You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Republican or Democrat?

Which are you?

Republican34%[ 17 ]
Democrat18%[ 9 ]
Independent, but more conservative20%[ 10 ]
Independent, but more liberal4%[ 2 ]
Could Care less24%[ 12 ]

Total Votes : 50

Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:05pm

Post 1 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

My friends and I have been in debate about political issues for a long time now. Some of us are democrats, some republican. Our views are very varied, as most people's are. I would just like to know, what are people on here? Me? I'm a conservative non-republican. I don't totally agree with either side, but im conservative. I just don't like the government having complete control over my life.

I'm not going to let this come between friendships though. My friends and I are still friends, regardless of our "party". I don't like parties, but I just am really curious... What are you?

Vote NO on Kerry!
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:07pm

Post 2 of 166

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I love parties!
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:09pm

Post 3 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I love parties!
Me too, the cake kind.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:10pm

Post 4 of 166

CoolKabe

Force: 1559 | Joined: 26th Nov 2001 | Posts: 413

Windows User

Gold Member

*CoolKabe looks at the long list of non-USA members of this list. Laughs.

Actually, I'm not quite old enough to vote, so I keep my head open for now.

But let's not turn this into another big, huge, epic, Mac Vs. PC style argument please.

-Later,
Adam razz
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:12pm

Post 5 of 166

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2/-3

I had this debate with my freinds today heh. Its neverending. Im a democrat. THe economy is top notch when a democratic pres is in power. Its safe to say that behind the scandals, clinton would be considered one of the best presidents ever. REpublicans manage to mess the economy up, make gas prices skyrocket. Both Bush's didnt do a good job. We need a change. VOTE KERRY!

smile
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:15pm

Post 6 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Brettsta wrote:

I had this debate with my freinds today heh. Its neverending. Im a democrat. THe economy is top notch when a democratic pres is in power. Its safe to say that behind the scandals, clinton would be considered one of the best presidents ever. REpublicans manage to mess the economy up, make gas prices skyrocket. Both Bush's didnt do a good job. We need a change. VOTE KERRY!

smile
Then again, Kerry is no piece of work either... many democrats i know hate him.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:17pm

Post 7 of 166

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-1

How's Dean?
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:20pm

Post 8 of 166

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-2

Yeah, kerry isnt a good candidate. Hes boring, too, but bush is just getting to me.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:24pm

Post 9 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2/-1

i think bush did alright. He's not the best president ever, granted, he has his flaws, but i can only dream of what would have happened after 9-11 had Gore been President... *Shudders...... eek
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:36pm

Post 10 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Just wondering, out of interest, what has determined your political stances?

E.g. if you're Democrat or Republican, is it due to family traditions of supporting that particular party, or have you actually weighed up the policies & characteristics of each party?
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:37pm

Post 11 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

wait... why are people getting a bunch of -1s? This is supposed to be organized and ummm. Good. Don't rate a post just because you agree or disagree with the statement. Rate it only if it is a quality post...
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:38pm

Post 12 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Mell: It is not family influence... Believe me. My parents are HARDCORE republicans. I am not nearly as conservative as they are. They made sure not to impress their views on me as I grew up. They wanted me to make up my own damn mind... It was my decision.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:39pm

Post 13 of 166

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I remember when we had that massive, end-all political debate a while ago.

I also just remembered about an email I got saying May 19 (Wednesday) is a date for boycotting gas stations. Has something to do with oil companies jacking up their prices. It's assumed that if nobody bought gas all on the same day, they would lose $4.6 billion dollars. This is kinda on short notice, but if you live in the US, tell everyone you know to wait an extra day to buy gas! Maybe prices will fall after that! biggrin

Oh, and don't get too involved in a political debate, guys. You're not going to strongly influence anyone, and you just may end up alienating yourselves.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:40pm

Post 14 of 166

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I can only dream of how bad this is gonna get with young'uns arguing politics.

Oh, I see the point now where the big guys will jump in and crush your argument, proud of the wake of destruction they have left. It's difficult for kids to put up a fight against college grads and such.


Good luck!

P.S. I'm Conservative/Libertarian
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:42pm

Post 15 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Noooo...... debates are fun. Besides, I'm not gonna let anyone's "side" change my opinion. We are all civilized, and I believe that we can just have a good debate with out any feelings getting hurt or people being alienated.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:43pm

Post 16 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

sidewinder wrote:


P.S. I'm Conservative/Libertarian
Then vote!
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:45pm

Post 17 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I believe that we can just have a good debate with out any feelings getting hurt or people being alienated.
I doubt that. Some kid will jump in & say, "you're all morons!"

Then the debate will go onto oil, religion, global warming & then we'll all commit suicide.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:47pm

Post 18 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:

I doubt that. Some kid will jump in & say, "you're all morons!"

Then the debate will go onto oil, religion, global warming & then we'll all commit suicide.
I take it no one here likes a good debate. Most people who are posting have chosen a "side". Most people who have chosen a "side" are usually willing to defend it. Weird.

Besides, it gives us something to do
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:52pm

Post 19 of 166

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Why are some of us getting -1s for giving our opinions?

You are rating how useful you think the post is to the community, not just to you. You are not voting about if you agree or disagree. Its more to do with the validity of the post, is it good, bad, helpful or unhelpful?
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:52pm

Post 20 of 166

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm a republican. My parents are republicans, so since I was brought up listening to them, and being taught their ideals, I got a good idea about it. But it's my own choice to think democrats are stupid.

Been too long without a political debate, eh? Got too... Non-political for you?
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:54pm

Post 21 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I personally love a good debate. It makes me think, & reconsider my ideas & opinions. But there are many people who are very conservative, not just here, who are unwilling to have a debate where the figures that their ideas are based on are brought into question. I don't mind that, myself, as I don't base my ideas on any fixed party or person or set of values.

This kind of debate will only work if people don't position themselves on opposite sides as if they're enemies, but discuss politics in a mature, cooperative way. As Sidewinder implies, that's pretty unlikely on here razz heh

People will be Kerry bashing & Bush bashing on here in no time...let the chaos begin!

Last edited Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:55pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:55pm

Post 22 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Brettsta wrote:

Why are some of us getting -1s for giving our opinions?

You are rating how useful you think the post is to the community, not just to you. You are not voting about if you agree or disagree. Its more to do with the validity of the post, is it good, bad, helpful or unhelpful?
I have no idea...
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 10:56pm

Post 23 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:

I personally love a good debate. It makes me think, & reconsider my ideas & opinions. But there are many people who are very conservative, not just here, who are unwilling to have a debate where the figures that their ideas are based on are brought into question. I don't mind that, myself, as I don't base my ideas on any fixed party or person or set of values.

This kind of debate will only work if people don't position themselves on opposite sides as if they're enemies, but discuss politics in a mature, cooperative way. As Sidewinder implies, that's pretty unlikely on here razz heh

People will be Kerry bashing & Bush bashing on here in no time...let the chaos begin!
Yeah, if it were up to me, there would be no political parties at all. People vote for their party, rather than who best fits the position. I hate it. But, as its not up to me... Lets debate!
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 11:00pm

Post 24 of 166

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Okay. Here, I'll shoot someone down.


Lloyd, the reason gas prices are high is because the Chinese economy is exploding. Demand is higher than it ever has been, and prices reflect that. I'm sure you're familiar with the basic economic laws of supply and demand, so I won't go too far into that.

Now, growing economies increase the standard of living for everyone, especially in large economies, like that of China. You have this premonition that the gas companies are evil, and out to gouge you, of course, if this were true, gas would have never been 99 cents a few years ago.

Now you want to try and damage the business of the gas companies to the tune of 4.6 billion dollars. Does this mean you are against growing economies? Or are you against increased standard of living?

Obviously you aren't. No sane person is. The issue is deeper than just a higher price at the pump.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 11:03pm

Post 25 of 166

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Just a quick warning - if this thread gets nasty or if insults and stupid negative points start getting thrown around, the entire thread will be nuked.

Keep it civil and interesting fellas. I look forward to reading your views. smile
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 11:08pm

Post 26 of 166

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

sidewinder wrote:

Now you want to try and damage the business of the gas companies to the tune of 4.6 billion dollars. Does this mean you are against growing economies? Or are you against increased standard of living?
Well, actually, I haven't looked into the issue at all, it's just my mom emailed it to me, and so I figured she has looked into it (her being an accountant, and into all that money-related stuff). But I really have nothing to do with this, as I don't have a car. smile

But yeah, I'm staying out of this political "discussion". Besides, I haven't followed politics at all for the past year or so; I've got better things to do.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 11:15pm

Post 27 of 166

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't think he was looking forward to reading that "view", Aculag.

Speaking of which, hey Tarn, can you make this topic sticky?

http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13902
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 11:32pm

Post 28 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Yep, there are tons of factors influencing the high prices..,

The main factor is political instability. All the oil is sourced in the Middle East where there are the Iraq & Israel/Palestine problems.

Many governments are feeling uneasy about this so they're stocking up tons e.g. China & India. And yes, America too, reacting to this by channeling most of the oil its receiving at the moment into its reserves.

Then there's the decreased value of the dollar at the moment. And then there are sanctions laid down by OPEC. Saudi Arabia want to increase their production by 1 million barrels a day, but any changes like this have to be run by OPEC for a decision (although some suppliers have increased by 2 million barrels a day without any effect whatsoever on prices).

Reuters imply that oil just can't be produced fast enough to meet America's demand at the moment, due to the US being the biggest importer of oil in the world, & due to Americans using their cars a lot more this summer.

I guess the situation won't alleviate until Saudi Arabia start producing more, & also having oil imported from Iraq will help too.
Posted: Tue, 18th May 2004, 11:40pm

Post 29 of 166

4036Douglas

Force: 920 | Joined: 8th Jun 2003 | Posts: 893

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Anyone else here listen to Neal Boortz?
Great talk show host, but you may disagree with him.
http://boortz.com
smile
/me hopes not to get -1's
Heres his veiw on gas prices:
QUIT THE DAMNED WHINING AND JUST PARK YOUR CAR

Gotta tell ya ... I'm getting just a wee bit weary of all this nonsense about "record" gas prices. I just got through doing a bit on CNN this morning about these gas prices. Thank goodness they called me in to put a little common sense into the argument. There is only one legitimate way to measure the cost of gas .. and that is by factoring in everything. Inflation, improved gas mileage in today's cars, wages, etc. Using all these factors you will come up with a figure of how much you spend on gas to drive one mile. Adjusting this for inflation, you will find that you are paying quite a bit less to drive a mile than you were in 1974. So give it a rest. If you can't handle it, cut down on your driving. And while you're at it, you may want to cast a jaundiced eye on your friendly environmentalist. If you're looking for a place to put blame, that may be it.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:01am

Post 30 of 166

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Boom! Kicked in the face, Greenies!
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:05am

Post 31 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

yep. This gas price business is to overblown. I think it is one of the many ways democrats and anti-bushers are finding to blame him for everything. I remember that during the 2000 election, some big celebrities (I can only remember Alec Baldwin, but there were, many others.) who said that if Bush was elected President, he would ruin the economy, and they would leave the country.

Well, Alec, where are you now? Afghanistan? France? I don't think so! You are still sitting in your lounge chair in your Beverly Hills!

biggrin I love debates...
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:13am

Post 32 of 166

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

That's a major problem. If a Republican is in office, Democrats blame him and his administration for every single problem. And the opposite is true as well.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:21am

Post 33 of 166

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

And with the whole Iraq thing:

We were warned on 9/11, Bush is trying his best to prevent another terrible disaster. If a nuclear bomb went off in NY City it could kill 20,000,000 people. The military is not just for creating jobs, it's to protect our country.

I probably should have stayed out of this with all the -1 that were flying around.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:22am

Post 34 of 166

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I personally think Bush is doing a fine job considering all he's had to deal with, I've got to give him props, this is the biggest thing to happen in the US since the Cold War and Vietnam with the War on Terrorism and everything. But I'm just a kid and to me, it all doesn't matter that much.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:22am

Post 35 of 166

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Heh, actually if you think about it, he's the reason why all these things are happening.

Like they pretty much knew about 9/11 before it happened, and they are the ones that started the war in Iraq, as well as the "war on Terrorism".
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:30am

Post 36 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

pooky wrote:

Heh, actually if you think about it, he's the reason why all these things are happening.

Like they pretty much knew about 9/11 before it happened, and they are the ones that started the war in Iraq, as well as the "war on Terrorism".
"The War on Terror"? Why did you put that in ""s? Is that implying something? Bush is doing the best darn job that he can. Do you want a terrorist to drive a car wired with explosives into a major city and kill hundreds or even thousands of people?

Bush thinks (And i agree) that it is necessary to purge the world of terrorism as best as we can so that 9-11 doesn't happen again.

Do you think someone like Gore (who would have been the alternative) would really do any thing to stop 9-11 if he knew? I don't think he would have. All the democrats say that any democrat would stop it. Considering how pro-war Bush is, and how anti-war most democrats are, if Bush did not take the initiative to stop the attacks, I dont believe that any democrat like Gore would have...
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:37am

Post 37 of 166

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I just thought about this, and it seems a little depressing:

Ever since the early 1900s, the world has been pretty much in turmoil. In the 1910s, you had WW1. The 1920s were peaceful, but you had all the unrest in Europe, and the rise of Communism in Russia. Then the 1930s had the Nazis and the Great Depression. 1939-1945 was WW2, and then after that came the Korean War, later the Vietnam War, and from the end of WW2 to 1989 there was the Cold War. Almost immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, we had Desert Storm, and then all the terrorism acts and now the war on terrorism.

We haven't had a moment's peace in a long time. mad

Last edited Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:38am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:37am

Post 38 of 166

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

To start off my post, I just want to say that I'm largely an independent conservative kind of guy.

Normally, I don't care who the president is. I suppose the Bush election was the first one I was actually old enough to understand. At the time, I was very against Bush. My mom was constantly complaining about him and saying Gore should win. I suppose that made a difference in my mind. But now that I look back on it, none of the 2000 year candidates were anywhere near the genious level. Bush makes up words/thinks he's a native Texan, and I just don't like Gore's personality.

