Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The New Responsible Political Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    @Willie : Amen bro' !
    "En wat als tijd de helft van echtheid was, was alles dan dubbelsnel verbaal?"

    Comment


    • #62
      It's one thing to hate a race of people. It's an entirely different matter with regard to agreeing or disagreeing with the policy and/or actions of a nation.
      RIP Coach Larry Finch
      Thank you Memphis Grizzlies for a great season.
      Play like your fake girlfriend died today - new Notre Dame motivational sign

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Der Mike
        No, it REALLY isn't terribly comparable. Fra...
        Undeniably on vacation. Hmm none of the righties complained about the fact that Bush was warned about the levees in New Orleans. Bush warned about the levees before the breach You know, the ones he ignored and resulted in the massive flooding of the city. Luckily nobody died there due to his neglect. Whew!
        There is no evidence of ANY black disenfranc...
        You are probably right. I doubt there is any hard evidence of people's feelings on the matter. However, the countless interviews I listened to where blacks were talking about their being disenfranchised at the last election due to the many roadblocks set before them are probably not something you would have listened to either. I listen to a local show to get the flavor of what is on the mind of the black community. They were not happy and many of them complained about everything from abnormally long lines to being removed from the voting roster, despite their having voted for many years previous. So proof? No, not documented hard evidence that has been prepared for white eyes, no.
        Is this all blacks? No way, but a good number of the people I listened to were unhappy with what they went through just to vote in the last election. Many of them went home due to frustration and did not cast their votes.

        Larger than expected turnout ....
        It is when there are 3 booths in a black polling location and 20 in a white. The lines were a result of funding to particular districts. yeah, so they are unlucky to be poor ... but it's got to get to you at some point if you always get the crap end of the deal. Whitey was home one hour after he went to the polls ... blacks were in some cases, standing in line for several hours.
        I find it interesting that the best you can come up with to compare our voting system to is Afghanistan. You are talking about people dealing with Democracy for the first time versus people who have felt discriminated against and continue to feel like second-class citizens in their own country for years and can see a drastic difference in the way they are treated as opposed to white Americans. I'm sure Afghanistan has it's problems ... but this ISN'T Afghanistan. We should be doing better by our people.
        Which led to the Dems demanding machines all over the country.
        If I was a Democrat, I might take issue with this ... but I'm not. I think demos are just as corrupt as Reps.
        But I still hate the f***ing machines. Doesn't matter whether or not dems or reps wanted them.
        Florida 2000 clearly demonstrates the problems. I preferred them, too, but after 2000, the ...
        Paper ballots can't be? Poke a ...
        I'll give you that ... however, evidence of tampering will be left behind on a paper ballot. Not like with a computer system which can simply be hacked and massive changes can be made instantaneously. How many paper ballots do you think could be changed instantaneously?
        Paper ballots work despite storms and black outs. Don't know if you experience black-outs there but we seem to get them now and then. I trust the paper.
        Which makes the irony that ...
        True. I did some research on this. You are right ... but in all fairness, he never made any public statements about delivering a highly contested state to the party he donated to. His donation was rather small in comparison to his colleagues though. If I were more suspicious, I'd think the donation was made to throw off the scent ... but that would just be paranoid and no one would ever do such a thing in this country anyway. Everyone is so honest. Instant celebrity, perhaps. But perhaps the rewards of silence are better in his case. Perhaps his goal is larger. Perhaps he is completely on the level. All I know is that he never made any public comments about delivering states and it's the only thing that saved them. Doesn't change my mind that I don't like a company that had many times over the donations going to the Republican candidate than their one guy who donated to the Democrats. I wouldn't care who he donated his money to ... it's the statement that bothered me.
        You mean the same exit polls that oversampled large cities? The same incredibly flawed exit polls that ...
        We don't need paper trails?
        EVoting Problems
        "Republican pollster Dick Morris said the Election Night pattern of mistaken exit polls favoring Kerry in six battleground states û Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa û was virtually inconceivable.
        ôExit polls are almost never wrong,ö Morris wrote. ôSo reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. à To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here.ö
        His "criminal record"?
        A good portion of his criminal record has effectively disappered. You can roll your eyes all you want, but even Bush was forced to acknowledge his drunk driving arrest. bush has made mis-statements that bring into question his use of cocaine. He admits to having a drinking problem until "he found Jesus."
        The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel.
        The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game.
        The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving.
        This makes him the only President who has had a criminal record.

        Bush is pursuing something the West needs to do ...
        Hmmm ... See I would have agreed with this if we continued after Al Quieda. Afhganistan made sense to me. Al Quieda still does. I believe our military should be seeking out the Al Quieda training camps and finding Bin Laden. I support that because that's what the war on terror is about isn't it? Finding the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11? The majority of whom were Saudi. Oh ... but Saddam was a bad man and he had a connection to 9/11.
        Saddam Not Linked to 9/11
        and before you say that he had ties to Al Queda so he could have been involed with 9/11:
        No ties to Al Queda and 9/11
        There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
        Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel found in the first of two reports issued today."

