quote]

There are different kinds of intelligence but the most important kind is the kind that allows one to recognize that he/she does not have a lock on all the right answers.

In general, the surest proof of one's lack of meaningful intelligence is to conclude that anyone who disagrees with you or reaches a different conclusion cannot be intelligent.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

It's also possible that someone coming to the wrong conclusion really is stupid.



But you're going back to the beginning, and we have seven pages since then.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 1, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> It's also possible that someone coming to the wrong conclusion really is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> But you're going back to the beginning, and we have seven pages since then.



It is just as possible that the person who reaches the "right" conclusion is stupid. Even a stopped clock is correct twice daily.

The seven pages after that were not worth addressing


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

Most of the seven pages, true, but there are some real gems in there by Batzdorf. I'm constantly amazed by his pithy comments.


----------



## Ed (Apr 1, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> There are different kinds of intelligence but the most important kind is the kind that allows one to recognize that he/she does not have a lock on all the right answers.
> 
> In general, the surest proof of one's lack of meaningful intelligence is to conclude that anyone who disagrees with you or reaches a different conclusion cannot be intelligent.



I understand I could be more diplomatic. But like Richard Dawkins' patience that ran out with people that deny evolution, (he says correctly, just not diplomatically, they must either be stupid, ignorent or insane) its gotten to the point where I cant really be that bothered, but I'd be happy to offer those other options in addition to stupid.


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 1, 2008)

Ed @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> After reading about the apparent popularity of the man [MaCain] despite the fact that he's already been caught in several whoppers



All three candidates are now accused of whoppers so welcome to American Politics.



Ed @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> I can only conclude that either Americans are generally stupid or the system is rigged.



Why provoke with such a pitifully unscientific statement? If a farmer in middle America votes for McCain because he determines that candidate's policies will help him keep his farm and livelyhood he is stupid? Or if he comes to the same conclusion about Obama and votes for him he's now smart? See how silly and shallow that broad statement is? I say anyone who thinks American farmers are stupid should stop eating the food they provide you everyday in protest. That would be brilliant and get those folks going to night school in a hurry.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

"If a farmer in middle America votes for McCain because he determines that candidate's policies will help him keep his farm and livelyhood he is stupid?"

What policies are you talking about, Dave?


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 1, 2008)

I, too, would like to know what policies McCain advocates which would improve the lot of the American farmer.

Glittering generalities aside...


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 1, 2008)

Ed @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Apr 01 said:
> 
> 
> > There are different kinds of intelligence but the most important kind is the kind that allows one to recognize that he/she does not have a lock on all the right answers.
> ...


It isn't a matter of diplomacy, it is a matter of humility. 

If I were to write that comparing supporting a different presidential candidate to denying evolution is an analogy no intelligent person would make would you not feel slightly condescended to?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

You sound like someone who's in favor of the crackdown on proantiproantidisestabishmentarianism demonstrations.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 1, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> You sound like someone who's in favor of the crackdown on proantiproantidisestabishmentarianism demonstrations.



No intelligent person could be against it


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 1, 2008)

I am still trying to figure out how a vote for George Bush over Al Gore can be called anything but stupid? And then again for John Kerry? How can a vote for a barely literate, not-even-barely articulate individual for President be considered anything *but* stupid?

Aren't some things in this world actually stupid things to do?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

Dunno. I'm too stupid to figure that out.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

Lunatique wrote:



> On one hand I feel guilty for not participating, especially when so many people in the world live in countries where their voices are squashed and suppressed. On the other hand, I'm completely disillusioned by politics--especially after two terms of Bush. I still cannot believe the average American allowed that to happen. It shows me just how different I am from the "mainstream" and how little my voice actually counts when going up against the mainstream.



I was going to respond to this but forgot.

Are you aware that the 2000 election came down to 300+ votes in Florida?* That was an aberration, but the point is that every vote counts.

I'm not a major activist, but my feeling is that we all have a responsibility to be informed about what's going on as much as possible even if we do only have one vote.