Anyway, if i was 18 this fall, i would vote Kerry. But, seeing as I'm 16 it doesnt matter anyway. Not that I have anything against Bush, nor do I think he's done anything wrong during his presidency, but frankly, I'm getting a little sick of the Bush name in politics. And anyone that says Bush is responsible for oil prices going up is an idiot. If someone was (supposedly) funding terrorist activity which was a direct result to a major disaster in your first year of presidency, would you just sit there and wait for more? Though I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't support the way it's being done. And this sudden burst of violent retaliations in Iraq isn't really helping bring about peace, nor is it making it any easier to meet the deadline to return the country to it's rightful owner (the people, duh).

Also I don't agree with converting it to a democracy. That's completely stupid. People say it will help bring peace to the middle east. Bull sh*t it will. I'm pretty sure the major contributer to violence in the middle east is the fact that 3 major world religions share one religious capital, which is currently part of Jeruselum. If anything, it should be like vatican city and basically be it's own free republic, not part of one of the religion's country.

Anyway, that's just what I think... yep. smile
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:41am

Post 39 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Marek wrote:

To start off my post, I just want to say that I'm largely an independent conservative kind of guy.

I'd say you are just independent... biggrin
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:43am

Post 40 of 166

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

evman101 wrote:

I'd say you are just independent... biggrin
Heh, well I started off in a different mindframe than I ended up at. Let's just say that, as it's the easiest way of explaining it. biggrin
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 12:53am

Post 41 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Marek wrote:

evman101 wrote:

I'd say you are just independent... biggrin
Heh, well I started off in a different mindframe than I ended up at. Let's just say that, as it's the easiest way of explaining it. biggrin
I know exactly what you mean. I do that all the time. I lose track of what i originally set out to say...

Anyway, I for one would not feel secure if Iraq did not have a gov't. If they didn't, whose to stop another Saddam from busting in and killing them and then killing us!?
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:02am

Post 42 of 166

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Alright, I'll throw my ring into the hat. First of all I do not affiliate myself with any political parties, Partisan politics are ridiculous and lead to a lot of problems, but anyway, I might be called a liberal (but don't label me)

evman101 wrote:


Bush thinks (And i agree) that it is necessary to purge the world of terrorism as best as we can so that 9-11 doesn't happen again.
The whole Idea of a "War on Terror" is udderly ridiculous. That's like saying we need to start a "WAR ON DRUGS", "WAR ON OBESITY", "WAR ON COCKROACHS", "WAR ON CARBS".

There's just no central place that we can send troops where all the "Terrorists" are hiding out.

I think before we( I use that as a general term) start invading other countries looking for this "terror", we need to work on finding our own "terrorists" in our own country.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:06am

Post 43 of 166

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

The kind of evidence of weapons of mass destruction I think Kerry would need to start a war on a country would be a big mushroom cloud outside his window.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:08am

Post 44 of 166

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I put the war on terror in brackets because, in fighting to prevent terrorism, he is commiting it.

Definition of terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Let's take the war on Iraq for example. They attacked without permission against people or property with the intention of overthrowing the government, for political reasons.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

It's not by trying to kill every terrorist on the face of the earth that this will stop. For one that's impossible, and for two there will always be new ones. Now of course leavign them there isn't any better, so why not just leave them alone, and go into defense, not offense. Isn't the reason why they are attacking that we interfered in the first place?


PS If this offened anybody I apologize. It is directed at the Bush Party. Not Americans.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:14am

Post 45 of 166

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Ryan wrote:

The kind of evidence of weapons of mass destruction I think Kerry would need to start a war on a country would be a big mushroom cloud outside his window.
But it wouldn't be too late. Then he'd get super powers from the radiation, and he'd be able to put a stop to all crime, except super villains.

And pooky... Shut up. You're getting your information from retards. You're listening to everyone who blames Bush for every single problem the world has ever had. If someone says "Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened", that's like if I were to say "My barber knew he was going to cut my hair before I came in to get my hair cut."

My barber knew, because he's my barber. He knew that someday, I was going to come in and get my haircut.

Bush "knew", because terrorists attack people, and hate americans. It's in their nature. To say Bush knew specific details about it and did nothing, is absolutely ridiculous.

People blow things way out of proportion. It's like that game Telephone, where one person whispers something to someone else, and then you all laugh because it sounds so much different when it comes back around.

Last edited Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:17am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:17am

Post 46 of 166

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

We shouldn't just sit back and let ruthless dictators oppress, torture, and kill innocent people.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:18am

Post 47 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky: They are not attacking us because we attacked them... They are attacking us because they hate us. They hate the freedoms that we have. We never directly attacked the terrorists as a group until now. I think taking the offense is the only way to do anything. Its much better than putting our net full of holes of democracy and rights up and hope that the miniscule terrorists don't slip through.

We are doing the best we can with homeland security. There is not much safer we can get here with out giving up some of our freedoms... Do you want to give up freedoms? They are what make us Americans, right? Since we can't get much safer here, we might as well take the fight to them. Pay back, so to speak.

I am not going to sit here and wait for a bunch of Terrorists to come to us! We need to bring the fight to them! That is what Bush has done, and I definately agree with him!

EDIT: Aww man Aculag, you beat me. Well... i gotta go to bed now. Cant wait to start this again tomorrow.

Last edited Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:20am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:19am

Post 48 of 166

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

It is a fact that america gave Iraq weapons of mass destruction. We helped them to overthrow the Iraniana dictator a little while ago. It comes back to haunt us...
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:21am

Post 49 of 166

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

evman101 wrote:

I think taking the offense is the only way to do anything.
Just like in computer games, "A good offensive player will beat an equally good defensive player."
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:22am

Post 50 of 166

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Brettsta wrote:

It is a fact that america gave Iraq weapons of mass destruction. We helped them to overthrow the Iraniana dictator a little while ago. It comes back to haunt us...
Weapons of mass destruction? Like, we GAVE them chemical weapons, and nuclear capabilities? What's your idea of weapons of mass destruction? A tomahawk missle? Machine guns?
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:22am

Post 51 of 166

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The thing is, you hear so much that you are free, that you come to believe it so hard that you don't notice it is gradually being taken away.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:24am

Post 52 of 166

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

evman101 wrote:

They hate the freedoms that we have.
Ahhh so the Bush propaganda really is working on some people.

I'm actually 99.999% sure that NO ONE in the world hates freedom. I doubt that even "terrorists" love sitting in jail cells or being oppressed as opposed to being free.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:25am

Post 53 of 166

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

pooky wrote:

The thing is, you hear so much that you are free, that you come to believe it so hard that you don't notice it is gradually being taken away.
Hahaha. So uh... what freedoms are you missing lately? I've been living my life the same way I have for years, except milk is more expensive now.

orion wrote:

I'm actually 99.999% sure that NO ONE in the world hates freedom. I doubt that even "terrorists" love sitting in jail cells or being oppressed as opposed to being free.
Jesus... Dense, man. Bush isn't saying that these people don't want to be free.. He's saying that they hate us because of the freedoms we have. I think a better way to have put it would be that they hate us because we don't live in caves.

Last edited Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:27am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:26am

Post 54 of 166

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky: you're done. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, their taking away our freedom of speech and right to bare arms. Whatever you say.

Brettsta: Like Aculag said, a machine gun and a little missle is hardly weapons of mass destruction. Plus, I think you have your facts mixed up. Bin Laden is the one we trained and things like that. I'm pretty sure Saddam was the one using his own weapons of mass destruction on his own people.

EDIT: Damn that milk.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:26am

Post 55 of 166

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

There is so much censorship these days. So much books banned from libraries, so much news stories not allowed to be made and shown. People are getting punished for expressing feelings towards to war. Also,

I just saw a news story that it was some special day in Haiti, and some kids wore haiti shirts with the flag/country on it in some town in the us. They were forced to change, or not continue school for the day. I dont get it
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:28am

Post 56 of 166

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Brettsta wrote:

There is so much censorship these days. So much books banned from libraries, so much news stories not allowed to be made and shown. People are getting punished for expressing feelings towards to war. Also,

I just saw a news story that it was some special day in Haiti, and some kids wore haiti shirts with the flag/country on it in some town in the us. They were forced to change, or not continue school for the day. I dont get it
Everyone has the right to live how they want. That includes people who take offense to stupid things.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:30am

Post 57 of 166

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Brettsta wrote:

There is so much censorship these days. So much books banned from libraries, so much news stories not allowed to be made and shown. People are getting punished for expressing feelings towards to war.
WHAT!?

Oh, GOD! When was the last book to be BANNED!? I'd seriously like to know. Back that up.

And news stories not being shown? Seriously, dude... I need you to back this stuff up.

If you talking about Howard Stern being taken off the air... stop talking.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:32am

Post 58 of 166

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

We did train Bin Laden, but thats not what Im talkign about. We aided Saddam and gave him weapons to help overthrow the Iranian dictator in the 80s. Now theyre using the things we gave them against us.

Marek- but they dont have the right to control how other people want to live and what they see.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:34am

Post 59 of 166

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Do you have any idea how far the United States military's technology has come in 20 years?

They might as well be throwing rocks at us!

(I know, they already are. )
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:38am

Post 60 of 166

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Brettsta- Post a source or shut up.

Marek- You would vote Kerry...why, you sound pretty damn conservative to me and Kerry is the most liberal senator in the Senate, even more so than Teddy *hiccup* Kennedy. Nobody knows anything about Kerry other than he wants to take my money and give it to other people without my permission. Screw that.

Anybody that would decide who they would vote for before hearing the issues is a fool.

Canta unsure
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 3:00am

Post 61 of 166

Frozenpede

Force: 630 | Joined: 28th Jan 2004 | Posts: 1113

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

CoolKabe wrote:

*CoolKabe looks at the long list of non-USA members of this list. Laughs.

Actually, I'm not quite old enough to vote, so I keep my head open for now.

But let's not turn this into another big, huge, epic, Mac Vs. PC style argument please.

-Later,
Adam razz
Ya, those arguments acomplish anything. In the end the PCers always win biggrin
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 3:33am

Post 62 of 166

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Here's an idea:

Considerring many of you have different versions of history in your heads, I'd like to hear you argue policy beliefs rather than political actions.

For example:

I beleive that the only purpose of gov't should be to protect my constitutional rights. What we have today in America is BS.

I beleive that I own my life, and in turn own my time, and any result from the usage of my time. Anyone who claims to own a part of what I have produced is essentially expressing socialist beliefs (or communism, if you want to get extreme).

Anyone care to prove that my beleifs will not lead to a better world if they were applied to the gov't?
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 4:09am

Post 63 of 166

no_hole

Force: 278 | Joined: 14th Oct 2002 | Posts: 197

Gold Member

I usually don't post in arguments like this but wat the hell, i don't really care that much about politics but i think bush is an idiot and one of the worst pres ever. Thats my opinion, influenced by my dad who looks up stuff on the internet, but if i get a bunch of -1 i really could care less cuz force isn't my life, so flame away.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 4:25am

Post 64 of 166

scobbs

Force: 470 | Joined: 18th Oct 2002 | Posts: 130

Windows User

Gold Member

orion0340 wrote:



I'm actually 99.999% sure that NO ONE in the world hates freedom. I doubt that even "terrorists" love sitting in jail cells or being oppressed as opposed to being free.
I'm 99.99% sure that you are wrong. The fanatical muslim population does hate freedom. What we define as freedom anyway. They hate that we let people choose their own religion. They hate that we can say what we like without fear of repribrution. They hate that our women vote and work and dress in clothing that might reveal an elbow every now and then. They hate that we decide who our leaders are. They think that anyone who does not believe in their ideals are infidels and deserve to die.

We love freedom and understand the basic human desire to have it. They are not content to just say "you live how you want and let us live how we want."


They want us dead.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 4:38am

Post 65 of 166

scobbs

Force: 470 | Joined: 18th Oct 2002 | Posts: 130

Windows User

Gold Member

Bush and the economy:


Many people seem to buy into the idea that Bush has hurt our economy. Consider this:

The economic decline started in the early fall of 1999. A good year and a quarter before Bush took office.

By the election,, the economy was in full downturn. Some may remember that a big part of the debate between Gore and Bush was how to stop the downturn. (Again, this was before Bush took office)

September 11, 2001- Attacks on America sent a devestating blow to the heart of our economy.

December 2001 and Jan 2002- our economy entered into a recession. (actual negative growth)

Feb 2002- our economy came out of a reccession (yes, it did, we are not still in a reccession! THe actual reccession only lasted a bt over a month)


It is now 2004 and our economy is out of slow growth and into strong growth and even in some arreas, record growth.

If you add it all up, all I see is Bush taking on a downturned economy, brushing off a national disaster's economic effects and taking us out of one of the shortest lived reccessions ever known.

By all accounts, especially due to 9/11, our economy should have tanked hard. We were set up to go into depression, but Bush, Greenspan, Congress and the American will would not let it.



Stop saying that Bush brought down our economy. It's uneducated rhetoric.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 5:38am

Post 66 of 166

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

im none of those things, im a really strong socialist. I just basically agree with everything the party stands for. If I could vote in november (i am about 4 months away from the right age) I would cast my vote for walt brown, basically because I think he would make a great president. I am closer to being a democrat that republican, but I am liberal on most issues, and conservative on some. The problem I see mainly with both parties is that they are basically just trying to be the opposite of the other, basically polarizing them. I really hate ultra convservatives, but I also really hate ultra liberals. It seems that most of the time neither of these "ultra" people know what the hell they are talkng about. I love having rational conversations with moderate people.

as for the whole Bush thing, I really don't like him because I believe that the evidence shown shows that 9/11 could have been prevented1. Also, the economy sucks2, even if it is picking up somewhat. I also really, really, really, REALLY hate the patriot act3. Plus I think it's primitive to make a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage4.

bush also gave the taliban money to "fight opium"5.

Ill do my best to cite some stuff.

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml
2. http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bushecon.htm (this one seems kind of un reliable what with all the little comics, but it has some good info)
3.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html I think that should be the whole thing. Specifically look out for the parts where it talks about "delaying" a warrant (SEC. 213) and not even needing one in an arrest (SEC. 364). SEC. 802 broadens the term terrorism, which will be more easily more punishable by death. Throughout the whole thing, the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act is manipulated to exempt methods from being un-constitutional, though they are. (just do a search on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance). That's all i can cite right now, but there is more. I don't care if there are good things in the PA (ie SEC. 102), as I think those are just used to make people not question it (along with its name).
4. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/ This is more of opinion, but I just don't get how people can have such disregard for human rights.
5. http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/561/context/outrage


http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1
^^^^This is a great article about Bin Laden's ties to the CIA

http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html#WW2
^^^^This is a great article about why the US is hated and who hates us

I have allot of stuff I wanted to say, but I only posted stuff I could cite with a credible source.

