[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 24 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

And I believe in the neoconservative philosophy, so calling me that is not an insult.

Eugine, on Oct 26 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

Alright, I do not declare myself a neoconservative. I think like them though.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Oct 29 2008, 08:09 PM, said:

SS, how was the French response different from the US response with regards to the Georgian-Russian conflict? I hope you know, the US and French were working together to end the conflict. So, thank you for complimenting the French because indirectly you are also complimenting the United States!

I thought Sarkozy's approach is more moderate and sincere then US's approach. The US approach was more threatening in my opinion. Certainly the reactions voiced from some Americans here at the forums was definitely more radical. If the US really did have the exact same response as the French then they probably did handle it better than I thought.

Eugine, on Oct 29 2008, 08:09 PM, said:

And no SS, I do not want generalization with regards to how you will combat terrorism. Everyone, who includes me, wishes that those countries suddenly recognize terrorism is despicable, then work with the US and its allies to stop its spread, but we know that will not happen anytime soon.
I want specifics.
How will you work to remove Iran's nuclear weapons, or do you want it removed at all?
How will you win the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, or will you want to win them at all?
How will you deal with North Korea?
How will you deal with Russia and its anti-US allies?
How will you work with Pakistan?

Quote

The UN nuclear watchdog says it is not in a position to fully clarify the nature of the Iranian nuclear program but has announced in its latest report that it could not found any 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics studies' in the country.

First off, let's see if Iran has any nuclear weapons to start with. Because I strongly doubt they're there yet, and they're certainly not intercontinental. Therefore should they exist, they're only a threat to their direct neighbours. My policy on that, wait and watch how the situation develops.

Afghanistan and Iraq isn't a war anymore, it's an occupation. Both should be treated differently. The US troops in Iraq should leave more or less directly and be replaced by a UN peace force with permission to assault when needed. Don't make the enemy the US, make it the UN, much more difficult to hate and target.

Afghanistan of course has the problem of not having an industry whatsoever. Start building there, give them infrastructure, get them off the opium trade and replace that with a new cultivable product. Give them possibilities to join in the world trade. Do all that with the NATO task force in place. Extra protection in the zones where they're building. Gradually help build up an economy whilst the task force keeps the Taliban in check. I know it will take forever and has loads of complications, but if it works it's permanent.

North Korea hasn't had a whole lot of thought but them having nuclear weapons has reopened negotiations with the US and the rest of the world. Them having nuclear weaponry is partly to blame to the world who excluded them for so long. The communistic regime is still quite strong there. Just keep negotiations open, don't exclude them and prevent conflict.

Russia, negotiate. The government isn't that pro-American/European but a majority of the people there are. The rich elite and the middle class adore Europe. Use that to your advantage and whatever you do, don't give them a reason to change that mentality. Because in the end the people are more powerful than the government.

Pakistan's prime minister Giyani (sp?) made a statement the other day. "Our national honour and sovereignty does not allow foreign troops to come into our country.” He’s absolutely right. If you invade Pakistan on false premises it’ll just turn into a second Iraq instead it will be even further split. Into four, maybe five regions. Destabilizing another country is not what we need right now. It’s not a threat.

[edit] http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/284061/534...tsdebatten.html
More repetition plox.

[Eugine]

GL, the philosophy I believe in:
"neocons align themselves with the most conservative values, such as free market, limited welfare, and traditional cultural values. Their key distinction is in international affairs: they prefer a proactive approach internationally that would protect the national interests."
While I support traditional cultural values, I do not believe the government should force it on everyone.

The conspiracy theories you and SS promote are just farfetched imo.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Oct 29 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

GL, the philosophy I believe in:
"neocons align themselves with the most conservative values, such as free market, limited welfare, and traditional cultural values. Their key distinction is in international affairs: they prefer a proactive approach internationally that would protect the national interests."
While I support traditional cultural values, I do not believe the government should force it on everyone.

The conspiracy theories you and SS promote are just farfetched imo.

Free market is liberal to start with. But don't you find it the least bit disturbing that militarisation is what they actually want. That they want enough military that they can control the world. It's not conspiracy, it's a fact that the neoconservative view on foreign policy lead to the Iraq war. The war was and still is under the motive of freedom and democracy for Iraq. There's no denying that, I'm betting there's a confirmation of that on the weekly standard somewhere. Which is as neoconservative as hell by the way.

O, and you did not just ignore my long post thingie. *****slap it plox, I'm quite proud of it.

[edit] I was right.

The Weekly Standard said:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/images_redo/BlogPosting_divider.gif Thursday, June 26, 2008 Iraq's "Real War of Liberation"

Thomas Friedman <A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/opinion/25friedman.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print" target=_blank>writes in the New York Times on the progress of the Iraqi army and government:

What seems to have happened in Iraq in the last few months is that the Iraqi mainstream has finally done some liberating of itself. With the help of the troop surge ordered by President Bush, the mainstream Sunni tribes have liberated themselves from the grip of Al Qaeda in their provinces. And the Shiite mainstream — represented by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Army — liberated Basra, Amara and Sadr City in Baghdad from both Mahdi Army militiamen and pro-Iranian death squads.

Friedman deserves credit for accurately reporting that the Iraqis are standing up for themselves, but then he writes: "We may one day look back on this as Iraq's real war of liberation. The one we led five years ago didn't count."

Really? The U.S.-led war that deposed Saddam Hussein "didn't count" as "Iraq's real war of liberation"? Was it a fake war of liberation?

Apparently Friedman thinks it didn't count because the Iraqis didn't liberate themselves and therefore felt humiliated. And humiliation, according to Friedman, is "the single-most underestimated force in international relations, especially in the Middle East." But do we really know that most Iraqis view the sacrifice of Coalition troops with a sense of humiliation rather than a sense of gratitude?

Moreover, why does Friedman think the Iraqis' feelings determine whether the war was a war of liberation?

http://www.weeklysta...WSFP/gwot/iraq/

just scroll down a bit.

[Eugine]

First off, let's see if Iran has any nuclear weapons to start with. Because I strongly doubt they're there yet, and they're certainly not intercontinental. Therefore should they exist, they're only a threat to their direct neighbours. My policy on that, wait and watch how the situation develops.
They do not have nuclear weapons. They are enriching Uranium for "energy". Unfortunately, we know that is a lie. The UN or the US offered them energy ( I think renewables but not sure) for free to stop their enrichment, but they didn't. What sensible country will not take that offer?
Plus, the US and Europe has been working diplomatically with Iran since 2000. Nothing fruitful yet. Time to bomb their Nuclear facilities imo.

Afghanistan and Iraq isn't a war anymore, it's an occupation. Both should be treated differently. The US troops in Iraq should leave more or less directly and be replaced by a UN peace force with permission to assault when needed. Don't make the enemy the US, make it the UN, much more difficult to hate and target.
Sure. I agree. Too bad no other country is willing to step up.

Afghanistan of course has the problem of not having an industry whatsoever. Start building there, give them infrastructure, get them off the opium trade and replace that with a new cultivable product. Give them possibilities to join in the world trade. Do all that with the NATO task force in place. Extra protection in the zones where they're building. Gradually help build up an economy whilst the task force keeps the Taliban in check. I know it will take forever and has loads of complications, but if it works it's permanent.
You're late. The US is already doing that.

North Korea hasn't had a whole lot of thought but them having nuclear weapons has reopened negotiations with the US and the rest of the world. Them having nuclear weaponry is partly to blame to the world who excluded them for so long. The communistic regime is still quite strong there. Just keep negotiations open, don't exclude them and prevent conflict.
That's US policy now.

Russia, negotiate. The government isn't that pro-American/European but a majority of the people there are. The rich elite and the middle class adore Europe. Use that to your advantage and whatever you do, don't give them a reason to change that mentality. Because in the end the people are more powerful than the government.
That's US policy now actually. Ie isolate the government so that the people will revolt... well, as far as I can tell.

Pakistan's prime minister Giyani (sp?) made a statement the other day. "Our national honour and sovereignty does not allow foreign troops to come into our country.” He’s absolutely right. If you invade Pakistan on false premises it’ll just turn into a second Iraq instead it will be even further split. Into four, maybe five regions. Destabilizing another country is not what we need right now. It’s not a threat.
That's US policy now infact again. On the contrary, Barack is the one who wants to do the invading, not Bush or McCain.

See, perception is not always reality. You basically have the US foreign policy except 1) You think the UN should take over military role in Iraq/Afghanistan, and I agree. Unfortunately no one wants to. 2) You want to prolong diplomacy with Iran... So does Bush probably, but not neocons IIRC. He is working fevishly with Iran to disable their nuclear weapons program though the UN. Too bad I disagree with him. Bomb bomb bomb Iran's nuclear facilities!
So, I declare you a "neocon" because your views are similar to the Bush administration.

And what was wrong with the Weekly Standard article? Seems pretty good to me. And, free market capitalism aligns itself more with republicans.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, when we are talking about neo-conservatives, the only stand-about thing is their foreign policy, which basically dictates that if they can justify a war, they'll do it. If they can expand the USA's sphere of influence by taking over a country with rhetoric of "democracy" and "freedom", they'll do it.

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol, are all prominent neo-conservatives. This is the first administration that they've had full control over, it's reported and well-known.

Once again Eugine, no one is questioning anything besides the foreign policy, which is spilling blood once a pretense for invasion has been established, and having the USA come in and dominate.

Oh, and for the record, when 6 billion people in the world are saying that the USA/Bush is a nation of blood and fear, maybe it's time to shed some of that arrogance and listen.


That said (order is Saturos in quote, Eugine in bold, myself)

Quote

First off, let's see if Iran has any nuclear weapons to start with. Because I strongly doubt they're there yet, and they're certainly not intercontinental. Therefore should they exist, they're only a threat to their direct neighbours. My policy on that, wait and watch how the situation develops.

They do not have nuclear weapons. They are enriching Uranium for "energy". Unfortunately, we know that is a lie. The UN or the US offered them energy ( I think renewables but not sure) for free to stop their enrichment, but they didn't. What sensible country will not take that offer?
Plus, the US and Europe has been working diplomatically with Iran since 2000. Nothing fruitful yet. Time to bomb their Nuclear facilities imo.

Hmm, nuclear weapons, pretense for invasion, risk to world security... where does this sound familiar? Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Iraq 2.0

Quote

Afghanistan and Iraq isn't a war anymore, it's an occupation. Both should be treated differently. The US troops in Iraq should leave more or less directly and be replaced by a UN peace force with permission to assault when needed. Don't make the enemy the US, make it the UN, much more difficult to hate and target.

Sure. I agree. Too bad no other country is willing to step up.

Because Bush alienated the world and treated everyone like they were expendable.

Quote

Afghanistan of course has the problem of not having an industry whatsoever. Start building there, give them infrastructure, get them off the opium trade and replace that with a new cultivable product. Give them possibilities to join in the world trade. Do all that with the NATO task force in place. Extra protection in the zones where they're building. Gradually help build up an economy whilst the task force keeps the Taliban in check. I know it will take forever and has loads of complications, but if it works it's permanent.

You're late. The US is already doing that.

And failing miserably. Oh, who was it that said Afghanistan needed a rehaul in strategy and additional support? To integrate them into the world economy and support their people and give them education and infrastructure?

That was Obama. McCain said that Afghanistan could be "muddled through" and was fapping at the opportunity to go into Iraq.

Quote

North Korea hasn't had a whole lot of thought but them having nuclear weapons has reopened negotiations with the US and the rest of the world. Them having nuclear weaponry is partly to blame to the world who excluded them for so long. The communistic regime is still quite strong there. Just keep negotiations open, don't exclude them and prevent conflict.

That's US policy now.

Right, and it took the Bush administration 6 years to finally get around to it.
Once again, Obama said this years ago, it's a hallmark of his foreign policy.
McCain still treats them in the "Axis of Evil" that Bush rendered, remember?

Quote

Russia, negotiate. The government isn't that pro-American/European but a majority of the people there are. The rich elite and the middle class adore Europe. Use that to your advantage and whatever you do, don't give them a reason to change that mentality. Because in the end the people are more powerful than the government.

That's US policy now actually. Ie isolate the government so that the people will revolt... well, as far as I can tell.

Hypocrisy on your part, Eugine:

Eugine, on Oct 26 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

Alright, I do not declare myself a neoconservative. I think like them though.

Now, I have a fundamental difference with you on Russia and the cause of terrorism. The Russian people are not bad, just like the Iranians. Putin and Ahmadinejad are. Their government are. I think a strong foreign policy must be used. I also believe the USA must leave the UN, or atleast kick Russia out of the G8 because 1) The UN is a body which accomplishes nothing except bickering, and 2) The G8 will not be fruitful with countries who are directly opposed to western interest. China and Russia have too much influence on these bodies, and they do not look into the best interest of Americans, but themselves. (Of course, this is looking from an American perspective)
I'm sorry, but I'll like to see the United States as superpower for my lifetime cuz the Chinese and Russians are bad bad people. China hates everything which are not Chinese, and Russia hates everything which are democratic.
Mind you, I am talking about their government.

You favor taking it quite to the extreme.

Quote

Pakistan's prime minister Giyani (sp?) made a statement the other day. "Our national honour and sovereignty does not allow foreign troops to come into our country.” He’s absolutely right. If you invade Pakistan on false premises it’ll just turn into a second Iraq instead it will be even further split. Into four, maybe five regions. Destabilizing another country is not what we need right now. It’s not a threat.

That's US policy now infact again. On the contrary, Barack is the one who wants to do the invading, not Bush or McCain.

False. Bombing Al Qaeda targets.

[Eugine]

I want one example, during the Bush administration specifically, and then before the Bush administration where neocons foreign policy was based on simply "spilling blood".
I will not lie, they influenced George Bush foreign policy today, but so did the UK intelligence agency. They prefer a proactive foreign policy, and to the extreme, they believe in regime change, of course, chosen by the people democratically.
Look, Iraq and Afghanistan will be two shining democracies in the Middle East thanks to those 'bloodthirsty' neocons in 10 years or so, and you will see they meant good.

And no, Iran will not be Iraq 2.0. Those nasty neocons will simply be bombing its nuclear facilities. And yes, I have a harder foreign policy than George Bush. I don't like Russia or China.

And come on, Bill Kristol is a cool guy. You should really follow his work, and you'll surely change views on him.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=PuUnFIpSb-4
Look at that video. Pure win. How could you say he is bloodthirsty? >_<
He said the "testing" in June right. Just a week or two ago, Biden agreed with him! Lol, the comment section is filled with liberals... You will fit in rather well.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 29 2008, 10:02 PM, said:

I want one example, during the Bush administration specifically, and then before the Bush administration where neocons foreign policy was based on simply "spilling blood".
I will not lie, they influenced George Bush foreign policy today, but so did the UK intelligence agency. They prefer a proactive foreign policy, and to the extreme, they believe in regime change, of course, chosen by the people democratically.
Look, Iraq and Afghanistan will be two shining democracies in the Middle East thanks to those 'bloodthirsty' neocons in 10 years or so, and you will see they meant good.

That's a silly way to get out of the argument. "Shining democracies", I wouldn't be surprised if in ten years the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan decided on anti-American regimes just for the slaughter they wreaked. I urge you to actually talk to Iraqis and Afghanis, and I assure you the perspective they have is something completely different.

Once again, there was no basis for Iraq. Every excuse the Bush administration (and the Brits too under Blair) provided - nuclear weapons, terrorism - ended up being a lie. You can't tell me that the USA has the best interests of the Iraqis at heart when the people of Darfur were going through actual genocide.

What is the difference between Iraq and Sudan? The presence of oil.

Quote

And no, Iran will not be Iraq 2.0. Those nasty neocons will simply be bombing its nuclear facilities. And yes, I have a harder foreign policy than George Bush. I don't like Russia or China.

And McCain would make it a full scale invasion. After all, with Iraq occupied, it would be easy to mount a full offense. I daresay McCain is in the waiting for this, all set-up nicely with a base in the Middle East to work from.

That's another hallmark of - yes, the 'n' word - which is to launch further attacks once you have established a presence in the country, with continued justification for other military operations.

And dare I ask how Russia and China will react if you attack Iran?

Quote

And come on, Bill Kristol is a cool guy. You should really follow his work, and you'll surely change views on him.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=PuUnFIpSb-4
Look at that video. Pure win. How could you say he is bloodthirsty? >_<

Aww, look at how well he speaks! So simple and eloquent! That's gotta change my views on the ideology in question.

And btw, you forget something. If Bush attacks Iran's nuclear sites, what's to stop Iran from responding back? Remember the troops are in Iraq. It sounds like a slaughter back at the US, already in the making.


EDIT: And this is why you don't commit senseless acts of murder.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/7698820.stm

[Eugine]

How can I talk to the Iraqis and Afghanis? =/
I would love to talk to them though =)
Got any English Iraqi forums I can visit?

And, I doubt they will create an anti-American government, but we know, before the US invaded those countries both had anti-American governments anyway. Maybe, you, a guy who is supporting the guy of hope, just lack hope. I strongly hope and believe those two countries will be better off. I see signs of it now.

And listen, Bush has done the most for Africa than any other President in American history. He is a strong supporter of African development. Bush power!! And Sudan has oil. China buys it all though.

This Iraq war mumbo jumbo needs to be cleared up though. I honestly believe Obama, since most likely he will be the next President should lauch and investigation into the build up on the Iraq war to set some records straight. Was it a lie? Let us hope the next President clears that up!

And well, if China and Russia responds badly to the attack, we'll know their true intentions of wanting to destabilize the Middle East. No American President in their right minds will invade Iran GL btw. Not even the neocons! The American people, and congress (which will be heavily democratic) will not support it. If ground troops are needed, most likely the UN will be part of the process.

And no no, I should clarify something. Bush will not attack Iran imo, Israel will. Bush will support the cause and probably provide reinforcements. And yes, isn't Kristol amazing? You should read his work! I want to subscribe to his magazine. He was really, really wrong on the Iraq war originally though <_<
Makes me sad.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 29 2008, 10:33 PM, said:

How can I talk to the Iraqis and Afghanis? =/
I would love to talk to them though =)
Got any English Iraqi forums I can visit?

