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

2008 election!

Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 7:41pm

Post 1 of 191

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Who are you votingfor in the '08 election? Why?
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 8:05pm

Post 2 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Ahaha.

So should we start the bidding on how long until this thread is locked or deleted?

But honestly, it's nowhere near election time, and all the candidates suck anyway. Don't know why you'd start this now... unsure
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 8:14pm

Post 3 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

RON PAUL!
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 8:36pm

Post 4 of 191

Tommy Gundersen

Force: 530 | Joined: 25th Jan 2005 | Posts: 471

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Britney Spears... twisted
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 8:46pm

Post 5 of 191

Coureur de Bois

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

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Tom Dobbs '08
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 8:50pm

Post 6 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Christ, this brings back memories of when the ongoing Evman/Atom struggle started back in Election 2004. smile

My eyes are on the Democrats. I like Joe Biden an awful lot. Second to him, I wouldn't mind Hillary. She may come off sometimes abrasive and, you know, be a woman. But I think she's got the smarts, experience, and will-to-act that make a president.

Then I like Mike Huckabee, then Guiliani. I've completely shied away from Ron Paul as I've learned more about him and remembered more about him here in Texas. He's way too libertarian for me. (And yes, I know he's running Republican.) Not in his views, necessarily, but in how idealistic and seemingly impractical they are to me. I want a conscientious but practical leader. Ron Paul ain't doin' it for me anymore. Eyes on Biden.

This is funny, because last election when all of the Age of New Children got into little political scuffles older members would say 'it doesn't really matter because you can't vote anyway'. And now the whole group basically can. Man how time flies.

Now, really. It's waaaay too early to start this shitstorm. Let's wait so we can all cry in our rooms about each next year.
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 8:55pm

Post 7 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Obama made a comment recently that has completely put me off him. I'm not going to say what he said, however, because shortsighted people will not get my point at all and think that I'm rather silly (not to mention it'll start a flame war, no doubt).

Other than that, I honestly don't like any of the candidates. Obama was the only democrat I at least kinda liked (though didn't really agree with). No republicans are outstanding either.

It sucks because the first election in which I can vote will most likely be a major disappointment for everyone.
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 9:24pm

Post 8 of 191

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

VOTE FOR SUPERMAN

Whoever wins, I hope it's a good, God fearing person, because if they take God away from the government, this country will be so screwed oh gosh, I can't even imagine a president who doesn't believe in God. Religion is the only thing that TRULY counts to me as far as voting goes, and I know Superman will do his best to keep The White House a house of the Lord.
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 10:08pm

Post 9 of 191

Videoace123

Force: 1056 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 392

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

Gold Member

I'm personally voting for K-Fed. hehe
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 10:41pm

Post 10 of 191

Pooky

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I think I speak for most of the rest of the world when I say "Please god, anyone but Hillary or Giuliani"
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 11:19pm

Post 11 of 191

Plainly

Force: 1537 | Joined: 27th Dec 2006 | Posts: 767

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well, I can't participate in this thingymabob, but I know that's I'm desperately hoping for an 2008 election in my country, or I'll just move or something. Seriously*.

*OK, I wasn't serious when I said 'seriously'**. I'm 13. So it might be a problem. wink

**Ah, you see, I used the British quotations. I'm preparing myself already, eh***?

***Hum, apparantly, I'm not that ready. Aye****.

****Apparantly (According to the novel, 'How to be a Canadian' by Ian and Will Ferguson - hilarious book) that's what some Americans say when they try to impersonnate our 'eh'. Hum, interesting, eh*****?

*****And there I go again. Saying eh. Yes, it was done on purpose. Both times. Ah well.
Posted: Fri, 30th Nov 2007, 11:41pm

Post 12 of 191

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Second to him, I wouldn't mind Hillary. She may come off sometimes abrasive and, you know, be a woman. But I think she's got the smarts, experience, and will-to-act that make a president.
*Throws up in his lap*

smile

Speaking of voting, a university took a vote of its students of who would give up their rights to vote for an iPhone. About 40% of them said they would. Wow.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 2:10am

Post 13 of 191

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Plainly wrote:

Nonsense
What the hell are you talking about?
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 3:46am

Post 14 of 191

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Christ, this brings back memories of when the ongoing Evman/Atom struggle started back in Election 2004. smile

I wouldn't mind Hillary. She may come off sometimes abrasive and, you know, be a woman. But I think she's got the smarts, experience, and will-to-act that make a president.
I can only hope your kidding... eek

I just watched the republican debates on youtube. Though I'm below voting age, Duncan Hunter would have my vote. Most other republican cantidates are pretty lame, and the democrats I don't even want to speak about...
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 3:57am

Post 15 of 191

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Atom wrote:

I like Joe Biden an awful lot.
Biden gets my vote.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 5:53am

Post 16 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm sorry guys, but I rather like Hillary. Even if not for president, for a political leader. I really liked Bill Clinton and think, his personal life aside, he handled his presidency well and left office with America in a pretty fair economic and social state. (Opinion, of course.)

I liked the actions Hillary took as First Lady and the position she played in Bill's political work, and no doubt he would play a large role in her work, were she elected. And frankly, I don't have a problem with that. Both of their political philosophy are agreeable to me and I just think they're genuinely smart, level-headed people. Which is a rare commodity with a lot of politicians.

Say whatever you want to that effect, but I see no reason "god not hillary go no way" can be said and then "but I don't want to start an argument" after that. Whether you like her as being a possible female President or not, whether I like her best or not (which I said, I don't), she's a very powerful candidate for many reasons and should at least be given a chance.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 6:10am

Post 17 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

From what I got from the debate in Philly, Hillary seems to be the most realistic option. She has a better realistic understanding of the situation in Iraq and other issues. Which isn't saying much.

I also think if she runs the republicans have a better chance at winning. I still think McCain is the best option. If not McCain, than Guiliani as president with McCain as his SecDef and a smart cabinet. Guiliani isn't perfect, I agree. There are some things he did that were weak, but he did do alot for NYC. He took on the mob and that takes guts which he has. With a smart team behind him he could be a good president.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 6:13am

Post 18 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Not that this really means anything, but he's also an ex-mayor running against seasoned and federal-government-experienced congressmen and women. Not that he doesn't have a fair chance, but it's unfortunate that he hasn't been more widely active politically. (I mean, it is NYC, but it's still only NYC. We're talking about running an entire country.)
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 6:34am

Post 19 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Well most people feel that somebody who ran a state or city(NYC being the best example) are more qualified to run for president because it is closer to the job description of president than congressman or women. Historically many presidents have been governors or mayors. Another reason is that senators and congressman and women almost always vote in the best interest of the area they represent(for good reason, because thats their job). This type of experience is exactly the kind of experience the presidency doesn't need. The president's role is to act on the good of the country. He(or she) needs to weigh the pros against the cons.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 7:01am

Post 20 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

Well most people feel that somebody who ran a state or city(NYC being the best example) are more qualified to run for president because it is closer to the job description of president than congressman or women.
There's a big difference between running a state, though, and running a city. Granted, I didn't include governors because there are primarily congressmen running. (a few governors, though) But, at least to me, there's a big difference between a mayor and a governor's position of power.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 7:12am

Post 21 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Unfortunately, I think Guiliani and Hillary will be much closer to Bush than people think. We as a country need out of this Bush/Clinton funk. All the Republicans other than Paul have no real grasp of the world outside of America. They don't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a. They think, "People want freedom! BOMBS! BOO terrorists."

My in laws have a debate site and all they sit and talk about is Huckabee and Romney. (They are Mormon) I try to talk about Paul a little bit because all they do is bash him and call him crazy and wacko. When I discuss the other candidates I don't start name calling people. I go to the issue I disagree with and I say what I don't like. I don't go wow Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution? RETARD! Oh Romney wants to talk to lawyers about going to war? WHAT A NOOB!
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 7:38am

Post 22 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:



There's a big difference between running a state, though, and running a city.
NYC is perhaps the most important city in the world. It contains millions of people in addition to America's stock market, along with most major financial and shipping centers. It may be "just" a city, but it's a diverse city that represents a wide range of people and situations. It's a TOUGH job. Much harder than being governor of certain states (anywhere in the midwest without a major city, I'm looking in your direction), and one could argue any state. If you asked a random person off the street in 2001 "who is the GOVERNOR of New York?" most people would say Guliani, instead of the correct answer, Pataki (and now Spitzer).

Don't undercut the responsibilities of the Mayor of NYC, they have to deal with some pretty bad stuff. Not that I particularly like Guliani, but I can respect him for his efforts in NYC.

He also has the enviable position of being relatively detached from the federal government. We saw this after the corruption in Nixon's White House. Voters were wary of the one-two punch of Nixon and Ford, and hence elected Carter, and then Reagan, two individuals who had very few ties to DC, hoping to bring someone level headed and free from corruption in to cleanse the presidency. With all the tainting Bush has done of Washington, no one particularly trusts people who hold, for instance, a senate seat. As silly as it is to go by the "who would I rather have a beer with?" token, most Americans do, and candidates will want to be portrayed as disconnected from the corruption and coldness of Washington.


But the undeniably frustrating aspect of this entire conundrum for me is the fact that I don't like any of the candidates. Not a single one of them shares my beliefs exactly, or even like 75%.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 7:48am

Post 23 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

There's a big difference between running a state, though, and running a city.
Oh, absolutely. That being said, there is a big difference between running a state and running a country. Lots of mayors become governors, and lots of governors become *presidents. Each job is the one below it 10x bigger. I'm just pointing out that there are similarities in the the fact that like how a president must see do things for the good of the country rather than the good of a state or region, a mayor must do things for the good of a city rather than the good of a district.

Little side note: Whenever the military is going before Congress to begin a new line of military vehicles or any sort of production or budget increase it has to spread the factories that create each piece of any given product they are producing all around the country in different states to get approval. Its sometimes the only way they can get the approval they need.

Last edited Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 7:54am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 7:49am

Post 24 of 191

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Paul and Huckabee seem to be the only people that know what they're talking about.


Huckabee doesn't have a chance, because he's too religious. Unforunately, he's also a bit of a war-monger.

Paul is my top choice, because I've yet to hear him say something that doesn't make absolute common sense.



If Clinton gets in, I'm pretty sure that would be the beginning of the end for America...
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 8:01am

Post 25 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

If Clinton gets in, I'm pretty sure that would be the beginning of the end for America...
America has gotten through bad presidents before. Honestly, Hillary isn't the one I am worried about the most either. Don't get me wrong, I don't like her for a number of reasons. But from what I gathered so far, she isn't going to change things up too much. I see her presidency like that season of Survivor where they split everyone by race in the beginning and everyone got excited about it and started watching. Then after like three weeks it turned out to be the same old boring Survivor. Anyway! Its Obama I'm worried about. To me it sounds like he is pushing change for the sake of change.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 8:01am

Post 26 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

If Clinton gets in, I'm pretty sure that would be the beginning of the end for America...
People say stupid stuff like this and I just shrug it off, but let me ask you: Why? As far as I can see, she's a practical candidate that has a clear plan-of-action that is fairly appealing to all parties in certain aspects. You may not agree, but how would it be the beginning of the end? Are we not a nation of continual progress?
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 8:22am

Post 27 of 191

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

In my humble opinion, Bill Clinton was one of the worst things that happened in the white house. I doubt that Hillary would be any better. No mean to offend. What the USA needs is another Reagan. Does anyone else think that Duncan Hunter would be a good president, or is that just me?

EDIT: Just another side note: Most females out there in america (Republican or Democrat) support Hillary just because they like the idea of a lady president, not because they agree with her.

Last edited Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 8:26am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 8:25am

Post 28 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bill Maher talked about going to Europe and people shrugging off the ANYONE BUT THEM comment. The fact is, these countries have been around a long time and have seen much worse leaders than Bush and will have seen worse if Hillary takes office. I'm sure when Jefferson took office all the Federalists said, "It's the end of America!"

IMO, Hunters statement on the don't ask don't tell policy is horrifying. That was one of the most homophobic comments EVER.

EDIT: Thrawn, I know a lot of democratic males that wouldn't vote for her just because she is female so I think the two cancel out smile
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 4:06pm

Post 29 of 191

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

My friends and I say that if Clinton gets elected, we would move to Canada. Or possibly, as Mike Huckabee said, she could be on the first rocket to Mars!
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 4:26pm

Post 30 of 191

Waser

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

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

SuperUser

Rating: +1

I was at the Jazz/Lakers basketball game last night, and a bunch of laker fans started chanting "JAZZ-YOU-SUCK! JAZZ-YOU-SUCK!" and a bunch of Jazz fans started chanting "LA-KERS-SUCK! LA-KERS-SUCK!" in the exact same three syllable beat. My friend and I just chanted "BAS-KET-BALL! BAS-KET-BALL!"