I am hoping that Kerry beats bush, even though I still think Dean would have been better
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 8:51am

Post 67 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

I couldn't really say where i was democrat, republican, liberal, republicat, democan or any of the above.

What i DO believe, however, is that Bush is doing more harm than good. I mean this in the most general sense possible. Even if his domestic policies ARE good (employment, hospitals, whatever) his foreign policy is getting so counter productive, its adversely affecting his own economy (not to mention economies all over the world).

There are those that say Gulf War 2 was a poorly disguised race to hoard oil reserves - to prevent saddam torching them like last time, but in the ensuing nam-style endless conflict, all thats hapenned is that crude prices have risen. Good Job!

I think the line has to be drawn between what was a worthwhile dethroning of someone, and a futile, highly expensive opperation to just safeguard your own interests (*coughoil*) for the future - This line gets drawn, to my mind, when leading senators and ex members of the US government, write letters to Bush saying, in effect, "look, you've had your fun - now you're actually hurting people, chill".

I use the "hyperactive child with a toy being swung about violently"-analogy, because thats what it feels like to me!

Coupled with the whole iraqi-torture issue, although i supported the war initially, i've now long since defected. All GW2 has done, is alienated america from half of the developed nations, incited further hatred of the west in the middle east, and thrown hundreds of billions of dollars of the US taxpayer's money literally down the toilet: into a conflict which the army seems to be making efforts to escalate!

In conclusion, regardless of Bush's political alliegance, only a tool would possibly argue that his leadership - of late - has been anything other than suspect.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 9:03am

Post 68 of 166

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Xcession wrote:

but in the ensuing nam-style endless conflict
Haha. Nam-style. This'll be nam-style when it starts lasting more than 10 years.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 9:10am

Post 69 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Thats exactly why political comentators are calling it Bush Jnr's very own 'nam - its already growing out of control, and its feared that a US presence will always have to be maintained, no doubt with sporadic battles here and there, for a very long time.

I guess 'watch this space'.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 9:54am

Post 70 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

And pooky... Shut up. You're getting your information from retards. You're listening to everyone who blames Bush for every single problem the world has ever had. If someone says "Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened", that's like if I were to say "My barber knew he was going to cut my hair before I came in to get my hair cut."

My barber knew, because he's my barber. He knew that someday, I was going to come in and get my haircut.

Bush "knew", because terrorists attack people, and hate americans. It's in their nature. To say Bush knew specific details about it and did nothing, is absolutely ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but that's a BS example.

We all know that the US intelligence had information pertaining to a terrorist attack on America. There's even documents proving that they knew the attack would be done with a hijacked plane, & that it would occur in NYC. US intelligence were monitoring all the suspects who who were involved in the hijacking. They even had taped recordings between Osama Bin Laden & operatives. The surveillance of all intelligence departments knew that in the build up to September 2001, there was an increased amount of interaction between terrorist groups.

All layers of the US should have been on a high state of alert, especially regarding airlines, since there is huge amounts of info since 1993 showing that terrorists were warning that they were planning terrorist acts by flying planes into buildings.

So who's to blame for this? I think it is inappropriate to lay too much blame in any one area, since everyone was damaged by this tragedy. But the CIA, FBI, & NSA had info. Security advisors had info. There's talk of FBI agents being pulled off then case. Jeb Bush signed some prevention of terrorism documentation on September 7th. In various schools around the vicinity of New York, certain kids from Middle Eastern backgrounds made cryptic warnings to their teachers & classmates. In July & August 2000, people registered domain names implying when & where attacks would occur. Lots of international intelligence networks had info too which they passed onto US, including Russia & UK.

And 2 weeks before the attacks, Saddam Hussein went & hid in some protected bunkers in fear of retaliation. This can be interpreted in 2 ways - SH was funding Bin Laden & so knew about the attacks, or his own intelligence picked up that this was about to happen. Equally is feasible, so I can't specualate on this.

So anyone saying that 9/11 just came out of the blue is just ignorant.

Also, there's been a bit of a simplification of why terrorism targets America. Why? Find out yourself. Like the oil raising in prices, it's not as clear-cut as that. Look at American policy, religious stances, & yes its economic power & freedom comes into it too.

To make it easier for you to understand, there's the Irish/British situation. Irish IRA have committed terrible acts of terror in Britain. They didn't hate our way of life & the fact we have freedom when they did those things, it's because they perceive that we are imposing on their freedom. Religion also comes into it. Like the Middle East, there is a very great divide between Protestant & Catholic sectors. Equally, British policy has inflamed the situation, which we can trace back to British colonialism, the potato famine etc. We took over their land, suppressed them & tried to wipe their native language out.

It's also erroneous to say Islamists etc hate freedom. They just have a very different outlook, one that's still in the middle ages.

Oh, & I notice how in that web page Douglas supplies, the guy virtually condones the Abu Ghraib stuff by talking about the Nick Berg issue & "Muslim animals". Both are equally bad, but I can prove the Abu Ghraib is worse. Such atrocious acts may be the norm in the ME, but they are not in America or the UK. As such, the US troops who did this should know better, whoever the people they tortured are. Why? The US is civilised. It has freedom. It is not as sick as some of these oppressive ME states. But by doing these things they're just sinking to the level of these "Muslim animals". I would say this if it had been British troops or whatever nationality.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:10am

Post 71 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Regarding Osama Bin Laden's personal (and by influence, organisation-wide) reasons for hating America, its reasonably simple...

He has stated, personally, several times, on various broadcasts - that it is the US occupation of holy lands which he objects to. He refers to the various US military bases which were created in 1990, following the Saudi government allowing them to operate from bases there to combat the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

The US hasn't moved out, Osama finds this objectionable, so declares Jihad until they leave.

I'm a little blurry about what incited him to actually commit terrorist acts against the americans - after all theres a rather obvious rift between squatting in someone's country, and killing them for it (bit harsh, i think razz) - but given how the US tends to operate, I can imagine it was something understandibly worth of some kind of action.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:12am

Post 72 of 166

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Maybe if he'd just ask politely instead of killing people...
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:19am

Post 73 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Well like i say, Osama bin laden is from a fantastically wealthy family, had access to a good standard of education (which he completed with a degree from a respectable university), and its clear - purely by virtue of his leadership ability and his inability to be capture - that hes damned clever.

It seems unlikely in the extreme, that as an intelligent human, he'd reason that if someone is still occupying some elses territory (despite being permitted to) they deserve to be killed!

Long story short - I'd imagine hes already asked politely several times razz

Last edited Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:22am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:20am

Post 74 of 166

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

This just in:

Bush and Cheney were sitting in Crawford, Texas at the Bush ranch with remote controls sending the planes into the buildings. That is what I heard.

George Bush started this war for political gain.

The US Military is attacking civilians on purpose in Iraq.

Apparently Saddam never had WMD's, but some how 1,000,000 of his own people were killed by them in a matter of weeks. The US was probably behind this.

All of that is complete conspiracy bull.

Now here is a bit of truth.

Over 20 countries, including the UK, and the UN, said that Iraq had WMD's. Your beloved John "flip-flop" Kerry even believed they did. for 12 years Saddam wouldn't let the weapon inspectors from the UN into his country, why not he had nothing to hide... Saddam was given 4 months by President Bush to allow UN weapons inspectors into his country and after his non compliance that is when we went in, and so far we haven't found the cache that the whole world thought he had. Where could they have gone? Who knows but here we go with an analogy that works. If you were a drug dealer (Saddam) making your drugs (WMD's) in a giant warehouse (Iraq) and the police (the US) said that they were gonna come and search your warehouse in 4 months for those drugs, would you just leave them lying around all over the place or would you get them the hell out of sight? Maybe to another country...like Syria, or Iran. Or even bury them in the vast desert of a country that is Iraq. Who knows where they are, but to say they never existed is stupid and ignorant.

Canta unsure
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:23am

Post 75 of 166

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Xcession wrote:

Long story short - I'd imagine hes already asked politely several times razz
yes, I imagine so. 'twas more of a bit of sarcasm on my part. Perhaps I should learn to use the smilies to indicate such next time.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:27am

Post 76 of 166

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

cantaclaro - thats pretty wrong.

There were weapons inspectors in Iraq - there had been since the gulf war. They could not find any weapons of mass distruction in all the years they had been looking, and when they were pushed to step things up in the last few months they still couldn't find any. Hence the UN said it was a no go to attack. The reason the US and UK attacked was due to secret service information which has since been proved to be way off the mark - like the weapons inspectors had said all along.

I do think it was wrong to go against the UN - they should control things of this scale, thats the whole point. The UK will basically always follow the US because it wants to remain friends with the world last super power - doesn't mean that they did the right thing.

After all, why go for Iraq (a crippled country with at most a few WMD) when there are other countries with many WMD just waiting for an excuse to attack the west. The whole reason we don't attack these other countries is probably because they DO have WMD and therefore could attack us back which would be a disaster. Iraq had nothing and I'm fairly sure the higher levels of government were aware of this - it proved to be a good time to remove someone they wanted to sort out before and free up a lot of oil.

In the end I hope that both Blair and Bush don't make it back in next time round. I doubt this will be the case in the UK because there is nobody decent to stand against him. crazy

Last edited Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:42am; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:37am

Post 77 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Yes. There's a difference between many countries saying that Iraq had them, & this being the case. The people in the best position to make a judgment were Hans Blix et al.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:41am

Post 78 of 166

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

freed up plenty of oil...yep that is why im paying $2.45 at the pump instead of the normal $1.20 that i was paying 4 months ago.

I'm out of this debate of misinformation. I think yall need to start doing some real research instead of pulling facts out of your ass and the Daily Mirror.

Canta unsure
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:43am

Post 79 of 166

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Heh, try $10 a gallon... The oil from Iraq still isn't being shipped out, but there are companies already in there sorting it out - at least lots of the money will go to the people of Iraq.

When it comes to facts I think you should maybe look at your media - the most biased in the western world. At least in the UK the BBC tries to tell it like it is - hence they show how we shouldn't have gone in, constantly have problems with what we are doing over there and the whole scandal around the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly (who was head of the weapons inspectors in Iraq who you say didn't exist). The fact that you say they wouldn't let the inspectors in makes me think your sources must be utterly wrong, we saw loads of footage before the war of the inspectors checking stuff out to report back to the UN - unless you think the UN doesn't exists either just like President Bush.

Last edited Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:52am; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:44am

Post 80 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

If you look at previous posts, you'll see why the oil is at a higher price.

I have no doubt, though, that once Iraq is stable it will "free up" lots of oil. How can you expect them to get the oil production going when it's still a war zone?

EDIT: above post says the same first lol

further edit:

I'm out of this debate of misinformation. I think yall need to start doing some real research instead of pulling facts out of your ass and the Daily Mirror.
Oh, the irony.

I would advise you to do the same, except replace Daily Mirror with The National Enquirer

Last edited Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:54am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:46am

Post 81 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Why are you using the past tense? The oil hasn't been freed *yet*, the conflict isn't resolved, theres no stable governement. Why are you surprised the price of oil has risen?

Your un-contextual use of someone's reasonable points, as a means of having the last say then legging it for the door, has somewhat exposed you to be a charlatan. Perhaps its best that you keep your curious views to yourself.

Last edited Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:49am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:48am

Post 82 of 166

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Canta - I think you'll find we get our information from several sources. The only way of getting anywhere near the truth is to get as much information from as many different places as possible - and that means from sources outside of your own country, too.

As for the Daily Mirror...it's a tabloid, everyone knows the tabloids just make stuff up all the time. Anyway, nobody reads the Mirror except simpletons, and Schwar isn't one of those.

Before you start talking about misinformation, make sure you double-check where your info is coming from as well. There's misinformation everywhere - yes, even coming from the people on your side of the debate, hard though it is to believe.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:59am

Post 83 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Egzackly.

Personally, I get my facts from as many sources as possible. I read the majority of British broadsheets, as they're supplied free at breakfast in my uni, plus I read Reuters, French news, Spanish news, Italian news, & most of the US nationals too, on the web, when I have the time (usually in the middle of the night).

Isn't it amazing how we have this wonderful resource for information yet no-one takes advantage of it except saddo's like meh.

Edit: Oh, according to the NYT, US army officials blocked Red Cross inspections of the Abu Ghraib prison, telling them to make appointments in advance. Sound familiar?
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:11pm

Post 84 of 166

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

okay, first off for me, im not going to get too into this because I am canadian, second, this is ridiculous. you guys cant sit there and tell Canta he is wrong or his sources are wrong. Just because you guys watch BBC or read british journals and what not, it doesnt make it more of the truth then cantas sources. No one in the general public isnt even merely close to the truth. And no one ever will be. Thats what governments are for. to keep you out of the loop as much as possible. Sure they will tell you certain things for you to make your own story out of it, but it wont be the truth i can tell you that much.

I noticed at the beginning of this thread that someone said "imagine if Gore was pres. during 9/11". whats that suppossed to mean? I think he wouldve done a better job than Bush. Bush likes to take orders from daddy. Bush wasnt elected by the people. There is no democracy (nt in my opinion). I think bush was elected so that people with an agenda will use him to make false decisions and what not. Whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? The one who HAD something to do with 9/11. Hussein didnt. well not as much as bin laden. but now we dont even hear about him anymore. why is that? because the people in control of Bush dont even care about 9/11 anymore. they saw it as an excuse to go after Iraq and its oil and Bush was used to tell the people that its revenge for what happen on 9/11. Like I said, Bush is just a mere pond in someons bigger agenda...

I dont have sources for this. This is an opinion. I dont believe everything I read in the journals or on tv. Even BBC.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:21pm

Post 85 of 166

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

elementcinema wrote:

you guys cant sit there and tell Canta he is wrong or his sources are wrong. Just because you guys watch BBC or read british journals and what not, it doesnt make it more of the truth then cantas sources.
I know. That's why I wrote:

"The only way of getting anywhere near the truth is to get as much information from as many different places as possible - and that means from sources outside of your own country, too."
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:22pm

Post 86 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

elementcinema: if you read carefully, the BBC were only cited because they are renown for their *comparatively* accurate portreyal of events. No one said they were whiter than white. I don't believe for a second that the BBC aren't tainted by spin and inaccuracy themselves, to some extent.