        I am not Anti-War because I know that they are inevitable ... but I am not a war-monger either. I don't believe we should be out trying to make everyone into our image. The Christian right is already trying to do that here. However, when I, as a citizen am handed lame justification after lame justification to engage in a war that looks merely like a continnuation of a war that was initiated by the Presidents father and stopped short, when today there are bigger fish to fry (and Bin Laden to me, is a bigger fish) then I step back and say, "Hmmm I don't buy it." Too convenient. None of the excuses added up. We are stuck there. Things are completely destabilized. Bin Laden is still free. Sorry. Iraq was a waste of lives, resources and time.

        <continued>
        "If I could be a bird, I'd be a Flying Purple People Eater because then people would sing about me and I could fly down and eat them because I hate that song. " - Jack Handey

        Comment


        • #64
          <continued>
          The Muslims in the ME are a bigger problem.
          All of them? Well hell ... let's just drop a nuke! Since they are all the same.

          I discount pretty much anything that brazen hypocrite espouses.

          And, yes, I can EASILY back up the claim that he is a brazen hypocrite.
          Well you just nailed why I discount anything Limbaugh, Coulter (though she is probably not a hypocrite ... no one is that evil without truly believing and practising what they preach), Savage, and countless other talking heads have to say.

          I'm not sure where you got the impression that I think there are no corporate criminals? I mean, I trust them more than "non-profit" agencies like PETA, but there are more than a few sleazeballs.
          Hah! I am talking about people who rob pensions and draw immense salaries while bankrupting their companies and then initiating huge layoffs and eventually closure of companies resulting in the loss of sustainable income and livelihood for thousands of people and the example you bring up is crusaders who protect animals! But animals have no ability to protect themselves so I guess that makes them fair game despite the fact that they are living creatures. WOW! I'm no fan of PETA because they are radicals ... but wow ...
          Unlike his critics, Bush presented an option to fix the problem. It's far easier to sit on the sidelines ...
          Okay. But his solution is severly flawed and again only serves to benefit the only people he cares about ... his Millionaire base.
          "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." GWB
          Hmm, you'd rather not have it at all? ...
          Not when they continually loot it, no. And yeah, they can afford it. They just choose to allocate money in different ways but I am being overly optimisic I suppose ... or am I? I pay into. It should be there.
          They just want the goodies. They want the cable TV. They want the high-speed internet. They want the 2 cars. They want the new TV's.

          You can't blame this country because people want more...
          As a person who cuts back considerably: No television, cable, nice car, etc. I agree. More people should cut back.
          Still, this country revolves around credit and encourages people to shop. Usory pisses me off. 29% interest rates are just vile and used to be illegal, 3% was where it had been for many years.
          Our whole culture revolves around 'buying' and 'owning' things. So, people are constantly lured into wanting the lifestyle. I suppose this is much more of a problem that transcends political parties and is an inherent flaw of Capitalism. But cutting back is something that many people who live beyind their means should do.

          You mean like the elderly? Or do you mean the "greedy" who don't demand increasing amounts of tax revenue?
          Huh? That doesn't make any sense. The elderly?
          I meant the greedy. People who wish to repeal the Estate tax which, essentially taxes ridiculously rich people when they die insted of leaving a ridiculously vast sum of money to their n'er-do-well kids (Paris Hilton comes to mind) The person is dead. They still leave a massive legacy and riches to their family... but a good-portion of it goes back into the system and can be used to fund many many programs. The person is dead for Christs sakes ... yet, they are still trying to be greedy because even in death, they want to control their money.
          CEO's who, though important, take massively HUGE salaries and cripple their companies and make it impossible to pay decent wages to their workers. The staggering percentage difference between what CEO's earned as opposed to the employees is so drastically different than it was just ten/fifteen years ago, that I'm honestly surprised there has not been more of an uproar about it. I suppose people think it's okay for someone to 'make-as-much-as-they can' on the backs of the company and everyone working there and taht the damage they cause is all okay because they are doing what we all want to do ... right? Not all CEO's are this way. But enough of them are.
          "Greedy" is quite a nebulous term. How is the family that is livid that the government won't pay for all of their child's college education not greedy?
          Nebulous? I don't see how the word 'greedy' is vague or cloudy.
          Greedy: "Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves."
          When did I say that a family wanting the Government to pay their childs education was not greedy? Those are your own words. People are greedy all across the spectrum. It's the wide-scale Halliburton type greed that leaves people destroyed in the wake of their greed that truly upsets me. that scams our own troops when it comes to their lunches. Taht gets no-bid contracts handed to them. So much for healthy competition ... I'm glad we all agree that monopolies are good for the country.
          How is the person who expects Social Security to be their retirement income not greedy?
          The person who expects Social Security PAYS INTO IT THAT'S HOW THEY EXPECT IT. Why the hell else do they take it out of our checks? The Govt draw interest off of that money and the principle is to remain to help you when you are too old a fart to work anymore. Not everyone is going to be independently wealthy when they retire. In fact, many people in this economy cannot afford to even get by and they work.
          How is this concept so foreign? Do you think everyone can become rich at the same time? Do you honestly feel that everyone can make enough money to cover all of the costs that will creep up in their lives and that the people who bag your groceries and stock the shelves full of the cheap Chinese crap for you to fill your three story house with are going to be able to retire wealthy? No. Social Security will not even defray all of their problems ... but it IS an attempt to help. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't have a problem with a service that the Government provides to help people when they retire. If people want more, they can open their own private investment accounts. That's their business ... but if they can do that, they are probably in pretty good shape anyway. Making them private for everyone is a mistake. It opens it up for massive, massive problems. Yeah some "Kenny Boy" running my Social Security? ... No Thanks.
          [/Quote]