Oh, I'm speaking from personal experience. In the area I live in NYC, in Queens, there's a surprising number of Iraqi and Afghani refugees (and families that were living here, with relatives in the respective countries). It's pretty incredible for you to walk down on street and it's all the Greeks, turn the corner and it's the Czechs, Serbs, Croats, another, you have falafel and shawarma restaurants with the Arabs outdoors, smoking argeelah, still another, you have the Jamaicans.

So anyway, I frequent the area and would just start up conversations, my dad is close friends with many at the university he teaches. I'm not making anything up when I say they're rather disillusioned with America, to put it lightly. And having been to the Middle East myself, the emotion against America is even higher, if possible.

Quote

And, I doubt they will create an anti-American government, but we know, before the US invaded those countries both had anti-American governments anyway. Maybe, you, a guy who is supporting the guy of hope, just lack hope. I strongly hope and believe those two countries will be better off. I see signs of it now.

I'll admit I chuckled at that, but the reality is you need to have a proper impression on the people. Somehow, the fact that hundreds of thousands of civilians are gone in the wake of "American democracy" is not seeming fair to the families who committed no crimes, is not at all compassionate for the lives torn apart.

It's hard to describe, but you can't put into words the anger these people have. Being on one side of the world and cheering the US military onward is different from actually being shot at day in and day out.

Quote

And listen, Bush has done the most for Africa than any other President in American history. He is a stanch supporter of Africa. Bush power!! And Sudan has oil. China buys it all though.

So once again, there is an actual confirmed genocide in Darfur, there was nothing even remotely comparable in Iraq. Why not go there? That with UN and NATO forces would have actually been a conflict I would have supported.

Quote

This Iraq war mumbo jumbo needs to be cleared up though. I honestly believe Obama, since most likely he will be the next President lauch and investigation into the build up on the Iraq war to set some records straight. Was it a lie? Let us hope the next President clears that up!

I'm hoping too. Now my personal convictions would have me present Bush to the international court and have him tried as a war criminal, but for the sake of argument I'll take the moderate stance and just ask for "records to be set straight".

For the record, I'm quite confident that, on the manner of Iraq being a lie, the answer is a resounding yes.

Quote

And well, if China and Russia responds badly to the attack, we'll know their true intentions of wanting to destabilize the Middle East. No American President in their right minds will invade Iran GL btw. Not even the neocons! The American people, and congress (which will be heavily democratic) will not support it. If ground troops are needed, most likely the UN will be part of the process.

Well you are certainly right, I think the American public would explode at the prospect of another war. Hell, the world would explode, and anti-American sentiment is high enough.

Quote

And no no, I should clarify something. Bush will not attack Iran imo, Israel will. Bush will support the cause and probably provide reinforcements. And yes, isn't Kristol amazing? You should read his work! I want to subscribe to his magazine. He was really, really wrong on the Iraq war originally though <_<
Makes me sad.

That's one point I meant to bring up. For all the talk about Israel being vulnerable to Iran, it has one of the most sophisticated military systems in the world, including the absolute top air force. I'm fairly certain they could handle themselves in a war with Iran. And with the USA's continued support of billions each year to Israel (more than the people of Latin America and Africa put together!) too. Israel and now Iraq is what is fueling anti-USA sentiment and terrorist ideology now, and so once again I really believe that you have to strike at the root of the problem here.

You don't defeat something by feeding into it and fueling it with more anger and rage.


And I'll trade you Kristol for Noam Chomsky. If I had to have one political thinktank, it would likely be him.

Night.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Oct 30 2008, 03:33 AM, said:

And listen, Bush has done the most for Africa than any other President in American history. He is a strong supporter of African development. Bush power!! And Sudan has oil. China buys it all though.

This Iraq war mumbo jumbo needs to be cleared up though. I honestly believe Obama, since most likely he will be the next President should lauch and investigation into the build up on the Iraq war to set some records straight. Was it a lie? Let us hope the next President clears that up!

And well, if China and Russia responds badly to the attack, we'll know their true intentions of wanting to destabilize the Middle East. No American President in their right minds will invade Iran GL btw. Not even the neocons! The American people, and congress (which will be heavily democratic) will not support it. If ground troops are needed, most likely the UN will be part of the process.

Iraq and Sudan both have oil, but Sudan will piss off China.

Plus, Iran isn't a threat yet. No proof = no attack.

[Ironsight]

Oh god GL, please don't tell me you think we went to Iraq for the Oil.

[Saturos S.]

Miley Cyrus, on Oct 30 2008, 08:42 AM, said:

Oh god GL, please don't tell me you think we went to Iraq for the Oil.

O sorry, it's of course those WMD's, or was it their 'freedom'? or Saddam Hussein's secret fallafel recipe? It's just so hard to keep track...

But seriously what was the ****ing reason then?

[Golden Legacy]

Miley Cyrus, on Oct 30 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

Oh god DS, please don't tell me you think we went to Iraq to liberate them.

See how it goes either way?

Once again, when 6 billion people in the world are saying that the USA lied about WMDs, terrorism, world security, "liberation", etc. maybe it's about time you started to listen instead of being holed up in your isolated bubble of American perfectionism.


In other news, did anyone watch the 30 minute presentation from the Obama campaign on national networks yesterday? It was pretty ****ing brilliant.

[Eugine]

Saturos Striker, on Oct 30 2008, 03:02 AM, said:

Iraq and Sudan both have oil, but Sudan will piss off China.

...

Quote

Plus, Iran isn't a threat yet. No proof = no attack.

http://www.un.org/Ne.../sc8792.doc.htm

Anyway, Iraq war not a lie. If you can give me proof that the Bush admin, the UN and the UK government made up a lie just to "remove" Saddam Hussein, then sure.

And you're talking about this?
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=GtREqAmLsoA
If yes, I didn't know Obama was a conservative. That entire program was filled with conservative ideas. It's funny how the guy with the most liberal record is Mr. Conservative now lol. Hopefully he'll govern like this infomercial and not his actual record. He may do a good job if he chose the first.

Like a Weekly Standard writer pointed out, Obama is now campaigning on "a tax cut; "eliminating" government programs that "don't work" and making those "that do work work better" (meaning, "cheaper," presumably); and expanding the U.S. military and increasing U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Mr. Conservative lol.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 30 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

Anyway, Iraq war not a lie. If you can give me proof that the Bush admin, the UN and the UK government made up a lie just to "remove" Saddam Hussein, then sure.

I am getting tired arguing this, but every justification for the war has been given from nuclear weapons to terrorism to "liberation". Each time one justification for the war was proven false, the Bush administration jumped to another.

Quote

And you're talking about this?
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=GtREqAmLsoA
If yes, I didn't know Obama was a conservative. That entire program was filled with conservative ideas. It's funny how the guy with the most liberal record is Mr. Conservative now lol. Hopefully he'll govern like this infomercial and not his actual record. He may do a good job if he chose the first.

Like a Weekly Standard writer pointed out, Obama is now campaigning on "a tax cut; "eliminating" government programs that "don't work" and making those "that do work work better" (meaning, "cheaper," presumably); and expanding the U.S. military and increasing U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Mr. Conservative lol.

I'm not seeing your point. Obama has always favored a tax cut focused on the middle class. He wants to eliminate and rehual programs like every president would. "Government programs" include ending the war in Iraq and sending a portion of those troops to Afghanistan but with also a resurgence of NATO support.

What you define as "liberal" and "conservative" are often arbitrary. Those have been the hallmarks of his platform for months.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 30 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

Obama has always favored a tax cut focused on the middle class.

Overall, Obama will raise taxes. He ignores that fact to appear as a "tax cutter". He's going to raise payroll, capital, business, investment, income taxes on people making 200,000 a yr, and on and on.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 30 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

He wants to eliminate and rehual programs like every president would.

He ignores he will add one trillion in new government spending. You don't make government smaller by adding one trillion in new spending.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 30 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

"Government programs" include ending the war in Iraq and sending a portion of those troops to Afghanistan but with also a resurgence of NATO support.

He wants to "responsibly" end the war in Iraq, and support more troops in Afghanistan. He wants to increase the size of the military, when earlier in the campaign he wanted to reduce it.

Ah well. Not Mr. Conservative... Mr. Moderate (in theory!). He always ignore his liberal agenda.

And GL, all of the positions you are defending are taken mostly by conservatives, or atleast moderate democrats.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Oct 30 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

http://www.un.org/Ne.../sc8792.doc.htm

I consider them a threat when they actually accomplish the production of WMD's. Two years after that paper was published, they still havn't accomplished the production

Eugine, on Oct 30 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

Anyway, Iraq war not a lie. If you can give me proof that the Bush admin, the UN and the UK government made up a lie just to "remove" Saddam Hussein, then sure.

If it was all about liberating Iraq (which is too selfless as a reason) why didn't they just say so in the first place? Why go in there under false claims of WMD's? If the reasons themselves are so shady because they keep changing, how can you believe them or at least not doubt them?

Plus, I finally figured out what really bothers me so much about Palin. The right, moralistic wing supports Palin. I hate self proclaimed moralists because those are the people who consider abortus a crime and don't think anyone really can be homosexual. In a open free minded world as this one, that kind of thinking is hopeless. The US was once progressive on the human rights part, now they're falling behind.

"With Obama we'll get abortus on order and our children will live in a world where homosexuality is normal. The only thing I can do is pray against that."

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 30 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Overall, Obama will raise taxes. He ignores that fact to appear as a "tax cutter". He's going to raise payroll, capital, business, investment, income taxes on people making 200,000 a yr, and on and on.

Nope, there is overall a net spending cut.
And McCain wants to raise taxes on employer-based healthcare, for instance, while giving ten times the tax cuts to the wealthy instead of the middle class.

Quote

He ignores he will add one trillion in new government spending. You don't make government smaller by adding one trillion in new spending.

A far cry from McCain's $4 trillion addition to the national debt.
You don't improve the economy by adding to an already record deficit.

Quote

He wants to "responsibly" end the war in Iraq, and support more troops in Afghanistan. He wants to increase the size of the military, when earlier in the campaign he wanted to reduce it.

Both wars are Bush's legacy.
Obama is trying to fix them and take control of them like a true leader needs to. He wouldn't start a war.

Quote

And GL, all of the positions you are defending are taken mostly by conservatives, or atleast moderate democrats.

Once again, there can be an overlap. Different times, different circumstances. For example, if Bush had never gone into Iraq, there would be no debate on how it should be ended.

Whoever the next president will be will have to scale back his philosophies to deal with the mess Bush is leaving behind.


EDIT: And what SS said.

[Eugine]

Oh come on. That's not true. Barack lied in a debate once and said there will be a net spending cut in his admin, when everyone knew that was a lie.
http://lpwillham.newsvine.com/_news/2008/1...ct-with-reality

Anyway! I'm tired of this debate... We just argue the samething over and over. Don't worry GL, I can't wait for Obama to enact the failed Euro-Socialism policies. People will flock back to the GOP.

[Golden Legacy]

Oh please shut up Eugine, you and Palin lovers are the only idiots I've ever seen who claim going from 36% -> 39% is "socialism", but giving $300 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy is "fair" and generates the economy forward.

That's Bush thinking, that's backward thinking.


What Bush accomplished.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/29/co...ry4486228.shtml
double that and you have McCain.


And I still stand by my original prediction. I predict McCain will win, after seeing the responses from the far right on how they treat Obama and idolize Bush, what senseless idiots.

[Eugine]

No no. Increasing the taxes is not socialism. Although I disagree with increasing taxes, using the taxes for public programs are fine, but giving it to people who pay no taxes is socialistic and insane.
GL, when your parents pay taxes under an Obama administration, people who do not pay taxes will be getting your money! If you think that's fair, then well, you and Obama have common ground.

And yes, I believe businesses should not be paying any taxes honestly. Personally, I think McCain is not giving those businesses enough. Businesses need all the money they can get to grow and create jobs now.

And, Bush is not McCain. And McCain is not Bush.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 30 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

No no. Increasing the taxes is not socialism. Although I disagree with increasing taxes, using the taxes for public programs are fine, but giving it to people who pay no taxes is socialistic and insane.

Nope, false. I am sure you are citing your "40%" nonsense about people who do not pay taxes. Those people do not pay income taxes, but they do pay payroll taxes.

Quote

And yes, I believe businesses should not be paying any taxes honestly. Personally, I think McCain is not giving those businesses enough. Businesses need all the money they can get to grow and create jobs now.

Right, which is why Obama is also giving a $3000 tax credit for each new worker employed. Meanwhile, McCain wants to raise taxes (yes, raise) on healthcare provided through employers, which restricts benefits for workers.

Quote

And, Bush is not McCain. And McCain is not Bush.

One invaded a country with a false justification, the other is an unstable minded 72 year old whose own fellow veterans have said is temperamental and dangerous.

One concentrated tax cuts on the wealthy thinking it would "create jobs" but ended up losing 5 million, the other wants to embrace those same tax policies.

One is against abortions and same-sex marriage, while the other caved in to the demands of his conservative party and is now an extreme pro-life candidate with a VP who thinks even more radically.

And let's not forget, 90% of the time with Bush.

[Eugine]

Payroll taxes which Obama wants to increase? Right...
And since when do those people pay payroll taxes? I thought businesses paid payroll taxes. I dunno about you, but I think increasing taxes on businesses will just cause businesses to increase the payroll taxes.

And, I dislike McCain's health care plan tbh. Obama's health care is better, but extremely expensive. And honestly, Obama copied McCain's small business plan. McCain's is pretty similar.

And lol, Bill Clinton is campaigning with Obama, and disses him everytime subliminally. You can see they hate each other (rightfully), but are faking it. Damn, I love Bill Clinton.

[Golden Legacy]

And how do I even argue if all you're going to say is either 1) the guy will raise taxes or 2) the guy SAYS he will decrease taxes, but he really won't? If you're not going to accept what the candidate's actual platform is, how do we have a debate?

Here's a non-partisan discussion of the candidates' tax plans.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publication...l.cfm?ID=411741

You ignore the fact that McCain's plan will run up record deficits, which would offset a lot of the positive factors you are citing. Also, once again, McCain's plan would overwhelmingly favor the elite and the wealthy 1%, while Obama's would greatly favor the majority of the population, 70-75% of families at least.

Really, which group needs help more now? All Bush has done is increase wealth disparity while losing jobs, with the wealthy succeeding and the middle class deteriorating. McCain's plan is hardly much different.

[Eugine]

Wow, you basically explained Obama's tax policy brilliantly in your first paragaph. He is campaigning as a "tax cutter", but in reality to fund his expensive programs (and his democratic congress agenda) he will have to increase taxes on basically everyone. Trust me. So yes, I believe he is being dishonest on taxes.
Listen, even he recognised it will be near impossible to give "95% of working familes" a tax cut.
Remember the famous $250,000 and below will get tax cuts? Now, yesterday he decreased it to $200,000, and Joe Biden finally decreased it to $150,000.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=-3zHBXg18nc

And no, McCain's plan will overwhelmingly favour businesses, who happen to make more than $250,000 a year.

And GL, all groups need help. The world lost 3 trillion dollars in one month. There are not much rich people to tax anymore. Right now, I think pro-growth and pro-jobs agenda are more important than income redistribution all in the name of "fairness".

[Golden Legacy]

You see, this is what I'm dealing with!
Bush had the same philosophy as McCain, he embraces the same tax policy.
Guess what happens when you give money to the rich? Guess what happens when you benefit the wealthy? They keep it.

You believe, ideologically, that the rich and wealthy and Exxon Mobil rich businesses should invest back and create jobs. The reality is, they don't.

You believe in trickle down.

Obama's philiosophy is, benefit the middle class families and the poor (the majority of the population) so they can buy the goods, spend into the economy, and invest back in businesses so that they can grow, growth to expand and create new jobs.

That's an upward growth.

Quite frankly, it's also the more humane approach, instead of embracing Bush policies.

And quit your "pro-jobs approach", I have said numerous times (and you have not responded) that Obama plans on creating 5 million new jobs in alternative energy infrastructure and an additional 2 million jobs for rebuilding bridges, schools, roads, internet lines, etc.

[Eugine]

Yes, I believe in Reaganomics. By far the best economic policies ever. And btw, Bush did a terrible job with trickle down.

I think the corruption in Washington and Wall Street were more important factors which contributed to this economic crisis, and also, more importantly, the fact that other countries are using Reaganomics more effectively than USA which contributed to job losses in USA.

We share fundamental difference here, and this is why we will never agree on the economy.
You believe taxes were too low. I believe government spending was too high.

And those jobs are lowpaying jobs. Crappy jobs imo.

[Golden Legacy]

Then we have nothing more to talk about. I believe taxes should be lowered for the middle class and poor who have suffered as the products of greed at the hands of the obscenely rich/wealthy, taxes raised on them. I believe that a certain amount of government spending is fine if it invests into creating new industry i.e. alternative energy.

And just for the hell of it:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1839724,00.html
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008..._talk_hertzberg

Quote

"Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it."

"Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices."

"She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

zOMFG its da s0cialism lolz!!!

Time to have a Eugine-esque response!

Eugine, on Oct 16 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

Palin, keep behind your telemprompter baby! You sure suck without it =)
Share the wealth around! Share it around baby!

Eugine, on Oct 30 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

No no. Increasing the taxes is not socialism. Although I disagree with increasing taxes, using the taxes for public programs are fine, but giving it to people who pay no taxes is socialistic and insane.

[Eugine]

Quote

Then we have nothing more to talk about. I believe taxes should be lowered for the middle class and poor who have suffered as the products of greed at the hands of the obscenely rich/wealthy, taxes raised on them. I believe that a certain amount of government spending is fine if it invests into creating new industry i.e. alternative energy.

I believe taxes should be lowered for all businesses who create jobs. I believe creating jobs at this stage is more important than sending someone a $1000 check. Why send someone a check when they have no job?
Right now, I personally believe the middle class doesn't even deserve a tax cut. I know that's not a popular political position, but I strongly believe jobs are more important than tax cuts. Use that money to create jobs imo. When jobless numbers are down, then the middle class should receive a tax cut, but maybe. Why not use that money on education? Energy independence? Balancing the budget? And on and on.

Government? I think they should get out of the private market personally. The US government imo, should work with the private market, not be part of it.