The point is that they have always had a reputation, amongst the rest of the world's media, for being particularly a-political and honest. And who better to judge whos kidding who, than the kidders themselves, right? ("grow up", if you're about to jump into that cyclic arguement).

The arguement was that by reading *widely* you get a better picture.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:23pm

Post 87 of 166

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

We were not saying the BBC is 100% accurate, just stating that there were video sources shown on the BBC that contradict some of the other statements made on the forum.

The BBC does seem to have a different point of view to the American news channels with a far more anti-war stance - doesn't mean its not biased but it does seem to show a very different story. I bet French news is very different as they were against the war. At least in the UK many people get to see both American and UK news channels and see how the war is presented differently.

It is the BBC's and UK media's rather brutal coverage of the war which has lead to most of the UK population now being against the war. The amount of apparent mistakes and inaccurate guesses just doesn't seem possible with the evidence which was around at the start of the war.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:28pm

Post 88 of 166

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

elementcinema wrote:

Whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?
Well I imagine that he will *poof!* "magically" appear in US custody right before the election. This will secure Bush the title as "American hero" and I imagine this will give hime a little leverage in the upcoming election.

Just my theory... I bet by Mid October we'll have him.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:37pm

Post 89 of 166

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

ofcourse BBC will have a different point to the american news channels. the americans are in the war. so obviously you are going to see alot of it on CNN.

these video sources are just videos. The press will go out and get anything on film and create a story out of it. Its what they do. BBC or not. I AM lucky enough to live in canada, I get to watch CNN, BBC, GLOBAL, and the french news channels. When it all comes down to it after watching all of them, they all have similar stories. Now how is the war presented differently? coming from the UK or BBC it is a more anti-war perception? well it obviously would seeing how they arent in the war. Americans are fighting for a reason. The UK would do the same thing if they were attacked by their own planes without notice killing thousands of people.

I think the US wanted to be attacked, its all about the oil baby. also to show the world that americans are still in control even after a brutal sucker punch. If Bush knew about the attack before hand he wouldnt have let it happen. Now all over the news you see that there WERE people who knew about the attack before hand. CIA knew, but no one wanted to do anything about it. The attack was then used as an excuse to get someone bigger than bush to have their agenda completed.

this isnt a debate about which media is false or true. because its all true to the certain extent. the gorvernment controls what people know and believe. and there is nothing you can do about it.

I dont even think that oil is the real reason that everything is happening. I think its something bigger. First it was 9/11 why the americans attacked Iraq, now its the oil and soon it will be something else just to cover SOMETHING else up.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:40pm

Post 90 of 166

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

orion0340 wrote:

elementcinema wrote:

Whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?
Well I imagine that he will *poof!* "magically" appear in US custody right before the election. This will secure Bush the title as "American hero" and I imagine this will give hime a little leverage in the upcoming election.

Just my theory... I bet by Mid October we'll have him.
help bush in the election? what election?, there is no democracy. If anything it will be the next president who will get credit for osama just to show that the government is "still" doing a good job.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:46pm

Post 91 of 166

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Erm, we are in the war.

We were the other main country that went to war with the US - I guess you don't watch that much news after all elementcinema. This is why its interesting to compare US and UK coverage as we went in to this together but until recently seemed to show very different views.

Last edited Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:49pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:47pm

Post 92 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Opinions are all well & good, but in controversial stuff as this it is best to have sources in the public domain. IMO they're extremely important.

When I talk about sources, I only take notice of accurate reportings. You can tell what are the accurate reports when they refer to actual events, & quote word for word what someone, e.g. Bush, Blair, Hans Blix etc has said, & when they are reported in a similar way in media all over the globe. This is credible sources.

The news stories that you can be weary of are the ones that speculate without using sources. Likewise, people who do this without backing themselves up. Cantaclaro said something that seemed only a personal opinion. It happens to be wrong. Slamming him for that isn't wrong.

I disagree about your concept of government & public roles. I believe that we shouldn't be kept out of the loop. A government is elected & re-elected based on what its does/has done. A governement represents us, & do things that the majority of people want. They should be informed of the ful details & reasons, then, of something that is done on their behalf & in their name, not merely told that it is to protect the homeland. You yourself agree that SH shouldn't have been the real target (though he still COULD have funded Bin Laden).

And what is your opinions based on, may I ask, if they're not based on things you've read or heard about?
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:48pm

Post 93 of 166

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

elementcinema wrote:

Now how is the war presented differently? coming from the UK or BBC it is a more anti-war perception? well it obviously would seeing how they arent in the war.
And there was me thinking that we were the US' main ally.

Whilst I'm as sceptical as the next man, some of your assertions lean a little too heavily towards X-Files style conspiracy theories. Sure, governments rarely tell the truth and the media warps things a lot, but you can still get to a semblance of the truth if you're careful.

Conspiracy theories tend to remain only as 'theories' for a reason.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 1:58pm

Post 94 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

elementcinema wrote:
Now how is the war presented differently? coming from the UK or BBC it is a more anti-war perception? well it obviously would seeing how they arent in the war.
See, now do you see that taking in the media is important?

rofl
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 2:39pm

Post 95 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

I couldn't have ridiculed you better if i tried. Thanks biggrin
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 4:03pm

Post 96 of 166

Frozenpede

Force: 630 | Joined: 28th Jan 2004 | Posts: 1113

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

schwar wrote:

Erm, we are in the war.

We were the other main country that went to war with the US - I guess you don't watch that much news after all elementcinema. This is why its interesting to compare US and UK coverage as we went in to this together but until recently seemed to show very different views.
I was in Cameroon at the time and all news I had was BBC, I didnt really see that much difference in coverage between the two (once I got back here of course and could compare)
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 4:13pm

Post 97 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Limiting your comparison to BBC TV is probably a bit counter productive. TV, due to the constraints on time, is likely to show approximately the same thing as any other broadcaster, but radio has some very interesting articles.

A few days ago i heard a report Hugh Sykes from Radio 4 did a few months back. He was walking around Bagdad, and had recorded a US marine yelling at iraqis as they came within some intangible line which he objected to. The invisible cordon wasn't the problem - it was the fact that he was yelling in english. It was just horribly tense. The iraqi man, who was merely making a shortcut through the crowd, was apparently dumbstruck by the marine, who was yelling "STOP! GET BACK OVER THERE, STOP!!, YOU THERE! STOP!". The iraqi obviously didn't move, confused by what he was doing wrong, which agravated the marine more. The reporter pointed out that the marine could have at least had the common decency to learn the iraqi word for "stop". In interview later, the marine exclaimed "but everyone knows the word 'stop'!!". Er. No.

The news cast ended with the sound fading on the same marine yelling "GET BACK IN THE CAR!" to someone else.

That was two sides of the coin i'd never really considered, nor heard about before. Quite troubling.


Anyway to get back to the point: i wouldn't expect the same kind of detail to come from any other broadcasting corporation.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 4:22pm

Post 98 of 166

Frozenpede

Force: 630 | Joined: 28th Jan 2004 | Posts: 1113

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

schwar wrote:

The reason the US and UK attacked was due to secret service information which has since been proved to be way off the mark - like the weapons inspectors had said all along.
I dont know if ya'll have been watching the news or not, but we found the WMD's some in Turkey (they were shipped there through Syria and turned up at a police check) others are being found now and I even saw an interveiw with a refugee from Iraq who was 1 of 5 men heavily trained to develop weapons in Iraq under Hussein and he claims that he has 100% faith that Iraq developed WMDs (he escaped midway through the project, but has kept up with friends he had who were still on the project)
According to him, the reason Hussein did not use the WMDs during the war is because he did not want to validate the coalitions attack and Hussein was hoping to come out as the victom and (consequenlty) the good guy.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 4:34pm

Post 99 of 166

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Got any links where we can read about the Turkey one - would like to see what they had found?
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 4:37pm

Post 100 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah, I would like to see some links, can't find any relevant stories in any US news sites myself.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 6:57pm

Post 101 of 166

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Remember how a lot of you said we gave Iraq WMDs back in the day?

Correct me if I'm mistaken...

Where did they go?
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 7:00pm

Post 102 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

We didn't give them any WMD - specifically - if i understand it correctly, we gave them a bunch of reasonably old hardware which iraq's own war machine used in combination with its own research.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 7:27pm

Post 103 of 166

MechaForce

Force: 4654 | Joined: 3rd Aug 2001 | Posts: 1934

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Well, at least Colin Powell admitted that the US deliberately misled everyone - -

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading," Powell said in the interview

http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=520355.html

As for the WMDs, it was a cycle of lies. THEY HAD NONE. DO NOT ARGUE BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG. YOU LOSE. THE END.

Theory:

The people supposedly working on the programs just cycled money. Saddam thought he had weapons, because according to the people he had working on the project, they were developing weapons, but underneath it all was a series of lies and bribery, just to please him. How was Saddam to know what a nuclear warhead actually looked like? That's how messed up it was.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 7:30pm

Post 104 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

wow, this has grown since last night eek. Alright. I said that if gore had been the president during the 9-11 attacks, i could only imagine what would happen. I imagine we would still be here waiting for other terrorists to come and kill us because Gore would have been too cowardly and would not have had the guts to provoke the terrorists. We would not have captured any of the top playing cards, if there would be such a thing under Gore.

What happened to Bin Laden? He's still hiding in his god d**m cave! We haven't found him yet. Just because we havent heard anything on the news about it doesn't mean that we are not still looking.

About the news: Most news corporations today are known to be more to left. More liberal. Sometimes they choose not to show things if they would hurt the democrats. So you cant rely entirely on the news for information on political issues and things that would make Bush look good.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 7:42pm

Post 105 of 166

MechaForce

Force: 4654 | Joined: 3rd Aug 2001 | Posts: 1934

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

evman101 wrote:

About the news: Most news corporations today are known to be more to left. More liberal. Sometimes they choose not to show things if they would hurt the democrats. So you cant rely entirely on the news for information on political issues and things that would make Bush look good.
IT'S NOT "BIAS". IT'S CALLED FACTS, FOOL!

The reason Bush looks bad is because he's screwed up a lot of stuff! Does Martin Luther King Jr. look bad? No he doesn't! Because he didn't screw up! If Bush didn't screw up so much he'd look pretty good, agreed?

In this issue, it really comes down to right vs. wrong. I'm on the right side, which on are you on?

Listen, you're ignorant: You only believe the things you do because of your parents. And staying rock solid on your opinions can be a bad thing sometimes (especially when you're wrong). I've changed a few of my stances on "liberal" issues a bit, and I'm better for it. You should try it out.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 7:48pm

Post 106 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I don't think even having the news stations on his side would make Bush look good.

You think media have a left agenda just because they always make Bush & co look bad? Look at that article Mecha posted, for chrissake! It's accurately reporting what a government member has said, showing that basically the US & UK were bullsh*tting everyone when they made the case for war.

I applaud the way the media have dealt with these international affairs. The majority of world opinion was against this war, & I believe the majority of Britain was against it, & showed it with huge protests in London. In the end, if it wasn't for the media piling on pressure, & representing the interests of the people more than our leaders are, the situation could be a lot worse.

btw, thanks for link
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 8:02pm

Post 107 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

MechaForce wrote:

evman101 wrote:

About the news: Most news corporations today are known to be more to left. More liberal. Sometimes they choose not to show things if they would hurt the democrats. So you cant rely entirely on the news for information on political issues and things that would make Bush look good.
IT'S NOT "BIAS". IT'S CALLED FACTS, FOOL!

The reason Bush looks bad is because he's screwed up a lot of stuff! Does Martin Luther King Jr. look bad? No he doesn't! Because he didn't screw up! If Bush didn't screw up so much he'd look pretty good, agreed?

In this issue, it really comes down to right vs. wrong. I'm on the right side, which on are you on?

Listen, you're ignorant: You only believe the things you do because of your parents. And staying rock solid on your opinions can be a bad thing sometimes (especially when you're wrong). I've changed a few of my stances on "liberal" issues a bit, and I'm better for it. You should try it out.
Okay, lets try this again... I had this already to post and then it got deleted.

Where to start? Okay. If you had taken the time to read my previous posts, you would find that i have not been influenced by my parents. I would call you ignorant for not knowing that, but your rants and insults to me brought this topic one step closer to deletion. I dont plan to take it the final step...

As for the media: I did not say that what they show is not the facts... But im only saying that they PICK and CHOOSE which FACTS to show.

Im on the right side cause i dont like people's hard earned money... including mine someday... to be stolen by the gov't and given to Joe Shmoe from the gutter, who i have never met and care not to meet. Alright... Next time read the entire topic before positing FOOL!
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 8:15pm

Post 108 of 166

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

evman101- it is called 'framing' biased media does it all the time to make certain points stand out from others. I wrote an essay for College on media framing and its affects on an audience. Which can be read below.

But before I get to that I want to show you an independent news website that gets over 9 million hits a day. He posts headlines from all over the world and covers some really interesting news. If yall are as willing to seek out the truth as you say you are then I suggest you check out this site.
http://www.drudgereport.com/

Here is another link from a conservative talk show host here in the US that has over 12 million listeners every week, which makes him the fourth most listened to man in America. There is some pretty bad stuff on this site, but it is the truth and it just shows how much the liberal left in the media has pulled the wool over the eyes of the world.

http://www.michaelsavage.com

Now on to the essay. Which I got an A on.

Aaron Burns
Section 6
RTF 305 Essay
4-18-04

Framing In Cable News

Cable news is the primary source for news audiences to acquire a worldview at any time of the day. CNN and Fox News are the two leaders of this field, with MSNBC a close third, which will not be discussed in this essay. Depending on whom you talk to, each of the “Big Two” cable news networks has biases toward one side or the other, liberal or conservative, respectively. The primary way audiences are affected is a sub-category of gatekeeping known as framing. According to Media Now, framing is the way reporters cover a story, or where the focus is placed when the audience receives a given medium. It is this subjective cropping of the full picture for which framing has received its name.