POL-I-TICS! POL-I-TICS!
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 4:36pm

Post 31 of 191

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Waser has spoken truth.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 5:44pm

Post 32 of 191

jmax

Force: 260 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 671

MacOS User

Member

I wish Bloomberg would announce his candidacy. He made a lot of moves I really admired with the whole severing the party connections deal, and he cares a lot about the enviorment (and more importantly goes about enviormentalism in a levelheaded manner instead of sensationalist fear-mongering). And then... he didn't run. Shame.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 6:44pm

Post 33 of 191

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Bryce007 wrote:

If Clinton gets in, I'm pretty sure that would be the beginning of the end for America...
People say stupid stuff like this and I just shrug it off, but let me ask you: Why? As far as I can see, she's a practical candidate that has a clear plan-of-action that is fairly appealing to all parties in certain aspects. You may not agree, but how would it be the beginning of the end? Are we not a nation of continual progress?
For God's sakes, my friend, the woman lies. Let me share with you something about me: I. Hate. Lying. Politicians.

Hillary has lied in the media's face over and over.

Example 1
Example 2(I found this extremely interesting)

I don't know if this all some kind of conspiracy, but it's definitely interesting.

I know there are more than these examples, I've been hunting for more(The Clintons can cover their tracks up from the media extremely well).
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 7:26pm

Post 34 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

EVERYONE LIES! I could go and get crap on any of them saying one thing and then saying something else.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 8:28pm

Post 35 of 191

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

EVERYONE LIES! I could go and get crap on any of them saying one thing and then saying something else.
Yeah, well this is a little different. If you watch the video it shows how corrupt Hillary is. Do you really want a lying, corrupt president that says one thing and does another? I don't.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 8:41pm

Post 36 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

sfbmovieco wrote:

EVERYONE LIES! I could go and get crap on any of them saying one thing and then saying something else.
Yeah, well this is a little different. If you watch the video it shows how corrupt Hillary is. Do you really want a lying, corrupt president that says one thing and does another? I don't.
If for one second you think there aren't 1,000 republicans that aren't far more corrupt, you're naiver than I thought. It's all opinion, I know. But let me just throw something out there: I think you're entirely wrong about Bill Clinton, Thrawn. Leaving the country not in war, not with a bad economy, and with several pro-active institutions built-up doesn't sound like a bad presidency to me. I'm not saying it was the best, but it was certainly good.

Reagan had his ups and downs, too. The most important thing with his presidency, though, was that before it America really didn't have homeless people walking around. Granted, there were a lot of pros also, but that's one biggie. Killed the socio-economic status quo.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 9:28pm

Post 37 of 191

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Thrawn wrote:

sfbmovieco wrote:

EVERYONE LIES! I could go and get crap on any of them saying one thing and then saying something else.
Yeah, well this is a little different. If you watch the video it shows how corrupt Hillary is. Do you really want a lying, corrupt president that says one thing and does another? I don't.
If for one second you think there aren't 1,000 republicans that aren't far more corrupt, you're naiver than I thought. It's all opinion, I know. But let me just throw something out there: I think you're entirely wrong about Bill Clinton, Thrawn. Leaving the country not in war, not with a bad economy, and with several pro-active institutions built-up doesn't sound like a bad presidency to me. I'm not saying it was the best, but it was certainly good.

Reagan had his ups and downs, too. The most important thing with his presidency, though, was that before it America really didn't have homeless people walking around. Granted, there were a lot of pros also, but that's one biggie. Killed the socio-economic status quo.
Clinton was impeached. That does not indicate that he was a good president. And about reagen, he ended THE BLOODY COLD WAR!!!! He did a lot for america, a lot more then Bill did.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 9:40pm

Post 38 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Being impeached for one reason doesn't mean you can't be a good President for a hundred other reasons.

Nixon did a lot with China, but he had to resign over a little mistake at Watergate. Does this mean he was a bad President? No, not at all. Lyndon B. Johnson and his wife restored America's parks and recreation areas and cleaned up the highways and junk yards off of the interstates. But he still led us into the Vietnam War, and people will forever blame him for that.

Every president has something bad about him that usually greatly overshadows the good. Don't condemn Clinton over lying about his personal life. It's unrelated to other good things he did; like, oh, I dunno, settling the national debt while gaining a surplus?
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 10:03pm

Post 39 of 191

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

You guys are entitled to your opinions, even if your wrong wink I simply disagree.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 10:22pm

Post 40 of 191

Goldwing Productions

Force: 401 | Joined: 1st Oct 2006 | Posts: 175

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Good God everyone, please don't vote for Hillary or Biden...unless you like your Constitutional freedoms being taken away. How can so many Americans fall into the Hillary trap? Ron Paul is the only candidate I support in this race because of his die hard support of the Constitution and our rights as Americans. For more information on what I'm talking about,

go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

and

www.infowars.com

P.S. With regard to Bill Clinton, the fact that he openly lied in front of the American people tells you something about his character.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 10:25pm

Post 41 of 191

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

The best thing to happen is if no one votes at all, because then people would realize that voting makes no difference anyway, and there is no such thing as democracy, and the whole thing is just an act to blind us from the truth.

Aliens.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 10:27pm

Post 42 of 191

Goldwing Productions

Force: 401 | Joined: 1st Oct 2006 | Posts: 175

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Something has to be done to stop America from being controlled by powerful elites and one world globalists.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 10:59pm

Post 43 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I remember hearing a philosophy/psychology professor talking about voting. He said usually when you see no one voting it means because they are content with what is happening.

All presidents have their faults and all have some bright spots. If you want to dilute yourself into thinking that 4 or 8 years is going to ruin this country forever, then go be scared. However, this country has been going for over 230 years and it's still going. It's more about the policy than the man. Look at the federal reserve system. People actually think our government controls the flow of money into the economy. WRONG! A privatized bank has that wonderful duty. Quit complaining about a single person and wake up to policies and ideologies, because that's what really matters.

edit: Oh and JFK had a lot to do with Vietnam. Johnson just had to continue the no communists aloud theme that JFK and Eisenhower before him had started.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 11:06pm

Post 44 of 191

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Im not sure who Im voting for yet, But I can give you my predictions for who wins the primary.

Democrats - Hilary Clinton will win the primary (unfortunantly)
- Obama will be runner up

Republicans - Giuliani will win the primary
- Romney will be runner up

Those are my predictions.
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 11:12pm

Post 45 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Wow, you can really see how much some of us (those around my age) have matured since the last election.

We were 14 then, now we're 18, and we're fairly calm and collected, presenting our ideas in a sophisticated manner, open to other ideas.

I look back on how I "debated" 4 years ago and how I'm handling this election, and shudder to think I was ever that pigheaded and stubborn (I'm still pigheaded and stubborn in other things, mind you).

Let this be a lesson to anyone 15-14 and under wishing to participate in this debate, you WILL look back on how you act regarding this election and you WILL hate yourself, I know I did! razz

Aging is great, aint it?
Posted: Sat, 1st Dec 2007, 11:42pm

Post 46 of 191

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Dancamfx wrote:

Im not sure who Im voting for yet, But I can give you my predictions for who wins the primary.

Democrats - Hilary Clinton will win the primary (unfortunantly)
- Obama will be runner up

Republicans - Giuliani will win the primary
- Romney will be runner up

Those are my predictions.
That's it? Crap... America is in for a bumpy ride...
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 12:00am

Post 47 of 191

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Dancamfx wrote:


Democrats - Hilary Clinton will win the primary (unfortunantly)
- Obama will be runner up
Generally it's a good idea to be an old fashioned white (Southern) gent if you're a democrat candidate. Neither Hilary or Obama satisfy those criteria and I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats ended up playing it safe and fielding a more "traditional" and less divisive candidate. It won't necessarily mean they'll put up the strongest candidate they could but it may prevent them handing the Republicans a huge advantage right off the bat.


Evman, getting a few years older for me means no changes in behaviour; just a slightly wider vocabulary and a sense that I really should know better. smile
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 12:01am

Post 48 of 191

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

Dancamfx wrote:

Im not sure who Im voting for yet, But I can give you my predictions for who wins the primary.

Democrats - Hilary Clinton will win the primary (unfortunantly)
- Obama will be runner up

Republicans - Giuliani will win the primary
- Romney will be runner up

Those are my predictions.
That's it? Crap... America is in for a bumpy ride...
well pretty much. I mean Hilary will win the primary 100% as long as she doesnt do something stupid to screw her campaign up. (I wouldnt mind if she did)

The republicans are a different story. It could be any one of these: Giuliani, Romney, or McCain (Wouldnt count on it)
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 3:10am

Post 49 of 191

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Goldwing Productions wrote:

Something has to be done to stop America from being controlled by powerful elites and one world globalists.
I'm glad someone brought this up. Unfortunately, I honestly believe that it is too late for this. The United States is already controlled by a singular group of the elite, and it's been that way since 80 years ago or so. The politicians are just faces, but the real controlling elements of the country are the moneybags who make it all happen. HOOOOO CONSPIRACY!!!!
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 3:13am

Post 50 of 191

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

Goldwing Productions wrote:

Something has to be done to stop America from being controlled by powerful elites and one world globalists.
I'm glad someone brought this up. Unfortunately, I honestly believe that it is too late for this. The United States is already controlled by a singular group of the elite, and it's been that way since 80 years ago or so. The politicians are just faces, but the real controlling elements of the country are the moneybags who make it all happen. HOOOOO CONSPIRACY!!!!
I'm pretty sure that's been the case for a long time...

After all, Why wouldn't corruption be the worst at the top?
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 3:15am

Post 51 of 191

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Exactly. But you have to ask yourself, what is the "top"? Most people would say the president, but is it the moneybags who back the president, or is it... something else?
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 3:42am

Post 52 of 191

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

you have to ask yourself, what is the "top"? Most people would say the president, but is it the moneybags who back the president, or is it... something else
Yeah, that makes sense. It could infact be the people that make the bags for the money or maybe those who make the cloth for the bags. eek eek eek
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 6:12am

Post 53 of 191

Aculag

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

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't mean moneybags as in literal bags of money...
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 7:05am

Post 54 of 191

Pooky

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-1

I actually find this phase of american history pretty fascinating, although quite scary. We're witnessing how a republic turns into a fascist state, or the downfall of a huge global power... pretty epic stuff. The sheer amount of propaganda and corruption all over the US media is pretty crazy, really, and it never ceases to amaze me how gullible most people are. Shame.

(whee thread deletion approaching)
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 7:31am

Post 55 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

I actually find this phase of american history pretty fascinating, although quite scary. We're witnessing how a republic turns into a fascist state, or the downfall of a huge global power... pretty epic stuff. The sheer amount of propaganda and corruption all over the US media is pretty crazy, really, and it never ceases to amaze me how gullible most people are. Shame.

(whee thread deletion approaching)
Said with the stereotypical, condescending tone of Canadian elitism. Sad, really. I'd -1 you if I had the ability, as I take great offense to this. I am proud of the political system my government runs and would love to some day be a part of it, as it's entirely what has made the U.S. really the premiere world superpower. Don't call something names without certainty. You'll end up looking like an ass. I hope you understand what I'm saying, as it's hard for me to determine whether you're being facetious or not.

Goldwing Productions wrote:

Good God everyone, please don't vote for Hillary or Biden...unless you like your Constitutional freedoms being taken away. How can so many Americans fall into the Hillary trap?
This is Evman back in 2004, hehe. (And myself from the opposite end) Oh.......Goldwing.......hopefully you will learn how to craft sentences without such an air of complete and utter slanderizing bias.

P.S. With regard to Bill Clinton, the fact that he openly lied in front of the American people tells you something about his character.
Sigh.

I'll be completely stubborn on this issue. He was put in a completely compromising situation that he felt would lose his presidential integrity at the time, had he fessed up. Either way, it was entirely his own business and has nothing to do with him being a president. He was still a good man and the fact that he played the whole ordeal off so well and still has a firm and seemingly loving marriage should tell you something too. You don't have to agree with me, and maybe it's because it has been the butt of a lot of 90s political jokes, but Bill Clinton's impeachment was for absolutely ridiculous and trivial reasons and there's really no reason to continually dog him on it.

In retrospect, he probably should've told the truth, he even admits that. But in retrospect also, he should've had his own privacy. Every president does that kind of stuff. The fact that he was weaseled and caught doesn't change that. It takes a big man to except that kind of embarrassment and humility. I would've lied myself all the way through, I think.

It angers me when people act like that's somehow substantial to calling him a bad president. To me, he's been one of the best Presidents of the last 50 or so years and his good deeds, in my opinion, have outweighed the bad. If you really think about it and leave all 9/11 conspiracy stuff out, were we really in any mess that Clinton started or allowed to continue when power changed hands back in 2000? I don't recall anything severe. You know, like Desert Storm or the War in Iraq, both perpetuated by the Bush-bookends of the Clinton Presidency.