*Actually it probably came down to one vote on the Supreme Court, but that's a separate discussion.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Apr 1, 2008)

> Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Mar 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Scott too is opposed to many of our government's policies, although from a different angle than we liberals are (most people in this thread seem to be liberal). His position is that for all our government's misdeeds, America is still the strongest power in West - which is more enlightened than most of the rest of the world - and he objects to the anti-American sentiment that's flowing around the world. After all, America also does a lot of good in the world; I mentioned funding UNICEF and in fact we fund a big part of the United Nations in general, but it runs a lot deeper than that.
> ...


----------



## artsoundz (Apr 1, 2008)

"proantiproantidisestabishmentarianism "

Nick- Could you please keep your words under 2". I just broke my tongue trying to work it out. 

Nick, Bruce etc- keep up the good fight. I'd say something but you guys got it goin' on. Thanks. 

I'm curious- Scott posted this link http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html- (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... ared.html-)

It seems fairly objective- am I missing anything -is this truly bipartisan and regarded as fair or are these people slanted. Very curious..... what's the word?

BTW- In Seattle ,I see the confederate flag displayed more often than I like. Also- I've heard the N word used way too much here as well. Scott- it's out there.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

Fernando, the hyenas have co-opted our country. And I believe in the UN, flawed as it is.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 1, 2008)

Batzdorf, you've done it now. How dare you, it's libelous. Hyenas do not deserve such a foul comparison.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

I stand chastised.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 1, 2008)

You know, the more I think about this thread, and McCain, the more I see the point of the original post.

Forget patriotic bitch-slapping for a moment, and consider:

Suppose you're watching U.S. election politics from the perspective of a reasonably informed European/British/Canadian viewpoint. You're thinking to yourself, "I'm a bit concerned about the U.S. election, as to how it affects world stability."

That's fair, isn't it? We Americans certainly keep tabs on Russian and European politics, for the same reasons.

So, you're watching McCain, and he's touring the Middle East giving speeches one would assume are designed at least in part to introduce the rest of the world to his agenda and thoughts in Mid East policy.

And the guy starts spouting absolute nonsense. The Democrat (I use the term very loosely) actually has to lean over and whisper to the self-described foreign policy/war ace that he's confusing Iranian Islamic sects with Al Queda.

That's not a gaffe. Those aren't the kind of mistakes that pop out of an informed and studied grip on the region.

So, why wouldn't an informed foreigner be alarmed, even drawn to make a provocative statement in a political discussion. The situation WAS ridiculous. It still is.

We have this patriotic blind spot that says McCain served well, even got tortured and showed remarkable tenacity in the face of horror. That part is true. But then we extend the benefit of the doubt to say that this qualifies the man to take on a literal quagmire of consequences, left to him by eight years of the poorest leadership this country has seen in generations.

That's a stretch. People are right to point it out. McCain is a good man. I agree with Jose. He's got nary a black mark on his record, and he's served this country brilliantly.

But the Peter Principle exists. And McCain, as far as I can see, would absolutely be the highest risk this country could take. I know plenty of very gifted people who served well in academia, in all sorts of pursuits, and yet, when they reach their retirement age...well, there's a reason that we call it the retirement age. The accumulated wisdom is there, but it has to be matched with energy and acuity, and the scene which played out with Lieberman whispering in McCain's ear, and McCain having his little Emily Latella moment was as clear a premonition as could possibly be sent.

And yes, a concerned citizen of this world could have every reason to assume Americans pretty daft if this is the best choice the Republican Party can put forward in 2008.

I am just not sure how a reasoned examination could produce any other sentiment.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Apr 1, 2008)

Regarding socialism/communism and the Democratic Party. If you want to see some of the origins of this, read Doris Kearns-Goodwin's book No Ordinary Time about Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. I think this is a very balanced view explaining some of this background, while also, I sense, balancing out some of the Republican perspectives of the period.

Caroline's family is British and they're here visiting for a few weeks. The British system is different from the American system and not always easy to explain. 

Some reading is required to understand the American system. For those seriously interested, I would strongly suggest reading The Federalist Papers which are arguments for adopting what became the U.S. Constitution. Even if you only read the first four or five, you'll get a good idea. 

For those with HBO, the series John Adams as produced by Tom Hanks is excellent and really gives an excellent picture of our "beginnings" which I found really interesting and insightful.