And the way Palin did it was not socialistic. The oil companies gave them the money, not the government. I prefer it that way. Plus, the Alaska constitution required the people there to receive money whenever someone profited from their natural resource.
She has a wonderful record eh GL? I love that woman!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pesident Palin!!!

[Ironsight]

Saturos Striker, on Oct 30 2008, 09:13 AM, said:

O sorry, it's of course those WMD's, or was it their 'freedom'? or Saddam Hussein's secret fallafel recipe? It's just so hard to keep track...

Yeah, that's why we're paying more for gas then we did before the war.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Oct 30 2008, 08:53 PM, said:

I believe taxes should be lowered for all businesses who create jobs. I believe creating jobs at this stage is more important than sending someone a $1000 check. Why send someone a check when they have no job?
Right now, I personally believe the middle class doesn't even deserve a tax cut. I know that's not a popular political position, but I strongly believe jobs are more important than tax cuts. Use that money to create jobs imo. When jobless numbers are down, then the middle class should receive a tax cut, but maybe. Why not use that money on education? Energy independence? Balancing the budget? And on and on.

Government? I think they should get out of the private market personally. The US government imo, should work with the private market, not be part of it.

And the way Palin did it was not socialistic. The oil companies gave them the money, not the government. I prefer it that way. Plus, the Alaska constitution required the people there to receive money whenever someone profited from their natural resource.
She has a wonderful record eh GL? I love that woman!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pesident Palin!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong but won't McCain's policy actually end up in a bigger government spending? Since he seems to be cutting on everyone, instead of actually taxing someone else to make up for the cut? People in the US still pay pathetic taxes compared to Europe anyway, but we have a healthcare program and of course less debts.

Plus, Palin loses all my respect on the moral-ethical grounds.

[edit] DS, what was the reason then?

[Eugine]

No. It will result in a larger deficit, not more government spending. To combat the higher deficit, he will propose a spending freeze (which will be impossible because of the largely democatic congress) for a year, and during this time he will eliminate government programs which do not work, and make those what work more efficient... Something which he and Obama agrees on, minus the spending freeze.

One thing I have a problem with McCain is that he promises to balance the budget by the end of his first term, but have no clear plan on how to. I think that will be almost impossible.

And yes, I think Palin social conservatism is way too ancient and extreme. In Alaska, she did not impose her views on the citizens though, so I respect her governance.

[Saturos S.]

Well, all things considered, I think I'd rather see Obama in the oval offices.

Since obviously the US's foreign policies are what concerns me the most I must say that I'd rather have Obama. I think he'll handle the more openly than McCain and I like Obama's way of thinking, though I'm a bit scared of a hidden agenda there. I perfectly know what I want though, I'm just having trouble placing it in either candidate.

And I'm not even going to act if I understand the US view on government spending. The Dutch budget was a bit too socialistic for my taste this year but the US budget is still way too liberal for my taste. I have no idea what the US citizen thinks about it, all I can say the defence costs are way too high for my taste, the health cost are way too low.

[Eugine]

Alright. The world wants Obama, and America apparently too. So, you'll get what you wish for most likely. You'll regret it. Well, you wouldn't... Americans will (assuming he carries out his disastrious policies)

Anyway! I have three articles for you guys to read.

http://www.politico....1008/15073.html
Best negative article on 'Palin' ever. I agree completely. And I hate the McCain campaign so much. These two candidates do not deserve this campaign at all, especially Palin. They deserve better!

Why didn't McCain start prepping Palin since July when Obama became the presumptive nominee? Or even earlier? I just don't get it! I am really starting to believe Palin was a rush pick.
I am just in disarray by the McCain campaign. Those bastards want to blame Palin on their loss? Come on, like that article said, McCain was on script so many times, and look they were losing big time. PALIN was the one who made McCain beat Obama in the polls during September, and now those bastards want to blame her? With a hostile press against Palin, how could she survive?
They freakin' let the PRESS define Palin, rather than letting her define herself. Now she's a caribou barbie, no nothing idiot.
http://www.politico....1008/15103.html
Die the McCain campaign. Die!

They completely ignore her marvelous record (which I just fawn over, it's remarkable! 80% approval rating doesn't come easy) and simply made her a mouthpiece of McCain talking points she didn't believe in!
- Come on, the woman cleaned up corruption in Alaska, by both democrats and republicans.
- She, a Christian tried very hard to keep her religious beliefs and social conservatism out of office, but made them public unapologetically.
- She reduced wasteful spending in Alaska yearly, and is working very hard to tap into Alaska's natural resources.
- Alaska development is now exploding because of this woman.

But don't worry. She will return. She will become President. I can feel it.

And
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8061302639.html
Do you honestly want USA to become like Europe GL?

[Golden Legacy]

What I want is less focus on the military and senseless murder, and more emphasis on domestic and social issues.

Quite simply, there is no way that McCain will get into office and not carry a militaristic policy of belligerency. We've seen what happens when a president places his own grand visions of an intrusive foreign policy, and both the American people and the people in the world are hurt by it.

We don't need another president like that, the consequences will be irreversible, the regret huge. Honestly Eugine, you are laughably blind. Your way of thinking is no better than the Americans that continue to believe Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda, or the ones so easily fooled by talk of social issues about abortion and gay rights and guns and God. The shame is that I do not think Obama will win the election, just because the vast majority of Americans may well fall back on the type of fear-mongering you continue to express, and you would no doubt support this sort of thing, and this too, if it was the only way to get your senile hero as president.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 30 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

What I want is less focus on the military and senseless murder, and more emphasis on domestic and social issues.

I think the US should focus more on military, and spreading democracy around the world, and let the private sector focus on domestic and social issues... except public services.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 30 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

Quite simply, there is no way that McCain will get into office and not carry a militaristic policy of belligerency. We've seen what happens when a president places his own grand visions of an intrusive foreign policy, and both the American people and the people in the world are hurt by it.

I love that foreign policy. The US is making itself look to weak. Why the hell is Syria shouting to the USA? Iran building nuclear weapons? Bomb those stuff!

Golden Legacy, on Oct 30 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

We don't need another president like that, the consequences will be irreversible, the regret huge. Honestly Eugine, you are laughably blind. Your way of thinking is no better than the Americans that continue to believe Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda, or the ones so easily fooled by talk of social issues about abortion and gay rights and guns and God. The shame is that I do not think Obama will win the election, just because the vast majority of Americans may well fall back on the type of fear-mongering you continue to express, and you would no doubt support this sort of thing just to get your senile military-minded freak as president.

I'm insulted. I think you're blinded for not having a neoconservative foreign policy viewpoint.



ANNNNDDDD
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2...st-sarah-palin/
I liked you Mitt Romney, but why are you letting your supporters do this? DIE MITT ROMNEY. DIE!!!

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 30 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

I think the US should focus more on military, and spreading democracy around the world, and let the private sector focus on domestic and social issues... except public services.

I love that foreign policy. The US is making itself look to weak. Why the hell is Syria shouting to the USA? Iran building nuclear weapons? Bomb those stuff!
I'm insulted. I think you're blinded for not having a neoconservative foreign policy viewpoint.

Eugine, I will just add here that a strong foreign policy and neoconservatism aren't one and the same. They don't have to be, honestly.

Quote

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2...st-sarah-palin/
I liked you Mitt Romney, but why are you letting your supporters do this? DIE MITT ROMNEY. DIE!!!

Oh you've got to be kidding me? You're against Mitt Romney now in favor of Sarah Palin? Really, I think most sane people would choose Romney over Palin, with the exception of people who think Obama is the Anti-Christ.

[Eugine]

Honestly, I just want a strong policy. I don't like senseless wars btw.

I think Iran should not have nuclear weapons at all costs.
I believe the US can win in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's my foreign policy focus. And neocons just simply agree with me.

Anyway!
The Mitt Romney thing just sucks GL. They're trying to destroy Palin so that Romney can run in 2012 without competition!
I've been reading stories about Palin being "rogue", "diva", "wackjob". All from the Mitt Romney supporters in the McCain campaign who've given up on McCain and wants to protect Romney's chances of winning the republican nomination in 2012. That's terrible.
It's like how people felt Hillary Clinton supporters were attacking Barack Obama retardedly when her chances were over... They felt betrayed by their own. I feel so too!
DIE MITT ROMNEY!

[Golden Legacy]

Well, I'd imagine that there is a rift in the GOP. There are the hardcore Evangelical Christians that are fanatic about Palin, and then there are the moderate conservatives that prefer the Ron Paul, Mitt Romney approach.

If McCain/Palin lose the election, I can already forsee the same thing happening with diehard Palin supporters, especially since she will effectively be the runner-up for 2012. And hey, did any of you notice?

http://www.joinrudy2012.com/

LOL.


In the meanwhile, seriously guys, read up on how Obama is the anti-Christ!
http://o.bamapost.com/

I'm convinced!

[Eugine]

Personally, I will support a Pawlenty ticket in 2012. Palin needs to come REALLY HARD in 2012 to win the minds of the American people. She will have an extremely uphill battle (THANKS TO THOSE MITT ROMNEY TRAITORS!!!)... but she can do it.
Palin/Pawlenty 12! OR
Palin/Ridge 12!

And, I don't even bother reading those nonsense about Obama GL. Stupid people.

EDIT:
http://abcnews.go.co...=6148984&page=1
Nice article GL. What's your take on it?

[Toasty]

It's not Mitt Romney's fault Eugine. Don't blame him for what his supporters do.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 30 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

See how it goes either way?

Once again, when 6 billion people in the world are saying that the USA lied about WMDs, terrorism, world security, "liberation", etc. maybe it's about time you started to listen instead of being holed up in your isolated bubble of American perfectionism.

Maybe everyone's saying that because the Liberals keep on insisting that it's true.

Saddam DID have WMD's. He had nerve agents/gasses/etc. A WMD doesn't have to be a nuke. We know he had them, becuase we have proof that he was using them not only on his neighboring countries, but his own people as well.

If it was for oil, our gas prices wouldn't be skyrocketing. We would have actually obtained some oil by now, and the prices would be dropping.

The thing is, the United States, has never invaded a country and stole something from it, or claimed the land as their own. Every single time, they either left the country with only an embassy/outpost/etc. in place, or they even went as far as to help the nation rebuild itself. Just like it did with both Germany and Japan, who unlike Iraq, were actually enemies of the United States. They as two seperate nations, both attacked the US and her allies. Yet when everything was all said and done, we helped both of them rebuild.

And now, thanks to the US's efforts, Japan is now one of the leading nations in the advancement of technology, boasting the highest average broadband speed per citizen than any other country.

As long as the US continues to help rebuild Iraq and lend support, Iraq will one day be able to say something similar.


And no GL, our occupation in Iraq is actually doing more good for the people over there than bad. The atrocities being committed by US soldiers are incredibly slim when compared to the number of US troops we have over there.


Maybe it's about time you started to listen instead of being holed up in your isolated bubble of ignorance.

You foolishly believe what the Liberal media blows out of proportion. Guantanamo/etc. may be atrocious, but they're nowhere near as horrible as what Saddam Hussein did to many of his own people and neighbors. Or the Nazi prison camps, or a slew of what other dictators have done.

Because of the people Obama is associated with (an American terrorist who doesn't regret bombing the Pentagon, among many other people), he wouldn't stand a chance of obtaining a job at the FBI. Heck, they'd probably put him on a terrorist watch list (if he isn't already). Yet this guy is on track to become the President.

The media really likes to just smooth over all of Obama's rough spots. They've done a hell of a job of writing off his questionable acuaintances as nothing serious.


Obama attended Revrend Wright's (sp?) church for a pretty long time, yet he stated that he "had no idea [the Revrend] was racist against white people." I don't know what he said about his association with Bill Ayres (a member of the Weather Underground Organization wiki article here), or Rashid Khalidi (who was a member of the Palestine Liberation Organiztation, a group responsible for terrorist attacks on Israel), but the majority of the media hasn't made a very big deal out of it, save for a few conservative news hosts.

You can say that the people Obama hangs around doesn't reflect what kind of person he is all you want, but I'll call it what it is. Foolishness.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 30 2008, 12:41 PM, said:

Then we have nothing more to talk about. I believe taxes should be lowered for the middle class and poor who have suffered as the products of greed at the hands of the obscenely rich/wealthy, taxes raised on them. I believe that a certain amount of government spending is fine if it invests into creating new industry i.e. alternative energy.

And just for the hell of it:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1839724,00.html
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008..._talk_hertzberg
zOMFG its da s0cialism lolz!!!

Time to have a Eugine-esque response!

Ever thought that maybe it's like that because Alaska has the smallest population density in America? OF COURSE THEY SPEND MORE MONEY PER CITIZEN. That's because they can afford it, since there's so few people living there. The more people living in the state, the less money the state can spend on each individual person.

I think I know why you're a Liberal. You don't think enough.

(I believe that's only the second or third time I've insulted you in any debate so far, by the way)



[EDIT] A quote from Obama says "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it"

Now tell me. If we live in the greatest nation in the world, why the hell does it need to be changed?

[Eugine]

I agree with you Toasty somewhat, especially with Sexy Sarah Alaskonomics. Alaska gains billions of dollars by tapping into their natural resources (and could get hundreds of billions more by tapping into ANWR. Unfortunately everyone but Alaskans do not want to tap into ANWR.)

I think this campaign is over personally.
Most likely, this election will be a blowout for Obama [364 to 174] if current trend continues. Ie, Obama carrying all of the Kerry states plus NM, CO, IA, NV, FL, VA, NC, MO and OH.

BUT, I am hoping that McCain will be victorious! [272 to 266] Hopefully McCain produces a surprise upset!
Ie, McCain carrying all of the Bush states minus CO, NM, NV, IA, VA... but picks up PA and NH.
As we know, the Governor of PA said he doesn't believe the polls, as most PA residence are connecting with Sexy Sarah and do not connect with BHO for good reasons. Also, we know NH residences love McCain!
Wow, I just spent like 30mins playing around in the CNN Electoral Map Calculator.

Anyway, hopefully Sexy Sarah will run in 2012. She will have two years to get to know GOP insiders, study hard on the issues, do some interviews to shed the negative image the McCain campaign gave her (some purposely to protect Romney in 2012!. And as we know, when she's operating on her own (alah the debate where she owned Joe Biden) she performs well...) Get some foreign policy experience, and kick some Obama in his ass in 2012.
UNFORTUNATELY, people are signalling Obama is placing mostly New Democrats into his White House to do a good job, and will not carry out his Euro-socialism policies again (to the dismay of those 40 million who are waiting on a check!). I like New Democrats. Please Obama, don't pick them... You have to screw up...
http://en.wikipedia....i/New_Democrats

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 30 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

http://abcnews.go.co...=6148984&page=1
Nice article GL. What's your take on it?

Same thing happened in 2004 when Bin Laden conveniently released a tape five days before the election, so not surprising. For the record, I'm not expecting an Obama win anyway, but something like this would certainly be reason enough.

Toasty, on Oct 31 2008, 03:09 AM, said:

Saddam DID have WMD's. He had nerve agents/gasses/etc. A WMD doesn't have to be a nuke. We know he had them, becuase we have proof that he was using them not only on his neighboring countries, but his own people as well.

If it was for oil, our gas prices wouldn't be skyrocketing. We would have actually obtained some oil by now, and the prices would be dropping.

So NOW you admit that WMDs don't have to be nuclear weapons? Convenient, since that is what Bush emphasized, that they were nuclear power plants with uranium. Once again, you shift conveniently.

And no, oil could be used to maintain the military, and more importantly, to prevent another nation from having it.

Quote

The thing is, the United States, has never invaded a country and stole something from it, or claimed the land as their own. Every single time, they either left the country with only an embassy/outpost/etc. in place, or they even went as far as to help the nation rebuild itself. Just like it did with both Germany and Japan, who unlike Iraq, were actually enemies of the United States. They as two seperate nations, both attacked the US and her allies. Yet when everything was all said and done, we helped both of them rebuild.

And now, thanks to the US's efforts, Japan is now one of the leading nations in the advancement of technology, boasting the highest average broadband speed per citizen than any other country.

As long as the US continues to help rebuild Iraq and lend support, Iraq will one day be able to say something similar.
And no GL, our occupation in Iraq is actually doing more good for the people over there than bad. The atrocities being committed by US soldiers are incredibly slim when compared to the number of US troops we have over there.
Maybe it's about time you started to listen instead of being holed up in your isolated bubble of ignorance.

You thought Saddam Hussein was building a megacannon. So please be quiet.

And don't try to place Iraq in the same vein as WWII, which actually had a premise, while the former was doctored and the threat made up.

And Toasty, have you ever actually spoken with Iraqis and Iraqi refugees, or do you just believe the bold tales of American veterans?

Quote

You foolishly believe what the Liberal media blows out of proportion. Guantanamo/etc. may be atrocious, but they're nowhere near as horrible as what Saddam Hussein did to many of his own people and neighbors. Or the Nazi prison camps, or a slew of what other dictators have done.

So basically, your idea is, it's ok if the USA does these atrocious things, because it's not nearly as bad as everyone else?

And for the record, 90% of the people in those prisons are innocent. Convenient, eh?

Quote

Because of the people Obama is associated with (an American terrorist who doesn't regret bombing the Pentagon, among many other people), he wouldn't stand a chance of obtaining a job at the FBI. Heck, they'd probably put him on a terrorist watch list (if he isn't already). Yet this guy is on track to become the President.

The media really likes to just smooth over all of Obama's rough spots. They've done a hell of a job of writing off his questionable acuaintances as nothing serious.
Obama attended Revrend Wright's (sp?) church for a pretty long time, yet he stated that he "had no idea [the Revrend] was racist against white people." I don't know what he said about his association with Bill Ayres (a member of the Weather Underground Organization wiki article here), or Rashid Khalidi (who was a member of the Palestine Liberation Organiztation, a group responsible for terrorist attacks on Israel), but the majority of the media hasn't made a very big deal out of it, save for a few conservative news hosts.

You can say that the people Obama hangs around doesn't reflect what kind of person he is all you want, but I'll call it what it is. Foolishness.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you John McCain's associations.

