[Toasty]

*lolbump*

I thought this was a good read.

Sound familiar?

My interpritation of the comparison is this: Hitler and the Germans could be compared to a gian nuclear bomb. Terrorists can be compared to a crapload of high powered explosives. Both just as powerful and deadly as the other, but one appearing as less of a threat than the other.

[Eugine]

Well, I just skimmed through the article, but I hardly get the point of that article.

[Toasty]

It was an article made during WWII. Basically what is being aid in it, is what people are saying about the war in Iraq today. Infact, the similarities are almost uncanny.

It's basically the opinion of someone who's saying that it's a pointless wat, we should give up, etc., yet we all know that the allies won against the axis. If we give the troops some real support, then we'll see that in Iraq too.

[Golden Legacy]

The Axis Powers were at their max in 1942 - after that, the war shifted in favor of the Allies.

It's been five years in Iraq, we've accomplished nothing, gotten nowhere, made the situation progressively more violent and chaotic.

[TheEnglishman]

I do agree with that point apart from two things. One, it's very easy to pick faults in hindsight. When it first began there was a lot of support, though this has clearly dwindled. Also, I see the removal of someone like Saddam Hussain as an accomplishment. I know this has led to it's own share of troubles in itself though.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Mar 27 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

The Axis Powers were at their max in 1942 - after that, the war shifted in favor of the Allies.

It's been five years in Iraq, we've accomplished nothing, gotten nowhere, made the situation progressively more violent and chaotic.

I hardly call over throwing Saddam and putting the Iraqis on a track to freedom "nothing."

All we have to do to win, is get rid of all the insurgents, and get the Iraqi government to rely on itself, not America.

And the war isn't entirely pointless either. Securing that area will be a fairly big step in stopping terrorism.

[Eugine]

The war isn't entirely pointless yeah.

I am dissapointed with the way the war was managed, and the fact that the US had no real plan on how to develop Iraq after Saddam was removed. I honestly believe the US cannot singlehandly win the war on terror, since it requires an international effort. I also believe positive change comes from within, forcing the Iraqi's to align to America, when they themselves are divided will be difficult.

If Iraq becomes the beacon of pro-American democracy for the Middle East, and defeats extremists it'll send a blast of fear to all extremists, and will be a significant blow to them all.
Unfortunately, as Toasty said, the USA is extrememly divided, and the fact that there is little support for the war at home will make winning the war dificult.

[Gio]

I completely agree. I think that we should have had a better plan on how we were going to manage the country after we removed Saddam.

[Toasty]

The only way that we'll ever get out of there, though, is if the Iraqi government gets a few things set up for themselves:

#1: A military that knows what they're doing and how to do it.
#2: A place to train soldiers for their military.
#3: A President who won't exploit his power and do things that Saddam would've done.

There's this one governor or something of a city in Russia, and he's doing a great job right now. They completely got rid of the entire police force (which was incredibly corrupted) and hired a new one. About 15% of people trusted the police before, and now more than 80% trust them. He really cleaned things up.

Iraq needs a president like that. Someone who knows whats good for the country and people, and not just the government. Someone with a good head on their shoulders.

When Iraq has that, hopefully they'll stand up on their own two feet and we can quit trying to hold them up ourselves.

The idea is to make it so they form the government themselves, and elecr officials themselves without interference from America. That way it'll look, andd be, a real sucess. The US is there right now only for military support; I.E. to help the Iraqi's train people for their military, and keep the insurgents (who're most likely comprised of Saddam's old military for the most part) at bay.

[pHantOm]

The middle east needs flattened, their entire culture and way of life is sickening. Of course, im extreme but what can I say. Without that middle east influence on the world, it would be a much better place.

No matter how you look at it, were screwed. Democrats are complaining pansy d-bags that point fingers and cry.

I love obamas ties to terror groups. EXCELLENT!

[Toasty]

Finally! Someone more hardcore conservative than I am! XD

I'm not quite that extreme. As long as they stay mostly in the middle east and don't migratorily invade other countries (i.e. a lot of middle eastern people moving into other countries so much so that they make up a very large percentage of said country's population), I'm fine.

In my opinion, Americans should stay in America, Britains should stay in Britain, Mexicans should stay in Mexico, Ukrainians (lolsp?) should stay in Ukraine, etc. I don't mind legal immigration, but the vast majority of Americans should stay white just like the fast majority of Iraqi's or Mexicans should be of Iraqi descent or Latino respectively. That's why I hate how that one American president went and flipped the immigration control thing around so we'd get more people from other nations. When you start to get a lot of people from foreign countries in yours, you start to lose what sets your country apart. You really start to lose your country. You'll likely even get people who hate your country and want to tear it down in there too.

But about your view about the Dems, Democrat's don't seem to realize one thing: Life's not fair. **** happens, so get over it. Hillary, you didn't get delegates from Florida? Well too bad! Stuff like that happens! Get over it! You're a person with a low income job who's $800,000 home loan (that you can't pay) is getting you thrown onto the streets? Well that's your fault! You should've known better!

The only exception to this, is people who had high income jobs, but got fired due to downsizing (caused by our failing economy btw), or people who just got struck with a serious medical condition out of nowhere (and no, obesity doesn't count).

The Dems are trying to make it so that every thing's "fair." But basically what Obama and Hillary are trying to do, is take money from the hard working people who actually earned their money, and give it to the bums who're too lazy to get a job.

If anyone here has ever watched The Pursuit of Happiness, well the guy Will Smith is portraying is a good example of what people should be more like. They should depend on themselves to get out of their own messes, and not someone else. Sometimes people need to hit rock bottom before they can come to their senses and realize that they made a mistake. Then they need to pull themselves out of the hole to really appreciate the gravity of the situation they were in. Once they do that, they'll likely never make that mistake again. But if we give more power to the government, like the Dems want, and let them pull us out of our messes, most of us will never learn.

Obama has a good head on his shoulders. He wouldn't abuse the power given to him as President of the United States. However, he doesn't realize what we really need right now. He'll kill this country whether he means to or not. Same goes for Hillary, with the addition that she's more likely to abuse the government's power.

[Gio]

Very very well said.

[Eugine]

Wow... Those two posts were so racists and xenophobic. So basically Jews and Arabs deserve to get wiped out?
With the thinking you guys have, nothing will get accomplished.

Fortunately, your thinking is a failing ideology =)

[Gio]

I only agreed with the second post and it is NOT racist at all. Apparently the word racism has been misconstrued by todays society. Look it up.

[Eugine]

pHantOm, on Mar 29 2008, 04:12 AM, said:

The middle east needs flattened, their entire culture and way of life is sickening. Of course, im extreme but what can I say. Without that middle east influence on the world, it would be a much better place.

Wait, so how exactly is this not racist?

Toasty, on Mar 29 2008, 04:39 AM, said:

Finally! Someone more hardcore conservative than I am! XD

And the fact that Toasty said that shows he was waiting for someone with those views...

[Gio]

.eugine, on Mar 29 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

Wait, so how exactly is this not racist?

I just said I only agree with the second post which is Toasty's post. And his post isn't racist in the least.

I don't necessarily agree with phantom's post but I am not really sure what to think about it.
and after toasty said finally he said that he wasn't as extreme

[Eugine]

Alright.

You guys just need to be more accepting. With globalisation, diversification will occur. And Toasty, America is getting more diversed as we speak, so rather than complain, try to work together. You will never accomplish anything with those thinking.
Actually indifference also works =)

[Gio]

I am fine with immigration and all. I just want it to be monitored more closely especially considering that we already have a problem with illegal immigration.

[Eugine]

Plus, globalisation is actually an American induced phenomena. Go complain to your politicians rather than blame citizens from the Middle East who are infact crying and praying the US leaves them alone.

I dunno how Toasty can say "Americans should stay in America" when they do the opposite x.x

[Gio]

I am complaining more about illegal mexican immigration but, w/e

[Someone Else]

Yay for progressive points of view!

[Toasty]

.eugine, on Mar 29 2008, 07:47 AM, said:

Wow... Those two posts were so racists and xenophobic. So basically Jews and Arabs deserve to get wiped out?
With the thinking you guys have, nothing will get accomplished.

Fortunately, your thinking is a failing ideology =)

I'm afraid I might not have been clear enough.

I'm not one to wish death upon an entire race, I merely said that if one nationality as a whole began massively invading other countries, I'd lose a lot of respect for them.

And the part about me saying he was hardcore conservative, was directed to what he called the democrats. Not what he said about the middle east.

And one more thing. I'm complaining because the country I call my home is losing what makes it so great. I'm not going to stand by and let it be invaded by non-military means, and in such a way that fighting it would make me seem like a racist hate monger.

I don't mind tourists, or even people who come here legally to stay, for that matter. But people who come here in massive waves disrupt our ways of living. If they're here legally and their votes count (heck, when it comes to dems, even illegal votes count), then when we're voting for government officials, the true American's voices aren't heard. I'm not saying all immigrants are bad, but about 99% of illegal ones are, and usually the children of legal immigrants, who don't really understand everything, grow up hating America.

When things like that happen (which they always do, without any exceptions, might I mind you), you begin to lose your country.

That's why I hate Edward Kennedy. The guy who ****ed up our immigration system.

I'm not racist, I just want people of different nationalities, for the most part, to stay in their respective countries/regions.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Mar 29 2008, 04:39 AM, said:

In my opinion, Americans should stay in America, Britains should stay in Britain, Mexicans should stay in Mexico, Ukrainians (lolsp?) should stay in Ukraine, etc.

Quote

I'm not racist, I just want people of different nationalities, for the most part, to stay in their respective countries/regions.

And yet the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan, why?
Oh that's right, because "Americans should stay in America".

It all makes sense now. Keep to ourselves, keep to ourselves, but heck, let's invade other nations too for our own selfish desires.

[Eugine]

So Toasty, are you saying people who are not native, British or African Americans (since they basically are the 'foundation' of the USA) should pack up their bags and go? Not only is this divisive, it produces hate.

Toasty, on Mar 30 2008, 12:57 AM, said:

And one more thing. I'm complaining because the country I call my home is losing what makes it so great. I'm not going to stand by and let it be invaded by non-military means, and in such a way that fighting it would make me seem like a racist hate monger.

And omg. I'm sure this is exactly how the people in the Middle East feel.

[Gio]

I sort of understand where Toasty is coming from. The way that he is saying it seems a bit extreme, but I not sure he means it to sound as extreme as you all are making it seem. Very hard to explain.

I am only really ticked off about illegal immigration. Granted there are other places with more illegal mexicans than Florida, a lot of people in the panhandle are losing there jobs because of these people, and quite honestly it is rather disturbing if you live around it. Especially if you have experienced it first hand.

[Someone Else]

Golden Legacy, on Mar 30 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

It all makes sense now. Keep to ourselves, keep to ourselves, but heck, let's invade other nations too for our own selfish desires.

But GL, what they're doing is WRONG. We need them to be more like US (United States) because it's anglo-saxonism and what not. They can stay in their own countries, but if we don't like what they're doing it's our job to go in and fix it (forcibly) because white people Americans are superior.

[Toasty]

What Saddam and his military was doing was bad. We're there now to get rid of the insurgents (made primarily of Saddam's old military force), and give the Iraqi civilians a chance at a fair government. Not a dictatorship. We're not forcing them to do anything. We're allowing them to build a new government. All we're doing over there is taking out insurgents.

And I have no problem with migration. It's mass migration that I hate. Military personell are not civilians, and thus are not migrants. Therefore, mass migration does not apply to them.

Golden Legacy, on Mar 30 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

And yet the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan, why?
Oh that's right, because "Americans should stay in America".

It all makes sense now. Keep to ourselves, keep to ourselves, but heck, let's invade other nations too for our own selfish desires.

GL, that's not what I meant and you know it. I said non-military, meaning that I'd like to see civilians staying in their respective regions. I see nothing wrong with diversification, as long as at least 80% of the population of any given nation, is made up of that nation's native nationality.

I know very good and well that Caucasians are not the real natives to America, but that happened a long time ago, when the world still hadn't been completely explored. We've discovered every part of the globe, and we don't have a lot of mass migration anymore. Plus, we have global diplomatic system now. It's illegal to enter a country without a passport, and it's illegal to live there without becoming a citizen.

Each country has it's distinctive flavor to it, and the people who live there prefer that flavor to other countries (for the most part). When that country is invaded by a mass of people migrating to it from some other place, legal or not, the country being invaded (by civilians, not military) loses it's origionality, and becomes less like itself and more like the country that the migrants are from.

Military personnel have nothing to do with it. They're not citizens of that country, and they're not staying permanently, so they're more like tourists staying for an extended period of time. Only with guns and a diplomatic purpouse.

And as far as US soldiers being in Iraq, they're there to help keep the insurgents from overwhelming the Iraqi soldiers, and keep Iraq from being plunged back into a dictatorship. What you're trying to make it look like, is that they're there to take control of the country and put it under the rule of the United States, which is very far from the truth.

I'd like to say this one more time, so as to be perfectly clear. Civilians from any given nation should stay for the most part, in there respective regions. Any member of a given country's military is not considered a civilian, so this does not apply to them.

[pHantOm]

.eugine, on Mar 29 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

Wow... Those two posts were so racists and xenophobic. So basically Jews and Arabs deserve to get wiped out?With the thinking you guys have, nothing will get accomplished.Fortunately, your thinking is a failing ideology =)

WrongMy girlfriend is Jewish, I have nothing against any religion. I do have a problem with their human rights, their economy and constant breeding of terrorists.The middle east, could be nuked for all I care. We could pave it and make it a real nice parking lot for all our tanks and airplanes.

Toasty, on Mar 29 2008, 11:57 PM, said:

I'm not one to wish death upon an entire race

I am

What does the middle east do for ANYONE that no one cant just do themselves. They make yarn, whatever you say, they contribute little to nothing to this world other than funding, raising and organizing terrorism and hatred of other religions. A nuke dropped on Iran would be an answer to my prayers.

Toasty, on Mar 29 2008, 11:57 PM, said:

And the part about me saying he was hardcore conservative, was directed to what he called the democrats. Not what he said about the middle east.

Democrats are pansys who cry, never solve the problem, and in the end manage to push the problem to the next poor sap thats president, bill clinton ->GW is a good example.

[Eugine]

You basically sound like those extremists from the Middle East (who btw, do not represent true Muslims and I admit, sucks to the extreme).

pHantOm, on Mar 31 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

I have nothing against any religion. I do have a problem with their human rights, their economy and constant breeding of terrorists.The middle east, could be nuked for all I care. We could pave it and make it a real nice parking lot for all our tanks and airplanes.

I have everything against Christianity. I have a problem with their blasphemy, their capitalism, and the constant breeding of world police who wants us to live how they live (and use and abuse us). They could be nuked for all I care. We could pave it, and make it a real nice mosque for all of us to have worship with. They are the great evil.

It sounds rather nice to you when it comes from your mouth, but as we know, this thinking produced countless amount of deaths, and of course 9/11, and is basically wrong on all levels. I have no idea why people still think so...
People like you (and Toasty) produce so much division and hate.

pHantOm, on Mar 31 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

What does the middle east do for ANYONE that no one cant just do themselves. They make yarn, whatever you say, they contribute little to nothing to this world other than funding, raising and organizing terrorism and hatred of other religions. A nuke dropped on Iran would be an answer to my prayers.

You obviously have yet to see the wonders of Dubai.

[Ironsight]

Isn't Dubia that country that's using their over-priced oil to build island-hotels for the super-rich?
(I didn't run a search, this is just of the top of my head)

[Golden Legacy]

More or less, yes. The reasoning behind it is that Dubai's oil reserves are expected to run out in a few decades. So, the leaders of the nation (all wealthy princes from the petroleum, of course) decided to have something that will allow the UAE (and specifically, the city Dubai) to thrive and last - and what better way to do that than with the tourism industry?

And so they're investing billions intro creating these AMAZING mega-projects. Some of this stuff is truly jaw-dropping (Wiki has a nice summary of all of them).

That's a worthy topic in itself though, so back to the US Elections please!

[pHantOm]

How great an Example the UAE is, *sigh*

With their BILLIONS of dollars from all the overpriced oil sent to the United States they are building hotels instead of doing something a lot more helpful to its surrounding poverty strictin coutries.

But I guess, only the US has to help people.

[Eugine]

Well, I was showing you that the Middle East isn't worthless. They're doing well of despite having so much wars.

And yeah, obviously only the US helps people. Not saying its help useless, but the way they do it basically keeps developing countries in a developing state forever. I hope you know most of the time wealth LEAVES developing countries rather than enter.
For eg, the US gives 10 billion in charity, while the developing country borrows 8 billion and has to pay interest. With interest, by time they repay the 8 billion, it becomes 15 billion x.x

And also, the US insist developing countries do not use those money to develop their manufacturing sectors and only its service sector, making them unable to feed themselves.
But don't worry, people are catching on ^____^.

[Blue]

I thought this was about the elections, not about the war. =/
So to get back on track, I'll probably be voting for John McCain. He's done a great job as one of Arizona's senators so I know about his history.

[Toasty]

.eugine, on Mar 31 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

People like you (and Toasty) produce so much division and hate.

You obviously have yet to see the wonders of Dubai.

Eugine, I'm not a racist. I odn;t think that all muslims deserve to die just because SOME of them are terrorists, and I don't believe that all muslims get all worked up and start riots over insulting cartoons. However, you have to admit, the percentage of muslims that riot is much larger than the precentage of most other religions. Or at least, their riots are covered more on the news (though that doesn't make much sense from a political point of view since the majority of the media is liberal controlled).

I'm not a racist. There's nothing wrong with wanting each and every country to be different, and with wanting to help some countries overthrow a dictator so they can build a better government.

And Eugine, most developing countries stay in the developing stages because their leaders are selfish money whores who don't give a care about their country. Not saying that all countries are like that, but most are. Because of that, it's not surprising that the US insists that the money is used in the service sector, because then it's more likely to be used to help the people, rather than help the leader.



As far as the elections go, though, I don't I really have a lot more to say.

Hillary: More likely to abuse power than Obama, Slightly less likely to kill America with her policies.

Obama: Has a good head on his shoulders. Less likely to abuse power, more likely to screw the country up with his policies.

Democratic Prez. Candidates: Sorry, but Socialism is bad. It leads to laziness and dependancy on the government. If given two jobs that pay the same, people will almost always choose the easier one. Open borders are bad and illegal immigrants are NOT good for the country. Even if you leaglise them, it still doesn't change how they came in. Pulling out of Iraq right now is like personally hanging every last soldier over there. Let's finish the fight, and then go home.

McCain: Too Liberal, but has much, much more momentum than Huckabee. He might as well be a Democrat.....

Huckabee: Much better choice than McCain, but there's a few things I disagree with him on.

Romney: Best choice out of anyone else that was/is running. Too bad he dropped out. D;

Republican Prez. Candidates: Being a Republican, I can't really see much of a problem with the candidates other than McCain. However, I don't want to be in Iraq forever. Though that doesn't mean I'd be willing to just start pulling out.

And that is what I have to say about the candidates.

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Apr 2 2008, 08:20 AM, said:

Eugine, I'm not a racist. I odn;t think that all muslims deserve to die just because SOME of them are terrorists, and I don't believe that all muslims get all worked up and start riots over insulting cartoons. However, you have to admit, the percentage of muslims that riot is much larger than the precentage of most other religions. Or at least, their riots are covered more on the news (though that doesn't make much sense from a political point of view since the majority of the media is liberal controlled).

I'm not a racist. There's nothing wrong with wanting each and every country to be different, and with wanting to help some countries overthrow a dictator so they can build a better government.

And Eugine, most developing countries stay in the developing stages because their leaders are selfish money whores who don't give a care about their country. Not saying that all countries are like that, but most are. Because of that, it's not surprising that the US insists that the money is used in the service sector, because then it's more likely to be used to help the people, rather than help the leader.

The reason those people are so extreme is that religion is their everything. Here in the west, most of the really fanatic christians have some sort of tv or computer in their house which forms a distraction. A good distraction mind you. But in the Middle East, religion is the only thing they have. I'm not sayin you should give them a tv or something, just explaining why it's logical (as far as logic goes with extremists that is :P) that there are more extremists in the Islam then in christianity.

As for Jews, they're more fanatic then christians because there are only 7 million or so against 1 billion muslims and 1 billion christians. Less people often means more fanatics left.

The thing with these religions is that they hate each other so much, and yet are so similiar. Abolishment of religion would be the best choice, give those muslims a nice distraction. But I don't think the west should keep bashing muslims so much. Fitna, was good example of that. It was not at all worth the commotion in made.


For the elections, Barack is the most ideal president in the sense of what he wants, but he won't be strong or effective enough. And that's what the US needs, a strong president.

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Apr 2 2008, 07:20 AM, said:

.And Eugine, most developing countries stay in the developing stages because their leaders are selfish money whores who don't give a care about their country. Not saying that all countries are like that, but most are. Because of that, it's not surprising that the US insists that the money is used in the service sector, because then it's more likely to be used to help the people, rather than help the leader.

dont worry! you'll have invaded the majority of them within 20 years

and you truely are the master of TL;DR

[Eugine]

Toasty, on Apr 2 2008, 02:20 AM, said:

And Eugine, most developing countries stay in the developing stages because their leaders are selfish money whores who don't give a care about their country. Not saying that all countries are like that, but most are. Because of that, it's not surprising that the US insists that the money is used in the service sector, because then it's more likely to be used to help the people, rather than help the leader.

Man, your perceptions of developing countries is so wrong. According to the IMF here are a list of developing countries -
http://en.wikipedia....oping_countries (scroll down).
How many besides most African nations are rigged with corruption? Most aren't, so corruption isn't the reason why most are stuck in a developing state. So saying 'most are' is so ridiculous, it makes me mad and sad at the same time.

And how is putting money into the manufacturing sector helping the politicians? It will allow the people to rely on themselves rather than politicians and imports. Developed countries (notably the US) insists money is placed in the service sector because it's a system which relies on outside forces, and is in constant need of repair. If developing countries no longer rely on developed countries for product it'll remove a huge market, hurting them in the long run. I'm sorry, but it's just not in your best interest to help developing countries, so saying "only the US has to help people." is saddening.

With democrats, I think they'll do more to repair this broken system, rather than use and abuse most countries. Example - http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/7327694.stm
Democrat congress ftw. You give a little love and it all comes back to you ^_~

[Toasty]

Alright, most of the more famous developing countries, such as Iran, are corrupted.

But the Democrats are still trying to spend money we don't have. Previous Democratic Presidents may have decreased our debt, but I fail to see how either Hillary or Obama can increase our spending and decrease our debt at the same time.

