[Eugine]

No they don't.
If one of the most liberal state denied gays the right to marriage, you gotta admit they don't have the capacity.
Florida banned gay marriage by like 65-35. Arizona, a little less.

[Gio]

Saturos Striker, on Nov 5 2008, 08:04 AM, said:

Matrimony between men and women was an idea long before christianity came a long. So don't bring the bible into this.

With something simple as a pheromone you can make male flies try and mate with male flies. A small switch of nerves in the brains (not sure where it was) can make animals (or people for that matter) try and mate with each other. It's just biological chance that there's a two sex system, so that only a combination of male and female can procreate.

Worms just need to worms since they're hermaphrodite. They have both bits. It's just biological chance.

Furthermore, mankind is the only animal that uses sex as a pleasure. Since we've 'risen' above the fact sex is pure for pro-creating you can't just argue that 'it's not natural.'

Neophyte, on Nov 5 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

Merked.

Dolphins.

[Ironsight]

The fact that a single judge can overrule the vote of over 5 million people make me rage to no end.

[Saturos S.]

Miley Cyrus, on Nov 6 2008, 12:38 AM, said:

Then how about Incest?

Children are hardly old enough to make decisions like that alone. So it's under force, and if someone has a certain power over the other partner (teacher, parent etc.) than it's a no.

Gio, on Nov 6 2008, 04:04 AM, said:

Dolphins.

Seems nature agrees with me again.

Dolphins are known to have sex for reasons other than reproduction, sometimes also engaging in acts of a homosexual nature.

I think America should stop calling themselves the 'land of oppurtunities (or other related bullcrap)' when they're so intolerant of something like gay marriage.

[Ironsight]

Saturos Striker, on Nov 5 2008, 10:54 PM, said:

Children are hardly old enough to make decisions like that alone. So it's under force, and if someone has a certain power over the other partner (teacher, parent etc.) than it's a no.

They are not always children though.

[Saturos S.]

Miley Cyrus, on Nov 6 2008, 07:56 AM, said:

They are not always children though.

Still, there's the indoctrination probility and there's certainly still a pressure.

Plus, the fact that's in genetically irresponsible to mingle genes with a close relative. Because that results into passing on the same recessive genetic disorders thus having a big chance of handicapped children.

[Caael]

The rednecks dont care.

[Gio]

Saturos Striker, on Nov 6 2008, 12:54 AM, said:

Dolphins are known to have sex for reasons other than reproduction, sometimes also engaging in acts of a homosexual nature.

I think America should stop calling themselves the 'land of oppurtunities (or other related bullcrap)' when they're so intolerant of something like gay marriage.

I just cracking a joke but hey w/e. Dog's hump socks and people's legs in public. Next thing I know we will be having to tolerate humans doing it. lol

[Drizzy Drake]

Eugine, on Nov 5 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=CxCFLl-S4co
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=WUe2oDSZXEY

Omg. It's so nice to be black now. I can't stop feeling happy, despite my prefered principles losing.
Go Barack. Do a heck of a good job.

And Prop 8 was passed. Gay marriage is only allowed in one state in USA now.

**** that. Cali can go **** itself.

Saturos Striker, on Nov 6 2008, 01:54 AM, said:

Children are hardly old enough to make decisions like that alone. So it's under force, and if someone has a certain power over the other partner (teacher, parent etc.) than it's a no.
Seems nature agrees with me again.

Dolphins are known to have sex for reasons other than reproduction, sometimes also engaging in acts of a homosexual nature.

I think America should stop calling themselves the 'land of oppurtunities (or other related bullcrap)' when they're so intolerant of something like gay marriage.

Merked.

Miley Cyrus, on Nov 6 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

The fact that a single judge can overrule the vote of over 5 million people make me rage to no end.

Huh? What happened?

Saturos Striker, on Nov 6 2008, 01:59 AM, said:

Still, there's the indoctrination probility and there's certainly still a pressure.

Plus, the fact that's in genetically irresponsible to mingle genes with a close relative. Because that results into passing on the same recessive genetic disorders thus having a big chance of handicapped children.

Merked.

[David]

Gio, on Nov 6 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

I just cracking a joke but hey w/e. Dog's hump socks and people's legs in public. Next thing I know we will be having to tolerate humans doing it. lol

I hope you are not comparing homosexuality to that. Those people love each other, and have loving relationships just like heterosexual couples do. What people (or animals) do with inanimate objects is their own business, but please do not compare that to a loving relationship.

[Ironsight]

Neophyte, on Nov 6 2008, 08:23 AM, said:

Huh? What happened?

Gay marriage was banned once before already, but a couple of judges deemed it unconstitutional and overruled the popular vote. Now that it's been passed a second time, people are worried the judges will pull the same **** they did last time and overrule it again.

The point I was making with the whole Incest and beastiality thing was that pretty soon we're going to be having to vote on things like that as well. After gay marriage comes Polygamy, Brother marrying Sister, Dog and man ect. Simply becasue if the two (or more) "love" each other it has to be ok.

[TheEnglishman]

Eugine, on Nov 5 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

I hope he use his "powerful" speaking ability to convice NATO members to cough up some more troops. Get that Me111?

If people don't want to join the army, I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to be involved in any of the current wars either.

[Caael]

Miley Cyrus, on Nov 6 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

The point I was making with the whole Incest and beastiality thing was that pretty soon we're going to be having to vote on things like that as well. After gay marriage comes Polygamy, Brother marrying Sister, Dog and man ect. Simply becasue if the two (or more) "love" each other it has to be ok.

You are wrong.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong or dangerous about gay marriage and sex. However, with incest it causes deformities in children, a higher chance of inheriting a genetic disease. Beastiality is just wrong and unacceptable in any way at all.

[Eugine]

TheEnglishman, on Nov 6 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

If people don't want to join the army, I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to be involved in any of the current wars either.

Don't worry. President Obama will make Europeans more involved with the military with his words.

Anyway,
Seems like Obama will keep Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. So much for change lol.
He appointed a Jewish guy, who fought for the Israeli government as his Chief of Staff. So much for US bias to Israel changing.
Oh, I heard Obama will not withdraw from Iraq without the Iraqi government consent. So much for "ending" the war.

I'm starting to like this guy. Don't know about those anti-war liberals.

[TheEnglishman]

Eugine, on Nov 6 2008, 10:20 PM, said:

Don't worry. President Obama will make Europeans more involved with the military with his words.

Really? His appointment won't change the nature of the war, and a lot of people dislike the war now. A few good words aren't gonna be enough to win around those that see this as a pointless conflict.

[Eugine]

TheEnglishman, on Nov 6 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

Really? His appointment won't change the nature of the war, and a lot of people dislike the war now. A few good words aren't gonna be enough to win around those that see this as a pointless conflict.

I was kinda being sarcastic.

Obama said he will unite Europe to help fight the war on terrorism, when Europe is extremely anti-war and wimpy. It was extremely naive.
But then, let us see if he was right. Hopefully he is. Those Germans and Frenchies love him.

[TheEnglishman]

I'd say the conflicts that America are involved in will be his biggest challenge. It's interesting to see how he'll work with it.

[Caael]

Russell Howard said:

Sarah Palin couldn't be more right wing if she had a gun in one hand, baby in the other atop a mound of dead gays

[Eugine]

I like Sarah Palin, but her national level political future is over. Just read the recent articles on her. I do not think she can recover, but what the hell, you never can predict the future.
I don't even want to link what I read, because it's depressing and disgusting.

And yep, Me111. I think his foreign policy will dissapoint lots of his supporters probably. I wanna see how he will respond to the economy.
And Russia is already planning on testing Obama. Oh well.

[Gio]

David, on Nov 6 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

I hope you are not comparing homosexuality to that. Those people love each other, and have loving relationships just like heterosexual couples do. What people (or animals) do with inanimate objects is their own business, but please do not compare that to a loving relationship.

I wasn't comparing it to it. I was making the point that you can get carried away with the whole issue. I have a new stance on the issue, but I will type it out later I am getting ready for class.

[Golden Legacy]

I should point out that Eugine's comments about Obama's foreign policy are speculation. Keep in mind that these wars are not his to begin with. He's making the decisions based on the scenario Bush left him.

I'm interested to see who Obama will choose for Secretary of State. I'm hoping Richard Lugar or Chuck Hagel, I respect them both.

[Eugine]

Lmao. Way to change your rhetoric. So, wasn't McCain basing his decisions on the future and not the past?

[Golden Legacy]

I'm not seeing your point. Barack's entire foreign policy was always about ending the war in Iraq and subsequently focusing on Afghanistan, and more importantly reinstating allies and support on the international stage. McCain's plan was to stay in Iraq indefinitely, leave Afghanistan to deteriorate, and to continue to alienate the world with Bush's belligerent philosophy.

[Eugine]

Oh come on. You don't see my point?
Obama wanted to end the war within 16 months. Period.

Now, he's working with the Iraqis to withdraw when it is right. McCain's position.
He used you, the anti-war people. Ah well.

[Golden Legacy]

... No Eugine, you're spitting out your usual unfounded nonsense.
Barack favors a 16 month withdrawal, and is committed to it. The Iraqi Prime Minister himself endorsed the plan. All that's left to see is who will make it official first, whether Bush in his last weeks (unlikely, Dubya still thinks he did a good job with Iraq) or Obama when he takes office and makes the order for withdrawal official.

[Eugine]

Lmao!
Now he "favors" a 16 month withdrawal plan? This is funny.

Who doesn't favour a 16 month withdrawal plan? Everyone! Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan was in place since two years ago, before any deal was being planned GL.
Obama wanted to withdraw without the Iraqis approval. Now he's working with the Iraqis.

That was Bush and McCain's position all along. Withdraw when the Iraqis think they can defend their country.
Anyway, I'm complimenting the guy. He's taking the right position.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, once again, Obama's plan was always to withdraw the troops. The Iraqi people have ALWAYS wanted US troops out. This has been the case for years. The specificity of "16 months" came as Obama's campaign proceeded, and that was endorsed by the Iraqis because he was the ONLY person to actually have a set plan for withdrawal - not Bush, not McCain.

I want to repeat, since you'll likely twist this with your response. The Iraqis have ALWAYS wanted US troops out. Bush-McCain always wanted troops to stay for years, which conflicted with Iraqi interests. Obama was the only one to favor withdrawal from the beginning, which coincided and agreed with Iraqi interests.

[Eugine]

Actually, Obama took the 16 months withdrawal position since summer of last year, when the surge was not working to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton and pander to the hardcore anti-war people like you.
He was a nobody candidate at that time, and the Iraqis didn't really care who he was.

Bush worked with the Iraqis for a timetable, not Obama. So, don't give the guy all that credit.
If Obama had that position you described in your few posts today, I am deeply sorry. It is the right position. Working with the Iraqis is good.

[Golden Legacy]

And what pray tell is Bush's "timetable" for withdrawal?

[Eugine]

Same as Obama's. The Iraqis think it's alright to withdraw by the end of 2011. Good for them.
Anyway, hopefully troops will be withdrawed soon. The surge worked. The US probably won the war now. Time to win in Afghanistan now.

[Golden Legacy]

There. is. nothing. to. "win". in. Iraq.
There never was a "war" to win.

You do not win an occupation.

[Eugine]

Then why is Obama sending troops to Afghanistan? lol...

[Golden Legacy]

Are you trying to sound stupid?
There is at least a justification for Afghanistan. The Iraq war was unfounded and senseless. The only people who think that the "surge" won anything are people who believe there was a threat from Iraq in the first place, which is entirely false.

[Eugine]

Right. So Iraq is an occuption, but Afghanistan is not. Gotcha GL.

[Toasty]

David, on Nov 5 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

I know. This is history, man, and it's really hard not to get swept up into it, even if you don't want to. Everyone went crazy when they announced Obama as the winner. I think we ran up and down five flights of stairs a total of 12 times in five minutes, banging on dorm room doors. And then that acceptance speech...

I don't think anyone in my school slept last night.

I could care less if it's history. I just don't want our country to go down the tube.

To be honest, politics is serious buisness (not sarcasm). But anyone who cries over an election (either tears of joy or sorrow), is taking things way to seriously. That's why a frown always appears on my face whenever I see people crying at an election rally, or whatever.

[Golden Legacy]

@Eugine: They both are occupations, for different reasons.
Iraq, there never was any reasoning for it.
Afghanistan, because it was handled poorly and not given priority. McCain-Bush tossed it aside in favor of the Iraq war.

Now, all this is coming from someone who once had his avatar as an American soldier and sings songs about bombing other nations? Don't try to sound like you're the rational one here.

Toasty, on Nov 6 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

I could care less if it's history. I just don't want our country to go down the tube.

Too late. Congrats Bush/Republicans!

[Eugine]

So, the Iraq war wasn't handled poorly?

[Golden Legacy]

When there is no purpose for a war other than a nation's false rhetoric and justifications, there is no "poor" or "correct" handling of the war.

[Toasty]

No matter how many times someone proves to you that the Iraq war wasn't pointless, you'll never listen.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 6 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

Too late. Congrats Bush/Republicans!

Funny how the media doesn't inform the people that at least half of our problems today were brought about by Democratic policies.

[Golden Legacy]

Ahh, typical, there you go with the media again.

EDIT: and LOL, the most you've ever "proved" to me is how UNjustified the war is.

[Eugine]

So, what do you think are justifiable reasons to start a war?

[Golden Legacy]

Clearly when the enemy is building a megacannon.

[Eugine]

Uh... I am serious here...

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 6 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

Clearly when the enemy is building a megacannon.

Don't be a dick. We want a serious answer.

[Toasty]

So are you denying that Saddam was building one? Even after I provided you with an article that proves it?

[Golden Legacy]

Wow, I have three neo-conservative fundamentalist Bush supporters on, how lovely. I guess sarcasm is missing for them now that the era of Dubya is over.

[Eugine]

I know you were sarcstic. That's why I told you I am serious...

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 6 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

Wow, I have three neo-conservative fundamentalist Bush supporters on, how lovely. I guess sarcasm is missing for them now that the era of Dubya is over.

Seriously GL, quit using words you don't know the definition to. Even bad politicians at least know what they're saying.

[Golden Legacy]

War in self-defense is justifiable. Intervening in genocide is justifiable. Wanting to steal resources or prevent another nation from having them is not. Wanting to establish a military base to expand your influence is not. Wanting to kill and dehumanize people just to show your might is not.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 6 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

Intervening in genocide is justifiable.

Good. You just endorsed the Iraq war.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Nov 6 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

Good. You just endorsed Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and torture prisons of America.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 6 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

War in self-defense is justifiable.

Good. You just endorsed the Iraq War again.

[Golden Legacy]

Now that is you telling a flat out lie.

Too much thirst for blood.

[Eugine]

So, Saddam wasn't a threat to America and its allies?

[Golden Legacy]

Enlighten me on what the immediate threat was.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 6 2008, 05:25 PM, said:

War in self-defense is justifiable. Intervening in genocide is justifiable. Wanting to steal resources or prevent another nation from having them is not. Wanting to establish a military base to expand your influence is not. Wanting to kill and dehumanize people just to show your might is not.

Prove that we tried to steal Iraq's resources. Prove that all we want to ecomplish is "expanding our influence". Prove that we're killing and dehumanizing innocent civilians.

You're being an ignorant left wing bigot. You believe what the left says, and nothing more. The left says that all we've done in Iraq is dehumanize and destroy the land and people.

The number of people being dehumanized is a CERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION and is only occuring because there are BAD SOLDIERS WHO DISOBEY ORDERS AND NATIONAL LAWS.

The US military punishes these bad soldiers. Don't you dare paint an image of the US army based solely on these disobedient soldiers.

We got rid of a dictator, and gave the Iraqi people a chance at a fair government. The French went through even worse of a time during their transition form a monarchy to something more constitutional. And even then, it took a good few hundred years before they had anything decent. But in the end, the people were happy to be rid of their king.

The economy and living conditions may have been better under Saddam than they are now, but you can't tell me that living in a country where your leader kills people (including the citizens of your country) with WMD's "good living conditions".

With a Democracy in place over there, the Iraqi's now have a chance at a fair form of government. It seems to me that the only reason you're against such a form of government, is that it was the US who allowed them to achieve it.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 6 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

Enlighten me on what the immediate threat was.

The fact that Saddam had WMD's, had a means with which to attack our ally Israel, and the fact that he wanted America obblitterated.

Not to mention a link was found between him and the terrorists who bombed the twin towers.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 6 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

Enlighten me on what the immediate threat was.

I will have to research to get more info, but from my head.
- Intelligence agencies believed he had WMDs. Proven to be wrong.
- He was not following UN demands.
- Worked with terrorists who wanted to kill Americans and their interests eg. Al Queda (proven to be wrong) and Hamas
- Human rights abuses.

[Golden Legacy]

And you're being an "ignorant" right-winged bigot. What does it say in the Bible, that the Iraq War will lead to the "rise of Babylon"?

Prove to me that there was an immediate threat. Prove to me that you have shown the world what American democracy and freedom is when as a result of your actions, hundreds of thousands of civilians will never live to see that "wonderful era". It is not the USA's right to decide who lives or not. It is not the USA's right to decide that violating every single human rights ethics is right if they decide it is ok.