          Care to explain how the attacks on them aren't "imperialist"? Quite honestly, if the Arabs didn't attack them, Israel wouldn't bother them at all. The Arab attacks are imperialist in nature --- just really, really ineptly done.

          It's not about land. If Israelis become Muslim, they wouldn't CARE about the land of Israel (lord knows they didn't care when the Jews came in and bought it. Nor d...[/QUOTE]
          I was referring to how the media paint the scenario. Like I said, Israel is not something I profess to know much about. I would say that Israels response doesn't seem entirely out of line. If Iraq were attacking us daily, I'd be much more supportive of our war against them. Luckily, we bombed them back to the stone age before they unleashed all of those WMD's that North Korea actually have, on us. Whew!
          "If I could be a bird, I'd be a Flying Purple People Eater because then people would sing about me and I could fly down and eat them because I hate that song. " - Jack Handey

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by thebaron
            Personally I think that no one should tell him to be quiet. Did I miss the law being passed that a person can't run as an independent? Or does that type of thing only work when someone like Jeffords decides to be an independent?
            I agree.

            Anyone should be allowed to run. Lieberman is however, a sore loser. he got trumped by a first time out of the bag guy who was more representative of the Democratic collective in Connecticut than Lieberman was. Now he's running as an independant but it seems more to get vengeance than to seriosuly try and affect any real good from the situation. He's living in denial. He didn't get this upset when he and Gore lost to Bush. What gives?

            Lieberman had happen to him what all Senators and Congressmen who no longer represent the majority interests of their consituents should have happen, regardless of party. Seriously, the House AND Senate need some cleaning and it's high time voters brought the government back to the people.

            Liebermans loss tells me that Democrats are trying to regrow their spines. he was the biggest sell-out in the party. He's so special-interest-monied that massive amounts of corporate donations poured in at the 11th hour fo him to try and pull it away. If that doesn't scare anyone, I don't know what does.

            Fortunately though, Lieberman managed to grab defeat from the clutches of victory. Perhaps they'll get Hillary next, that would make me happy. The Repub's are removing themselves through fraud and all sorts of other scandals ... no need for voter help there! Things look like they are finally going to work out after all.
            "If I could be a bird, I'd be a Flying Purple People Eater because then people would sing about me and I could fly down and eat them because I hate that song. " - Jack Handey

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Shadow-Sentient
              Undeniably on vacation. Hmm none of the righties complained about the fact that Bush was warned about the levees in New Orleans. Bush warned about the levees before the breach You know, the ones he ignored and resulted in the massive flooding of the city. Luckily nobody died there due to his neglect. Whew!
              Nope. They were not warned about the levees FAILING. They were warned of the levees being overtopped. World of difference.

              WATCH the video and don't just follow the press' coverage.
              You are probably right. I doubt there is any hard evidence of people's feelings on the matter.
              To be gentle, feelings don't mean a thing. Factual reality is what counts and since disenfranchisement is a specific claim, there should be ACTUAL instances of it.

              The US Civil Rights Commission studied the 2000 election. You know how many cases of disenfranchisement they found that had ANY founding in any form of factual reality?

              One.

              In all of the country, one person MIGHT have been disenfranchised. While one is bad, it's hardly this massive conspiracy.
              However, the countless interviews I listened to where blacks were talking about their being disenfranchised at the last election due to the many roadblocks set before them
              Their claims have been reveiwed and found to be completely incorrect, mind you. It's really easy to check where roadblocks were set up and NONE were terribly close to polling places.
              are probably not something you would have listened to either. I listen to a local show to get the flavor of what is on the mind of the black community. They were not happy and many of them complained about everything from abnormally long lines to being removed from the voting roster, despite their having voted for many years previous.
              They have to run occasional "cleanings" of the voter rolls since felons and the deceased regularly still populate them.

              What the whiners DON'T say is that they are also told IN WRITING what happened MONTHS in advance and advised on how TO CORRECT THE MISTAKE if one was made.

              As for long lines --- that's voting for you.
              So proof? No, not documented hard evidence that has been prepared for white eyes, no.
              So, you have no evidence at all, eh?

              Or is factual reality somehow different for black folks?
              It is when there are 3 booths in a black polling location and 20 in a white.
              Feel free to point to actual examples, please, so we can try and compare apples and apples, OK?
              The lines were a result of funding to particular districts.
              You mean poor districts can afford fewer machines?

              Wow.

              THAT is your proof of massive disenfranchisement?