What we need to do first, to ensure the survival of our country so that we may provide more help to other countries, or possibly develop alternative fuels (besides ethanol), is get some money. Decreasing our debts and stabilizing the economy should be our first priorities. The economy can still be turned around. We just need to bring some money back in here to do so.

Like I've said before, becoming an exporter of oil is the best way to do that.

Once we're debt free and well into the green, then I don't care how our money is being spent as long as it's not to fund our enemies, or come back to bite us in the ass.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Apr 3 2008, 01:39 AM, said:

But the Democrats are still trying to spend money we don't have. Previous Democratic Presidents may have decreased our debt, but I fail to see how either Hillary or Obama can increase our spending and decrease our debt at the same time.

You keep talking about "spending money that we don't have".
Then where are the billions of dollars to fund the war coming from?

[pHantOm]

The tax dollars we will be paying for the rest of our lives thats where.

Whats gotta be dones gotta be done.We have to destroy North Korea as well, their a danger to the rest of the world. But their a different story entirely, their people are held captive in their own country, unlike Iran. I believe with all my heart, that even the Iranian people hate us with a passion and want us dead.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Apr 3 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

You keep talking about "spending money that we don't have".
Then where are the billions of dollars to fund the war coming from?

China. That's why they're so rich, and we're so far in the hole. We're borrowing money, GL, not using our own.

[EDIT] Yeah, tax dollars too. The more the government spends, the more we pay.
And the Dems only ever decreased our debt by sucking US citizcens dry with crazy taxes.

And Phantom, I don't think ALL Iranians hate us. Most, maybe, but not all. There's still some who like the way our country's government works, and wish they had one like that, or could live in the US.

[I'm Always BROKE]

Sure there are some Iranians who still like Americans. But surely there also are some who like bear rape.

So putted up in a nice summary: 99.9% of the Iranians hate America.

[Eugine]

And where are you getting your statistics from? Government actions doesn't necessary represent the entire population.

[Gio]

.eugine, on Apr 4 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

And where are you getting your statistics from? Government actions doesn't necessary represent the entire population.

Yup your right. This topic itself sort of demonstrates that.

[Toasty]

That's why I didn't say that all Iranians think that.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the men in Iran hated Ameirca. In their society, the men are higher up than women. In America, men and women are equal. America's way of thinking could threaten theirs.

But that's speculation.

[Golden Legacy]

To bring everyone up-to-date, BBC has an interestingly written article that summarizes the US elections thus far.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/7308654.stm


EDIT: Just had to post this about the US Election process (hilarious!)
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=BkqEdlRDKfo

[Golden Legacy]

Thought it was worth reviving this topic, as much has happened in the US Elections this past month and a half.

Barack Obama has maintained his lead in pledged delegates (1612 vs. 1443), and with just 17 more will get a majority, as will happen in the next round of primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, assuredly. He's also managed to finally overcome Hillary Clinton's once prominent lead in superdelegates (292 vs. 274) - overall, their current totals stand at 1904 vs. 1717.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

The nomination seems to be heading Obama's way, and especially with the biggest news on the scene last week (John Edwards' endorsement of Obama was huge), he is now turning his attention to facing McCain, the (presumed) nominee of the Republican Party.

[Ironsight]

He's really shot himself in the foot with this Reverend Wright thing.

[Golden Legacy]

... You're only three weeks behind. =/

[Ironsight]

...yeah...

[Toasty]

lol minibump.

I've lost most of the respect that I had for Obama. Even if he says that he doesn't think the same way as reverend Wright, and even his own wife (she's said things similar to what Wright has said, though more subtly), it doesn't mean he's not at least somewhat like them. I mean, why would he have even been around them in the first place? I can see why he'd be around his wife, but not the reverend.

"Show me your friends and I'll show you who you are." Or something like that.

Amazingly enough, I'm rooting for Hilary. Not to win the elections, but to beat Obama. Even if McCain wins, I'm still gonna be pretty worried with that'll happen to America.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on May 20 2008, 01:11 AM, said:

I've lost most of the respect that I had for Obama. Even if he says that he doesn't think the same way as reverend Wright, and even his own wife (she's said things similar to what Wright has said, though more subtly), it doesn't mean he's not at least somewhat like them. I mean, why would he have even been around them in the first place? I can see why he'd be around his wife, but not the reverend.

"Show me your friends and I'll show you who you are." Or something like that.

You have any idea how behind you are? The Reverend Wright issue is over with. Gone. Obama dealt with it, and dealt with it well. The only times it is brought up is when the media wants to show how conservatives, like you, want to try to raise some issue with Obama, trying to discredit him with anything possible.

It sounds like you are not only behind the news and behind the times, but you hardly had any respect for Obama in the first place.

[Eugine]

I agree with Toasty to an extent xP. (First of all it's so saddening to see Obama, the one black guy who had a clear chance of becoming President slowly disintegrate. It's reallly sad ;_:P

Anyway, I think the Wright issue is important, because not only does it shows Obama's judgement, which he clearly thinks is the most important quality in a President, it can show the character of Obama (though I think he doesn't hold those views). He always point towards "I never supported the war!". Well, you sat in a church of a pastor who is anti-White and anti-American. Your judgement is rather bad.
But guys, you must understand why Obama went to this church. He went because every democrat in Chicago needed to establish themselves with the liberal leaning Chicago in order to have a political future there. I think it was a calculated decision. Which makes me wonder if Obama is truely trying to reinvent politics o.o

Combined to the comment that people 'cling' to religion and guns only because of hardships is really untrue and also out of touch with religious people. I have no idea how anyone who is religious can let Obama get away with this statement since it is so, so Elitist and wrong. I'm not religious cuz I'm poor, and I'm sure Toasty and Gio will say the same o.o Plus, isn't he Christian? o.o

Oh, Michelle Obama's comment was taken out of context by the media. She meant for the first time in her adult life she was proud of the political process in America. Watch her entire speech and you'll see what she's talking about (this is much like how those democrats take McCain's 100 year in Iraq statement out of context o.o)

Anyway, it's so sad to see the democrats elect an almost fatal candidate. Hillary is a conservative democrat, so that's why she lost... The far left liberals just do not like her, and chose Obama as their favourite. They did a wonderful job at making Obama the candidate o.o because of his extrememly liberal record. I have no idea how he wants to be a uniter x.x

Obama will still win the Presidency imo, but he knows he is going in for a tough fight. I don't see great things for America if any of those two candidates win though ^^. I don't think any of those guys are ready to face the hardest times America possibly ever faced. Godspeed.

Sad Hillary is about finished and that Mitt Romney didn't win anything o.o

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on May 20 2008, 01:29 AM, said:

You have any idea how behind you are? The Reverend Wright issue is over with. Gone. Obama dealt with it, and dealt with it well. The only times it is brought up is when the media wants to show how conservatives, like you, want to try to raise some issue with Obama, trying to discredit him with anything possible.

It sounds like you are not only behind the news and behind the times, but you hardly had any respect for Obama in the first place.

I do think Obama handled the wright issue as well as he could, but when someone goes to the church and sits there and lets those things be said, and disagrees with them but continues to sit in that congregation, you really have to take that persons judgment into account.

@ Eugine
Holy crap dude it is almost like you read my mind. lol

[Ironsight]

I'm not really a big fan of any of the three. Hillary's bound to go nuts on one of those special days and push the button, and Obama's just going to run the country into the ground with his far-left ideals. I don't know alot about McCain, but I do know he (or any of them) aren't willing to take a stand on illegal immigration; which is one of the major factors killing America.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on May 19 2008, 11:29 PM, said:

You have any idea how behind you are? The Reverend Wright issue is over with. Gone. Obama dealt with it, and dealt with it well. The only times it is brought up is when the media wants to show how conservatives, like you, want to try to raise some issue with Obama, trying to discredit him with anything possible.

It sounds like you are not only behind the news and behind the times, but you hardly had any respect for Obama in the first place.

I'm sorry, but it's not. Besides, haven't Liberals been trying to discredit Republicans for decades, now? It's nothing new for either side. However, the Liberals do infac get away with it more often than Republicans. That can be viewed as biased or whatever, but there's more accounts on record of Liberals pulling strings to get their way, or achieve an unfair advantage.

One example would be the election of Gregoire as Washington's Governor. She lost the first time, and had a recount. She lost the second time, and had ANOTHER recount, after two or three recounts, she finally won. Andall of those votes that hadn't been counted before? Most of them should've been counted as invalid, and I don;t mean just becuse they were late.

Anyway, the thing is, any dirt dug up on any government official is never truely done and over with. It'll still be in people's minds, so it's ever really gone.

Write is racist, and he is/was Obama's pastor. Obama's wife agrees with Write as well. The thin is, if Obama continues to hang around people who are racist and make outrageous accusations, how can he be completely trusted?

On top of that, there wasa comment he made about "rednecks" being overly reliant on guns, among other things, while he was passing through Montana (either that, or itwas some State in the south. I can't remember). It was suppose to be off the record, but it was leaked to the press anyway. Honestly, I don't care if it was stress from the campaign or not. I want a President who's going to act the same behind the podium as he will behind the curtains, no matter how stressed he is.

To be honest, though, I don't think any of the candidates can provide that. I just hope Romney becomes vice president, and that McCain isn't able to spend a long time in the whitehouse, for whatever reason.

[Eugine]

VPs are just puppets anyway. I am just afraid the Obama most have come to love now is not the Obama we shall see in November. I think he has done a wonderful job at putting on a wonderful personality, real or fake.

Now the true vetting will begin. There's a lot of time before November. Trust me, we shall see the REAL Obama very soon (if his personality is just for show ie). I guess his speech writers are just really good.

Anyway, America needs a President who is patriotic and will do anything for America, and for America first (as long as it doesn't interfere with the sovernity of another nation unless threatned by the other nation). I see Obama removing America's sovernity to the UN, and the EU. Having to discuss with the UN or EU on domestic issues is really absurd, and Obama wants to. Will the true American please stand up? Americans don't need advise from other countries on how to run their country, it's the people of America themselves o.o

[Ironsight]

Heh, Obama's being accused of sexism. Nice.
But really, when you're playing "I got 99 problems but a b!tch 'aint one" at one of your rally's does seem suspicious.

[Eugine]

Ah well. Obama will end the Iraq War which undermines Iraq's sovernity. I just hate it when other countries decide how to develop your own country. Let the freakin people do it, gosh >_<

[Ironsight]

For once, I agree. I don't like how America has to bend it's back for all these other country's that can't get their sh!t together. I'm for the war, but not the occupation we have now.

You guys know about the defense force our DI's are training? They don't even aim when they shoot because they beleive that if Allah wills it, the bullet will hit.

[Toasty]

We won't be able to tell if he's the real Obama until he's in office. The same goes for every president ever. You see their true personality once they've been put under pressure. I think Bush handled 9/11 far better then Bill Clinton ever would. There's a few things that coulc've been done differently after 9/11 though.

[Ironsight]

I'm really disapointed with the candidates lack of a plan for immigration. I was honestly excited when that bill to make Illegal immigration a felony was going through congress. Too bd they shot it down, it would have saved alot of jobs and money.

[Gio]

I am really disappointed with the whole illegal immigration issue to. I wish that McCain would say that he would handle it, but that won't happen. I pretty much have accepted the fact that no nominee is ever going to agree with me on everything. So I chose the one who thought the most like me.

[Gio]

So Obama just won the democrat nomination. Anyone have any thoughts. All mine are negative so.....yeah. Anyone else.

[Someone Else]

FVCK YEAH!

I thought you liked Obama over Hilary though?

[Gio]

It sorta depends on the day I guess.lol
Honestly I think it will be a good thing because I don't think Hilary would be his Vice, which means the democratic party is severely divided right now because of clinton. As a person though. I can't stand him.

[Someone Else]

Good for the enemy to be divided, eh?

I'm happy. I like Obama more than McCain but I think both are alright. Better than Bush at the very least, we certainly can't do any worse.

Yayayay Obama

[Shikonaurum]

Well, odds are Clinton will push this a little longer; whether she'll go all the way up until the Democratic National Convention, who knows.

In the meantime, this election is so terribly divisive. John McCain's mere existence seems to threaten some hardcore conservatives, Obama and Clinton have split the Democratic party cleanly in two, and there seems to be a significant amount of people unhappy.

Makes you wonder if these discontented voters will switch sides, or if they just won't vote. Huh.

[Gio]

@ WD While I don't think we should be in the Iraq war, I do think Bush handled 9/11 really well, but it is time for a new president.

[Golden Legacy]

Obama won the nomination. Down with worthless @#$%ing conservatives who have ruined this country.

Contrary to Gio, all my thoughts are positive. This is a historic day for the United States regardless, and it's about time to close the door on the worst era of politics in American history.

Obama '08!

[Shikonaurum]

This era of politics started in the '80s, does one honestly think it's going to stop now? Change is good, but at the same time, political divisions have killed any bipartisanship to the point that nothing can get done. All because of Reagan's decision to shift politics more onto social issues. He was a fine president, but I personally think that getting morals into the mix of politics have made things worse ever since.

Granted, with Bush no longer in power, this chapter is done and over with! Let's celebrate, let's face it, we probably only were "grown up enough" to care about politics with Bush in power. Eight long years.

Presidential power is increasing, gaiz!

But yes, hope! That's the key. :P

[Gio]

I think that Reagan was the best president that America has ever had, but thats just my opinion.

Quote

Obama won the nomination. Down with worthless @#$%ing conservatives who have ruined this country.

That statement hurt GL. Surely you think there are some that aren't worthless. :P

[Eugine]

You know how those Hillary Clinton supporters feel now =)

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 3 2008, 09:13 PM, said:

Obama won the nomination. Down with worthless @#$%ing conservatives who have ruined this country.

:P

[Shikonaurum]

Gio, on Jun 4 2008, 12:39 AM, said:

I think that Reagan was the best president that America has ever had, but thats just my opinion.
That statement hurt GL. Surely you think there are some that aren't worthless. :P

Reagan was seriously a good president. He was charismatic and had good ideas and that stuff, and his moral platform was good at the time, but he's pretty much sealed politic to that route ever since.

Can't say I really liked his "tax cuts to the rich" with the trickle down effect and all, though.

When we look back on these days, it sounds like the only political movement that will really matter is Iraq and the War on Terror.

At least the '60s and '70s had the hippies with their Vietnam. :P

[Eugine]

Hey hey, let us talk about something current plz. I only know about this election cycle >_<
(I was only interested cuz a woman and an African American were running xP)

[Ironsight]

I wasn't paying much attention at all. All anybody seems to say anymore is "Bush sux!1!" which I find annoying.

[Eugine]

So, what is gonna happen to Hillary? I can't believe she lost. She just seemed much more informed, ready and able to solve the tough challenges America faces today compared to Obama and McCain...

[Shikonaurum]

Eugine, on Jun 4 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

Hey hey, let us talk about something current plz. I only know about this election cycle >_<
(I was only interested cuz a woman and an African American were running xP)

Isn't that why most of the world is interested in this? XD

So, I haven't really kept up with what each candidate has going for them, anyone care to elaborate? Sounds as if they haven't got much of a political plan other than Clinton's health care, maybe I'm wrong.

Also, both are willing to bomb Iran. That's all I've heard?

[Eugine]

Obama wants to raise taxes. McCain wants to keep them as it is.
Obama wants to end the war in Iraq. McCain wants to win the war in Iraq.
Obama wants government run healthcare. McCain wants private market health care.
Obama is black. McCain is white.
Obama is young. McCain is old.

That's all I can think of now.

[Shikonaurum]

Dude, I never noticed those struck-out commentaries. Why'd you strike them out, they sound important and ground breaking!

Anyway, really? Obama has a public healthcare plan? Is it anywhere as comprehensive as what Clinton was promoting?

[Eugine]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ --- healthcare
http://www.johnmccai...forming/Issues/ --- Health care

Knock yourself out. Hillary is finished, so we can ignore her now lolz.

[Shikonaurum]

Knock myself out indeed. It's 1:36 AM and I'm doing physics, I need little more inspiration.

I never quite liked reading the platforms off of the candidates' respective websites, you read those things and unless you are seriously in favor of one idea or another, you find yourself swayed by eloquence and a supposedly simple plan and then end up being confused.

I'll google it sometime, thanks though.

[Eugine]

Nice. What topic may I ask? I just did a Physics exam today xP.
If you were born one year earlier, you would have been able to vote Shiko...

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Jun 4 2008, 12:39 AM, said:

That statement hurt GL. Surely you think there are some that aren't worthless. :unsure:

Meant the people in power, sorry if I didn't clarify. I assure you I am open-minded and accept other people's inclinations and beliefs, I just think there can be no denying and no justifying the damage the Bush administration has done.

My fault, I apologize.

DarkSword, on Jun 4 2008, 12:48 AM, said:

<_<

I take it you're conservative too? Actually, forgive me, where are you from again DS?

Eugine, on Jun 4 2008, 01:06 AM, said:

So, what is gonna happen to Hillary? I can't believe she lost. She just seemed much more informed, ready and able to solve the tough challenges America faces today compared to Obama and McCain...

Perhaps she was (her "dodging sniper bullets on Bosnia trip" notwithstanding) ready to solve the tough challenges the US faces today, especially since a lot of it is recovery from the Bush era and being soundly contrary to his policies in running the country could, and surely would, have helped the US.

However, while her policies are left-minded and certainly what the USA needs right now, I've never understood where people came on the angle that Hillary was "experienced" - or perhaps, "more" experienced. She was First Lady, and while certainly an important public figure (and perhaps moreso considering the Clinton appeal during the White House), that alone hardly makes her Commander-in-Chief "material".


On a side note, I'm thinking about closing this and starting a fresh new topic covering the elections, now that we've gone into the general election mode and we know who the final candidates are. What do people think?

[Shikonaurum]

I think that typically it would be okay to close the thread, but Clinton will push the nomination ticket as far as she can get it, probably even to the Democratic National Convention. So the primaries, even if closed, still sort of go on. Sort of.

I'd probably say leave it a while longer, see how everything plays out. We know how it's going to, but if you want to argue technicalities, it isn't over for Hillary yet.

Eugine: I know, oh well, I don't feel really attached to any of the candidates this year. Voter apathy, it's a dangerous thing.

As for the Physics, it's on waves, decibels, standing waves, doppler effect, that sort of thing. Formula memorization, except it's flippin' hard to remember that the is [2ycos.5phi]. It's so arbitrary, especially since I don't have time to read the derivation / explanations. >_>

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 3 2008, 09:13 PM, said:

Obama won the nomination. Down with worthless @#$%ing conservatives who have ruined this country.

Contrary to Gio, all my thoughts are positive. This is a historic day for the United States regardless, and it's about time to close the door on the worst era of politics in American history.

Obama '08!

And hello outrageously expensive gas prices with outrageously over inflated government and taxes! <_<

Sounds good, no?

....no.

The government DOES NOT need more of our money (aka higher taxes), and no, inflating gas prices (either directly, or by not allowing us to dig fo oil ON OUR OWN LAND. Why the hell do you think we allowed Alaska to become the 49th state? BECAUSE OF IT'S OIL DEPOSITS) will not be very effective at preventing a hypothetical global warming. Many of the thermometers used for monitoring the globes temperatures, are in places where the results will be heavily skewed (I don't think they're supposed to go on blacktops, for christ's sake). The globe hasn't warmed up as much as people think, the ice caps ARE NOT melting (they're bigger than they were a few years ago, infact), and even if global warming WAS caused my the greenhouse effect, reducing the methane in the atmosphere would be MUCH more cost effective and sensible.

The way the liberals are trying to run things right now, were not going to do so well. If we don't stop giving the farmers a reason to plant corn over wheat (liberals have passed a bill the gives farmers money for growing corn to be used in the ethanol makeing process, a VERY INNEFICIENT process that's stupid and pointless), we're going to have to continue importing wheat from China. We used to be the wheat capital of the world. What the hell happened?

Alaska has a very large source of oil, and the area that would have to be "disturbed" to get it, would be about the same size as L.A.X. (I believe it's 2,000 square acres). A very small patch of land when compared to the rest of ANWR. Besides, that patch of land is in the middle of a barren, frozen, wasteland. There is very little, if ANY wildlife around it. There is absolutely no reason (other than "OH NOEZ GLOBUL WARMEENG!!11!") to NOT go for the oil there. It'd keep us from giving our enemies control over our oil.

The liberals are doing everything they can to prevent us from becomming energy independent (and no, ethanol from corn isn't the way to do it. I'm sorry. That's already been proven time and time again). If we want cheaper gas prices, then we need to cut the global warming bull**** and start drilling for oil. Who cares if it runs out? I't going to eventually. By then, we'll probably have advanced so much with other technologies, that even an electric car would be more efficient, more powerful, and even have a better range than a gas powered car. But we don't have that yet, and it won't be comming any time soon.

If Obama gets into office, then I hope him and every person in line after him (except a conservative with common sense) dies of something. Doesn't matter what. Because if Obama gets in, that's the only way we're not going to lose our country.


As far as ideals, Eugine gave some of the more important ones. I believe all of them want bigger government though, but that's only because it gives them more power.
...dang whores. <_<

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 3 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

My fault, I apologize.
I take it you're conservative too? Actually, forgive me, where are you from again DS?

California. I'm mostly conservative. Except I'm atheist and support abortions.

[Gio]

Shikonaurum, on Jun 4 2008, 12:43 AM, said:

I think that typically it would be okay to close the thread, but Clinton will push the nomination ticket as far as she can get it, probably even to the Democratic National Convention. So the primaries, even if closed, still sort of go on. Sort of.

I'd probably say leave it a while longer, see how everything plays out. We know how it's going to, but

I agree with Shiko. Leave it open a bit longer, at least until the convention, because Shiko is right Hilary will make this a long drawn out process.

[Shikonaurum]

DarkSword, on Jun 4 2008, 03:00 AM, said:

California. I'm mostly conservative. Except I'm atheist and support abortions.

Sort of funny, the fine line betwen "supporting abortions" and being pro-choice. I'm not sure if anyone actually advocates abortions, unless we're talking about China's government or third-world countries. <_<

I'm fiscally conservative, but no party is fiscally conservative these days.

[Eugine]

lol Shiko, like I said you have too much smarts. You bring up a really valid point to be honest.

[Golden Legacy]

Already going on the attack Toasty?

Toasty, on Jun 4 2008, 01:51 AM, said:

And hello outrageously expensive gas prices with outrageously over inflated government and taxes! <_<

Sounds good, no?

....no.

Exactly. Seen the gas prices lately? Bush.