Jim Hensley, Convicted Felon
G. Gordon Liddy, Convicted Felon
Charles Keating, Convicted Felon
Raffaello Follieri, Convicted Felon
Rick Renzi, Under Indictment
Rick Davis, Freddie Mac Lobbyist
Charles Black, Lobbyist for Dictators
Richard Quinn, White Supremist
Pastor John Hagee, Bigot
Pastor Rod Parsley, Bigot
Todd Palin, Member of Secessionist Group
Andrew McCain, Resigned Manager Savings & Loan

http://www.stopthink...ccainsties.html

For each of these, fully cited with sources (and don't you dare say that it's biased, look at the sources, and no amount of disagreement can change solid verifable fact). Some of my personal favorites include McCain paying and supporting a white supremacist who sold T-shirts praising the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, a Pastor who believed Hurricane Katrina was God's anger towards homosexuals, and McCain's current chief strategist and a senior adviser that has supported right-winged extremist dictatorships all over the world, including Saddam Hussein.

You don't see the "left-winged media" talking about these, eh?

Oh, and let's not forget, John McCain cheated on his first wife because she got disabled in a car accident, and ran off with a $100 million worth woman who is 18 years younger than him. I suppose to you, that's having "good morals" and "good character"? I call that foolishness.

And you know you can be downright blind sometimes? In the same article you posted, John McCain gave $500,000 to Khalidi's organization.

And you do realize the PLO is the official voice of the Palestinian people? To label them as terrorists is to label Israel as one for their actions of oppression that they've been conducting since 1967, decades before any insurgency formed.

The only people who would call the PLO that are bigots and racists. But seeing as you listen to Sean Hannity, who has been known to befriend Nazi-sympathizers, and the racist eloquence of Rush Limbaugh, I am not at all surprised.

Quote

Ever thought that maybe it's like that because Alaska has the smallest population density in America? OF COURSE THEY SPEND MORE MONEY PER CITIZEN. That's because they can afford it, since there's so few people living there. The more people living in the state, the less money the state can spend on each individual person.

So basically, it's perfectly ok for Sarah Palin to give out $1200 checks to every man, woman, and child, the unemployed and people who've never worked, as she taxed the profits of oil companies? If Obama did that, you would call him a "socialist" and a "wealth redistributor", but not your dear moose-hunter!

Quote

I think I know why you're a Liberal. You don't think enough.

(I believe that's only the second or third time I've insulted you in any debate so far, by the way)

This is coming from someone who claims to be pro-life and also pro-war/pro-guns? This is coming from someone who would defend his faith in a story about a man named Jonah being swallowed by a whale for 40 years but refuses to believe in global warming? This is coming from someone who believes that God created all people equally except when it comes to homosexuals, rape victims, minorities, and non-American civilians?

That's you being a hardcore Conservative.

Quote

A quote from Obama says "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it"

Now tell me. If we live in the greatest nation in the world, why the hell does it need to be changed?

Because what it has become is not the "greatest" nation in the world, but a nation of double standards and hypocrisy, placing military interests over the domestic and social needs of its people. That could use a change, I believe.

[Eugine]

Respond to my previous post GL!
And wow GL, your post was extremely funny. You're visiting digg.com, and other left leaning sites too much lol (personally had to uncheck the US elections category on digg cuz it was a bash Sarah frenzy!)

So GL, are you a New Democrat or even further left?

[Golden Legacy]

Actually, no, I rely mostly on BBC and The Economist for my news and perspectives.

Eugine, on Oct 31 2008, 05:30 PM, said:

Most likely, this election will be a blowout for Obama [364 to 174] if current trend continues. Ie, Obama carrying all of the Kerry states plus NM, CO, IA, NV, FL, VA, NC, MO and OH.

BUT, I am hoping that McCain will be victorious! [272 to 266] Hopefully McCain produces a surprise upset!
Ie, McCain carrying all of the Bush states minus CO, NM, NV, IA, VA... but picks up PA and NH.
As we know, the Governor of PA said he doesn't believe the polls, as most PA residence are connecting with Sexy Sarah and do not connect with BHO for good reasons. Also, we know NH residences love McCain!
Wow, I just spent like 30mins playing around in the CNN Electoral Map Calculator.

I've spent a lot of time trying out electoral college scenarios. I think it's most likely that Obama will win the popular vote, but will narrowly lose in each competitive state that Bush won. I can't help but shake the feeling that Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina will all "snap back" to their conservative roots, but we'll see.

I basically am expecting a repeat of 2000. Actual votes cast, Obama, but Electoral College by state, McCain narrowly winning.

Quote

UNFORTUNATELY, people are signalling Obama is placing mostly New Democrats into his White House to do a good job, and will not carry out his Euro-socialism policies again (to the dismay of those 40 million who are waiting on a check!). I like New Democrats. Please Obama, don't pick them... You have to screw up...
http://en.wikipedia....i/New_Democrats

I should point out that a lot of my "leftist" policies are a direct criticism of Bush and the past 8 years. Having grown up in my teenage years with him as president, a lot of my attitude is against how he has run. Had it been perhaps someone who had done a more competent job, I wouldn't be as critical. I'm certainly not at all critical of Clinton, those were some great years living in America, for everyone I can tell.

And at any rate, in a "neutral" political setting, I would probably be New Democrat, yes. At the extreme, at most I might follow some moderate elements of social democracy.

[Eugine]

I think I am a New Democrat also. Obama though, definitely isn't. I do not think he's a socialist, but I believe he is too weak to say no to the socialists in his party. Plus, Chicago democrats are the worst you can find... They are extremely far left. Obama's voting record was extremely left in Chicago, but maybe he voted that way to please his political friends in Chicago.

That's the problem with Obama that deeply troubles me...
Will we get the Obama from Chicago, or will we get the Obama he promises to be? We will never know until he takes office.

Hopefully he will be the democrat he promises to be, but with the potentially overwhelming democatic congress (and trust me, republicans deserve to lose after those terrible 8 years. They lost their way and the trust of the electorate. I just believe their philosophy is better but w/e.) he doesn't need to be. And will he honestly tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid no after all they did for him? I just don't see it.

[Golden Legacy]

That's a fair question to ask, certainly. I honestly am surprised that you want McCain and Palin to win so badly. I would think that having the Republicans lose would give them a chance to rejuvenate and go back to their roots (Ron Paul style, who by the way is against US intervention in foreign affairs, check out his foreign policy - really nice stuff!)

Actually, scratch that, I'm surprised anyone wants to win the presidency with everything that's going on now.

At any rate, as you yourself mentioned, the "New Democrat" philosophy is largely taking hold now, and at the very least the people Obama chooses to advise him will be ranging from all political spectrums, there are even a number of Republicans who are reported to be in consideration for his cabinet (including Secretary of State and Treasure Secretary, among many other positions).

And I'm looking for a number of articles (not bookmarked on this computer), but Obama is far more independent minded than you give him credit for. He really is a pragmatic thinker and leader, calm and cool and doesn't let anything get to him but always puts things in a big picture. It's a quality people on both sides have noted, and it's a form of leadership that honestly has not existed in the USA for quite a while.

I'm not suggesting Obama will be a perfect president, far from it. But I honestly think that it's an opportunity America needs to take and not let it pass. After all, at least we'll know after the last 8 years?

And is it also so wrong to have a president who will energize the world too, who will erase the images of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, Iraq and torture, from the minds of people about America, and instead show a genuine truth to the matter that a bold vision and one's strength of character is all that's needed?

I truly, sincerely believe Obama is a generational figure. I know people on the right will deride that and make fun of it, but there's a reason why he's been able to transcend so many differences - age, race, class - among people, and even the world too.

[Eugine]

I love everything about Ron Paul except his foreign policy. If the US is so all powerful like he claims, why not use that power to kill some terrorists now rather than waiting for them to grow too strong?

And GL, I wish what you said about Obama was true, but listen, before Obama started running for President he showed none of those qualities. The guy is the most liberal senator in the US senate, and is the fourth most partisan ever. He never really worked across the isle except for issues all members of congress agreed on.
So basically, I think this image Obama created was fake. A campaign image designed by David Axelrod. Hopefully he used this created image throughout this campaign so much that he becomes what he says he is.

And, the US is getting tougher against those terrorists.
http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/7702679.stm

Finally!

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 31 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

I love everything about Ron Paul except his foreign policy. If the US is so all powerful like he claims, why not use that power to kill some terrorists now rather than waiting for them to grow too strong?

I thought you were a true conservative? And that's an example of a strong foreign policy. Have strength but don't flaunt it. Maintain a military for defense purposes but remain firm.

Quote

And GL, I wish what you said about Obama was true, but listen, before Obama started running for President he showed none of those qualities. The guy is the most liberal senator in the US senate, and is the fourth most partisan ever. He never really worked across the isle except for issues all members of congress agreed on.

So basically, I think this image Obama created was fake. A campaign image designed by David Axelrod. Hopefully he used this created image throughout this campaign so much that he becomes what he says he is.

There is nothing wrong with being liberal, despite how conservatives have done a good job of making it out to be a 'bad word'. I think it's perfectly fine that he distanced himself from Bush, which McCain has now embraced. Really, I think it's more unfortunate that a once independent thinker has now caved in to the GOP's demands.

And the tentative Obama administration that is being worked on is embracing bipartisanship, as I mentioned, with Republicans likely to be a part of some high positions in his cabinet. And further, not to restart a whole debate that I am tired of going through, good judgment and intelligence are hallmarks of a leader, as is pragmatism.

Quote

And, the US is getting tougher against those terrorists.
http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/7702679.stm

Finally!

About 15, including an al-Qaeda leader, were killed in an attack near the village of Mirali, North Waziristan.

In a second attack, seven people were killed in South Waziristan.

So basically, the US killed 22 people, 21 were civilians.

[Eugine]

They never mentioned civilians GL >_<

And GL, what will you prefer?
Someone who promises to be bipartisan, or someone who is bipartisan?

And no no, I'm not a true conservative... I'm a moderate. I like Ronald Reagan though, especially his economic policies.

And lol...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1
He wants to be President but wants privacy? lol... His daughters are really cute though, especially the elder.

[Nosferatu]

Eugine, on Oct 31 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

And lol...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1
He wants to be President but wants privacy? lol... His daughters are really cute though, especially the elder.

My 2 cents: Maybe he wants to spend time with his daughter? Just ya know, putting that out there.

[Eugine]

Nosferatu, on Oct 31 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

My 2 cents: Maybe he wants to spend time with his daughter? Just ya know, putting that out there.

Of course. You're right.
I'm just saying celebrities don't have privacy anymore.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Oct 31 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

They never mentioned civilians GL >_<

That's the point. The article said, "including an Al Qaeda leader". Somehow that one target is supposed to make up for the rest?

Quote

And GL, what will you prefer?
Someone who promises to be bipartisan, or someone who is bipartisan?

And no no, I'm not a true conservative... I'm a moderate. I like Ronald Reagan though, especially his economic policies.

In all honesty, I'd rather have a liberal and someone who is as far from Bush as possible.

Quote

And lol...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1
He wants to be President but wants privacy? lol... His daughters are really cute though, especially the elder.

I think it's really sweet that Obama took the time off to go trick-or-treating with his daughters for Halloween. Also:

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidate...052377620081021

Barack visited his ailing grandmother last week, literally just two weeks before the election. He even missed two days of campaigning for it.

The guy's really sincere about his family, that's one of the reasons I'm really passionate about supporting him.

EDIT: lol, Nos.


In other news, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, and Ronald Reagan's former Chief of Staff, Ken Duberstein, also now endorse Obama. This is along with Ken Adelman, Susan Eisenhower, and Colin Powell, along with many other Republicans.

[Eugine]

Ah well. They're jumping ships to get invited to White House dinners. Ah well.
I want John McCain to win just for those RINOs.

[Golden Legacy]

Of course Eugine, of course.

And it looks like McCain's home state of Arizona has just come into play. Obama is launching ads there, Republicans are launching a new series of robo-calls against him, and McCain is scheduled to campaign there to protect it.

It would be hilarious if Arizona went liberal this year, just for the novelty of it.

[Eugine]

McCain always planned to end his campaign in Arizona. And Obama will not win Arizona, and doesn't plan to.
He's doing that because he has lots of money, and wants McCain (who has limited) to divert money to defend Arizona.

God, the Obama campaign pisses me off. Too perfect >_<

[Golden Legacy]

Ha, no doubt.
In all honesty though, I still don't see Obama winning. He said it himself:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=EpfzE3eMkJw
check it out at 4:40. lol, but it is also very true.

[Eugine]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF...s_to_bill_1.asp

Still got a negative opinion on Bill Kristol? I like him.

And GL, that was then...
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/arc...fter_d_474.html

Obama thinks he's winning now. And lol, one poll has McCain back on top. I don't believe it.

[Caael]

My older brother, who is taking American Studies at Uni told me some pretty interesting stuff about the elections today. Turns out that there are 500 or special people (there's an official name, but I cant remember which) spread out across the states who are the only people who count towards the vote. Most of the time, they go with the general vote, but sometimes they go against the vote, which is what happened with bush. I cant remember the details exactly, but thats the general information I can remember.

[Eugine]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8103003755.html
I agree with Eugene Robinson :smile:

And lol,
Bill Richardson, a very good friend of Obama slipped up today.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=G88ebXY2uaI
Honestly, I do not believe Obama will give the tax cuts he promises. It's just not smart.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 31 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

So NOW you admit that WMDs don't have to be nuclear weapons? Convenient, since that is what Bush emphasized, that they were nuclear power plants with uranium. Once again, you shift conveniently.

WHAT THE ****. I NEVER SAID THAT WMD'S WERE ONLY NUKES, NUMBNUTS. The agents he was using have been banned by the UN, are considered WMD's, and were proven to have been used by Saddam against his people/neighbors. Bush and his infromants knew that way before we even invaded.

I personally only thought that they were nukes for a short period of time around/before we invaded Iraq, until my mom pointed out to me that there are non-nuclear weapons which are also considered WMD's.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 31 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

And no, oil could be used to maintain the military, and more importantly, to prevent another nation from having it.

Except there's no evidence what-so-ever of the US military helping itself to Iraqi oil, or of the US trying to prevent other nations from obtaining it (aside from known terrorist-supporting countries that UN acknowledges are "bad" aswell, though I don't even think we've done anything to prevent them from getting the oil either).

Golden Legacy, on Oct 31 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

You thought Saddam Hussein was building a megacannon. So please be quiet.

And don't try to place Iraq in the same vein as WWII, which actually had a premise, while the former was doctored and the threat made up.

You thought Saddam Hussein was a tolerable ruler. So please stfu. By the way, pieces of what are commonly thought to be a large cannon were found in Iraq, and it's known that Saddam was interested in weaponry the Nazis developed. Among them, was a megacannon that was used to bombared the citiy of Paris. Saddam wanted a similar weapon with which to bombard Israel.

And of course. The idea of Saddam using WMD's on his people and neighbors was completely made up, as was his known hatred (i.e. he wanted us all dead) of the US. That's entirely believeable.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 31 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

And Toasty, have you ever actually spoken with Iraqis and Iraqi refugees, or do you just believe the bold tales of American veterans?
So basically, your idea is, it's ok if the USA does these atrocious things, because it's not nearly as bad as everyone else?

And for the record, 90% of the people in those prisons are innocent. Convenient, eh?

Have you ever spoken to them? Or have you just read the letters that anti-US-military groups post on their blogs?
There are soldiers who are treating the Iraqi people with courtesy and manners, and there are far more of them then there are rapeists and murderers over there. If a soldiers shows signs of racism towards the people of a country he's occupying, he's immediately taken aside and questioned. If a soldier commits a war crime, he's immediately deported and put on trial.

The biased left wing media will have you think that our soldiers are just over there rapeing and pillaging the land. The thing they seem to forget about, though, is that the vast majority of the people who would do things like that don't pass the psychology test required to be in the military.

The Army/Navy/Marines/etc., none of them hire criminals or psychologically unstable people. And if an officer is being racist, he's usually confronted by a superior officer. Oppression isn't tollerated in the military.

And yes, it's very convenient. It also happens to be information reported by the media which you dislike so much.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 31 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you John McCain's associations.

Jim Hensley, Convicted Felon
G. Gordon Liddy, Convicted Felon
Charles Keating, Convicted Felon
Raffaello Follieri, Convicted Felon
Rick Renzi, Under Indictment
Rick Davis, Freddie Mac Lobbyist
Charles Black, Lobbyist for Dictators
Richard Quinn, White Supremist
Pastor John Hagee, Bigot
Pastor Rod Parsley, Bigot
Todd Palin, Member of Secessionist Group
Andrew McCain, Resigned Manager Savings & Loan

http://www.stopthink...ccainsties.html

For each of these, fully cited with sources (and don't you dare say that it's biased, look at the sources, and no amount of disagreement can change solid verifable fact). Some of my personal favorites include McCain paying and supporting a white supremacist who sold T-shirts praising the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, a Pastor who believed Hurricane Katrina was God's anger towards homosexuals, and McCain's current chief strategist and a senior adviser that has supported right-winged extremist dictatorships all over the world, including Saddam Hussein.

You don't see the "left-winged media" talking about these, eh?

Funny how none of them are terrorists, and only one of them supported dictatorships. And a lot of those "criminals" aren't considered criminals by about half of the US population (i.e. the conservatives).

And darn right I dare condemn that article as biased! There isn't a shred of a conservative viewpoint anywhere! It may very well all be 100% true, but the only way to be unbiased is to either not report anything at all, or to report from both/all viewpoints. The latter is (oh shock!) something I myself often do. Proabably also what contributes to me having such an unbiased viewpoint in the opinion of that political compass website. Granted, I myself don't think that the test is entirely acurate, because there's a lot of questions that could easily be interpreted in multiple ways.

Regardless, your "bias receptor" must be severely lacking in ability, because you consider that article unbiased.

I will get back to you on the conservative viewpoint of those people later, as it's really late, I'm really tired, and doing such a thing will require a lot of time.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 31 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

Oh, and let's not forget, John McCain cheated on his first wife because she got disabled in a car accident, and ran off with a $100 million worth woman who is 18 years younger than him. I suppose to you, that's having "good morals" and "good character"? I call that foolishness.

The advantage I have over you in this context, is that I never said anything about McCain having good morals, or even being a generally good person. You, on the other hand, constantly praise Obama for being such an absolutely amazing person. Someone who's obviously a better person than any conservative, because conservatives are all just evil, war-mongering, gas guzzling people.