              Sad.
              yeah, so they are unlucky to be poor ... but it's got to get to you at some point if you always get the crap end of the deal. Whitey was home one hour after he went to the polls ... blacks were in some cases, standing in line for several hours.
              Actually, this whitey took 2 hours, so you can happily forget your inane assumptions.
              I find it interesting that the best you can come up with to compare our voting system to is Afghanistan. You are talking about people dealing with Democracy for the first time versus people who have felt discriminated against and continue to feel like second-class citizens in their own country for years and can see a drastic difference in the way they are treated as opposed to white Americans.
              I'll be blunt:

              At this point, I do not care how blacks feel about their treatment. I'm out of empathy and out of concern. I do not care.

              Until you can point to ACTUAL real problems, and not the insane conspiracy theories that seem to run rampant, come back to me. I laugh at conspiracy theories.
              I'm sure Afghanistan has it's problems ... but this ISN'T Afghanistan. We should be doing better by our people.
              If our people won't do a thing for themselves, then the government can't "do better" by them.

              There's a difference between "disenfranchisement" (the outright denial of the right to vote) and "utter laziness" (being too darned lazy to go out and vote). One deserves empathy. One warrants mounds of scorn and mockery.
              I'll give you that ... however, evidence of tampering will be left behind on a paper ballot.
              You really think so?

              You can get a very small, long, metal spike.
              You can get a large stack of ballots.
              You can then stick the spike on the hole where a particular candidate's name is listed.
              The spike will either do nothing to votes for that candidate --- or disqualify votes for a different candidate because it'd become an immediate overvote.

              So, no, tampering would not be left behind on a paper ballot at all.
              Paper ballots work despite storms and black outs. Don't know if you experience black-outs there but we seem to get them now and then. I trust the paper.
              And in 2000, that "poor counties had to use paper ballots while rich ones got machines" was "proof" of disenfranchisement.
              True. I did some research on this. You are right ... but in all fairness, he never made any public statements about delivering a highly contested state to the party he donated to.
              Again, how would the CEO do it if the person in charge of the machines supported the other candidate?

              You know, the head of ABC News Political Division openly wrote that they were going to criticize Bush for his "lies" more than Kerry for his "lies". I suppose you'd support laws against the press, eh?
              Perhaps his goal is larger. Perhaps he is completely on the level. All I know is that he never made any public comments about delivering states and it's the only thing that saved them. Doesn't change my mind that I don't like a company that had many times over the donations going to the Republican candidate than their one guy who donated to the Democrats.
              Do you have the same problems vice versa?

              Because, wow, you'd hate the media with a fervent passion.
              We don't need paper trails?
              EVoting Problems
              "Republican pollster Dick Morris said the Election Night pattern of mistaken exit polls favoring Kerry in six battleground states û Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa û was virtually inconceivable.
              ôExit polls are almost never wrong,ö Morris wrote. ôSo reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. à To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here.ö
              Again, trying to use polls that have been flawed for years --- they haven't been obvious since close elections aren't that common --- as "proof"?

              I'll stick with, you know, votes.

              A bit more meaningful. The problems with exit polling is well known (they focus on large cities far more than smaller ones, for example).
              A good portion of his criminal record has effectively disappered.
              So, no proof then.
              You can roll your eyes all you want, but even Bush was forced to acknowledge his drunk driving arrest.
              Yes, and I'm sure you condemn all people --- even leading political figures --- who have had a drunk driving arrest.

              About 25 years earlier.

              And none since then.
              bush has made mis-statements that bring into question his use of cocaine. He admits to having a drinking problem until "he found Jesus."
              The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel.
              The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game.
              The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving.
              This makes him the only President who has had a criminal record.
              You can always provide proof of the arrests of Bush. Feel free.
              I support that because that's what the war on terror is about isn't it? Finding the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11? The majority of whom were Saudi. Oh ... but Saddam was a bad man and he had a connection to 9/11.
              Saddam Not Linked to 9/11
              and before you say that he had ties to Al Queda so he could have been involed with 9/11:
              No ties to Al Queda and 9/11
              There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
              And, later that VERY SAME DAY, the 9/11 Commission heads disputed that headline, saying they only referred to 9/11. They THEN said that they definitely had organizational ties before then.

              Nice try, though.
              Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government
              Ah, the whole "they couldn't work together". Funny, I heard the same thing about Sunni and Shiite Muslims --- yet Hamas and Hezbollah do work together against Israel.
              -=Mike

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Shadow-Sentient
                <continued>
                All of them? Well hell ... let's just drop a nuke! Since they are all the same.
                Considering that they are brainwashing their kids --- it's going to take an outright invasion and occupation for that to be reversed.
                Well you just nailed why I discount anything Limbaugh, Coulter (though she is probably not a hypocrite ... no one is that evil without truly believing and practising what they preach), Savage, and countless other talking heads have to say.
                Yet you referenced Nader specifically. Odd.
                Hah! I am talking about people who rob pensions and draw immense salaries while bankrupting their companies and then initiating huge layoffs and eventually closure of companies resulting in the loss of sustainable income and livelihood for thousands of people and the example you bring up is crusaders who protect animals!
                "Crusaders who protect animals"?