The Iraqi people themselves don't see how their lives are vastly improved. The vast majority weren't killed or executed and lived decently. Now, on the contrary, literally thousands more have died as a result of the US intervention than Saddam's entire reign - Saddam, btw, was supported by the USA and placed into power and given support. Irony, eh?


And now, I want you, Eugine, DS, Gio, and every other Iraq supporter to answer me one simple question:

Who do you feel more for, the life of an American soldier or the life of an Iraqi civilian? Honest answer, please.

[Eugine]

Honest answer? Equal.
Those terrorists need to die though. Hate those suckas.

[Golden Legacy]

To your previous post:
- didn't you yourself once say that the USA should break away from the UN? How do you hold another leader to not following UN regulations but agree that the USA should act on its own?
- so, you solve human rights abuses by committing human rights abuses?

[Eugine]

Of course they should. They're a useless organisation... Not even Iraq listened to them.

And, on civilians? I don't condone that, and neither did the Bush admin.

[Golden Legacy]

The problem is it's a systematic program of the government. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib weren't created by themselves.

And do you favor unilateralism or multilateralism?

[Eugine]

Multilateralism should be used first, unilateralism last.

[Golden Legacy]

I agree. Can we then reach a consensus that the Bush era was anything but? Not just Iraq, but the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court, the mine ban treaty (all rejected by the US), etc.?

[Eugine]

I will stand by my view that Bush tried.
He was great on foreign policy by finally exposing the world dangers. He mishandled the wars in the beginning, because of bad advisors but he's doing a near perfect job now.

He was poor on social, domestic and economic policies though, but I believe the democrats had a stronger hand in the bad.

[Golden Legacy]

A "near perfect job", unfortunately, are words that echo over the hundreds of thousands of dead.

I will agree that Bush has not a single social, economic, or domestic accomplishment to his name, and that there is some blame to be given for both parties, yes.

Now, for a little light-heartedness!

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Z/S/2/freedom-road-tmdho081105.jpg


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/W/S/2/victory-bump-sac1105cd.jpg


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/V/S/2/day-one-lk1105d.jpg

[Eugine]

Bush had an 90% approval rating once. Obama may be popular now, but let us see in 4 years, or if serves two terms, 8 if he survives.

[Golden Legacy]

Well, that was once early on. That's where a leader's judgment and results reflect in his people's support (or lack thereof).


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/6/P/2/welcome-barack-tt081019.jpg

so true.

[Someone Else]

So much negative energy. =(

I just have this to say... Obama has one hell of a lot of faith and pressure placed on to him. I hope he can pull it off okay, or else America's spirit will be absolutely crushed.

[Eugine]

America? The world!
He better deliver.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 6 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

And now, I want you, Eugine, DS, Gio, and every other Iraq supporter to answer me one simple question:

Who do you feel more for, the life of an American soldier or the life of an Iraqi civilian? Honest answer, please.

First off I never remember saying outright that I support the Iraq war. I do believe I said I had mixed feelings about it, and the only time I defended anything related it to it was when you seemingly labeled all the military to be like the ones who mistreated innocent Iraqis. Second off, All humans are equal.

[Aquamarine]

Toasty, on Nov 7 2008, 02:34 AM, said:

The fact that Saddam had WMD's, had a means with which to attack our ally Israel, and the fact that he wanted America obblitterated.

I ****ING LOVED THAT GUY!!

Oh, and Obama. Yay. Same old crap only in a darker colour.

[Saturos S.]

Berlusconi's reaction to Obama's presidency was quite... humourous.

[Eugine]

Anyway, I am more concerned about the GOP future. If Arnold was a natural born US citizen, he would have surely be the GOP's future. Sarah Palin has a future, but not in 2012. Since I learnt today that the rumours of Palin were false, I can breathe again.
She should run in 2016, if Barack serves two terms. If a republican defeats him 2012, 2020/2024 is good (she'll only be 60, which is alright).

Barack most likely will serve two terms because I do not see anyone in the GOP who can compare with his star power except Sarah Palin and I just do not see her stepping up for 2012... It will be unwise imo. But then, some unknown can rise from the ashes of the GOP to save the party. Maybe Jindal.

I see Barack doing somewhat of a good job, because he is moving away from his far left liberal ideology to the center, despite GL trying to deny it. He was a hardcore anti-war candidate, but now he's a "listen to the Iraqis and generals" candidate to an extent. And, I doubt he will raise taxes.

Anyway! The GOP needs to attract more younger voters, hispanics, blacks, asians and arabs. Don't think they can attract arabs, but then, arabs are a small voting block. Neither blacks. I think Barack cemented blacks towards the democrats.

Godspeed ;)

[Saturos S.]

Why do you support the GOP in the future if you don't even know their future policies?

That just seems stupid to me.

[Eugine]

When did I say that? I simply said I am worried about their future, and who will be the leader of the GOP which revives the party.
Oh, and they need to attract said voters somehow.

[Ironsight]

Aquamarine, on Nov 7 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

I ****ING LOVED THAT GUY!!

Oh, and Obama. Yay. Same old crap only in a darker colour.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 7 2008, 07:52 PM, said:

When did I say that? I simply said I am worried about their future, and who will be the leader of the GOP which revives the party.
Oh, and they need to attract said voters somehow.

You just seemed like a GOP fanboy. Though that interpretation seems to wrong, just consider it never said.

[Eugine]

Of course I am a GOP fanboy. I love conservative parties. I only like Bill Clinton because he was a centrist.
Seems like Europe is electing more and more center-right governments now infact. And, Canada has a center-right government.

But then, center-right for Europe is limited socialism ;)
Well, I don't know. Please clarify.

And wow. Obama was tough on Iran during his press conference. Sweet.
He likes blood it seems. He's thirsty for it.

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Nov 6 2008, 11:22 PM, said:

First off I never remember saying outright that I support the Iraq war. I do believe I said I had mixed feelings about it, and the only time I defended anything related it to it was when you seemingly labeled all the military to be like the ones who mistreated innocent Iraqis. Second off, All humans are equal.

Fair point here. I will admit I can channel my anger too much towards the entire military, in the end it all falls down onto the administration that set up the war, not the soldiers who carry it out.

And Eugine, I was watching that news press conference, his response to Iran is exactly what it is - a strong foreign policy, but not one that would advocate a full scale invasion.

[Eugine]

Run, anti-war liberals, run.
Sweet. Obama is going to have a strong foreign policy. Thank goodness.
Peace through strength ftw.

Seems like Obama is going to be the neocon of the democrats lmao.

"To those who would tear this world down, we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security, we support you." - Barack Hussein Obama.
I love this guy.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, for your constant refrains, misquotes, exaggeration, out-of-context lies, I'm going to put this as bluntly as you deserve.

Be quiet.

[Eugine]

Fine >.>
He did say that though.

"To those who would tear this world down, we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security, we support you." - Barack Hussein Obama.
Yes we will! Yes we will!

[Golden Legacy]

Yes, I'm aware of that line, and it was powerful because it represents something that hasn't been seen from the USA - international outreach. Actually creating allies and treating other countries like they're equals, not charging along all high and mighty and expecting the rest of the world to fall into line and follow.

Perhaps in this topic we seem to have defined "war" as "neo-conservatism". That is not true. War exists for many reasons - territorial acquisition, regional authority, resources, genocide, self-defense - but it's the rationale for war that makes neo-conservatives distinct. They believe in American hegemony, they would create a pretense of war just to have the USA come in and exert its influence over a nation. That's not "creating peace through strength", that's attending to a nation's selfish desire to disrupt the current state of affairs and to create a circumstance that the nation itself defines as justified.

[Eugine]

You need to read up on the Reagan years if you think the US didn't have international outreach.

"Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan.
Didn't like him that much before, but I love him now after reading up on him.

[Golden Legacy]

I am aware of Reagan's famous line, and particularly how he maintained the military to weaken the Soviet Union as it tried to compete (which was a great approach). However, I'm talking about the Dubya era, the USA has greatly alienated other nations and has treated them as though expendable in its own quests. That will change with Obama.

[Aquamarine]

Miley Cyrus, on Nov 7 2008, 08:00 PM, said:

Obvious troll is obvious.

Obvious pointing out of troll is obvious pointing out... of troll.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 7 2008, 07:02 PM, said:

I am aware of Reagan's famous line, and particularly how he maintained the military to weaken the Soviet Union as it tried to compete (which was a great approach). However, I'm talking about the Dubya era, the USA has greatly alienated other nations and has treated them as though expendable in its own quests. That will change with Obama.

Really? What democracies have the US alienated?

[Golden Legacy]

I'm talking about America's general attitude of "we're better than all of you", and how the USA will go around doing its own thing and expecting the rest of the world to follow suit.

Not to mention how it neglects international efforts. Why, for example, was the USA the only major nation in the world to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, even when it consumes 25% of the world's oil and has the largest carbon emissions of any country in the world? Why did the USA expect the world to just believe its bold tale of a justified war in Iraq?

These examples and just the overall attitude. That the USA is this untouchable superpower, all other nations are either envious or helpless, and that the USA has the right to act on its own accord and expect other nations to sit back and take it.

[Eugine]

Well, let us see if this changes under an Obama administration. I doubt it will.

Obama:
My story is only possible in USA!
We're the best country on Earth!
The US has done the most good for the world!

and on and on.

[Golden Legacy]

No, Obama will actually reach out and recreate alliances, and will treat other nations with a fair voice on the world stage.

[Eugine]

lol. I can't wait for you to be dissapointed.
After Obama's Honeymoon year, the world will be dissapointed... ESPECIALLY the arab nations who thought they had a friend in the White House cuz his name included Hussein.

[Golden Legacy]

I can't wait for you to actually go fight in the Iraq War you keep cheerleading.
Ahh, snap, I didn't go there did I?

I do agree that Obama's expectations are extraordinarily high. However, this was both a great accomplishment for America, and a choice that was also needed given the circumstances. He is the transformational figure of our generation, a leader that stands the best chance of uniting through crisis and war.

[Eugine]

Nah. I'm like those blood thirsty neocons who send uneducated conservative children to fight their wars for self gain.
I'll just be a cheerleader foreva.

Next up: Iran.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 7 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

No, Obama will actually reach out and recreate alliances, and will treat other nations with a fair voice on the world stage.

To such an extent that we'll end up being "allies" with people who will turn around and stab us in the back with ****ing nukes. Like Iran.

Answer me this GL:

Do you think Reagan was one of, if not the best US President in history?

Do you think he was better than Clinton?

If you answered no to either of those, do you at least think he was a decent one?


Answer with a yes or no. I don't care if you add anything after that or not.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 7 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

Fair point here. I will admit I can channel my anger too much towards the entire military, in the end it all falls down onto the administration that set up the war, not the soldiers who carry it out.

Thank you we have some common ground now. I will now convey to you that I do believe we should be in Afghanistan rather than Iraq. I will agree with you there, but the way we approach Iraq may be a bit different. We are already there so we need to create a strong Iraqi military capable of defending itself and then leave. I am not however supporting a "set" timeline. If the Iraqi's want us to leave in 16 months then so be it, but we need to be prepared to stay longer if need be. You know just in case of emergency. I also think that even after we withdraw we should maintain some sort of military presence. Not only because it is beneficial to us, but if you look at other bases that we have in Europe when our dollar is strong we stimulate the economy in the country that our base is in.

[Toasty]

Anyway, I was starting to think that maybe we'd be alright with Obama as our president. Whenever I hear him speak, he seems to make some sort of sense.

And then I learned what he sounds like without a teleprompter (which he has had in pretty much every bit of footage presented by the mainstream media).

He really, really has a hard time getting his point accross. He even forgets his train of thought, and ends up barely making any sense.

If that's Obama's true side, someone who can't even get his point accross, then I fear for our country.


Another thing I fear, is the fact thta Obama intends to disarm countries with nuclear weaponry. That's fine and dandy and noble and all, but he forgets the major fact that it's almost impossible to garuntee that your enemy is disarmed. It makes it absolutely impossible if your enemy has more firepower than you do.

Sure, Iran and all those other countries that hate America and posess/are pursuing nuclear weapons will say that they'll disarm/stop trying to obtain them, but they'll just turn around and acquire them behind our back. Before we even realise it, our enemies will be more powerful than we are.

If Obama wants to disarm every nation of nukes, than he has to do what Reagan did and create a system capable of taking out 100% of all nuclear missles before they can even get close to their targets.

Or just take the far easier route and begin R&D on nukes again, because as it stands, we only have 5 nuclear physicists who even know what they're talking about when it comes to nuclear weaponry.

[Eugine]

I want Obama to do a good job, but he is one of the most arrogant, hypocritical, self-dealing person to become President. Ever. Even George Bush, imo, has more character than Obama.
First news conference and he insulted Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton.

Wit that said,
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-h...ll-media-report
So much for change. I hope he doesn't shatter the kool-aid drinkers self esteem.

[Toasty]

So much for "change we can believe in".

What Obama sounds like when the teleprompter goes out.

[Golden Legacy]

Since Gio was the only one to actually present a fair comment, I'll answer his first:

Gio, on Nov 8 2008, 01:03 AM, said:

Thank you we have some common ground now. I will now convey to you that I do believe we should be in Afghanistan rather than Iraq. I will agree with you there, but the way we approach Iraq may be a bit different. We are already there so we need to create a strong Iraqi military capable of defending itself and then leave. I am not however supporting a "set" timeline. If the Iraqi's want us to leave in 16 months then so be it, but we need to be prepared to stay longer if need be. You know just in case of emergency. I also think that even after we withdraw we should maintain some sort of military presence. Not only because it is beneficial to us, but if you look at other bases that we have in Europe when our dollar is strong we stimulate the economy in the country that our base is in.

Well, Obama has gone on record saying he will leave behind a residual force to continue training the Iraqi military. Those who think that he's just going to "cut and run" are just being silly. His plan would also set about certain checkpoints for the Iraqi military to meet (based on the circumstances) so that at each phase of withdrawal they'll be prepared to step in, and at least a brigade or two will continue to work with the Iraqis to shore up their defenses.

The Iraqis do want the US out (whether in 16 months is yet to be made official), but they also can't come to rely on the US support non-stop. That's hardly encouraging them to stand on their own two feet, is it?

As for bases in the world, I honestly do think it's overdone. I'll take your word for it that there might be a correlation with where US bases are on the economy of those countries, but is it so necessary to spend trillions on defense spending even outside of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I feel a portion of that money could be better used to invest in infrastructure, job creation, healthcare, and education back home. That's one of the most notable criticisms I have of the US and particularly the past 8 years, that the military has overtaken completely the needs of the economy and the people (and things on the military front aren't going so smoothly either).

We both agree on the need to place Afghanistan as higher priority. That can be accomplished with reorganizing the focus of the military from Iraq, but that can also happen by creating alliances around the world. Restoring Pakistan's economy and giving them reason to trust America, for example, would give the US an absolutely key ally in the region to help fight the 'war on terror'.

Toasty, on Nov 8 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

Do you think Reagan was one of, if not the best US President in history?

Do you think he was better than Clinton?

If you answered no to either of those, do you at least think he was a decent one?
Answer with a yes or no. I don't care if you add anything after that or not.

I think Reagan was a great president for handling himself strongly during the Cold War. I think a disproportionate amount of credit is given to him for "ending the Cold War" when the Soviet Union was well on its way to collapse, but he definitely was a prominent figure. I think a lot of his social and domestic reforms fell short however - especially when it came to being fair for minorities, the middle class and the poor - and thus on the economy and domestic issues I think Clinton succeeded more.

Eugine, on Nov 8 2008, 02:37 AM, said:

I want Obama to do a good job, but he is one of the most arrogant, hypocritical, self-dealing person to become President. Ever. Even George Bush, imo, has more character than Obama

Please be quiet. At least you have Joe the Plumber!

Quote

First news conference and he insulted Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton.

Wit that said,
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-h...ll-media-report
So much for change. I hope he doesn't shatter the kool-aid drinkers self esteem.

Toasty, on Nov 8 2008, 02:58 AM, said:

So much for "change we can believe in".

What Obama sounds like when the teleprompter goes out.

Do the two of you just bicker on helplessly? The election is over. At the very least, when Bush is criticized, there is 8 years to back it up with. It's hilarious that you guys are trying your best to discredit Obama who isn't even president yet when it's the GOP itself that is imploding and brought about its own demise.

Keep it up. It's hilarious to watch. Maybe the both of you will stop fantasizing about Sarah Palin and come back to reality.

[Eugine]

Quote

when it's the GOP itself that is imploding and brought about its own demise.

I am confident the GOP will regain its leadership in American politics. I just believe they need to attract new voters (Hispanics and youths especially) and modernize their message.

And Reagan did by far a better job than Clinton. Reagan enherited a recession, yet precided over the largest expansion of the US economy.
I hope you know, Clinton did a good job domestically only because he worked with republicans. If you know, the first two years of Clinton's admin was disastrious because he proposed only liberal policies. I give more credit to the republican congress (after regaining control in 1994) for his success.