I never said McCain was the messiah. Therefore, you can criticize his morals all you want, because it won't affect me. You, on the other hand, insist that someone who associates himself with a pastor (and to an extent a wife aswell) who's racist, a charity organization chairman who also just so happens to be a terrorist (one who doesn't regret his actions), and someone who's associated with the PLO.

It's certainly possible that Obama's only doing stuff like visiting his grandma and going trick-or-treating despite also running for President just to show the American people how "down to earth" he is, but he also seems to have a history of being that kind of person (regardless of his associations), so I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that Obama's morals are, 100%, truely better than McCain's. But everyone's got their skeletons.

So sorry, but I'm not foolish when it comes to this.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 31 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

And you know you can be downright blind sometimes? In the same article you posted, John McCain gave $500,000 to Khalidi's organization.

And you do realize the PLO is the official voice of the Palestinian people? To label them as terrorists is to label Israel as one for their actions of oppression that they've been conducting since 1967, decades before any insurgency formed.

The only people who would call the PLO that are bigots and racists. But seeing as you listen to Sean Hannity, who has been known to befriend Nazi-sympathizers, and the racist eloquence of Rush Limbaugh, I am not at all surprised.
So basically, it's perfectly ok for Sarah Palin to give out $1200 checks to every man, woman, and child, the unemployed and people who've never worked, as she taxed the profits of oil companies? If Obama did that, you would call him a "socialist" and a "wealth redistributor", but not your dear moose-hunter!
This is coming from someone who claims to be pro-life and also pro-war/pro-guns? This is coming from someone who would defend his faith in a story about a man named Jonah being swallowed by a whale for 40 years but refuses to believe in global warming? This is coming from someone who believes that God created all people equally except when it comes to homosexuals, rape victims, minorities, and non-American civilians?

Khalidi was part of the PLO when it was exiled, if you hadn't noticed, and also when it still had armed factions engaged in terrorism (actual terrorism, mind you, not just what conservatives would percieve as 'terrorism').
Also, unlike Obama's association with Ayres, Obama had an active social relationship with Khalidi (i.e., they were friends, not just two members of a charity organization).

I also know very good and well that the PLO is recognized (by the UN itself) as the voice for the Palestinian people. Which really, really doesn't help their case any, as the PLO has been proven to support acts of terrorism. Khalidi himself supports Pallestinian terrorism.

"He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to "Israeli aggression." He dedicated his 1986 book, "Under Siege," to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism."

Khalidi's wife (and Khalidi himself) is also a part of the AAAN. I'll admit, on the surface the AAAN sounds like a great organisation. They're helping people (mainly Arabic people) live better lives. That's something I could stand behind.
However, the AAAN is also associated with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which supports open borders and education for illegals.

Also, "The AAAN in 2005 sent a letter to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson in which it called a billboard opposing a North Carolina-New Mexico joint initiative to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens a "bigoted attack on Arabs and Muslims." "

Personally speaking, the AAAN still doesn't sound horrible to me. But it's certainly not as good as it looks on the surface. It may not be known to actively support terrorism, but it sure likes to point out how horribly oppressed illegal immigrants are. Which is a pretty stupid thing to do, since illegals, being illegal in the first place, have no rights as US citizens.

Khalidi is also actively sympathetic to the Palestinian people.


And as for whether Israel is better than Palestine or not, Israel doesn't have suicide bombers, and doesn't support terrorism. When Palestine throws a punch, Israel throws one back in defence. The only offensive thing Israel does, is to launch pre-emptive strikes to reduce the damage that Palestine can cause with an attack they are clearly poised to launch.

Remember, the Palestinians origionally had the land because they took it from Israel. Israel ceased to be a nation until it was given the land it now occupies. The only reason Israel has to attack Palestine, is because Palestine is attacking them. There are no other motives.

Israel wants to get rid of the Palestinian terrorists (i.e. the people who are actually attacking Israeli people) while the PLO has specifically attacked (i.e. there was no evidence of even an Israeli soldeir being present at the site of the attacks) Israeli citizens in many cases before, and even now, supports the killing of Israeli citizens (i.e., people not actively attacking Palestinians).


Also, I guess then that the UN, America, and Israel are all bigots and racists? Oh wait, you already believe that for two out of those three. Dang.

Though that would also make you racist against the Jews.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 31 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

That's you being a hardcore Conservative.
Because what it has become is not the "greatest" nation in the world, but a nation of double standards and hypocrisy, placing military interests over the domestic and social needs of its people. That could use a change, I believe.

You fail to realise that many "military interests" often support the domestic and social needs of it's people. It's called "keeping terrorists and people who want to see America burn from destroying the land that American citizens call home".

If given the chance, Saddam would have gladly wiped America off the face of the planet. So would the leader of Iran, so would the leader of China, and so would Vladimir Putin. Not to mention numerous other dictators of smaller countries.

Yet so far, Iraq has been the only one to be invaded without direct provocation (i.e. without said country launching a military attack on America), despite there being numerous other countries bent on the destruction of the US, ever since its founding.

Not only that


When it comes to America, many Liberals are often die-hard pessimists. The reason being that if many Liberals got their way 100% of the time, America would cease to be America in every way, shape and form. It wouldn't be "better" (infact, the lifestyle of many Americans would likely be sub-par when compared to even moderately wealthy countries), it would litterally cease to be everything that the founding fathers meant it to be.

The government would have far too much control over the people, the people would cease to be independant of the government in many instances, America would cease to be able to stand up for and defend itself (her military strength would be vastly reduced), and she would no longer be able to bail out the world a third time should a WWIII ever happen. Because quite frankly, that's what we did. If we hadn't done anything in the first two World Wars, the entire world would be under a dictatorship right now.

And no, America's so called "rule" over the world is not a rule, and it certainly is not a dictatorship.

[Golden Legacy]

Caael, on Oct 31 2008, 11:12 PM, said:

My older brother, who is taking American Studies at Uni told me some pretty interesting stuff about the elections today. Turns out that there are 500 or special people (there's an official name, but I cant remember which) spread out across the states who are the only people who count towards the vote. Most of the time, they go with the general vote, but sometimes they go against the vote, which is what happened with bush. I cant remember the details exactly, but thats the general information I can remember.

It's called the Electoral College, and it's the stupidest system in the world. Each state is given a number of electors based on its population size - California with the largest has 54, New York with 31, etc. and the smallest states have 3 apiece.

You 'win' each state by getting the most votes there, and so you win the electoral votes for that state - there are 538 total over the fifty states, 270 to win.

It's a broken system, because the overall national vote - you know, the way it's done in every nation in the world? - could go to one candidate, but the other could win the electoral votes based on how those individuals alone decide to vote.

In 2000, Al Gore won 500,000 more votes than Bush, but still lost as a result of the system.

Yes, that is America for you.

Toasty, on Nov 1 2008, 08:49 AM, said:

WHAT THE ****. I NEVER SAID THAT WMD'S WERE ONLY NUKES, NUMBNUTS. The agents he was using have been banned by the UN, are considered WMD's, and were proven to have been used by Saddam against his people/neighbors. Bush and his infromants knew that way before we even invaded.

I personally only thought that they were nukes for a short period of time around/before we invaded Iraq, until my mom pointed out to me that there are non-nuclear weapons which are also considered WMD's.
Except there's no evidence what-so-ever of the US military helping itself to Iraqi oil, or of the US trying to prevent other nations from obtaining it (aside from known terrorist-supporting countries that UN acknowledges are "bad" aswell, though I don't even think we've done anything to prevent them from getting the oil either).
You thought Saddam Hussein was a tolerable ruler. So please stfu. By the way, pieces of what are commonly thought to be a large cannon were found in Iraq, and it's known that Saddam was interested in weaponry the Nazis developed. Among them, was a megacannon that was used to bombared the citiy of Paris. Saddam wanted a similar weapon with which to bombard Israel.

Saddam was building a megacannon.
Heaven help America for allowing people who think like you to vote.

Quote

Have you ever spoken to them? Or have you just read the letters that anti-US-military groups post on their blogs?

As a matter of fact, dear Toasty, I have spoken with Iraqis. I have spoken with Iraqi refugees. I had cousins studying in Baghdad. I assure you, no matter what twisted delusions you have about America, about soldiers being embraced as liberators, the Iraqi people themselves burn with hatred and humiliation at what the USA has done.

Ahh, so what is it going to be now? Maybe those Iraqi refugees are just stupid? Maybe they're mentally disabled? Do tell!

Quote

And yes, it's very convenient. It also happens to be information reported by the media which you dislike so much.
Funny how none of them are terrorists, and only one of them supported dictatorships. And a lot of those "criminals" aren't considered criminals by about half of the US population (i.e. the conservatives).

And darn right I dare condemn that article as biased! There isn't a shred of a conservative viewpoint anywhere! It may very well all be 100% true, but the only way to be unbiased is to either not report anything at all, or to report from both/all viewpoints. The latter is (oh shock!) something I myself often do.

<other junk>

You see? You see what I mean? If it's John McCain's associations, you start throwing out the claim of bias! You don't like the NY Times, which ran a full front page article on Bill Ayers and Obama, for it being "biased", but it has never once reported on any of the racists and haters that McCain is associated with.

Quote

Israel wants to get rid of the Palestinian terrorists (i.e. the people who are actually attacking Israeli people) while the PLO has specifically attacked (i.e. there was no evidence of even an Israeli soldeir being present at the site of the attacks) Israeli citizens in many cases before, and even now, supports the killing of Israeli citizens (i.e., people not actively attacking Palestinians).
Also, I guess then that the UN, America, and Israel are all bigots and racists? Oh wait, you already believe that for two out of those three. Dang.

Though that would also make you racist against the Jews.

LOL, the classic Toasty response! When in doubt, play the victim card for the USA/Israel.

The only thing that can be said here is that you view the world as black and white. You believe in your Bible, which proclaims boldly that the Israelis are a chosen people (which you have every right to believe), but then expect the Palestinians to sit back and allow their rights and lives to be compromised every day.

And once again, since you don't seem to acknowledge your history, the first insurgents emerged at least two decades after the Palestinians were forced out of their homes. Israel's IDF, it's official military wing, carries out incursions against Palestinian civilians as they did in the 1948 and the 1967 wars, and the Palestinians are now living under poorer conditions than many countries in Africa, and worse racial discrimination since the awful apartheid regime that Nelson Mandela helped overcome in South Africa.

Every human rights organization recognizes this. I would simply advise reading an international source and stop listening to any of the media in America for once.

Quote

You fail to realise that many "military interests" often support the domestic and social needs of it's people. It's called "keeping terrorists and people who want to see America burn from destroying the land that American citizens call home".

If given the chance, Saddam would have gladly wiped America off the face of the planet. So would the leader of Iran, so would the leader of China, and so would Vladimir Putin. Not to mention numerous other dictators of smaller countries.

Once again, it's ZOMG EVERYONE HATES AMERICA!
You see the world as black and white. America and everything that hates America.

I also think it's amusing that Vladimir Putin was a better president to Russia than George Bush was bad for the USA, and that's saying something.

Quote

Yet so far, Iraq has been the only one to be invaded without direct provocation (i.e. without said country launching a military attack on America), despite there being numerous other countries bent on the destruction of the US, ever since its founding.

Right, and it is that exactly, that Iraq never launched a military attack, that makes it an unfounded, baseless war. (among other reasons, of course)

Quote

When it comes to America, many Liberals are often die-hard pessimists. The reason being that if many Liberals got their way 100% of the time, America would cease to be America in every way, shape and form. It wouldn't be "better" (infact, the lifestyle of many Americans would likely be sub-par when compared to even moderately wealthy countries), it would litterally cease to be everything that the founding fathers meant it to be.

The government would have far too much control over the people, the people would cease to be independant of the government in many instances, America would cease to be able to stand up for and defend itself (her military strength would be vastly reduced), and she would no longer be able to bail out the world a third time should a WWIII ever happen. Because quite frankly, that's what we did. If we hadn't done anything in the first two World Wars, the entire world would be under a dictatorship right now.

And no, America's so called "rule" over the world is not a rule, and it certainly is not a dictatorship.

First of all, you have to stop asking what the "founding fathers" wanted. They lived 230 years ago. The founding fathers owned slaves. The founding fathers never wanted to give women the right to vote. The founding fathers believed that only white men were citizens. The founding fathers allowed for the genocide of Native Americans as an approved government-endorsed system.

Since you so boldly preach to the "founding fathers", you and your conservative ways would take the nation back literally centuries ago, no?

On that note, I find it HILARIOUS that you always talk about "big government" for liberals, when it's the conservatives who want the government to tell a woman what she can do with her body! Or the government telling gays and lesbians that they won't be recognized as married couples. Or the government having the right to invade privacy by checking every e-mail, phone call, and IM text you ever send. Or the government having the right to jail you without any reason or justification!

Thank you Bush and thank you conservatives.

And listen to yourself, "bailing out the world", you make it sound as though every nation is helpless and desperate for US support. You really do see the world as "America" and "everything that wishes it could be America", eh?

[Eugine]

Oh come on. The electoral college is good.
http://www.house.gov...4/tst122704.htm
GL, you need to remember USA is not a democracy but a republic.

Anyway!
Million dollar question:
Will America get the Obama, the campaign promises, or will America get the Obama his records and legislation shows?

We'll find out soon! Let us hope we get the Obama the campaign promises!
One thing I can say:
If there wasn't a financial crisis, McCain would have won.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 1 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

Oh come on. The electoral college is good.
http://www.house.gov...4/tst122704.htm
GL, you need to remember USA is not a democracy but a republic.

Yet the US invades a country with the intention of spreading democracy, McCain wants to create a league of democracies with America as leader but the US itself isn't a democracy. Mind you, those are your words, and by adding that all up makes the USA one big hypocrite. ...once again.


In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.


Don't really see how it defies the democratic electorial system though. The system is stupid, each vote should be equal, no matter which idiot casts it.

Eugine, on Nov 1 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

Anyway!
Million dollar question:
Will America get the Obama, the campaign promises, or will America get the Obama his records and legislation shows?

We'll find out soon! Let us hope we get the Obama the campaign promises!
One thing I can say:
If there wasn't a financial crisis, McCain would have won.

Based on what?

[Golden Legacy]

Here is the counter argument to Eugine.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75BC0A9629C8B63
The Electoral College gives too much power to smaller states while bypassing those same population centers. Also, it concentrates the election in just a handful of competitive states while ignoring everything else.

What happens if you're a conservative in New York? Your vote is worthless, because in the end all of the state's 31 electoral votes are going liberal. What happens if you're a liberal in Texas? All the state is going to go Republican/conservative anyway, so your vote won't be counted.

It's a horrendously broken system. One person, one vote, that is the way a true democracy should be done.

Saturos Striker, on Nov 1 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

Yet the US invades country with the intention of spreading democracy, McCain wants to create a league of democracies with America as leader but the US itself isn't a democracy. Mind you, those are your words, and by adding that all up makes the USA one big hypocrite. ...once again.

Hilarious, isn't it?

Eugine, on Nov 1 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

One thing I can say:
If there wasn't a financial crisis, McCain would have won.

That wouldn't have stopped McCain from being swept by Obama in the debates. That wouldn't have stopped Palin from revealing her extremist views and alienating the moderate votes. That wouldn't have stopped the people from wanting, yes, change from 8 years of Bush.

And I want to once again point out that Barack Obama will remain the underdog as a black, liberal candidate with an African name. Seriously, think about it, a guy whose name is Barack? Last name Obama, leading a country founded by slaveowners?

I do not see it happening. I still predict a narrow McCain win, as I have for half a year now. I lost all faith in the American public when they got Bush in twice.

[Eugine]

The EC is designed to give small states a voice.
Look, let us just for argument sake substitute the EU with the US. When the EU is electing a President (Just trying to give an analogy here), most likely the voice of Germany, France and the UK only would be heard and the small states such as Luxembourg will be completely ignored. It's designed to give everyone a voice. And The US is not a democracy, but a republic. It is designed to give states power. Unfortunately, both republicans and democrats are starting to forget that.

And GL, despite all what you say, Obama is only four to five, and even three points ahead in some of the most reputable polls. Trust me, without the financial crisis Obama would have lost. Americans just do not like BHO for good reasons.

[Golden Legacy]

I'll let SS and the other Europeans handle your reference there, but the point I am making is that when you consider it by population basis, the electors from Rhode Island are over-represented from those in California, with each Rhode Island elector representing something like 200,000 people each while those in California, the largest state, having one elector represent 750,000.

Also, do you not notice how all the emphasis is now on 'swing states'? The entire election is campaigned in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Virginia, Colorado, etc. while leaving at least 30 states out of contention. It leaves people outside of the political process and ignores much of the population.


Eugine, I'll respond when you stop saying "BHO". Only right-winged Fox News refers to him like that, and quite frankly, we know what the implication is there.

[Eugine]

The EC is a flawed system, I admit... but the alternative of using the popular vote is terrible. The West and East coast will determine the election everytime and leave the states in the middle voiceless. Liberals will run wild though.
Liberals Gone Wild.

And I use BHO cuz it's easy, and I got accustom to it. It looks nice.
SHP and JSM just doesn't look cool. Joe The Biden... I like that.

Barack The Redistributor!
Barack The Wealth Spreader!

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, on Nov 1 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

The EC is a flawed system, I admit... but the alternative of using the popular vote is terrible.

That's the POINT of the democratic process.
I rarely use a smilie when I post, but :smile:

[Eugine]

But like I said, the US isn't really a democracy. It's a republic.
Your founding fathers designed the system to give all states a voice. With the popular vote only NY and California will matter.
But anyway, Bush won the popular vote in 2004.

Barack is running to be...
THE REDISTRIBUTOR-IN-CHIEF!

[Golden Legacy]

You are quite exaggerating there. Is it fair to have every conservative voice in NY and California silenced? Liberals in Texas and Florida never having their votes matter? I know many people who simply choose not to vote because they know their votes won't change the way the rest of the state will vote.

A democratic process is supposed to encourage people to vote.

And while we're at it, smaller states tend to be conservative and Republican.


And once more, by the standards of Europe, Obama wouldn't be socialist, he wouldn't even be liberal. He'd be a moderate, center-right politician. McCain would be a nationalist radical, and Bush would be a few threads short of Fascism.