                To give you a heads up, the Executive VP of PETA doesn't want YOU to have the same medical procedure that SHE has to keep HERSELF alive. She opposes ALL testing --- ignoring how many people it has saved.

                Yeah, I view somebody whose goal is the death of many people as being worse than somebody who steals money.
                But animals have no ability to protect themselves so I guess that makes them fair game despite the fact that they are living creatures. WOW! I'm no fan of PETA because they are radicals ... but wow ...
                Animals have no rights. If you wish to argue that, I'll be more than happy to do so, but that's a different topic.
                Okay. But his solution is severly flawed and again only serves to benefit the only people he cares about ... his Millionaire base.
                "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." GWB
                A comment said a charity dinner (The Al Smith dinner) which raises money for Catholic charities. Al Gore, mind you, was at that same dinner. The candidates make self-depricating speeches while there and did so for decades.

                Thanks to Moore, though, that will stop and Catholic charities --- who only feed the hungry and help kids --- will be negatively impacted because that hypocritical liar decided to make a political point where none existed.

                You use that quote and you clearly do not know where it came from or why it was said.
                Not when they continually loot it, no. And yeah, they can afford it. They just choose to allocate money in different ways but I am being overly optimisic I suppose ... or am I? I pay into. It should be there.
                You know how long it'll take you to get every single dime you put into the system back?

                Less than 18 months.

                After that, you're leeching off others.
                As a person who cuts back considerably: No television, cable, nice car, etc. I agree. More people should cut back.
                Still, this country revolves around credit and encourages people to shop. Usory pisses me off. 29% interest rates are just vile and used to be illegal, 3% was where it had been for many years.
                If you don't like the rate for credit cards, don't use them.

                I do not use them ever.
                Huh? That doesn't make any sense. The elderly?
                They want the government to pay their pensions and pay for their medical expenses.

                Like it or not, that is greed.
                I meant the greedy. People who wish to repeal the Estate tax which, essentially taxes ridiculously rich people when they die insted of leaving a ridiculously vast sum of money to their n'er-do-well kids (Paris Hilton comes to mind) The person is dead.
                The person was ALSO taxed on that money in their lives. I vigorously oppose taxing the productive to give to the un-productive. If somebody scrimps and saves to give their children something --- the government has no right, whatsoever, to expect one red nickle of the money.
                They still leave a massive legacy and riches to their family... but a good-portion of it goes back into the system and can be used to fund many many programs.
                Yes, those programs that have worked such wonders.
                The person is dead for Christs sakes ... yet, they are still trying to be greedy because even in death, they want to control their money.
                Like it or not, that is their RIGHT since THEY MADE THE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
                CEO's who, though important, take massively HUGE salaries and cripple their companies and make it impossible to pay decent wages to their workers.
                Who? Examples would be nice.
                The staggering percentage difference between what CEO's earned as opposed to the employees is so drastically different than it was just ten/fifteen years ago, that I'm honestly surprised there has not been more of an uproar about it. I suppose people think it's okay for someone to 'make-as-much-as-they can' on the backs of the company and everyone working there and taht the damage they cause is all okay because they are doing what we all want to do ... right? Not all CEO's are this way. But enough of them are.
                Yup, there are some scummy CEO's. I'll trust a CEO far more than I'll trust a Senator or a head of a group like PETA or the NAACP.
                Nebulous? I don't see how the word 'greedy' is vague or cloudy.
                Greedy: "Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves."
                You don't see the nebulous nature of that definition?
                When did I say that a family wanting the Government to pay their childs education was not greedy? Those are your own words. People are greedy all across the spectrum.
                Yes. So why aren't you decrying all greed and not just the greed you disagree with?
                It's the wide-scale Halliburton type greed that leaves people destroyed in the wake of their greed that truly upsets me. that scams our own troops when it comes to their lunches.
                Which, mind you, is a lie as the troops and commanders all have nothing but praise for what Halliburton provides them.
                Taht gets no-bid contracts handed to them.
                *sigh*.

                Look up LOGCAP. It was a contract that Halliburton won in open bidding years ago that was done so the military could quickly call on one company (in this case, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root) for all of their logistical means.

                So, they have NEVER had no-bid contracts. They won the bidding for LOGCAP in December 2001, when Cheney --- like it or not --- had nothing to do with the company.

                And, mind you, it has hardly been a windfall for KBR. They are one of the more underperforming parts of the company due to the expense in honoring the contract.
                The person who expects Social Security PAYS INTO IT THAT'S HOW THEY EXPECT IT.
                They get many times more money than they ever paid into it. That is a fact.
                Why the hell else do they take it out of our checks? The Govt draw interest off of that money and the principle is to remain to help you when you are too old a fart to work anymore.
                Actually, the government doesn't get interest because the government won't INVEST IT IN ANYTHING.