This isn't to say that all Republicans are warmongering or that Democratic Presidents are better, though. I'm only talking to defend Clinton. As far as Reagan goes, the economy is the biggest deal. In my AP Economics class, even my Republican teacher can't refute that Reagan killed it and left us in a terrible recession. As always, of course, the statement 'the economy is perpetually bigger than government' prevails, but still. Then, on the flipside, in my AP Government class even my very neutral teacher (Middle-range of both political parties, although I'd guess you'd have to train yourself to be in order to teach government) has banged us on the head with the woes of Reagan that are often deeply underemphasized.

Granted, he was a great and smart man. But I really believe Clinton was superior. Not in many respects, no, but enough to make him a better president and leave America in a better state.

Evman wrote:

Wow, you can really see how much some of us (those around my age) have matured since the last election.
Agreed.

We were 14 then, now we're 18, and we're fairly calm and collected, presenting our ideas in a sophisticated manner, open to other ideas.
Agreed.

I look back on how I "debated" 4 years ago and how I'm handling this election, and shudder to think I was ever that pigheaded and stubborn (I'm still pigheaded and stubborn in other things, mind you).
Agreed. (Well......maybe you more than me. Kidding, kidding. smile)

Evman wrote:

Let this be a lesson to anyone 15-14 and under wishing to participate in this debate, you WILL look back on how you act regarding this election and you WILL hate yourself, I know I did! razz
True dat.







Aging is great, aint it?
Mmm-hmmm. Sorry for the long-winded post.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 7:50am

Post 56 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Bill Clinton was a great president. His wife will not be.

Ron Paul and John Edwards are my choices. Ron Paul would be ideal, Edwards may be more realistic. Though I don't think either have a edit: chance. I think democracy is silly for this reason:

"The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." (Churchill)

And that's why it scares me when Giuliani is a potential leader of our country. He is a frontrunner. Dear God. Ron Paul is the only Republican right now who I would vote vote for, at all.

Pooky: While America does seem to be spiraling downhill both economically and in foreign affairs, I really don't think it is moving toward fascism or downfall. You live in Canada where it isn't close to a global power. If you lived in any other global power country, you see just as much propaganda, just as much freedom (if not less), and just as much corruption. I bet plenty of people said the same thing during the depression, during the Cold War, etc. etc. etc. We have no idea what we are witnessing. That will only reveal itself in the future. But don't talk like you are some clairvoyant swami. You aren't.

I'll be pissed if this thread were deleted or hidden. Everything is going pretty smoothly and civilly. Maybe lock if it gets out of hand? Just my .02.

Last edited Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 8:16pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 7:53am

Post 57 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

While America does seem to be spiraling downhill both economically and in foreign affairs, I really don't think it is moving toward fascism or downfall. You live in Canada where it isn't close to a global power. If you lived in any other global power country, you see just as much propaganda, just as much freedom (if not less), and just as much corruption. I bet plenty of people said the same thing during the depression, during the Cold War, etc. etc. etc. We have no idea what we are witnessing. That will only reveal itself in the future. But don't talk like you are some clairvoyant swami. You aren't.
Said with that real American can-do spirit. You're absolutely correct, too.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 8:13am

Post 58 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Pooky wrote:

I actually find this phase of american history pretty fascinating, although quite scary. We're witnessing how a republic turns into a fascist state, or the downfall of a huge global power... pretty epic stuff. The sheer amount of propaganda and corruption all over the US media is pretty crazy, really, and it never ceases to amaze me how gullible most people are. Shame.

(whee thread deletion approaching)
It never ceases to amaze me how gullible some people are as well... Bush is hardly the first president to ever exhibit fascist tendencies, and guess what, now he's on his way out.

The argument that you have provided is incredibly frustrating, because there is no way to refute it without you immediately denouncing what we have to say as gullibility due to the media. It doesn't matter what we say or how we say it, since you have it in your head that we're childish buffoons being spoon-fed lies, you'll disregard it anyway.

I'm well aware that no great country or civilization lasts forever, but I hardly think the end is near for the US just yet, especially with the monumental increases in communication, people can get messages out much easier than before.

I hardly think that we are the only gullible people here, and you should reconsider from whom you've been told America is dying.

All of this is not to deny the fact however, that a vast majority of people are stupid, and this goes for the entire world, not just the US... So in conclusion, get off your high horse.


It's also a big shame, because this topic was maintaining civility, but if you jump in after only a day or so and say things like "whee thread deletion approaching", you kinda ruin it for people.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 8:37am

Post 59 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

The argument that you have provided is incredibly frustrating, because there is no way to refute it without you immediately denouncing what we have to say as gullibility due to the media. It doesn't matter what we say or how we say it, since you have it in your head that we're childish buffoons being spoon-fed lies, you'll disregard it anyway.
Evman and Serpent just hit the nails on the head with what I was just about to say. Bravo.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 10:23am

Post 60 of 191

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

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

SuperUser

Atom wrote:

as I take great offense to this.
Hehe. You seem to take offense to a lot of things. Isn't taking offense one of those signs that emotions are speaking and not intellectual train of thoughts? I've always thought so. But what do I know. wink


Oh yes, and keep it civil and toned down guys. Then this thread can be left as it is. So try to actually be grown ups and NOT take offense by someone's opinion, be it either way. Just like many in this thread have done so far.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 11:59am

Post 61 of 191

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

I, for one, am entirely unimpressed with the American government in so many ways, it's actually shocking to see someone else say they're "Proud" of such a brazenly corrupt, freedom-encroaching and flagrantly arrogant political system.

I'm very much a patriot in all aspects, and I know there are plenty of worse governments out there, but absolute blind patriotism without question always surprises me.


I think it has a lot to do with most people lying to themselves to make themselves feel better about our current situation.


(And yeah. We aren't fascist. Yet.)
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 1:23pm

Post 62 of 191

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

When you force yourself to ONLY look at the negative aspects of our system, it's easy for you to be "shocked" that anyone could be "proud" of it, or for you to be shocked that we would be utilizing it. If our system was truly that bad, would we be using it? No! But the fact of the matter is: Our system is, on the whole, pretty darn good. We have a pretty stable society where people do posses a little bit of power to change the government. Perhaps not as much as they should... but they can.

In 1995, five Area 51 employees sued Area 51 (the super-secret airbase in Nevada) for injuries sustained on the job. A lot of important things came about from the lawsuit, like the EPA is now authorized to inspect the base to ensure it's in environmental safety compliance, and he government actually acknowledged that the base is there. Oh, and the injured workers were compensated.

That's just one of many. Blind patriotism is a long way of saying "naive," but I can't say I'm all-the-way disappointed in the political system here. I'd type some more, but it's my Guard weekend...
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 5:26pm

Post 63 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

There are a lot of very, very negative aspects to life and the world. One can still be proud of both, as you entirely see the parts you want to. I choose to see the good in our political system and have faith in it, same with our judicial system.

And Sollthar, should I not take offense to something not from my country basically telling me my home is entirely corrupt and is destined to soon fall? Seriously. Opinion or not, it was stated as if fact and it's something I felt shouldn't be tolerated. Even those who normally split-ends with my opinion thought so.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 6:01pm

Post 64 of 191

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

With all due respect.... Normally focusing on "the good things" would be classified as "Optimism", but in this case, I'd say it's borderline "Blissful ignorance"

Being proud of corrupt government officials? I really can't see even a tiny bit of logic there whatsoever...

Great country. Great people. Great opportunities. Absolutely ******* Political climate.


However, that's not on topic.



Ron Paul!
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 6:07pm

Post 65 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well, that's your opinion. And seeing as how neither of us directly work in the American political statement, I don't think either of us are qualified to call it corrupt or not.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 9:27pm

Post 66 of 191

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Atom wrote:

Well, that's your opinion. And seeing as how neither of us directly work in the American political statement, I don't think either of us are qualified to call it corrupt or not.
Surely someone within a corrupt system would be in the worst possible position to determine whether or not that system is corrupt. It's those outside of the political system (you guys) who should have the more objective view as it's entirely within their interests to have a non-corrupt government.

On a related note I think it's pretty irresponsible as an American for you not to take on board the criticisms of those from other countries; if your country's going to be leading the free world then it's generally a good idea to listen to what the free world thinks. It's one thing to elect a president that 51% of Americans support but it's a whole other trick to elect someone who has solid and widespread international support (something that's become even more evident over the last 8 years).
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 10:22pm

Post 67 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

An American citizen may have an unbiased view if outside of the American government, but in doing so they're not necessarily affording themself an informed view. Ergo, being a part of the government and knowing more about it quite possibly puts one at greater liberty to criticize the government in which they work. The same can be say for foreign critics.

The problem I think, Rawree, is that as Americans we have too often heard the moans and groans of other countries who hate our system and constantly criticize us. This has happened since our infancy as a superpower, no matter what the political climate has been.

From living in the country, we know we have issues and acknowledge them; but such problems are, more often than not, completely overstated by a foreign entity on their high horse. (a la Pooky in this thread, specifically) and that can be thoroughly frustrating. It adds insult to injury, then, when the people criticizing us are from a completely different social and political government (e.g. not a superpower, etc) and are, often in our eyes, unfit to judge a system they do not fully understand.

And I'm not saying myself or any other young American, for that matter, is of enough political knowledge to be at liberty to judge our country's inner-workings; but I am saying that simply by being born and bred of our country's system we know more about its strengths and flaws and are therefore less likely to take a less-informed being's views into higher consideration than our own. If that makes any sort of sense.

But this will always be a touchy issue. And the world will likely always hate America. That's life.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 10:25pm

Post 68 of 191

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

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

SuperUser

Atom wrote:

Sollthar, should I not take offense to something not from my country basically telling me my home is entirely corrupt and is destined to soon fall?
Is that a trick question? Let me think... Yes. You shouldn't.

I wouldn't take offense to anything you could ever say about my country. Not because "you don't live there and hence know nothing about it" (cause I think that deduction is pure nonsense, maybe you'll figure that one out someday) but simply because I'm grown up and while I do have a healthy amount of love for good old switzerland, I also have a healthy amount of distance to it. Enough not to get offended everytime someone might disagree with my position.

But then again, that's part of my culture. We're not about power, we're about being neutral. wink

Atom wrote:

I choose to see the good
And I try to see both.

Last edited Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 10:29pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 10:28pm

Post 69 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

If American goes to hell, I can at least find solace in the fact that my state is large enough in commerce, communications, technology and land mass to secede and become its own nation.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 10:36pm

Post 70 of 191

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:


Atom wrote:

I choose to see the good
And I try to see both.
See, with thinking like that, I think America could do with a few more Swiss around here...
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 11:08pm

Post 71 of 191

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

With all due respect.... Normally focusing on "the good things" would be classified as "Optimism", but in this case, I'd say it's borderline "Blissful ignorance"

Being proud of corrupt government officials? I really can't see even a tiny bit of logic there whatsoever...

Great country. Great people. Great opportunities. Absolutely ******* Political climate.


However, that's not on topic.



Ron Paul!
I didn't say focus on the good. I said don't focus on the negative so as to portray the whole as fully negative. That is, in itself dishonest and above all, untrue.

Sollthar wrote:

Is that a trick question? Let me think... Yes. You shouldn't.

I wouldn't take offense to anything you could ever say about my country. Not because "you don't live there and hence know nothing about it" (cause I think that deduction is pure nonsense, maybe you'll figure that one out someday) but simply because I'm grown up and while I do have a healthy amount of love for good old switzerland, I also have a healthy amount of distance to it. Enough not to get offended everytime someone might disagree with my position.
I can't say I entirely agree with this. Politics is a very emotional subject, to suggest that people can't put emotion in to their belief (or, "cause" where I'm going with this) is to deny that individual their humanity in that area.

Do I take offense when super-radicals claim that Bush, Cheney and cronies bombed the World Trade Centres and that every American is an ignorant sheep living in a post-republic country slowly morphing into a Fascism without any of our action because we're all a bunch of capitalist pigs who will pay for our money-exaltation when our economy inevitably collapses?

You're saying I can't take offense to that? I mean, I realize it as a crackpot theory based mostly on mental invention designed to create a good vs. evil situation, thereby making it easier for an individual to hate Bush, the US Military, the American people, or any aspect of the United States of America. But I will take offense to that, because it directly insults me. I can see how Atom would be offended by someone proclaiming the "inevitable" collapse of America to a stealth Fascist conspiracy whose leaders are in the oval office.

Yeah. That's a little lame.

Last edited Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 12:12am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 11:17pm

Post 72 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I think there are legitimate problems with America and it's system. That being said, there are legitimate problems with any system, and America has had its fair share over its two century existence. I'm sure there have been those declaring the downfall of America almost since it's inception. No one ever thought it would succeed once untethered from England, everyone thought it would collapse under the weight of the Civil War, and many thought we were done for during the Great Depression.