Oh, and Palin would be the equivalent of religious extremists.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 1 2008, 07:02 PM, said:

The EC is designed to give small states a voice.
Look, let us just for argument sake substitute the EU with the US. When the EU is electing a President (Just trying to give an analogy here), most likely the voice of Germany, France and the UK only would be heard and the small states such as Luxembourg will be completely ignored. It's designed to give everyone a voice. And The US is not a democracy, but a republic. It is designed to give states power. Unfortunately, both republicans and democrats are starting to forget that.

Germany, France and the UK do have the most influence. The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg (who ironically started the EU idea) oftenly team up with one of the bigger countries to get their policies through.

Mind you, since the EU primarily is a economic coalition, the richest countries effectively have the most influence. The Netherlands with the largest negative net benefit per capita still has quite a lot to say. World politically France and England may dominate, they can still pressure each other by stopping donations, policies for trade etc.

It isn't really that comparible. Same story for the UN really, in some back room a rich country can easily bribe a poor country by promising to send a multinational their way.

[Eugine]

GL, why when you judge Palin... Why do you only look at her social conservatism? That's exactly what all reporters do to her. And that is why they killed her. BUT SHE WILL RECOVER.

She doesn't support abortion with rape and incest, so she sucks!
They ignore the fact that in Alaska she did vetoed bills to ban abortion. They ignore the fact that she supports conception. They ignore the fact that her aim is not to force things on the people of Alaska, but to reduce government.

Give the damn woman a break!!!

And lol, are there conservatives in NY? My sis who is NY said if you support McCain in NYC, you are deemed a racist (yeah, I love hyperbole :smile:). Oh God, don't even mention Palin's name!

EDIT: And GL, regarding your first paragraph... Would you rather have "every conservative voice in NY and California silenced" or every state in the middle of USA silenced?

[Golden Legacy]

Then enlighten me on why Alaska has the highest rate of rape in the USA, twice the national average, and one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy. She also favors "traditional marriage" only and denied benefits to same-sex couples, and refuses sex education in schools.

And honestly, teaching intelligent design in schools is not a staunchly extreme conservative view? Or having a "National Day of Prayer" in Alaska?

And she also believes that the VP role is beyond the executive branch, exerting power that Cheney had over the Bush administration, undermining the checks and balances in place.


EDIT: Eugine, I would rather have EVERY voice heard, EVERY vote count. Imagine that there were no states at all. That's how the voting process should be.

EDIT2: Surprisingly, yes, there are conservatives, obviously outnumbered. I love seeing anti-war protests here, but every once in a while you'll see a (much smaller) protest in favor of the war. Still, very open about gay rights, abortion, against the war, and Bush is an absolute joke, but now it's Palin who is laughed at openly.

[Eugine]

Listen, when Sexy Sarah went into office in Alaska her main focus was to finally tap into all of Alaska's natural resources to feed the "hungry markets of the lower 48". Not social issues.

Those statistics were there before she became Governator (who who, Arnold was campaigning with McCain yesterday. I got to watch his speech... Cool people support McCain!!!)... Suddenly you want to blame her for the past? Anyway, where do you get your info from GL? You are kinda wrong. Why do everyone try to tarnish this governor with 80% aproval ratings so much?

Then enlighten me on why Alaska has the highest rate of rape in the USA, twice the national average,
I don't know. She supports government paying for rape kits, and currently plans on expanding the troopers number in Alaska to help combat rape.

and one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy.
I don't know. I do know that Sarah supports sex education (just not explicit ones), and favours teaching about contraception. She does not favour handing out contraceptions during school though. She believes the parents should do that. While she personally is against abortion in most cases, she indicated that she will NOT support bills to ban abortion. She will let the people of Alaska decide, for example Prop 8 in Cali.

She also favors "traditional marriage" only
Most republicans do. I disagree with them though.

and denied benefits to same-sex couples,
That's not true. Why she is personally against same-sex benefits (yes, I disagree), she supports the people or the Supreme Court deciding on decisions like that. Ala Prop 8.

and refuses sex education in schools.
That's not true. She do not support "explicit" sex ed, but supports sex education which includes contraception teaching

And honestly, teaching intelligent design in schools is not a staunchly extreme conservative view?
She do not support having ID part of the curriculum. She supports students being able to discuss ID if it comes up in discussion.

Or having a "National Day of Prayer" in Alaska?
Link?

And she also believes that the VP role is beyond the executive branch, exerting power that Cheney had over the Bush administration, undermining the checks and balances in place.
What's wrong with that?

Now, stop with your gross distortions of Palin's record. Future President Palin!

[Golden Legacy]

I got it all from:
http://www.ontheissu...sarah_Palin.htm

No gross distortions, especially coming from someone who senselessly calls Obama a "socialist".

And her 80% approval ratings have dropped to around 62% last I checked as she emerged on the national stage, and that was before Senator Stevens' indictment. And no Eugine, it is wrong for the VP to go beyond his/her official duties. Cheney practically dictated Bush's regime. Speaking of Cheney, the slime endorsed McCain today.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=YGcM6MPqVM0

And I loved Obama's response:
"I'd like to congratulate Senator McCain on this endorsement because he really earned it."

[Eugine]

That's because people like you are detroying her unfairly!!! I hate you guys!!!
And lol, why is he campaigning in Wyoming? Is McCain in SUCH bad shape?

And honestly, I think the VP should be used more. Why should tax payers pay him for tiebreaking in the senate alone? Waste of money! The US constitution did not define the VP role except for what I stated, so the President can use him as he/she (cuz Palin will be the first female President!) desire.

And wow, you cannot get it from that site GL. I'm reading through that site, and her record is excellent. God, why don't you love Palin?

And, Obama has socialist policies. Income redistribution.

[Golden Legacy]

Fine then, Bush is fascist and McCain is a militant-minded nationalist.

[Eugine]

Actually, McCain is a federalist.

3 more days of argument GL. I'll miss it.

[Golden Legacy]

As will I.
On another note, I voted for the first time yesterday. It was epic.

[Eugine]

Hopefully not a swing state!

[Golden Legacy]

Got to cast it in Georgia instead of NY. A swing state indeed, but not a "top tier" one.

Still, it was awesome. Who knows?

[Eugine]

Ah well. It's your fault when Obama mess up your country even more.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20081101/i/r76332860.jpg
RUN OBAMA THE WEALTH SPREADER... RUN!

[Saturos S.]

Since everyone here is pro-Obama as hell, I'm thinking of buying a McCain shirt and walking around with it. Just for the hell of it, how fast do you think they can ship that stuff to Europe?

[Golden Legacy]

@Eugine: I refuse to even comment on that.
@Saturos: That would be funny. I don't think there's time before the 4th though.

[Eugine]

Who cares about McCain. It's all about Palin.

[Saturos S.]

About Palin, all her policies and opinions aside. Would you really want someone like that to answer 'the phone'?

O boy, I can picture it already...

*Russian accent* "This is president medevedev, Russia declares war on you capatalistic fools"
"O, I can see Russia from my house!" *jumps up and down*

But seriously, McCain started loses my favour major time when Palin became his running mate.

[Eugine]

I started like McCain even more when he chose Sexy Sarah. You need to look at her record, and you'll fall in love with her.

And no. I will not want Palin to answer the phone with regards to foreign policy. She sucks at foreign policy big time. Domestic and economic policies? HELL YEAH!
She kinda supported Obama stupid positions on Pakistan... She had to take it back by making up some excuse though :smile: (mind you, her foreign policy is by far better than Obama imo)

That's why when she becomes the nominee in 2012, she will need someone experienced in foreign policy to be her running mate imo.

EDIT: Lmao! Sarah Palin got pranked.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/110...e_.html?showall
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=QbEwKcs-7Hc [listen here]

This 100% confirm to me that her aides are not looking out for her. My goodness, they simply gave her the phone without any double checking? And how did they get her line? I honestly believe they are trying to sabotage this woman! No wonder they say Sarah doesn't trust her advisors! Who was she to tell "Nicolas Sarkozy" that this was not him after her aides told her it was him? I admit, she came off a bit immature during the prank, and obviously lacks foreign policy knowlege, but has lots of humility. You can see she knew something was up, but was afaid to say anything... Example the "Nailin' Palin" part.
Anway, I hate the McCain campaign. Worst ever.

Anyway,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1225494139...ign2008_mostpop

Great article on Palin. I love this woman. She makes me sentimental. America needs this woman. America needs this woman!

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

It's called the Electoral College, and it's the stupidest system in the world. Each state is given a number of electors based on its population size - California with the largest has 54, New York with 31, etc. and the smallest states have 3 apiece.

You 'win' each state by getting the most votes there, and so you win the electoral votes for that state - there are 538 total over the fifty states, 270 to win.

It's a broken system, because the overall national vote - you know, the way it's done in every nation in the world? - could go to one candidate, but the other could win the electoral votes based on how those individuals alone decide to vote.

In 2000, Al Gore won 500,000 more votes than Bush, but still lost as a result of the system.

Yes, that is America for you.

He said people. I believe he was referring to the delegates. If my memory serves me right, the "super delegates" on the liberal's side each get 1000 votes a piece (that they can't divy up toeach candidate). Not sure if the Republicans have super delegates or not.


Also, imagine how easy it would be to sway the vote with voter fraud if we didn't have the electoral college. It's bad enough as it is (thanks to ACORN [another one of Obama's associations], among other organisationg). As it stands, each state's votes are isolated to that state. The state is responsible for counting the votes, and the state only has to deal with finding out which votes in it's pile are legal or not (which includes finding out if un-registered voters submitted any). They don't have to worry about anyone else's pile.

I don't quite like how the electoral college works (the electoral votes should at least be divied up according to percentages, i.e. McCain got 80% of some state's votes, so he gets two electorals, while Obama got 20% so he gets one), but it acts somewhat as a buffer for voter fraud. Though then again, I suppose it could also be manipulated to make voter fraud easier.


Regardless, Al Gore would have done an even worse job of running the country than Bush. He wanted to raise gas prices to discourage people from buying gas (because it would bring about global warming). As we all know, that wouldn't have worked anyway, and it would have only hurt the American people.

So I guess the Electoral College is good for something after all.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

Saddam was building a megacannon.
Heaven help America for allowing people who think like you to vote.

Yes, because people like me seem to know the truth.

Saddam's megacannon

That was the first link on google, by the way. Pretty easy information to find.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

As a matter of fact, dear Toasty, I have spoken with Iraqis. I have spoken with Iraqi refugees. I had cousins studying in Baghdad. I assure you, no matter what twisted delusions you have about America, about soldiers being embraced as liberators, the Iraqi people themselves burn with hatred and humiliation at what the USA has done.

Ahh, so what is it going to be now? Maybe those Iraqi refugees are just stupid? Maybe they're mentally disabled? Do tell!

Just because you've spoken with a few Iraqis doesn't mean a thing. Unless, of course, they were all spread throughout Iraq. If you want to say that you know exactly how the majority of Iraqis think and feel about the war, then you'd best do what the news reporters from numerous news stations are doing, and go and talk to mutliple Iraqis in the major cities beeing affected by the war.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

You see? You see what I mean? If it's John McCain's associations, you start throwing out the claim of bias! You don't like the NY Times, which ran a full front page article on Bill Ayers and Obama, for it being "biased", but it has never once reported on any of the racists and haters that McCain is associated with.

You fool, I wasn't claiming bias because it was McCain's associations! I said that those statements could very well be 100% fact.

The article is biased because it's BIASED. There is only one viewpoint there, not two. It doesn't matter whether it was incriminating McCain or not, it's a biased article. One that you still so naively claim to be unbiased.

It wrote off Obama's association with Ayres by stating that Obama was a child during the bombings that Ayres took place in. But not once did it mention that Ayres stated that he actually didn't think he did enough damage.

I don't care if Obama was a child when this man was part of the WU, he's associating himself with a man who would likely bomb the Pentagon again, if given the opportunity. Or at the least, fund a group who would attempt to do such a thing.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

LOL, the classic Toasty response! When in doubt, play the victim card for the USA/Israel.

The only thing that can be said here is that you view the world as black and white. You believe in your Bible, which proclaims boldly that the Israelis are a chosen people (which you have every right to believe), but then expect the Palestinians to sit back and allow their rights and lives to be compromised every day.

I don't expect the Palestinians to live crappy lives. The bible tells us to love our enemies. If Palestine would quit attacking Israel, then Israel would quit attacking Palestine, and I would gladly support any effort to rebuild Palestine's cities.

I don't see the world as black and white. I see it as every shade of the rainbow. What Palestine wants, is the complete destruction of Israel. They don't just want their land back, they want every citizen of that coutry wiped off the face of the planet. So do a number of other countries surrounding it.

If America and Palestine switched places, and America and Israel were at war, Palestine would do absolutely nothing to help or rebuild Israel if/when the fighting stopped. Infact, they'd probably attack the Israelis too.

Israel, on the other hand, might not help the Palestinians if the fighting subsided (they might, as they follow the same commandments as Christians do), but most of them don't wish for Palestine's existance to cease.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

And once again, since you don't seem to acknowledge your history, the first insurgents emerged at least two decades after the Palestinians were forced out of their homes. Israel's IDF, it's official military wing, carries out incursions against Palestinian civilians as they did in the 1948 and the 1967 wars, and the Palestinians are now living under poorer conditions than many countries in Africa, and worse racial discrimination since the awful apartheid regime that Nelson Mandela helped overcome in South Africa.

Every human rights organization recognizes this. I would simply advise reading an international source and stop listening to any of the media in America for once.

If I don't recall, the Palestinians that were in Israel simply left and went home, as did the Israelis who wer ein Palestine. No one was "forced" to go anywhere. Though obviously, going home would've been the smart thing to do.

And if they want better living conditions, then maybe they should attempt a cease fire treaty.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

Once again, it's ZOMG EVERYONE HATES AMERICA!
You see the world as black and white. America and everything that hates America.

If I don't recall, you've said yourself that everyone hates America, am I not correct?

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

I also think it's amusing that Vladimir Putin was a better president to Russia than George Bush was bad for the USA, and that's saying something.

It doesn't matter whether a country prospers under its leader or not. That doesn't determine whether or not the leader is good or bad. Obama may very well be a good person, but our country is going to go through some pretty hard times if he becomes president. Mark my words.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

Right, and it is that exactly, that Iraq never launched a military attack, that makes it an unfounded, baseless war. (among other reasons, of course)

Direct provocation means we weren't attacked. Doesn't mean we weren't threatened. Saddam posed a threat to his neighbors, his people, and our ally Israel (read "Saddam's megacannon"). On top of that, Saddam provided funding to Al-Queda, which if you don't recall, was the group behind the 9/11 attacks. We had reason to believe that there were some Al Queda operatives in Iraq as well (partially because of their relationship).

More on the link between Saddam and Al-Queda. (oh wait, that's a Fox news article, so it HAS to be full of lies.)

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

First of all, you have to stop asking what the "founding fathers" wanted. They lived 230 years ago. The founding fathers owned slaves. The founding fathers never wanted to give women the right to vote. The founding fathers believed that only white men were citizens. The founding fathers allowed for the genocide of Native Americans as an approved government-endorsed system.

Since you so boldly preach to the "founding fathers", you and your conservative ways would take the nation back literally centuries ago, no?

The founding fathers gave people (including women) freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press (though that last one has dwindled in truth in recent years), and (excluding women for a while) freedom to vote for their leader.

Compare this to many monarchies in Europe during that same time period. Thanks to the founding fathers, Americans lived a much better lifestyle, compared to their European cousins.

Sure, the founding fathers owned slaves, but do you know of any other country that has lost nearly half their entire population (at the time of the fighting) just to stop slavery? The Civil war, which took 600,000 to 700,000 lives, was fought primarily over whether or not slavery should be abolished (the north said yes, the south said no). Even though women didn't have the right to vote (which they gained later), they still had more freedom than many of the men living in Europe at the time. Over there, no one (save for maybe the Dutch) could vote for their leader. At best, they could vote for representatives who could control the monarchs to an extent.

As time went on, things got better. Women gained the right to vote, and to hold jobs that were previously only occupied by men. Slavery was abolished, and later on, black people (who made up the vast majority of slaves) were allowed to vote too.

Thanks to the Founding fathers, we, as Americans, now have more freedom than any other country in the world. This is true even to this day.


It really, really/i] doesn't matter how old the founding fathers or the constitution are. Common rights and freedoms for the people do not go out of style. They do not get old. It doesn't matter if you lived back then, or right now.

Everyone should have the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms (and defend themselves against those who could obtain arms either legally or illegally), and the right to a fair and speedy tiral, among others. These were rights put in place by the founding fathers. You can thank them for the freedoms you have now. It doesn't matter if they ever owned slaves, because what they set in motion allowed the abolition of slavery to take place later on.

The constitution was not made to be bent, borklen, or otherwise manipulated. It was meant to permanently limit the powers of the government, and in turn, keep the people free of oppression and able to do as they please (obviously to a certain degree. Murdering is obviously not acceptable).

Obviously, times change and ammendmants must be made. Slavery was aboliched in an ammendment to the constitution. However, you can't just go and make ammendments to the constitution on a whim. You especially can't make them just to please a minority. Such a thing just doesn't make sense.


As for this:

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

On that note, I find it HILARIOUS that you always talk about "big government" for liberals, when it's the conservatives who want the government to tell a woman what she can do with her body! Or the government telling gays and lesbians that they won't be recognized as married couples. Or the government having the right to invade privacy by checking every e-mail, phone call, and IM text you ever send. Or the government having the right to jail you without any reason or justification!

The constitution and Bill of Rights mention nothing about either of the first two. And besides that, it isn't the woman's body who's being killed. It's the unborn child. Besides that, an abortion often times will leave the patient mentally scarred for a long time, if not for life. It's not a fun procedure.

As for gay rights, people are worried about the sacredness of a marriage between a man and a woman being undermined. Honestly, if a gay couple is prevented from seeing eachother in the hospital when the other is injured, I think that's wrong. Gay people do deserve some ights. But I really don't like the thought of gay marriage.