                Remember that little hubbub?
                Not everyone is going to be independently wealthy when they retire. In fact, many people in this economy cannot afford to even get by and they work.
                Weird that this economy ias as strong as Clinton's --- and without massive corporate fraud to help it along, eh?
                How is this concept so foreign? Do you think everyone can become rich at the same time? Do you honestly feel that everyone can make enough money to cover all of the costs that will creep up in their lives and that the people who bag your groceries and stock the shelves full of the cheap Chinese crap for you to fill your three story house with are going to be able to retire wealthy?
                That's what investing in your retirement is all about.

                I hardly make a lot of money, but I happily invest 6% of my paycheck in my retirement account. I might increase it soon.
                No. Social Security will not even defray all of their problems ... but it IS an attempt to help. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't have a problem with a service that the Government provides to help people when they retire. If people want more, they can open their own private investment accounts. That's their business ... but if they can do that, they are probably in pretty good shape anyway. Making them private for everyone is a mistake.
                Stock market ALWAYS goes up over the long term. Always.
                It opens it up for massive, massive problems. Yeah some "Kenny Boy" running my Social Security? ... No Thanks.
                You trust Congress to do it?
                I was referring to how the media paint the scenario. Like I said, Israel is not something I profess to know much about. I would say that Israels response doesn't seem entirely out of line. If Iraq were attacking us daily, I'd be much more supportive of our war against them. Luckily, we bombed them back to the stone age before they unleashed all of those WMD's that North Korea actually have, on us. Whew!
                I'll just say this --- the Arab governments blatantly invent "atrocities" where none occurred to turn the anti-Semitic international left further against Israel, which is horrid.

                And I wish those of you who criticize Bush for Iraq would stop acting like you'd have no problem if we went after N. Korea instead. It's disingenuous.
                -=Mike

                Comment


                • #68
                  Well, North Korea seemed more of a threat than Iraq ever did. Although that threat of North Korea has dissipated when the best they can do is launch rockets into the ocean.
                  RIP Coach Larry Finch
                  Thank you Memphis Grizzlies for a great season.
                  Play like your fake girlfriend died today - new Notre Dame motivational sign

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    As I said at the time, it's preferrable to stop a country from getting the bomb rather than dealing with them after they already have it.
                    -=Mike

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      I never lost any sleep over it though, so it's a non-concern for me.

                      Actually, there isn't anything I lose sleep over. The reports from Israel and Lebanon are a good way to bring on sleep
                      RIP Coach Larry Finch
                      Thank you Memphis Grizzlies for a great season.
                      Play like your fake girlfriend died today - new Notre Dame motivational sign

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Shadow becomes the second liberal in this thread to make me laugh heartily, by calling Lieberman a "sore loser" and also complaining about the 2000 (and 2004) election.

                        Seriously......do you even appreciate the irony at all?
                        "I don't find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom, because you don't know what it is not to have freedom." ---Ayaan Hirsi Ali

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Karachi Vyce
                          Shadow becomes the second liberal in this thread to make me laugh heartily, by calling Lieberman a "sore loser" and also complaining about the 2000 (and 2004) election.

                          Seriously......do you even appreciate the irony at all?
                          I'm glad I afforded you a laugh at my expense. I find sometimes it's good to even step back and laugh at myself. But if the idea was to offend me by saying you find my arguments laughable, you have failed. I don't take myself that seriously. (and your retort would be: I don't take you seriously either ... touche)

                          But saying I'm a liberal just because I haven't found any Republicans worthy of my vote, well ... besides Arnie who may actually get it this run, is short-sighted. Yeah, I lean left but you don't know my politics at all. Just because you buy into the remarkable job the talking-heads have done at trying to play down any controversy over the elections doesn't mean I have forgotten them. I DIDN'T vote for Al Gore ... but the results and the controversy are STILL extremely valid to me. You can remember Clinton's blowjob, I'll remember what looks like wide-scale corruption from the elections. I'll remember the fraud of Ken Lay, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Bill Frist, ad nauseum.
                          Democrat's aren't above it either: Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Ted kenedy, and the other Kennedy who just crashed his car under the influence on the way to vote! (what a moron!) etc. Makes me wonder if he was drunk every time cast a vote. And in answer to the question asked earlier, I don't care what party a person is. If you have a criminal record and can't vote, why do we allow people with criminal records to become Congressmen, Senators and even President? If we were to remove all of the people with criminal records from the Congress, they couldn't reach quorum!

                          It would probably surprise you to know that I am not in line with a good majority of the Democratic platform. I am close on a lot of Republican issues, but but their black or white fallacy of false alternatives puts me even further away from them then I am with Democrats. So, Liberal? Hardly.

                          It might surprise you to learn that: I like guns, I am Pro-Life, Pro Death Penalty, Pro Health Care for all Americans, Anti Privitazation, for a flat tax (revenues have to come from somewhere), Against allowing Illegal Immigrants residency, FOR the estate tax, etc.

                          I DO believe that the Government should assist in running certain programs, repairing roads, providing basic humane services at the cost of taxpayers an not trusting corporations to that task. Just because some of you would be perfectly happy living in a Feudal state with Landed Lords and Serfs does not mean that it is right. Looking at some of the responses from DerMike, it would appear that his politics don't seem far from reverting to a time where humanity and humane treatment of others regardless of race, social status, and situation is akin to just before the Renaissance. Apparently, anyone who does not try to become wealthy is un-motivated and a waste of space and resources and worthy of manipulation, extortion, and to be take advantage of. Sorry Machiavelli, I don't feel that way.