[Golden Legacy]

Reagan also presided over the largest deficit increase of the time, only rivaled by Bush Sr. and the current Bush who have thrown the debt into the trillions ($11 trillion last I checked). There was also another recession in the early 80s too.

Oh, and for the record, Bush had a Republican congress himself from 2000-2006. Clinton had the same congress from 1995-2000. And there is a huge disparity between what they both accomplished. I place it on their policies. Now granted Clinton was a moderate liberal, but Bush was as conservative as they come.

To reiterate, Bush inherited Clinton's balanced budget and surplus (under the same congress leadership), and good lord was that wasted.

[Eugine]

Uh, you need to spend to expand. Plus, Reagan did all of this during war time! Remarkable.

And, I don't even know what happened to the republican congress under Bush. And, how was Bush a conservative during his time? No conservative will propose a $850 billion dollar bailout.
Bush expanded government by over 40%, gave government more control in the free market, and screwed up initially in wars. I just can't say Bush was a true conservative. Toasty can though.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Nov 8 2008, 05:46 PM, said:

Uh, you need to spend to expand. Plus, Reagan did all of this during war time! Remarkable.

So government spending is fine now if Reagan did it, but not if anyone else does?

Quote

And, I don't even know what happened to the republican congress under Bush. And, how was Bush a conservative during his time? No conservative will propose a $850 billion dollar bailout.
Bush expanded government by over 40%, gave government more control in the free market, and screwed up initially in wars. I just can't say Bush was a true conservative. Toasty can though.

Which is exactly why I will leave it to the two of you to figure out what he was. Funny, the "fiscal conservative" is going down in history as the only president to ever nationalize banks. Lovely.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 8 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

So government spending is fine now if Reagan did it, but not if anyone else does?

All government spends. I always say limited government spending. Reagan decreased taxes tremendously, and also government regulation.

EDIT:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1857003,00.html
Great article on Palin. She should run in 2016.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 8 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

Do the two of you just bicker on helplessly? The election is over. At the very least, when Bush is criticized, there is 8 years to back it up with. It's hilarious that you guys are trying your best to discredit Obama who isn't even president yet when it's the GOP itself that is imploding and brought about its own demise.

Keep it up. It's hilarious to watch. Maybe the both of you will stop fantasizing about Sarah Palin and come back to reality.

For now, I'm still on a wait and see basis for Obama. But any hope I had in him is practically gone now. That video isn't the only thing I'm basing my lack of trust in him on.

But really, the media and a lot of Obama supporters always claim how great of a speaker Obama is. I used to do that myself. But if he can't even speak without someone telling him what to say, how can he run a country on his own?

Granted, he'll have advisors, but really, he shouldn't need advisors. America voted to have Obama as the President. Not his advisors.


And you can continue to blame the problems of the last 8 years on Bush like an ignorant Liberal all you want. Just because that's what the mainstream media preaches doesn't mean it's true.

[Golden Legacy]

Do you not understand how the country is run? Every president in history is surrounded by advisers. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, whoever. Gordon Brown has advisers. Every political office in the world has "advisers" with specialties in various areas, who coordinate their tasks to inform the president, prime minister, whoever is elected.

And by the way, for most sane people who have half a mind, they lost hope with Bush and have regained it with Obama. You just happen to have it backwards because you still cling to the notion that Bush is simply "misunderstood" and isn't appreciated enough.

And really, I'm going to miss Bush and Cheney. They made the job of late night talk show hosts so much easier.

[Toasty]

It's not a matter of whether they;re sane or not, it's a matter of whether their bias is blinding them or not.

A heck of a lot of people believe solely what the mainstream media puts out. It also just so happens that most of what the mainstream media has put out these kast 8 years, is anti-Bush.

You want to know why things have been bad these last eight years? It's because when Bush tried to pass something that would fix, or even prevent a problem from happening, congress or someone else would stop him.

Let me make one thing clear: Most Democrats in office hate Bush. They've hated him from the moment he stepped in office. They've hated him so much, that they would risk the country's well being to see him blamed for it.

Bush tried to stop sub-prime loans from being handed out like candy. Half of congress stopped him. If you didn't know, it takes an agreement of 2/3 of the House and Senate to pass a law/whatever. Whether the democrats had a majority or not doesn't matter, because enough of them voted against Bush's policies that would have worked, to keep them from being enacted.

That's what really happened. But you sure as hell don't hear that from the mainstream media.

[Golden Legacy]

Let's get a few things straight.
The "mainstream media" never -once- brought up any of McCain's associations or secret dealings. The mainstream media had a field day when Clinton's sex scandal came to light and certainly didn't hold back then.

And please, Republicans hated Clinton when he came into office. That's the nature of a two-party system based on partisan politics.

Now, since you continue to drudge on about Bush trying to "save the day", enlighten me. Give me one example that life is better off now than they were during the Clinton years. You've had to do a lot of defending for Bush, so it should be easy for you to come up with an example of how Bush has improved things.

One thing. I'm waiting.

[Eugine]

Well GL, why don't you think? It's pretty simple actually...
Answer: He kept America safe after 9/11.

Anyway!

Toasty, on Nov 9 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

Let me make one thing clear: Most Democrats in office hate Bush. They've hated him from the moment he stepped in office. They've hated him so much, that they would risk the country's well being to see him blamed for it.

Most powerful statement ever. And it's really true.
After losing Florida to Bush, most democrats purposely tried to see him fail. Sad times.
Now look at the GOP, they're wishing Obama the best.

Liberals eh.

And GL, are you crazy about the Bill Clinton scandal? The mainstream media refused to break the story. A conservative website (my fav, the drudgereport) broke it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scan...quent_admission

If they had their way, we would have never know Bill Clinton had a sex scandal.

[Golden Legacy]

LOL! So 9/11 is simply not his fault then? And "keeping America safe", by invading a nation that did nothing to you and inflaming anger in every terrorist in the world and giving them a reason to further hate the USA?

I am laughing so hard right now.

And please, the conservative/GOP base have said some of the most reviled, awful things against Obama, going beyond racism. Which side was it that was calling the names, falsifying claims and using negative ads?

Those same lovely conservatives believe that all people are created equal under God, unless they happen to be rape victims, gays, immigrants, the poor, minorities. Lovely Republicans, they always put "Country First"! What an outright lie.

And once again, not a word about McCain's associations that never broke through the mainstream media.

[Eugine]

Of course it was not Bush's fault. Bill Clinton had an awful foreign policy, which allowed terrorists to plan and execute 9/11.
Listen, I do not like Bush, but you guys blame him for everything, which is just stupid.
Bill Clinton supported driver licences for illegal aliens which allowed them to remain illegally in the US to plan 9/11. He also did not modernize the FBI or CIA, and that hampered intelligence gathering. Plus, he did nothing after they first bombed the WTC. Basically, like the 9/11 commission report said "They were at war with the US, but the US was not at war with them".
And so what if they hate the US? As long as they do not have the capability to wreck havoc, who cares? They can swell their face all they want.

And lol, clearly you were not following the election closely. Because I can provide links to every association you linked, as reported by the mainstream media.

Oh lol. I hope you know, Obama supporters are the ones who denied gays the right to marry in CA. Oh, and liberals put "terrorists first". Right?

[Golden Legacy]

Right, so Bush completely ignored the threats about 9/11, when a CIA report indicated some form of an attack was coming.

You're really no different when you cannot accept any blame or try to shift the burden onto the back of the Democrats. Clinton's surplus and excellent economy? Must have been the Republican congress. But Bush had the same congress? Nope, must be the Democrats somehow. 9/11 occurred under Bush's watch? Has to be Clinton.

And Eugine, I was following the election quite closely, I assure you. None of the links I provided got substantial mention, if at all.

And liberals place value in human life, all life, equally. But of course, not for you, being "pro-life" and "protecting fetuses" but singing songs about "BOMB BOMB BOMB KILL".

[Eugine]

So, if liberals place value in all human life equally, why do they allow abortion? Atleast people who die in war have a choice.

And no Bush didn't... the intelligence agencies were awful though. They had so much conflicting reports, and so many, that it was almost impossible to decifer which to investigate or follow up.

And of course not GL. I blame the republican congress during Bush terms for succumbing to President Bush atrocious spending proposals. And yeah, I give credit to the republican congress more than Bill Clinton. They forced him to govern as a centrist.

Oh God, it's depressing to see a democrat in the White House. I don't like USA anymore.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Nov 9 2008, 07:25 PM, said:

So, if liberals place value in all human life equally, why do they allow abortion? Atleast people who die in war have a choice.

Are we talking about soldiers who enlist in the US army, or are we talking about the civilian deaths?

To quote:
[i]Two dozen children are said to be among the dead after US warplanes reportedly bombed a wedding party in Afghanistan. US military officials said the incident, in which up to 40 civilians were reportedly killed and the bride wounded, was being investigated. The party was taking place close to where Taliban militants took cover.

A US spokesman said that if "innocent people were killed in this operation, we apologise and express our condolences".

Thank you USA! God is watching and approving of your actions! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Quote

And no Bush didn't... the intelligence agencies were awful though. They had so much conflicting reports, and so many, that it was almost impossible to decifer which to investigate or follow up.

The same intelligence agencies that brilliantly claimed the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

Quote

Oh God, it's depressing to see a democrat in the White House. I don't like USA anymore.

Only you Eugine, only you and hardcore Republicans and Bush sympathizers.
The rest of America and the world:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=gRJY8P9l9aM
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=f9ZMlrEGv6M
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=g_iZiNUp6Vc

I am honestly proud of what Americans accomplished. I never thought they could do it, my respect for them and yes the country has risen. I'll never forget the moment when Barack got the votes and it was made official, it was just amazing, the entire area exploded with cheers. I was talking with Yuki at the time, and we counted down to the announcement, and WOW. People erupted and were rushing outside and hugging and cheering. It was just an electrifying moment, ****ing incredible.

And just for the lolz:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=tBW_QJ0dGrU
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=mhE05g80cZU

When Obama was announced the President, people cheered and paraded the streets in front of the White House, and they began to sing "na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, GOODBYE!" against Bush, LOL. And "MOVE BUSH, GET OUT THE WAY! GET OUT THE WAY! MOVE BUSH!"

Hahaha.

[Eugine]

Why are they acting like Bush was kicked out? He was supposed to leave no matter who won.
Don't worry, I cannot wait for the world to hate USA again when they recognise Obama will continue the war on terror. Read my signature.

Anyway, Eric Cantor is a cool GOP guy. And Paul Ryan. Rising GOP stars. I can't wait for the GOP to regain the majority! Depressing times now.

And yes, the intelligence agencies were that bad. Thank God Bush upgraded it.

[Golden Legacy]

You don't seem to understand. Raw hatred against Bush has been building for the past years, and the world responded when Obama was chosen. I wish I had been there. Haha, and don't forget, Bush was actually there in the White House, how humiliating it must have been to see his own people react like that against him.

Shame that Obama has to clean up after Bush. And please do not highlight one quote as proof on how he is going to govern. Save all your judgments until he becomes president in January, for now it is just nonsense.

And are you kidding me? I want Sarah Palin to run again in 2012!

Ahh. Good times are now. Redemption for the past 8 years. UGH. What a stain they will go down in history. What a mistake.

[Eugine]

So do I, but she will not. The media loves a true comeback story. They are gonna be in the tank for her like they were for Obama I bet.
Oh, and Palin denied those stuff. She misspoke while practicising for her debate and said "the country of Africa" once, so people ran with it to destroy her (Mitt Romney aides). You know, it's like an aide saying Joe Biden didn't know JOBS had four letters...

And humiliating? What do Bush care honestly? He served his two terms. Bush may have a good legacy I bet.

[Golden Legacy]

We'll see what happens. Speaking objectively, Palin's image is likely too tarnished right now, and it says a lot when even the most senior members of the Republican party turned against her.

And please, if it was a Democrat who had his own people run up to the White House and start cheering for him to leave, you would be ecstatic.

Bush's legacy is a failed one. And did you hear, Bush was thinking of "writing a book", but was told to wait a few years because of the way the country feels about him. Brilliant.


I hope Bush is forced to go to Guantanamo. I'd like to see how long he lasts there. Or Abu Ghraib. Waterboarding, electrocution, torture... not so fun when he'd be on the receiving end eh?

[Eugine]

Wow GL, you're crazy. You have no compassion.

Anyway, most of the attacks on Palin were "anonymous". Until someone goes on record, I will not believe much. Plus, most of the leaks were debunked with actual evidence, so I doubt I'll believe most. And yes, her image is tarnished badly. Hence why I believe she should not run in 2012. She will not win.

Maybe in 2016/2020 she should run.

I can't wait for the left-wing nuts like you to be dissapointed with Obama. I have a strange feeling Obama will make conservatives happy. Read my signature :P
Or, I am just hoping...

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

LOL! So 9/11 is simply not his fault then? And "keeping America safe", by invading a nation that did nothing to you and inflaming anger in every terrorist in the world and giving them a reason to further hate the USA?

I am laughing so hard right now.

And please, the conservative/GOP base have said some of the most reviled, awful things against Obama, going beyond racism. Which side was it that was calling the names, falsifying claims and using negative ads?

Those same lovely conservatives believe that all people are created equal under God, unless they happen to be rape victims, gays, immigrants, the poor, minorities. Lovely Republicans, they always put "Country First"! What an outright lie.

And once again, not a word about McCain's associations that never broke through the mainstream media.

So now you're going to blame Bush for 9/11? Don't tell me you actually believe that conspiracy bull****.

Bush tried to prevent the housing crisis from ever happening in the first place. When he tried to stop the selling of sub-prime loans, [the democrats in] congress stopped him. Bush gave lower taxes to everyone, which put a lot less stress on the people and economy. He pushed to drill for oil in Alaska (which regardless of how long it'll take to benefit from it, is something we should have done 10 years ago), but was also stopped by environmentalists (a special interest group, and also a minority) thanks in part to the democrat's help. After the twin towers were hit, he went to ground zero to boost the morale of the firefighters who were trying to save people from the rubble. Unlike Clinton, who could have captured Osama Bin Laden numerous times during his term, Bush actually put an effort towards finding and capturing Osama. Also, like Eugine said, we haven't had another serious terrorist attack since 9/11. Bush also got rid of Saddam Hussein, who was torturing and killing his people and neighbors with gasses and other biological weaponry.

Also, people need to quit whining about their privacy being invaded by the patriot act. If you've got nothing to hide, and you're not doing anything shady, then there's nothing for you to worry about. Though it does happen, the chances of an innocent civilian being put on the watch list is very slim, and even then, it's not like any of your personal conversations are going to even mean anything to the people listening in. And again, you'd only have to worry about it if you were actually doing something unlawful.

All it does is protect our national security. Though obviously, the Democrats will still insist that it's a violation of our right to privacy (the basis for which is unsound). Besides that, taking away our right to a firearm is a very real, and proven violation of our right to bear arms. Oh the irony.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

We'll see what happens. Speaking objectively, Palin's image is likely too tarnished right now, and it says a lot when even the most senior members of the Republican party turned against her.

And please, if it was a Democrat who had his own people run up to the White House and start cheering for him to leave, you would be ecstatic.

Bush's legacy is a failed one. And did you hear, Bush was thinking of "writing a book", but was told to wait a few years because of the way the country feels about him. Brilliant.
I hope Bush is forced to go to Guantanamo. I'd like to see how long he lasts there. Or Abu Ghraib. Waterboarding, electrocution, torture... not so fun when he'd be on the receiving end eh?

The people who are actually being waterboarded, electrocuted, and otherwise tortured at those prisons are infact proven terrorists. Anyone who hasn't been proven to be a terrorist, is only held there.

Wanting to see Bush tortured would make you a radical left wing extremist, by the way.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Nov 9 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

You have no compassion.

I'm getting this from someone who doesn't flinch when he sees Iraqi civilians killed and insists the US had the right to invade? This is from someone who sings "bomb bomb bomb"?

Please. I'm proud to say it. Bush has committed war crimes that are among the worst in the modern era. May he burn in hell and yes, may he die being tortured in the same prison he supports!

And:

Eugine, on Sep 11 2006, 06:52 AM, said:

Blah, let America continue to think they can win all their wars, go ahead, bomb China next! Then Brazil! Then Venezuela! N Korea! Anyone who treathens your "freedom", superiority or lacks your thinking... Think of a reason, make the American people believe them... Then bomb! Just to bring about "freedom", go ahead, waste your resources :P I just love seeing their economy strain... China, Japan (though highly unlikely) or EU will become the next hyperpower and lets do anything to stop that. So yeah, not saying that would make myself a hypocrite to myself.

P.S. I don't hate America... I just prefer other countries =)

And like I said (I think), Bush went to war to leave a legacy! Now it's destroying him and the American government, the Iraq war was a total waste IMO... Now the US Government is spending alot on maintaining the peace and you know what? They'll practically get nothing out of it, and the Iraq government will probably backstab them in the future because religion and people over there is more important than the American freedom.

Eugine, on Jun 4 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Actually, I'll like to know.
Cuz honestly, before the Bush administration (during the Clinton administration) being American was the bomb. I can speak for the Caribbean alone, but America was seen as the saviour of the world. Now it's more "America is the suxorz" lolz. I just don't see a republican repairing your image.