As for the third, there is absolutely no reason for any citizen to even care about that, unless they actually have something incriminating that they're trying to hide. Seriously, if it's some kind of personal issue you're afraid will get out, the chances of someone monitoring the survailance on you (if you're even under survailance) that aksi knows you personally is extremely slim. In fact, if there is any kind of relationship between the surveyor and the surveyed, the surveyor is often replaced (except under certain conditions where said person's knowledge of the surveyed is crucial).

That said, you won't be put under any kind of surveylance, wire tapping or otherwise, unless you do somethingto warrant it. And even if you do that by accident, you have nothing to fear as long as you don't do anything illegal.

So quit your whining.


Besides all of that, I think that any kind of redistribution of wealth will affect much, much larger group of people than just women who want abortions and gays who want to get married. So will the banning of arms from citizens. So would a government run healthcare program.

All of those are things that Liberals want to do. The things you mentioned are comparatively insignificant to these.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 1 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

Thank you Bush and thank you conservatives.

And listen to yourself, "bailing out the world", you make it sound as though every nation is helpless and desperate for US support. You really do see the world as "America" and "everything that wishes it could be America", eh?

You should thank them. They're keeping guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. If those people didn't have guns, than the only people who would would be the criminals. They can get their weapons regardless of whether the government wants them to or not. Law abiding citizens can't. By taking away the second ammendmant, you are in effect, disarming the good guys, and letting the bad guys have free reign. There's no way in hell anyone will be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without completely destroying every gun in existance. And that's just one of a long list of things you could thank them for.

By the way, Abraham Licoln, whom you once compared to Obama, was also a Conservative Republican.

When the World Wars came around, every nation who was against the Axis sure as hell was desperate for American support. If we hadn't helped out, the bad guys would have won. Period.

You seem to really take my words out of context a lot of the time. My point isn't that every nation is helpless and needs American support. They don't in times of peace. However, when a war breaks out, they most often times call for US aid. Whenever a natural disaster occurs, everyone always asks us for money, and then claims we don't give enough.

I shouldn't have to remind you that we didn't enter WWII in the very beginning. We were asked to help. We only took part after Japan (who was actually negotiating an alliance with the US at the time) attacked us. But England and everyone else who was against Germany and Japan was begging for our help. They were [i]very much desperatefor our aid.

My point isn't that other naitons are always helpless and need America. My point, is that when times get tough for them, they often come knocking on our door. And regardless of how much they hate us and ridicule us we give them our support (unless they outright declare us an enemy).

So no, I don't see the world as "America and everything that wishes it could be America." But a lot of countries sure do like to ask us for favors.




Anyway, here's some articles you should read:

http://xpapgg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1psLv...hvuA/Debate.txt

http://xpapgg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p__i...%20Pensions.txt

Above article links to this website: http://pajamasmedia.com/edgelings/2008/10/...r-and-pensions/


Also, here's a video discussing the tape about Rashid Khalidi and Obama that the LA times won't let out.

[Eugine]

Quote

You fool,

Quote

If I don't recall, you've said yourself that everyone hates America, am I not correct?

lol.

Now, we learn that Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry (unfortunately too late I guess. Just the usual liberal media supression of things which will hurt Obama), and said electricity price will go up under his administration. Here's the tape. Yet his official policy states he is proponent of coal.
It's just the usual double speak of Obama. Say one thing to one group, and something completely opposite to another group.
If this came out earlier, it could have cost him Montana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Indiana and West Virginia. All swing states (WHY IS MONTANA AND WEST VIRGINIA SWING STATES?) since they are states who's jobs depend on coal. Sure White House victory imo.

We'll find out who is the real Barack Obama during his years as President. Hopefully, for America's sake, and the world... It's the artifically created Barack Obama!

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Nov 3 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

Yes, because people like me seem to know the truth.

Saddam's megacannon

That was the first link on google, by the way. Pretty easy information to find.

I was thinking superlaz0r standards, but this thing just does the same a good missle.
Still not impressed though.

Toasty, on Nov 3 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

I don't expect the Palestinians to live crappy lives. The bible tells us to love our enemies. If Palestine would quit attacking Israel, then Israel would quit attacking Palestine, and I would gladly support any effort to rebuild Palestine's cities.

I don't see the world as black and white. I see it as every shade of the rainbow. What Palestine wants, is the complete destruction of Israel. They don't just want their land back, they want every citizen of that coutry wiped off the face of the planet. So do a number of other countries surrounding it.

If America and Palestine switched places, and America and Israel were at war, Palestine would do absolutely nothing to help or rebuild Israel if/when the fighting stopped. Infact, they'd probably attack the Israelis too.

Israel, on the other hand, might not help the Palestinians if the fighting subsided (they might, as they follow the same commandments as Christians do), but most of them don't wish for Palestine's existance to cease.

If I don't recall, the Palestinians that were in Israel simply left and went home, as did the Israelis who wer ein Palestine. No one was "forced" to go anywhere. Though obviously, going home would've been the smart thing to do.

And if they want better living conditions, then maybe they should attempt a cease fire treaty.

The British basically gave the Jews Israel to live after world war 2. The Palestinian reason is actually justified, since the Jews just dropped their after England got rid of their colony. If anyone had a right to own that place, it was the Palestinians.

But because of that 'mistake' the British made of favouring the jews, they're sticking with it. Most of the Western world is helping the Jews a lot more than the Israelites.

Toasty, on Nov 3 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

You should thank them. They're keeping guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. If those people didn't have guns, than the only people who would would be the criminals. They can get their weapons regardless of whether the government wants them to or not. Law abiding citizens can't. By taking away the second ammendmant, you are in effect, disarming the good guys, and letting the bad guys have free reign. There's no way in hell anyone will be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without completely destroying every gun in existance. And that's just one of a long list of things you could thank them for.

You just don't get how it works do you. By banning guns and such, it makes them much harder to get. Nearly impossible for emotionally unstable kids who want to kill their classmates of for that idiot who just carries a gun around to be cool.

In Europe there are way less gun murders than in America because of that. Sure there are people with guns but the fact you can be arrested on street when carrying one helps preventing the crime. Criminals mostly kill each other with them, burglars don't bring a gun when robbing a house, neither do a number of other petty thefts.

[Toasty]

Saturos Striker, on Nov 2 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

I was thinking superlaz0r standards, but this thing just does the same a good missle.
Still not impressed though.

It's loads cheaper and easier to produce than a missle system. Though it's also less accurate as a drawback. Still, their motives don't call for accuracy.

Basically, it's the perfect weapon for middle-eastern countries who want to take out Israel.

Saturos Striker, on Nov 2 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

The British basically gave the Jews Israel to live after world war 2. The Palestinian reason is actually justified, since the Jews just dropped their after England got rid of their colony. If anyone had a right to own that place, it was the Palestinians.

But because of that 'mistake' the British made of favouring the jews, they're sticking with it. Most of the Western world is helping the Jews a lot more than the Israelites.

The Jews had Israel long before they were just dropped in there. They didn't have land to call their own for quite some time, because their land was taken from them.

Saturos Striker, on Nov 2 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

You just don't get how it works do you. By banning guns and such, it makes them much harder to get. Nearly impossible for emotionally unstable kids who want to kill their classmates of for that idiot who just carries a gun around to be cool.

In Europe there are way less gun murders than in America because of that. Sure there are people with guns but the fact you can be arrested on street when carrying one helps preventing the crime. Criminals mostly kill each other with them, burglars don't bring a gun when robbing a house, neither do a number of other petty thefts.

No, you don't get how it works. Banning guns only makes it harder for people to get guns legally. It would still be just as easy as before to get a gun illegally. That effectively keeps the guns in the hands of criminals, and out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

It's also harder to get guns illegally in Europe. And that's not because of the gun control laws.

Most guns used in highschool/middleschool shootings are obtained illegally, or from their parent's closet (which means the parents aren't keeping it locked up like they're supposed to). They don't get them through legal channels.

On top of that, not a single country in Europe has as many people or as much land as the United States. That makes it effectively easier for European countries to control the flow of illegal guns.

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Nov 3 2008, 08:30 AM, said:

No, you don't get how it works. Banning guns only makes it harder for people to get guns legally. It would still be just as easy as before to get a gun illegally. That effectively keeps the guns in the hands of criminals, and out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

It's also harder to get guns illegally in Europe. And that's not because of the gun control laws.

Most guns used in highschool/middleschool shootings are obtained illegally, or from their parent's closet (which means the parents aren't keeping it locked up like they're supposed to). They don't get them through legal channels.

On top of that, not a single country in Europe has as many people or as much land as the United States. That makes it effectively easier for European countries to control the flow of illegal guns.

I know it's harder to control in the US than in Europe, but it's still absurdly high even if you take that into comparison. In the US it's easier to acquire a firearm because illegally because other firearms are legal. You can't draw proper lines.

And I know that there have been tests with illegalizing firearms in certain states for a while and vica versa and that most of the times the pro-firearm carrying tests came out better. But that's because it will only work if it's unilateral. It's a flawed system and it's nearly impossible to fix the system so it should be remade. It's not a high priority problem but nonetheless it's a problem.

I'd much rather sleep knowing that my crazy archenemy doesn't have a gun than he having one and me too so I can 'protect' myself.

[Eugine]

Second ammendment people. Plus, it is known that most crimes in USA occur in gun free zones.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e62444aa8...-from-ucbcomedy
You know, some people actually believe that!

And lol,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8...P/TWSFPView.asp
An Obama supporter who feels everything will become free under an Obama admin.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 3 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

Second ammendment people. Plus, it is known that most crimes in USA occur in gun free zones.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e62444aa8...-from-ucbcomedy
You know, some people actually believe that!

And lol,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8...P/TWSFPView.asp
An Obama supporter who feels everything will become free under an Obama admin.

I admitted that and said that the whole system needs a clean through. Because how do you keep gun free zones gun free when you can walk to the neighbours and buy one there.

O, and to be honest, I find those Obama supporters you just mentioned not half as stupid as I find those ignorant gay-hating, thinking that everyone in the Middle East is a terrorist, thinking that they can be hit by a terrorist any second people who go to republican conventions.

... or any democrats who do that.

[Eugine]

And what is this "clean through" you suggest?

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Nov 3 2008, 04:29 AM, said:

Yes, because people like me seem to know the truth.

Saddam's megacannon

That was the first link on google, by the way. Pretty easy information to find.

you do realise that article is from 1992 right?

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 3 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

And what is this "clean through" you suggest?

Stealing all firearms from the citizens, relicence them and only licencing people who you want having firearms. AKA police officers etc. who want them. Only hunting with hail bullets, and guns shooting them. Though I guess that's near impossible, just getting rid of the whole gun culture. I just want to express I think the policy of everyone being able to have a firearm is... awful.

[Eugine]

Don't like your idea :smile:

SO GIO HOW IS FLORIDA???!?!?! MCCAIN CANNOT WIN THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT FLORIDA!!!!

[gsninja]

I just hate that we couldn't choose Ron Paul in this election. Ron Paul was by far my favorite choice for a candidate because I could agree on so many things with him, which includes stricter laws against illegal immigration, ending welfare benefits for illegals, upholding the right to bear arms, etc.

Sadly, we get to choose between two terrible candidates that will bring this country closer to turmoil, no matter what (IMO). That's why, when I'm going to vote, I'm just closing my eyes and marking the candidate whose name my finger touches closest to.

Also, Saturos, I highly disagree with you. Taking guns from ordinary citizens will definitely bump up the crime rate in the country. With the absence of guns in the house, criminals will have more incentive to break into houses and possibly kill someone. Not only that, all criminals get their hands on guns illegally, anyways, so why can't we at least have guns ourselves for protection if the time comes?

[Gio]

Eugine, on Nov 3 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

Don't like your idea :smile:

SO GIO HOW IS FLORIDA???!?!?! MCCAIN CANNOT WIN THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT FLORIDA!!!!

Right now I think he is doing fine in Florida. I think the polls have become less of a means by which to portray public opinion, and more of a means by which to sway to public opinion.

The Rasmussen poll does have McCain ahead here though.

And I would give you link, but my computer won't go to the site for some reason. It had McCain at 50% and Obama at 49% in Florida.

[Ironsight]

My Dad tells me gun sales are up 40%. And right before the election too. Coincidence? I think not.

[Eugine]

My prediction without any bias:
364-174 Obama.

My prediction for a McCain win, although 1% chance of happening (still hoping!):
272-266 McCain.

Either way, no offense to white people and all, but we rule Earth now... Just sayin'. Nothing personal.

[Ironsight]

Eugine, on Nov 3 2008, 05:57 PM, said:

My prediction without any bias:
364-174 Obama.

My prediction for a McCain win, although 1% chance of happening (still hoping!):
272-266 McCain.

Either way, no offense to white people and all, but we rule Earth now... Just sayin'. Nothing personal.

Oh god, the Turner Diaries...


Just kidding :P

[Eugine]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cfjQujYrfEk
Pretty inspirational guy isn't he?

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2008/Nov/Week1/15141291.jpg

Too bad his policies suck.

... but honestly, seems like black people are ruling everything now. We pwn in F1. No offense to white people and all, but we rule Earth now... Just sayin'. Nothing personal.
You guys had it long enough!

[Golden Legacy]

I was going to post the Black Power fist salute, but thought it might be a little over the top.

[Gio]

Miley Cyrus, on Nov 3 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

My Dad tells me gun sales are up 40%. And right before the election too. Coincidence? I think not.

Yeah I have saw something on the news about this the other day. I forget what channel though.

[Eugine]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 3 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

I was going to post the Black Power fist salute, but thought it might be a little over the top.

A terrorist fist jab.

[Ironsight]

I'm glad the elections are almost over, even if there's a tremendous ****storm on the horizon becasue of it. Politics has a habit of turning normaly likeable people into tremendous ******s.

[Eugine]

Talking about real life experiences?

[Ironsight]

Yes.

[Drizzy Drake]

Eugine, on Nov 3 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cfjQujYrfEk
Pretty inspirational guy isn't he?

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2008/Nov/Week1/15141291.jpg

Too bad his policies suck.

... but honestly, seems like black people are ruling everything now. We pwn in F1. No offense to white people and all, but we rule Earth now... Just sayin'. Nothing personal.
You guys had it long enough!

What are you babbling about. The first humans on Earth were black, and it stayed that way for many years. You guys owned this world, but we were just too good and stole it.

[Eugine]

^ lol.

DS, Obama supporters being an ass? Thinking their candidate is God? And McCain/Palin the devil?

[Ironsight]

Yes, but I know people are doing it on McCain's side too.

[Drizzy Drake]

Eugine, on Nov 3 2008, 11:20 PM, said:

^ lol.

DS, Obama supporters being an ass? Thinking their candidate is God? And McCain/Palin the devil?

It's true. Based on where the first human "colonies" were discovered, they HAD to be black. Therefore, we took it from you guys. You had YOUR chance!

[Someone Else]

Miley Cyrus, on Nov 3 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

I'm glad the elections are almost over, even if there's a tremendous ****storm on the horizon becasue of it. Politics has a habit of turning normaly likeable people into tremendous ******s.

I really agree, I'm extremely sick of politics at this point. After the election things should cool down a bit gradually. Frikking EVERYTHING is politcal right now, you can't get away from it.

[Drizzy Drake]

It happens every 4 years. Every single time there's an election, everything turns political. Humour, the news..

[Eugine]

Yeah, I think you're right.

And lol, you know, I think this election will be a net negative for whites who criticse Obama during the next four years DS.
You criticise Obama: RACIST BASTARD!

[Drizzy Drake]

Eugine, on Nov 3 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

Yeah, I think you're right.

And lol, you know, I think this election will be a net negative for whites who criticse Obama during the next four years DS.
You criticise Obama: RACIST BASTARD!

Funny how society works eh?

[Gio]

I am going to talk about Obama the same way I would talk about a white candidate with the same policies as his. However there is some what of a double standard on this whole equal rights thing and I know I am going to be called a racist, but w/e.

[Eugine]

I learnt during this election that socialism is keyword for black. Bringing up Ayers is keyword for black... And on and on and on lol.
Democrats play the race card so good.

[Gio]

I learned last year year that if you tell a black girl on a school bus that she is ignorant of the issues she thinks that you called her a ni**er. That was scary. lol

[Drizzy Drake]

Look at Rodney ****ing King.

The race card always has, and will always be played in today's society.

You told me you'd stop ****ing dodging the swear filter.

[Eugine]

Yeah, but it's getting extreme imo. Well, atleast in USA.

Come on, an Obama supporter compared the McCain campaign to a racist in the past who denied black people basic rights because of some wackjob supporters in the background said something like "Socialist!" "Kill him!"... And MY ULTIMATE FAVOURITE... "Obama Bin Lyin'!" (Osama Bin Ladin) lol!

You know, they say McCain is a racist because of that, but Obama stayed in a church for 20 years with the most racist guy I've ever seen, and people excuse him...

I just don't get the double standard. People asked for Obama, I hope they don't reget the next four years!

[Golden Legacy]

And McCain supported multiple white supremacist groups. Your point?

You honestly don't know racism until you've been to the rural areas of America. It's quite subtle. At any rate, I know the American people will disappoint tomorrow. I'm ashamed to say too many of them are similar to Toasty and Eugine (a self-proclaimed neo-conservative, and can still look at himself in the mirror?)

[Eugine]

lol GL. Believing in peace through strength does not make someone a neoconservative.

But anyway, 99% chance of an Obama victory GL. Got your Obama T-shirt?

[Golden Legacy]

Believing in violence through strength, under the veil of "peace", is what makes it bad.

I do find it amusing that Karl Rove himself is predicting an Obama win:
http://st.blogads.com/19934486/634896410/c...ma_victory.html

Still, once again, I am predicting a McCain win, as painful as it is for me to say it. I can say though that this has been the most energized and most action-packed campaign I ever thought possible, and after this election I'll likely never get into it as much.


Ah well. This time tomorrow, it will all be over.
Night.

[Eugine]

Even when Obama runs for reelection in 2012?

[Drizzy Drake]

AGAINST PALIN!

[Eugine]

lol. I doubt she'll run in 2012. Maybe 2016. I think she'll more likely become a Senator.
Other than that, once she frees herself from the McCain campaign, I think she'll do good.
http://www.politico....1108/15237.html

Nice article on Palin.