                          Most of my beliefs have proviso's because I do not see everything in black and white. With as many people as are in this country there are exceptions that can't be overlooked. For example: I am only for the death penalty in cases where the evidence is indisputable. We Shouldn't Waste Tax Dollars Keeping Murder's Alive in Prison
                          "Even under the system of appeals, there have been at least 350 cases this century where people were given the death sentence and were later proven clearly innocent. Therefore, the appeals process cannot be shortened without increasing the percentage of innocent people executed. "
                          350 innocent people is an awfully high number. No percentage of innocent people executed is acceptable to me. This is my only reservation about the death penealty.

                          But back to the point, I continue to question the results of things that seem fantastic in nature ... especially when lightning strikes TWICE.
                          the Dems ran a weak opponent, true ... but Bush was just as weak, his only positive was the war ... which was still a negative by many peoples standards. The Dems can't seem to find a strong one candidate ... but they also allow the right to slander them maliciously and have not found an effective way to counter. Hell even John McCain wasn't spared being slandered by Bush during the primaries ... but I'm sure you all have an excuse for that behavior too.
                          "If I could be a bird, I'd be a Flying Purple People Eater because then people would sing about me and I could fly down and eat them because I hate that song. " - Jack Handey

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Evil Is As Evil Does

                            Originally posted by Der Mike
                            Hell, supporting this war should be the biggest no-brainer ever. "Yeah, it's a war against a major terrorist group. It doesn't involve US troops AT ALL. Yeah, let's OPPOSE it."

                            WTF?

                            Anybody who says that Israel should "negotiate" is a pathetic collaborator, ala Vichy France, who will sell its soul to militant Islam because they truly buy into that idiotic crap about how evil the West is.
                            -=Mike
                            Demonizing has always been a favorite of warmongers of "every" stripe. They think we're evil because...(fill in the blanks), we think their evil because...(more blanks); sometimes there's just enough truth on both sides to make each party think they are "right". Interesting, in Catachism we were taught that the "Devil" put just enough truth in his lies to make them believable! Hmm...that would make both sides just "deluded".

                            One of the interesting things about Babylon 5 was the way the author would cleverly present a situation that seemed cut and dried and then, just when you thought you were so incensed at some person or culture, suddenly turn it all upside down, or at least sideways by showing an additional fact or influence that had not been previously known. (i.e takeDelenn and the latent revelation that her cry for vengence actually started the Earth/Minbari war.)
                            I cannot delude myself that there are many "hidden" or "somehow overlooked" or "supressed" incidents on both sides of any conflict that we never really come to know.

                            There is always enough good/evil/innocense, confusion, brainwashing and subtrafuge to get any two determined opponents to fight...the key is in the instigators and their motives...and sometimes one has to go very far back to get to the original spark. Therefore, I do not feel that those who wish to be even handed in trying to analyse this situation are "collaborators". (That sounds so "Nightwatch" or is it "Nazi"...or...well, very strong!

                            You are, however, a brilliant "Devils Advocate", Der Mike! You have the kind of scathing, analytical mind that might belong to an attorney...or perhaps an author...someone who is used to digging for facts...and also who can make them work for him at will.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Shadow-Sentient
                              But saying I'm a liberal just because I haven't found any Republicans worthy of my vote, well ... besides Arnie who may actually get it this run, is short-sighted. Yeah, I lean left but you don't know my politics at all.
                              One can make safe assumptions based on what you write, to be perfectly honest.
                              Just because you buy into the remarkable job the talking-heads have done at trying to play down any controversy over the elections doesn't mean I have forgotten them. I DIDN'T vote for Al Gore ... but the results and the controversy are STILL extremely valid to me.
                              The "controversy", as I pointed out, is based on non-existant beliefs and a lack of education.

                              Thus, it's not a "controversy". It's a "lack of knowledge".
                              You can remember Clinton's blowjob, I'll remember what looks like wide-scale corruption from the elections.
                              And why do you remember Clinton's blowjob?

                              Because Reno refused to investigate the MASSIVE violations of the law in his 1996 campaign, where he took tons of money from the Chinese.

                              When most of the major players in a scandal run to China for protection --- which DID happen there --- you have a problem.
                              I'll remember the fraud of Ken Lay, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Bill Frist, ad nauseum.
                              Except Ken Lay had more to do with Clinton than Bush. And Abramoff was neck-deep with Democrats --- including Sen. Reid who refuses to give back any of the money he took from Jack's clients, saying it's a "Republican problem" --- just to clarify. And you didn't mention Jefferson. Odd.
                              Democrat's aren't above it either: Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Ted kenedy, and the other Kennedy who just crashed his car under the influence on the way to vote! (what a moron!) etc.
                              Except he wasn't on his way to vote. He said that because they cannot be pulled over in that situation. It was, in layman's terms, a blatant abuse of power to get out of legal trouble.