----------



## artsoundz (Apr 1, 2008)

artsoundz @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> "proantiproantidisestabishmentarianism "
> 
> Nick- Could you please keep your words under 2". I just broke my tongue trying to work it out.
> 
> ...




so- no opinions?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2008)

"The Democrat (I use the term very loosely) actually has to lean over and whisper to the self-described foreign policy/war ace that he's confusing Iranian Islamic sects with Al Queda."

(Lieberman is a former Democrat, of course.)

But while I'm obviously not a McCain supporter, to me that embarrassing moment wasn't the main reason not to vote for him. And he's been in the House and Senate for years and years, so it's more than just having been tortured that qualifies him as a candidate.

And that embarrassing gaffe just sounded like brainless Al Queda=bad, tough on tairsm hype. McCain actually has a very good command of the issues.

To me the simple reason not to vote for him is that he's flat out wrong about a lot of things. That and the Supreme Court appointments. No more of these lunatics please!


----------



## Ed (Apr 2, 2008)

artsoundz @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> I'm curious- Scott posted this link http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html- (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... ared.html-)
> .



I dont know much about the site only that they seem biased towards McCain, in trying to defend him the way they are. See the second to last post of mine on page two. They have a video broadcast in a "newsy" style that sums up the things that is on that above page on McCain and they say the same things.


----------



## Ed (Apr 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> And that embarrassing gaffe just sounded like brainless Al Queda=bad, tough on tairsm hype. McCain actually has a very good command of the issues.



Nick, you keep saying that, but all I keep seeing is someone who doesnt follow through with his principles, contradicts himself at every turn, already lying to us about Iraq and is promising more wars.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2008)

I keep saying what?

Would you be happier if I were to say that yeah, he's a total scumbag lying sack of shit and anyone who votes for him is a stupid moron who doesn't deserve to have a vote in our fundamentally evil country?

My opinion is that McCain isn't a monster. I have fundamental disagreements with him about a lot of things, and I sure as hell am not voting for him, but he's just doing what politicians do: grandstand and pose.

None of us likes it, but that's the way the game is played in the short attention span television era. And if we want to get rid of that, we should all be supporting McCain's attempts at campaign finance reform!


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> "If a farmer in middle America votes for McCain because he determines that candidate's policies will help him keep his farm and livelyhood he is stupid?"
> 
> What policies are you talking about, Dave?



I'm not. I'm referring to the principle that people will often vote for a candidate for a very specific reason that relates to their circumstances. The candidates know this and (as Hilliary did in Ohio) will emphasize what the local concerns are such as jobs or whatever. So if someone votes for _any_ candidate for whatever reason, to impune their intelligence not only doesn't address the actual facts as to why they voted but is silly far too broad and smug.

A better example: a white mother in South Texas has a nineteen year old kid in Iraq and she wants him home. Her husband is a Major serving in Iraq and he wants to be home and wants his son home too. However he's convinced by his personal knowledge and experience that a bloodbath beyond the worse predictions of the US military and media will transpire by a precipitous withdrawl. So he in good concience votes for the candidate who will not just pull right out and his wife votes for the candidate who will pull them out far sooner if not immediately.

This is an example of how nuanced a decision can be just between two people. The 'stupid' label and accusation just doesn't apply. But broad brushing people by the millions never does. It's just so smug and arrogant to do that. It disqualifies the accuser. If I say Obama is stupid because he may have voted in the Senate for something I disagree with (or McCain or Hillary for that matter) that's just not true. He's a bright guy. I'm not going to call millions of people (in either party) with millions of different reasons for voting the way they do stupid. It's too unscientific, too prejudiced, too vague and too silly a premise.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 01 said:


> And that embarrassing gaffe just sounded like brainless Al Queda=bad, tough on tairsm hype. McCain actually has a very good command of the issues.
> 
> To me the simple reason not to vote for him is that he's flat out wrong about a lot of things. That and the Supreme Court appointments. No more of these lunatics please!



But does he really have that great a command of the issues? He's pressing a military solution to the Middle East, despite the fact that any military strategist (not currently employed by the Bush Admin) would crack a history book and show you how many times it's been tried, and the equal number of times it's failed.

So, if you're going to call that a gaffe, then the truth becomes that he has not a whit of common sense.