Cable news is a 24-hour affair. It is the media outlet one is able to immediately access in order to obtain breaking news. Very rarely do the “Big 3” UHF channels interrupt their programming to inform the audience of breaking news that job is usually left to the surrogates, depending on the size of the story. It is for this reason that cable news has become so popular over the last decade. Now that cable news has become such an accepted way for the public to find out about the world, a new dilemma has surfaced. In the end the journalists are the ones with the most control over the breaking news; they are the final wall between the story and the audience. The public’s viewpoint of the story can change depending on how it is framed. How does the way in which cable news is framed affect the audience? And who is the bigger offender, Fox News or CNN?

In “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects”, Scheufele attempts to create a model of framing concerning the relationship between media and audience, inputs, processes, and outcomes. According to Scheufele “research on framing is characterized by theoretical and empirical vagueness.” Those who have attempted to study framing in the past have oversimplified the ideology. Scheufele discusses how frames are dependent variables. Regarding this dependent side of framing, there are at least five factors that contribute to how journalists frame their stories, the most important of these being political orientation. Politics plays a role into every story that journalists cover, and depending on their political affiliation the story can be framed to work for one side or the other.

Fox News presents each story with at least 2 points of view leaving the audience to decide where the truth lies on the “Liberal-Conservative Line.” One show on Fox News, “Hannity and Colmes”, hosted by Sean Hannity, a conservative, and Alan Colmes, a liberal, debates the day’s latest news. They usually allow guests of one political affiliation or the other to join in the debates. Hannity and Colmes fully state their points, leaving the viewer to choose what to believe. These debates are always balanced because they present both sides to every story. The truth can usually be found somewhere between two opposite opinions.

CNN, on the other hand, rarely frames their coverage to allow equal time to both sides and instead chooses to swing more towards the liberal side. The programming on CNN usually consist of one person expressing their point of view without being questioned. Their guests are usually liberals. When they do have a conservative on he is greatly out numbered and not given much of a chance to speak.

9-11 Commission Coverage

Both Fox News and CNN covered the testimonies of Richard Clarke and Condoleezza Rice to the 9-11 Commission, but there was great discrepancy in the way each network framed their respective testimonies. Though both news networks aired the testimonies live, the “highlights” that CNN replayed later and wrote about on its website seemed to be only the parts that made the Bush administration look bad, while Fox News showed a more “fair and balanced” view of Clarke and Rice’s separate testimonies.

When CNN.com covered the 9-11 Commission’s questioning of Richard Clarke there are some concepts that immediately stand out from the webpage (See Figure 1). The first item is the headline, “Clarke’s book, testimony alter election-year landscape”, which shows bias toward Clarke and harms President Bush’s credibility. The second item is the oversized picture of Clarke with caption to the right of the article. This reveals their agreement with him and approval of the way in which he testified before the commission. Two weeks after Clarke’s testimony to the 9-11 Commission Condoleezza Rice was called in to refute the testimony against the Bush Administration. CNN.com again used a questionable headline (See Figure 2). “Rice’s testimony elicits mixed reaction”. Instead of posting a quote from or comment from Rice’s testimony, CNN.com employed an opinionated heading using the words “mixed reaction”.

Conversely, FoxNews.com immediately challenged the testimony of Clarke pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies in his statements (See Figure 3). Rather than a headline that overwhelming approved of Clarke’s depiction of Bush, FoxNews.com decided to respect the President, by placing the burden of proof on Clarke. FoxNews.com also put a smaller picture in place of the huge one that was on CNN.com. This picture is the proper size for an article and even gives the user a choice “enlarge” the image. In the FoxNews.com’s coverage of Condoleezza Rice’s testimony to the 9-11 Commission (See Figure 4) the news group fairly represented her, in their headline, with a quote from her commission testimony rather an opinionated statement like “mixed reaction”. It is this control that shows Fox News strongly considers how they frame their image as a news network, in order to keep the concept of balance intact.

Journalistic Bias?

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is a Catholic and a conservative, but he is also a fair-minded journalist and doesn’t let his beliefs dominate with his desire to share and critique opposing viewpoints. He has a great sense of moral right and wrong. If something is immoral no matter who is doing it, he is the first person to call them out. He plays “Devil’s Advocate” with all of his guests, quizzing them on topics that other reporters are afraid to ask, and no matter what side it benefits politically, he asks the questions that his guests are really afraid to hear, which is a good sign that he is a genuine seeker of the truth.

Contrastingly, CNN’s Aaron Brown, though he consider himself a fair journalist, often allows his political association to steal into his reports. He only uses tough questions on people who don’t agree with him, and this consequently shows his bias. The method he uses to frame his reports is unfair to the audience, because rather than getting in-depth reporting they get his opinion mixed with a bit of fact.

Further proof can be found in a recent CNN.com report (See Figure 5). In this report CNN admits that over the last year their ratings have been plummeting. Broadened research revealed an article by a news group, DrudgeReport.com, (See Figure 6) which gives actual figures for the amount of viewers that CNN and Fox News have retained since the end of the Iraq War. The results are conclusive substantiation that framing has led to the ruining of CNN, and the raising of Fox News to the top of cable news network food chain. This shows that when an audience is given a choice between reporting that is framed to be “fair and balanced” and a reporting that is framed with a slant which shifts its focus to the left (or the right for that matter), the audience will select the one which gives them the best, most conclusive evidence along with the ability to choose what to believe instead of being force fed.

As we have seen, framing plays a key role determining fairness of reporting and its effect on the audience. I believe that Scheufele is correct in his statement that framing is a direct variable, and that the most important factor of how journalists frame their stories is political orientation. If journalists are honest in the way they frame the news of the day, then the public isn’t receiving an impartial view of the world in which they live. Fox News seems to frame the news in a more even light than CNN, and it seems to have adversely affected CNN’s ratings. Rather than spreading opinions and half-truths, Fox News lays the facts out on the table and allows their viewers to decipher what is right and wrong in each situation. Framing is the key to the lock that is integrity in the news, and as long as it is used to give equal time to all viewpoints, its veracity will continue to be a beacon of excellence in journalism.

• Straubhaar, Joseph, and Robert LaRose. Media Now. 4th ed. United States: Wadsworth, 2004

• Scheufele, Dietram. “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects” p. 103-122 International Communication Association 1999

• Schneider, Bill. “Clarke’s book, testimony alter election-year landscape”
26 March 2004

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/clarke/index.html

• CNN.com “Rice’s testimony elicits mixed reaction” 8 April 2004

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.reax/index.html

• Angle, Goler, and Sharon Kehnemui. “Clarke Contradictions Leave Many Questions” 25 March 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115099,00.html

• Porteus, Liza. “Rice: No ‘Silver Bullet’ Could Have Stopped 9/11” 9 April 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116517,00.html




Canta unsure
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 8:20pm

Post 109 of 166

4036Douglas

Force: 920 | Joined: 8th Jun 2003 | Posts: 893

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -2

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but we have found mustard and sarin gas in Iraq. Both of these are weapons of mass destrucion.
As you can see, I love this site:
YEAH ... BUT IT WAS ONLY ONE LITTLE BITTY WEAPON!

If you were listening to talk radio yesterday, or if you happened to be watching the Fox News Channel, you learned that Iraqi insurgents tried to use an artillery shell containing Sarin gas in a roadside e devise. A small amount of the ly gas was released and a few American troops were treated for exposure.

There are two interesting aspects to this story. As of late yesterday afternoon, the media was virtually ignoring the find. Second, the appeasement crowd was quick to try to downplay the significance of the find.

I don't watch ABC, CBS or NBC news with any regularity. Every night it's Special Report with Brit Hume, and in the mornings it's CNN Daybreak with Carol Costello. I can tell you that as of last night my listeners were reporting that they never did see the Sarin gas story show up on CNN or on the CNN website, though it was featured on Fox all afternoon long.

I don't think that the media is going to be able to completely ignore this story, but they sure will try to downplay it. Remember the template: If the story benefits Bush, downplay. If the story hurts Bush ... run it hard. That's why the Nick Berg beheading had such a short lifetime, while the prison abuse story is still on the front pages today.

As for the appeasement crowd? Well, it didn't take long. Up until now the cry was that we had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now that some of those weapons have been discovered (mustard gas last week -- didn't hear about that one either, did you), the appeasement crowd is saying that these are just isolated old weapons being found ... and it doesn't mean there's a stockpile somewhere. No matter what we find...Hans Blix and his ist-appeasing, dictator-loving, Saddam apologist friends at the U.N. will never admit we were right. After all, to them, Saddam could do no wrong. It's all our fault, you know.
Just great. Last week the charge was that no WMDs were found. This week Blix is saying that no "stockpile" has been found. Find some more weapons and we can argue with the weenies over just what the definition of "stockpile" is. Pathetic.

Oh yeah ... and you're also going to hear that this was an old shell. Not a new one. The theory here, I guess, is that only new WMDs count, not the old ones. Once they start finding new WMDs in Iraq the left will come up with another excuse.

One thing is for certain. The leftist argument that Saddam didn't have any WMDs is now . What's next?



Heres a fun little story...:
THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper,and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake. Tom Daschle & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share." Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found in a related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who ize the once peaceful neighborhood. MORAL OF THE STORY: Don't vote for the Poodle. [the poodle is Boortz's nickname for John Kerry]
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 8:27pm

Post 110 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

evman101 wrote:


As for the media: I did not say that what they show is not the facts... But im only saying that they PICK and CHOOSE which FACTS to show.
Of course they do...it's called newscasting & editing.

And yes, they do release news that may fit certain ideology & hegemony. And yes, they can tell porkies from time to time.

But so do politicians, as they have been shown to. They pick & choose what they want to use to prove stuff, & they choose to listen to only what they want to hear.

And your "Joe Shmoe" attitude just says it all really...
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 8:30pm

Post 111 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:


But so do politicians, as they have been shown to. They pick & choose what they want to use to prove stuff, & they choose to listen to only what they want to hear.

Yep... thats why im independent. I dont want to be assosiated with any political party as they are sleezy, dirty people.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 8:32pm

Post 112 of 166

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I too am an independent, and as I see it voters are always going to be picking the lesser of 2 evils. With the things that I have heard from Kerry, Bush is looking less and less evil by the minute.

Canta unsure
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 8:49pm

Post 113 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Iraq admitted it had Sarin in 1995, so it could be an old one.

Maybe tests on it will tell. Don't hold your breath.

Oh dear. Of course, people are going to be cynical, & unimpressed. One bomb laced with Sarin. One found laced with Mustard gas last week.

What do you expect us to say? Dance around & clap? Cheer? Say alleluhah because the WMD have been found?

So these 2 bombs were the WMD Bush was talking about. Wow.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 8:57pm

Post 114 of 166

MechaForce

Force: 4654 | Joined: 3rd Aug 2001 | Posts: 1934

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Listen: Don't be stupid and post endless stories and articles which could be linked otherwise (with exception to canta).

If you don't want your hard-earned money to go to some guy in the gutter, leave the US. Or become Amish. Don't expect anyone to come running to you if you need help - you won't get it.

You see, there are these things called "people" in the US...

Doug, don't post bullshit. No one is laughing - it's satire for whiners.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 9:11pm

Post 115 of 166

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Not sure if anyone heard of or mentioned this, but Michael Moore made a film against the bush administraton backed up by miramax, but when they brought it thru disney they didnt want to go against bush, so they didnt let it be shown. I think it will come out in the UK, and in the US only if they get someone else to put it out.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 9:11pm

Post 116 of 166

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

so do you forsake the idea of property?
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 9:18pm

Post 117 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

No, but I believe in providing a support system for the poor.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 9:20pm

Post 118 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

MechaForce wrote:

Listen: Don't be stupid and post endless stories and articles which could be linked otherwise (with exception to canta).

If you don't want your hard-earned money to go to some guy in the gutter, leave the US. Or become Amish. Don't expect anyone to come running to you if you need help - you won't get it.

You see, there are these things called "people" in the US...

Doug, don't post bullshit. No one is laughing - it's satire for whiners.
If you know history, there is one thing that has survived everything we went through in the US. The Articles of Confederation (the first US "constitution" for those of you below 4th grade reading level) was founded on it and our current constitution followed the same pattern. Lately, it has been dying out. It is: all Americans are equal because they have the freedom of OPPORTUNITY.

I will hate it when i get a paycheck in the future and I see total payment: 5,000.... Ill be happy, then i will see all that has been taken out by the gov't and i am sad to say that I only have $3,075 left! It is my money. I worked hard for it! I dont want anyone to take it and give it to "Joe Shmoe Gutter Man" who never worked a day in his life. I deserve what I work for. Someone who does not work, like Joe, don't deserve any of my money, because he could work on his own and earn it.

And don't try to tell me to leave the country... The United States has had that Opportunity philosophy first and for a longer time. If anything, you should leave the country! Along with all the America haters who want to leave... (well you already read my post on alec...)

Don't try to say that a poor person just CAN'T make any money! Anyone can. There have been loads of presidents in American History who have come from poor backgrounds. Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, etc... They became frickin president!

I am not leaving America! I take that as an insult because I love America and all that it stands for. Its the best damn country in the world and I'm not leaving because a bunch of liberals tell me too... The taxes are muck lower when conservatives are in power. Im only angry about the tax thing when they are too high. I understand some taxes are necessary for the welfare of the communities, but when democrats are in power, there is a surplus of money that they take from people.

Don't ever tell me to leave the country! twisted
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 9:21pm

Post 119 of 166

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Brettsta wrote:

Not sure if anyone heard of or mentioned this, but Michael Moore made a film against the bush administraton backed up by miramax, but when they brought it thru disney they didnt want to go against bush, so they didnt let it be shown. I think it will come out in the UK, and in the US only if they get someone else to put it out.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-05-06

you can read all about it there. I would bet good money that it will get a US distributor, and I really hope so as I have been looking forward to this film for almost a year
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:09pm

Post 120 of 166

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +4

evman101 wrote:

all Americans are equal because they have the freedom of OPPORTUNITY.
You seriously think that all Americans (or people of any paritcular nationality, in fact) are born with equal opportunities?

I get just as irritated as you by people that scrounge off the state simply because they're too lazy to work - but you have to realise that it's not that clear cut for everyone. Sure, there's lots of scroungers that like to feed off the country's generous support, but there are lots more people who genuinely need the help.

Surely we shouldn't damn everybody just because of the few? My understanding of America is that it is about caring for others, as well as yourself.