As Laharl once said, LOL HYPOCRISY.

Toasty, on Nov 9 2008, 09:13 PM, said:

Bush tried to prevent the housing crisis from ever happening in the first place. When he tried to stop the selling of sub-prime loans, [the democrats in] congress stopped him. Bush gave lower taxes to everyone, which put a lot less stress on the people and economy. He pushed to drill for oil in Alaska (which regardless of how long it'll take to benefit from it, is something we should have done 10 years ago), but was also stopped by environmentalists (a special interest group, and also a minority) thanks in part to the democrat's help. After the twin towers were hit, he went to ground zero to boost the morale of the firefighters who were trying to save people from the rubble. Unlike Clinton, who could have captured Osama Bin Laden numerous times during his term, Bush actually put an effort towards finding and capturing Osama. Also, like Eugine said, we haven't had another serious terrorist attack since 9/11. Bush also got rid of Saddam Hussein, who was torturing and killing his people and neighbors with gasses and other biological weaponry.

And it's Republican ideology that says that no regulation so that predatory lending can occur in the first place is viable.

All the Bush tax cuts have accomplished is raising the debt. Have you not noticed the USA now owes $11 trillion in debt, more than twice from his predecessor? The federal deficit is approaching $1 trillion. There have been 1.2 million jobs lost this year alone, 5 million in total since he came into office. And the wealthy have gotten wealthier, and the middle class and the poor have gotten poorer for the same work.

Drilling in Alaska won't accomplish much, even in the long run. EDIT: this point is moot, Obama supports (limited) off-shore drilling anyway.

How do you know Clinton wouldn't have gone after Bin Laden?

And hypothetical scenario: there is a terrorist attack within the next few months, after Obama takes office. If you blame 9/11 on Clinton, then this attack would be Bush's fault, yes?

Ahh, so you take down the dictator known as Saddam who used torture and killed people, and then the US sets up Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? A bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Quote

Also, people need to quit whining about their privacy being invaded by the patriot act. If you've got nothing to hide, and you're not doing anything shady, then there's nothing for you to worry about. Though it does happen, the chances of an innocent civilian being put on the watch list is very slim, and even then, it's not like any of your personal conversations are going to even mean anything to the people listening in. And again, you'd only have to worry about it if you were actually doing something unlawful.

All it does is protect our national security. Though obviously, the Democrats will still insist that it's a violation of our right to privacy (the basis for which is unsound). Besides that, taking away our right to a firearm is a very real, and proven violation of our right to bear arms. Oh the irony.

Once again, you cry against "BIG GOVERNMENT", and here you are allowing the government to literally keep watch over you.

And I continue to find it amusing that the average American can't have a sip of wine until 21 but fathers hand guns to their sons as a form of "family bonding time", or that you defend the right of guns so vehemently but the concept of accessible healthcare for everyone is "extreme".

Amusing.

[Eugine]

Lmao! I actually said that? *checks*
Oh my, I did!

I was mad at Toasty at that time, and um, I was angry with the Iraq war because no progress was being made. Since the surge worked, I came around to appreciating the war I guess.
Plus, I am an advocate of winning the war, not losing the war, and also I am against the arrogance Bush foreign policy once had. Like I said many times before, the US had a bad foreign policy until recently due to bad advisors.

And, I didn't see any at that time, but now I see Sarah Palin, John McCain, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and more.
Honestly, as I dived into American politics more and more this year, I became to appreciate conservative values of limited government, lower taxes, personal responsibility and peace through strength more and more.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 05:30 PM, said:

I'm getting this from someone who doesn't flinch when he sees Iraqi civilians killed and insists the US had the right to invade? This is from someone who sings "bomb bomb bomb"?

Please. I'm proud to say it. Bush has committed war crimes that are among the worst in the modern era. May he burn in hell and yes, may he die being tortured in the same prison he supports!

And:
As Laharl once said, LOL HYPOCRISY.

Alright, let's get some things straight. You're a muslim, and you have middle-eastern heritage, am I correct? You hate Bush because all you see is that what he's doing is hurting your relatives and people. Am I right?

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 05:30 PM, said:

And it's Republican ideology that says no regulation so that predatory lending can occur in the first place is viable.

All the Bush tax cuts have accomplished is raising the debt. Have you not noticed the USA now owes $11 trillion in debt, more than twice from his predecessor? The federal deficit is approaching $1 trillion. There have been 1.2 million jobs lost this year alone, 5 million in total since he came into office. And the wealthy have gotten wealthier, and the middle class and the poor have gotten poorer for the same work.

Drilling in Alaska won't accomplish much, even in the long run.

How do you know Clinton wouldn't have gone after Bin Laden?

And hypothetical scenario: there is a terrorist attack within the next few months, after Obama takes office. If you blame 9/11 on Clinton, then this attack would be Bush's fault, yes?

Ahh, so you take down the dictator known as Saddam who used torture and killed people, and then the US sets up Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? A bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Once again, you cry against "BIG GOVERNMENT", and here you are allowing the government to literally keep watch over you.

And I continue to find it amusing that the average American can't have a sip of wine until 21 but fathers hand guns to their sons as a form of "family bonding time", or that you defend the right of guns so vehemently but the concept of accessible healthcare for everyone is "extreme".

Amusing.

And predatory lending was made possible in the first place thanks to Clinton who made it possible for people to obtain sub-prime morgages.

We are in debt because of the war, and the lack of having any major export. We used to be the world's wheat supplier. Not so anymore. The tax cuts served to prevent our economy from pasing a recession and hitting a depresion. If taxes were higher than they are now, things would have gotten a lot worse. History has proven every single time that having high taxes in an economical down-turn only serves to hinder an up-turn, or make things even worse. Higher taxes makes people who have money more likely to hold on to it instead of spending it. There is a sweet spot for the tax system, and that sweet spot is lower than what most Democrats believe.

You idiot, if we had started drilling in Alaska back when Clinton was President, gas prices never would have broken $2.50 in the past year. We'd also be far less dependant on foreign oil. as we'd have the vast resources of ANWR at our desposal.

BECUASE HE HAD THE GUY IN HIS ****ING HANDS NUMEROUS TIMES DURING HIS PRESIDENCY! Every single time Clinton could have thrown Osama in prison, he let him go. I'm amazed that you wouldn't know about such obvious information about one of the Democrat's favorite Presidents.

No, because unlike Clinton, Bush actually put effort into preventing terrorism. All Clinton did was let Osama go. If a terrorist successfully attacks the US, and Obama didn't do anything to prevent it, then it's Obama's fault, since he should know very good and well that terrorists pose a serious threat to our national security. Back before 9/11, no one was really worried about a terrorist aiming for America. Bush had no reason to believe that they posed a threat, as no foreign terrorist attack had ever caused such damage.

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are in place to hold suspected terrorists. People who are terrorists, or we have very good reason to believe they are, are sent there and held/tortured/etc. Saddam tortured innocent people. They weren't terrorists, and they hadn't done anything wrong. So no, it's not hypocritical. Quit trying to compare America and Terrorism. It's apples and oranges.

Once again, you fail to see the facts that are right under your nose. The patriot act doesn't give the government control over the entire country. "Violating privacy" is nothing like telling a person they're only qualified for a kidney transplant when they have brain cancer. As far as the Patriot Act goes, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. As far as government run healthcare goes, if you're healthy, you have nothing to worry about.
The former is something you have nearly absolute control over. The latter is something you only have partial control over. Do you see the difference? Or are you still going to stay ignorant? Like you said quite some time ago, the world is not just black and white.

A gun in the hands of a responsible person has little chance of causing damage. Alcohol in the hands of anyone has a decent chance of leading to a bad ending. Young people are far more likely to abuse alcohol than older people are. Besides that, you have to have a license to own and fire a gun.

I find it amusing that you honestly think that America would be safer without guns. No wait, I don't find it amusing. I find it appauling and downright terrifying.

It's extreme because a government run healthcare plan that works is a complete hypocrisy in and of itself. Take a look at Canada. Someone I know has a cousin who lives in Canada. According to him, it took his cousin six weeks just to get a cast for his arm.
Yes, government run healthcare is such a wonderful system.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Nov 9 2008, 10:12 PM, said:

Alright, let's get some things straight. You're a muslim, and you have middle-eastern heritage, am I correct? You hate Bush because all you see is that what he's doing is hurting your relatives and people. Am I right?

I have both Christian and Muslim heritage, Balkan and Middle Eastern blood. The faith I choose to practice is a mixture of both. Hurting my "relatives and people" is not why am I against the war in Iraq, and I ask you not to make assumptions about others.

Quote

And predatory lending was made possible in the first place thanks to Clinton who made it possible for people to obtain sub-prime morgages.

We're going around in circles here. You blame the people for taking them, I blame the companies for not having such practices regulated.

Quote

We are in debt because of the war, and the lack of having any major export. We used to be the world's wheat supplier. Not so anymore. The tax cuts served to prevent our economy from pasing a recession and hitting a depresion. If taxes were higher than they are now, things would have gotten a lot worse. History has proven every single time that having high taxes in an economical down-turn only serves to hinder an up-turn, or make things even worse. Higher taxes makes people who have money more likely to hold on to it instead of spending it. There is a sweet spot for the tax system, and that sweet spot is lower than what most Democrats believe.

So basically, what you're saying is Bush's tax cuts didn't prevent a recession? And the war is a major contributor to the debt, about $1.5 trillion. That doesn't explain the additional $4 trillion expansion of the debt. You are right that it is based on there being a lack of a major export - which alternative technology could be - and the fact that China practically owns America's debt.

And what I am against is the philosophy that helping the wealthy more will help the middle class and the poor in turn. Maybe it works in theory, but yes history has shown that all that serves to do is increase the wealth gap and concentrate money at the top.

Quote

You idiot, if we had started drilling in Alaska back when Clinton was President, gas prices never would have broken $2.50 in the past year. We'd also be far less dependant on foreign oil. as we'd have the vast resources of ANWR at our desposal.

You could do that too by investing all that money in alternative energy, which you can then export and create an industry out of. That helps the debt and helps everyone, and creates millions of new jobs.

Once again though, moot point, since Obama favors off-shore drilling, albeit limited.

Quote

BECUASE HE HAD THE GUY IN HIS ****ING HANDS NUMEROUS TIMES DURING HIS PRESIDENCY! Every single time Clinton could have thrown Osama in prison, he let him go. I'm amazed that you wouldn't know about such obvious information about one of the Democrat's favorite Presidents.

And likewise the extravagant oil dealings that the Bush administration had with the Saudi royal family, and protecting Bin Laden too, don't count? Ahh, but it's a conspiracy theory if it is Bush, but not so if Clinton had it.

Quote

No, because unlike Clinton, Bush actually put effort into preventing terrorism. All Clinton did was let Osama go. If a terrorist successfully attacks the US, and Obama didn't do anything to prevent it, then it's Obama's fault, since he should know very good and well that terrorists pose a serious threat to our national security. Back before 9/11, no one was really worried about a terrorist aiming for America. Bush had no reason to believe that they posed a threat, as no foreign terrorist attack had ever caused such damage.

Amusing. I'm going to assume that wasn't unintentional.

Quote

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are in place to hold suspected terrorists. People who are terrorists, or we have very good reason to believe they are, are sent there and held/tortured/etc. Saddam tortured innocent people. They weren't terrorists, and they hadn't done anything wrong. So no, it's not hypocritical. Quit trying to compare America and Terrorism. It's apples and oranges.

And once again, the USA seems to do a fine job of putting mostly civilians there, as I have shown to you countless times. I won't belabor the point of whether it is intentional or not, there is nothing to be gained from that. It just seems fairly ironic that for all the talk of trying to spread "democracy", there has to be Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib in the background as official US institutions that Dubya put into place.

Likewise, a lot of America's acts of "bombing terrorists" end up killing civilians. The article I posted earlier about the attack in Afghanistan, that had to be the third wedding bombed in Afghanistan I've read in the past months.

Either the most powerful military in the world is faulty, or this is intentional.

Quote

Once again, you fail to see the facts that are right under your nose. The patriot act doesn't give the government control over the entire country. "Violating privacy" is nothing like telling a person they're only qualified for a kidney transplant when they have brain cancer. As far as the Patriot Act goes, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about.

It has nothing to do with privacy, it's the concept behind it. When the McCain campaign was spewing out its most recent lie about Obama being a "socialist", everyone began to say that he favored government control and acts in lives. Here you are justifying, for whatever reason, the Patriot Act that gives the government the right to go through your e-mail, your website history, wiretap your phone calls, etc. It's just the concept of it that is so blatantly hypocritical.

Quote

A gun in the hands of a responsible person has little chance of causing damage. Alcohol in the hands of anyone has a decent chance of leading to a bad ending. Young people are far more likely to abuse alcohol than older people are. Besides that, you have to have a license to own and fire a gun.

I find it amusing that you honestly think that America would be safer without guns. No wait, I don't find it amusing. I find it appauling and downright terrifying.

I am sure the Europeans are laughing at this. Hell, each country in the world would be. Enlighten me, then, on why the USA has the highest rate of alcohol-related accidents in the world, not to mention the most common school shootings too. It seems to be a matter of culture.

Quote

It's extreme because a government run healthcare plan that works is a complete hypocrisy in and of itself. Take a look at Canada. Someone I know has a cousin who lives in Canada. According to him, it took his cousin six weeks just to get a cast for his arm.
Yes, government run healthcare is such a wonderful system.

No one is advocating a government run healthcare system necessarily (though, having at least some system is better than the broken one now). Obama's plan favors supporting families so that they can afford private healthcare, so it achieves the best of both aspects.

And honestly, can you please stop making out other countries like they're falling apart? There are just as many people who leave the USA to take advantage of socialized medicine in Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.. At the very least, those countries don't have 45 million people who aren't cared for.

[Toasty]

****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**** THIS ****!!!!!!

I JUST WROTE UP A WHOLE FREAKING RESPONSE TO THAT AND THE DANG THING DIDN'T POST! EFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!



.....the air compressor's done charging ,and my system is full of dust. I'll be back in a little while.

[Gio]

O lord why is this still open?!?!?!

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, do what I do, and CTRL+C long responses, or save it in document format.
And yes, I'm thinking about "relaunching" this topic. It really has been dragging on for a long time.

[Saturos S.]

Rename or relaunch, it's a good read anyway.

[Golden Legacy]

Nice to hear that people actually read our debates, heh.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 10 2008, 10:01 AM, said:

Toasty, do what I do, and CTRL+C long responses, or save it in document format.
And yes, I'm thinking about "relaunching" this topic. It really has been dragging on for a long time.

I usually do. I just didn't do it that time. *pimp smacks self*

ANYWAY, I'll get a reply up soon.

[Eugine]

http://online.wsj.co...1096215941.html
^_^ :D :lol: B) :P

This guy may actually do a good job. I have a strange feeling liberals will be dissapointed more than conservatives during an Obama's presidency.

And Michelle Obama needs a new stylist. She's first lady for crying out loud.

EDIT: And wow,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/washingt...ilitary.html?em
Great. Bush, you're doing a good job defending your country!

"By removing these constraints and actually taking the fight to al Qaeda, Bush accomplished what Clinton couldn't." - John McCormack

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

I have both Christian and Muslim heritage, Balkan and Middle Eastern blood. The faith I choose to practice is a mixture of both. Hurting my "relatives and people" is not why am I against the war in Iraq, and I ask you not to make assumptions about others.

You've made more than your fair share of assumption about my opinions in previous responses. I just wanted to clarify something.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

We're going around in circles here. You blame the people for taking them, I blame the companies for not having such practices regulated.

Those people couldn't control the banks giving out the loans. Therefore, they can only control themselves. It doesn't matter if they couldn't foresee the drop in our economy or not. Taking out a sub-prime loan is foolish no matter what the circumstances are (not including life or death situations).

Yes, we're going around in circles, and yes, the companies are at fault as well. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished. What I am saying, is that the people should've had the foresight to see that getting those loans was a mistake. They're at the very least just as much at fault.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

So basically, what you're saying is Bush's tax cuts didn't prevent a recession? And the war is a major contributor to the debt, about $1.5 trillion. That doesn't explain the additional $4 trillion expansion of the debt. You are right that it is based on there being a lack of a major export - which alternative technology could be - and the fact that China practically owns America's debt.

And what I am against is the philosophy that helping the wealthy more will help the middle class and the poor in turn. Maybe it works in theory, but yes history has shown that all that serves to do is increase the wealth gap and concentrate money at the top.

No, what I'm saying is that the Bush tax cuts prevented us from falling into a depression, which is obviously much worse. The rest of the debt is, like I said, due to our lack of a significant export.

Alternative energy cannot be a viable exporting solution for at least another decade. On top of other countries haveing the ability and resources to develop alternative energy, none of the technologies are even refined enough to be put to limited commercial use. Let alone export. Wheat has always been in high demand, and the US has always had the resources to produce more than enough of it (which can't be said for any other country besides China, and even then, we've always had the ability to produce more of it due to our climate). It's an incredibly simple and easy solution. All that needs to be done, is to quit paying the farmers to make corn for the production of ethanol, and to start supporting the planting of wheat.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

You could do that too by investing all that money in alternative energy, which you can then export and create an industry out of. That helps the debt and helps everyone, and creates millions of new jobs.