Quote

The government DOES NOT need more of our money (aka higher taxes), and no, inflating gas prices (either directly, or by not allowing us to dig fo oil ON OUR OWN LAND. Why the hell do you think we allowed Alaska to become the 49th state? BECAUSE OF IT'S OIL DEPOSITS) will not be very effective at preventing a hypothetical global warming. Many of the thermometers used for monitoring the globes temperatures, are in places where the results will be heavily skewed (I don't think they're supposed to go on blacktops, for christ's sake). The globe hasn't warmed up as much as people think, the ice caps ARE NOT melting (they're bigger than they were a few years ago, infact), and even if global warming WAS caused my the greenhouse effect, reducing the methane in the atmosphere would be MUCH more cost effective and sensible.

As you always seem to do, you're attacking something besides the issue. Global Warming is something that we've debated time and time again, and you still seem ignorant to the fact that it plays a role but it is NOT the central reason why we need to invest in alternative fuels. There is nothing wrong with the idea of opening up emergency reserves of oil in times of need - this would certainly count.

But for all your talk of that, hmm, let me see, has Bush - the man whose fiscal policy LED to these higher gas prices, did you forget - opened up these reserves either? No? Didn't think so.

Quote

The way the liberals are trying to run things right now, were not going to do so well. If we don't stop giving the farmers a reason to plant corn over wheat (liberals have passed a bill the gives farmers money for growing corn to be used in the ethanol makeing process, a VERY INNEFICIENT process that's stupid and pointless), we're going to have to continue importing wheat from China. We used to be the wheat capital of the world. What the hell happened?

Again, I don't understand why you continue to this, but you seem to have summed up ALL alternative fuels by denouncing one. Biofuels is an emerging technology - and yes, I do agree with you that it's inefficient right now.

Wind, solar, hydroelectric power are no joke Toasty, and I don't see why you continue to ignore them.

Building them will also create manufacturing jobs for the hundreds of thousands unemployed, hardest hit in rust belt America.

Quote

Alaska has a very large source of oil, and the area that would have to be "disturbed" to get it, would be about the same size as L.A.X. (I believe it's 2,000 square acres). A very small patch of land when compared to the rest of ANWR. Besides, that patch of land is in the middle of a barren, frozen, wasteland. There is very little, if ANY wildlife around it. There is absolutely no reason (other than "OH NOEZ GLOBUL WARMEENG!!11!") to NOT go for the oil there. It'd keep us from giving our enemies control over our oil.

Again, no one is denying that Alaska has oil reserves. About 1/4 of proven USA reserves at that, if I remember correctly. It's relief meant for times like this - however, relying SOLELY on that to get us out of our current energy crisis is foolish if you don't have long-term investments. And yes Toasty, that includes solar, hydroelectric, wind (which can supplement our energy needs, at the very least - AND certainly reduce our necessity for foreign oil.)

Quote

The liberals are doing everything they can to prevent us from becomming energy independent (and no, ethanol from corn isn't the way to do it. I'm sorry. That's already been proven time and time again). If we want cheaper gas prices, then we need to cut the global warming bull**** and start drilling for oil. Who cares if it runs out? I't going to eventually. By then, we'll probably have advanced so much with other technologies, that even an electric car would be more efficient, more powerful, and even have a better range than a gas powered car. But we don't have that yet, and it won't be comming any time soon.

Hmm, and let me see - whose presidency was it that resulted in the US importing 13 times more oil than exporting? Ahh yes. Might it be the one we've had for the past seven years?

Quote

If McCain gets into office, then I hope him and every person in line after him (except a liberal with common sense) dies of something. Doesn't matter what. Because if McCain gets in, that's the only way we're not going to lose our country.

Fix'd.

[Someone Else]

You know I kind of like the idea of Hillary being Obama's VP. Otherwise, the dem. party is going to be split and will be really split... I can't see Obama winning like that.

[Shikonaurum]

Eugine, on Jun 4 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

lol Shiko, like I said you have too much smarts. You bring up a really valid point to be honest.

lulz, wording. XD

Wind Dude, on Jun 4 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

You know I kind of like the idea of Hillary being Obama's VP. Otherwise, the dem. party is going to be split and will be really split... I can't see Obama winning like that.

As much as I support Democratic unity, I feel as if their presidency would be so fractured from within that even if they hold office, problems would result from there.

In terms of image and ideas, they would be the ideal picture of the Democratic party; don't know how well their socialbility would be.

[Golden Legacy]

No VPs for the candidates will be confirmed yet. It's still too early in the general election season.

[Gio]

Toasty and GL you both wrote to much stuff for me to reply to it all. I will just say that I agree with a few things Toasty said and a few things that GL said. I will also carry on the oil conversation by saying that Saudi Arabia SUCKS!!!

[Eugine]

Anyway, my opinion on the general election in summary -
The democrats, who have everything going for them has elected the most unelectable candidate while the republicans, who have everything going against them have elected the most electable candidate. This should make the election rather interesting.

If the democrats loses this election (and personally, I believe they will if we get to know more about the real Obama), I think they should disband their party.

[Ironsight]

Gio, on Jun 4 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

Toasty and GL you both wrote to much stuff for me to reply to it all. I will just say that I agree with a few things Toasty said and a few things that GL said. I will also carry on the oil conversation by saying that Saudi Arabia SUCKS!!!

Nuke their ass and take their gas!

[Eugine]

I'm sure Bush will do it if given the opportunity.

[Ironsight]

Too bad he didn't.

[Eugine]

Yeah, would have surely been the downfall of USA <_<
How sad.

[Ironsight]

Eugine, on Jun 4 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

Yeah, would have surely been the downfall of USA <_<
How sad.

How so?

[Eugine]

I don't know. It just would have been!!!!!

[Ironsight]

Seriosly, we should have just cluster-bombed the sh!t out of them instead of going through this whole urban-war.

[Eugine]

lol, if you say so. Thankfully we get our oil from Venezuela xP. hahahahahahaha.

[Ironsight]

Yeah, well why pay $4 per gallon when you can get it for alot less?

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Jun 4 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

Anyway, my opinion on the general election in summary -
The democrats, who have everything going for them has elected the most unelectable candidate while the republicans, who have everything going against them have elected the most electable candidate. This should make the election rather interesting.

If the democrats loses this election (and personally, I believe they will if we get to know more about the real Obama), I think they should disband their party.

If race really played an important part in people's decisions, then there is no doubt that Obama has the huge disadvantage.

However, other than that, he is also the candidate who has consistently won the support of most independents, moreso than any other candidate, from either Republicans or Democrats.

The real race has only just begun Eugine.

DarkSword, on Jun 4 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

Nuke their ass and take their gas!

DarkSword, on Jun 4 2008, 08:49 PM, said:

Too bad he didn't.

DarkSword, on Jun 4 2008, 09:00 PM, said:

Seriosly, we should have just cluster-bombed the sh!t out of them instead of going through this whole urban-war.

DarkSword, on Jun 4 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

Yeah, well why pay $4 per gallon when you can get it for alot less?

And you wonder why conservatives are seen as scum? It's because of filthy disgusting mongrels like you.

[Ironsight]

<_< You realise I was exadgerating, right?

[Someone Else]

To say you're exaggerating means you're still thinking it.

[Ironsight]

Well, the invasion could have been done better. But obviously a nuke is a step too far. And while a majority of the people there hate us, I don't want to kill them for that.

[Gio]

The Majority of everyone everywhere hates us and it aint just because of Bush. Bush Bashing is definitely getting really old.

[Eugine]

But wasn't America loved during the Clinton administration?

[Gio]

That's because Clinton is one of those liberals who might as well have just handed the country over to the UN and said here it is yours. That is why others love Clinton

[Someone Else]

Eugine, on Jun 4 2008, 07:22 PM, said:

But wasn't America loved during the Clinton administration?

That's always the impression I got. Bush came in and everybody hated us. Then 9/11 happened and the whole world was with us and sympathetic towards us.

Then Bush ****ed it up by declaring a crusade war on terrorism.

[Ironsight]

I'm curious to know what you would have done instead.

[Eugine]

... but evidently his policies (economic and foreign) were better than Bush, weren't they?

[Shikonaurum]

That doesn't change the fact that people liked America then. The advent of Bush, with 9/11, and the subsequent aftermath is what gives us our current image, it's hard to deny that the hate stemmed too much prior.

Clinton was a flip-flopper and didn't have strong views on much, but hey, he got us out of a huge deficit and we had a surplus for the first time in practically ever.

Honestly, I don't care about social issues anymore, they're not worth it. Let's become make sure our economy is functioning properly before we go out and screw our self-image. Bad image, the falling dollar, and the increasing strength of every other nation in the world combines into something nasty.

[Gio]

I would write more about how I think he was horrible but, I don't want to go into a rant. I am just going to go finish my mariokart races.

[Someone Else]

DarkSword, on Jun 4 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

I'm curious to know what you would have done instead.

Pay more attention to domestic affairs rather than being up in everyone else's business. Also, increased security and defense in case of future attacks on our country. I feel like this whole crusade wasn't needed, BUT, this is for another topic, no?

[Eugine]

Gio, on Jun 4 2008, 10:31 PM, said:

I would write more about how I think he was horrible but, I don't want to go into a rant.

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.

[Ironsight]

Hopefully things will be better once we clear up this mess in the middle east.

[Shikonaurum]

....

You can't talk about the Middle East as just "clearing a mess up." It's not going to be resolved by brute force alone, nor will it be resolved by us alone.

[Ironsight]

You know what I mean.

[Eugine]

DarkSword is obviously a supporter of the arrogant foreign policy America currently represents.

[Gio]

Quote

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.

Clinton is a F*****ng Lying son of a *****. He Cheated on is wife no telling how many times granted that he only got caught once. He also lied under oath and committed purgery in front of a grand jury. That ****er should be rotting in jail right now. A freaking democracy is supposed to ****ing mean that everyone is equal and no one is above the ****ing law, but no, apparently Bill ****ing Clinton is, because where is he right now. Certainly not in jail were ought to be.

now you know why I think clinton should fall off the face of the freaking planet

[Shikonaurum]

DarkSword, on Jun 4 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

You know what I mean.

I do, but it's rather that I disagree with your tone entirely. I'm not just trying to be a smartass.

The Middle East is not going to go away no matter how drastic one might dream up plans; compromise is not savory nor does it seem entirely viable, but it'll be the ideal route. We don't need them hanging prices over our head, granted, but shouldn't we do something about that domestically rather than go external?

Global warming may or may not be a crock, but we need to cut down our pollution regardless. That sort of thing.

[Eugine]

What is worse... Cheating on your wife, or sending thousands of Americans to die in an unwinnable war?

[Gio]

It is definitely not the cheating on his wife I am mad about, and if you or any other liberals would actually stop and pay attention to our soldiers and military men you will probably realize that the majority in fact nearly all of them are conservative and are more than willing to defend and fight for their country. If you paid attention to the soldiers then you would know. I would like to see any of you try and walk onto Eglin AFB in Florida and start saying that they are fighting an unwindable war, because I guarantee you are going to get your *** kicked if you do. Take it from a kid in a military family who lives around it everyday.

[Someone Else]

I don't think cheating on your spouse is relevant to politics at all.

Besides, if Hillary was your wife, I think you'd cheat too.

[Shikonaurum]

Gio, on Jun 4 2008, 10:44 PM, said:

Clinton is a F*****ng Lying son of a *****. He Cheated on is wife no telling how many times granted that he only got caught once. He also lied under oath and committed purgery in front of a grand jury. That ****er should be rotting in jail right now. A freaking democracy is supposed to ****ing mean that everyone is equal and no one is above the ****ing law, but no, apparently Bill ****ing Clinton is, because where is he right now. Certainly not in jail were ought to be.

now you know why I think clinton should fall off the face of the freaking planet

This is what matters to us these days? Not the leadership abilities of a person, but his social life? At the end of this century all that will be left will be a person who has an absolutely pristine record but has done absolutely nothing with his life.

Sure, Clinton is not the most admirable person, but please, lying under oath hasn't gotten any government criminal arrested unless it's the lightest crime that they can get, such as Scooter Libby. He was a fall guy, everyone else ran free. America is democratic? What about Nixon, who by all rights could have been "rotting in jail" too, but didn't because of presidential pardons? Where's the common justice in this?

And what about Bush's "Executive Privilege" of denying Congress access to the Vice-President and President's records? What then? Concealment is still at the base of things.

Eugine, on Jun 4 2008, 10:46 PM, said:

What is worse... Cheating on your wife, or sending thousands of Americans to die in an unwinnable war?

Thank you.

Just because a person may be more socially wrong doesn't mean that they're unfit to lead. You can hate him personally, but unless he's done anything political to screw over your life, I don't see a basis for saying that Bush > Clinton.

Edit: What's the soldier thing got to do with anything? It's not only the soldiers who are impacted by the war, it's everyone else too. Just because they have pride in what they're doing doesn't mean that they're above all.

[Gio]

The soilder thing was directed to eugines unwinnable war comment and it isn't just cheating that I am talking about. If you payed attention to the whole freaking thing then you would realize that you let your liberal president the was in office before bush be above the law, but hey whatever floats your boat.

[Eugine]

Alright Gio, how can the US win the war in Iraq?

[Someone Else]

Can you say anything BAD that you think Clinton did? That actually harmed the country?

[Shikonaurum]

Gio, on Jun 4 2008, 10:58 PM, said:

The soilder thing was directed to eugines unwinnable war comment and it isn't just cheating that I am talking about. If you payed attention to the whole freaking thing then you would realize that you let your liberal president the was in office before bush be above the law, but hey whatever floats your boat.

... Ooooh, precedent is so easily followed! One is above the law, so another is above the law!

Personally, I'd rather you stop using this "liberal" thing as a slur. The things that Clinton did aren't confined to liberals alone, and he was the most fiscally conservative guy I've seen in office for a long time.

If we're talking about presidential privilege, yeah, you may actually have a valid point, but remember that now anyone in the future will technically have the right to call a war without Congressional approval regardless of what party it is because Bush did it first.

And how about Nixon's pardon, what then? I seem to think that the '70s are before the current day.

This is too stressing and it's not getting anywhere, so I'm bowing out now until some other time.

[Ironsight]

If I remember right, Nixon was kept in office by congress because they though America would lose WWII without him leading the country.

[Shikonaurum]

Nixon was the 70s and Watergate, FDR was WWII.

Nixon was the guy with wiretaps who was impeached and who resigned before they could fire him themselves. He was arrested, but then given amnesty by the next president, who I think was... uh... Carter? He was a very eloquent guy, actually. Famous for the line "I am not a crook."

FDR was voted to president for four times during WWII because people thought they'd lose, and FDR did a hella lot for the economy before that.

[Gio]

I am done for now to. I am tired and extremely irritable right now. That is the only reason I wrote that post the way I did. I am sorry I will write something later that express my views a little more clearly later. I am sorry if I offended anyone.

@eugine
I think going to Iraq was a mistake and I have expressed that view in this topic and plenty of others. I don't think it is unwinnable though and granted I don't know how to win it, I do believe that if our soldiers believe it then it can be done. and trust me, they certainly believe they can do it.

[Eugine]

Well, I'll really like to know the winning strategy. You can't expect to win a war without a plan, something Bush clearly didn't have.

[Gio]

I will definitely give you that.

[Ironsight]

Shikonaurum, on Jun 4 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

Nixon was the 70s and Watergate, FDR was WWII.

Nixon was the guy with wiretaps who was impeached and who resigned before they could fire him themselves. He was arrested, but then given amnesty by the next president, who I think was... uh... Carter? He was a very eloquent guy, actually. Famous for the line "I am not a crook."

FDR was voted to president for four times during WWII because people thought they'd lose, and FDR did a hella lot for the economy before that.

Damn, sorry. I get the Presidents mixed up alot.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 4 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

Already going on the attack Toasty?Exactly. Seen the gas prices lately? Bush.Yeah....just because Bush is president doesn't mean he has control over gas prices. <_<The war probably has something to do with it, but Bush isn't the only one who wanted to go to war either. The liberals are keeping us from drilling for our own oil, and they're proposing a deal that will make gas prices EVEN MORE outrageous than they already are. On the other hand, conservatives want to drill for our oil, which will in turn reduce the cost of gasoline. Though it will probably take a few years to notice the drop in cost.As you always seem to do, you're attacking something besides the issue. Global Warming is something that we've debated time and time again, and you still seem ignorant to the fact that it plays a role but it is NOT the central reason why we need to invest in alternative fuels. There is nothing wrong with the idea of opening up emergency reserves of oil in times of need - this would certainly count.The liberals are using it as the main reason for investing our resources in alternative fuels, and they're also using it as an excuse to keep us from drilling for oil. Global warming is very much a political issue.But for all your talk of that, hmm, let me see, has Bush - the man whose fiscal policy LED to these higher gas prices, did you forget - opened up these reserves either? No? Didn't think so.And maybe that's because the liberals, with all their global warming BS and "Oh no! You CAN'T do that! You'll disturb the uninhabbited barren wasteland of ANWR!", tied his hands. Don't you think we've been TRYING to get oil wells drilled? We can't because the democrats in congress (who make up more than half of it), won't let us drill for our own oil. That is not speculation, that is fact. Denying it would be moronic.Again, I don't understand why you continue to this, but you seem to have summed up ALL alternative fuels by denouncing one. Biofuels is an emerging technology - and yes, I do agree with you that it's inefficient right now.Please, enlighten me with where I even said "alternative fuels" in that paragraph. Oh wait, I didn't. Ethanol from corn is BS, and will be until we can make it without using gasoline. The laws of physics says that unless it's an enclosed system (which it's not), it will release energy in the form of heat/etc. (which it does). Therefor, when using gasoline, you will never be able to get the equal ammount of energy (in the form of ethanol) out of the process. It has to be done with energy from say, a hydro-electric dam.Wind, solar, hydroelectric power are no joke Toasty, and I don't see why you continue to ignore them.Wind and solar are a joke for now. We don't have the right weather to use them in a way that's actually practical (there are wind farms, yes, but the acre to energy ratio fails in comparison to hydro-electric power). As for solar energy, solar panels still aren't efficient enough to use practically in our power grid. They need to produce a LOT more electricity then they're currently able to. Hydro electric power is the best out of the three, but there's simply not enough waterfalls to use them throughout the country.thus, it's far more practical to use a combination of nuclear, petroleum, and hydro-electric based energy sources. Those will (and have been proven to) yield the best results. Unfortunately, the liberals continue to tie our hands when it comes to making more oil refineries/drilling sites, or nuclear reactors (which actually don't produce NEARLY as much waste as many people seem to think)Building them will also create manufacturing jobs for the hundreds of thousands unemployed, hardest hit in rust belt America.Yeah, and petroleum/nuclear fascilities will give them more, as they're far more cost effective and easier to impliment than the others.Again, no one is denying that Alaska has oil reserves. About 1/4 of proven USA reserves at that, if I remember correctly. It's relief meant for times like this - however, relying SOLELY on that to get us out of our current energy crisis is foolish if you don't have long-term investments. And yes Toasty, that includes solar, hydroelectric, wind (which can supplement our energy needs, at the very least - AND certainly reduce our necessity for foreign oil.)You don't seem to understand. WIND AND SOLAR ARE NOT EFFICIENT ENOUGH TO YIELD GOOD RESULTS. We would need more space then we have available to build solar and wind farms large enough to produce the electricity needed to even supply half of the energy America demands. The Alaskan reserves will last us a solid one hundred years at the rate we use gasoline right now. It can't supply all our needs, though, because we can't drill and refine enough barrels of oil per month/year to supply America. That's where our ginormous coal reserves come in. With liquid coal technology, we can easily supply ourselves with most of the oil we need. And in the meantime, while we're depnding on ourselves for oil (and not our enemies), we can continue to research alternative fuels/energy that would allow us to remain energy independent long after our oil runs out. There is absolutely no reason to NOT drill for oil, or mine coal. We only have reasons TO do those things.Hmm, and let me see - whose presidency was it that resulted in the US importing 13 times more oil than exporting? Ahh yes. Might it be the one we've had for the past seven years?And it's also the one full of liberals who like to tie our hands up when we try to drill for our OWN oil. Interesting correlation, don't you think?Show me proof of where the conservatives are trying to make us dependant on foreign oil, and I'll eat my hat ten times over. Show me proof of where liberals are actually trying to make us energy independent in logical ways, and I'll bite my toung off too.Fix'd.I don't care which nominee get's into office, as long as they die so that Romney or some true conservative (not McCain, because he's not a true conservative) can become president.

Most liberals in the government take their positions for granted, and try to suck more money and power out of the country then they need or deserve. Conservatives do it as well, but far less often.

Wind Dude, on Jun 4 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

Can you say anything BAD that you think Clinton did? That actually harmed the country?

I think selling nukes to china is pretty bad.

[Golden Legacy]

Internet timed out so this is coming a few hours after it was intended for.

DarkSword, on Jun 4 2008, 10:13 PM, said:

Well, the invasion could have been done better. But obviously a nuke is a step too far. And while a majority of the people there hate us, I don't want to kill them for that.

So you still "want to kill them" off?

Quote

Clinton was a flip-flopper and didn't have strong views on much, but hey, he got us out of a huge deficit and we had a surplus for the first time in practically ever.

Glad someone mentioned this! Gio, Toasty, DS, whoever else who still doubts this, remember that the 90's under the Clinton era was the most financially prosperous time in US history. At no other time in history did the US have a surplus.

That surplus was reduced to a 1.5 trillion dollar DEBT under the Bush reign.

DarkSword, on Jun 4 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

Hopefully things will be better once we clear up this mess in the middle east.

I had a strongly worded response to that, but Shiko summed it up well.

You can't talk about the Middle East as just "clearing a mess up." It's not going to be resolved by brute force alone, nor will it be resolved by us alone.

Gio, on Jun 4 2008, 10:51 PM, said:

It is definitely not the cheating on his wife I am mad about, and if you or any other liberals would actually stop and pay attention to our soldiers and military men you will probably realize that the majority in fact nearly all of them are conservative and are more than willing to defend and fight for their country. If you paid attention to the soldiers then you would know. I would like to see any of you try and walk onto Eglin AFB in Florida and start saying that they are fighting an unwindable war, because I guarantee you are going to get your *** kicked if you do. Take it from a kid in a military family who lives around it everyday.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. No one is denying that our soldiers are fighting to defend their country. That's why they volunteered for the service, and we all respect them for that, I know I do.

What we're saying is having their lives sacrificed for a war that was based on false accusations, for lies and twisted realities, is a sickening crime to their legacy, their lives, and their families.