If anything, you should leave the country! Along with all the America haters who want to leave...
Why? Because he disagrees with you? I thought it was the land of the free, where you can say and think what you want?

I am not leaving America! I take that as an insult because I love America and all that it stands for.
This seems to be a common mistake at the moment.

Somehow there has been fostered a very strange atmosphere, whereby criticism of Bush is considered unpatriotic, and un-American.

That's wrong. You can love America, and everything it stands for, and still dislike Bush and/or his policies. The biggest mistake that the pro-Bush foamies make is presuming that people who aren't big fans of Bush are also anti-America.

Questioning your own government is not unpatriotic. It is, in fact, a very healthy thing for a populace to do - it helps to stop the wrong people getting too much power, and also encourages the government to do its best to do the right thing whenever it can.

However, their currently seems to be an attitude whereby if you're not with Bush, you're actively against America and all it stands for, and should leave. That's not patriotism, that's blind faith, and it's dangerous. Blind faith is for religion, not politics. Politics needs to be based on rationality and a carefully considered conscience.

Certainly, a lot of the anti-Bush sentiments are rubbish. That's what you get from foamy liberals who can't form a decent argument. Similarly, a lot of the pro-Bush people are just as ridiculous, unwilling to pay attention to the evident problems, and preferring to continue on and pretend everything is perfect. The truth lies somewhere in-between, and the trick is in both sides trying to find that real truth - but that isn't going to happen if people remain resolutely stuck to their frightened, diametrically opposed and blinkered viewpoints.
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 10:32pm

Post 121 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn: I'd just like to say that that was a good quality post...

I was angry when i wrote my last post so i will calm down now and post what i meant to say.

there are lots more people who genuinely need the help.
Who? Anyone can take themselves out of the gutter and apply for a job. It may take hard work, but... do it! If you are not willing to work really hard for a chance to be a person who has money, etc, I don't think you really deserve it. Now, granted, there are some who have tried really hard and have gotten oppressed. Then, yes, sure, go help them, but Don't use so much of my money. There are loads of Americans, a single dollar from everyone in the country would be enough to feed tons of homeless people for a while.

Quote:
If anything, you should leave the country! Along with all the America haters who want to leave...


Why? Because he disagrees with you? I thought it was the land of the free, where you can say and think what you want?
I appologize for not clarfiying, and I am sorry Mecha, but I was angered by how you said that i should leave the country. It insulted me, and it was my nature to insult you back. I was talking about the people who want to leave the country. I do not know any republican who wants to leave the country. All of my democrat friends do, and a lot of other democrats do (you read earlier about alec...) I characterized democrats and i am sorry, but the truth is people who do want to leave the US should. I say good ridance.

This seems to be a common mistake at the moment.

Somehow there has been fostered a very strange atmosphere, whereby criticism of Bush is considered unpatriotic, and un-American.
Okay Tarn, heres where you are wrong. I believed in america even before this whole thing about bush. Back when I was in what? 2nd grade, we learned about all of the freedoms that we have as americans. I was astounded when i found out the majority of the world is not like us. I felt lucky for what i have.

I think a lot of people in the country hate Bush. This is mostly because democrats hate republicans. This is why i hate political parties... People vote according to their party, and not often for who they think will better the country.

Questioning your own government is not unpatriotic. It is, in fact, a very healthy thing for a populace to do - it helps to stop the wrong people getting too much power, and also encourages the government to do its best to do the right thing whenever it can.


I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you, but sometimes i think people take that freedom for granted. Just think of all the countries that if you spoke against the gov't you would get shot.

I hate it when people steal from me... Especially when it is my own government...

P.S. would you people stop rating these posts? please? It is annoying! all of these post are opinions, not posts that will better the community...
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 11:12pm

Post 122 of 166

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

evman101 wrote:

P.S. would you people stop rating these posts? please? It is annoying! all of these post are opinions, not posts that will better the community...
Which is probably why people are rating them down. wink
Posted: Wed, 19th May 2004, 11:41pm

Post 123 of 166

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

I gave tarns last one a +1 because I think it bettered those who read it.

also, here is a great quote from Theodore Roosevelt concerning blind faith in a president, something that was discussed right before.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 1:05am

Post 124 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Waser wrote:

I gave tarns last one a +1 because I think it bettered those who read it.

also, here is a great quote from Theodore Roosevelt concerning blind faith in a president, something that was discussed right before.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
This is true, but:

I hate it when people call Bush names and insult his family etc. There's a fine line between recognizing someone's faults and insulting them.
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 2:12am

Post 125 of 166

averagejoe

Force: 3592 | Joined: 31st Mar 2001 | Posts: 710

VisionLab User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

SuperUser

I hate that I came in so late in the game. I had some realy juicey stuff to say. Most of which has already beat into the dust by other posters. There have been alot of good points about issues that really directly effect us. I am glad the post was kept civil so it could stay up.

I wasnt going to post this but I could not resist. I hope it does not hijack to thread too much. I just thought it would be fun to share. On the News the other day I heard about an interesting fact. Even though the canidates are in different parties they pull for the same organization. What do you mean you ask? I generally dont even spend time reading conspiracy theories yet this is most interesting...

SKull and Bones article

What I am getting at is if there is a hidden agenda it might be both "choices" that we have are really two sides of the same coin. I was realy shocked to learn that John Kerry and George Bush were both tapped into this "secret society." With a quick search at google "Skull and Bones Fraternity+Kerry" I was able to find when these guys got tapped. Kerry in 1966 and Bush in 1968. What really caught my attention was to learn that GW's Father and Grandfather were part of the Society too. Whether this is a secret society that controls US politics or BS is really up to ones opinion and perception of the facts about the group. Yet it does feed the conspiracy furnace to some degree.

Maybe we really are blind to the truth maybe we are all sucked into a bigger plot and dont even know it tard

Last edited Thu, 20th May 2004, 2:47am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 2:15am

Post 126 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

averagejoe wrote:

I hate that I came in so late in the game. I had some realy juicey stuff to say. Most of which has already beat into the dust by other posters. There have been alot of good points about issues that really directly effect us. I wasnt going to post this but I could not resist. I hope it does not hijack to thread too much. I just thought it would be fun to share. On the News the other day I heard about an interesting fact. Even though the canidates are in different parties they pull for the same organization. What do you mean you ask? I generally dont even spend time reading conspiracy theories yet this is most interesting...

SKull and Bones article

What I am getting at is if there is a hidden agenda it might be both "choices" that we have are really two sides of the same coin. I was realy shocked to learn that John Kerry and George Bush were both tapped into this "secret society." With a quick search at google "Skull and Bones Fraternity+Kerry" I was able to find when these guys got tapped. Kerry in 1966 and Bush in 1968. What really caught my attention was to learn that GW's Father and Grandfather were part of the Society too. Whether this is a secret society that controls US politics or BS is really up to ones opinion and perception of the facts about the group. Yet it does feed the conspiracy furnace to some degree.

Maybe we really are blind to the truth maybe we are all sucked into a bigger plot and dont even know it tard
Doooodooooodooooodooooooodoooooodooooooooooo........................
AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! eek
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 9:00am

Post 127 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

evman101 wrote:

Who? Anyone can take themselves out of the gutter and apply for a job. It may take hard work, but... do it! If you are not willing to work really hard for a chance to be a person who has money, etc, I don't think you really deserve it. Now, granted, there are some who have tried really hard and have gotten oppressed. Then, yes, sure, go help them, but Don't use so much of my money. There are loads of Americans, a single dollar from everyone in the country would be enough to feed tons of homeless people for a while.
Look, a lot of money has been going OUT of the USA, spent on the war.

Since 2000, more than 2 million jobs have been lost. In addition the government has cut back welfare, food stamps, medical care and other spending for the poor. Poverty has risen, wages have FALLEN. There is a higher rate of requests for emergency food assistance, & over 40% of those seeking EFA are actually EMPLOYED. Charities like shelters are turning away homeless people because of lack of resources.

In September 2003, statistics showed THIRTY FOUR MILLION AMERICANS lived in poverty. It's particularly high among African Americans. In fact, those guys are so healthy that their mortality rate in New York is higher than Bangledesh, India.

Fair do's, Bush did make a $1 trillion tax cut which helped, otherwise it would have been far worse.

But it couldn't really be any worse. You say, people should drag themselves out of the gutter & get a job. Such people would only get a minimum wage of about $10,000 a year before taxes. The poverty line is $14,000 or so. Remember that many people actually earning minimum wage have children to care for too.

12% of people in poverty are children. Many are born into poverty & malnourished for the first years of their life. This will affect their well-being & yes, their mental capacity. This is true. Read up about Vitamin A & idodine deficiency.

The fall in economy has affected everyone in America.

Bush looks like he's just going to cut welfare even more & make it more difficult for people to actually bring themselves out of poverty.

People have to get a support system from somewhere. I would prefer that it comes from these mega corporations who get enough tax breaks as it is. But if Bush did that, the corporations would leave the country (see also poverty in Third World, where this has happened) & your economy would get even worse.

You say it's stealing? I say you're being selfish. Many people have that attitude, but they could potentially, at some time in their lives, find themselves in financial difficulties. You could too. It happens to everyone. You say, yeah help those who are in difficulty if they really need it blah blah blah. But where do you draw the line? According to official stats, 34 million Americans really need it.

Anyway, I find your opinions about the poor very unempathetic, without any grasp for WHY they are poor & why financial support will actually BENEFIT you in the long run. If most of the poor people are helped out of poverty so they can bring up their families in a more priviliged way, their children will be healthier, they will go through the education system, they will get good jobs & actually contribute to the economy, which will become healthier, meaning lower taxes etc.

As you say, America is the land of opportunity, where anyone can become anybody. But because of the failure of the welfare system, that idealistic concept is failing at the first threshold.

The UK has a bit more support for deprived people, but there is still lots of poverty here with ghetto-like estates, poverty-related crime etc. Don't get me started...
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 10:20am

Post 128 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

averagejoe wrote:

Skull & Bones society
Interesting, but the fact is that lots of politicians etc are going to be produced by Yale. Maybe they look out for each other, I don't know. A great uncle of mine was a mason. Got caught speeding. Gave judge a hand signal & got let off. I'm slightly ashamed about that one.

At my uni we have a similar society called the Pizza Sting society. In fact, I'm pretty sure most unis have these secret societies. They're mainly for illicit gambling & exotic parties.
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 12:53pm

Post 129 of 166

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:


You say it's stealing? I say you're being selfish. Many people have that attitude, but they could potentially, at some time in their lives, find themselves in financial difficulties. You could too. It happens to everyone. You say, yeah help those who are in difficulty if they really need it blah blah blah. But where do you draw the line? According to official stats, 34 million Americans really need it.
If you were to help these people who are "poor" by helping them finacially then they would most likely take advantage of it. Everyone would then realise and sya "hey, when you're poor people just give you money to help you out." Sure it sounds a little far fetch'd but most of those people would do that. "You say it's stealing?", stealing? how? who says its stealing? it isnt at all.

You know I don't know whether or not if these people got themselves poor like this, but people dont realise how hard it is to get back on your feet. Without an address, you can't get a job, without a job, you cant get an address ( a place to live). It becomes a loop and you just get caught in it.

IMO I think the US is an amazing place to be, but there are too many selfish and greedy people there.

Now earlier I said that the UK wasnt in the war, now when I say that I mean that this "war" may concern them in some way, but I honestly think that the US should take care of all this and not have other countries to go out of their way and spend money to help out when it doesnt concern them as much as it concerns the US seeing how alot of people hate them. I appreciate the countries helping out, it's a good thing to see others working together, but not like this, not for the wrong reasons. Look at what happened when we (the canadiens) helped out, someone was killed on the field by an american. Now all canadiens were complaining and whatnot but it's expected. You are going to "war" to either live or die. most likely youll die. Theres nothing people can do about that...

Now you might say "Why is he putting it as "war" in quotations?". Why? because I don't believe this to be that big of a deal anymore. I think people should stop fighting over things now and start helping eachother out, and when I say helping I mean helping out the middle-east not rebuild. There is no reason for all those women and children to suffer they way they have been. They should get a fresh start.

To sum it all up, Mel, I cant agree with you anymore, you are right on about how I feel about the poor, people need to open their eyes and realise that it's hard for people to get back onto their feet and could use a little help. But with a government like that, it wont happen anytime soon..

PS: be nice
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 1:07pm

Post 130 of 166

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I've just been reading the last couple of pages and a couple of things have stuck in my mind.

The comments on how the hatred which is shown towards Bush in his own country could simply be the typical "one political party hates the other" doesn't seem to ring true at all.

From the UK point of view it seems very different. As a country we have always been very close allies to the US and our attitude towards your president has normally ranged from support to general disinterest. It is only now with Bush in power that I've noticed many people outside the US forming strong opinions about the president and how dangerous he is. When Clinton was in power we had none of these worries, but now we really worry about not only the war but other issues as well. We suddenly find ourselves interested in the government of the US, but for all the wrong reasons.

Just my random feelings...
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 1:13pm

Post 131 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Element Cinema: what you're effectively saying is "Its the american's mess, so let the americans clear it up", right?

That would probably be a good idea in principal, but under scrutiny it holds no water.

It would be nice to completely distance ourselves (UK) from the US, and let them deal with it; in principal it might mean we are seen to be not of the same kind of people. As a result we might not be hated so much by the iraqis and we might save a little face.

In practice tho, the UK is one of the leading developed nations on the planet. We don't help people out because we like to get in bed with Bush - we help them out because thats what developed nations are meant to do. Its unfortunate that by working with the US, we've got ourselves tarred with the same brush, but its unavoidable now, so for us to down-tools and f*ck off back home, would just be dereliction of duty: we *ought* to help nations in trouble, regardless who we help them with. Additionally, the political implications of pissing off back home would forever put us in the bad books with the US, which financially would be suicide.

The role of nato/un in less developed nations, is to provide a steadying hand during the rocky times. I'm a little more dubious about our frequent decisions to wade into conflicts, like an adult in a playground brawl, as we seem to have a double standard with letting developing nations get on with it themselves (rwanda) and doing it for them (iraq).

But this incongruity nonwithstanding - to stand idle by and let nations run themselves into the ground, would be inhumane and deeply irresponsible (not to mention stupid *coughoil*).
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 1:18pm

Post 132 of 166

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

I didnt want to bother with the hatred for Bush because IT IS just one political party hating the other. Its expected.