Once again though, moot point, since Obama favors off-shore drilling, albeit limited.

First off, we don't have money just lying around which we can pour into alternative energy R&D. Second off, even if we did, said energy solutions would have to be commercialized first before any exporting could be done. The R&D for most of these solutions are a good few years off at best. After that, it'll take a few more years after that to commercialize it/them, and even after all of that, there are likely already going to be other countries out there that have already developed and implimented solutions themselves. Infact, just the size of America compared to other countries like Britain, put it at a huge disadvantage when it comes to implimenting these technologies.

Basically, by the time we have a solution figured out for ourselves, other countries will likely already be exporting the surplus from theirs.

And there's just as much of a reason to drill in ANWR as there is to drill off-shore. There's no reason why we shouldn't go up there. As long as there is still oil in the ground, there will still be a demand for it.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

And likewise the extravagant oil dealings that the Bush administration had with the Saudi royal family, and protecting Bin Laden too, don't count? Ahh, but it's a conspiracy theory if it is Bush, but not so if Clinton had it.

Are you saying that it's a conspiracy that Clinton ever had Osama right in the palm of his hand?


There is absolute proof that Clinton could have had Osama numerous times. Clinton was tracking him, and they knew exactly where he was. However, Clinton never even tried to capture him.

Likewise, the Saudi Royal family happens to be the only people in the middle east who's even willing to sell us oil. In bed or not, we would have enough oil if we didn't get the rest of it from them. And give me an article that proves Bush protected Osama. Actualy, I'd like to see you match the number I provided for Clinton not taking care of Osama. Mine also happen to come from both conservative, Liberal, and un-biased news sources.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

Amusing. I'm going to assume that wasn't unintentional.

Do enlighten me with what you find so amusing. I'm going to take a quick stab at it and say that you think it's hypocrisy? Can't say I'm surprised.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

And once again, the USA seems to do a fine job of putting mostly civilians there, as I have shown to you countless times. I won't belabor the point of whether it is intentional or not, there is nothing to be gained from that. It just seems fairly ironic that for all the talk of trying to spread "democracy", there has to be Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib in the background as official US institutions that Dubya put into place.

They're considered innocent until proven guilty. The fact that they're suspected of conspiring with terrorists, or being a terrorist, though, is why they are held regardless.

Aside from the guards who disobey command and torture prisoners that they're convinced are guilty, the only prisoners being tortured are those who have been proven to be guilty. The reson for the torturing is because that's how they gather intel. If they're terrorists, or conspiring with them, then you can bet that they won't just provide the information if asked nicely. Also, in reality, people who are being tortured don't just say whatever pops in to their head just to stop the torturing as often as you might think. The intel gathered is, more often times than not, very accurate.

These people weren't just randomly pulled off of the street. They are only considered "innocent civilians" because there's not enough evidence to prove that they're guilty Only enough to suggest it.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

Likewise, a lot of America's acts of "bombing terrorists" end up killing civilians. The article I posted earlier about the attack in Afghanistan, that had to be the third wedding bombed in Afghanistan I've read in the past months.

Either the most powerful military in the world is faulty, or this is intentional.

Terrorists often hide amongst civilians. They don't care what happoens to the people they're hiding behind. They know that the United States, or any other country that's attacking them, will think twice before bombing if there are civilians in the area.

Now obviously civilians have been caught in bombings. That is in no way the intent of the US military. However, sometimes the target is just that important.

Either that, or the mobmers are innacurate. Accuracy has increased over the years, but there's still a chance that a bomb could land somewhere where the bomber(s) didn't intend it to.

And you kind of answered this with your last statement. America, like every single other coutry and person on this planet, is not perfect. They did not purpously bomb innocent civilians.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

It has nothing to do with privacy, it's the concept behind it. When the McCain campaign was spewing out its most recent lie about Obama being a "socialist", everyone began to say that he favored government control and acts in lives. Here you are justifying, for whatever reason, the Patriot Act that gives the government the right to go through your e-mail, your website history, wiretap your phone calls, etc. It's just the concept of it that is so blatantly hypocritical.

The Patriot act only allows the government to gain more intel on possible terrrorists. They have no interest in constantly logging MSN convos between teenaged girls and the like. If you're doing something suspicious, you'll probably be put on a list. If you stop doing suspicious things, you'll be taken off. otherwise, you'll be further surveyed. If and only if enough intel is gathered and the Judicial branch apporves, may any action be taken against the person being surveyed.

If you aren't doing something illegal, you have nothing to worry about. The chances of you being wrongfully accused of conspiring with terrorists due to the patriot act are very slim, and ultimately dependant on your actions.

If the government is instituting something that you have no control over (i.e. government run healthcare, income redistribution, etc.) chances are it's a socialist idea.

You can't control your health nearly as much as you can control your actions.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

I am sure the Europeans are laughing at this. Hell, each country in the world would be. Enlighten me, then, on why the USA has the highest rate of alcohol-related accidents in the world, not to mention the most common school shootings too. It seems to be a matter of culture.

Culture has a lot to do with it. Fact is, though, that if somebody is mad enough to want someone else dead, and I mean they're bent on personally ending the person's life, then chances are they'll find some way to do it. If the guy being attacked has a gun on him, he at least has a chance to defend himself.

Besides that, instuting a "no guns" policy is like inviting burgelars to go and ransack any home they please. After all, the threat of being shot and klled is removed.

The British are a good example of a fairly sucessful no guns policy. However, they have a much smaller area to cover. They don't have nearly as many wide open spaces that aren't heavily policed.

Guns don't make things safer. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens do.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

No one is advocating a government run healthcare system necessarily (though, having at least some system is better than the broken one now). Obama's plan favors supporting families so that they can afford private healthcare, so it achieves the best of both aspects.

The problem with that, is it'll cost taxpayers a whole lot of money. Seeing as his tax system doesn't stand a good chance of being sucessfull, it'll be costing the government as well, and adding to it's deficit.

Besides that, if I remember right, anyone who's considered a minor is forced under his plan. Though my parents and sister are considered adults, I happen to be 16. That doesn't really make me very happy. I wouldn't really care if it was optional (and I sure hope it is), but if it's mandatory, then it's a socialist plan.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 9 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

And honestly, can you please stop making out other countries like they're falling apart? There are just as many people who leave the USA to take advantage of socialized medicine in Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.. At the very least, those countries don't have 45 million people who aren't cared for.

Yeah, but they have doctors who are moving to the US due to a better working environment. That sure doesn't help sick people any.

Anyway, I'm not making out other countries to be falling apart. You may percieve that, but I'm not. Believing that everything would have been okay if America hadn't helped out in the World Wars is just stupid. So is believing that government run healthcare is the best solution.

Sure, the people are getting healthcare, but a lot of the time it's piss-poor. Case in point, the kid in Canada with the broken arm I mentioned. Besides all of that, 45million people constitute a relatively small portion of the American society. That's only about 1 in every 7 people (to be more precise, it's 3 in every 20).

[Split Infinity]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 11 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

Nice to hear that people actually read our debates, heh.

I'm going to be frank right now when I say that the majority of your contributions to this thread have been comedy gold for all the wrong reasons.

Keep up the drama, guys. :]

[Toasty]

Eugine, on Nov 10 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

EDIT: And wow,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/washingt...ilitary.html?em
Great. Bush, you're doing a good job defending your country!

"By removing these constraints and actually taking the fight to al Qaeda, Bush accomplished what Clinton couldn't." - John McCormack

Holy shiztits. The New York Times reported that?

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Nov 11 2008, 01:50 AM, said:

http://online.wsj.co...1096215941.html
^_^ :D :lol: B) :P

This guy may actually do a good job. I have a strange feeling liberals will be dissapointed more than conservatives during an Obama's presidency.

What utter hypocrisy. First you complain of Obama's supposed lack of bipartisanship, then you point out that he might leave a well-respected member of the cabinet to help with the transition (a move both ends of the political spectrum think is sheer intelligence, and one I have known about for some time), and suddenly you're thinking it sways your way?

No, Obama has already shown his humanity.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10832
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_...bama_guantanamo

Barack Obama is already planning on closing down the Guantanamo Bay torture prison. All I can say is, about time, and thank you Barack! Glad to see some people still have a core decency in them.

Toasty, on Nov 11 2008, 01:55 AM, said:

Those people couldn't control the banks giving out the loans. Therefore, they can only control themselves. It doesn't matter if they couldn't foresee the drop in our economy or not. Taking out a sub-prime loan is foolish no matter what the circumstances are (not including life or death situations).

Yes, we're going around in circles, and yes, the companies are at fault as well. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished. What I am saying, is that the people should've had the foresight to see that getting those loans was a mistake. They're at the very least just as much at fault.

I'm not denying the right to personal responsibility. What I am saying is, the legal process is far more involved than you like to believe. When you have a family to take care of that you need to have a home for, and you're strained, it's going to be inevitable that you might be swayed towards taking a loan (which usually have terms that you can satisfy in the near term, for at least a few years). Most families cannot afford attorneys that can find the most subtle loopholes and traps. Really, try putting a humane face to all this. If given a choice between a family and a corporation, I would put the former first.

Quote

Alternative energy cannot be a viable exporting solution for at least another decade. On top of other countries haveing the ability and resources to develop alternative energy, none of the technologies are even refined enough to be put to limited commercial use. Let alone export. Wheat has always been in high demand, and the US has always had the resources to produce more than enough of it (which can't be said for any other country besides China, and even then, we've always had the ability to produce more of it due to our climate). It's an incredibly simple and easy solution. All that needs to be done, is to quit paying the farmers to make corn for the production of ethanol, and to start supporting the planting of wheat.

First off, we don't have money just lying around which we can pour into alternative energy R&D. Second off, even if we did, said energy solutions would have to be commercialized first before any exporting could be done. The R&D for most of these solutions are a good few years off at best. After that, it'll take a few more years after that to commercialize it/them, and even after all of that, there are likely already going to be other countries out there that have already developed and implimented solutions themselves. Infact, just the size of America compared to other countries like Britain, put it at a huge disadvantage when it comes to implimenting these technologies.

Basically, by the time we have a solution figured out for ourselves, other countries will likely already be exporting the surplus from theirs.

And there's just as much of a reason to drill in ANWR as there is to drill off-shore. There's no reason why we shouldn't go up there. As long as there is still oil in the ground, there will still be a demand for it.

So what you're saying is, the ability to refine and invest in commercialized alternative technology is a few years off, and this is the same amount of time it would take for oil to reach the fields to the pump. And even then, at best, the price of oil would go down slightly. You don't tackle the problem of energy independence with the issue of supply - you treat it by finding ways to lower consumption, i.e. demand. That means you have to strike at the core of the problem, which is that the USA consumes 25% of the world's oil, when it only has 3% of the oil reserves.

The gains to be had from drilling are simply not enough to achieve true energy independence on any level. Alternative energy has the potential to be what the steam engine was for the industrial revolution. It's a few years off, which is worth the research and investment for a long-term solution, as opposed to a finite oil supply.

And on the contrary, just because of the USA's massive size and land means alternative energy is quite viable. Lots of space for wind turbines and solar panels, hydroelectric dams, geothermal energy, etc. It's actually the geography of the USA and its diversity that would make it more viable here than in many parts of the world.

Quote

Are you saying that it's a conspiracy that Clinton ever had Osama right in the palm of his hand?
There is absolute proof that Clinton could have had Osama numerous times. Clinton was tracking him, and they knew exactly where he was. However, Clinton never even tried to capture him.

Likewise, the Saudi Royal family happens to be the only people in the middle east who's even willing to sell us oil. In bed or not, we would have enough oil if we didn't get the rest of it from them. And give me an article that proves Bush protected Osama.

Certainly, I think this should do it.
Better yet, I'll give you this nicely summarized history of the US helping out many of the same terrorists, including Bin Laden, that it now seeks to defeat.

And of course, let us not forget, Saddam was allowed to develop and use the same chemical and WMD warfare that the USA sought to "eliminate", by none other than America itself.

Quote

They're considered innocent until proven guilty. The fact that they're suspected of conspiring with terrorists, or being a terrorist, though, is why they are held regardless.

Aside from the guards who disobey command and torture prisoners that they're convinced are guilty, the only prisoners being tortured are those who have been proven to be guilty. The reson for the torturing is because that's how they gather intel. If they're terrorists, or conspiring with them, then you can bet that they won't just provide the information if asked nicely. Also, in reality, people who are being tortured don't just say whatever pops in to their head just to stop the torturing as often as you might think. The intel gathered is, more often times than not, very accurate.

These people weren't just randomly pulled off of the street. They are only considered "innocent civilians" because there's not enough evidence to prove that they're guilty Only enough to suggest it.

... What defines "enough"? What defines "guilty"? These are arbitrary assessments that the US military pushes the boundaries of. When 10 year old children are thrown into Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons, you know you are committing the sickliest acts of the modern era. How you can justify these acts is beyond me. It goes beyond humanity. If any other country in the world would have such a system, you would accuse them of being bloodthirsty terrorist regimes that need to be bombed and don't you dare deny it.

Quote

Terrorists often hide amongst civilians. They don't care what happoens to the people they're hiding behind. They know that the United States, or any other country that's attacking them, will think twice before bombing if there are civilians in the area.

Now obviously civilians have been caught in bombings. That is in no way the intent of the US military. However, sometimes the target is just that important.

Either that, or the mobmers are innacurate. Accuracy has increased over the years, but there's still a chance that a bomb could land somewhere where the bomber(s) didn't intend it to.

And you kind of answered this with your last statement. America, like every single other coutry and person on this planet, is not perfect. They did not purpously bomb innocent civilians.

There comes a point when the US bombs civilians at a ratio of 20, 30:1 that I begin to question this very assessment.

Quote

The Patriot act only allows the government to gain more intel on possible terrrorists. They have no interest in constantly logging MSN convos between teenaged girls and the like. If you're doing something suspicious, you'll probably be put on a list. If you stop doing suspicious things, you'll be taken off. otherwise, you'll be further surveyed. If and only if enough intel is gathered and the Judicial branch apporves, may any action be taken against the person being surveyed.

If you aren't doing something illegal, you have nothing to worry about. The chances of you being wrongfully accused of conspiring with terrorists due to the patriot act are very slim, and ultimately dependant on your actions.

Considering Nelson Mandela is still on the US "terror watchlist", it seems to me the government does a fine job of rooting out the "suspicious".

Quote

Culture has a lot to do with it. Fact is, though, that if somebody is mad enough to want someone else dead, and I mean they're bent on personally ending the person's life, then chances are they'll find some way to do it. If the guy being attacked has a gun on him, he at least has a chance to defend himself.

... and why pray tell are you giving them that way to kill you?

Quote

Besides that, instuting a "no guns" policy is like inviting burgelars to go and ransack any home they please. After all, the threat of being shot and klled is removed.

The British are a good example of a fairly sucessful no guns policy. However, they have a much smaller area to cover. They don't have nearly as many wide open spaces that aren't heavily policed.

Guns don't make things safer. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens do.

So once again, your logic is to embolden convicts by giving them fair access to weapons, and then expect a system of "checks and balances" in the hands of so-called responsible citizens to shoot down any people who abuse the system?

Quote

Besides that, if I remember right, anyone who's considered a minor is forced under his plan. Though my parents and sister are considered adults, I happen to be 16. That doesn't really make me very happy. I wouldn't really care if it was optional (and I sure hope it is), but if it's mandatory, then it's a socialist plan.
Yeah, but they have doctors who are moving to the US due to a better working environment. That sure doesn't help sick people any.

Anyway, I'm not making out other countries to be falling apart. You may percieve that, but I'm not. Believing that everything would have been okay if America hadn't helped out in the World Wars is just stupid. So is believing that government run healthcare is the best solution.

Sure, the people are getting healthcare, but a lot of the time it's piss-poor. Case in point, the kid in Canada with the broken arm I mentioned. Besides all of that, 45million people constitute a relatively small portion of the American society. That's only about 1 in every 7 people (to be more precise, it's 3 in every 20).

Obama's plan calls for people being covered under any private insurance plan as well. In some way. That's not a government-run system, necessarily. It's also a remarkably awful thing for you to look on your society, and say that those 45 million people, including children, without healthcare are simply a negligent group.

And also, this isn't the Cold War. You don't win an argument by saying "that's socialistic", and expect that to be the end.

Toasty, on Nov 11 2008, 02:45 AM, said:

Holy shiztits. The New York Times reported that?

The New York Times happens to be the most widely respected and circulated newspaper in the US, so I don't see your point.

[Eugine]

NYT most widely respected? Most circulated? *sigh*
The WSJ and USA Today have larger circulations, and are never criticised for having a liberal bias.
Plus, NYT is doing terrible financially now. They're going bankrupt unless they do some major overhaul. You know, maybe, actually allowing conservatives to share their viewpoints there.