                              You know, what people say Bush did without, you know, any proof.
                              Makes me wonder if he was drunk every time cast a vote. And in answer to the question asked earlier, I don't care what party a person is. If you have a criminal record and can't vote, why do we allow people with criminal records to become Congressmen, Senators and even President?
                              Again, D.U.I seldom stays on your record permanently for your first offense if it never happens again.
                              I DO believe that the Government should assist in running certain programs, repairing roads, providing basic humane services at the cost of taxpayers an not trusting corporations to that task. Just because some of you would be perfectly happy living in a Feudal state with Landed Lords and Serfs does not mean that it is right. Looking at some of the responses from DerMike, it would appear that his politics don't seem far from reverting to a time where humanity and humane treatment of others regardless of race, social status, and situation is akin to just before the Renaissance.
                              But don't let anybody label you negatively, right?
                              Apparently, anyone who does not try to become wealthy is un-motivated and a waste of space and resources and worthy of manipulation, extortion, and to be take advantage of.
                              Weren't you just complaining that Vyce called you liberal?

                              I guess consistency is too much to ask?
                              Most of my beliefs have proviso's because I do not see everything in black and white.
                              Except that those who disagree with you want to go back to a feudal system.

                              Outside of THAT, no, you don't see in black and white.
                              With as many people as are in this country there are exceptions that can't be overlooked. For example: I am only for the death penalty in cases where the evidence is indisputable. We Shouldn't Waste Tax Dollars Keeping Murder's Alive in Prison
                              "Even under the system of appeals, there have been at least 350 cases this century where people were given the death sentence and were later proven clearly innocent. Therefore, the appeals process cannot be shortened without increasing the percentage of innocent people executed. "
                              350 innocent people is an awfully high number. No percentage of innocent people executed is acceptable to me. This is my only reservation about the death penealty.
                              Funny you site such a leftwing site as that --- you know, since you're not left-wing and all.

                              And they said that 350 were convicted IN HISTORY. Not how many were convicted. And how many of them were falsely believed to be innocent by the leftist intellegentsia, such as Sacco and Vanzetti?
                              But back to the point, I continue to question the results of things that seem fantastic in nature ... especially when lightning strikes TWICE.
                              the Dems ran a weak opponent, true ... but Bush was just as weak, his only positive was the war ... which was still a negative by many peoples standards. The Dems can't seem to find a strong one candidate ... but they also allow the right to slander them maliciously and have not found an effective way to counter.
                              Yes, the Dems don't "slander" the right at all. It's always the right slandering the left. If you want to play the "you don't know my politics" game, don't make your politics obvious.
                              Hell even John McCain wasn't spared being slandered by Bush during the primaries ... but I'm sure you all have an excuse for that behavior too.
                              Yes. Absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, exists that it happened.

                              They've never found one person to corrorborate that one person's story. No "script" has ever been found of the call. Nothing at all.

                              So, until some evidence is presented --- no, it is not believed anymore than I believe Clinton ran drugs out of an Arkansas airport.
                              -=Mike

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by starbound
                                Demonizing has always been a favorite of warmongers of "every" stripe. They think we're evil because...(fill in the blanks), we think their evil because...(more blanks); sometimes there's just enough truth on both sides to make each party think they are "right". Interesting, in Catachism we were taught that the "Devil" put just enough truth in his lies to make them believable! Hmm...that would make both sides just "deluded".
                                Or, in this case, has studied any type of history whatsoever.
                                One of the interesting things about Babylon 5 was the way the author would cleverly present a situation that seemed cut and dried and then, just when you thought you were so incensed at some person or culture, suddenly turn it all upside down, or at least sideways by showing an additional fact or influence that had not been previously known. (i.e takeDelenn and the latent revelation that her cry for vengence actually started the Earth/Minbari war.)
                                In a stunning turn of events, Babylon 5 is not, you know, the real world.
                                I cannot delude myself that there are many "hidden" or "somehow overlooked" or "supressed" incidents on both sides of any conflict that we never really come to know.
                                We know --- for a fact --- that Hezbollah and Lebanon have blatantly invented atrocities out of nothing. They use dead bodies as photo op props.

                                How do we know? Because WE HAVE VIDEO OF THEM DOING IT.

                                Notice, we don't have Israel doing it.

                                One side views death as a tragedy; the other views it as a marketing opportunity.
                                There is always enough good/evil/innocense, confusion, brainwashing and subtrafuge to get any two determined opponents to fight...the key is in the instigators and their motives...and sometimes one has to go very far back to get to the original spark. Therefore, I do not feel that those who wish to be even handed in trying to analyse this situation are "collaborators". (That sounds so "Nightwatch" or is it "Nazi"...or...well, very strong!
                                It's a blatant reference to Nazis. The people we're dealing with are significantly worse than Hitler. And people want to negotiate with a group who have a long history of entering peace agreements until they have regrouped enough to break them. It's a common practice (the "hudna") and has been a common practice for centuries in Islam.

                                The PLO viewed the Oslo Accords as a "hudna" and fully intended to wipe out Israel once they could. Hezbollah, no doubt, views the current ceasefire identically.
                                -=Mike

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X