I dont believe Bush to be dangerous, I believe its the people in control of him who are dangerous. Bush isnt smart enough to run all this on his own. His dad pretty much gives him the orders.

I felt that Clinton was a great president, and I didnt like how everyone judged him because he had an affair. He is a man, people can't use that against him..its just not cool. Thats another thing that bothers me, alot of people make their decisions with alot of wrong reasons. Bush is a prime example IMO that he wasnt elected and was chosen by some higher power in the government because he seems to be very easy to manipulate.
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 1:19pm

Post 133 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

elementcinema wrote:


To sum it all up, Mel, I cant agree with you anymore
I didn't know you agreed with me, but now I know, I don't understand why you now disagree. And your comments on the poor just seem to recycle what I said. Maybe you thought I was against giving the poor money. I don't know. Your whole post seems a bit confused confused
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 1:29pm

Post 134 of 166

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

At the beginning of my post it may have seemed abit confusing because I was thinking realistically about the whole "helping out the poor". The whole time I agreed with you about everything, but I was seeing it in a more realistic way if people WERE to help out the poor. My post wasnt trying to recycle but more along the lines of elaborating what you said. sorry
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 7:35pm

Post 135 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:


You say it's stealing? I say you're being selfish. Many people have that attitude, but they could potentially, at some time in their lives, find themselves in financial difficulties. You could too. It happens to everyone. You say, yeah help those who are in difficulty if they really need it blah blah blah. But where do you draw the line? According to official stats, 34 million Americans really need it.

Yes, it is stealing. I know i might be in trouble financially at some point... but what will I do? I will suck it up and fight my way out. I know its hard to get out, but it think that these people aren't trying. They think the gov't will bail them out. Thats the problem. They think the gov't will handle their problems for them. This may seem harsh, but i believe that if we cut off all welfare services, people caught in this "trap" will "magically" be able to pull themselves free.

If businesses would agree to hire people who need the work (if they are qualified), then we would all be better off.

I'm sorry if i sound mean and selfish, but thats what i believe this country should not be a place where everyone pools resources and elevates everyone to the exact same level. That sounds an awful lot like communism to me. (I know im gonna get a lot of flak from this... Thats how it seems that would play out to me though.)

Im sorry if i offended anyone, and i have done my best not to and apologize for anytime i do. (unlike others)
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 7:54pm

Post 136 of 166

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

You know, I don't give out -1s for opinions, I give them out for stupidity.

Case in point:

Bush isnt smart enough to run all this on his own. His dad pretty much gives him the orders.
And the Jews control the media, which covered up for Isreal, who were the real perpetrators of 9/11 because they want to create a New World Order with the hegemony controlled by aliens from the moon!
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 9:02pm

Post 137 of 166

averagejoe

Force: 3592 | Joined: 31st Mar 2001 | Posts: 710

VisionLab User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Don't forget the underpants fairies that sneak in at night to take ones unmentionables to finance their plans for world domination.

About the poor that cant pull themselves out of the gutter. This is a touchy moral and ethical situation. Should we not help them at all? Nope not moral or ethical. Especially since we, the US, really do have loads of money that could help those in need. I think one of the biggest reasons that poverty is high and that mortality is said groups is high comes down to a lack of knowledged as to what help is avaiable. There is more than Food Stamp/EBT Cards. Many states have programs for low income families to help provide HealthCare and nutrition.

But there is an even bigger problem. Giving food and shelter helps in the short term but does not allow those in need to develope and try to better themselves. Is it better to give a village water or help them dig a well. Give them fish or teach them to fish? To really get to the heart of the situation we really need reform as far as continuing a progression for people and not a plataeu. That would include more job training and oppurtunities for those of us in dire straights.

All that aside for the most part in low income communities there is a culture of hoplessness. What's the point in trying? Some how we as a nation need to rethink and approach our own poverty sticken like we do in other "developing countries." We tend to give aid and knowledge to help progression of said nations and forget with in our own borders there are"developing communities" if you will.

Something else that seems to be occuring where I live and other places on the southern end of the US. There is a GIGANTIC, HUGE, influx of illegal aliens, excuse me "undocumented immigrants." What is interesting about this is that these folks that hopped the border are doing the jobs that most Americans think are below them. And by doing this they make money, tax free in some cases send it home South of the Border. Or they slowly bring family members here and buy houses (with cash) and cars (with cash) becuase they have not forgotten how sucky things are at home and what a piggy bank the US is if you are not afraid to get your hands dirty and blistered doing "menial labor."

Whats really funny about this is that most of we Americans have Great Grandparents or Great, Great Grandparents that did the same thing. Except they came via Ellis island. Then they worked there tails off and held up long enough to build the things we all take for granted. They worked the factories and mines that had no labor laws. That had no benefits. And some how they persevered and made a nation that all we whipper snappers enjoy.

I realize that I am rambling abit now. But I guess my point here is we should not forget where we came from. And we should extent oppurtunities to those that need them.

And before you bash me for thinking Border hoppers are ok. I dont, I have just seen how they work thier tails off and make a little something for themselves. And now they really dont take jobs from we "Americans" because they do the work we turn our noses at.

Flame away, I am ready twisted

Last edited Fri, 21st May 2004, 2:44am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 9:05pm

Post 138 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Evman, I'd actually read up or something because your view seems dangerously uninformed. This is not being rude, inconsiderate etc, it's just a suggestion.

Oh, & the kind of welfare system that I've been describing is one that the principles of which are applied in France, Sweden, Germany & my own country, England.

Unemployement & poverty are lower in proportion to your country (in proportion because the US is a much bigger size, obviously)

We are not communists to my knowledge.


i believe that if we cut off all welfare services, people caught in this "trap" will "magically" be able to pull themselves free.
You cannot possibly believe that. So as not to sound rude, I mean: you are basically simplifying the whole issue of poverty. People are poor because they are too lazy & want to live off the state. Im sorry, but it's more complex than that.

Anyway, the point I've been making is your welfare system is hardly advantageous to the poor, so why do they remain poor? For the hell of it?

Averagejoe, I agree with all of what you're saying. Your post considers a bigger picture. There never is enough information given across as well, which can be a failing of all welfare systems across the globe. Reform would be good. In the 1960s a previous US President declared a War on Poverty. Unfortunately, other wars have got in the way.

An important point: what comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Last edited Fri, 21st May 2004, 8:34am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 10:04pm

Post 139 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:


Oh, & the kind of welfare system that I've been describing is one that the principles of which are applied in France, Sweden, Germany & my own country, England.
No offense or anything, but if you are from England, why are you such a big voice in this debate. I'm sure you cannot understand all of what goes on in the US unless you live here.

While i was mowing the lawn today, i thought of a good idea. If i have to give my well earned money to other people, at least let me decide which people get it. that way, i can ensure that my money is going to the right person who deserves it, and not to a rotten moocher. I know this idea would be hard to implement(maybe impossible), but im sure that taxpaying americans would like to know just where that their money is winding up.

People are poor because they are too lazy & want to live off the state. Im sorry, but it's more complex than that.
8/10 is the same thing as 4/5. It is just simplified. Sometimes, the easiest way to solve a problem is to simplify it, and then figure out the kinks. I believe that most people from "the gutter" have seen what has happened to others like them. They have seen how people have been "saved" by the state, and a lot (not all) of them think it will happen to them. They over estimate, in my opinion, the power of the US gov't.

Its sort of like how a kid doesn't do his homework the night before it's due, because he is expecting his friend to do it and let him copy it in homeroom (everybody copies from his friend, and he is expecting the same). What if that kid learned that his "friend" was mooching off of him? He would stop letting him copy, right? Well then the moocher would be forced to do his own homework or face a failing grade (a life of poverty).

Human characteristics don't change that much from schoolboys to adults. Sure they change, but the foundations are still there.
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 10:36pm

Post 140 of 166

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

evman101 wrote:


No offense or anything, but if you are from England, why are you such a big voice in this debate. I'm sure you cannot understand all of what goes on in the US unless you live here.
ahhh by this logic you cannot have a big voice on any debate not concerning the country you aren't in? by your logic i could say this. Do you have an opinion on what sadaam was doing to his people? Oh wait, you don't live in Iraq, so you can't have a good opinion about it.

many people know allot about what is happening in other countries, trust me, and the US is the most apparent so that's another thing

Last edited Thu, 20th May 2004, 10:39pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 10:38pm

Post 141 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Waser wrote:

evman101 wrote:


No offense or anything, but if you are from England, why are you such a big voice in this debate. I'm sure you cannot understand all of what goes on in the US unless you live here.
ahhh by this logic you cannot have a big voice on any debate not concerning the country you are in? by your logic i could say this. Do you have an opinion on what sadaam was doing to his people? Oh wait, you don't live in Iraq, so you can't have a good opinion about it.

many people know allot about what is happening in other countries, trust me, and the US is the most apparent so that's another thing
okay... yep your right, im sorry.
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 11:00pm

Post 142 of 166

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser


No offense or anything, but if you are from England, why are you such a big voice in this debate. I'm sure you cannot understand all of what goes on in the US unless you live here.
Heheh, thats fun-wrong. Politics, economics and basic moral etiquette are not constrained by national borders. For some guy to have an opinion about poverty doesn't require him to be a citizen of the country in the spotlight.

Regarding your school boy analogy, sure the foundations of mooching are there, but the milestones and incentives are massively more dramatic as an adult, so your comparison peters out.

As an adult, having got your girlfriend pregnant, needing to work every hour of free time to support your girlfriend, her kid and your bed-bound mother whilst holding down a bit of secondary education on top of that, so you aren't literally thrown into the street by your landlord....compared with getting a telling off from your parents for not doing your geography homework?

I don't deny that there are moochers, but they are in the vast minority. For the rest - if, hypoethetically, the shoe was on the other foot; if you suddenly (for whatever reasons) ended up on welfare...i'd imagine you'd fairly rapidly change your tune if you knew your kids were going to have to be brought up on state sponsorship.

You'll notice i'm not completely disagreeing with you here: everyone wishes they could really be sure their money were going to good causes, etc, but i think you're missing how governments support the people we're discussing. They don't just fling money at them, they just provide a rather flimsy splint. Do you seriously believe they people without jobs, money, or prospects are 100% happy and fulfilled in their lives, living off the morsels of money that fall off the government's plate?

I think you're perhaps underestimating the power of the 'american dream', or something - people want to be happy and successful, and living hand-to-mouth off someone elses money isn't exactly 'keeping it real'.
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2004, 11:31pm

Post 143 of 166

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Does anyone here realize that when done together, cut taxes and private charity destroy poverty more effectively than the government welfare program?
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2004, 12:20am

Post 144 of 166

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

sidewinder wrote:

Does anyone here realize that when done together, cut taxes and private charity destroy poverty more effectively than the government welfare program?
I've never actaully spent much time thinking about it, but if it is effective I'm all for it. I don't mean this in any way to be insulting but do you have a link or something I can read up on about this
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2004, 12:20am

Post 145 of 166

averagejoe

Force: 3592 | Joined: 31st Mar 2001 | Posts: 710

VisionLab User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

SuperUser

I agree with that statement. That ties into the programs that not too many people know about. There is a program here in Birmingham, AL sponsered by a Christian Service mission that provides food at a low cost. It works kind of like a coop. As in all the money is pooled together and buyers go out and get the best buys they can find. This usually includes local farmers. And the org even provides recipes for what is on the menu that time around. Those participating in the program pay $15 or $20 for a unit of food. Which equate to about 2 weeks of meals for 4 people. The only catch is in addition to the money you have to have 8 hours of documentable Communtiy Service or work in their Distributioin warehouse sorting out the units of food for 8 hours. You can also pay more and do not have to worry about service. I would like to think that there are similar programs else where in the US. Since I used to volunteer for them alot I got to see first hand really poverty stricken people that did not want hand outs. They wanted to work for what they get. For Some of the people involved this was their ONLY source of Groceries. They did not "mouch off the state" as it has been labled.

This also ties into providing a program that stimulates one's self image. Beause it is not a hand out and you could be helping the community around you.
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2004, 9:30am

Post 146 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

No offense or anything, but if you are from England, why are you such a big voice in this debate. I'm sure you cannot understand all of what goes on in the US unless you live here.
Heh, I expected that.

Charities are good, I agree. And the kind of charity that you're describing is excellent, providing people with work in exchange for food, which will raise the self-confidence of those participating in the schemes. Especially if they are local. The idea of contributing to "community" is very important, because it makes people feel they are not alone. Unlike the welfare to work program, which shuttles people to miles away. So, it would be great if such local schemes were continued & set up across America, so people are not seen to be 'mooching' or as Brits call it, sponging.

My only concern is the source of funds for these projects. Being private, they depend on private donations, the amount of which could fluctuate every year. If they're going to be a viable way of helping people back on track then they need to be backed with some government funds. Many charities shut down if they don't have sufficient funding one year.

Of course, this is armchair debate, but I've just tried to show what actually happens to be true, that poverty is complex. Circumstances is one thing to remember. Everyone will have different circumstances in which they became poor.

Another thing is not to get drawn into believing in a stereotype, a false generalisation that all poor people are spongers.

LAST POST BY ME - my opinion doesn't count, ha
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2004, 12:43pm

Post 147 of 166

elementcinema

Force: 436 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 814

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Earlier on AverageJoe said that anyone who doesnt live in the US has no part in the debate. I would have to agree to a certain extent, especially seeing how we are discussing about the poverty in the US. If anyone would have a good opinion about it, it would most likely be averagejoe seeing how he lives in the country and witnesses all these poor people perhaps everyday. But regardless, this debate has been getting WAY to long for such a subject.