You know a paper has no journalistic integrity when they break stories that potentially endanger their soldiers just to score political points.

http://en.wikipedia....Nyt#Controversy
Read. It's liberal bias is insane, and only liberals will appreciate the NYT, and go so far to call it the " most widely respected and circulated newspaper". While one can disagree in ideology, you will atleast hope everyone is given equal time to explain their view points.

And, I never said Obama lacked bipartisanship. I'm sure he has republican friends. I said he had a terrible record of bipartisanship. If you can provide a link which proves otherwise, then sure.
Plus, the link to the article was actually a compliment. It's pretty obvious he recognised withdrawing troops recklessly is stupid, and this may be a blow to the anti-war crowds. They're actually protesting the audacity of Obama to even consider Gates lol. Funny.

And sure, good job for closing Guantanamo Bay. As long as he has a plan which prevents the terrorists from endangering the world again, I support the decision.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Nov 11 2008, 10:35 PM, said:

NYT most widely respected? Most circulated? *sigh*
The WSJ and USA Today have larger circulations, and are never criticised for having a liberal bias.
Plus, NYT is doing terrible financially now. They're going bankrupt unless they do some major overhaul. You know, maybe, actually allowing conservatives to share their viewpoints there.

You know a paper has no journalistic integrity when they break stories that potentially endanger their soldiers just to score political points.

http://en.wikipedia....Nyt#Controversy
Read. It's liberal bias is insane, and only liberals will appreciate the NYT, and go so far to call it the " most widely respected and circulated newspaper". While one can disagree in ideology, you will atleast hope everyone is given equal time to explain their view points.

And yet you fail to mention the controversies of the WSJ and USA Today? Every newspaper will be accused of some sort of bias. I will admit that I was wrong to suggest the NYT is the most widely distributed, though certainly still prominent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa_today#Con...rsial_incidents
http://en.wikipedia....ews_and_opinion

And further, what is wrong with revealing such awful things as the Abu Ghraib torture prison? I believe CBS revealed that first, and I am very proud of them for revealing the horrible crimes against humanity that the USA is conducting. And this is only what's been leaked. Who knows what other prisons and torture chambers the US has, what other international violations of humanity it is committing. Good job to journalists for revealing these crimes, and here's hoping they will all be revealed in time.

Quote

And, I never said Obama lacked bipartisanship. I'm sure he has republican friends. I said he had a terrible record of bipartisanship. If you can provide a link which proves otherwise, then sure.
Plus, the link to the article was actually a compliment. It's pretty obvious he recognised withdrawing troops recklessly is stupid, and this may be a blow to the anti-war crowds. They're actually protesting the audacity of Obama to even consider Gates lol. Funny.

And sure, good job for closing Guantanamo Bay. As long as he has a plan which prevents the terrorists from endangering the world again, I support the decision.

You have to stop placing everyone in a single category. There are moderate liberals just as there are moderate conservatives. Many people opposed the war but favor a gradual withdrawal of troops. Many people supported the war and are taken aback by the crimes of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The polarization is not as severe as you suggest - yes, there are people who dislike Gates from the anti-war crowd, but there are others who also believe it is the best move to transition into a new administration, as his appointment would be temporary for 6 months or so.

There were even people who were opposed to Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama. I welcomed it personally, because I see him as someone whose good name and reputation was used by the Bush administration to cover up the truth of their allegations against Iraq, and he later turned against them after seeing what became of the war. However, many people don't differentiate. Thus the difference in ideologies.

In short, to be "anti-war" can mean a number of things. You could have been against the war in Iraq from the beginning and favor a quick withdrawal (my position). You could have been against the war but think staying the course is the better option (the majority of people favor this, contrary to what Eugine may suggest). You could have been against the war but think setting an international peacekeeping force to establish a cease-fire along province lines is the way to go, etc.

And the significance of Guantanamo has to be with doing away with these horrible injustices. They should never have occurred in the first place, this and Abu Ghraib, and I am sincerely gratified towards Obama for taking the initiative even as President-Elect to close the prison.

[Eugine]

Sure. Nothing is wrong with breaking those stories. Breaking stories that the US is doing secret missions during missions though is reckless and irresponsible. They actually endanger the soldiers lives.
And, I honestly do not know how you can place "anti-war crowds" into different categories.

Anyway, I think Obama is doing a good job so far. He picked a progressive, John Podesta to head his transition team. I actually like Podesta's think tank called Center for American Progress. Few liberal agendas I like.
Anyway, keeping Gates is smart. Cudos to Obama =)

[Golden Legacy]

I just did, and being from NYC, going to school in the Boston area (very young, liberal areas) I assure you there are different "levels" of being anti-war (granted, not in even quantities). The majority of people in America are now against the war in Iraq, it's simply the execution from here on out that differs.

And yes, we can both agree that Obama's transition team is brilliant. Very efficient, many pundits are saying it could very well be the best presidential transition in the modern era.

And the Center for American Progress has got some great ideas, thanks for pointing it out.

[Eugine]

Sure, and it's the execution that matters now anyway.

And yep. I love their ideas. They are like moderates rather than liberals. They even want to keep Gates :P
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/200...ping_gates.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/200...gety_video.html
Pretty well thought out argument also.

As long as, imo, Obama carries out a similar agenda to them, I think he'll do a good job. Most likely he will. Conservatives may be in exile for a long while.
Well, as long as liberals don't go far left radical on USA.

[Toasty]

I'll be happy as long as Obama doesn't make any extreme left decisions. That's as about as good as I can hope for at the moment.

But what I hate, is that Bush had been trying for nearly his entire presidency to appoint lifetime judges. Congress kept on stopping him though, and now Obama will get that chance. More likely than not, the appointees will be far left and pro-choice.

[Golden Legacy]

You only appoint judges to the Supreme Court when they resign, have health issues, or die. That has not happened during the Bush era.

There are up to three judges expected to step down from the Supreme Court within the next few years, and all of them happen to be liberal. The Supreme Court is currently fairly even, with 4 conservative, 4 liberal, 1 moderate.

It's good that Obama will be president since he can replace the 3 liberal judges with other liberals and keep it balanced. Had McCain won - or had Bush gotten the chance - they would have replaced those judges with conservatives, up to a 7-2 advantage, and the court would be decidedly right-winged and would have banned abortion, banned gay marriage, etc.

[Caael]

I dont really have time to read through all the posts, but i'm not sure if this has been mentioned.

Obama is changing the laws that ban stem cell research. Obama's awesome; he's not a bender like Bush who would ban anything that went against his religion. Obama is christian, but he's cool with science and that.

[Eugine]

Liberals always legislate from the bench rather than uphold the constitution they swear to. So yeah, I am dissapointed a democrat will appoint new judges.

Anyway, Caael, that's not true.
President Bush did not ban stem cell research. He simply limited federal funding on embryonic stem cell research. Anyone could have researched stem cell with private dollars during his Presidency. Proponents of research argue than federal funding is necessary to produce any meaningful results since private funding is very limited.

The problem with using tax payers dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research (key word - Embryonic. Bush is open to funding every other kind) is that many Americans, are pro-life, and why should the government use their money to fund a project most Americans reject?
As this link shows, most Americans are pro-life.

Now, if you agree with taking a potential life to potentially prolong someone who has life already is justified, then well, sure.. Fund it privately I guess.

I am a proponent of embryonic stem cell research btw. I love killing defenseless life.

[Toasty]

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&vid=92...3&GT1=42003

Aparently this edition of the New York Times is what they hoped to print. Bush being endited for high treason? Yeah, The New York Times is DEFINATELY not biased.

Though to be fair, they claim it was unauthorized. Still, it'd take the co-operation of some higher-ups to get a fake paper printed, which means they're employing far left liberals in high positions of the buisness.

[Caael]

Eugine, on Nov 13 2008, 06:10 AM, said:

Liberals always legislate from the bench rather than uphold the constitution they swear to. So yeah, I am dissapointed a democrat will appoint new judges.

Anyway, Caael, that's not true.
President Bush did not ban stem cell research. He simply limited federal funding on embryonic stem cell research. Anyone could have researched stem cell with private dollars during his Presidency. Proponents of research argue than federal funding is necessary to produce any meaningful results since private funding is very limited.

The problem with using tax payers dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research (key word - Embryonic. Bush is open to funding every other kind) is that many Americans, are pro-life, and why should the government use their money to fund a project most Americans reject?
As this link shows, most Americans are pro-life.

Now, if you agree with taking a potential life to potentially prolong someone who has life already is justified, then well, sure.. Fund it privately I guess.

I am a proponent of embryonic stem cell research btw. I love killing defenseless life.

As far as I can remember from 2 years ago when we studied Stem Cells in science, you dont actually have to take it from a fetus. You could take them from the placenta and umbillical cord iirc, although I dont remember exactly.

And I dont want to start an abortion arguement here, but its not murder if they cant feel it. At the stage where stem cells can be taken, the fetus has barely developed a heart, let alone a brain or a nerve system. It's not even sentient yet, so it's not killing. And yet these stem cells could save hundreds of lives, but most Americans are too shallow minded to see this, and just see it as killing children.

[Toasty]

There's nothing wrong with being shallow minded, if you define the term as those people's opinions.

[Caael]

But it's not looking at the bigger picture, which just makes them ignorant. If "taking" one lift of a fetus can save hundreds of others, then what's to complain about? Pro-lifers just dont make sense to me.

[Toasty]

It's because they can get stem cells without killing the fetus.

Why kill the fetus when you can get the stem cells elsewhere?

[Ironsight]

Is it any more difficult to get the cells from fetuses or wherever alse they get them?

[Saturos S.]

Elsewhere? from like what?

Because you can derive stem cells from a foetus without killing it, but that isn't 100% foolproof, plus, it's pretty tricky = more money.

Plus, that breakthrough was only relevant in America. Ironically one of the leading countries in medicine.

...

As for the judge thing Eugine mentioned. I'd rather see it balanced. "Legislating from the bench" seems like a popular newsphrase used by journalists who criticise based on biased opinions. Which is to be said about most popular phrases which no one really has any idea what they concretely mean.

It's not black and white. You're not either liberal or conservative, you can align yourself with one but they still are different because they're individuals. They act as individuals.

[Ironsight]

Saturos Striker, on Nov 13 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

Elsewhere? from like what?

Caael, on Nov 12 2008, 11:41 PM, said:

You could take them from the placenta and umbillical cord iirc, although I dont remember exactly.

My question was is it any more difficult to get it from the Cord or Placenta? Also, I remember hearing something about Adult Stem Cells a few years back. I think they get them from the spine? But that doesn't sound as convenient as getting them from fetuses.

[Saturos S.]

I thought they just stole 4 stemcells from each 8 cell embryo, then let them grow back to 8, and so on till they run out of nutrients. You're just left over with a batch of stem cells.

It could have been 1 from each batch of 8 though.

[edit] wiki has a nice history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

[Toasty]

Just thought I'd point out that more Americans turned to Fox News for their election coverage than any other source. Apparently Bill O Reily was also America's favorite, and most disliked news reporter for the ordeal.

Of course, that came straight from Bill's mouth, so I'm sure you Liberals will take everything he says with a grain of salt.


Though really, I'll agree that Rush is biased, but Bill isn't nearly as biased as most Liberals like to point out. Ever since we lost CNN (we downgraded our service), I've been watching Bill. Though I won't claim he's an independant, he's a lot more neutral than most other reporters out there.

[Golden Legacy]

You are so wrong on this it is not even funny.
http://www.thrfeed.c...ion-rating.html
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_...night-coverage/

ABC: 13.1 million
CNN: 12.3 million
NBC: 12 million
FOX News: 9 million

Saturos Striker, on Nov 13 2008, 04:03 PM, said:

As for the judge thing Eugine mentioned. I'd rather see it balanced. "Legislating from the bench" seems like a popular newsphrase used by journalists who criticise based on biased opinions. Which is to be said about most popular phrases which no one really has any idea what they concretely mean.

It's not black and white. You're not either liberal or conservative, you can align yourself with one but they still are different because they're individuals. They act as individuals.

Very true, the Supreme Court justices are fluid on many issues. While it is fairly balanced in numbers, it does lean slightly conservative as it is (the ban on partial birth abortion, support for the death penalty and guns is indicative of this).

[Toasty]

Meh. Still, he's more neutral than you give him credit for. You claim that he's biased, yet how often do you actually listen to a truly conservative viewpoint, let alone an independant one?

[Golden Legacy]

I don't follow American media very much, as I've said. I do however read:

http://www.economist.com/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/

as my primary conservative-leaning resources (or what I perceive to be conservative, at any rate). BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/ - is my number one source of news hands-down.

Though, I'll give credit to O'Reilly for being better than some of the other right-winged wackos like Limbaugh or Hannity (*shudder*). Actually, if I had to pick one conservative newscaster I prefer, it would likely be Huckabee, just because he actually has a sense of humor and doesn't do the whole O'Reilly-Hannity-Rush thing of yelling at your guests and thinking that makes you sound intelligent.

[Toasty]

They don't need to yell to sound intelligent. They yell to get their point across. It's called not being politically correct.

Rush is biased. I'm not denying it. But he is no way a racist. I challenge you to prove otherwise, by citing his exact words from his own website. Not by citing how the liberal media interprets them.

Also, you consider most conservative ideas ludicrous, am I right?

As for a conservative source, listen to Rush more often. You don't have to like him, but you should listen. And listen to him as if you've never even heard his name before, so you can make your own honest opinion about him. Because most people who claim he's crazy, have either never listened to him before (aside from snippets provided by the liberal media), or have only listened to him a handful of times.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Nov 13 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

They don't need to yell to sound intelligent. They yell to get their point across. It's called not being politically correct.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Ctlmholr45c

Quote

Rush is biased. I'm not denying it. But he is no way a racist. I challenge you to prove otherwise, by citing his exact words from his own website. Not by citing how the liberal media interprets them.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5107.guest.html

"Powell Endorsement of Obama Has Everything to do with Race, Elitism"

Quote

Also, you consider most conservative ideas ludicrous, am I right?

Considering actual conservative philosophy dictates a non-interventionist foreign policy, removing bases and soldiers around the world, etc. this is not true. I disagree strongly with social conservatism especially when subjected to the entire population, and that has to do with disagreeing with the people.

I don't care in the end if someone is pro-life or anti-gay. If that's what they believe, then more power to them. It's when they would impose their beliefs into law as the only "right morals" that I get angry with.

Quote

As for a conservative source, listen to Rush more often. You don't have to like him, but you should listen. And listen to him as if you've never even heard his name before, so you can make your own honest opinion about him. Because most people who claim he's crazy, have either never listened to him before (aside from snippets provided by the liberal media), or have only listened to him a handful of times.

I just mentioned to you the article, in his own words, when he said the only reason Colin Powell endorsed Obama was because he was black. Remarkable, that alone is enough to discredit him, but I absolutely refuse to listen to Limbaugh after he once said (and I quote):

(describing the torture and rape of innocent detainees at Abu Ghraib by US soldiers)

Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?

http://mediamatters....ms/200405050003
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/magazine...artner=USERLAND

[Eugine]

I do not like Rush, but I think Sean Hannity is alright. He's a passionate conservative... That's all. Plus, his views are equated with a liberal on his show, so why get upset?
I think he contributed to Obama's win though, since I believe he alienated moderates in the end who were concerned with issues that actually mattered by constantly shouting "Wright! Ayers! Socialist! Baby killer!". Same for Rush. I think they do more harm than good, since they give read meat to conservatives but do not attract moderates.

Same can be said for Sarah Palin. She's popular with conservatives, but nowhere else. If she wants to run for President in 2012 she needs to broaden her appeal (and she will, but she will lose, and badly. She is not ready. She is too overly ambitious, which is not a good sign to showcase). Unfortunately, Sarah Palin was actually a moderate in Alaska. The McCain campaigned mishandled her badly and damaged her national level appeal.
She needs answer questions more specifically and sound more intelligent, and stop using the word "reform" in EVERY sentence. It's annoying. And that's coming from a Palin lover...

And Fox was number one for the election coverage overall. CNN bested Fox only on election night. And when I say Fox was number one, I mean, they beated everyone. Including non-news sources. Remarkable.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Nov 13 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

I do not like Rush, but I think Sean Hannity is alright. He's a passionate conservative... That's all. Plus, his views are equated with a liberal on his show, so why get upset?

Are you kidding me? Colmes? The one who just sits there smiling sweetly as Hannity yells and rages and foams at the mouth? It's a joke. Anyone who has an ounce of outer thinking can see how blatantly lopsided the show's format is.

Quote

She needs answer questions more specifically and sound more intelligent, and stop using the word "reform" in EVERY sentence. It's annoying. And that's coming from a Palin lover..

Don't forget "maverick" and "Reagan".

Quote

And Fox was number one for the election coverage overall. CNN bested Fox only on election night. And when I say Fox was number one, I mean, they beated everyone. Including non-news sources. Remarkable.

So on the most important night of them all - the actual election - it simply doesn't count? At any rate, I find it amusing that people still don't see how poor the journalistic standards are for US media. For any network. It's rather depressing.

[Eugine]

GL, it seems loopsided because conservative ideas are actually better and more presentable =/
I don't like Alan anyway. They need to replace him. They need to get a more hardcore lefty.