There is always doubt as to a country's strength, but America has been able to survive all of the aforementioned "catastrophes", that would likely cripple many other nations as young as ours.

If all we focus on is the bad, then we're doomed to see our fears come true. If we however, instead of throwing up our hands and giving up, try to remedy these problems, then perhaps we can prevent a huge crash.

It's easy and quite frankly pathetic to simply say "America's doomed anyway, whatever, I'll wait till it collapses then move elsewhere" (I would know, I've said that before). Why lose something that has such potential?

At least during the Great Depression, citizens thought their poverty was their own damn fault (even though it wasn't really). What people in this country need is some self responsibility and humility like that. Now-a-days, all we do is whine and moan about how the Government sucks, and how they're the cause of all of our problems, rather than realizing that it's our whining and inaction that led to the gov'ts powers in the first place.

Relating back to the topic, I was watching some of the Republican and Democratic debates last night, and I found both unbelievably frustrating. These politicians all have valid and good ideas, I'm sure, but they hide their true intelligence in order to appeal to the stupid masses. Instead of saying their true beliefs, they say patriotic things that make people cheer, then keep stating they'll lower taxes, or get the troops home or not... They all say the same thing, instead of coming out and being an actual intellectual human being.

Grrr.... This is why I don't really like any of the candidates at this point.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Dec 2007, 11:20pm

Post 73 of 191

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Pickle, I wasn't referring to you there. And, as the post stated, I don't "only" focus on Negatives. I was simply warning against talking everything at face value and hoping everything will be okay.


After all, our officials are supposed to be appointed by us, the people. When they no longer respect us or honor what they say they'll do, and blatantly lie over and over again, it's up to us to cut them off and find someone more suitable for the job.

That's not even allowed anymore. They have the ability to cover up anything they want, anytime, anyway. And we can't question it.

The backwards logic our government has started to use in many departments is rather disturbing in many ways. The "Patriot act" is one such obvious example.

Giving up our freedom in order to maintain our freedom? Seriously?

We very much need to step up and be vigilant with our leaders. They're starting to realize the apathy of the majority.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 12:00am

Post 74 of 191

Merrick

Force: 1067 | Joined: 12th Apr 2007 | Posts: 548

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I have faith in America and I think it to be generally a good country. There are a lot of problems that I am upset about right now, but that must be expected. By saying that this is a good country, I'm not saying that I would be led blindly to anything just out of patriotism. Actually, I think that true patriots should fight (not physically) to improve their country and keep good leaders in office. I sort of stand in the middle here; I don't think America is the best place ever, but at the same time I don't think that our whole govornment is corrupt or anything.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 12:56am

Post 75 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

If all we focus on is the bad, then we're doomed to see our fears come true. If we however, instead of throwing up our hands and giving up, try to remedy these problems, then perhaps we can prevent a huge crash.

It's easy and quite frankly pathetic to simply say "America's doomed anyway, whatever, I'll wait till it collapses then move elsewhere" (I would know, I've said that before). Why lose something that has such potential?
Perfectly said.

I would agree. It's something I've heard for years from liberals I really used to support, but something I've vehemently been against ever saying. Realistic or not, it's simply a downer that can do no good to say. I take offense to it, because I'd like to think we're a country of integrity and endurance, and someone saying completely the contrary is, well, just a lie to me.

Maybe it's too much patriotism, although I doubt it, but it's me. And Sollthar, really, you don't have any right to tell me one way or the other. That's the beauty of the world. (Although I'm not saying what you say doesn't make sense, it does, I'd just like to think different.)

And heck, I am from Texas. smile
Posted: Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 3:11am

Post 76 of 191

Goldwing Productions

Force: 401 | Joined: 1st Oct 2006 | Posts: 175

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom, I assure you I'm not biased, but I am a realist. The whole election is staged and the play will be orchestrated perfectly if we don't all unite under the right candidate. Please take a look at these sites to see what is really going on.

www.prisonplanet.com

www.infowars.com

Ron Paul is the legitimate candidate. I'm not for him because he is Republican, I just want someone who will tell the truth.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 3:55am

Post 77 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Goldwing Productions wrote:

Atom, I assure you I'm not biased, but I am a realist. The whole election is staged and the play will be orchestrated perfectly if we don't all unite under the right candidate. Please take a look at these sites to see what is really going on.
Sigh. Somehow you'll think this statement is somehow different than you're accusatory 'staged election'. This is coercion and bias at it's greatest, and it makes me laugh.


Ron Paul is the legitimate candidate. I'm not for him because he is Republican, I just want someone who will tell the truth.
I'm sorry Goldwing, but I've grown up knowing Ron Paul's actions here in Texas and that is precisely why I'm not for him. Although I'm fairly Democrat-natured and shouldn't care, let's just say Ron Paul is by no means a Republican. Maybe he's running under the party, but his ideals are far from their philosophy. Not that this should change your opinion either way, just saying. In my opinion, the man is a thinker and a dreamer, but generally not a very 'smart' guy. He'd be a good aid to a President, but by no means a leader of a country.

This, again, is only my opinion.

There seems to be, more than anything though, the Ron Paul 'fad'. Those who can't vote will get over it, and you'll all see how Kinky-Friedman-Stupid it is. Don't know who that is? He ran for Texas Governor and caused quite a mess. While seemingly a fun guy, it was really all an unlasting fad that turned sour. And in turn, took some votes away from what would've been, in my mind, a terrific Governor that ultimately gave the election back to the current man, Rick Perry.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 4:33am

Post 78 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

Hmm, it seems like a lot of people don't seem to actually know what they are talking about. If you don't, just observe. Seriously. A lot of people in here are looking like morons, and I know you aren't. Just hold yourself back. I'm not going to point fingers at all. But it's really embarrassing to watch some of you. I only speak and respond when I feel like I have a legitimate opinion. I am not an elite political scholar, I won't pretend to be. But I know enough to see where some people are just blatantly wrong.

Last edited Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 4:35am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 4:35am

Post 79 of 191

Goldwing Productions

Force: 401 | Joined: 1st Oct 2006 | Posts: 175

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I give up trying anything on the debates here, as they all result to remarking on each other rather than the issues at hand.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 5:38am

Post 80 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -4

Last edited Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 7:29pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 9:14am

Post 81 of 191

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

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

SuperUser

Atom wrote:

And Sollthar, really, you don't have any right to tell me one way or the other. That's the beauty of the world.
Nah, that's just you choosing not to listen to other people like usual. wink

I'm sure your semantics usually work with people your own age. But I have every right to tell you one way or the other. And of course, you have every right to disregard it. And that is, really, the beauty of the world.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 8:42pm

Post 82 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Goldwing is right, this always ends up happening, and Atom you deserve that -1. I think it has become more of a problem lately, as I too have noticed this happening with alarming frequency. I don't at all exclude myself from ever doing this, but I'm going to try to make an effort to stop, as (I think it was Bryce?) said in a recent thread, this place can end up being a LOT less fun when the bickering resorts to personal levels.

And Atom, sorry but Sollthar also just crafted the perfect response to you as well.

Come on man, we were finally seeing eye to eye on some things in this thread, DON'T RUIN IT! razz
Posted: Mon, 3rd Dec 2007, 8:57pm

Post 83 of 191

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Goldwing Productions wrote:

I give up trying anything on the debates here, as they all result to remarking on each other rather than the issues at hand.
CONDESCENDING11!!
Oh my, a hilarious picture and an even more hilarious slogan to boot! See, you make a point about someone compromising their credibility and then go and do something like that, dragging the whole thing into a world of "So's your face" and "that's what your mum said". Come on, if you can't discuss adult issues in an adult way then why even bother. It makes you look more clueless than even the most hardened conspiracy theorist.

Get back on point.
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 4:10am

Post 84 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

To throw us back on the campaign road, recent polls give Obama the advantage over Hillary for the Democratic candidate, specifically in the Iowa caucus. Don't know what to think about that, as I don't particularly like him, but not necessarily Hillary either.

And while there's a few candidates I like, I almost find myself back on the side of not liking any.
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 4:24am

Post 85 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Goldwing Productions wrote:

I'm not for him because he is Republican, I just want someone who will tell the truth.
Some food for thought:

Surely a powerful leader of the free world is someone who is willing to do more than just tell the truth, is he not? I hate to sound right-wing here, because I'm absolutely not, but I'm sure there are facets of our government that we are better off not knowing about.

While airing out all of Washington's dirty laundry is a good idea in theory, the resulting potential social and political backlash is not favorable towards a person- in this case Ron Paul- who will be scrambling to sustain his power as President.

Long story short: we need honesty, but with concision, moderation, and a strong will. Sometimes both bluffing and being able to call a bluff are valuable skills. Leadership should go in all directions; and as sad as it is to hear, the truth is not the only direction.

Cutting the crap in your campaigns, that's all well and good. But much further into exposition and you're into an argumentative quagmire with either political branch of the country.
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 5:48am

Post 86 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm sorry but calling Ron Paul a fad is now a fad. The man raised over four million dollars in one day. With a month to go in the quarter, he has raised over $10.5 million dollars. This is not fad or fake money. That's real money.

Ron Paul is more conservative than any of the republican candidates going against him. It's just that the elephant party has so distorted it's core values that you have people who don't believe in abortion but believe in the death penalty and torture. It's so funny, that it's not funny.

Now on to some of the other topics: do I believe the country is going south? Yes I do. That's not to say it cannot be saved. I believe this nation has shown a penchant of having a fairly wide ranging ebb and flow of good times and bad. Our problems continue to get compounded through each administration. Bush was certainly not the worst president ever, but was definitely not the best. Not by a long shot. In my book, he'd definitely be in the bottom half.

After I vote for Paul in the primary, I'm going to be switching to the Libertarian party. Like some have said before me, I'm not leaving the party, the party left me...
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 5:55am

Post 87 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm with you on most of this, but a little bit more food for thought: I think you weakened your point of Paul as not being a 'fad' by describing how much money he has gained.

Fads = gaining popularity; gaining money = gaining popularity. Furbies sold by the millions. So did pet rocks, hula hoops, and roller blades. And while the polticians and my examples don't fit together in perfect context, surely you see where this puts your argument in duress?

Again, just some musings of mine. I think you have a good point overall, though.
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 5:58am

Post 88 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

To me a fad suggests that it's something you like and then quickly forget about. When you give money to a cause such as Paul's, I don't think these people consider it a fad.
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 12:59pm

Post 89 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Ron Paul - he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to most foreign matters and his strict Constitutionalism bars him from making any sort of compromise or difficult decision that isn't explicitly outlined in the Constitution.
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 6:40pm

Post 90 of 191

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I've just read this whole thread and, as a non-US citizen am intrigued to know how well the American media report the campaigns. The printed press in the UK is mostly divided behind political lines and openly biased but we still have tv news channels which maintain a high level of integrity.

During large parts of the Gulf War it was eye-opening to flick through the satellite news channels and see the BBC News 24 reporting of incidents and compare it to the CNN and NBC coverage. The main difference seemed to be that the American news channels talked of successes in battle on days when the BBC were showing footage of scores of innocent civilians killed in badly aimed and badly named "collateral damage".

To the US voters in these forums - where do you get your news and views from? Do you feel you get a clear view or are you aware of newspapers and tv stations aligning themselves to particular candidates? One thing I have always found vaguely concerning about US politics is the fact that political candidates can buy adverts on normal tv which does give those with money a greater influence than those without. Though there are lots of faults with the way UK parties are funded (topical this week!) the restricted use of party political broadcasts is something I very much support.
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 7:42pm

Post 91 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

petet2 wrote:

I've just read this whole thread and, as a non-US citizen am intrigued to know how well the American media report the campaigns. The printed press in the UK is mostly divided behind political lines and openly biased but we still have tv news channels which maintain a high level of integrity.
I think the same is true for us, if not switched a little bit. I've got a greater faith in my daily newspaper than national TV news, but I overall trust both to be fairly accurate. There's still some evident bias in politics on the TV end, but it can be avoided by being conscientious to what you're hearing. I think that's true for anything, really.