Wind Dude, on Jun 4 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

Besides, if Hillary was your wife, I think you'd cheat too.

Cracked up hard at that, so very true. lol.

Shikonaurum, on Jun 4 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

This is what matters to us these days? Not the leadership abilities of a person, but his social life? At the end of this century all that will be left will be a person who has an absolutely pristine record but has done absolutely nothing with his life.

Sure, Clinton is not the most admirable person, but please, lying under oath hasn't gotten any government criminal arrested unless it's the lightest crime that they can get, such as Scooter Libby. He was a fall guy, everyone else ran free. America is democratic? What about Nixon, who by all rights could have been "rotting in jail" too, but didn't because of presidential pardons? Where's the common justice in this?

And what about Bush's "Executive Privilege" of denying Congress access to the Vice-President and President's records? What then? Concealment is still at the base of things.

Just because a person may be more socially wrong doesn't mean that they're unfit to lead. You can hate him personally, but unless he's done anything political to screw over your life, I don't see a basis for saying that Bush > Clinton.

Edit: What's the soldier thing got to do with anything? It's not only the soldiers who are impacted by the war, it's everyone else too. Just because they have pride in what they're doing doesn't mean that they're above all.

Shiko, you make wonderfully written points, I honestly couldn't have said that better myself.

Gio, on Jun 4 2008, 10:58 PM, said:

The soilder thing was directed to eugines unwinnable war comment and it isn't just cheating that I am talking about. If you payed attention to the whole freaking thing then you would realize that you let your liberal president the was in office before bush be above the law, but hey whatever floats your boat.

Have you forgotten that Bush supports wiretapping? Have you forgotten that he supports waterboarding, a means of torture condemned by every other human rights organization and nation in the world? Have you forgotten him exercising his "executive privelage" to conceal documents and inner workings of the government from coming to light, as Shiko mentioned?


EDIT: Toasty's post will be responded to once my internet stabilizes.

[Split Infinity]

So...when are you having these elections?

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 4 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

Have you forgotten that Bush supports wiretapping? Have you forgotten that he supports waterboarding, a means of torture condemned by every other human rights organization and nation in the world? Have you forgotten him exercising his "executive privelage" to conceal documents and inner workings of the government from coming to light, as Shiko mentioned?

I'm too tired to respond to the rest of it, but...

If you're not doing anything illegal, then there's no need to worry about wire tapping now is there? More likely than not, you won't even be tapped in the first place unless you show signs of suspicious activity (i.e. googling "how to build a nuke" every day). Besides, the person listening in on the conversation probably won't even know you. The chances that they do know you are extremely low.

I don't care if people want to say that it's an invasion of privacy, because I'd rather have my privacy invaded then my country.

Basically, if you're not doing anything bad, then you have no reason to worry about wire tapping.

[Shikonaurum]

Wiretapping is fun stuff. Less heated.

There was an interesting Supreme Court case a long time ago, it was brought up to me in my 8th grade science class and stuck with me ever since. I can't recall the name of the case, but it addressed the police and whether they were authorized to use heat-sensing devices to look into others' homes without a search warrant. After all, the police wouldn't be actually searching your house, they'd just be standing outside with a heat sensor.

It specifically addressed a person growing weed in their house, the police saw this while aiming a heat sensor at their house, arrested them, the ones arrested brought this court case all the way up on account of right violation.

The verdict of the Supreme Court was to declare the use of heat sensing devices illegal. Great controversy over that, but the Court's opinion was made less of immediacy and more of foresight. Their rationale was that if they were to allow this innocent, precedent would expound upon it until it's actually unnecessary to have a search warrant at all. Apologies, I can't remember if the court was conservative or liberal at the time.

The glory of wiretapping is that it's one of those midway points. I can agree with the argument that "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," but there has to be a solid line drawn somewhere. Maybe a little beyond wiretapping, who knows? But we can't keep pushing that line back. I don't know about you, but I didn't like the government in 1984.

The government will ultimately be inclined to limit free speech; WWI had it's Alien and Sedition Acts, wars always provoke a yearning to lay low any feeling of unrest. Vietnam had its crises. Patriotic fervor can be manipulated into creating laws that one might later regret.

Random tangent: Someone I know had their phone monitored due to connections with a Middle Eastern country, just for living over there for a while. Apparently it was quite inconvenient, and she'd get mysteriously cut off sometimes if she would ever discuss current events.

[Toasty]

Hmm. Well cutting her off seems a little extreme. Wire tapping that only allows the government to hear what you're saying and not interact in any way seem alright to me, as long as they have a reason for the wire taps. But if she was just talking about current events, even if she said that America sucks for going to war, well she's entitled to her own opinion. I could understand if she was talking about terrorists, but not current events.

[Zeypher]

Split Infinity, on Jun 5 2008, 12:22 AM, said:

So...when are you having these elections?

November...iirc.

And to stay on topic...

I don't think we have a good choice for President at all this year...

Hillary is a stupid liberal (she's against violent video games, nuff said), but she also had a good health care system...but shes out of the race now.

Obama is too inexperienced, and people won't be able to get over the fact that he's not white :\

McCain is...a republican...so he'll have that going against him...but I guess he's really the best choice...he's more of a democratic republican.

[Toasty]

Hillary's healthcare idea wasn't good. It gave the government control over your healthcare, and we all know what happens when the government takes conrtol of your life....

Anyway, I pretty much came to the same conclusion. Only Obama isn't all he's cracked up to be. Seriously people, read between the lines. Obama says he trusts the people, yet he doesn't trust them enough to have their own guns? (heck, what ever happened to "the right to bear arms?") He doesn't even think people are capable of bouncing back after failing (i.e. the housing crisis. He was for bailing people out. And now that they've all been bailed out, they're going to go and make the same mistake AGAIN).
[/rant]

Basically, quit listening to the media and only the media. They say he's a ray of new hope, a "messiah" if you will, and yet they have trouble bringing to light all of his major faults.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 5 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

Internet timed out so this is coming a few hours after it was intended for.
So you still "want to kill them" off?
Glad someone mentioned this! Gio, Toasty, DS, whoever else who still doubts this, remember that the 90's under the Clinton era was the most financially prosperous time in US history. At no other time in history did the US have a surplus.

Yes, but the only real control the president has over the economy is Interest rates. I bet you can't tell me 5 ways that the president can directly influence the economy.
Also the economy goes up and down. It has to. If it keeps getting better then you have inflation and if the economy goes to far down then you have unemployment. So quite honestly telling me that Clinton helped the economy is because he taxed the hell out us.

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Jun 5 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Yes, but the only real control the president has over the economy is Interest rates. I bet you can't tell me 5 ways that the president can directly influence the economy.
Also the economy goes up and down. It has to. If it keeps getting better then you have inflation and if the economy goes to far down then you have unemployment. So quite honestly telling me that Clinton helped the economy is because he taxed the hell out us.

Yeah, real convenient to justify it with "the economy goes up and down". It was up during Clinton's reign, it crashed when Bush came into office. That's not a coincidence. It was a surplus during Clinton, it's now the largest deficit in history with Bush. Not a coincidence.

Secondly, are you kidding me? Interest rates are the only way a president can influence an economy? So I suppose you've ignored the allocation of federal spending to different sectors of the economy, and investments therein? Oh, and I suppose trade and global commerce has nothing to do with it. [/sarcasm]

And for the record, the Clinton administration had the lowest recorded record of inflation AND unemployment in American history - that and the median income and spending for families was the highest too.

And here I thought you actually cared about making the lives of Americans easier, but no, not if it isn't done by conservatives.

[Gio]

Quote

Yeah, real convenient to justify it with "the economy goes up and down". It was up during Clinton's reign, it crashed when Bush came into office. That's not a coincidence. It was a surplus during Clinton, it's now the largest deficit in history with Bush. Not a coincidence.

You just restated what you have already told me.

Quote

Secondly, are you kidding me? Interest rates are the only way a president can influence an economy? So I suppose you've ignored the allocation of federal spending to different sectors of the economy, and investments therein? Oh, and I suppose trade and global commerce has nothing to do with it. [/sarcasm]

Power of the purse lies with congress therefore I can ignore how much money is being spent.

Quote

And for the record, the Clinton administration had the lowest recorded record of inflation AND unemployment in American history - that and the median income and spending for families was the highest too.

And here I thought you actually cared about making the lives of Americans easier, but no, not if it isn't done by conservatives.

I am not saying it can't be done by a liberal. I am just saying that I thought Clinton was unimpressive.

[Eugine]

I think Reagan was a subpar President btw. I just did some research on him a while ago. He basically was the starter of the republicans arrogant foreign policy -__-

[Shikonaurum]

As for the economy, it's quite interesting. While technically, Congress has the power of the purse, they're very lax with the budget and will typically pass the president's proposed budget.

Also, one of the problems is that I believe that Congress doesn't have the power of pocket voting down; they can't pick and choose what to pass. So it's all or nothing; my school board had that issue as well, and the large argument was that the benefit would exceed the non-benefit.

I could be wrong on that topic.

The president impacts the economy more than inflation rates; the policies he chooses to pursue will cost the government itself. That's why a lot presidents, when history has been able to provide an objective look, can be assessed by "well meaning, huge costing plan, didn't get very far."

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 5 2008, 10:05 AM, said:

Yeah, real convenient to justify it with "the economy goes up and down". It was up during Clinton's reign, it crashed when Bush came into office. That's not a coincidence. It was a surplus during Clinton, it's now the largest deficit in history with Bush. Not a coincidence.

Secondly, are you kidding me? Interest rates are the only way a president can influence an economy? So I suppose you've ignored the allocation of federal spending to different sectors of the economy, and investments therein? Oh, and I suppose trade and global commerce has nothing to do with it. [/sarcasm]

And for the record, the Clinton administration had the lowest recorded record of inflation AND unemployment in American history - that and the median income and spending for families was the highest too.

And here I thought you actually cared about making the lives of Americans easier, but no, not if it isn't done by conservatives.

Does war ring a bell? That's why our economy's down (well, that and the global warming craze. Importing wheat sure isn't helping to boost our economy). And don't tell me it's all Bush's fault, because you'd be mad at him if he DIDN'T go to war as well. If Clinton was still in office, he would've had the same descision to make as Bush did. Economy, or the safetey of America. With Bill's record of dealing with terrorists in the past, I'm almost 100% sure he'd choose the economy.

[gsninja]

War was never the right answer in the first place. Sure, it seemed like the right thing to do right after 9/11, but look where it's led the US. Because Bush decided to stay in the war for this long, the US' reputation is now worse off than before. Not only that, but yes, this war has had an effect on the economy. That, and Bush screwed California over by putting assloads of restrictions on oil for the state and making the gas prices in California (some of) the highest in the US.

As for the current candidates that have the greatest chance of becoming president:

Obama - Honestly, the young crowd supporting this guy worries me because a lot of them are too crazy about him. Obama's definitely the guy who has the power in his speeches to sway and captivate all the young people about "hope" and "change", yet he hasn't put out an actual plan of anything he says he'll do. Not only that, but this guy's all for gun control. I'm the guy who wants people to carry around pistols because I believe that will lower the crime rate, not raise it.
However, Obama's good because he doesn't want to stay in the war. Bush should have pulled out during the beginning so that we could have avoided as many problems as possible, but that didn't happen. Although pulling out will still cause a bunch of problems, especially within the US itself, it's still better than remaining.
Also, Obama supports net-neutrality, which is really good. We need this.
I'd say other things, but I'm too lazy.

McCain - I don't care if this guy is a war veteran that fought for his country and was tortured for several years at one point, WE CAN'T STAY IN THIS "War on Terror". He honestly wants to stay in AT LEAST until 2012, which is a load of bull****, seeing as we can't afford that. As for net-neutrality, McCain doesn't support it, so that means that the Internet can be possibly screwed over.
Unlike Obama, though, at least McCain has plans for what he wants to do. He's not for gun control like obama, or at least not as much for it.
Since I'm lazy, I'll say other things later.

[Golden Legacy]

This is worth a read, for differentiating and choosing between McCain and Obama.

http://politicalbunk...oices-president


And for those of you too lazy to click on the link:

Quote

You have two choices for president:

The first one has one of the longest lines of political experience in history. He is exceedingly popular in congress. He also volunteered to defend the our country in the US Navy.

The second one has no real political experience outside of Illinois. He is tall and lanky with big ears. He even lost a few of his first attempts at gaining political office. He is an excellent speechwriter and orator. He is a good attorney and has a successful law practice.

So which one would you choose?

This is a trick question because both were already Presidents of the United States. The first one is the 15th President of the United States, James Buchannan. He is the President who mired us in the Civil War by declaring the action illegal but doing nothing when the south decided to seceed from the Union. He is largely considered by historians as being the worst President in American history.

He was followed by the other man who became the 16th President of the United States: This man is credited with the end of slavery, the end of the Civil War, and unification of the nation. He became president at a dark time when our country was deeply divided over very polarizing issues. He had no experience in Washington prior to his Presidency. His name was Abraham Lincoln and he is widely considered by historians as one of the best Presidents in American History.

Sound familiar?

[Toasty]

gsninja, on Jun 6 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

War was never the right answer in the first place. Sure, it seemed like the right thing to do right after 9/11, but look where it's led the US. Because Bush decided to stay in the war for this long, the US' reputation is now worse off than before. Not only that, but yes, this war has had an effect on the economy. That, and Bush screwed California over by putting assloads of restrictions on oil for the state and making the gas prices in California (some of) the highest in the US.

As for the current candidates that have the greatest chance of becoming president:

Obama - Honestly, the young crowd supporting this guy worries me because a lot of them are too crazy about him. Obama's definitely the guy who has the power in his speeches to sway and captivate all the young people about "hope" and "change", yet he hasn't put out an actual plan of anything he says he'll do. Not only that, but this guy's all for gun control. I'm the guy who wants people to carry around pistols because I believe that will lower the crime rate, not raise it.
However, Obama's good because he doesn't want to stay in the war. Bush should have pulled out during the beginning so that we could have avoided as many problems as possible, but that didn't happen. Although pulling out will still cause a bunch of problems, especially within the US itself, it's still better than remaining.
Also, Obama supports net-neutrality, which is really good. We need this.
I'd say other things, but I'm too lazy.

McCain - I don't care if this guy is a war veteran that fought for his country and was tortured for several years at one point, WE CAN'T STAY IN THIS "War on Terror". He honestly wants to stay in AT LEAST until 2012, which is a load of bull****, seeing as we can't afford that. As for net-neutrality, McCain doesn't support it, so that means that the Internet can be possibly screwed over.
Unlike Obama, though, at least McCain has plans for what he wants to do. He's not for gun control like obama, or at least not as much for it.
Since I'm lazy, I'll say other things later.

I hate both of them. I just hate McCain less.

War may not always be necessary, but it IS when the enemy doesn't listen to reason, and has no intention of settling things diplomatically. Such is the case with terrorists. They don't care how sever their losses are, their only goal is to cause as much damage as possible. No matter what.

The war, despite popular beliefes (most of which come from the mouths of liberals), has actually been in our favor for quite some time. Our losses are down considerably since the beginning, and as long as we continue to support our troops and the war, and not restrict supplies sent to them, the war will be over soon with few, if any, repurcussions later on. Our economy will recover, terrorism throughout the world will decrease considerably, and Iraq will stabilize and prosper.

If we just pull out, our economy will recover, but that's it. The terrorists will overtake Iraq and plunge it into a dictatorship yet again. And then they'll hate us even more than they do now. Later on, we can be sure of another attempt at 9/11. This next time around, however, we may or may not be able to prevent it. Even with boosted security, our gaurd will probably be down once again.

War stops/decreases considerably in both cases, and our economy will also recover (somewhat, at least). The difference is the amount of time and resources we'll spend, and the repurcussions there-after. If you fight it, it'll be even worse then pulling out, because we'll just be stuck where we are forever. If you push for it, we can get it done and over with with few poblems afterwards.

[Shikonaurum]

That is a viable point -- will Iraq become a stabilized, democratic nation if we try with all our might? Will it, after we do that and after we pull out, stay like such?

Nobody honestly can say these days. Who knows, we might succeed after years, and then it'll all be worth it and we'll develop a good rapport with at least one nation in the Middle East and establish trade options. Terrorists may even just tire of attacking Iraq, and they might not even swarm after we leave. It could happen.

Everything is so up in the air right now that one honestly can't say.

We went in there, and one could say that it's our responsibility to fix up our own mess. At the same time, I believe that there has to be a more strategic way of doing things than simply pumping money into the nation. Ah, the moral obligation is there now, but the economy is a b-tch. If we keep on spending like this, but then Iraq is saved, our nation is still mired in debt.

I'm quite conflicted. And then there's the fact that all the candidates are willing to bomb the hell out of Iran; guess we're all just inextricably linked with the Middle East.

[Toasty]

Bombing Iran would be a horrible pollitical move. Not only is it inhumane, it'll send numerous countries running our way with guns ablaze. Plus, we'll lose any respect we have left.

As far as terrorists go, there will always be terrorists who will want Iran. Just as there are always going to be people attacking Israel. They're not going to just stop. They may reduce in numbers, but they'll still be there.

But it's not a matter of just pumping money into the whole thing, it's also a matter of cutting through all this red tape that's been put up to hinder the war.

[Shikonaurum]

Bureaucratic red tape, isn't that government? Some of the red tape has it's own purposes; personally, I still think that the "going to war with Congress's approval" idea is still a good one.

Yeah, bombing Iran is a horrible idea, but at the same time, all the politicians are open to it and have been cited as saying it. Well, I know Clinton and Obama have stated it, and I'm pretty sure McCain has that option in mind, it's just that the US news doesn't care about McCain when there was a woman and black man in the other party.

I must say, you have an interesting opinion of things. Terrorists of course want Iran, it's gone and become a hotbed for these sort of things, but being a self-proclaimed War on Terror, who knows? Iran will be the worst choice ever, it'll solidify our image as people who want to take over the Middle East.

Of course, we could always choose to overthrow Ahmadinejad and see what comes of it, but no. Just no.

Speak of the devil, there looks like there's a poll on the chalkboard differentiating things on specific issues. Party lines are interesting. Don't know what poll this is from, though, but it's interesting. Tax cuts, malpractice, ANWR drilling, faith based initiatives, gays in the Boy Scouts, partial birth abortion, arming pilots, US funding for the International Court, Iraq, DHS unions.

Makes one remember that these parties stand for more than just abortion, gay rights, and Iraq. It's a comforting thought that we haven't quite degenerated so far.

Off topic: Four and a half years, and now I have 200 posts! In some other world, I'm sure I rock.

[Laharl]

the correlations between the iraq war and the crusades are incredibly disturbing.

i'm too busy hating my own government these days to care about US politics

[Kikuichimonji]

Laharl, on Jun 9 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

i'm too busy hating my own government these days to care about US politics

The ironic thing being our media covers US politics than our own regional elections a few months ago. Not that those were exciting but the point still stands...

Anywho Obama ftw, 'cept I cringed at a comment abut invading pakistan.

[Toasty]

Plus he want's bigger government, higher taxes, and higher gas prices. None of which are good.

[Shikonaurum]

Dunno who to support. Nobody really has a platform. I feel as if I'm liberal on the main issues, but probably slanting more conservative in environmental / economic / less mainstream not "family values" issues.

Out of curiosity, for those here, how do you propose the US get out of its deficit and debt madness?

I honestly have no clue. Nobody wants to pay higher taxes for something that will just be spent for a lot of bureaucratic red tape, the war, and anything else, really. We can't force prosperity, even with a check of $500 from the US Government; the economy is in a weakening state, the dollar is falling. How could we change it?

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jun 10 2008, 09:19 PM, said:

Plus he want's bigger government, higher taxes, and higher gas prices. None of which are good.

As for McCain, who's saying that the government should dictate what a women does for her own body? That the government has the right to tell gays that their relationships can't merit to "true" marriage? The same McCain who supports big oil corporations and companies that ship jobs overseas?

Also, quit with the "higher tax" thing unless you can actually justify it with fact. Obama, like most democrats, favours raising taxes on the wealthiest. The wealthy CEOs and corporative managers who make millions in bonuses alone, the wealthiest 2% of Americans that own over 60% of the wealth and power.

Same with gas. Raising fuel standards for cars, subsidizing hybrid and electrical vehicles, will all LOWER dependency on gas.


EDIT (in response to Shiko): well, it's a number of steps. Paying $10bn+ per month on a war that isn't making us safer and a war that was never justified seems like the place to start. Start pooling that money to jumpstart the economy, invest that money to create new manufacturing jobs (i.e. creating new plants for building the infrastructure for alternative fuels), would be the first steps. It wouldn't address the fact that all of our near trillion dollar debt is owed by China... something would have to be done about big corporations that are shipping jobs overseas.

[Kikuichimonji]

Toasty, on Jun 11 2008, 02:19 AM, said:

Plus he want's bigger government, higher taxes, and higher gas prices. None of which are good.

I love it when americans have a huge problem with this. Over here on the other side of the atlantic, our petrol prices are comprised of nearly 80% tax. No offence, but I can't help but think "suck-it-up".

Anywho, aside from my little rant, either way it's inevitable that prices are going to be high (simple demand and supply analysis really, since there isn't much oil left). If anything I'm just reitterating GL's point about this actually be a good thing. We need to stop being so dependent on fossil fuels. Now.

Golden Legacy, on Jun 11 2008, 06:58 AM, said:

Also, quit with the "higher tax" thing unless you can actually justify it with fact. Obama, like most democrats, favours raising taxes on the wealthiest. The wealthy CEOs and corporative managers who make millions in bonuses alone, the wealthiest 2% of Americans that own over 60% of the wealth and power.

Playing the devil's advocate here but that can also be a very bad thing long term for your economy in terms of investment. It'll probably see your FDI levels being decreased as companies would go elsewhere where the taxes are lower. Of course it's all relative internationally however so aslong as an increase in tax relatively is lower elsewhere, it shouldn't be a problem.

Your point about the inequality reduction, I'm all for it -_-

(Why I'm going into economical schematics right now? Cuz I have an exam about this sort of thing on friday ><)

[Saturos S.]

The gas/oil prices have gone up less here tough due to the weak dollar. And since the oil peak is yet to come, we'll be seeing even higher prices.

[Eugine]

Oil prices are high in USA, but it's probably the cheapest in the world. Excluding the oil producing countries of course.

[Shikonaurum]

True. I'm not well informed on this, but aren't most European nations also less dependent on the use of the automobile for daily activities? My trip to Besancon, France saw me riding a car once, and a hell of a lot of public transport. It was really nice.