And um, her answer for EVERYTHING was "putting government back on the side of the people". Annoying!!! She needs to do some serious reading.
She has the Charisma. Now she needs the knowledge.
She is very good with topics she dealth with before though.

And yeah, it matters. I was just clarifying something :P

[Golden Legacy]

It's been shown that intellect and higher thinking has a liberal bias. Which is why college graduates and technology-oriented professionals tend to be liberal, as do urbanites, which are slowly starting to dominate.

The nation is becoming more diverse, more progressive, and yes liberal. Appealing to rural whites with issues of abortion and guns is a message that, thankfully, is starting to fade. It simply won't work anymore to say "NO ABORTION NO GAYS YES GUNS" and expect to win an election, as the McCain/Palin folks and the Republicans learned very well.

Night.

[Toasty]

That's because a lot of colleges (including the better ones, like Harvord, for example) have a lot of liberal professors. That, and many "higher thinkers" believe that it's actually possible for life to be fair and perfect.

All that said, I think you already know what my IQ is. Yet I'm still a constitutionalist conservative.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 14 2008, 12:05 AM, said:

It's been shown that intellect and higher thinking has a liberal bias.

Right... Got proof? I'm sure you will not find any, because it's not true. Common myth. I do admit 'college graduates and technology-oriented professionals' are more socially liberal though. They are more libertarians

And what does that have to do with how government is run or anything?

And those arguments are still powerful. Conservative initiatives were passed in nearly all US states. Of course the economy trumped everything this year.
You know they are powerful when the most liberal state banned gay marriage.

[Toasty]

The northern states, which tend to have higher average IQ's per person, also usually vote Liberal. That's what I believe he's basing this off of.

Though also, northern states tend to be richer (with a few exceptions) and have larger cities. Larger cities tend to lean more to the left. Also, richer cities means better education plans in most cases.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 13 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

It's been shown that intellect and higher thinking has a liberal bias.

How shallow.

[Eugine]

Anyway, I don't even believe in the statistics with IQ. I did research once, and the surveys are all over the place.
eg, http://www.top50stat...e-iq-score.html
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

I do give that most of America's best universities are located in the NE section though.

[Toasty]

Some of those were pretty close. Washington scored virtually the same in both.

You also have to keep in mind that they're 2 years apart from eachother. Basically, the average IQ will vary year to year. Enough to make any statement about IQ vs political opinion valid for only that year, possibly even month.

[Eugine]

Got a few discrepancies. I just do not believe you can say liberals are smarter than conservatives though, despite GL's obvious attempt.

[Saturos S.]

It was proven somewhere else in this topic. Can't be bothered to look, but there was a chart with the state's average IQ and who they voted for in the 2004 election. The states with the highest IQ average all voted liberal, the lowest voted conservative.

It's kind of true here in the Netherlands as well, smart people voting liberal. But that's because the 'not per se dumber' working class all votes for a more socialistic oriented party.

[Eugine]

You know, for being a liberal, you just don't read well. Aren't you guys suppose to be smarter?
I just posted the link that GL posted once, which was a sham =/

[Toasty]

Saturos Striker, on Nov 13 2008, 10:06 PM, said:

It was proven somewhere else in this topic. Can't be bothered to look, but there was a chart with the state's average IQ and who they voted for in the 2004 election. The states with the highest IQ average all voted liberal, the lowest voted conservative.

It's kind of true here in the Netherlands as well, smart people voting liberal. But that's because the 'not per se dumber' working class all votes for a more socialistic oriented party.

The proof was in one of the links Eugine provided. It was the list from 2004 about which states voted for Bush/Kerry, and what their average IQ's were at the time.

The point is, those numbers change year to year. Sometimes by a lot, sometimes barely at all. Depends on immigration, people moving from state to state, who's counted in the IQ score, etc.

That said, generally speaking, northern states tend to be richer and smarter. And also more liberal. The first two are loosely related, while the third is only loosely related to the fact that most richer cities are more inclined to liberal ideals.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Nov 14 2008, 12:23 AM, said:

And those arguments are still powerful. Conservative initiatives were passed in nearly all US states. Of course the economy trumped everything this year.
You know they are powerful when the most liberal state banned gay marriage.

Conservative arguments passed in the US because the country is right-leaning. That is not a definitive answer nor a justification. That doesn't make "conservative ideas" better, it makes them more appealing to the American public. And that's not saying much.

Eugine, on Nov 14 2008, 01:56 AM, said:

Got a few discrepancies. I just do not believe you can say liberals are smarter than conservatives though, despite GL's obvious attempt.

In case you missed it, my comment was a direct response to you saying that conservative ideas were more "accessible" and appealing, when it comes from a show that is blatantly lopsided.

Toasty, on Nov 14 2008, 12:40 AM, said:

The northern states, which tend to have higher average IQ's per person, also usually vote Liberal. That's what I believe he's basing this off of.

Though also, northern states tend to be richer (with a few exceptions) and have larger cities. Larger cities tend to lean more to the left. Also, richer cities means better education plans in most cases.

If nothing else, that is what I was mainly referring to.

Miley Cyrus, on Nov 14 2008, 12:44 AM, said:

How shallow.

And it isn't shallow for the average conservative to go around complaining about the rights of fetuses, but then argue for a war that's cost 200,000+ innocent lives? It isn't shallow for conservatives to want to inject their standards of morals onto the rest of the population? It isn't shallow for conservatives to complain that giving the poor and the middle class a chance to succeed is a "handout" and is "unfair", but then giving disproportionate amount of help to the already wealthy is genuine "fairness"?

Toasty, on Nov 14 2008, 04:44 AM, said:

The proof was in one of the links Eugine provided. It was the list from 2004 about which states voted for Bush/Kerry, and what their average IQ's were at the time.

The point is, those numbers change year to year. Sometimes by a lot, sometimes barely at all. Depends on immigration, people moving from state to state, who's counted in the IQ score, etc.

That said, generally speaking, northern states tend to be richer and smarter. And also more liberal. The first two are loosely related, while the third is only loosely related to the fact that most richer cities are more inclined to liberal ideals.

As I said, I was pointing out that liberal states tend to be well-developed, have a stronger infrastructure in place, higher education standards, etc. Those liberal states also happen to have lower rates of divorce and lower rates of teenage pregnancy, which the so-called "social conservative and morally responsible" states don't have.

Consider also:

http://www.cnn.com/E...ounty/#OHP00map

Ohio, the battleground of battleground states. The areas that voted Obama and go liberal (blue) are the major urban and city population centers - Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus - whereas the areas that voted McCain are rural and conservative (red) and less populated.

[Eugine]

(Fox haters are people who do not even watch Fox btw. It's a great channel which gives both sides equal time to bring across their agendas)

Listen GL, I have no problem with your beliefs, and obvious disagreements with conservatives.
I have a problem with your tone, and your obvious elitist attitude towards conservatives. I honestly believe you think, well, in your mind, you know that you are better than them. That's my problem.
While I am socially liberal, and apparently you are now... full blown probably, your attitude that "rednecks" are the scumbs of America is distasteful. And you have now become what you are trying to destroy... Someone intollerant of what you disagree with.

And you know something, you twist your arguments to bring out your stereotypes of conservatives. Examples:

Conservative arguments passed in the US because the country is right-leaning. That is not a definitive answer nor a justification. That doesn't make "conservative ideas" better, it makes them more appealing to the American public. And that's not saying much.
Listen, the same people who voted for Obama passed conservative agendas.
Obama won California and Florida. The ban on liberal agendas were passed by larger margins in states McCain won. So yeah, are Obama supporters the intollerant ones? I guess that's saying much.

It isn't shallow for conservatives to complain that giving the poor and the middle class a chance to succeed is a "handout" and is "unfair", but then giving disproportionate amount of help to the already wealthy is genuine "fairness"?
Ugh. The GOP has 3 branches imo -
Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and pro-military conservatives.

So to single out one part isn't right imo. And um, make up your mind. Are conservatives rich and successful or poor and illiterate?

If I was someone who stereotyped like you everytime, I will say the Democratic Party consists of:
Uneducated blacks, illegal Hispanics, terrorist Arabs and the lowclass working whites. Very offensive right? Yep. It's still less offensive than "It's been shown that intellect and higher thinking has a liberal bias." anyway!
I'm honestly still shocked you said that...

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 14 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

(Fox haters are people who do not even watch Fox btw. It's a great channel which gives both sides equal time to bring across their agendas)

Fox entertainment is awesome. I'll give you that, not sure about the rest since we don't get it in Europe.

Eugine, on Nov 14 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

Listen GL, I have no problem with your beliefs, and obvious disagreements with conservatives.
I have a problem with your tone, and your obvious elitist attitude towards conservatives. I honestly believe you think, well, in your mind, you know that you are better than them. That's my problem.
While I am socially liberal, and apparently you are now... full blown probably, your attitude that "rednecks" are the scumbs of America is distasteful. And you have now become what you are trying to destroy... Someone intollerant of what you disagree with.

Rednecks are the scumbs of America. If they're anything like as shortsighted as the rednecks who showed up in the Top Gear Alabama crossing. No offense to any rednecks, but to me it seems they just don't think for themselves. They just agree and take any opinion people around them have.

Eugine, on Nov 14 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

And you know something, you twist your arguments to bring out your stereotypes of conservatives. Examples:

Conservative arguments passed in the US because the country is right-leaning. That is not a definitive answer nor a justification. That doesn't make "conservative ideas" better, it makes them more appealing to the American public. And that's not saying much.
Listen, the same people who voted for Obama passed conservative agendas.
Obama won California and Florida. The ban on liberal agendas were passed by larger margins in states McCain won. So yeah, are Obama supporters the intollerant ones? I guess that's saying much.

Didn't Obama just win the election? Because to me that seemed like a shift in support. In which ideas appealed to who. Change being the keyword here. Though I might have missed the point of which one was the example here.

Eugine, on Nov 14 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

It isn't shallow for conservatives to complain that giving the poor and the middle class a chance to succeed is a "handout" and is "unfair", but then giving disproportionate amount of help to the already wealthy is genuine "fairness"?
Ugh. The GOP has 3 branches imo -
Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and pro-military conservatives.

So to single out one part isn't right imo. And um, make up your mind. Are conservatives rich and successful or poor and illiterate?

If I was someone who stereotyped like you everytime, I will say the Democratic Party consists of:
Uneducated blacks, illegal Hispanics, terrorist Arabs and the lowclass working whites. Very offensive right? Yep. It's still less offensive than "It's been shown that intellect and higher thinking has a liberal bias." anyway!
I'm honestly still shocked you said that...

Yet you said that each and every liberal judge was the same. They all "legislated from the bench." I don't see how you're any better than GL on this. You'd rather see people upholding that constitution than people judging the trial on it's own. That's what I like about Britain, they don't have a written constitution because some things are so logic that they don't need saying.

[David]

Eugine, on Nov 14 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

(Fox haters are people who do not even watch Fox btw. It's a great channel which gives both sides equal time to bring across their agendas)

Listen GL, I have no problem with your beliefs, and obvious disagreements with conservatives.
I have a problem with your tone, and your obvious elitist attitude towards conservatives. I honestly believe you think, well, in your mind, you know that you are better than them. That's my problem.
While I am socially liberal, and apparently you are now... full blown probably, your attitude that "rednecks" are the scumbs of America is distasteful. And you have now become what you are trying to destroy... Someone intollerant of what you disagree with.

I have to somewhat agree with that. GL, I have to say that on the issues discussed in this thread, I mostly agree with you, but it is also true that your tone has been rather condescending... perhaps you could simply word your posts a bit differently, so that they send the same message without seeming so high-and-mighty.

Now, Eugine, I certainly agree with you that not all Conservative-minded people are stupid. And he very idea that Liberals are more intelligent strikes me as a bit off, despite my being of the Liberal persuasion. I've known plenty of people who blindly follow Obama for no reason other than that's what their friends and family are doing; after the events during Bush's term, it has become "cool" in our society to be a Liberal. I have also known plenty of people who support the Republican candidates for the same reasons. I have also run into people who vote for the candidates for the wrong reasons, namely Obama's race (whether it causes them to vote for or against him) without even examining the issues. While I agree that it is fantastic that an African-American was elected president, something that should have happened a long time ago, I am somewhat saddened by the fact that a lot of people voted for him merely because (or in spite of) his race, without even finding out his principles, values, and plans. The way I see it, I don't care how you vote or think, as long as you do it intelligently.

[Golden Legacy]

First things first, I won't try to defend myself. I have gotten a disdainful attitude towards conservatives in recent weeks, which is likely because I moved to one of the most conservative, middle-of-nowhere locations in the US, and it's almost stifling me and driving me insane. It's eye-opening to see the so-called "real America" that make up the majority of the population. I suppose I channel that frustration here, which if I do unintentionally with my wording, I apologize.

My comment on "higher thinking" is based on this study I read.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci...=la-home-center
which should have been more aptly said as more "active and progressive" thinking.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

Eugine, on Nov 14 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

(Fox haters are people who do not even watch Fox btw. It's a great channel which gives both sides equal time to bring across their agendas)

I do watch FOX News, when I want to be amused. There's also the whole thing about FOX News practically launching the Iraq War with it's pro-Bush propaganda.

Quote

Conservative arguments passed in the US because the country is right-leaning. That is not a definitive answer nor a justification. That doesn't make "conservative ideas" better, it makes them more appealing to the American public. And that's not saying much.
Listen, the same people who voted for Obama passed conservative agendas.
Obama won California and Florida. The ban on liberal agendas were passed by larger margins in states McCain won. So yeah, are Obama supporters the intollerant ones? I guess that's saying much.

Political ideas transcend party identification. There are Republicans that voted Obama and Democrats that voted McCain. In particular, Obama won the moderate voters by a 2-1 margin, most of the ban on gay marriage votes came from them. You don't vote "one way" or "one party", which would be silly. A surprising number of former Bush supporters in 2000 and 2004 cast their vote for Obama because they dislike what's happened with the GOP. However, when it came to gay marriage, they still harbored their original feelings.

Quote

It isn't shallow for conservatives to complain that giving the poor and the middle class a chance to succeed is a "handout" and is "unfair", but then giving disproportionate amount of help to the already wealthy is genuine "fairness"?
Ugh. The GOP has 3 branches imo -
Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and pro-military conservatives.

So to single out one part isn't right imo. And um, make up your mind. Are conservatives rich and successful or poor and illiterate?

This, I will admit, was wrong of me. I should have said "Republican" (which is similar to you not willing to believe that liberals could be "anti-war" on different levels).

And on the issue of "conservatives", there is a common trend in the way the Republican party has appealed to its people, a technique perfected by Rove tactics. For the rich, it's easy, as taxation policies generally favor them overwhelmingly over the middle class and poor. For rural voters and voters who tend to be more uneducated, appeal to them with divisive social issues like gay marriage and abortion and religion. For the general population, label the Democrat with false accusations (Gore was "too educated", Kerry was "weak" and a "flip flopper", Obama was a "socialist" and "supported teaching kids sex") and have them stick.

That's a broad generalization but a concise analysis of how elections in the US have been like. Fortunately, when people actually needed solutions, they weren't fooled by tactics designed to appeal to their fears or cast doubt on their opponent.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 14 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

I do watch FOX News, when I want to be amused. There's also the whole thing about FOX News practically launching the Iraq War with it's pro-Bush propaganda.

You know, this is going over the top. I read liberal blogs everyday who complain that Fox News is pro-Bush "propaganda". Uh, what channel wasn't sold on the Iraq war?

Anyway, liberals complain because it is the only channel that allows conservatives to actually have an opinion on TV, so yeah, it'll seem "biased".
CNN is somewhat neutral, but they obviously live in a liberal bubble where stories which are dear to conservatives never make news.
If you can point to a day or a news show on Fox where liberals are "silenced" and not allowed to spread their propaganda... Then link.
The only Fox News show that is probably biased is Fox & Friends.

6:00 - Brit Hume. There are both liberals and conservatives on this panel.
7:00 - Shepard Smith. A liberal. He is not biased for sure.
8:00 - Bill O'reilly. Obviously a "traditionalist". He always bring people with differing opinion on his show, eg the Bill tape you linked. And yesterday while discussing prop 8, he had TWO liberals on his show to defend prop 8.
9:00 - A liberal and conservative are anchors.
10:00 - Greta is a liberal.

You guys are insane to think Fox News is "propaganda" because they are the only channel who actually gives conservatives a voice.

EDIT: But then let me note... I only started watching Fox this election, so I am not familar with past stories.

[Golden Legacy]

Oh please, the White House itself gave talking points to FOX (0:45).

If you ever have time, watch the documentary "OutFoxed". I saw it in my high school AP Government class, and it really puts a light onto FOX News. I'll link you to it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=67...foxed&hl=en

Watch at: 8:43-13, 24:50-27:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4e1FvZLBk...oreillylies.php

EDIT: and of course, "Obama's Baby Mama":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvZEZL2LmA8...feature=channel

and his "Terrorist Fist Jab":
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cQfbbSQ5FXY

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 14 2008, 07:14 AM, said:

And it isn't shallow for the average conservative to go around complaining about the rights of fetuses, but then argue for a war that's cost 200,000+ innocent lives? It isn't shallow for conservatives to want to inject their standards of morals onto the rest of the population? It isn't shallow for conservatives to complain that giving the poor and the middle class a chance to succeed is a "handout" and is "unfair", but then giving disproportionate amount of help to the already wealthy is genuine "fairness"?