During large parts of the Gulf War it was eye-opening to flick through the satellite news channels and see the BBC News 24 reporting of incidents and compare it to the CNN and NBC coverage. The main difference seemed to be that the American news channels talked of successes in battle on days when the BBC were showing footage of scores of innocent civilians killed in badly aimed and badly named "collateral damage".
Have you watched a lot of American news? This is hardly the case. Perhaps some things are sensationalized a tad sometimes (ala 9/11), but I'm positive that happens with everything everywhere. Even a guy telling his friend a funny story that happened to him earlier will do that. Either way, I've found our news to be neither berating our mistakes severely nor giving us all pats on the back. It's somewhere inbetween with a good level of clearity, and I like that. The same is true with the BBC and PBS (public television). Aside from some specialty shows on FOXNEWS, it's all relatively the same news. Like the Associated Press, a multitude of news and bias somehow ensures that everyone is getting the same thing. We're not that pupeteered of a country, pete. smile

To the US voters in these forums - where do you get your news and views from? Do you feel you get a clear view or are you aware of newspapers and tv stations aligning themselves to particular candidates?
My AP Government teacher said it best today, the news mutually hates every candidate and every President in office. As far as the news, I like to think the newspapers and some news broadcasts have a level of journalism ethics and integrity. So much so, I'm not really worried about news influence. My teacher said perhaps in the last 70 years, the only exception to this is FDR. As, the news completely covered up his polio and paralysis for basically as long as they could as respect to him. Nowadays, I'd like to believe everything the news has access to is exposed.

which does give those with money a greater influence than those without.
And you don't think that people with money have always been the people with the most influence and power? But really, I think it's all a matter of being conscientious and really thinking about your views, which I believe the majority of voting Americans do. (Not Americans able to vote, necessarily)
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 9:02pm

Post 92 of 191

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

petet2 wrote:

During large parts of the Gulf War it was eye-opening to flick through the satellite news channels and see the BBC News 24 reporting of incidents and compare it to the CNN and NBC coverage. The main difference seemed to be that the American news channels talked of successes in battle on days when the BBC were showing footage of scores of innocent civilians killed in badly aimed and badly named "collateral damage".
Have you watched a lot of American news?
At the height of the Gulf War I watched a lot of news often through the night and studying the differences in the way that events were reported by different tv networks was fascinating. Sky news in the UK (owned by Murdoch who owns Fox) was different to the BBC and more akin to the US news channels which we get. One striking difference was the sanitisation of the war by the US channels. There were none of the shots of blood stained streets or civilian corpses. Without seeing the true horror of war it becomes much easier to support.

Apologies for drifting off subject. I am not meaning to hijack the thread which I am enjoying as an insight into US politics at the moment.

If I can offer one piece of advice to younger FX Homers and new voters it would be that no candidate is all wrong (except maybe the NF in the UK) or all right. The world is not black and white at all and you often have to choose the most suitable shade of grey.
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 10:24pm

Post 93 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

petet2 wrote:

At the height of the Gulf War I watched a lot of news often through the night and studying the differences in the way that events were reported by different tv networks was fascinating. Sky news in the UK (owned by Murdoch who owns Fox) was different to the BBC and more akin to the US news channels which we get. One striking difference was the sanitisation of the war by the US channels. There were none of the shots of blood stained streets or civilian corpses. Without seeing the true horror of war it becomes much easier to support.
I definitely agree. I think as we've entered great war territory over the past 5 or 6 years, now, as technology has progressed, the news has matured a little bit with it. Like WWII, we can't simply be shown horrific pictures of war and get a complete perspective. The same is true today, and that's why I agree.

Let me just say, though, it's really been nothing but bad press for the war in iraq and other occupied areas that I see. Horror from both ends. That's what I think is so astounding about journalism; how far some of those people go to give the public a varied perspective. I also think, though, you don't have to see the horrors of war to appreciate or condemn its overall effects. History if anything has taught us the pros and cons.

I think the amount we see on TV is perfectly fine. The coverage is, of course, slanted at times in different ways though, and I agree. Although sometimes I think it helps. Not often.


If I can offer one piece of advice to younger FX Homers and new voters it would be that no candidate is all wrong (except maybe the NF in the UK) or all right. The world is not black and white at all and you often have to choose the most suitable shade of grey.
And this is a curious thing that I don't think Evman or I realized when we duked it out back in 2004, but have grown to comprehend now. Everyone has their faults and strengths. Those with more of the latter are the few we're all looking for.
Posted: Wed, 5th Dec 2007, 5:17am

Post 94 of 191

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

pete2 wrote:

At the height of the Gulf War I watched a lot of news often through the night and studying the differences in the way that events were reported by different tv networks was fascinating. Sky news in the UK (owned by Murdoch who owns Fox) was different to the BBC and more akin to the US news channels which we get. One striking difference was the sanitisation of the war by the US channels. There were none of the shots of blood stained streets or civilian corpses. Without seeing the true horror of war it becomes much easier to support.
Actually, I generally supported the Gulf War because uh...

...Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. I think US news channels are the worst things around, particularly because... they focus only on the negative. People hate Bush because they see what the media shows them, which is to say... Bush's shortcomings.

I'd prefer honest news, rather than "sanitized" or "enhanced."
Posted: Wed, 5th Dec 2007, 10:58pm

Post 95 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Okay, so this has become enough of an issue for me that I'll just throw it out there.

I seriously doubt I'll support any candidate that doesn't advocate or encourage the continuation of manned space flight and space research. Though Bush has pissed me off on a lot of things, I think he was right on about this, and any candidate that doesn't embrace this idea (Obama, Ron Paul) has most likely lost my vote.

(Out of left field? Maybe, but it's more important than everyone realizes)
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 12:24am

Post 96 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

Oh yeah, because I'm lazy, anyone want to fill me in?: Which candidates support stem cell research?

There is NO reason it should be illegal to do in humans. It's already proving successful in monkeys:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/15/ST2007111501452.html

This is a HUGE issue that seems to get no attention this election (though admittedly I avoid media and "debates"). Stem cell research could prove to be one of the biggest medical advancements yet and I think it is extremely important to our generation (or anyone that is alive right now, for that matter.)
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 12:28am

Post 97 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

My grandfather worked for Lockheed in the 50's and '60s when they were working with NASA. I enjoy listening to his stories about what he knew that was "classified". He told me so many things that were classified are common knowledge now and most things deemed classified were so non consequential that it's silly. Example: GPS used to be classified.

The point being things we do and technology we study for war and space travel end up being so far advanced that they usually create consumer products.

That being said, America needs to get its priorities straight. While we shouldn't dissolve our space program, I find no reason at this point to start giving it more money than is already alloted to it. We are at an all time high in our trade deficits (Some $20 billion dollars to China. Search Google for 'China owns your mortgage'), we can't secure our own borders and so on and so forth.

EDIT: Serp, I agree but to an extent. States should determine this issue. American taxpayers should not be forced to fund federal stem cell research when they believe it is immoral. When all of a sudden did states rights become nil?
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 3:04am

Post 98 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

There is NO reason it should be illegal to do in humans. It's already proving successful in monkeys
Not that I disagree with stem cells, but don't go as far as saying there should be NO reason it should be illegal. There's an obvious ethical/religious/whatever-you-want-to-call-it stance backing against it, and I at least understand that.

sfbmovieco wrote:

Serp, I agree but to an extent. States should determine this issue. American taxpayers should not be forced to fund federal stem cell research when they believe it is immoral. When all of a sudden did states rights become nil?
Agreed.

As for space exploration, I entirely agree. Where did space stuff go these days? People don't even want to be astronauts any more. (But that's another story)
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 3:39am

Post 99 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:


That being said, America needs to get its priorities straight. While we shouldn't dissolve our space program, I find no reason at this point to start giving it more money than is already alloted to it.
We don't need to give it more money. The budget it's getting now is infinitesimally small compared to almost all other aspects of the national budget. Cutting it any more would cripple it, but keeping it how it is should do it's job of getting us back to the Moon and then Mars within the next 15-20 years.

Obama wants to cut these manned programs to help fund education.

While this is noble, the NASA budget is hardly a financial black hole, and there are plenty of other useless programs that can be cut to achieve his goals.

Our planet is dying. Global Warming is taking hold, and there's always the potential for Asteroid/Comet impacts. We NEED a foothold in the universe. We need to go to Mars and start learning all we can (something only humans can do well, as robots are extremely limited), and eventually begin to terraform Mars into a second Earth... This sounds like science fiction, but it's entirely feasible, though no where near in our life time.

In hundreds or thousands of years from now, no one will remember any president for pulling out of Iraq or enhancing the educational system...

They will remember if we got to Mars and beyond.

As humans we've always had the drive to explore. Americans in particular, have always had a "frontier" so to speak, and this drive was what kept us succeeding. Now that all Earth based frontiers are gone, we MUST expand into space in order both to accomodate the planet's growing population, and to retrieve valuable resources from our celestial neighbors. Sticking it out here will only lead to further stagnation and demise. Think things are bad now? If we remain stranded on our little hunk of rock in a universe of discovery with our eyes closed, we'll never advance as a species. Millions of years of evolution will stop dead in their tracks.

Most recent space expeditions have been multinational as well. What better way to bring the earth together in a common cause? We could forget some of our petty differences if we have new frontiers to explore.

Imagine what the world would be like if Columbus never discovered America, for instance.

When Niel Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969, the whole world was watching. No one thought "that's an American up there..." They said "that's a human up there on another world" Even amid the tumultuous time of the late 60s, people were able to take time out to band together in awe of human achievement.

Asking to allow NASA to retain it's already ridiculously small budget isn't too much to pay for the next few thousand years of human existence.

If we can't think to the future, we'll never resolve our present problems. Expanding into space is the single most important task for HUMAN BEINGS at this moment.

Our very survival depends on it.





/end diatribe. (can you tell I'm writing a paper on this very subject right now?) razz
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 3:44am

Post 100 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:


There is NO reason it should be illegal to do in humans. It's already proving successful in monkeys
Its a debate because it basically is hand in hand with abortion.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 3:45am

Post 101 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Our survival depends on it? Space exploration? Really? That's a little far and far fetched.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 3:51am

Post 102 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Reread what I said, and it should make sense. If you wish me to elaborate, I'll do so tomorrow, as writing that pretty much drained me, and I'm tired and going to bed! razz

But I will gladly give a more detailed explanation tomorrow if wished, though I encourage you to reread what I wrote and think to the future when you're doing it.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 3:55am

Post 103 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I think we've all seen Red Planet.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 4:18am

Post 104 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

Serpent wrote:


There is NO reason it should be illegal to do in humans. It's already proving successful in monkeys
Its a debate because it basically is hand in hand with abortion.
All right guys, I know what the reason is for people to debate it. However, I should have said "no GOOD reason." Ethics shouldn't hinder science if it's dealing with things that aren't yet living. You can argue against fetuses, but stem cell research doesn't kill fetuses and it doesn't necessarily clone humans.

And we can't have our government base decisions on religious values. Ethical values yes, but people who argue against things like gay marriage and stem cell research using the "it's not scriptural" argument are moronic debaters because their audience usually doesn't give a damn.

I completely understand it though, I was kind of just poking at the other side, because most of the other side is ignorant to what is involved (not all, just speaking generally). I know plenty of intelligent pro-life people who are for stem cell research, because it's important.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 4:27am

Post 105 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

And we can't have our government base decisions on religious values. Ethical values yes, but people who argue against things like gay marriage and stem cell research using the "it's not scriptural" argument are moronic debaters because their audience usually doesn't give a damn.
Let's not go here. Let me just say, at their very, very deepest core, ethics in western society are generally drawn from Judeo-Christian values. (Ala, the Ten Commandments, maybe?) You may not want to accept it, and you're free not to agree with Christianity or Judaism, but those ethics' hearth is religion. No way around it. That's all I'll go into on that. My religion doesn't make a terrible amount of influence on my decisions in politics or basic life, but it is totally the center rule-of-measure for, let's say not-so-ethical, things.

Lest we not forget, I'm not a Conservative/Republican either. smile

I completely understand it though, I was kind of just poking at the other side, because most of the other side is ignorant to what is involved (not all, just speaking generally). I know plenty of intelligent pro-life people who are for stem cell research, because it's important.
Saved yourself there a little. wink
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 6:51am

Post 106 of 191

Waser

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

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

SuperUser

I would like to quickly throw in some pennies on the whole church/state thing. I live in Utah, a state where the government is practically run by a (The Mormon) church, and it's ridiculous. Even though I think here in Utah we have the whole church/state thing worse than others, whenever people lay down the "well our country was found on religious ideals so it makes sense to implement this and that", I get a little irked. By the way, the following statement is "my own opinion" and I didn't feel like writing that after each sentence. So there you go.

You're right that the US was founded by a gaggle of extremely religious men, but it was also founded by some incredibly sensible men who wrote this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It was so important, it was in the first amendment. Now I have no problem with religious people running office. Actually, deep down, in all honesty, I really do, but that's beside the point. I'm not delusional enough to think that more than one atheist will ever hold a position of real political power in this country, and that's optimism. Either way, when a religious person uses their faith to create law, they immediately infringe on the rights of people who don't abide by the religion in question. All governmental laws should be secular. Of course we have to have laws against murder, burglary, and other crimes that infringe on the rights of other people, but the moment you use your faith as a basis to take away rights from people when said rights only affect the people in question, and no one else, that is lunacy, and goes against the constitution. Mainly, I'm talking about same-sex marriage, but also abortions (for the love of God take that with a grain of salt) and drug use. Policies concerning these three issues are mainly, and you can argue solely, based on faiths that I have no part of. Am I going to get gay married? No. Am I going to have an abortion? No. Do I use drugs? No. (I can't cuz of the lupus/ulcer)But that should really be my choice, not some guy who believes in stuff that I absolutely do not.