But, I actually don't believe that. What I believe is that he's not really all well studied in Mid East politics and history. Otherwise, a gaffe like that can't come out of one's mouth, no more than you or I could hear a Major 6th and call it a perfect 5th. Gaffes just don't come tumbling out, and get repeated until someone has an Emily Latella moment. Watch the video again.

I agree with your rationale that he's the wrong choice because his policies and political alignment are not what the country needs.

But it can't be ignored that he isn't facile with the issues he'll face. That Mid East situation is only one. He admits that issues of the economy are not his strong suit. He's old. Yes, his mom is 95, but she hasn't been the president. The presidency is the equivalent in mind/body wear to doing 30 minutes of parking lot donuts on a set of tires. At least according to what it has done to the other people who have held the office...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2008)

He may not be studied in Mid East politics and history, but I see the Al Queda remark as being detached from that - in other words the synapses that trigger political grandstanding reside in a different part of the brain. That's not something I know as a fact, of course, just my hunch.

In any case, who cares; I don't agree with him about most issues and neither do you, and I don't think he'd be a good President.


----------



## Ed (Apr 2, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> I keep saying what?
> 
> Would you be happier if I were to say that yeah, he's a total scumbag lying sack of [email protected]#t and anyone who votes for him is a stupid moron who doesn't deserve to have a vote in our fundamentally evil country?



No, but you said "McCain actually has a very good command of the issues." and since you have said the same thing in different ways now I'd like to know why you think he does.


----------



## Ed (Apr 2, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> A better example: a white mother in South Texas has a nineteen year old kid in Iraq and she wants him home. Her husband is a Major serving in Iraq and he wants to be home and wants his son home too. However he's convinced by his personal knowledge and experience that a bloodbath beyond the worse predictions of the US military and media will transpire by a precipitous withdrawl. So he in good concience votes for the candidate who will not just pull right out and his wife votes for the candidate who will pull them out far sooner if not immediately.
> 
> This is an example of how nuanced a decision can be just between two people. The 'stupid' label and accusation just doesn't apply. But broad brushing people by the millions never does. It's just so smug and arrogant to do that. It disqualifies the accuser. .



In that example that person is stupid. You cant just look at one policy. They will always be something I agree with about a candidate or party, but it would be an idiot to ignore all the crap. If McCain is already lying about Iraq now he wont be lying about it in the future? If you dont like the word stupid, then use the word unintelligent, for the kind of reasoning you are putting forth by which to vote for someone. 

Ed


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2008)

"No, but you said "McCain actually has a very good command of the issues." and since you have said the same thing in different ways now I'd like to know why you think he does."

Because I've seen him interviewed on television at least twice that I can think of, including once on Charlie Rose. He wasn't fumbling for words, he always had answer. Sure it's possible that the issues discussed are, say, the five or six that he studied just before the interview, but I don't think so. It would be hard to be in House and Senate for a couple of decades without picking up a couple of things.

Look, Ed, I don't agree with him by and large - as you know. He's a hawk, for one, and he will appoint more horrible justices to an already horrendous Supreme Court if he gets in. His belief in continuing a blatantly failed policy in the Middle East is ludicrous. I think he's a bad candidate and I'm not voting for him.

But he's not an idiot, in fact in previous elections I thought he was the best Republican candidate. Voting for Bush was stupid; voting for McCain is misguided in my opinion but not stupid.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2008)

"In that example that person is stupid. You cant just look at one policy. They will always be something I agree with about a candidate or party, but it would be an idiot to ignore all the crap."

If that one policy affected your livelihood, as in Dave's example, then you're not stupid. But that's a big if.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2008)

This kinda throws cold water on McCain's optimistic "things are going great" spin on Iraq, doesn't it.

What a sad, sad mess. I can't imagine what it would be like for parents who live there and are always having to worry about their kids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/world ... aq.html?hp


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2008)

This is the government elected by the American public twice. These people are spectacularly awful.

The first link is about the 80-page memo written by a high-up lawyer at the "Justice Department," essentially justifying torture. Then the second one is an op-ed in today's NY Times on the subject.

The memo was later rescinded, but it's pretty shocking anyway.