Another thing I would like to clear up: When I said that Bush takes orders from his dad, means no harm in anyway to americans. But if you think about it, wouldnt you rather Bush Jr. taking orders from his dad? Bush Jr. is the most mocked president of all time, and I dont think its for nothing. So Id rather him taking orders from his dad because he dad knows what he is doing with all the experience he has. Bush is still out there on alot of stuff. Correct me if im wrong.
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2004, 3:11pm

Post 148 of 166

polemarch

Force: 510 | Joined: 4th Mar 2002 | Posts: 135

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Neither smile Not being an American. I did have an American girlfriend for 3 years though and spend quite a bit of time over there. First of all, some of you are 'republican', some are 'democrats'. Don't shout at each other because you think your right smile If you were there would only be the 'right' party smile
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2004, 4:40pm

Post 149 of 166

gent23mj

Force: 250 | Joined: 21st Apr 2003 | Posts: 224

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Brettsta wrote:

I had this debate with my freinds today heh. Its neverending. Im a democrat. THe economy is top notch when a democratic pres is in power. Its safe to say that behind the scandals, clinton would be considered one of the best presidents ever. REpublicans manage to mess the economy up, make gas prices skyrocket. Both Bush's didnt do a good job. We need a change. VOTE KERRY!

smile
HAHA, possibly, however, clinton lived off of Reagans work, but thats arguable...economics is NOT all their is to life, much less the country, lets look at other things other than how much money we can greedily get our hands on.... and anyone who expects 1 president to fix all the nations problems in one or two terms is just irrational,

IF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WOULD WORK TOGETHER TO HELP RESOLVE ISSUES RATHER THAN CONSTANTLY TRY TO BUMP EACH OTHER OUT OF OFFICE, THEN WE MIGHT GET SOMEWHERE AS A NATION smile
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2004, 4:47pm

Post 150 of 166

gent23mj

Force: 250 | Joined: 21st Apr 2003 | Posts: 224

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:

Just wondering, out of interest, what has determined your political stances?

E.g. if you're Democrat or Republican, is it due to family traditions of supporting that particular party, or have you actually weighed up the policies & characteristics of each party?
dude, good question, once you remove bias from the situation, i think alot of people would be left speechless because they have never consider any other options.

What drives me nuts is parents who teach their kids what to think and not how to think...of course a young kids they should be taught what, in the best way the parents see it..but as they grow older they should be taught how to think
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2004, 7:43pm

Post 151 of 166

The Muffin Man

Force: 10 | Joined: 13th May 2004 | Posts: 56

Member

Im a republican, I also like donuts, subway italian BMT's, and taking short naps on the roof. Im not that political, just thougt i would lighten the situation here a bit. razz

-The Muffin Man
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2004, 10:16pm

Post 152 of 166

gent23mj

Force: 250 | Joined: 21st Apr 2003 | Posts: 224

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

schwar wrote:

I've just been reading the last couple of pages and a couple of things have stuck in my mind.

The comments on how the hatred which is shown towards Bush in his own country could simply be the typical "one political party hates the other" doesn't seem to ring true at all.

From the UK point of view it seems very different. As a country we have always been very close allies to the US and our attitude towards your president has normally ranged from support to general disinterest. It is only now with Bush in power that I've noticed many people outside the US forming strong opinions about the president and how dangerous he is. When Clinton was in power we had none of these worries, but now we really worry about not only the war but other issues as well. We suddenly find ourselves interested in the government of the US, but for all the wrong reasons.

Just my random feelings...
Oh here is an American "PREACH IT BROTHER" I couldnt agree with you more
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2004, 10:30pm

Post 153 of 166

averagejoe

Force: 3592 | Joined: 31st Mar 2001 | Posts: 710

VisionLab User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Earlier on AverageJoe said that anyone who doesnt live in the US has no part in the debate.
That was not not me man. I have never posted such a thing.
This is an international forum. We ALL voice opinions here. That is what makes this community so great.

Bush Jr. is the most mocked president of all time
Prove that... Every President has been mocked... alot. Even George Washington was mocked quite abit and he was the first.

So what is your point here? Did you think that statement would back up your opinion of how you don't like him? How he might be ineffective?Why would that show he is a bad President? C'mon man can't you come up with something better? sleep

Mocking the Commander and chief is "as American as Apple Pie" as they say. Thankfully we live in a country where I can poke fun at our leader and not be shot, torchered or be forced to watch my family get torchered.
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 1:23am

Post 154 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

My mom got found this offline and sent it to me... its very interesting...

This is interesting, regardless of political
> inclinations...
>
> Subject: History 2004
>
> At about the time our original 13 states adopted
> their
> new constitution in the year 1787 Alexander Tyler (a
> Scottish history professor at The University of
> Edinburgh) had this to say about "The Fall of The
> Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior. "A
> democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply
> cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A
> democracy will continue to exist up until the time
> that voters discover that they can vote themselves
> generous gifts from the public treasury. From that
> moment on the majority always votes for the
> candidates
> who promise the most benefits from the public
> treasury with the result that every democracy will
> finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy which is
> always followed by a dictatorship."
>
> "The average age of the worlds greatest
> civilizations
> from the beginning of history has been about 200
> years. During those 200 years these
> nations always progressed through the following
> sequence:
>
> From bondage to spiritual faith;
> From spiritual faith to great courage;
> From courage to liberty;
> From liberty to abundance;
> From abundance to complacency;
> From complacency to apathy;
> From apathy to dependence;
> From dependence back into bondage."
>
> Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School
> of
> Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some
> interesting
> facts concerning the last Presidential election:
>
> Population of counties won by:
> Gore=127 million
> Bush=143 million
> Square miles of land won by:
> Gore=580,000
> Bush=22,427,000
>
> States won by:
> Gore=19;
> Bush=29
>
> Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won
> by
> :
> Gore=13.2
> Bush=2.1
>
> Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate the map of the
> territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the
> tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's
> territory encompassed those citizens living in
> government-owned tenements and living off government
> welfare..."
>
> Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the
> "apathy" and
> complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition
> of
> democracy with some 40 percent of the nation's
> population already having reached the "governmental
> dependency" phase
.
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 2:30pm

Post 155 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

and this...

"SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE NEWS"

Maybe you'd like to hear about something other than idiot Reservists and naked Iraqis.

Maybe you'd like to hear about a real American, somebody who honored the uniform he wears.

Meet Brian Chontosh.

Churchville-Chili Central School class of 1991. Proud graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Husband and about-to-be father. First lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps.

And a genuine hero.

The Secretary of the Navy said so yesterday.

At 29 Palms in California Brian Chontosh was presented with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery the United States can bestow.

That's a big deal.

But you won't see it on the network news tonight, and all you read in Brian's hometown newspaper was two paragraphs of nothing. Instead, it was more blather about some mental defective MPs who acted like animals.

The odd fact about the American media in this war is that it's not covering the American military. The most plugged-in nation in the world is receiving virtually no true information about what its warriors are doing.

Oh, sure, there's a body count. We know how many Americans have fallen.

And we see those same casket pictures day in and day out. And we're almost on a first-name basis with the pukes who abused the Iraqi prisoners. And we know all about improvised explosive devices and how we lost Fallujah and what Arab public-opinion polls say about us and how the world hates us.

We get a non-stop feed of gloom and doom.

But we don't hear about the heroes.

The incredibly brave GIs who honorably do their duty. The ones our grandparents would have carried on their shoulders down Fifth Avenue. The ones we completely ignore.

Like Brian Chontosh.

It was a year ago on the march into Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee. When all hell broke loose. Ambush city.

The young Marines were being cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocketpropelled grenades. And the kid out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it was up to him.

So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line his humvee came under direct enemy machine gun fire.

It was fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish.

And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them.

Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M16 and a Beretta and 228 years of Marine Corps pride.

And he ran down the trench. With its mortars and riflemen, machineguns and grenadiers.

And he killed them all.

He fought with the M16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion.

When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon's flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more.

But that's probably not how he would tell it.

He would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he got them out of trouble. Hoo-raaah, and drive on.

"By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service."

That's what the citation says.

And that's what nobody will hear.

That's what doesn't seem to be making the evening news. Accounts of American valor are dismissed by the press as propaganda, yet accounts of American difficulties are heralded as objectivity. It makes you wonder if the role of the media is to inform, or to depress. To report or to deride. To tell the truth, or to feed us lies.
But I guess it doesn't matter.

I guess we will never know...
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 3:19pm

Post 156 of 166

MechaForce

Force: 4654 | Joined: 3rd Aug 2001 | Posts: 1934

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

evman101 wrote:


> Population of counties won by:
> Gore=127 million
> Bush=143 million
> Square miles of land won by:
> Gore=580,000
> Bush=22,427,000
No, just look at the facts:

Gore: 411 Million
Bush: 12 Million

Land Controlled By Communists: 27,000,000 sq km
Population of Communists: 1,300,000,000

I guess that makes Communists right!
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 3:50pm

Post 157 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

MechaForce wrote:



No, just look at the facts:

Gore: 411 Million
Bush: 12 Million

411 million and 12 million for what?
That section was stupid. I should not have posted that part of it... The important things were the things at the bottom about how 40 percent of the people are dependent on the Gov't...
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 3:52pm

Post 158 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I said that I wouldn't post again but...cough cough cough

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

I would suggest you read the entire article, & draw your attention to this

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University is not the source of any of the statistics or the text attributed to him.
Whilst the press does have its faults, many things would never have been exposed.

Whilst you might not agree with the way they present things, & the way they choose to ignore issues (& I agree with you on this) it is better that they expose bad things than sweep them under the carpet. A balance should certainly be reached where good things are written about too.


EDIT:

Without wanting to sound too harsh, that "article" is a fallacious, dangerous piece of propoganda.

Let's break down what it's REALLY saying.

- it implies that:-
- Republicans = affluent, good American taxpayers
- Democrats = poor
- poor live solely off the government
- poor = murderous
- Democrats = murderous

Oh, & at university I actually study Anthropology (the study of humans throughout the history of the world) & Archaeology. In Archaeology I study civilisation.

There are actually several civilisations that lived beyond 1000 years, including Mesopotamia, Chinese & Egyptian.

There's another 200 year old REAL theory going round that's a pile of sh*te, too. The Marxist theory of revolution. This says revolution is a necessity for change. It also says revolution will happen whether you like it or not. I'm not a Marxist but this argument is more convincing than that one put forward by "Tyler".
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 10:34pm

Post 159 of 166

hahoozhafax

Force: 1580 | Joined: 27th Dec 2003 | Posts: 186

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: -1

The Muffin Man wrote:

Im a republican, I also like donuts, subway italian BMT's, and taking short naps on the roof. Im not that political, just thougt i would lighten the situation here a bit. razz

-The Muffin Man
*Doesn't take the time to read the 11 pages of posts because he hates politics. He also hates reading extremely long posts that just rant on and on. He finally finds an interesitng post and quotes it.*

Hey I like donuts and Italian BMT's too! razz
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 11:16pm

Post 160 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:



Oh, & at university I actually study Anthropology (the study of humans throughout the history of the world) & Archaeology. In Archaeology I study civilisation.

There are actually several civilisations that lived beyond 1000 years, including Mesopotamia, Chinese & Egyptian.

It said DEMOCRATIC societies.
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 11:23pm

Post 161 of 166

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

As if that matters. But since you're arguing on such a point, no, it says the world's greatest civilisations. The ones I mentioned are undisputably the world's greatest civilisations. And they lasted far more than 200 years.

Have you even read that page I link to?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Anyway, to quash any further talks about history & democracy, democratic societies didn't come on the scene until 18th century or later. How, then, could a guy be commenting on democracy when 200 years earlier (we're talking 1500s here) democratic societies didn't even exist?

Anyway, I can't be bothered arguing anymore, I just had to show that what you posted earlier was wrong - a guy is quoted but he never said such a thing, Alexander Tyler never wrote that, & the stats are all wrong.
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 11:30pm

Post 162 of 166

gent23mj

Force: 250 | Joined: 21st Apr 2003 | Posts: 224

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

MechaForce wrote:

evman101 wrote:


> Population of counties won by:
> Gore=127 million
> Bush=143 million
> Square miles of land won by:
> Gore=580,000
> Bush=22,427,000
No, just look at the facts:

Gore: 411 Million
Bush: 12 Million

Land Controlled By Communists: 27,000,000 sq km
Population of Communists: 1,300,000,000

I guess that makes Communists right!
Ahhh, Mecha, dont take em out of context here...the point is that the Dems did not have the "majority" as they claimed...and the democrats, who seem to be more concerned about the "economic growth" of the country are the ones paying off the people who vote for em.
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 11:33pm

Post 163 of 166

gent23mj

Force: 250 | Joined: 21st Apr 2003 | Posts: 224

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:

I said that I wouldn't post again but...cough cough cough

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

I would suggest you read the entire article, & draw your attention to this

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University is not the source of any of the statistics or the text attributed to him.
Whilst the press does have its faults, many things would never have been exposed.

Whilst you might not agree with the way they present things, & the way they choose to ignore issues (& I agree with you on this) it is better that they expose bad things than sweep them under the carpet. A balance should certainly be reached where good things are written about too.


EDIT:

Without wanting to sound too harsh, that "article" is a fallacious, dangerous piece of propoganda.

Let's break down what it's REALLY saying.

- it implies that:-
- Republicans = affluent, good American taxpayers
- Democrats = poor
- poor live solely off the government
- poor = murderous
- Democrats = murderous

Oh, & at university I actually study Anthropology (the study of humans throughout the history of the world) & Archaeology. In Archaeology I study civilisation.

There are actually several civilisations that lived beyond 1000 years, including Mesopotamia, Chinese & Egyptian.

There's another 200 year old REAL theory going round that's a pile of sh*te, too. The Marxist theory of revolution. This says revolution is a necessity for change. It also says revolution will happen whether you like it or not. I'm not a Marxist but this argument is more convincing than that one put forward by "Tyler".
Again, we are wrenching from context, the point is that MOST of where the votes come from is from a certain demographic region....and you CAN connect the dots here... it is a known fact that the democrats have focused on certain people for office, and so have the republicans
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 11:36pm

Post 164 of 166

gent23mj

Force: 250 | Joined: 21st Apr 2003 | Posts: 224

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Did you know that 87.3695% of all statistics are made up on the spot smile
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2004, 11:38pm

Post 165 of 166

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

gent23mj wrote:

Did you know that 87.3695% of all statistics are made up on the spot smile
Did you know that every time anyone ever uses that joke, they make it a different number? Which ruins the point of the joke if you ask me.
Posted: Mon, 24th May 2004, 12:01am

Post 166 of 166

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

gent23mj wrote:

Did you know that 87.3695% of all statistics are made up on the spot smile
That used to be my signature.

Did you know that every time anyone ever uses that joke, they make it a different number? Which ruins the point of the joke if you ask me.

Don't know if you are joking, but that is the point of the joke because the number is always made up on the spot.