/end rant
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 8:15am

Post 107 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

There is nothing in the constitution that uses the phrase seperation of church and state. The original intent of that statement was to make sure there was to keep politics out of religion, not the other way around.

HOWEVER!! I agree that policy/politicians votes should not be based on their religion. It should be based on the constitution, which they swore to uphold. Huckabee wants to make all ciggarette smoking outdoors illegal. All of the republicans have no tolerance for marijuana (save Paul). These laws are made based on their moral compass, not the constitution and that's a DAMN shame.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 8:35am

Post 108 of 191

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

There is nothing in the constitution that uses the phrase seperation of church and state. The original intent of that statement was to make sure there was to keep politics out of religion, not the other way around.
Just because there isn't a phrase saying "separation of church and state" doesn't mean we shouldn't practice it. That SHOULD be written into law so that douchebag politicians seeking to get their religion's grimy little fingers into law would be, at least, legally prohibited from doing so.

That way, when they got caught, they couldn't say, "Well, I didn't know..."

I have no qualm with religion. I'm an atheist, but generally speaking, I think religion has a positive effect on society. Churches help the poor, instill positive morals, and are generally socially involved. It's just... religion, by it's nature, puts this idea into people's minds that theirs is right, and NO others are. In this respect, it can be a detrimental force to society.

So if I'm atheist, and I reveal this to someone who is mostly likely NOT atheist, they will probably ask my why I believe that. Does it matter? Do people think I feel like defending my beliefs every time I disclose what they are? No. I don't. I'd just like, for once, to tell someone that I'm atheist, and have them go about their business acknowledging that they did, indeed, hear correctly, but that doesn't affect our coexistent relationship.

So, you ask why church and state are, and should continue to be separated? That's why. Do I get pedantic and all huffy about "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill? No. I don't. I don't much care for it, but I am capable of realizing the realistic parallels of the phrase, "You can't please everybody." As such, I have no realistic qualm with "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill, or even the Ten Commandments at a courthouse. The Ten Commandments are good, socially progressive morals -- as long as the judge and jury aren't all holding Bibles while casting knife-sharp glares at me, I don't really care.

Start shaping your corporate policy, political platform, or legislative action around phrases in a 2,000 year old book? Yeah. That's a problem. A big one. Because not everyone in this country believes that Universal Truth can be found in that 2,000 year old book, and politicians need to respect that, be they Christian or not.

sfbmovieco wrote:

HOWEVER!! I agree that policy/politicians votes should not be based on their religion. It should be based on the constitution, which they swore to uphold.
That makes no sense. Politicians don't uphold the Constitution, the people do. The Police enforce that law. Politicians exist to make our country a better place by... well, solving problems. Through legislation.

They're supposed to do it in an objective, thorough manner, however most politicians in Congress have attended less than 50% of all total votes. And considering there is a proposal to ban assault weapons (again), it really begins to occur to me that politicians aren't looking at empirical evidence, case studies, and otherwise fairly credible facts to make their decisions... because if they were... they'd probably realize that assault weapons have accounted for approximately 1.69% of all violent crime in the past few years. Not to mention the argument that banning any type of firearm does nothing to sway the illegal arms trade, except it takes protection and defense away from the responsible citizen.

So... it occurs to me that...

...they're just biased human-beings that have worked very hard for most of their lives so that they wouldn't have to work hard ever again. They'll serve as many terms as they care to in Congress, knowing that they aren't bound by social security, and they will continue making their annual wage of roughly $200,000 a year long after they have left Congress. If that isn't enough, well hey. Congress is the one job in the world where you... can VOTE on your own pay.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 1:28pm

Post 109 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:


All right guys, I know what the reason is for people to debate it. However, I should have said "no GOOD reason." Ethics shouldn't hinder science if it's dealing with things that aren't yet living. You can argue against fetuses, but stem cell research doesn't kill fetuses and it doesn't necessarily clone humans.

I completely understand it though, I was kind of just poking at the other side, because most of the other side is ignorant to what is involved (not all, just speaking generally). I know plenty of intelligent pro-life people who are for stem cell research, because it's important.
I don't really think anyone is against stem cell research in the way you think people are. Stem Cell Research is fine by most pro-life as long as its adult stem cells who willingly give them up. Its the close ties it has to abortion that people don't like about it. To call that ignorant of people, well I could say the same thing about your argument.

On the cloning of humans, I never really factor that into any debate about stem cell research because I don't really think anyone is for that.

Also you first say "Ethics shouldn't hinder science if it's dealing with things that aren't yet living" and then start the next sentence with " You can argue against fetuses". All I ask is, huh?


Waser: Drug use can often lead to violence and you are okay with that? Frankly, in my case at least, I never looked at drug use and abortion from a religious standpoint. I don't really have to get that far to see the harm in both.

Drug use can often lead to violence, quickly. You can respond with "Well, alcohol can do the same". Well you're right, but alcohol can't kill someone with one swig of the bottle, but many drugs can with one hit. I don't see any religious part to that.

Secondly, abortion I see as murder. Nothing religious about that for me. Its just the way it is. Now you can respond with "Well than its a law against the right to choose". We both will disagree to the end of time and thats the glory of that unsolvable debate.




This thread is turning into a pandoras box of argument. Everything from space exploration to abortion.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 1:55pm

Post 110 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

Heh, what I meant about the fetus thing was if we were, for some reason, killing human fetuses for science. That is ethically wrong in my opinion.

But I knew that it was the close ties to abortion that the other side argues. I thought I implied that with most anti-stem cell people being pro-life. I suppose I was unclear with my wording.

I was saying the other side was ignorant more in reference to the average Joe against stem cell research. I've heard people say they are against it and I ask them: "why?" What they tell me does not = stem cell research. So I meant literally ignorant to what it even is really.


And about the drug thing: it depends on the drug though. I am not for the legalization of all drugs, but I am for the legalization of drugs just as harmful as cigs and alcohol. Really, more specifically, marijuana. Harmful to the lungs is up to the user. And being high on mj isn't nearly as bad as being drunk usually, if you know how to use it responsibly (safe, controlled environment with no driving involved. Just like alcohol.) You can't OD on marijuana.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 2:06pm

Post 111 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Well thats is something that alot of people agree with on weed. What do you say to the argument that it is a gateway drug. Once people smoke weed they will use that as a stepping stone to drugs like cocaine or heroine or other pills.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 2:21pm

Post 112 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

What do you say to the argument that it is a gateway drug. Once people smoke weed they will use that as a stepping stone to drugs like cocaine or heroine or other pills.
Well, I'd say it's more the people they smoke with that are the gateway, whether weed is in between the hard drugs or not. I think it's a self control decision that one needs to make when they decide to smoke weed recreationally. And I think that should be taught (and studied more, for programs at school that teach this stuff.

Our school taught "don't drink, have sex, or do drugs." They never have an "if you do" and I can see why. By high school, they start teaching you about if you are having sex or are going to. They teach you a bit about drinking too: myths about sobering up, how to drink responsibly "when you are 21," but they still say don't do drugs without anything beyond that. For hard drugs they should teach kids how to get started on getting off drugs and why they are bad, and they should explain that you shouldn't get really high on vacation when you are near a cliffside, or when you are driving. I am not a professional on this, but I bet it could be researched and taught fairly properly if marijuana were legalized and had a legal age limit. Not to mention the tax money the government would get, something they really need.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 2:45pm

Post 113 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Let's reign this topic in a little bit, as it's moved onto drugs.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 4:05pm

Post 114 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

You guys were just talking about space exploration, let us have this little fun for a bit more, its civil.


Serpent wrote:

Well, I'd say it's more the people they smoke with that are the gateway
Well to make the connection to alcohol again, I'd say beer is a gateway into alcoholism that leads to hard liquor where *most* alcoholics end up. People start drinking beer socially with friends. After awhile they feel a bit drunk and they like it. Anybody who does that for long enough starts to want something that gets them more drunk in half the time. They move to hard liquor. Its not because of who they hang with or for social reasons because usually becoming an alcoholic is a private thing. A majority of alcoholics drink alone. Not to start a fight over how drinking works because I know this doesn't apply to everyone.

Anyway to bring that out-there point home, I have a very easy time seeing the similarities, just the same as seeing alcohol a drug like marijuana.

Serpent wrote:

I think it's a self control decision that one needs to make when they decide to smoke weed recreationally.
If thats the case, then why not legalize all drugs, right? I mean, to go on with my alcohol analogy, its the equivilent of hard liquor. If all it comes down to is a self control decision that needs to be made.
The number of alcoholics in America really show how that plays out.



Don't take any of this personally or anything like that. I really am just debating topics of interest in an election. From being on a debate team, I learned to detach myself from a debate.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 5:59pm

Post 115 of 191

Pooky

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I don't see why we shouldn't legalize most drugs. Anyone who wants to get them right now can do so anyway, so it'd actually make those people safer since the drug production would be regulated. It'd help developing countries by giving them a new source of revenue, would greatly lower the population in prisons, get rid of all the nasty drug business, free up a ton of money for the government and give police officers time to do more useful things. Everybody wins.

Obviously you'd have to handle it correctly: dangers of the drug would have to be clearly printed on the box, and particularly nasty drugs would have to be harder to get (LSD shouldn't be found hanging around in your usual pharmacy, for example).

BTW I'd never even try drugs, this is just a relatively simple case of cost vs benefits.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 6:16pm

Post 116 of 191

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:



Well to make the connection to alcohol again, I'd say beer is a gateway into alcoholism that leads to hard liquor where *most* alcoholics end up. People start drinking beer socially with friends. After awhile they feel a bit drunk and they like it. Anybody who does that for long enough starts to want something that gets them more drunk in half the time. They move to hard liquor. Its not because of who they hang with or for social reasons because usually becoming an alcoholic is a private thing. A majority of alcoholics drink alone. Not to start a fight over how drinking works because I know this doesn't apply to everyone.

Anyway to bring that out-there point home, I have a very easy time seeing the similarities, just the same as seeing alcohol a drug like marijuana.

Clearly you don't have much experience with drinking or know much about alcohol. Drinking "harder" drinks than beer or lager is not some kind of progression into alcoholism. Whenever I go out with friends around half will be drinking lager or cider and the other half will be on spirits; it's got nothing to do with them wanting to get drunk quicker, it's not that they've "moved on" to spirits, it's just personal preference and none of us are alcoholics. You seem to have it in your head that only alcoholics drink spirits or that they're only consumed alone (nor is the phrase "just leave the bottle" used routinely by whiskey drinkers in bars). Similarly alcoholism is very different to something like a heroin or cocaine addiction (in the sense of how most people get there). Basically you're talking rubbish there.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 7:17pm

Post 117 of 191

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

No, if you drink hard liquor you aren't a step closer to being an alcoholic. But alcoholics do usually drink more hard liquor than beer. Its due to building up a tolerance to beer and not getting the buzz and needing something stronger. Its the same way someone builds a tolerance to marijuana and needs to take more hits or move to something stronger.

You keep using the terms spirits and only. Firstly, I have no idea what spirits are. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I've never heard anyone mention spirits when talking about alcohol. Is it a British drink or something? Secondly, I made it a point to make sure it was clear in my last post that I was not grouping every single person who drinks alcohol or is an alcoholic under what I was saying. I even made the last sentence a reminder of that. So don't worry, that is firmly not in my head.

And I absolutely disagree that there is a huge difference between alcoholism and heroin and cocaine addiction. Some takes something or drinks something alot because they like the way it makes them feel. They start to take more and more of it because takes more to get the desired high or buzz. When they try to stop they go through a withdraw and are drawn back to it.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 7:23pm

Post 118 of 191

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm largely compelled to agree here -- I don't have a problem with marijuana being legalized. How we can allow alcohol and cigarettes, yet ban marijuana is a conflict of logic.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 9:08pm

Post 119 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm just going to throw out there that I'm an atheist that is probably more moral than 95% of people at my school. I don't do much bad, don't break the law, believe strongly in moral things.

I don't think that Gay marriage is a moral thing at all. I can ALMOST understand how stem cell research is a moral thing, and certainly how abortion is, but gay marriage is in no way a "moral" thing as we perceive. It is a Christian thing, and there's a huge difference there. Gay marriage wouldn't hurt anyone, nor would it do ANYTHING bad, in anyway, and it can only possibly be good.