Not really, seeing as those 200k+ innocent lives actually had a chance to live in the first place. And that liberals force their ideals on people just as much as conservatives. It also isn't shallow that we don't promote government handouts, because that's what they are. Handouts. The vast majority of the people who would get them honestly don't deserve them, because they ended up in the whatever situation they're in thanks to their own two hands. There are whole lot more people who had the chance to get an education and didn't, then those who didn't get the chance at all.

And cutting taxes for the wealthy may be helping them, but it's in the best interest for the middle/lower class as well. Lower taxes for them means they're more likely to spend their money. That in turn means that they're more likely to put money back into the economy.

Conservatives are no more shallow than Liberals are.

[Eugine]

Well, I cannot comment on the internals of Fox, and neither can you since you do not have access to internal memos. Fyi, Fox News has a rebuttal to "OutFoxed". And obviously we're going to believe the source which matches our belief closer, so w/e. You know, it's like watching Loose Change and not reading the rebuttals...

While I do not have time to watch OutFoxed, must I say to the stories I am familiar with -
McClellan lied, and apologized.
Obama's Baby Mama was despicable, and the producer was fired.
Terrorist Fist Jab was despicable also, and the anchor was fired.

Now, go to MSNBC where none of the propagandists are fired since they have a liberal audience.

I am though, judging Fox from what I see on TV, and I think they are really balanced. My opinion anyway.

[Golden Legacy]

I'm getting exhausted discussing this, so let's move on to something we can have a fair voice in.

Secretary of State. There's been a lot of speculation going around. Top candidates are Hillary Clinton, Richard Lugar, Bill Richardson, Chuck Hagel, John Kerry.

Who would you prefer?

[Eugine]

I would have prefered President Hillary Clinton, but ah well, Sec of State would be the next best thing for her now.

She's going to be a republican with regards to foreign policy. A Hawk. And the world loves the Clintons, so with the lovefest the world has with Obama, plus the Clintons, wow, they may well get some international support to continue to fight against terror.

But then, she will be representing Obama, and not herself. But picking her may show yet another shift in his obvious, yes, naive foreign policy.

Look lol -
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF...ail_clinton.asp

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." - Hillary Clinton on the Iraq war.

"Clinton flipped on the war, but as the nomination slipped out of her reach last spring she spoke of the threats this country faces, and of the prescriptions offered by Obama, in language that would warm the hearts of neoconservatives (if we had them). She threatened to "obliterate" Iran in response to unprovoked aggression against Israel, she spoke of unconditional meetings with the leaders of rogue states as "irresponsible and, frankly, naive," and she castigated Obama's transparent saber-rattling on Pakistan ("last summer [Obama] basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take."). On matters of diplomacy, Clinton's views are not so different from those held by John McCain and most Republicans -- and they are certainly well to the right of Obama."

She's a female John McCain with regard to foreign policy. I love her.

[Golden Legacy]

I'll pull a Toasty here and cry foul of the magazine's conservative leanings. The mention of the neoconservatives "if we had them" is evidence of this. And while Hillary certainly is more hawkish and did support the war in Iraq War, she would be an excellent ambasador and well-respected. Granted, I hope it's Richard Lugar, Bill Richardson, or Chuck Hagel. Although recent reports indicate that Obama is heading in her direction.

The good thing is, if it is Hillary, she will carry out Obama's policy, which thankfully is grounded in reality, isn't blood-loving like Bush, and is pragmatic. Thank God people like Eugine won't get their say with the new foreign policy.

[Eugine]

Oh come on, the "if we had them" was obviously a joke >.>
I found it funny.

And on the contrary, people like me may well get their say.
Sec of Defense and Sec of State seems to be going well. I'm loving this transition.
I think Obama recognised how dangerous the world really is after getting his briefings, and this is why he is shifting his foreign policy agenda to the right a bit.

Are you going DC Jan 20th GL?

[Golden Legacy]

Hmph. Fine, neo-conservatives have a sense of humor. Happy?

And again, there is nothing wrong with being pragmatic. That's what Obama is doing. He's brought Democrats and Clinton vets, moderates, and yes even Republicans. The simple fact that he is considering Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, his rival in the primaries, is indicative of his openness.

The last president to embrace rivals like this was Abraham Lincoln if my history is correct.

And Eugine, I honestly hope to, though I doubt I will. November 4th was amazing enough though, I'm more than content.


And this is what Obama said in the 60 minutes interview:

Quote

Mr. Obama: Yes. I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture. And I’m gonna make sure that we don’t torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world.

Obama said that very passionately too. Night.

[Eugine]

McCain has the same positions as Obama with regards to Guantanamo and torture anyway.
I disagree with them but w/e.

But seriously GL, the world is very dangerous. And Obama needs to show no weakness at all in these times. I just don't see how you can go sit with Iran's President now to legitimize him.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5166227.ece
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

Look at these two articles. Those countries are up to no damn good. Obama will see it even more graphic with his briefings now...

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 18 2008, 05:22 AM, said:

McCain has the same positions as Obama with regards to Guantanamo and torture anyway.
I disagree with them but w/e.

But seriously GL, the world is very dangerous. And Obama needs to show no weakness at all in these times. I just don't see how you can go sit with Iran's President now to legitimize him.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5166227.ece
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

Look at these two articles. Those countries are up to no damn good. Obama will see it even more graphic with his briefings now...

Are you really that scared of a world war. I only see it going to another cold war, less trust etc..

And frankly, I'm not that worried.

[edit]

According to Newsweek, Obama put Eric Holder on Justice.
But of course, this was all predicted in febuary 2008.

http://nl.youtube.co...h?v=ntT57iQJmbk

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Nov 18 2008, 12:22 AM, said:

McCain has the same positions as Obama with regards to Guantanamo and torture anyway.
I disagree with them but w/e.

The point I'm making is, can you imagine George Bush or a neo-conservative having the moral decency to say "We do not torture. We will end torture."? The fact that you can unflichingly support torture, disregarding that every one of the so-called prisoners is being held without charge or crime, when there are 11 year children among them, is remarkable. As I've said, if it was any other country in the world that had a Guantanamo Bay you would say they were rogue dangerous regimes that need to be bombed.

Quote

But seriously GL, the world is very dangerous. And Obama needs to show no weakness at all in these times. I just don't see how you can go sit with Iran's President now to legitimize him.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5166227.ece
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

Look at these two articles. Those countries are up to no damn good. Obama will see it even more graphic with his briefings now...

The world is just so black and white, good and evil, right and wrong in your view?

Have you considered that Russia might be willing to compromise? Have you considered that continually treating other nations like they're vicious and dangerous when the USA has gone off and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan is hypocritical?

Why is the answer always war? Why is the answer always bombing and killing? If you can avoid it, and yes embrace mulilateralism and diplomacy, why must you cave in to the neo-conservative desire for war? How would you even confront a nation like Russia? How would you challenge a nation like China?

Have you considered the notion that there might be a waiting period for Iran? Are you aware that Ahmedinijad is currently unpopular in Iran because of the stagnant economy, and that the Iranians will be voting in the summer of 2009, possibly for a moderate? Obama and his foreign policy advisers have said they could likely not sit down with Iran, until that time to see how the election results turn out. And even then, the notion that you should go around violently bombing other nations and preaching "democracy" in next-door Iraq is hypocritical.

Really, your view of the world has been molded so much by the past 8 years of rogue hawkish foreign policy. Obama will achieve what Bush could never have done, which is at least a sense of respect and morality on the world stage. Obama has said he would never take off all options, including military, but only to use it as a last resort.

That's the difference here, and it is about time that the USA has embraced that.


And lol, SS, that video was great.

[Eugine]

I do not love war, and I do not recommend wars against China and Russia, or any other country for the matter.

I do support harsh interrogation techinques when necessary, and I think it will be foolish to outlaw them. Do you know what those human rights group consider torture? Keeping terrorists in cold environments, depriving them of sleep and playing loud music in cells. "Outrageous!" they all yell. Next they will want the terrorists to sleep in nice beds.
They act like "waterboarding" was used everyday, when it was only used on about three high level Al Qaeda agents and isn't even used now. I think waterboarding is good, but must be used as last resort, and must be approved by the President or atleast the Defense Secretary. CIA opperatives said the terrorists gave information that stopped attacks on US soil after waterboarding.
And GL, most children were released and were not tortured.

Anyway, I agree with your post after your second quoting. Obama wanted to meet with Ahmedinijad before reelection though, which would have legitimized him on the world stage, and probably would have cemented his reelection.
Putting pressure on him before reelection will send a signal to Iran that the world do not approve of Ahmedinijad, and will most likely hurt him politically.

It's great to see he is taking back his heated rhetoric during his campaign.
And yes, I support bombing Iran's nuclear facilities in 2009. Let us see how the election goes first I guess...

[Golden Legacy]

With the way you go around talking about Russia and China, you are almost guaranteeing a confrontation. Medvedev himself has indicated he would like to find common ground with Obama, something that could never be done with Bush. If Russia and the USA find a compromise on the missile defense system, if they work together on a path to nuclear non-proliferation, then that is an opportunity that should be reached for.

And Eugine, there is a difference between keeping prisoners and torture. It's when 90% of the people there are innocent, not terrorists, that it becomes a violation of human rights. I don't think I need to point out that innocent =/= terrorist. It becomes even more questionable when nearly every person there is being held without a charge, without a crime to their name, being held indefinitely.

And for the record, holding children in a torture prison is disgusting on any level. There is no justification for the USA to hold children in a prison, for any reason on any level. As always, you conveniently turn your eye away from it and just believe everything the US intelligence says.

Children in prison. The USA "fighting terrorism". What a joke.


And I support Obama for having the audacity to say that he would be willing to talk to enemies, the same way that, yes, Reagan talked with Gorbachev of the former Soviet Union during the Cold War. The issue of the reelection in Iran wasn't evident then as it only became an issue recently, it's the principle of being able to face your enemies that must be taken into account.

And I will be clear that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities - which likely do not even exist to the capacity that Bush has suggested - will amount to another Iraq.

[Eugine]

Well, you put too much faith in those countries GL. You're crazy if you think Russia will give up its nuclear weapons. I think Obama should reopen negotiations with Russia with regards to the shield though. Don't think anything great will come out from the discussions though.
I just think Russia is no good. The country is struggling economically. Terribly also. And they're more concerned with their military. God.

Plus, I dunno why but it's like all of the communist countries are joining forces. China, Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia are getting really close lately. Hu was even in the damn Caribbean & Latin America discussing stuff. Scary stuff.

And well, I probably do not have a heart, cuz I'm not one bit sorry for those terrorist sympathizers. Yep, I do have a kinda evil heart but w/e. I just think terrorism needs to be eradicated, and not compromised with. I hope you know there are children in Africa and the Middle East who are bred in terrorism btw. Ten year olds and such.
But yeah, I disagree with capturing children, but don't for one minute think all of them are "innocent".

And no, bombing Iran will not be another Iraq. You said the Iranians disagree with their President right? So, I'm sure they disagree with his policies, and that includes an Iran with nuclear Iran. Iranians are smart people. I'm sure they want to share their knowledge on the world stage peacefully. Terrible government though.

And, I love Bush =)
Why is this guy so unpopular? I'm trying to find this joke he gave today but cannot.

[Golden Legacy]

The idea is about initiative. Russia has as much a chance of giving up its nuclear weapons as the USA does, why the double standard? Imagine what it would do if there was a leader who at least was willing to lay the groundwork towards a compromise for the future. There is no need even to successfully lay down arms, no one is outright expecting that. It's about the manner and the principle of it. If the USA is so intent on preventing other nations from achieving nuclear weapons, why not take the first step and present forward a plan for nuclear non-proliferation?

That way, at least, you can justify the USA's actions in not wanting certain countries to get nuclear weapons on the backdrop of the entire world disarming. It sounds like utter hypocrisy and war-mongering otherwise.

And please don't go around saying they're "obsessed with their military" when the USA accounts for more than 50% of all military spending in the world.


No one supports terrorism and no one is sympathetic to the cruel acts extremists carry out. However, you are not a supporter of human rights when 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. There is something remarkably wrong here when the USA makes this many "mistakes" in arresting the innocent and the civilians and sending them to torture prisons, and even moreso when children are captured.

Violating the Geneva Human Rights agreement. Why does the USA think it alone is allowed to do this, but then goes around demanding other nations to not commit such acts?


I am not so sure on the situation in Iran, I'll have to look into it further. But yes, they mostly disapprove of the economic crisis and rising inflation in the country, which would hurt Ahmedinijad's chances. For the record, he isn't even the main guy in charge, the Ayatollah is.

But yes, the Iranians have a rich history, I love reading about the Persian empire. They have contributed much to civilization and it is a shame that their name is dragged through the mud by bigots and corrupt leaders.

I found this website recently:
http://lifegoesonintehran.com/

These people are just trying to live their lives.


And, there is still incredibly high anti-US sentiment, not just in Iran but all over the world. I would prefer to ask why that's the case as opposed to demanding other nations agree with America's view of human rights, America's right to an illegal war but not other nation's right to self-defense, etc.

And hey, I love Bush too. Despite all I say about him, he has contributed much to comedy talk shows in America. For that and that alone, I will miss him.

[Eugine]

Fair enough. I cannot disagree with your post =)
I just do not think Russia and China are up to good.

[Golden Legacy]

Wow, so we agree? We found some common ground? Touche.

[Gio]

umm what

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=j-UD8kzTJIU

terrorist propaganda is interesting.

[TheEnglishman]

http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/02/09/24-ca...senator-mccain/
Looks like John McCain is already getting a new job.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 17 2008, 08:02 PM, said:

I'll pull a Toasty here and cry foul of the magazine's conservative leanings. The mention of the neoconservatives "if we had them" is evidence of this. And while Hillary certainly is more hawkish and did support the war in Iraq War, she would be an excellent ambasador and well-respected. Granted, I hope it's Richard Lugar, Bill Richardson, or Chuck Hagel. Although recent reports indicate that Obama is heading in her direction.

The good thing is, if it is Hillary, she will carry out Obama's policy, which thankfully is grounded in reality, isn't blood-loving like Bush, and is pragmatic. Thank God people like Eugine won't get their say with the new foreign policy.

Oh wow. I laughed at that comment.

Obama, like a lot of other Liberals, are too optimistic. Example: The moderately far left is a fan of Socialism. Socialism is, in theory, the perfect recipe for a Utopia. Only problem is, it depends far too much on the good nature of human beings. That's why socialism has never been successful in practice.

Obama has a whole lot of plans laid out for our country, and far too many of them are too far up in the clouds.


Taking away guns to reduce deaths caused by them? Wishful thinking. It makes sense on the surface, until you realise that people can always just get the guns illegally. But the law abiding citizens, the ones who would want to protect themselves, will likely choose to not break the law by obtaining a gun illegally. Thus, you are left with guns in the hands of criminals, and no way for the innocent to defend themselves. That's a recipe for increased burgelaries, armed theft/assult, etc.


The tax policy is crap too. Just comming from a logical point of view, not biased in any way, it's safer to try lower taxes first. Lower taxes promote spending by American citizens. It puts less stress on both the economy and the people as well. However, you run the ristk of not getting enough tax money for the government to waste be able to function properly. On the other hand, higher taxes discourage spending, and can hurt the economy. More stress is put on both the economy and the citizens, and if the citizens decide to cut their spending, you'll still end up with a lack of tax dollars for the government.

On one hand, you only risk hitting one problem. On the other hand, you risk hitting two. It doesn't make much sense to raise taxes on anyone unless the economy is litterally thriving.


Pretty much everything that comes out of Obama's mouth verges on the brink of naivety. Now not everything he talks about is something you can only hope for, but a lot of it is.

As for Bush having blood-lust, all I can say is that you truly have to come from the radical left to belive that.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 18 2008, 05:53 PM, said:

The idea is about initiative. Russia has as much a chance of giving up its nuclear weapons as the USA does, why the double standard? Imagine what it would do if there was a leader who at least was willing to lay the groundwork towards a compromise for the future. There is no need even to successfully lay down arms, no one is outright expecting that. It's about the manner and the principle of it. If the USA is so intent on preventing other nations from achieving nuclear weapons, why not take the first step and present forward a plan for nuclear non-proliferation?

Because it leaves us vulnerable to nuclear attack, obviously. If we don't have nukes, then countries who do won't have to worry about getting nuked themselves if they decide to attack us. There are numerous countries in the middle-east and elsewhere that want us dead, and could poccibly obtain nukes in the future.

You can always be certain that your enemy will have a weapon with which he can kill you. The only option there, is to either create a defense that effectively nullifies your enemy's weapon, or to arm yourself with something threating enough to deter your enemy from attacking you.

The latter is much easier, cheaper, and simpler to put in place. That's why we still have nukes.