> The disclosure of the 2003 document, a detailed 81-page opinion written by John C. Yoo, who at the time was the second-ranking official at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, is likely to fuel the already intense debate about legal boundaries in the face of a continuing terrorist threat.
> 
> Mr. Yoo’s memorandum is the latest document to illuminate the legal foundation that Bush administration lawyers used after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to give the White House broad powers to capture, detain and interrogate suspects around the globe.
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/washi ... ef=opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opini ... ref=slogin


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

That's the guy who wrote the memo.

How can Bush still have a 28% approval rating? That's almost a third of the country - assuming the poll was conducted in a meaningful way, and it probably wasn't.


----------



## artsoundz (Apr 4, 2008)

Yeah, I saw a piece on PBS about this guy and Cheney. Very important(and not in a good way) man and very scary.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Apr 4, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 04 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
> 
> That's the guy who wrote the memo.
> 
> How can Bush still have a 28% approval rating? That's almost a third of the country - assuming the poll was conducted in a meaningful way, and it probably wasn't.



I think this guy falsified his papers and immigrated from China. Or maybe he's Kim Yong Il's son? 

This administration is surreal. >8o Seriously!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2008)

He's Korean, but for some reason I don't think that has anything to do with it.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Apr 4, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 04 said:


> He's Korean, but for some reason I don't think that has anything to do with it.



I know Nick, i was kidding.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2008)

That memo is surreal, isn't it.

These people are just out of their fricking minds.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Apr 4, 2008)

I've only read the part you've pasted but yes they are. 

But what people don't seem to understand is that the problem goes deeper than the neocons and this administration IMO.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 5, 2008)

> But what people don't seem to understand is that the problem goes deeper than the neocons and this administration IMO.



Right. Which brings us right back to the premise that started this mess. Most Americans are unfortunately profoundly stupid, and can't separate the red herrings and paper tigers from fact.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 5, 2008)

Well, as Chalmers Johnson puts it, Bush/Cheney didn't start us down the imperial path we're on now, but they led us into a cul de sac. In other words we've been walking down the road to hell for quite a while, but they have us running down it.

And once again, Americans are no more stupid than anyone else; the problem we watch hours of television and don't read. Al Gore makes a big thing about how the brain is active when you're reading and passive when you're watching TV. We no longer have much of a Fourth Estate to balance all the PR BS.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 6, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Apr 05 said:


> And once again, Americans are no more stupid than anyone else; the problem we watch hours of television and don't read. Al Gore makes a big thing about how the brain is active when you're reading and passive when you're watching TV. We no longer have much of a Fourth Estate to balance all the PR BS.



Except that it becomes a chicken/egg argument. Televisions have switches. Critical thinking, as far as I am aware, is possible even with a television switched on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 6, 2008)

Sure. But I suspect that too many people who get to vote use televsion as a no-brainer between when they get home and when they go to bed.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 6, 2008)

But have we not then re-arrived at stupid?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 6, 2008)

I wouldn't want to rule out stupidity, but I think unsophisticated is probably more like it.

The thing about television is that it's mostly a one-way medium, and people are easily hypnotized by it. If that's your source of what's going on in the world - especially if you believe Faux News is really news and not the despicable, insidious propaganda it is - then you're going to vote really stupidly.


----------



## Abe (Jul 30, 2008)

Senator Obama announces...
"This is the moment that the world is waiting for, 

I have become a symbol of the possibility of America
returning to our best traditions.”

(this maybe why he replaced the US flag on his plane
with the letter O....
Doesn't Oprah own the copyrights to 
the letter O)

in contrast, what display of humility we find
in this former US president...

Abraham Lincoln ,
"Nobody has ever expected me to be president,
In my poor, lean lank face nobody has ever seen 
that any cabbages were sprouting." 

Do you wish people to think well of you? 
Don't speak well of yourself. --Blaise Pascal

Btw...
publication of the prayer note Obama placed
in the Israeli prayer wall, was pre-approved
for international publication by the Obama campaign.

in his prayer he wrote...
"help me guard against pride "
so much for that prayer.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 30, 2008)

Troll alert.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 30, 2008)

Yes. Abe, please don't turn into one of those B movie characters who keeps attacking after getting killed multiple times.


----------



## Abe (Jul 30, 2008)

Nick,

Ok that was funny I admit.

But really how can you 
overlook such brash statements.

Don't you want some humilty in 
a leader?


----------