Also, for those who wanted a bit more clarification on the whole space/survival thing (really kinda pissed that that issue got stamped out so soon), I meant survival of the species as a whole within the next few hundred years. Not our immediate survival, but our children's children's children's etc children.

Just trying to veer this away from drugs...
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 9:41pm

Post 120 of 191

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

Gay marriage wouldn't hurt anyone, nor would it do ANYTHING bad, in anyway, and it can only possibly be good.
Oh-oh! I've been wanting to give out a hypothesis that I've been toying around with for a few days:

If something is truly good, the whole world can do it, and there won't be a problem.

Things like:
Breathing air
Drinking water
Wearing clothes
Sleeping
Not drinking and driving
Not killing

But does something like homosexuality fall under that category? I've been thinking about that for a while...

Thoughts?
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 9:49pm

Post 121 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

Your logic is SO faulty, Fill. Homosexual marriage benefits help a group of people in America, but not everyone, therefore it's not good?

My thoughts are: your logic is terrible, as is your definition for good. Out of curiosity, where do you stand on the gay marriage issue? It seems as though you are against it, which I'd really like to discuss if you are.

And also: homosexuality isn't illegal. They just can't be married. So however bad you think it, it will still go on (I honestly can't understand that side of the argument though). I just don't see why they don't deserve the benefits of marriage.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 9:58pm

Post 122 of 191

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Furthermore, one would also have to consider the implication of why homosexuals want to marry.


Since it generally sounds selfish to simply opt for the "Legal benefits" excuse, 90% of the time they say it's because "They love each other".

Now, apparently, that's a good enough reason for most people, because the thinking "BUT they LOVE each other! We shouldn't interfere with THAT!"

Consider this though. If "love" is all that matters, then why don't we allow EVERYONE that says they love something to legally seal the deal?

For instance, lets say someone is 100% positive that they're in love with their sister? Or, perhaps in few a even more unpleasant cases, someone claims to be in love with an animal, or a parent.

Yes, people have claimed those things, under all scrutiny and derision, that they truly are in love with Family members, animals, etc...


So, that being said, (And without getting too graphic), All of the above mentioned practices are proven to be harmful to your health, and to the family system in general. It also disallows procreation (The thing that has furthered the human race in the first place)


Anyone want to comment?

(and try and remove ignorance from your response, as the examples I've given are in no way "WORSE" then the others. They represent common cases the legal system has had to face before.)
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 10:37pm

Post 123 of 191

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

What he said
Spirits are alcoholic drinks that are distilled (Whiskey, Vodka, Gin etc). I meant that alcohol and heroin/cocaine addiction are different in terms of the route by which people get there generally - alcohol is alcohol and there's no real difference apart from the quantity which you consume (whether through increased consumption of weaker drinks or through consumption of stronger ones). Marijuana and heroin/coke are just a stronger or weaker variation of one another, they're completely different and will induce different conditions. I've seen a progression through harder and harder substances by people I know but their drinking habits have generally stayed the same.

Basically my point is that someone might switch to spirits just because the alcohol content:price ratio is considerably higher than with lager. However you'll just as often find people drinking the sort of cider you can get several litres of for few quid for the same reason. It's not that they build up a tolerance to a certain kind of booze, just that there are more affordable ways to get bladdered.

Fill, your hypothesis is just daft. The value of anything is subjective to each individual and I think a better definition would be something that can benefits any number of people as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. To define something as good shouldn't require for it to benefit everyone. Of course that's if you're living in a world of absolute truth and absolute good which I believe is right next door to Narnia. Homosexual marriage is fine in my eyes, I've never heard an argument against it that I could put any stock in.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 10:51pm

Post 124 of 191

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I absolutely agree with Rawree. Infact, I'd rather have a nice, sharp mixed drink then a beer, invariably.


Consider this as well: Wine has a considerably higher alcohol content than beer, but who associates wine with alcoholics?


The content doesn't matter. The person drinking it, and the personal standards he keeps for himself is what matters.



Infact, I'd more associate a 30pk of cheap beer with alcoholics then anything else.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 11:04pm

Post 125 of 191

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:


Consider this as well: Wine has a considerably higher alcohol content than beer, but who associates wine with alcoholics?
*Raises hand*. Thanks largely to my father. Ah well I guess it was a bit classier than a crate of special brew.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 11:14pm

Post 126 of 191

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Er the hypothesis I stated wasn't intended to be something I believe is true. I was just sort of thinking through the statement itself, and was requesting some input on what other people thought of it. Obviously it's just a speck of crap I'll flick off the top of my brain.

Anyway, I don't really have anything against gays. Just leave it up to the denominations to decide if they'll allow gay marriage in their churches.
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 11:24pm

Post 127 of 191

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member



Really, more specifically, marijuana. Harmful to the lungs is up to the user. And being high on mj isn't nearly as bad as being drunk usually, if you know how to use it responsibly (safe, controlled environment with no driving involved. Just like alcohol.) You can't OD on marijuana.
Lets face the facts here not everyone is responsible, and not everyone will do it in a safe controlled environment with no driving involved.

I thought I would point out my thoughts on who ever said people already have access to marijuana and it would be safer to legalize it.

Well yes most people do have access to marijuana already but what about the people who may not want to break the law or just dont have access, once they do have access then we just have more people doing marijuana.

In my eyes we have enough druggies in America and Legalizing marijuana could possibly lead to other drugs and then will just have more and more druggies. Legalizing marijuana could possibly start a domino effect and America could be on thin ice, especially if they legalize it then make it illegal again. imo
Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007, 11:56pm

Post 128 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

My point was Rebourne: it's just like alcohol. If you get a DUI with alcohol, you get a huge fine and probably put in jail etc. Same thing would go for marijuana. If you drive high and are caught, you will be arrested. Obviously people aren't responsible with everything, that's why we have gun laws, safety laws (though I hate laws like safety belt law where it could only harm the person doing it), etc.

Also, most illegal weed is pretty safe... As long as the dealer doesn't intentionally poison it, there isn't much you can do. Yeah, some of it bad, as in lesser quality. But weed isn't more dangerous than weed #2 unless it's mixed with anthrax or something.

NOTE on this analogy: Obviously someone with anthrax would administer it in some other fashion if weed didn't exist. I just don't want that to turn into an argument against legalizing it.

Your third paragraph makes sense, and is probably true. However smoking weed really isn't as big a deal as our society views it in my opinion. I mean, it would suck if everyone was high all the time, but I doubt that would happen.

Your last paragraph was a legitimate argument though. That's the only part of that side that I can see. I mean, you haven't changed my mind, but that's a very good reason and others have said it. But I think if it weren't viewed as such an evil practice and taught responsibly like drinking, it could synthesize with our culture. Ah well.
Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007, 12:31am

Post 129 of 191

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

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

SuperUser

Please stay on topic, guys - or I will lock the thread.

Posting about issues directly relating the the election are acceptable (for example, saying "I'm going to vote for candidate X because they have policy Y on topic Z"), but general debate and argument about your own moral, ethical or religious beliefs are against forum rules.

Thanks,
Arktic.
Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007, 12:44am

Post 130 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm voting for Ron Paul because he is in favor of legalizing Marijuana!
Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007, 1:31am

Post 131 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm likely voting for Joe Biden because of his stance on Iraq, interests in social programs and health care while weighing military spending, and outlook on the economy.

A recessionary gap will hit the U.S. soon if we don't take some provisions that include Government spending on the issue. Economy is bigger than Government, but Government has more control over where it's going. And it should be going into fixing some of the outlying economic and social issues before they completely topple-over in the next 10 years. (Who knows, it could be 20 more than that or it could be even sooner) Just look at the real estate market. Major problems that are only growing. The goal is to keep us from hitting that mark, something I'm learning more frequently with our government. Our safeguarding keeps us stronger than our last-minute-full-force-action does.

Don't get me wrong, the U.S. is fantastic at both. But procrastination can only take us so far. Sooner or later, someone's gotta throw in a New Deal or Fair Deal here or there. The 'Okay' Deal coming next? smile
Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007, 3:48am

Post 132 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:


A recessionary gap will hit the U.S. soon if we don't take some provisions that include Government spending on the issue. Economy is bigger than Government, but Government has more control over where it's going.
Actually the Federal Reserve Bank has more direct control than the Gov't does over the economy, a neat little factoid that no one cares to notice.

As I said, I'll vote for anyone with a strong agenda for NASA and space, and who won't just sweep it under the carpet.
Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007, 4:03am

Post 133 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

If you feel that way, Evman, now wouldn't be the worst time to get in good with Ben Bernanke.
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 7:06pm

Post 134 of 191

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You have to b kidding. Hillary Clinton?!? You are joking right?
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 7:29pm

Post 135 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

In the words of Dane Cook,

Oh, DVStudio, you silly bi.tch.
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 7:55pm

Post 136 of 191

Nutbar

Force: 530 | Joined: 13th Aug 2006 | Posts: 373

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:


Consider this as well: Wine has a considerably higher alcohol content than beer, but who associates wine with alcoholics?
Guess where the term wineo comes from.

Haven't really been following this much myself, but from what I have seen I don't like any of the candidates, they all seem untrustworthy.
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 8:17pm

Post 137 of 191

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, I'm really stoked, because my birthday is just days before the voting date, so I'll by 18, and ready to vote! My choice is Ron Paul. Our country, specifically the bigger cities are being taken over by socialism, and Ron Paul's motive is against that exact same thing.

Also, Dane Cook is the most overdone comedian I've seen, ever. Don't get me started.
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 8:42pm

Post 138 of 191

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

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

SuperUser

Our country, specifically the bigger cities are being taken over by socialism
Yes! Down with socialism!

I mean rights for workers, affordable housing for those of lesser means, state benefits for the disabled, pensions for the elderly and a nationalised health service that provides free healthcare to anyone who needs it... these things have done NOTHING good for the people of Great Britain.
[/sarcasm].

Sadly, though, I can't vote in the US elections, mostly due to me not being a citizen of that country. Last time I checked, you don't really need to live in a country to decide who runs it though, right? (Iraq, anyone?)...

Merry Christmas smile
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 8:55pm

Post 139 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

Last time I checked, you don't really need to live in a country to decide who runs it though, right? (Iraq, anyone?)...

Merry Christmas smile
Well next time your country of residence exists for a paltry 200 or so years and still manages to have the highest amounts of industry, economy, world influence and military power on Earth, (more so than even the entire EU combined) then I guess you could have room to talk, eh?

Joking, joking. We all have our respective strengths/weaknesses as countries. Just don't hate on America without actually having lived as an American. We're mostly a gentle and loving race! biggrin

Regardles, Merry Christmas!
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:07pm

Post 140 of 191

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Just don't hate on America without actually having lived as an American. We're mostly a gentle and loving race! biggrin
Ha! I hope you were being sarcastic! If you weren't, you've obviously never been to the south!
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:08pm

Post 141 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

You can hate the foreign affairs aspect of a country's government without hating the country. I do. I don't want to speak for Arktic, but from what I gathered from his post he never implied that he hated anyone. Most people in America, lovers or haters of it, are against our position in Iraq right now.

FreshMentos: there are plenty of mean and plenty of nice people all over the nation. Ben lives in the deepest south. I've met crazy angry people, and crazy nice people all over. This goes for all countries and places.

Last edited Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:11pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:10pm

Post 142 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I live in Dallas, FreshMentos, and I wasn't joking.

'Southern Hospitality', at least in Texas, could never be truer to form.

It's around Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama where racism/other crap affects people negatively.

And Serp,

I was mostly joking in my response, I'm sure you know that. I don't want to start a whole foreign debate or anything, as patriotism will have any man siding with his own country in the end. Unless, of course, said man is Sienna Miller, in which case she totally revokes her American heritage, haha. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:13pm

Post 143 of 191

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

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

SuperUser

I'm sure americans are generally nice people with a sense for modesty and thoughtfulness who know exactly what they're talking about. Kinda like Ben here.

Oh, and I second Arktics "down with socialism" comment.



Merry christmas to you all, and may god bless the US. wink
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:14pm

Post 144 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

I'm sure americans are generally nice people with a sense for modesty and thoughtfulness who know exactly what they're talking about. Kinda like Ben here.
Friendly sarcasm at its greatest. You must be American! biggrin

EDITED: Nevermind...

Last edited Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:16pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:15pm

Post 145 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The ever-neutral Swiss. Gotta love them, definitely can't hate them. smile

Merry Christmas, man.
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:28pm

Post 146 of 191

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Haha, I love your comment Arktic. I was actually referring to Chicago. My family is over from there for Christmas, and they've been talking about the ways socialism has gone to an extreme in their city.

Merry Christmas everyone.
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:36pm

Post 147 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Fill, that makes more sense now that you say it. I admit even I was taken far aback by your socialism comment.