[Ironsight]

We aught to reset the poll for tomorrow.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 3 2008, 10:15 PM, said:

And McCain supported multiple white supremacist groups. Your point?

And I am sure that is his only reason for supporting said groups.

[Someone Else]

Poll has been reset and with some minor difficulty. Go vote.

[Eugine]

lol...
Anyway, on the bright side Gio if things doesn't go to McCain, you can bash liberals for four years. It's easier to bash than defend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Talk_t...l_(If_You_Must)
"Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States."

LMAO.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 4 2008, 07:07 AM, said:

lol...
Anyway, on the bright side Gio if things doesn't go to McCain, you can bash liberals for four years. It's easier to bash than defend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Talk_t...l_(If_You_Must)
"Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States."

LMAO.

Dear god, more stupid people.

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence."

[Toasty]

Laharl, on Nov 3 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

you do realise that article is from 1992 right?

It doesn't make it any less true.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 3 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

And McCain supported multiple white supremacist groups. Your point?

You honestly don't know racism until you've been to the rural areas of America. It's quite subtle. At any rate, I know the American people will disappoint tomorrow. I'm ashamed to say too many of them are similar to Toasty and Eugine (a self-proclaimed neo-conservative, and can still look at himself in the mirror?)

Yes. I'm obviously a neo-con. :P Please, GL, provide me with your definition of the word, because I'm sure mine isn't as biased as yours.

You call me an extreme right-wingist, yet I still think Obama has better morals than McCain. You also don't see me calling Obama a terrorist (though he does like to associate with them). On top of that, I hate my own party's candidate.

You, on the other hand, praise Obama, and call McCain the devil. Even shrugging off Obama's questionable associations and claim that McCain's are far worse.

Besides all of that, I restrained myself from insulting you in our debates until just recently. You've been insulting me this whole time.


Wake up and smell the coffee. It's good for you.


Anyway, why haven't you responded to this yet? Is to too full of "neo-conservative bull****" for you?

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Nov 4 2008, 08:55 AM, said:

It doesn't make it any less true.

it does make it a whole lot less relevent

[Toasty]

GL (and you) basically said it was absurd of me to think that Saddam was building a megacannon. That article proved me right. It's very much relevant.

[Laharl]

it just proves who ever wrote it is as absurd as you (a relative perhaps?)

its hardly a 'megacannon', just sounds like heavy artillery

[Gio]

Laharl, on Nov 4 2008, 04:11 AM, said:

it just proves who ever wrote it is as absurd as you (a relative perhaps?)

its hardly a 'megacannon', just sounds like heavy artillery

Cause we all know what a megacannon would be because one has been invented before.

In all honesty the article probably shouldn't have refered to it as a megacannon though.

[Eugine]

Can't blame Toasty. Got to blame the journalists.

So Gio, how is it in Florida relating to the election? Which part are you from anyway?
You know, McCain cannot win the White House without Florida.

[Saturos S.]

And the OSCE already has their first complaint. In Fort Lauderdale (Florida) they were only allowed to inspect one voting booth which was appointed by the local authorities.

"Spokesman called it unacceptable [...] Again it's Florida, where there were irregularities in the 2000 elections [...] OSCE expected a normal open attitude from the local authorities."

Go Europe's honest election police!

[Eugine]

Why the hell is Europe meddling in American politics?

[Gio]

Eugine, on Nov 4 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

Can't blame Toasty. Got to blame the journalists.

So Gio, how is it in Florida relating to the election? Which part are you from anyway?
You know, McCain cannot win the White House without Florida.

I am in the panhandle. About 45 minutes away from Pensacola. I gurantee that he has the panhandle wrapped up. Now the Peninsula is another story, but I have this unusually good feeling about the election. One that I can't explain. We shall see if I am Psychic today. lol

[Eugine]

That's a heavily republican area, or more of an 'independent' area?

[Gio]

My area is surrounded by a massive amounts of military bases so it is very very republican. Now the Peninsula has a lot of dems and independents, but they have a very poor record when it comes to turnout.

[Eugine]

I think turnout will be extremely high this election. Especially with regards to African American voters.

What are you gonna do if Obama wins?

[Gio]

I only going to one thing.....bash absolutely everything that he does wrong, which by the way will be a lot.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 4 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

Why the hell is Europe meddling in American politics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_...ation_in_Europe

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is the world's largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization. Its mandate includes issues such as arms control, human rights, freedom of the press, and fair elections. Most of its 3,500-plus staff are engaged in field operations, with only around 10% in its headquarters.

The OSCE is an ad hoc organization under the United Nations Charter (Chap. VIII), and is concerned with early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. Its 56 participating States are from Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia and North America and cover most of the northern hemisphere. It was created during the Cold War era as an East-West forum.

It's not really European.

[Eugine]

lol.
All in all, you know, an Obama win may be good for republicans. It may remind them why America is a center-right country due to the failures of an Obama administration. :P
May bring a Reagan era again.

And ugh. Why is the UN meddling in American politics? Waste of organisation imo. They accomplish nothing. Why weren't they in Zimbabwe and Kenya for obviously unfair elections? All they do is blah blah blah.

[Saturos S.]

Really, cause at the moment the US can only improve on foreign policies. You'd have to really thick to screw up even more than Bush did.

Obama can improve the US relations with Europe and the rest of the world. He's young and fresh because of his ideals, not because of his inexperience and the US needs a new wind. I mean America wants change, there's no doubt about it and Obama probably can fulfill that need of change better than McCain (positive change that is.)

But the main reason I dislike McCain more than Obama is because there campaign wasn't about ideas or policy but it focussed on ad hominem attacks on Obama.

The only good thing about McCain is that he sees Europe as the US' most important ally, politically and economically and wants to keep them happy. Keeping us happy generally is a pro.

[Gio]

Saturos Striker, on Nov 4 2008, 11:22 AM, said:

Really, cause at the moment the US can only improve on foreign policies. You'd have to really thick to screw up even more than Bush did.

Obama can improve the US relations with Europe and the rest of the world. He's young and fresh because of his ideals, not because of his inexperience and the US needs a new wind. I mean America wants change, there's no doubt about it and Obama probably can fulfill that need of change better than McCain (positive change that is.)

But the main reason I dislike McCain more than Obama is because there campaign wasn't about ideas or policy but it focussed on ad hominem attacks on Obama.

The only good thing about McCain is that he sees Europe as the US' most important ally, politically and economically and wants to keep them happy. Keeping us happy generally is a pro.

I think socialism is great to. I think America should cure relations with Europe by becoming just like it....o wait I lied.

[Saturos S.]

Okay, go ahead and explain to me what's so bad about socialism. Since you've been bashing loads of things based on the sole idea of "lol, that's socialistic, so it sucks."

[Eugine]

Saturos Striker, on Nov 4 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

Really, cause at the moment the US can only improve on foreign policies. You'd have to really thick to screw up even more than Bush did.

Obama can improve the US relations with Europe and the rest of the world. He's young and fresh because of his ideals, not because of his inexperience and the US needs a new wind. I mean America wants change, there's no doubt about it and Obama probably can fulfill that need of change better than McCain (positive change that is.)

But the main reason I dislike McCain more than Obama is because there campaign wasn't about ideas or policy but it focussed on ad hominem attacks on Obama.

The only good thing about McCain is that he sees Europe as the US' most important ally, politically and economically and wants to keep them happy. Keeping us happy generally is a pro.

Obama should go live in Europe. He'll fit in quite nicely in France.

[Saturos S.]

I can figure out if I'm supposed to laugh or be annoyed by the sheer stupidity of that remark.

But really, what's so bad about social democracy?

[Eugine]

Oh come on.
European countries have probably the worst growth rate for any developed country.
They are not innovative. When was the last time a good product came from Europe?
They are weak on terrorism, and only complain. Europe probably fails on every measure when it comes to alleviating povery. Africa is becoming poorer.
Plus, they are Godless :P
Oh, and I believe Europeans hate minorities.

I can go on and on. Europe is just not a good rolemodel.

[Saturos S.]

Social democratic policies enhance individual rights by raising the standard of living of the majority of the population, providing the working class an... okay life.

The free market economy (which I do support btw, businesses should be as free as possible but anyway, what's bad about it: ) is incapable of addressing global poverty, even worse than a social democracy can.

Social democracy also allows a more stable economy because there is a much less direct threat of extreme poverty. The US government had to help some of the big banks there, didn't they? That's pretty socialistic, eh?

By restricting some economic rights, small businesses get a chance and thus makes the market more fair. The deficits on both sides are just as bad though.

O, about the godless part, we have the vatican city. Most Europeans think there is some kind of divine being but adoration and honouring it, asking it for help etc. is pointless. A belief from the Enlightenment.

[edit] O, and on terrorism. They hate the US, Europe a lot less. So why the hell should we take action there?

[Eugine]

So, how can you believe in the free market and social democracy at the same time?
And, where has the free market failed before? As far as I am concerned, government intervention created this world mess.

And ugh, that bailout was extremely socialistic. I actually disagreed with it. If McCain voted against this damn bailout, maybe he would have won the election today.

And "Social democratic" fail to recognise that the economic pie is unlimited. Fiscal conservatives believe the pie is unlimited. Rather than redistribute the pie, fiscal conservatives believe in increasing the size of the pie for everyone.

[Saturos S.]

Government intervention didn't create the mess, the banking system is broke. It's based on mutual trust, you keep borrowing and lending with higher interest. As long as there's money being pumped into the system everything is going fine and you make profit. It's like making a house of cards, you building up but inevitably it'll go wrong and collapse.
Free market fails when you care about a select group of elitists having 90% of all the money in a country. The rest can live in extreme poverty then.

And the economic pie is limited, why? Because welfare is relative. You can only be rich if someone else is poor.

[Eugine]

So, wealth is limited?
Using your analogy is like saying... Someone who received more food than normal still received less because someone else received more. Get what I'm saying?

And, it started when government allowed or forced mortgage companies to give loans to people who could not afford to pay back.
Since, the mortgage companies had the government at their side, they were allowed to take risks most private companies would not have taked.
When other companies saw the US government backed mortgage companies taking risky loans, they had to also to stay competitive. I think government artifically made houses cheaper. And we know, this had a domino effect on other industries.

Plus, we know governments artifically lowered interest rated in USA after September 11th to spur spending, rather than letting the free market recover.

The free market had a part to play I admit, but government had a bigger role. Much bigger one.

[TheEnglishman]

If I can break the debate for a moment, someone altered Wikipedia's featured articles. Earlier Barack Obama was above McCain but now it's the other way around. Bizarre.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 4 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

So, wealth is limited?
Using your analogy is like saying... Someone who received more food than normal still received less because someone else received more. Get what I'm saying?

And, it started when government allowed or forced mortgage companies to give loans to people who could not afford to pay back.
Since, the mortgage companies had the government at their side, they were allowed to take risks most private companies would not have taked.
When other companies saw the US government backed mortgage companies taking risky loans, they had to also to stay competitive. I think government artifically made houses cheaper. And we know, this had a domino effect on other industries.

Plus, we know governments artifically lowered interest rated in USA after September 11th to spur spending, rather than letting the free market recover.

The free market had a part to play I admit, but government had a bigger role. Much bigger one.

Yet governments are the only ones who can actually fix the crisis by lowering interest in their government banks. I agree governments shouldn't meddle with businesses essentially. But what do you want to be a business. Should a hospital be a business?

Food can be measured in amounts. You don't need more than a certain amount. That doesn't go for money. If everyone in the world had 1 million dollars, a loaf of bread wouldn't still be 1,30 (or something). It's measured in goods someone has and can afford where others can't. You can't even notice it without there being a difference in it.

--

I can see how you can think that the pie can get bigger and everyone can eat from it then. But continuing with that metaphor, I just think the countries who are already eatint that pie, will just eat more.

[Ironsight]

I can feel it...
Coming in the air tonight...
Whoa oh...

[Eugine]

Saturos Striker, on Nov 4 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

Yet governments are the only ones who can actually fix the crisis by lowering interest in their government banks. I agree governments shouldn't meddle with businesses essentially. But what do you want to be a business. Should a hospital be a business?

Food can be measured in amounts. You don't need more than a certain amount. That doesn't go for money. If everyone in the world had 1 million dollars, a loaf of bread wouldn't still be 1,30 (or something). It's measured in goods someone has and can afford where others can't. You can't even notice it without there being a difference in it.

--

I can see how you can think that the pie can get bigger and everyone can eat from it then. But continuing with that metaphor, I just think the countries who are already eatint that pie, will just eat more.

I dunno how to respond to this honestly...
Why will the bread price increase?

And well, to an extent I believe the government has a role in the market. Ensuring that there are free and fair competition comes to my mind.
One thing I believe government should be directly involved in is the food and drugs industry (like the FDA in USA), but other than that, I believe they should help finance the private sector.
But yeah, there are services government should be part off.

And DS, Phil Collins :P

[Saturos S.]

Let me confirm something first.

With this 'pie idea' of yours, the rich countries will continue to become richer. Because of that they'll take the poorer countries up with them, raising their living standards because they'll be able to take part in the world economy. The rich become richer, the poor become richer. So the difference is kept, the poor countries just weren't as poor as they once were.

...something like that?

[Golden Legacy]

I should blatantly point out here that Barack Obama is far from being a socialist. By the standards of Europe, Obama would best be a moderate liberal - he might even be a center, right politician.

"Socialism" - and it's automatic negative connotation in the US - is just another label that the Republicans have attached to their opponent this year.


At any rate, I still predict a President McCain. Obama will handily win the popular vote, but will lose the Electoral College because of the glorious way USA democracy works.

[Someone Else]

You mean like Gore vs. Bush? That was a lot of fun.

[Golden Legacy]

No doubt. Jesus, what an embarrassment. And America calls itself the best "democracy" in the world, but the simple notion of one person getting more votes than another is beyond comprehension.


Early results are in! So far, nothing out of the ordinary. Kentucky is as conservative as they come, going to McCain, while Indiana is a conservative state that is being fought for heavily. Currently a tie, with Obama a slight edge. Surprising too, that this state is even competitive at all.

Still less than 1% of the results are in from Indiana though. 7pm is the key! That's when Virginia closes! If Obama wins that...

[Eugine]

Someone Else, on Nov 4 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

You mean like Gore vs. Bush? That was a lot of fun.

Thank goodness America did not get Gore. USA would have had like 10 terrorist attacks now, and Gore would have simply called it a civilian crime.

[Golden Legacy]

The point we're making here is the concept of a "democracy". 500,000+ votes for one candidate over another would be a victory in any other country in the world, but not America. =/

And there are always risks between transitions. Notice for example that in 1993, the WTC was bombed during Clinton's first year as the nation shifted from Bush Sr., and similarly, 9/11 came within a year of the second Bush entering office.

[Someone Else]

Eugine, on Nov 4 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

Thank goodness America did not get Gore. USA would have had like 10 terrorist attacks now, and Gore would have simply called it a civilian crime.

And I think you're wrong. =)

[Eugine]

Well, it helped prevent liberals from destroying USA. So, it's a good system.

[Golden Legacy]

Eugine, all I have to do is point to your avatar, and I crack up so hard.


1900 on the eastern coast!
Virginia and Georgia, two conservative Bush states, are too close to call, and same for Indiana.
This is significant, if any of them can shift liberal, this could change the dynamics of the race's winner.

[Eugine]

lol. What channel are you watching GL?

[Golden Legacy]

My family is switching between CNN and Fox, and I'm on the official Obama facebook group.

And the KING of them all:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Real time updates from an incredibly talented pollster who predicted this year's primaries nearly 100%.

[Eugine]

Alright. Close is good for McCain anyway, and the fact that the Republican governor won Indiana, is a good sign for McCain.
McCain does not need to win the popular vote. He just needs to win by 1% in states he need.

[Golden Legacy]

Right, again, that's the example of the broken system. =/

[Eugine]

Yay. McCain is winning the EV count lol.

[Caael]

So who's winning so far?

[Golden Legacy]

Mark Warner just won the Senate race in Virginia.
That's good news for Obama, Mark Warner is an incredibly popular Democrat and former Governor.

[Eugine]

Fudge. A democrat won Virgina senate seat. Bad for McCain.

[Golden Legacy]

BBC, real time results.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ele...008/7697829.stm

Red is conservative (McCain)
Blue is liberal (Obama)

Less than 45 minutes until the next checkpoint of ten more states closing.

[Caael]

When will the final results be in?

It's not worth procrastinating sleep for if its anything over an hour more.

[Eugine]

YEAH! McCain is winning!
(gotta enjoy it while it lasts...)

Oh God, please call Virginia for McCain.

[Golden Legacy]

Caael, it'll be at least two more hours, at absolute best.

[Caael]

At least?

Meh, i'll just check 'em when I wake up tomorrow. Whoever wins doesn't really make that much of an impact on me anyway.

Thanks anyway.

[Eugine]

1% in Virginia and McCain is winning. He's winning Florida too. Enjoying this election I am!!!

[Golden Legacy]

That 1% is from southern Virginia, the lines in northern Virginia are enormous, that's where Obama's base is.

[Eugine]

Yep. You're right.
Still, McCain is kicking ass now biatch.

I'm just boasting while I can. Youll have four years to boast.

[Golden Legacy]

You've had eight years to boast.
And likely another four. I still think McCain will win.

[Eugine]

How the hell did they call Vermont with 0% of the votes? Exit polls have been wrong so many times.

[Golden Legacy]

There is a law in Vermont that says George Bush and Dick Cheney are to be arrested if they ever step foot in the state.

i.e. it is incredibly liberal.

[Caael]

It's funny because Dick Cheney shot somebody

[Eugine]

The exit polls are so depressing for McCain...

[Caael]

I'm wondering who Hawaii will vote.

[Golden Legacy]

And like you said, they've been wrong before.
I'd imagine there are more people who are willing to say out loud they voted Obama when they actually voted McCain.

[Ironsight]

Golden Legacy, on Nov 4 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

There is a law in Vermont that says George Bush and **** Cheney are to be arrested if they ever step foot in the state.

i.e. it is incredibly liberal.

Wow, that sucks.

[Golden Legacy]

For Bush and Cheney, yes.
Arrested by their own citizens, LOL.

[Eugine]

McCain won West Virginia. Expected results.
PLEASE CALL VIRGINIA FOR MCCAIN.