Suburbia has taken over America in a way that we're dependent on the automobile. It sort of sucks. -_-

[Blue]

All I know is that I'm voting Republican again. Higher taxes is bad.

[Saturos S.]

Shikonaurum, on Jun 12 2008, 02:10 AM, said:

True. I'm not well informed on this, but aren't most European nations also less dependent on the use of the automobile for daily activities? My trip to Besancon, France saw me riding a car once, and a hell of a lot of public transport. It was really nice.

Suburbia has taken over America in a way that we're dependent on the automobile. It sort of sucks. <_<

Meh, the public transport is quite good in and around the big cities, and in Holland we don't have that much agricultural lands so you can pretty much get anywhere pretty fast with the public transport. But the majority prefers their own car over public transport. Plus, oil price increase would mean that the public transport becomes more expensive as well.

... O and university students get a card for free public transport. So they nearly always use it to get around.

[Kikuichimonji]

Shikonaurum, on Jun 12 2008, 01:10 AM, said:

True. I'm not well informed on this, but aren't most European nations also less dependent on the use of the automobile for daily activities? My trip to Besancon, France saw me riding a car once, and a hell of a lot of public transport. It was really nice.

Getting around London is shyt. It's too expensive to get into London by car due to the Congestion Charge (although Boris Johnson is setting out removing the west london zone) and it's too expensive to get around by public transport without an oyster card. Even with it, compared with the rest of the world, too expensive. Overall we have a pretty poor infrastructure.

I dunno why we even get of our houses <_<

[Golden Legacy]

Blue, on Jun 12 2008, 04:44 AM, said:

All I know is that I'm voting Republican again. Higher taxes is bad.

Taxes? You're disregarding eight years of a failed foreign policy, eight years of lies and deception, eight years that have ground America's name into the dirt?

And furthermore, you are mistaken. Most Americans will pay higher taxes with McCain than Obama.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/1.../932/876/534084
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 10 2008, 10:58 PM, said:

As for McCain, who's saying that the government should dictate what a women does for her own body? That the government has the right to tell gays that their relationships can't merit to "true" marriage? The same McCain who supports big oil corporations and companies that ship jobs overseas?

Also, quit with the "higher tax" thing unless you can actually justify it with fact. Obama, like most democrats, favours raising taxes on the wealthiest. The wealthy CEOs and corporative managers who make millions in bonuses alone, the wealthiest 2% of Americans that own over 60% of the wealth and power.

Same with gas. Raising fuel standards for cars, subsidizing hybrid and electrical vehicles, will all LOWER dependency on gas.


EDIT (in response to Shiko): well, it's a number of steps. Paying $10bn+ per month on a war that isn't making us safer and a war that was never justified seems like the place to start. Start pooling that money to jumpstart the economy, invest that money to create new manufacturing jobs (i.e. creating new plants for building the infrastructure for alternative fuels), would be the first steps. It wouldn't address the fact that all of our near trillion dollar debt is owed by China... something would have to be done about big corporations that are shipping jobs overseas.

For that kast time, GL, I said I hate ALL of the candidates.

Developing electric cars won't get us off foreign oil NEARLY as fast as using our litterally trillions of gallons of oil (including coal to oil technology). We need to get off thei oil sooner rather than later. Go ahead and develop alternative fuels. I don;t really care. Just make sure that you don't kill the economy doing it (corn ethanol), or cause us to take longer to become energy independent. We should use our own oil FIRST, and THEN develop alternative fuels for the future when we run out of fossil fuels over a hundred years later (litterally speaking).

Liberal have ALWAYS been for higher taxes. Any that weren't weren't really Liberals. Obama wants higher taxes. Denying that is like saying you're not human. And I don't really care if the wealthiest people pay more taxes than the rest of us, as long as we're all paying taxes. And the lower class shouldn't be able to make money off the government by having lower taxes, yet recieving bigger handouts, or whatever it is they get.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jun 13 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

Developing electric cars won't get us off foreign oil NEARLY as fast as using our litterally trillions of gallons of oil (including coal to oil technology). We need to get off thei oil sooner rather than later. Go ahead and develop alternative fuels. I don;t really care. Just make sure that you don't kill the economy doing it (corn ethanol), or cause us to take longer to become energy independent. We should use our own oil FIRST, and THEN develop alternative fuels for the future when we run out of fossil fuels over a hundred years later (litterally speaking).

And for the last time Toasty, our oil reserves isn't something we should rely on solely to get us out of the current situation. Alternative fuels is something we should invest in now, concurrently with using a portion of our reserves to jumpstart things (and yes, we DO have the money for research in alternative energy - all that senseless money wasted on the Iraq war, all those billions could be directed towards creating a working infrastructure).

Besides, drilling for our oil reserves won't amount to as much as you say.

Quote

Liberal have ALWAYS been for higher taxes. Any that weren't weren't really Liberals. Obama wants higher taxes. Denying that is like saying you're not human. And I don't really care if the wealthiest people pay more taxes than the rest of us, as long as we're all paying taxes. And the lower class shouldn't be able to make money off the government by having lower taxes, yet recieving bigger handouts, or whatever it is they get.

I'm going to give you a task Toasty. It's called reading.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[Kikuichimonji]

Toasty, on Jun 13 2008, 09:07 PM, said:

Developing electric cars won't get us off foreign oil NEARLY as fast as using our litterally trillions of gallons of oil (including coal to oil technology). We need to get off thei oil sooner rather than later. Go ahead and develop alternative fuels. I don;t really care. Just make sure that you don't kill the economy doing it (corn ethanol), or cause us to take longer to become energy independent. We should use our own oil FIRST, and THEN develop alternative fuels for the future when we run out of fossil fuels over a hundred years later (litterally speaking).

Surely that's simply like digging your head in the sand? And furthermore isn't it a bit shortsighted to say "lets use up the oil and then invest in alternative fuels". Why isn't it possible to do both at the same time? IMO that would be the best solution in the long run.

And how the hell is investing in alternative fuel going to destroy your economy? Yeh in the short run, you'll be allocating less resources on present expenditure but in the long run, it'll only be a good thing to do so because not only will you have become more energy independent but also not likely to run out of a source of energy which can sustain your independency?

[Shikonaurum]

The counterpoint in the economic argument is that the current food shortage and inflationary crisis of this year is due to, in part, the diversion of corn crops into the pursuit of ethanol rather than using it for corn feed to feed the livestock. There are natural ramifications to pursuing these things; economy and nature are sadly related.

There is an interesting quip that the start-up and production of ethanol will, perhaps, take up more oil in order to produce it than the ethanol created.

That being said, we need to think of alternatives for oil, or ways to use oil more efficiently. No point in putting off the inevitable, like everyone else said. Let some third party business take care of it.

Just like the potential threat of Global Warming. May or may not exist, but shouldn't we stop polluting anyway? We've seen the impact of too many cars running and not enough regulation, and if you haven't, look at China's skyline. Regardless of whether or not I'm going to be killed within the next few years because a giant tidal wave will come and sweep me up due to a melting ice flow in the Arctic, I don't want to breathe smog for the rest of my life.

[King Hydros]

I am for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr. He is really one of the few candidates that make sense, Ron Paul was also one of those candidates. Do not think that I am a Republican because I am not. I just value liberty, what this country was based on! Bob Barr '08!

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 13 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

And for the last time Toasty, our oil reserves isn't something we should rely on solely to get us out of the current situation. Alternative fuels is something we should invest in now, concurrently with using a portion of our reserves to jumpstart things (and yes, we DO have the money for research in alternative energy - all that senseless money wasted on the Iraq war, all those billions could be directed towards creating a working infrastructure).

Besides, drilling for our oil reserves won't amount to as much as you say.



I'm going to give you a task Toasty. It's called reading.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes

You seem to have misunderstood me. I never said that developing alternative fuels was a bad thing, or that we shouldn't do it. What I meant, was that we shouldn't do it INSTEAD of drilling for our own oil. They should be done in tandem, with the emphasis on our own oil. At least until we're energy independent. One we are, it'd be smart to put more effort into developing alternative fuels since it's obvious we'll run out of oil (though I'll say this for the umpteenth time, that won't be any time soon).

Secondly I don't mean ONLY drilling for our oil reserves. Coal to oil technology is perfect for us, since we are to coal as Saudi Arabia is to oil. We're sitting on the largest deposit of coal on the planet. It'd be idiodic to NOT use that to our advantage. With our oil reserves and coal to oil technology, we can easily become energy independent on just our own fossil fuels. The alternative fuels should be used to keep us energy independent. Not get us there. It will take far longer to become independent off of alternative fuels than it will with our own natural resources. That is a fact.

And please GL, tell me where I ever said that Mc Cain wasn't for higher taxes, or that I even liked him? He's just as bad as Hillary and Obama. Higher taxes for us means fatter wallets for government officials (including the President), and bigger government. Neither of which are good for the country. If you want the economy to rise, then let the citizens have money to spend.


And Kiku, I was referring to corn ethanol. Farmers are planting corn that'll be used to make ethanol, instead of planting wheat. Now instead of exporting wheat and bringing money into our economy (we used to be the biggest wheat exporter in the world), we're planting corn which will be used in an inefficient process to make ethanol. It's bad for the economy.

[EDIT] And I agree with Shikonaurum. I've never been against making cars more efficient, and to an extent cleaner. With gas prices as they are, we need highly efficient cars, and personally, I'm not a fan of car exhaust. The only thing is, I still like oil. I just don't like the fumes. With the technology we have today, there's no reason why we can't have more control over the combustion process. When gasoline is completely burned, it produces water and CO2 without any waste gasses (correct me if I'm wrong). However, since we can't get a perfect combustion in a car's engine (yet, at least), we get waste gasses that can cause smog. I don't mind making cars cleaner and more efficient as long as it doesn't hurt our economy, or keep us from using our own fossil fuels.

[Kikuichimonji]

Shikonaurum, on Jun 14 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

The counterpoint in the economic argument is that the current food shortage and inflationary crisis of this year is due to, in part, the diversion of corn crops into the pursuit of ethanol rather than using it for corn feed to feed the livestock. There are natural ramifications to pursuing these things; economy and nature are sadly related.

There is an interesting quip that the start-up and production of ethanol will, perhaps, take up more oil in order to produce it than the ethanol created.

That being said, we need to think of alternatives for oil, or ways to use oil more efficiently. No point in putting off the inevitable, like everyone else said. Let some third party business take care of it.

Just like the potential threat of Global Warming. May or may not exist, but shouldn't we stop polluting anyway? We've seen the impact of too many cars running and not enough regulation, and if you haven't, look at China's skyline. Regardless of whether or not I'm going to be killed within the next few years because a giant tidal wave will come and sweep me up due to a melting ice flow in the Arctic, I don't want to breathe smog for the rest of my life.

See this is the thing. I've always had a problem with the idea that there is an actual food shortage as the media makes it out to be when over here in the UK (and the EU), due to protectionist policies, we infact have "wheat hills" and "wine lakes". if anything, thanks to GM technology, I would've thought the inverse is true. So I can only conclude that I believe the only reason why there is a food shortage is only due inequalities present and far to much protectionist acts (such as the CAP which the E.U. are guilty of).

Your point about the idea of using more oil to produce less ethanol which is less efficient is a reasonable one but really, you're just reitterating the point that there should be more investment to make ethanol and other biofuel more efficient so this doesn't happen in the long run (hope that makes sense, I'm in a rush :()

Also alot of people seem to be forgetting one vital fact. Ethanol isn't the ONLY alternative source of energy. Solar, wind, hydro...I could go on.

Toasty, on Jun 15 2008, 07:34 AM, said:

You seem to have misunderstood me. I never said that developing alternative fuels was a bad thing, or that we shouldn't do it. What I meant, was that we shouldn't do it INSTEAD of drilling for our own oil. They should be done in tandem, with the emphasis on our own oil. At least until we're energy independent. One we are, it'd be smart to put more effort into developing alternative fuels since it's obvious we'll run out of oil (though I'll say this for the umpteenth time, that won't be any time soon).

Secondly I don't mean ONLY drilling for our oil reserves. Coal to oil technology is perfect for us, since we are to coal as Saudi Arabia is to oil. We're sitting on the largest deposit of coal on the planet. It'd be idiodic to NOT use that to our advantage. With our oil reserves and coal to oil technology, we can easily become energy independent on just our own fossil fuels. The alternative fuels should be used to keep us energy independent. Not get us there. It will take far longer to become independent off of alternative fuels than it will with our own natural resources. That is a fact.

And please GL, tell me where I ever said that Mc Cain wasn't for higher taxes, or that I even liked him? He's just as bad as Hillary and Obama. Higher taxes for us means fatter wallets for government officials (including the President), and bigger government. Neither of which are good for the country. If you want the economy to rise, then let the citizens have money to spend.
And Kiku, I was referring to corn ethanol. Farmers are planting corn that'll be used to make ethanol, instead of planting wheat. Now instead of exporting wheat and bringing money into our economy (we used to be the biggest wheat exporter in the world), we're planting corn which will be used in an inefficient process to make ethanol. It's bad for the economy.

[EDIT] And I agree with Shikonaurum. I've never been against making cars more efficient, and to an extent cleaner. With gas prices as they are, we need highly efficient cars, and personally, I'm not a fan of car exhaust. The only thing is, I still like oil. I just don't like the fumes. With the technology we have today, there's no reason why we can't have more control over the combustion process. When gasoline is completely burned, it produces water and CO2 without any waste gasses (correct me if I'm wrong). However, since we can't get a perfect combustion in a car's engine (yet, at least), we get waste gasses that can cause smog. I don't mind making cars cleaner and more efficient as long as it doesn't hurt our economy, or keep us from using our own fossil fuels.

Cool, I'm all for tandeming but it's important to realise it's all too easy to fall back into bad habits as it were ;)

You talk about ethanol being inefficient, but coal is just as bad. Infact you later make a point about wanting to have perfect combustion but coal in itself is riddled with impurities as well :/

Actually the argument I think GL is trying to make is that increased taxation (i.e tightening fiscal policy) can actually boost your economy as increased taxation means increased government revenue. Increased government revenue will mean increased government expenditure which in turn boosts your economy (I'm not even including the multiplier effect here). However I do disgress there are faults in demand management but in the short term, it's the easiest way to boost your GDP. Don't assume governments are the big baddies out to nick your tax money to simply have "fatter wallets" and "bigger government", they are taxing you for a reason and to think otherwise would be naive.

Your point about being a wheat exporter doesn't hold too much water as I was under the impression that your economy is leaning more towards services/finance (similar to ours) so the loss you have there can be made up here. Ofcourse, a loss anywhere on your trade would be bad but in an increasingly globalised world, inevitable either way. It's actually partly the rest of the world's fault about that, thanks to trading blocs.If anything this serves to prove that you need more investment to make ethanol more efficient so less of your fields are used to make the corn.

[Shikonaurum]

The problem with taxes right now is that no matter how we look at it, we're paying for Iraq, and pretty much Iraq only. No matter which administration gets into power, Iraq is such a huge part of our budget that taxes will flow into that stream.

To quote a play, You Can't Take It With You (written in 1940, hence some time discrepancies from current day):

Quote

Henderson: Well, Mr. Vanderhof, it seems that you owe the government twenty-four years back income tax.
Grandpa: Well, let me ask you a question. What's the government going to do with my money? If I got to Macy's and buy something there, there it is, I see it. But what's the government going to give me?
Henderson: Why, the government gives you everything! It protects you!
Grandpa: From what?
Henderson: From invasion. Foreigners that might come over here and take everything that you've got.
Grandpa: Oh, I don't think they'll do that.
Henderson: If you didn't pay an income tax, they would. How do you think the Government keeps up the Army and the Navy? All those battleships.
Grandpa: The last time we used battleships, it was the Spanish American War. And what did we get out of that? Cuba. And we gave that back. I wouldn't mind if it was something sensible.
Henderson: Well, what about Congress, or the Supreme Court, or the President? We've got to pay them, don't we?
Grandpa: Not with my money.

Less extreme than that, but it gets the point across. Not to mention I thought that we needed some humor around here. XD

Anyway, as for the efficiency, hell, I'm all about efficiency, and also about harnessing alternative energy as quickly as possible, while making oil usage more efficient. Yay hybrids!

And I believe that right now, for first-world nations, it's less of a food shortage as opposed to price inflation. In the meantime, third world countries who have had a drought this year coupled with inflationary prices are experiencing more of a crisis. It namely affects the poor; if nobody can afford it, the food all wastes away. There is something fiscal going on there, though.

[Toasty]

Kikuichimonji, on Jun 15 2008, 09:02 AM, said:

See this is the thing. I've always had a problem with the idea that there is an actual food shortage as the media makes it out to be when over here in the UK (and the EU), due to protectionist policies, we infact have "wheat hills" and "wine lakes". if anything, thanks to GM technology, I would've thought the inverse is true. So I can only conclude that I believe the only reason why there is a food shortage is only due inequalities present and far to much protectionist acts (such as the CAP which the E.U. are guilty of).

Your point about the idea of using more oil to produce less ethanol which is less efficient is a reasonable one but really, you're just reitterating the point that there should be more investment to make ethanol and other biofuel more efficient so this doesn't happen in the long run (hope that makes sense, I'm in a rush :( )

Also alot of people seem to be forgetting one vital fact. Ethanol isn't the ONLY alternative source of energy. Solar, wind, hydro...I could go on.




Cool, I'm all for tandeming but it's important to realise it's all too easy to fall back into bad habits as it were ;)

You talk about ethanol being inefficient, but coal is just as bad. Infact you later make a point about wanting to have perfect combustion but coal in itself is riddled with impurities as well :/

Actually the argument I think GL is trying to make is that increased taxation (i.e tightening fiscal policy) can actually boost your economy as increased taxation means increased government revenue. Increased government revenue will mean increased government expenditure which in turn boosts your economy (I'm not even including the multiplier effect here). However I do disgress there are faults in demand management but in the short term, it's the easiest way to boost your GDP. Don't assume governments are the big baddies out to nick your tax money to simply have "fatter wallets" and "bigger government", they are taxing you for a reason and to think otherwise would be naive.

Your point about being a wheat exporter doesn't hold too much water as I was under the impression that your economy is leaning more towards services/finance (similar to ours) so the loss you have there can be made up here. Ofcourse, a loss anywhere on your trade would be bad but in an increasingly globalised world, inevitable either way. It's actually partly the rest of the world's fault about that, thanks to trading blocs.If anything this serves to prove that you need more investment to make ethanol more efficient so less of your fields are used to make the corn.

One of Newton's laws state that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, at best we can hope to get an equal amount of energy in the form of ethanol as we put into the process in the form of oil. However, that can't ever be true. At least not as long as we're using oil to make ethanol. There's a loss in energy used to transport the oil to the ethanol plants (and to harvest the corn for that matter), and then again to convert the corn into ethanol. If we just use the oil to fuel the cars instead, we're only losing energy by transporting the fuel to the refineries, and then to the pumps. And since fossil fuels contain much more energy per gallon than ethanol, it's more logical and efficient to use oil over ethanol in the first place.

Though as long as we use renewable energy sources to fuel the process (hydro-electric dams, or even nuclear power plants would suffice), and DON'T use corn to creat the ethanol, than I'm fine. Scientists are starting to develop technology to turn waste products (garbage, or even corn stalk, but not the corn itself) into ethanol, so I'm not against that since the garbage will be put to good use instead of just being thrown into landfills. However, that would still probably farmers to focus more on corn than wheat, or other crops.

And on the topic of coal being inefficient, that may be true. However, it still contains more energy per unit than ethanol. It makes more sense to make coal more efficient since we can get more energy out of it. Once we get it to a desireable level of efficiency, then we can focus more on ethanol.

[Golden Legacy]

Well, it had to happen eventually.
I've found an issue where I might be at slightly at odds with Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_...child_rape_case

[Gio]

I would have to say that I sort of halfway agree with him.(that's weird)
While I think that the death penalty should be used sparingly. I also realize that somebody raping a child at that young of an age could severely alter their future and scar them. I think the death penalty should apply here. Raping a child is a horrible thing to even consider, much more horrible to actually carry out.

[Toasty]

Wow. I agree with Obama on something. The death penalty is not "inhumane" or anything like that. It'd be more inhumane to let the guy live. Just kill him an let him serve his punishment in hell. That's what it's there for.

Golden Legacy, on Jun 25 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

Don't you dare accuse me. I, who reads seven periodicals from Europe, Asia, and South America on a regular basis? I, who watches both CNN and FOX news, who follows the BBC and the Economist? I get the complete story, I make SURE to have a cohesive, whole view from all aspects of a story.

I've based my opinion and beliefs on the ENTIRE picture. You, as someone who listens to a guy like Rush Limbaugh and ONLY that type of news (correct me if I'm wrong) are at fault of being manipulated, duped, and having a half-***ed view of the world (the worst half, mind you).


News flash - our economy IS crumbling.
Who's in power? A conservative.


You mean all our resources are being wasted away in a war that isn't making us safer, a war that has ruined America's reputation and standing in the world.

If you cared about the American people, we would stop wasting billions on wars and the military and start investing in domestic issues. Do you care about homelessness? A decent education for our children? Health insurance available to those who need it? Ending the foreclosures of homes? Ending the millions of lost jobs? Then you put your resources into all that.


All right, so McCain isn't the perfect conservative for you. Why then, are you not voting for Bob Barr (the libertarian candidate, I believe) who has stronger conservative ideals than dear old McCain?

Then tell me, GL, besides the fact that Rush Limbaugh is a Conservative, what makes his opinion so skewed and wrong? Is it because he doesn't like Obama? You're list of news outlets doesn't impress me. All you really need to listen to to get all the sides of a story are Fox and CNN. The New York Times is so full of themselves that their opinion isn't worth two cents anymore. Not saying you read that daily, but if you rely on it for information about most things, your views will be skewed.

Oh yes. The conservative half of the world is just an evil juggernaught bent on world domination, waving the American flag as they do so. EXTREME conservatives, the ones who want to just nuke every body and get it overwith, re the ones you seem to refrence and use as a stereotype quite often. I can see where they come from, but in the end, nuking the middle east still won't solve our problems. It'll just make new ones.
Though I'm very interested in why you dislike Rush so much. I admire him for actually having a spine. Something very, very few people in our own government seem to have. And that's on both sides of the alley.

Since I don't have Fox News, I listen to CNN (mostly Glenn Beck, though I listen to other hosts who lean to the left from time to time), and the only newspaper we get that isn't local is Investor's Buisness Daily, which leans to the right and has a few articles about current events. I don't read news on the web because I'm too lazy to find a reliable site. If there's an interesting article at the top of the MSN home page though, I'll read it.

Our economy isn't crumbling as much as you seem to think. The dollar is worth so little mostly because the government is reducing it's worth on purpouse. The reason for that is to reduce the amount of debt we're, ultimately makeing it easier to get back into the green. Once we're fairly close to being out of the red, we'll start to see the dollar rise. One of the fastest (and easiest) ways to get there, and I'll say this for the umpteenth time, is to export our abundance of coal and oil. The only way to make money is to have something to sell. The other option, which is planting more wheat and becoming an exporter of it again will have to be done in tandem with something else. Like exporting coal and oil.Exporting ethanol is a stupid idea, since countries on the other side of the atlantic, like England, can produce it much more efficiently. We don't have many more resources we can export.

I think you'll agree with me that Bush hasn't been doing a whole lot for quite some time. If that's so, then how can he really be responsible for much of what's happning with the economy? Congress has been the one proposing and passing all these bull**** ideas and plans. Congress, which is controlled by democrats who have majority in the house and senate, is far more at fault than Bush. Somehow though, you've failed to notice that.



Let me make one thing clear. This is what WILL happen if we pull out of Iraq before it's ready:

Day 1: Some troops begin to pull back and pack up.
Day 2: More troops pack up their tents and start heading for ports/airfields to head home. Terrorists/insurgents begin to notice the retreat, and begin to press foreward.
Day 3: Lack of US/allied troops leaves defenses thin. Insurgents/terrorists easily take out the lightly guraded outposts.
Day 4: Troops continue to retreat, terrorists/insurgents continue to kill off more and more allied soldiers.
Day 5: Troops are mostly evacuated, remaining troops are either killed off, or are lucky enough to get out.
Day 6: Insurgents/terrorists take over Iraq and appoint a new dictator. Dictator promotes and funds terrorist cells bent on attacking the United states. Iraqi citiczens are treated poorly buy the new dictatorship.
Day 7: Iraqi's hate us for leaving and allowing their country to be thrown back into a dictatorship. Right back where it was before we invaded.

Sometime Later: 9/11 happens again, terrorists are assumed to be middle-eastern with ties to Iraq and surrounding countries.

Obviously that won't happen in a few days. It's a general timeline. But I can assure you that events such as this WILL occur if Iraq can't stand on it's own two feet before we pull out. The outcome over there is directly correlated to the safety of our country. Denying it is ignorance.

Most of the people who had their homes forclosed brought it upon themselves by being too stupid to understand that they'd never be able to pay back the loans they were given. The rest of the fault should be given to the companies/banks who loaned them the money, knowing good and well that they were being unfair.

Healthcare run by the government is not a smart idea in the slightest. Every time the government is given control over something, and the people don't get a say in the matter, things will go wrong. Such is thecase with government run healthcare. Everybody mightnot be able to afford healthcare right now, but at least the ones who can are getting the healthcare they need, or close to it.

If a kid wants an education these days, chances are he'll get it. He'll realise that getting a 3.0 or better will give him a good chance at getting a scholarship for a good college. If they don't care and just wind up with a 2.0, then they obviously don't want an education, and don't deserve it.
I know that there's kid's out there with sub-par IQ's who still really want to go to college, but there's not many of them, and even so, if they want it enough they will find a way to get it.

We might have more jobs if we'd tighten up the borders and kick all the illegals out. However, Obama seems to want to keep them here. How strange....

Because Bob Barr doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. He's an ant compared to the Obama and McCain juggernaughts. If it was an ideal world, then Mitt Romney would still be in the race instead of McCain, and people would be voting for him. However, it's not. Instead of voting for who they think will do the best job, most people just vote for who they think will win. I hate McCain, but even HE will do a better job as president than Obama. The country might even be worse off than it is now 4 years down the road with McCain in office, but at least it will still be America, and at least people will still be able to truely suceed in life without their money being sucke away by the government to be given to the lazy bums who won't even get off their asses to get a job. Or worse yet, to just fatten up the wallets of politicians.


Obama isn't as great as you, or most people think. If he did, then he'd use his superb speaking skills to actually inform people about the issues he stands for. However, he prefers to point out how awful the people on the right side of the isle are. You seem to be one of the many people listening to him.

[Golden Legacy]

[quote name='Toasty' post='421101' date='Jun 26 2008, 02:08 AM']Then tell me, GL, besides the fact that Rush Limbaugh is a Conservative, what makes his opinion so skewed and wrong? Is it because he doesn't like Obama? You're list of news outlets doesn't impress me. All you really need to listen to to get all the sides of a story are Fox and CNN. The New York Times is so full of themselves that their opinion isn't worth two cents anymore. Not saying you read that daily, but if you rely on it for information about most things, your views will be skewed.[/quote]
I'm going to say this once: DO. NOT. MAKE. ASSUMPTIONS.
You're missing the point, completely. Listening to Rush Limbaugh is fine if you realize that he's a conservative, and your recognize that it's his bias and opinion. Listening to ONLY that type of news is the problem: saying his views = truth is wrong.

And Toasty, don't be an idiot. If I may be vain, I think my list of news outlets far surpasses yours, at least I get a COMPLETE view of the world, and I base my opinion on that.

[quote]Oh yes. The conservative half of the world is just an evil juggernaught bent on world domination, waving the American flag as they do so. EXTREME conservatives, the ones who want to just nuke every body and get it overwith, re the ones you seem to refrence and use as a stereotype quite often. I can see where they come from, but in the end, nuking the middle east still won't solve our problems. It'll just make new ones.[/quote]
You support Bush. You support Cheney. You support McCain. You support war.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg...feature=related[/url]
[url="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7924"]http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=7924[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWoGulgbec&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWoGulgbec...feature=related[/url]

[quote]Since I don't have Fox News, I listen to CNN (mostly Glenn Beck, though I listen to other hosts who lean to the left from time to time), and the only newspaper we get that isn't local is Investor's Buisness Daily, which leans to the right and has a few articles about current events. I don't read news on the web because I'm too lazy to find a reliable site. If there's an interesting article at the top of the MSN home page though, I'll read it.[/quote]
I don't see how your list of resources trumps mine.

[quote]Our economy isn't crumbling as much as you seem to think. The dollar is worth so little mostly because the government is reducing it's worth on purpouse. The reason for that is to reduce the amount of debt we're, ultimately makeing it easier to get back into the green. Once we're fairly close to being out of the red, we'll start to see the dollar rise.[/quote]
And why do we have debt? Might it be the $500 billion we've wasted on Iraq? Might it be the government's continuing support of corporations that ship jobs overseas for cheap labor? Might it be forcing middle-class Americans to pay higher taxes than the CEOs and contributing to the inequality gap?

[quote]One of the fastest (and easiest) ways to get there, and I'll say this for the umpteenth time, is to export our abundance of coal and oil. The only way to make money is to have something to sell. The other option, which is planting more wheat and becoming an exporter of it again will have to be done in tandem with something else. Like exporting coal and oil.Exporting ethanol is a stupid idea, since countries on the other side of the atlantic, like England, can produce it much more efficiently. We don't have many more resources we can export.[/quote]
Reducing our abundence on coal and oil is asking for alternative energy. And for the umpeenth time, that does NOT JUST INCLUDE ETHANOL. You're behind on this, the entire world is investing in green technologies and reducing their dependence on foreign oil, all except for the US.

[quote]I think you'll agree with me that Bush hasn't been doing a whole lot for quite some time. If that's so, then how can he really be responsible for much of what's happning with the economy? Congress has been the one proposing and passing all these bull**** ideas and plans. Congress, which is controlled by democrats who have majority in the house and senate, is far more at fault than Bush. Somehow though, you've failed to notice that.[/quote]
Umm. Fact check, the Republicans/conservatives had controll of Congress since 1994, through 2006.
Bush, regretfully, came into office in 2000. That means he's had a fully controlled Congress for six years, 3/4 of his reign as president.

Somehow though, you've failed to notice that.

[quote]Let me make one thing clear. This is what WILL happen if we pull out of Iraq before it's ready:

Day 1: Some troops begin to pull back and pack up.
Day 2: More troops pack up their tents and start heading for ports/airfields to head home. Terrorists/insurgents begin to notice the retreat, and begin to press foreward.
Day 3: Lack of US/allied troops leaves defenses thin. Insurgents/terrorists easily take out the lightly guraded outposts.
Day 4: Troops continue to retreat, terrorists/insurgents continue to kill off more and more allied soldiers.
Day 5: Troops are mostly evacuated, remaining troops are either killed off, or are lucky enough to get out.
Day 6: Insurgents/terrorists take over Iraq and appoint a new dictator. Dictator promotes and funds terrorist cells bent on attacking the United states. Iraqi citiczens are treated poorly buy the new dictatorship.
Day 7: Iraqi's hate us for leaving and allowing their country to be thrown back into a dictatorship. Right back where it was before we invaded.

Sometime Later: 9/11 happens again, terrorists are assumed to be middle-eastern with ties to Iraq and surrounding countries.

Obviously that won't happen in a few days. It's a general timeline. But I can assure you that events such as this WILL occur if Iraq can't stand on it's own two feet before we pull out. The outcome over there is directly correlated to the safety of our country. Denying it is ignorance.[/quote]
You're forgetting something - much of the reason why insurgents are angry with the US is because WE'RE STILL THERE. AND NOT ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING.

I'm all for getting Iraq to stand on its own. But that hasn't happened in over five years. All that's happened is we've toppled a fairly stable nation, thrown it into chaos, and have seen untold bloodshed on both sides under the pretense of "spreading democracy".

Secondly, there never was, never has been, never will be a link between Iraq and 9/11.

The war, if it had been conducted properly from Day 1, might have warranted the presence of the military there. But it hasn't, and this has taught us not to go messing around in other nations and issues that don't ****ing concern us.

[quote]Most of the people who had their homes forclosed brought it upon themselves by being too stupid to understand that they'd never be able to pay back the loans they were given. The rest of the fault should be given to the companies/banks who loaned them the money, knowing good and well that they were being unfair.[/quote]
Funny how all these "stupid people" appear during Bush's reign only.
It takes a really shameless person to disregard the peril of millions of people who've lost their homes and economic stability and blame it on them only.

[quote]Healthcare run by the government is not a smart idea in the slightest. Every time the government is given control over something, and the people don't get a say in the matter, things will go wrong. Such is thecase with government run healthcare. Everybody mightnot be able to afford healthcare right now, but at least the ones who can are getting the healthcare they need, or close to it.[/quote]
So that's why 47 million Americans are uninsured, nearly a fourth being children.

[quote]If a kid wants an education these days, chances are he'll get it. He'll realise that getting a 3.0 or better will give him a good chance at getting a scholarship for a good college. If they don't care and just wind up with a 2.0, then they obviously don't want an education, and don't deserve it.
I know that there's kid's out there with sub-par IQ's who still really want to go to college, but there's not many of them, and even so, if they want it enough they will find a way to get it.[/quote]
What a twisted, ****ing horrible view. Education is a right that every person should have. Take it from someone who's been through the financial part of college, it's a difficult and corrupt system to crack. I can't tell you how many people I've seen (brilliant and deserve the best) who can't go to college, aren't subsidized to do so, and come from families who can't afford it and hardly get anything from it.

And let's make it clear, the No Child Left Behind Act is probably the single most corrupt piece of bull**** reform in history. The education system have been so severely compromised and the standards have been lowered to a pathetic degree. Not to mention, as a result states have cut funding to education, limited resources in the classroom, class sizes have grown. It's repulsive, the level to which education has fallen.

[quote]We might have more jobs if we'd tighten up the borders and kick all the illegals out. However, Obama seems to want to keep them here. How strange....[/quote]
We might have more jobs if corporations didn't ship them overseas to countries with a large workforce of cheap labor. We might have more jobs if the government supported the people over profit. However, McCain doesn't want to punish the corporations. How strange...

[quote]Because Bob Barr doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. He's an ant compared to the Obama and McCain juggernaughts. If it was an ideal world, then Mitt Romney would still be in the race instead of McCain, and people would be voting for him. However, it's not. Instead of voting for who they think will do the best job, most people just vote for who they think will win. I hate McCain, but even HE will do a better job as president than Obama. The country might even be worse off than it is now 4 years down the road with McCain in office, but at least it will still be America, and at least people will still be able to truely suceed in life without their money being sucke away by the government to be given to the lazy bums who won't even get off their asses to get a job. Or worse yet, to just fatten up the wallets of politicians.[/quote]
As is happening now? You bet.

[quote]Obama isn't as great as you, or most people think. If he did, then he'd use his superb speaking skills to actually inform people about the issues he stands for. However, he prefers to point out how awful the people on the right side of the isle are. You seem to be one of the many people listening to him.[/quote]
The people on the right (those in power now) ARE awful, filthy, disgusting.
I'm not surprised that you don't know what Obama stands for (despite our countless arguments), considering you rely on media that always attacks Obama's name, heritage, culture, background, race. How very American of you.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Jun 26 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

I'm going to say this once: DO. NOT. MAKE. ASSUMPTIONS.
You're missing the point, completely. Listening to Rush Limbaugh is fine if you realize that he's a conservative, and your recognize that it's his bias and opinion. Listening to ONLY that type of news is the problem: saying his views = truth is wrong.

I don't copy and paste his words and claim them as my opinions, but I do agree with him on many points. Obama, like many other Liberals, is a hypocrite. The only difference is that he shows his hypocrisy to the public and sugar-coats it so people think he's some great guy who'll save the country. He want's to give people more freedom, and says he believes in the American people, yet he votes for bills that take the responsibility off of the people, and gives it to the government. I don't know about you, but when my parents trust me, they give me more responsibility. Not less.

And Toasty, don't be an idiot. If I may be vain, I think my list of news outlets far surpasses yours, at least I get a COMPLETE view of the world, and I base my opinion on that.

And yet you still like Obama..... <_<

You support Bush. You support Cheney. You support McCain. You support war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg...feature=related
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=7924
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWoGulgbec...feature=related

If you honestly think that the world can live without war, you're blind. There's people out there who will stop at nothing to acomplish their goals. They care nothing for beurocracy, treaties, and reasoning. There ARE times for war, and this IS one of them.
Hitler would've had the word if we didn't stop him. Terrorists and insurgents are similar in the fact that they will ie before they give up. Hitler never kept any treaties, he never listened to reasoning, and trying to make deals with him was absured. The people we're at war with are exactly the same in that sense.
You seem to think that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. I'm not very sorry to break the news to you that THEY WANT US DEAD. Whether we're occupying Iraq or not doesn't make a difference to them. hey hate us, and probably always will.

Besides, even if they didn't even leave their own country after we retreated, they'd still take over Iraq, appoint a new dictator, and things would be back exactly as they were when Saddam was in power. The Iraqi people will then hate us even MORE for not sticking to our plan and trying to give them a democracy. We would've put them through hell with the war, and then gave them back exactly what they had to begin with. If I were one of them, I'd probably want to bomb the hell out of the US for it if I could. I honestly wouln't be surprised if many Iraqi citzcens decided to become terrorists and attack the United States. Heck, I probably wouldn't really blame them if the US did something like that.


I don't see how your list of resources trumps mine.

I never said it did. I was stating what news sources I listen to, so you could make up your mind about how biased my sources are.

And why do we have debt? Might it be the $500 billion we've wasted on Iraq? Might it be the government's continuing support of corporations that ship jobs overseas for cheap labor? Might it be forcing middle-class Americans to pay higher taxes than the CEOs and contributing to the inequality gap?

The millionairs and richer still pay 90% of all taxes, or something absured like that, so I highly doubt middle class citczens are paying more. Obviously shipping jobs overseas is part of the lack of jobs available here, but any of the minimum wage jobs left in the states are being soaked up by illegals. And out money will only be wasted if we pull out of Iraq before we're finished. If the dems would have quit playing tug of war with it a long time ago and let us fund the dang thing and get it over with, we probably could have finished this war a few years ago. And you wouldn't be complaining about it either. You'd be happy with the outcome because Iraq would finally be a free country run by democracy.


Reducing our abundence on coal and oil is asking for alternative energy. And for the umpeenth time, that does NOT JUST INCLUDE ETHANOL. You're behind on this, the entire world is investing in green technologies and reducing their dependence on foreign oil, all except for the US.

I know it doesn't just include ethanol GL. I'm not blind. However, most of the liberals (including Obama) praise ethanol like it's the new black gold. THEY spend more time praising ethanol than any other alternative energy source. I know you don't, which is something I can agree with you on to some extent, but they do. Hence why I continually bring it up when the topic of alternative fuels is thrown on the table.

Umm. Fact check, the Republicans/conservatives had controll of Congress since 1994, through 2006.
Bush, regretfully, came into office in 2000. That means he's had a fully controlled Congress for six years, 3/4 of his reign as president.

Somehow though, you've failed to notice that.

The democrats have had majority of the House and Senate for two years. Most of the bills that have been causeing most of the trouble have been passed after 2006, in the past two years. The economy has only really shown a steep decline in the past two years. Hmmmm.....

You're forgetting something - much of the reason why insurgents are angry with the US is because WE'RE STILL THERE. AND NOT ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING.

I will repeat myself again. They hated us before we invaded, they've hated us the whole time we've been there, and they will continue to hate us after we leave. They're not oing to turn around and be our best friend, let alone be indifferent to us after we leave. They will NOT settle down and leave us alone once we pull out either. They hate us for more than just occupying their country GL. They hate us because we aren't them.

I'm all for getting Iraq to stand on its own. But that hasn't happened in over five years. All that's happened is we've toppled a fairly stable nation, thrown it into chaos, and have seen untold bloodshed on both sides under the pretense of "spreading democracy".

Maybe if the Democrats would allow the troops to have some support, the war would've been over with two years ago. Still, they opposed it from the beginning saying it was a bad idea, and it has only turned out to look like that because they've been restricting our troops, and the funding for them. Now the Dems are increibly happy, standing with their hands on their hips saying "See?! See?! We we're right and you were wrong! Ha ha ha ha!"

Secondly, there never was, never has been, never will be a link between Iraq and 9/11.

Allowing Iraq to remain under a dictatorship is like allowing terrorists to breed. With Saddam in power, even if he WASN'T supporting terrorism (which he was), he still wasn't doing anything to stop it. On top of that, he was commiting genocide, which is against international law and worthy of punishment BY international law (he got the death penalty as such). With Iraq as an ally under a democracy, we are far better off in our fight against terrorism, which is one step closer to preventing any 9/11 from happening again. Iraq may not have been directly related to 9/11, but it was INDIRECTLY related.

The war, if it had been conducted properly from Day 1, might have warranted the presence of the military there. But it hasn't, and this has taught us not to go messing around in other nations and issues that don't ****ing concern us.

It ****ing concerns us because Iraq under a ****ing dictatorship will allow ****ing terrorist cells to ****ing grow and gain ****ing strength. It is very much our ****ing buisness, since it concerns our ****ing national security (which is another thing Obama doesn't seem to care much about). ****

Funny how all these "stupid people" appear during Bush's reign only.
It takes a really shameless person to disregard the peril of millions of people who've lost their homes and economic stability and blame it on them only.

GL, there's something you need to know about human beings. They're known to be pretty stupid sometimes, and they're known to not learn from their mistakes unless they lose something from it. They will be able to recover without the government stepping in. If alcoholics, smokers, and even sometimes drug users can quit without help, then so can recovering forclosure victims. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger (and wiser).
The only reason why all these "stupid" people have appeared during Bush's reign, is because when something like this happened during Clinton's reign, he bailed them out, so they ended up not looking stupid in the end. Doesn't mean they weren't, and that's apparent since most of the people with foreclosed homes agreed to morgages they couldn't pay.
Tell me GL, if you borrowed money you couldn't pay back, does that make you smart?

So that's why 47 million Americans are uninsured, nearly a fourth being children.

Better it be only 47 million without health insurance, than 300 million with poor health insurance coverage that's about as good as nothing at all. At least the ones who have it are covered properly, which means the majority of Americans are safe. With government run healthcare, the vast majority of Americans will be unsafe.

What a twisted, ****ing horrible view. Education is a right that every person should have. Take it from someone who's been through the financial part of college, it's a difficult and corrupt system to crack. I can't tell you how many people I've seen (brilliant and deserve the best) who can't go to college, aren't subsidized to do so, and come from families who can't afford it and hardly get anything from it.

IF THEY DON'T WANT IT, WHY SHOULD WE WASTE OUR TIME GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY? WHAT SENSE DOSE THAT MAKE? If a child doesn't care about going to school and gets bad grades, then we're wasteing our time. If they want to put effort into learning, then I think they deserve support. They deserve to get the best ducation our country has to offer. The one's who don't care about school shouldn't get that chance, because they don't care, and there's no use in trying to change their mind.
I'll agree that the system needs some work, becaus it's definately not perfect. But the way Obama will set things up, billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours of time will be wasted on kids who don't give two ****s and won't make it past highschool. I don't aprove of how he will deal with the situation. It'll be about as bad for the economy as the Iraq War in it's entirety. That in turn will make the education of those who wanted it worth very little. What good would an education be in a country who's money is worth less than China's? (exaggeration, but you get the picture)

And let's make it clear, the No Child Left Behind Act is probably the single most corrupt piece of bull**** reform in history. The education system have been so severely compromised and the standards have been lowered to a pathetic degree. Not to mention, as a result states have cut funding to education, limited resources in the classroom, class sizes have grown. It's repulsive, the level to which education has fallen.

It's one of the bills I'm not happy Bush signed off on. Like I said, some children deserve to be left behind. If they don't care, they can go work minimum wage at a Mc Donalds for all I care. They brought it upon themselves. But even though this bill is hardly all it was craked up to be, Obama isn't going to make things much better. It'll probably end up being pretty much the same. The only difference being that the government will be given even MORE control (something liberals really enjoy doing, and something that ultimately undermines the whole idea of a democracy).

We might have more jobs if corporations didn't ship them overseas to countries with a large workforce of cheap labor. We might have more jobs if the government supported the people over profit. However, McCain doesn't want to punish the corporations. How strange...

The corporations don't need punishment. Heck, there's very few legal ways to do so without spending lots of money or breaking some constitutional rights. Our best bet is to make it more appealing to have Americans working for the corporations than foreigners.

As is happening now? You bet.

And guess who has majority control over congress? Guess who's been pushing for higher taxes, and to get rid of BUSH'S TAXCUTS? Guess who's been pushing for bigger government, which leads to fatter wallets in politicians pockets?
No matter how you look at it, CONSERVATIVES (keep in mind McCain is more liberal than conservative, hence why he can suck my balls for all I care) have been for reducing taxes and keeping the money where it should belong. In the tax-payers pockets. Clinton only put America in the green because he inflated taxes like hell (along with selling a few minor things to china and other countries. Like nukes). Bush cut his taxes like hell and in turn gave the people their money back. Saying Bush is responsible for sucking people's money away is ludicrous. Unfortunately though, the dems in congress have started to suck people's cash away again, and the Republicans have been carelessly wasting it on frivilous things. The Republicans in the government right now aren't acting like true conservatives, and they aren't showing any spine either.

As for suceeding in life, I believe small buisnesses are doing fairly well nowadays. At the very least, even if they aren't, increasing taxes will just make it harder for them to survive or suceed.

The people on the right (those in power now) ARE awful, filthy, disgusting.
I'm not surprised that you don't know what Obama stands for (despite our countless arguments), considering you rely on media that always attacks Obama's name, heritage, culture, background, race. How very American of you.

I know what Obama SAYS he stands for, and I know that that's what you believe he stands for. However, what he says and what he does are almost polar opposites. Take a look at some of the bills he's agreed with. If he cared more abut the people and not the government, he'd probably give Americans more responsibility.

Oh, and would you like me to remind you what his wife said? She said that for the first time in her life, she's proud of Americans. I guess she forgot all about how we won both world wars, ended the cold war, ended slavery and promoted kindness between white people and black people, and I guess she forgot the one most important thing: We started our own country against the will of England. A country who's risen to be the world superpower. I guess all of that just didn't impress her. And don't try and disect itand explain like Whoope Goldberg, because you can't do that without making an idiot out of yourself. Just like Whoope did. (I think I spelled her name wrong, though)

And to be honest, I'm not happy with many of the Republicans in the government right now either.

I'd like to ask you one more thing though GL. Do you want the government to have more power than the people, or do you want the people to have more power than the government?

[EDIT] Dang that post was long. XD I almost missed dinner. <.<;

[Golden Legacy]

I don't copy and paste his words and claim them as my opinions, but I do agree with him on many points. Obama, like many other Liberals, is a hypocrite. The only difference is that he shows his hypocrisy to the public and sugar-coats it so people think he's some great guy who'll save the country. He want's to give people more freedom, and says he believes in the American people, yet he votes for bills that take the responsibility off of the people, and gives it to the government. I don't know about you, but when my parents trust me, they give me more responsibility. Not less.

Yet you're casting your vote for McCain (if you can vote, I'm not sure if you're of age), who you soundly agree is a flip-flopper? Secondly, Obama trusts the people to make the right decision as to the DIRECTION THAT AMERICA should take. He trusts the American people, as every liberal, the majority of independents, and even a record number of conservatives/Republicans believe, to realize that the US has gone down in just about every aspect since Bush's reign, and to realize that it's only going to end up worse as time goes on if the current administration's policies stay in effect.

And yet you still like Obama..... <_<
And yet you're still a conservative.
See? That wasn't a point you made. That was an opinion.


If you honestly think that the world can live without war, you're blind. There's people out there who will stop at nothing to acomplish their goals. They care nothing for beurocracy, treaties, and reasoning. There ARE times for war, and this IS one of them.
Hitler would've had the word if we didn't stop him. Terrorists and insurgents are similar in the fact that they will ie before they give up. Hitler never kept any treaties, he never listened to reasoning, and trying to make deals with him was absured. The people we're at war with are exactly the same in that sense.
You seem to think that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. I'm not very sorry to break the news to you that THEY WANT US DEAD. Whether we're occupying Iraq or not doesn't make a difference to them. hey hate us, and probably always will.

No one is saying that war isn't necessary - but doing so based on a LIE and an UNFOUNDED claim is ludicrous. It's been shown, time and time again, that Iraq was NOT a harbor for terrorism, NOT a harbor for Al-Qaeda, and certainly NOT a harbor of nuclear weaponry. That was a twisted lie that the Bush administration gave. The UN, every other nation in the world, and even your dear old president himself admitted that there was no immediate reason to go into Iraq.

Besides, even if they didn't even leave their own country after we retreated, they'd still take over Iraq, appoint a new dictator, and things would be back exactly as they were when Saddam was in power. The Iraqi people will then hate us even MORE for not sticking to our plan and trying to give them a democracy. We would've put them through hell with the war, and then gave them back exactly what they had to begin with. If I were one of them, I'd probably want to bomb the hell out of the US for it if I could. I honestly wouln't be surprised if many Iraqi citzcens decided to become terrorists and attack the United States. Heck, I probably wouldn't really blame them if the US did something like that.

You make it sound like it's America's god-given duty to go out into the world and do what we please. If you want to talk about the former dictatorship in Iraq, then why aren't we in Venezuela, North Korea, Iran (though it looks like we're knocking on their door already), etc. It's a dangerous, foolish foreign policy to have of launching full-out war against a country whose ideals we don't like.

I never said it did. I was stating what news sources I listen to, so you could make up your mind about how biased my sources are.

Your sources aren't bad, but in my opinion they're somewhat isolated. Try reading a periodical or news source from outside of the US. Believe me, it gives you better insight into what's happening in our own country, not to mention the level of journalism elsewhere in the world is much higher. Quite unfortunate, actually. <__<

The millionairs and richer still pay 90% of all taxes, or something absured like that, so I highly doubt middle class citczens are paying more. Obviously shipping jobs overseas is part of the lack of jobs available here, but any of the minimum wage jobs left in the states are being soaked up by illegals. And out money will only be wasted if we pull out of Iraq before we're finished. If the dems would have quit playing tug of war with it a long time ago and let us fund the dang thing and get it over with, we probably could have finished this war a few years ago. And you wouldn't be complaining about it either. You'd be happy with the outcome because Iraq would finally be a free country run by democracy.

... No, no, Bush imposed tax cuts for the wealthy. Proportionally, the middle class are suffering and paying so much more, while the wealthy are paying comparatively not as much from their incomes.

Secondly, you complain of illegals taking minimum-wage jobs, but aren't attacking the corporations that ship jobs overseas? You can't choose what's at fault here.

And the Iraq war WAS funded to the extent that the administration wanted. Remember, the conservatives/Republicans were in control of congress for Bush's first six years, that means they were in control when the war was first announced and carried out. They supplied the funds, there was little to no stopping or limitations imposed by the Democrats because they weren't the majority. The conservatives got to spend all the money they wanted, quite unfortunate.

I know it doesn't just include ethanol GL. I'm not blind. However, most of the liberals (including Obama) praise ethanol like it's the new black gold. THEY spend more time praising ethanol than any other alternative energy source. I know you don't, which is something I can agree with you on to some extent, but they do. Hence why I continually bring it up when the topic of alternative fuels is thrown on the table.

That's a fair enough, if over-critical assessment. One of Obama's key points is to invest billions over a decade in developing an alternative-energy infrastructure, which I believe will be manufactured solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear plants. As far as I see, those are what Obama specifically is focusing on, though I agree that liberals HAVE put a little too much emphasis on ethanol, which be both know from a biological point is a hindrance/


The democrats have had majority of the House and Senate for two years. Most of the bills that have been causeing most of the trouble have been passed after 2006, in the past two years. The economy has only really shown a steep decline in the past two years. Hmmmm.....

Skim through this article: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...7/12/bush200712

A few points:

Meanwhile, we have become dependent on other nations for the financing of our own debt. Today, China alone holds more than $1 trillion in public and private American I.O.U.’s. Cumulative borrowing from abroad during the six years of the Bush administration amounts to some $5 trillion. Most likely these creditors will not call in their loans—if they ever did, there would be a global financial crisis. But there is something bizarre and troubling about the richest country in the world not being able to live even remotely within its means. Just as Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib have eroded America’s moral authority, so the Bush administration’s fiscal housekeeping has eroded our economic authority.

But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000—more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American. The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in 2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an average of $162,000.

In breathtaking disregard for the most basic rules of fiscal propriety, the administration continued to cut taxes even as it undertook expensive new spending programs and embarked on a financially ruinous “war of choice” in Iraq. A budget surplus of 2.4 percent of gross domestic product (G.D.P.), which greeted Bush as he took office, turned into a deficit of 3.6 percent in the space of four years. The United States had not experienced a turnaround of this magnitude since the global crisis of World War II.

I will repeat myself again. They hated us before we invaded, they've hated us the whole time we've been there, and they will continue to hate us after we leave. They're not oing to turn around and be our best friend, let alone be indifferent to us after we leave. They will NOT settle down and leave us alone once we pull out either. They hate us for more than just occupying their country GL. They hate us because we aren't them.

Let's be honest here, not much of the world has ever really liked the US. Insurgents and terrorists always hated America, but the simple, moderate, average person disliked but never hated the US.

Now, both the insurgents AND the civilians absolutely loathe and despise us.

Maybe if the Democrats would allow the troops to have some support, the war would've been over with two years ago. Still, they opposed it from the beginning saying it was a bad idea, and it has only turned out to look like that because they've been restricting our troops, and the funding for them. Now the Dems are increibly happy, standing with their hands on their hips saying "See?! See?! We we're right and you were wrong! Ha ha ha ha!"

Dude, it was Bush who outright said we only needed 100,000+ troops. BUSH himself, and I believe Cheney and Rumsfield agreed. Colin Powell was one of the most prominent advocates of having a much larger army force (300,000+) to get the job done smoothly and quickly, but it was (and I'll reiterate this) **BUSH** who said that what he allocated would be more than enough.

And again, 2003/2004 is Republican controlled congress. They basically sided with Bush, what he wanted to give to the war, and agreed that it was enough.

Allowing Iraq to remain under a dictatorship is like allowing terrorists to breed. With Saddam in power, even if he WASN'T supporting terrorism (which he was), he still wasn't doing anything to stop it. On top of that, he was commiting genocide, which is against international law and worthy of punishment BY international law (he got the death penalty as such). With Iraq as an ally under a democracy, we are far better off in our fight against terrorism, which is one step closer to preventing any 9/11 from happening again. Iraq may not have been directly related to 9/11, but it was INDIRECTLY related.

That's a more sensible point coming from you, so I'll applaud you for that. However, like I mentioned previously, with that logic it wouldn't make sense for us to stop at just Saddam, we'd have to be in at least another five/ten nations that have grossly violated international law and committed crimes against humanity.

That said, the "terrorism" Saddam supported was in no way linked with 9/11, with Al Qaeda, or even Bin Laden himself. It was just something contained in his own region/nation (which I agree is BAD), but not the same ones who conducted 9/11, not even indirectly linked to it.

With that said, I also want to say (and I know you'll sidestep this, but just read it through and consider it) that Iraq under Saddam's rule wasn't horrible for the majority of people. YES, he committed crimes, and YES he was responsible for conducting attacks against the Kurds, but under his reign he boosted the living standards of Iraqis, made it the centerplace for higher education in the Middle East, people as far as Southern Europe would come to Iraq, the economy boomed, and it was a prosperous time.

**** YES HE COMMITTED CRIMES, WE REALIZE THAT ****

But I am just saying, that for all the bad he did, he managed to keep a lid on the absolute worst of it, which we are seeing today.

(I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make here, I'm not against what you're saying, I'm just pointing out this whole other side to it. Fair?)

It ****ing concerns us because Iraq under a ****ing dictatorship will allow ****ing terrorist cells to ****ing grow and gain ****ing strength. It is very much our ****ing buisness, since it concerns our ****ing national security (which is another thing Obama doesn't seem to care much about). ****

See previous points about Iraq/terrorism, USA/foreign policy.

GL, there's something you need to know about human beings. They're known to be pretty stupid sometimes, and they're known to not learn from their mistakes unless they lose something from it. They will be able to recover without the government stepping in. If alcoholics, smokers, and even sometimes drug users can quit without help, then so can recovering forclosure victims. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger (and wiser).
The only reason why all these "stupid" people have appeared during Bush's reign, is because when something like this happened during Clinton's reign, he bailed them out, so they ended up not looking stupid in the end. Doesn't mean they weren't, and that's apparent since most of the people with foreclosed homes agreed to morgages they couldn't pay.
Tell me GL, if you borrowed money you couldn't pay back, does that make you smart?

Obviously not. However, if I borrowed money well within my capability of paying it back, and suddenly inflation caused my income to be worth comparatively less, and I lost my job because that corporation shipped my job overseas, is that my fault?

Better it be only 47 million without health insurance, than 300 million with poor health insurance coverage that's about as good as nothing at all. At least the ones who have it are covered properly, which means the majority of Americans are safe. With government run healthcare, the vast majority of Americans will be unsafe.

It seems remarkably unfair then that it should come down to who can afford private healthcare. It becomes a privilege for the wealthy (not all health insurance is like this, I realize that, but those 47 million WOULD want it if they could afford it). What's wrong with the government, at least, subsidizing health care so that those 47 million CAN afford it? (That, btw, is what Obama favors, he actually is NOT for universal healthcare, just for making it much much more affordable for families to do so).


IF THEY DON'T WANT IT, WHY SHOULD WE WASTE OUR TIME GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY? WHAT SENSE DOSE THAT MAKE? If a child doesn't care about going to school and gets bad grades, then we're wasteing our time. If they want to put effort into learning, then I think they deserve support. They deserve to get the best ducation our country has to offer. The one's who don't care about school shouldn't get that chance, because they don't care, and there's no use in trying to change their mind.
I'll agree that the system needs some work, becaus it's definately not perfect. But the way Obama will set things up, billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours of time will be wasted on kids who don't give two ****s and won't make it past highschool. I don't aprove of how he will deal with the situation. It'll be about as bad for the economy as the Iraq War in it's entirety. That in turn will make the education of those who wanted it worth very little. What good would an education be in a country who's money is worth less than China's? (exaggeration, but you get the picture)

Toasty, who's to say that they don't want it? It's a simple fact of life that some children are more "gifted" (lack of a better word) than others who have to work harder for it. Obviously, they should work at it, but then the fault lies with the parents for not encouraging it more.

Also, as you seem to agree, the school system needs to be reformed. Smaller class sizes and higher standards of wages and work ethics for teachers will ENCOURAGE the best out of children, to learn more and gain more out of their education.

It's one of the bills I'm not happy Bush signed off on. Like I said, some children deserve to be left behind. If they don't care, they can go work minimum wage at a Mc Donalds for all I care. They brought it upon themselves. But even though this bill is hardly all it was craked up to be, Obama isn't going to make things much better. It'll probably end up being pretty much the same. The only difference being that the government will be given even MORE control (something liberals really enjoy doing, and something that ultimately undermines the whole idea of a democracy).

See previous point.

The corporations don't need punishment. Heck, there's very few legal ways to do so without spending lots of money or breaking some constitutional rights. Our best bet is to make it more appealing to have Americans working for the corporations than foreigners.

... I'm afraid I don't understand. The government can very well impose restrictions on corporations for doing that, although I agree that the legality of it would be a tough case. Still, how would you intend to make it more appealing for Americans to work for corporations? They are after the bottom line, after all.


And guess who has majority control over congress? Guess who's been pushing for higher taxes, and to get rid of BUSH'S TAXCUTS? Guess who's been pushing for bigger government, which leads to fatter wallets in politicians pockets?

To reiterate:

Conservatives have had control of congress for 6 years of Bush's reign, 2000-2006. The economy started to experience slowdown when the effects of the war began to take hold in 2004-2005.

Tax-cuts that favor the wealthy and not the middle-class hard-working American? Hardly ideal.

No matter how you look at it, CONSERVATIVES (keep in mind McCain is more liberal than conservative, hence why he can suck my balls for all I care) have been for reducing taxes and keeping the money where it should belong. In the tax-payers pockets. Clinton only put America in the green because he inflated taxes like hell (along with selling a few minor things to china and other countries. Like nukes). Bush cut his taxes like hell and in turn gave the people their money back. Saying Bush is responsible for sucking people's money away is ludicrous. Unfortunately though, the dems in congress have started to suck people's cash away again, and the Republicans have been carelessly wasting it on frivilous things. The Republicans in the government right now aren't acting like true conservatives, and they aren't showing any spine either.

Conservatives are about reducing ALL taxes, Liberals are about reducing MIDDLE-CLASS taxes. They favor taxing the wealthy, and investing that money into the economy.

Say what you will about the Clinton era (where you got the thing about nukes, however, I don't know), there was a surplus, the LARGEST surplus in American history, and even you can't deny that surplus > debt. Toasty, China ALONE owns 1.5 trillion dollars of our debt. In the meanwhile, middle-class wages and incomes have FALLEN, the dollar is WEAKENING, and the economy is in a recession (no denying that, if it isn't technically it will be soon).


I know what McCain SAYS he stands for, and I know that that's what you believe he stands for. However, what he says and what he does are almost polar opposites. Take a look at some of the bills he's agreed with.

Fix'd. It works both ways, Toasty.

Oh, and would you like me to remind you what his wife said? She said that for the first time in her life, she's proud of Americans. I guess she forgot all about how we won both world wars, ended the cold war, ended slavery and promoted kindness between white people and black people, and I guess she forgot the one most important thing: We started our own country against the will of England. A country who's risen to be the world superpower. I guess all of that just didn't impress her.

I'm sorry Toasty, this is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of what happens when you rely on biased media.

If you had actually bothered to read it in context (and CONTINUE the comment), she was proud how, for the first time that she's seen, an enthusiasm for the election unlike any that the nation has seen in decades. Proud of how excited people are for a new direction, and to PARTICIPATE in the political process that allows for it!

Too much Rush Limbaugh, not enough common sense.

And to be honest, I'm not happy with many of the Republicans in the government right now either.

Convenient of you to distance yourself from the Republicans, and even McCain. Still casting your vote for him if you can?



EDIT: Could someone else please join in here? Not that I mind these long, arduous debates, but it would be nice if we had some fresh input here.

[Gio]

Quote

EDIT: Could someone else please join in here? Not that I mind these long, arduous debates, but it would be nice if we had some fresh input here.

I won't read all the things then sort out the quotes, but I will say that it doesn't matter how many different sources either of yall get your information from your personal opinion is still bias so stop arguing about that. It is stupid.

[Eugine]

o.o
I would join in, but there are so much things to discuss...

I pretty much agree with GL, except for a few points -

Quote

No one is saying that war isn't necessary - but doing so based on a LIE and an UNFOUNDED claim is ludicrous... The UN, every other nation in the world, and even your dear old president himself admitted that there was no immediate reason to go into Iraq.

hmm, I honestly don't believe Bush lied to go to war (I may have said he did here, but I was reading up on the war, and there were convincing facts to show he didn't).
The intelligence was wrong like everyone knows, but remember that not only did the Bush adminstration support the war, but so did the CIA and the UK government. Also democrats such as Bill and Hillary, as well as John Kerry saw the same intelligence briefings Bush saw, so I doubt all of them were in a 'lie'.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=qyKOkGjodhY
I suggest not reading the comments since YouTube is filled with Obama supporters, and Bush haters.
You don't get a non-biased opinion on YouTube ever (and digg.com... so freakin biased >_<)

Quote

I know it doesn't just include ethanol GL. I'm not blind. However, most of the liberals (including Obama) praise ethanol like it's the new black gold. THEY spend more time praising ethanol than any other alternative energy source. I know you don't, which is something I can agree with you on to some extent, but they do. Hence why I continually bring it up when the topic of alternative fuels is thrown on the table.

Corn based ethanol is bad yes, but ethanol as a fuel is great imo. Ethanol is not the problem, it's the way they produce it (through corn). Hemp and sugar cane for example are really good for ethanol fuel.
And, you always say ethanol increased food prices (didn't say it this time, but you did before), but did you know for the US speficially ethanol is only 3% of the fuel market? And also, the main reason why food prices are increasing is because of the rising transporation costs, which is caused by the rising fuel prices, and not by the production of ethanol.

And GL, conservatives aren't bad imo =)
Bush just ruined the conservative brand with his neoconservative principles. I would rather have a hadcore conservative as the US President rather than a hardcore liberal anyday lol... But since conservatives never practice what they preach, liberals ftw =)
Did you know Bush ran on a HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY in 2000? One which includes NO NATION BUILDING?
lmao, really humble foreign policy.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=JX-FiXTgKFo
This is really Mr. Bush btw. No joke. 100% real.
Can I say HYPOCRITE? I really want Gio or Toasty to explain this dramatic change lol. Ah well, I guess 9/11?

I personally LOVED the 2000 George Bush. I wanted him to win... Damn...

[Toasty]

Eugine, ethanol may only occupy 3% of the market, but the fact that the farmers are producing more corn (that's not going to be eaten, but rather turned into ehtanol and burned) means that they're producing less wheat. So now we're buying wheat from china. Also, since we're not producing a lot of wheat anymore, the prices of tortillas in Mexico skyrocketed. I'm not even sure if they've been able to bring them down, but I wouldn't be surprised either way.

And when it comes to practicing what they preach, few politicians in general (nowadays at least) do that, regardless of which side of the isle they're on. But liberals are worse......<_<

Golden Legacy, on Jun 27 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

Yet you're casting your vote for McCain (if you can vote, I'm not sure if you're of age), who you soundly agree is a flip-flopper? Secondly, Obama trusts the people to make the right decision as to the DIRECTION THAT AMERICA should take. He trusts the American people, as every liberal, the majority of independents, and even a record number of conservatives/Republicans believe, to realize that the US has gone down in just about every aspect since Bush's reign, and to realize that it's only going to end up worse as time goes on if the current administration's policies stay in effect.

Like I've said before, Obama says he trusts the American people, yet takes responsibilities away from them and hands it off to the government. I don't care how you twist or sugar-coat it, that's not how you prove that you trust anybody. I don't care if he trusts them with the drection of America. He should trust them with all of the decisions along the way too. Like a REAL democracy.

I also don't care how you look at the timeline, people voted democrats into congress with hopes of change, and all they got was more of the same. Only twice as bad.

And yet you're still a conservative.
See? That wasn't a point you made. That was an opinion.

Touche

No one is saying that war isn't necessary - but doing so based on a LIE and an UNFOUNDED claim is ludicrous. It's been shown, time and time again, that Iraq was NOT a harbor for terrorism, NOT a harbor for Al-Qaeda, and certainly NOT a harbor of nuclear weaponry. That was a twisted lie that the Bush administration gave. The UN, every other nation in the world, and even your dear old president himself admitted that there was no immediate reason to go into Iraq.

There was evidence that he had WMD's at one point. Whether they were moved recently (before the war started, obviously) or a long time ago is debateable. There's more of a reason to believe that they were moved more recently since it was obvious he was hiding something every time a UN weapons inspecter came by to look for the WMD's. They never found anything because Saddam always said "Look here, but not over there (where I've obviously stashed the weapons!)." Of course, the UN lacks any sort of backbone, so they never pressed the matter. Bush admitted that there were no WMD's because we could never get any solid proof (mostly because of *points to previous sentences*), and continuing to press the matter would just make the Democrats more
right, and make him look crazy.

You make it sounds like it's America's god-given duty to go out into the world and do what we please. If you want to talk about the former dictatorship in Iraq, then why aren't we in Venezuela, North Korea, Iran (though it looks like we're knocking on their door already), etc. It's a dangerous, foolish foreign policy to have of launching full-out war against a country whose ideals we don't like.

No, but it's the President's duty to protect national security. Clinton sure did a half-assed job of it during his term though. For how great he was at boosting the economy, he sure had slippery fingers when it came to holding onto Osama Bin Laden, who he had captured numerous times. I also don't care how you look at it, the world is better off now that Saddam is dead. If any country threatened our national secrity, then dangit I'd kick down their door and eliminate the threat. Iran poses more of a threat to us than the other two since they're in a better attacking position. Though I'm sure that whoever become president will wait until after Iran strikes us to take them out seeing as how bad striking first turned out for Bush. Should North Korea ever threaten us with nukes (I can't remember, but I think they got a hold of one some time ago), I'd drop a bunker-buster on 'em.

Your sources aren't bad, but in my opinion they're somewhat isolated. Try reading a periodical or news source from outside of the US. Believe me, it gives you better insight into what's happening in our own country, not to mention the level of journalism elsewhere in the world is much higher. Quite unfortunate, actually. <__<

No kidding. Holywood hasn't exactly helped the media's image or integrity much either.

... No, no, Bush imposed tax cuts for the wealthy. Proportionally, the middle class are suffering and paying so much more, while the wealthy are paying comparatively not as much from their incomes.

They still pay most of the taxes. I just wish at least ONE of the candidates would just axe the IRS and use a flat-tax system instead. The whole tax system is so complicated and complex that any way you work with it you get a bad result. Well, for the most part any way. Everyone should just have 10% of their wages taken off and given to the government before they recieve their checks, and be done with it. No 5% for people with blah blah blah or 20% for the multi-millionairs, just 10% from everybody. No exceptions.

Secondly, you complain of illegals taking minimum-wage jobs, but aren't attacking the corporations that ship jobs overseas? You can't choose what's at fault here.

The corporations aren't doing anything ILLEGAL. Therefore, it's much harder to deal with them. I'm not saying that what they're doing is good, I'm saying that it's not illegal.

And the Iraq war WAS funded to the extent that the administration wanted. Remember, the conservatives/Republicans were in control of congress for Bush's first six years, that means they were in control when the war was first announced and carried out. They supplied the funds, there was little to no stopping or limitations imposed by the Democrats because they weren't the majority. The conservatives got to spend all the money they wanted, quite unfortunate.

Well their estimates were wrong. They ended up needing more troops and funds. When they asked for it, they didn't get it. If they had, the "mess" we're in right now wouldn't look anything like a mess. It would look like a victory (or close to it at least).

That's a fair enough, if over-critical assessment. One of Obama's key points is to invest billions over a decade in developing an alternative-energy infrastructure, which I believe will be manufactured solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear plants. As far as I see, those are what Obama specifically is focusing on, though I agree that liberals HAVE put a little too much emphasis on ethanol, which be both know from a biological point is a hindrance/

Axe the wind and keep the majority of the funding to Nuclear and then hydro-electric, and I'll be happy. Wind power isn't efficient enough, and at the most should recieve the left-over pocket change from the billions of dollar of funds that Obama intends to invest. Once it shows more promise, then you can start pumping more cash into it.

I know you're probably going to say that it doesn't make much sense to do it that way, since the more funding it gets the faster it will develop, but wind energy has never shown much promise regardless of funding. From a scientifical standpoint, wind power relies on the movement of body of particles whose density is nowhere near that of an equally sized body of water. Therefore, cubic foot for cubic fot, water contains far more energy than air. If we could put wind turbines in hurricanes and tornadoes, then maybe. But until then, I think it's best to not spend a whole lot of money on developing wind powered energy.

Skim through this article: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...7/12/bush200712

A few points:

Meanwhile, we have become dependent on other nations for the financing of our own debt. Today, China alone holds more than $1 trillion in public and private American I.O.U.’s. Cumulative borrowing from abroad during the six years of the Bush administration amounts to some $5 trillion. Most likely these creditors will not call in their loans—if they ever did, there would be a global financial crisis. But there is something bizarre and troubling about the richest country in the world not being able to live even remotely within its means. Just as Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib have eroded America’s moral authority, so the Bush administration’s fiscal housekeeping has eroded our economic authority.

But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000—more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American. The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in 2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an average of $162,000.

In breathtaking disregard for the most basic rules of fiscal propriety, the administration continued to cut taxes even as it undertook expensive new spending programs and embarked on a financially ruinous “war of choice” in Iraq. A budget surplus of 2.4 percent of gross domestic product (G.D.P.), which greeted Bush as he took office, turned into a deficit of 3.6 percent in the space of four years. The United States had not experienced a turnaround of this magnitude since the global crisis of World War II.

After crunching a few numbers, it seems that someone who made 1million a year got a tax-cut of 1.8% (if they recieved an $18000 tax break). Therefore, someone who made, say, 45,000 a year should have saved about $810 a year. If someone got a tax-cut of $45 a year, then they should have been making $2500 a year (if they were to recieve a tax cut of 1.8%). Since that's not likely, I have to either believe that the article was exaggerating about the $45, or that the taxcuts (in percentages) didn't create a linear line on a graph, but rather a parabolic one. Which would mean that the richer recieved a larger tax break. Infact, if someone made $25,000 a year and got a break of $45, they recieved only .18% in tax-cuts, versus an upper class citczen with say, a $25million yearly income who recieved .648% in cuts. That means the upper-class recieved a break 3.6 times larger than the bottom 20% (who likely made somewhere between 20 and 30k a year. In comparison, I believe my dad makes somewhere between 80 and 95k). The actual difference was probably between a factor of 2 or 3. Keep in mind that 162,000 dollars to a millionair is like $160 to someone like my dad. That translates into about 13 dollars a month. Basically, it would be the same as the government giving my family another line on our Cingular wireless plan. Not all that big of a deal. Though keep in mind that our family doesn't consider $160 to be pocket change, either (though in this case it would be $160 stretched over a year, which isn't much).

Basically, it looks a LOT more extreme when you look only at the amount of money, and not the percentages. Though I'll agree it's a bit unfair to give the wealthier a larger tax break. However, I believe they were also p[aying higher taxes (in percantages) as well, so giving them a larger tax break would even the playing field. Obviously they don't need even half of the money they have, but still, a lower class citiczen should pay the same percantage of their wages to the government as an upper-class citczen. And since Obama wants to make every thing fair, I'm surprised he's not trying to do that. Of course, taxing the rich more would mean fatter government wallets. That probably has something to do with it.

However, I'd prefer to just screw the tax system we have right now, and go for a flat tax. Unfortunately, neither McCain nor Obama want to do that.

I'd also like to point out that the news source you refrenced is kind of biased. To the left.

Let's be honest here, not much of the world has ever really liked the US. Insurgents and terrorists always hated America, but the simple, moderate, average person disliked but never hated the US.

Now, both the insurgents AND the civilians absolutely loathe and despise us.

Actually, the troops aproval rating among the citczens has been steadily improving. I don't know what it is right now, but it's pretty decent. If we can give them freedom with a democracy, I think it's safe to say that they'll agree to be our allies. Besides, I was referring to the insurgents and terroists. Not the citczens.

Dude, it was Bush who outright said we only needed 100,000+ troops. BUSH himself, and I believe Cheney and Rumsfield agreed. Colin Powell was one of the most prominent advocates of having a much larger army force (300,000+) to get the job done smoothly and quickly, but it was (and I'll reiterate this) **BUSH** who said that what he allocated would be more than enough.

And again, 2003/2004 is Republican controlled congress. They basically sided with Bush, what he wanted to give to the war, and agreed that it was enough.

[Copied from above]: Well their estimates were wrong. They ended up needing more troops and funds. When they asked for it, they didn't get it. If they had, the "mess" we're in right now wouldn't look anything like a mess. It would look like a victory (or close to it at least).

That's a more sensible point coming from you, so I'll applaud you for that. However, like I mentioned previously, with that logic it wouldn't make sense for us to stop at just Saddam, we'd have to be in at least another five/ten nations that have grossly violated international law and committed crimes against humanity.

We'll get to them when they threaten our national security by funding enough terrorists (doesn't matter if they weren't the ones who attacked us. One more terrorist anywhere is one more worry for America), and once we've payed off our debt. Most of them have already broken enough international laws. It's just that nobody wants to do the right thing and take them out of power because of the time and money it would cost.

That said, the "terrorism" Saddam supported was in no way linked with 9/11, with Al Qaeda, or even Bin Laden himself. It was just something contained in his own region/nation (which I agree is BAD), but not the same ones who conducted 9/11, not even indirectly linked to it.

They were still funding terrorists who were attacking our allies. It's good enough in my opinion.
If somebody bought a baseball bat for someone who picked on my friends, and they knew what the bully was going to do with it, they're just as much at fault. And I'd porbably beat the hell out of both of them.

With that said, I also want to say (and I know you'll sidestep this, but just read it through and consider it) that Iraq under Saddam's rule wasn't horrible for the majority of people. YES, he committed crimes, and YES he was responsible for conducting attacks against the Kurds, but under his reign he boosted the living standards of Iraqis, made it the centerplace for higher education in the Middle East, people as far as Southern Europe would come to Iraq, the economy boomed, and it was a prosperous time.

**** YES HE COMMITTED CRIMES, WE REALIZE THAT ****

But I am just saying, that for all the bad he did, he managed to keep a lid on the absolute worst of it, which we are seeing today.

(I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make here, I'm not against what you're saying, I'm just pointing out this whole other side to it. Fair?)

Yeah, I suppose it's fair. I realize that you don't think Saddam was a great man by any means, but he still needed to take responsibility for the crimes he committed. Besides, Iraq will be even better off if they can get a stable democracy.

See previous points about Iraq/terrorism, USA/foreign policy.

Obviously not. However, if I borrowed money well within my capability of paying it back, and suddenly inflation caused my income to be worth comparatively less, and I lost my job because that corporation shipped my job overseas, is that my fault?

No, but that's not exactly what happened either. I doubt that that many people lost their jobs, let alone for that reason. I might be able to understand inflation though, However, inflation didn't come around over night, and there were some pretty acurate predictions of it too. The Bank's still signed off on morgages that they knew people wouldn't be able to pay, and a lot of those people couldn't have payed of the morgages even if inflation wasn't involved.

It seems remarkably unfair then that it should come down to who can afford private healthcare. It becomes a privilege for the wealthy (not all health insurance is like this, I realize that, but those 47 million WOULD want it if they could afford it). What's wrong with the government, at least, subsidizing health care so that those 47 million CAN afford it? (That, btw, is what Obama favors, he actually is NOT for universal healthcare, just for making it much much more affordable for families to do so).

As long as the government won't ever get a say in what kind of healthcare you get, I don't mind. Because once that happens, healthcare will become a joke.

Toasty, who's to say that they don't want it? It's a simple fact of life that some children are more "gifted" (lack of a better word) than others who have to work harder for it. Obviously, they should, but then the fault lies with the parents for not encouraging it more.

Very few kids are THAT stupid, GL. VERY few. Most of them are capable of high C's and average B's. A B is a 3.0, which is above average. That's good enough for most colleges, and a lot of colleges (like Gonzaga, which is a private college here in Washington, or WSU) have plans to help pay for college aswell. Like "keep your grades at or above this and we'll pay for this much of your tuition," and usually that pays for a good sized amount of the tuition.

And the kids shouldn't need ot be encouraged. When they get into highschool, it should be entirely up to them. No one pressuring them to stay or leave. Nothing. It should be entirely their choice. They shouldn't need to have a carrot dangled in front of their nose to encourage them to move foreward. A good paying job should be a big enough carrot to motivate them. If it isn't, then they obviously don't want it badly enough. Though obviously they should be encouraged to get good grades in elementary school, and to an extent in middle school. They likely aren't old enough to realise how much of an impact a good education will have on their lives.

Also, as you seem to agree, the school system needs to be reformed. Smaller class sizes and higher standards of wages and work ethics for teachers will ENCOURAGE the best out of children, to learn more and gain more out of their education.

See previous statements.

Our middle school is actually having to get a portable because there's so many kids. However, the classes also wouldn't be so big if we diddn't have so many illegal immigrants. We have a ton of mexicans in our town (I'm not racist, but we get far more illegal mexicans than illegal ukranians, or peoploe from other countries), and it's obvious that SOME of them are illegal, but there's also legal citiczens among them. Like (I'm pretty sure) our neighbors. We get along with them pretty well, and they speak clear, fluent english, so I have no problem with them (people who live here [not tourists, who we don't get many of anyway] and can't speak english annoy the heck out of me). But I know that there are illegal immigrants going to our schools, and I know there's a lot of them. If they weren't here, the middle school wouldn't need to purchase another classroom.

See previous point.

... I'm afraid I don't understand. The government can very well impose restrictions on corporations for doing that, although I agree that the legality of it would be a tough case. Still, how would you intend to make it more appealing for Americans to work for corporations? They are after the bottom line, after all.

I'm not quite sure what can be done to make corporations choose americans over foreigners, but I'm sure if we could give our workers more experience, corporations would be more likely to employ them. Other than that, I can't really think of anything else.

To reiterate:

Conservatives have had control of congress for 6 years of Bush's reign, 2000-2006. The economy started to experience slowdown when the effects of the war began to take hold in 2004-2005.

Tax-cuts that favor the wealthy and not the middle-class hard-working American? Hardly ideal.

See previous points about taxes and economy.

Conservatives are about reducing ALL taxes, Liberals are about reducing MIDDLE-CLASS taxes. They favor taxing the wealthy, and investing that money into the economy.

Reducing the taxes for ALL Americans is more fair than just reducing it for middle-class and lower-class Americans. I thought Obama wanted it to be fair for all Americans. Not just some.
However, the taxes should be reduced in a manner so that all Americans pay realtively the same percentage of their paycheck to the government as all other Americans. Hence why I like the idea of a flat tax (though getting rid of the IS is also on there. Maybe we can give the people at the IRS jobs working on oil platforms. :o j/k).

Say what you will about the Clinton era (where you got the thing about nukes, however, I don't know), there was a surplus, the LARGEST surplus in American history, and even you can't deny that surplus > debt. Toasty, China ALONE owns 1.5 trillion dollars of our debt. In the meanwhile, middle-class wages and incomes have FALLEN, the dollar is WEAKENING, and the economy is in a recession (no denying that, if it isn't technically it will be soon).

Clinton got us a surplus of cash. How he did it is a question of morality. He didn't get impeached more than once because he cheated on his wife, you know. I'll say it agin, though, part of the reason for the falling dollar is that the government wants to reduce the amount of debt we're in. If our dollar is worth less, then 1 trillion dollars before the economic recession would be about 600billion right now. It hurts our economy, bu it gives us a better chance at getting out of debt.

I know what McCain SAYS he stands for, and I know that that's what you believe he stands for. However, what he says and what he does are almost polar opposites. Take a look at some of the bills he's agreed with.

Fix'd. It works both ways, Toasty.

Let me make this clear for you. You like Obama, I don't. You hate McCain, SO DO I. I know very good and well what he stads for. I take what comes out of either one of these guy's mouths with a grain of salt. If they vote for bills/do things that support what they say, then I take what they said to heart. McCain is for off-shore drilling, and has voted for/against the apropriate bills as such (at least as far as I know).
[Copied from above]: Like I've said before, Obama says he trusts the American people, yet takes responsibilities away from them and hands it off to the government. I don't care how you twist or sugar-coat it, that's not how you prove that you trust anybody.

I'm sorry Toasty, this is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of what happens when you rely on biased media.

If you had actually bothered to read it in context (and CONTINUE the comment), she was proud how, for the first time that she's seen, an enthusiasm for the election unlike any that the nation has seen in decades. Proud of how excited people are for a new direction, and to PARTICIPATE in the political process that allows for it!

Too much Rush Limbaugh, not enough common sense.

Yeah, she kinda said that afterwards. Meaning she was trying to catch herself. She's racist against white people too, and I'm not saying that just because of their pastor.

Convenient of you to distance yourself from the Republicans, and even McCain. Still casting your vote for him if you can?

Lesser of two evils GL. I hate McCain, but I'd rather have him in office than Obama. But don't continuously mistake that for me liking him. I don't want to keep on repeating myself. I'm still a Republican, and I don't distance myself from the majority of the party. I distance myself from the spineless weasels in congess right now who're giving Republicans a bad name.

And you STILL haven't told me why you dislike Rush. I want proof that he did something horrible and bad that he didn't regret or try to fix. Just because he's biased doesn't mean I can't use him as a representation of a true conservative. Well, I use him and Glenn Beck. :o

[EDIT] WOW. I spent more than an hour and a half on that. Seriously, we need to find some way to cut the length of these down some. <.<

[Laharl]

i've been ignoring these debates ever since Toasty's 'megacannon' comment

however i would never vote for a party with views like these:

Golden Legacy, on Jun 26 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg...feature=related
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=7924
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWoGulgbec...feature=related

over here we have party called the British National Party, it is despised by all other political parties and the vast majority of the public, they are:

-white supremacist
-fascist
-pro war
-anti Muslim
-anti gay
-against immigration

take most of that idealogy across the Atlantic and it lands you the presidency :/

[Eugine]

Why are you guys replying like that? Following this debate is so damn hard!

Start over!!!!
Plz? ;_;

Let us do one issue at a time?

[Toasty]

You all realise that the vast majority of REAL Republicans hate McCain, right? Those videos about McCain neither show what our party is for, nor what I am for.

I think something needs to be done about Iran, but just bombing it is absurd and will only cause more problems. I don't want to stay in Iraq any longer than any Liberal does. The difference is that I think pulling out pre-maturely will cause more problems than staying in for even another decade (though I hope we won't, and if we can just get more support for the war, then we definately won't).

And I'll repeat myself. I hate McCain and the image he's giving the Republican party (well, him and over half the Republicans in office).

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Jun 27 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

And GL, conservatives aren't bad imo =)
Bush just ruined the conservative brand with his neoconservative principles. I would rather have a hadcore conservative as the US President rather than a hardcore liberal anyday lol... But since conservatives never practice what they preach, liberals ftw =)
Did you know Bush ran on a HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY in 2000? One which includes NO NATION BUILDING?
lmao, really humble foreign policy.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=JX-FiXTgKFo
This is really Mr. Bush btw. No joke. 100% real.
Can I say HYPOCRITE? I really want Gio or Toasty to explain this dramatic change lol. Ah well, I guess 9/11?

I personally LOVED the 2000 George Bush. I wanted him to win... Damn...

You have no idea how much I laughed at that. Hahaha, "humble foreign policy". That's hilarious.

Laharl, on Jun 28 2008, 04:40 AM, said:

i've been ignoring these debates ever since Toasty's 'megacannon' comment

however i would never vote for a party with views like these:
over here we have party called the British National Party, it is despised by all other political parties and the vast majority of the public, they are:

-white supremacist
-fascist
-pro war
-anti Muslim
-anti gay
-against immigration

take most of that idealogy across the Atlantic and it lands you the presidency :/

Sounds like the Republicans/conservatives here, word for word. And they are ****ing voted in power most of the time.

Toasty, on Jun 29 2008, 04:12 AM, said:

You all realise that the vast majority of REAL Republicans hate McCain, right? Those videos about McCain neither show what our party is for, nor what I am for.

I think something needs to be done about Iran, but just bombing it is absurd and will only cause more problems. I don't want to stay in Iraq any longer than any Liberal does. The difference is that I think pulling out pre-maturely will cause more problems than staying in for even another decade (though I hope we won't, and if we can just get more support for the war, then we definately won't).

And I'll repeat myself. I hate McCain and the image he's giving the Republican party (well, him and over half the Republicans in office).

Yes, "real Republicans" hate McCain, but then again, it's Bush, Cheney, and their administration that have run the name into the ground. If anything, McCain is (or SHOULD be) a positive asset because he at least is more centrist and has some sensibility in him. His foreign policy is much of the backward, same trash that has rendered the US damaged in so many regards, but his other domestic policies, while still conservative, at least have some hint of moderation.

Compared with Bush, McCain is the slightly better option, so even if he were to win, things couldn't possibly get any worse.

(and then Iran is invaded)

[Toasty]

It doesn't matter who gets in to office this time, things are going to get worse somehow.

If it's McCain, we'll bite off more than we can chew as far as the middle east goes. If it's Obama, America will cease to be what has made it so great in the past.

[Laharl]

Golden Legacy, on Jul 1 2008, 11:16 PM, said:

Sounds like the Republicans/conservatives here, word for word. And they are ****ing voted in power most of the time.

:/

the BNP got 0.7% of the vote at the last election.

i doubt the republicans are as racist though

one of their policies is "you're not British if you're not white", even blacks and asians who were born and raised in the UK are labellewd "permanent guests".

we own you at politics XD we may have twats in office too but atleast ours can keep the economy stable XP

[Nyktos]

The Republican Party would be unable to win an election in any other country in the world besides America.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Jul 1 2008, 09:07 PM, said:

If it's McCain, we'll bite off more than we can chew as far as the middle east goes. If it's Obama, America will cease to be what has made it so great in the past.

Yes, because clearly giving the middle class a better life and a better standard of living is awful.

If you cared in the slightest, you'd realize how conservatives care only about big corporations, money, and stealing privileges and money from the middle-class.

But hey, if that's your idea of a "great" America, then sure.

Laharl, on Jul 2 2008, 05:52 AM, said:

:/

the BNP got 0.7% of the vote at the last election.

i doubt the republicans are as racist though

one of their policies is "you're not British if you're not white", even blacks and asians who were born and raised in the UK are labellewd "permanent guests".

we own you at politics XD we may have twats in office too but atleast ours can keep the economy stable XP

Yeah yeah, I can't say I'm not envious. We get the twats who don't know **** about what's going on. The average American is just so ****ing backward.
To be fair, it's really the radical neo-conservative Republicans, they're the ones who believe in things like preemptive strike in war, sacrificing people for the greater good, cutting off immigration and forcing the image of a "true American" as opposed to a melting pot of culture, etc.

Nyktos, on Jul 2 2008, 09:07 AM, said:

The Republican Party would be unable to win an election in any other country in the world besides America.

Shame isn't it? It's sickening.