It wasn't until my Gov't & Economics teacher started talking to us about his days in the fire department this year, and when I checked books out of the library the other day that I realized how much I appreciate the many social services we already have.

I'm not for total socialism (I don't think we need to be as socialist as somewhere like France is, for example) but I definitely think that when used in certain areas (like it already is, for Christ's sake!) it could definitely make America stronger.

In the words of Kanye, Tha-tha-that-that that don't kill me; can only make-me-STRON-GER.
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 9:55pm

Post 148 of 191

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

In the words of Kanye, Tha-tha-that-that that don't kill me; can only make-me-STRON-GER.
Boy, you're great at quoting people that drive me crazy. smile

I have to go. My scrumptious Puerto Rican dinner awaits.
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 10:22pm

Post 149 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Haha, oh I don't like Kanye as a person. But you'd be crazy to say his music is completely 'bad' or off-tune. He wouldn't have made so much money otherwise.

And as for Dane Cook, I can see why people don't like him. But I relate to so much of the stuff he says (in a Superbad-esque way, I guess) that I find him incredibly funny a lot of the time. He just overdoes it too much. But he's still a clever comedian. Listen to some of his observational, on-the-spot jokes during his performances and its obvious the guy has some natural humor. This video is a good example.

"It's like Daddy just hit Mommy at the dinner table, and the family is still trying to eat."
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 10:33pm

Post 150 of 191

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 know this topic has strayed, er, off topic. But I'd like to second Fill on that quote thing. I'm not saying Kanye isn't talented, but I hate him and his music. I loathe Dane Cook. I'm sure he's a relatively funny guy, but he doesn't deserve a career out of it, at least not in stand up. He's also an ass. If you want good stand up, watch Mitch Hedberg and Demetri Martin. There are a few others, I usually hate stand up.
Posted: Mon, 24th Dec 2007, 10:54pm

Post 151 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I never could figure out why people loathe Dane Cook. He might not be the funniest guy, but it should be obvious that he's funny to some people, as his performances are always sold out. Mitch Hedberg and Demetri Martin are different kinds of humor. Like I said, I like Dane Cook because he's more relatable to me than any other comedian. When he talks about 'the friend that nobody likes' and wanting to be a firefighter so he could 'spray sh!t with a hose' both jokes fit perfectly in with what I've experienced. He's definitely a more juvenile comedian, and that's what makes him funny to me.

And unlike Kanye, Dane hasn't said or done anything that would make people hate him. (like saying if the Bible were re-written, he'd be Moses, or if slavery were possible today, white should suffer for 200 years to satisfy the status quo).
Posted: Tue, 25th Dec 2007, 3:42am

Post 152 of 191

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Excuse my laziness by not reading how this happened, but how did political discussion turn into a debate over comedians? Politics has nothing to do with comed-- never mind. wink

Oh, and Mitch Hedberg is not funny. Period. While, john pinette is another story... smile

Last edited Tue, 25th Dec 2007, 4:03am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 25th Dec 2007, 3:49am

Post 153 of 191

Pooky

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

What! Hedberg is hilarious http://youtube.com/watch?v=IueXtzdC6kA&feature=related
Posted: Tue, 25th Dec 2007, 4:50am

Post 154 of 191

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Top clever comedians:

1. Jimmy Carr
2. Demetri Martin
3. Steven wright
4. tie between Dane cook and Daniel Tosh
Posted: Tue, 25th Dec 2007, 4:53am

Post 155 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Finally, someone else who understands the Dane.


"This is Monopoly. Started out fun.......ended horribly. Three hours later, this is you: 'F*ck this game! I'm sitting on Baltic with sh*t, paying extortion taxes out the ass. And I hate it when you're the banker, Grandma. Where'd you get those pink fifties you cheating whore?!"

^That's my Monopoly experiences every time I play with my cousins/grandparents/family, verbatim.
Posted: Tue, 25th Dec 2007, 5:41am

Post 156 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Jim Gaffigan wins in best stand-up, hands down.

Anywhos, I still hate all the candidates! Yay!
Posted: Tue, 25th Dec 2007, 5:17pm

Post 157 of 191

Bucees

Force: 2477 | Joined: 4th Jun 2007 | Posts: 382

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Dont know if this is already posted or not but:

If you ask anyone of our soldiers in Iraq what there most afraid of, they tell you this: 1)Osama, 2)Obama, and your Mama.
(not a "your mom" joke)

Vote "WHATEVER" peace!

Last edited Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 8:42pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 25th Dec 2007, 7:04pm

Post 158 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

Ah yeah, Obama's plan to pull troops scares the hell out of them.


Obama is probably in the top five least frightening candidates, though I personally don't think he'd be a great leader, from what I've seen. Saying "vote ____" is narrow minded in my opinion. I'm personally going to vote for the best candidate, no matter his political party.
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 4:01am

Post 159 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

Saying "vote ____" is narrow minded in my opinion. I'm personally going to vote for the best candidate, no matter his political party.

Serpent wrote:

Vote Ron Paul. Seriously.
smile
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 4:56am

Post 160 of 191

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Serpent wrote:

Saying "vote ____" is narrow minded in my opinion. I'm personally going to vote for the best candidate, no matter his political party.

Serpent wrote:

Vote Ron Paul. Seriously.
smile
Nice..
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 6:18am

Post 161 of 191

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

That blank was referring to political party, I made that pretty clear. Ron Paul is a great candidate, that's why I promoted him in my earlier post. Stop calling me out before thinking about it. I support a Democrat in almost every stand off. I'm just more of a liberal person. Ron Paul is a conservative Republican.
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 1:49pm

Post 162 of 191

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

If we're talking greatetst ever comedians then it has to be Bill Hicks. I think that solves the politics question too...
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 4:37pm

Post 163 of 191

King of Blades

Force: 1700 | Joined: 29th May 2006 | Posts: 794

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

If you ask anyone of our soldiers in Iraq what there most afraid of, they tell you this: 1)Osama, 2)Obama, and your Mama.
If that was supposed to be a joke, it was really in poor taste. Let's stick you in Iraq, and see what your absolute fear is. Because, unless I'm mistaken, they would love nothing more than to be out of there.
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 7:39pm

Post 164 of 191

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

Dont know if this is already posted or not but:

If you ask anyone of our soldiers in Iraq what there most afraid of, they tell you this: 1)Osama, 2)Obama, and your Mama.
(not a "your mom" joke)
Um... what?

1) Osama- has nothing to do with Iraq.

2) Obama- wants to bring the troops home to safety. "Oh my god no, anything but that!"

3) What?


unsure
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 8:39pm

Post 165 of 191

Bucees

Force: 2477 | Joined: 4th Jun 2007 | Posts: 382

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ok, ok I'm sorry. I heard that joke on the radio. And yes it would be great that we pull the troops out of Iraq. But right now Bush is going by what God is telling him to do (it doesn't matter what or who you think is God) God is telling him to keep them in iraq to keep the Iraqi people safe! And just incase you have forgoten 9/11, we're still looking for Osama! The guy who led a group of people to fly passenger jets into the World trade Centre.

If we do pull them out, that country is going to blow itself into oblivion!

Last edited Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 8:41pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 8:40pm

Post 166 of 191

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I actually liked Obama at the start, but he's been doing some weird stuff, such as not putting his hand over his heart to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Isn't that sort of... Un-American?
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 8:48pm

Post 167 of 191

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

I actually liked Obama at the start, but he's been doing some weird stuff, such as not putting his hand over his heart to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Isn't that sort of... Un-American?
Do you really think that not putting his hand over his heart would make him a bad president?

But I'm not saying that getting Oprah's vote would make him a better president though.
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 8:58pm

Post 168 of 191

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm not going to hold him to that one small thing, but I've been reading up on things he's said, and he's starting to get less appealing. I guess we'll see what happens in the end.

Ron Paul is still my choice, so I have nothing else to say. smile
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 9:46pm

Post 169 of 191

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

FreshMentos wrote:



Do you really think that not putting his hand over his heart would make him a bad president?
Yes biggrin But, really, who wants a president who doesn't respect the flag. And whose middle name is Hussein...

It's kind of scary how many prefer like Ron Paul... Any Duncan Hunter supporters? smile Or is that just me..
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 10:15pm

Post 170 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

But right now Bush is going by what God is telling him to do (it doesn't matter what or who you think is God) God is telling him to keep them in iraq to keep the Iraqi people safe! And just incase you have forgoten 9/11, we're still looking for Osama! The guy who led a group of people to fly passenger jets into the World trade Centre.
Maybe, instead of listening to God, he should listen to the American public... you know, the ones who voted him into office?

And no, I will never forget 9/11, but in case you've forgotten, Iraq has nothing to do with Osama.
Posted: Wed, 26th Dec 2007, 11:50pm

Post 171 of 191

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +5

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

The guy who led a group of people to fly passenger jets into the World trade Centre.
Only because God told him to. Aha! Bested by your own ridiculous logic.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 12:51am

Post 172 of 191

pixelboy

Force: 3000 | Joined: 13th Feb 2005 | Posts: 439

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rawree wrote:

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

The guy who led a group of people to fly passenger jets into the World trade Centre.
Only because God told him to. Aha! Bested by your own ridiculous logic.
Ah, sorry but that was *supposed* to have been "Allah". Not God, Allah. Close but no cigar, Rawree biggrin
Though as I understand it, that action was quite contradictory to the actual teachings of Islam anyway, so there's no excuse at all for what happened.

Anyway, I dunno who I intend to vote for, none of the candidates on either side really seem like the right person for the job. It's a little confusing.

Last edited Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 12:58am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 12:58am

Post 173 of 191

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

pixelboy wrote:

Rawree wrote:

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

The guy who led a group of people to fly passenger jets into the World trade Centre.
Only because God told him to. Aha! Bested by your own ridiculous logic.
Ah, sorry but that was supposed to have been "Allah". Not God, Allah. Close but no cigar, Rawree biggrin
So basically you mean that Allah told Osama to hit the trade "centres" and god told Bush to wage war on Iraq.

This all makes perfect sense now. Thank you for the insight PixelBoy. wink
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 1:00am

Post 174 of 191

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

pixelboy wrote:

Rawree wrote:

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

The guy who led a group of people to fly passenger jets into the World trade Centre.
Only because God told him to. Aha! Bested by your own ridiculous logic.
Ah, sorry but that was supposed to have been "Allah". Not God, Allah. Close but no cigar, Rawree biggrin
Technically "Allah" is an Arabic word meaning "God" and not just the name of the God of Islam. Cigars for all!

Mentos, your summary is correct. The new year will see Gordon Brown taking advice on domestic policy from Owl (Of "Animals of Farthing Wood" fame)
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 1:10am

Post 175 of 191

pixelboy

Force: 3000 | Joined: 13th Feb 2005 | Posts: 439

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rawree wrote:

pixelboy wrote:

Rawree wrote:

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

The guy who led a group of people to fly passenger jets into the World trade Centre.
Only because God told him to. Aha! Bested by your own ridiculous logic.
Ah, sorry but that was supposed to have been "Allah". Not God, Allah. Close but no cigar, Rawree biggrin
Technically "Allah" is an Arabic word meaning "God" and not just the name of the God of Islam. Cigars for all!
That's a point. I have a counterpoint, but obviously can't mention it. This is one of those forums where people can insult one another's beliefs, but defending them is frowned upon wink Ah well. Let's talk about politics again, that seemed like fun!
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 2:14am

Post 176 of 191

Coureur de Bois

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

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

petet2 wrote:

If we're talking greatetst ever comedians then it has to be Bill Hicks. I think that solves the politics question too...
Hehe, I wholeheartedly agree with you there. biggrin

"If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL f***ing high on drugs. The Beatles were so f***ing high they let Ringo sing a few songs."

hahahaha
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 3:05am

Post 177 of 191

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

Ok, ok I'm sorry. I heard that joke on the radio. And yes it would be great that we pull the troops out of Iraq. But right now Bush is going by what God is telling him to do (it doesn't matter what or who you think is God) God is telling him to keep them in iraq to keep the Iraqi people safe! And just incase you have forgoten 9/11, we're still looking for Osama! The guy who led a group of people to fly passenger jets into the World trade Centre.
I never said anything that indicated I may have forgotten about 9/11, I just said that- at least as far as we know- Bin Laden had no connection to Iraq. And perhaps you're right- maybe we do owe it to the Iraqi people to clean up their country. After all, we were the ones who brought Hussein to power in the first place (did God tell Bush sr. to do this?) And then we invaded again, completely toppling what order they did have. But unless we are going to send in many, many more troops and institute massive social reconstuction programs, we will accomplish nothing in Iraq besides getting our own soldiers killed and feeding the already existing hatred of the west.

I do not think that God gave orders to Bush any more than Alla gave orders to Bin Laden. No matter what your beliefs religiously, I deffinantly don't see what either of them have accomplished that could be the work of a higher power.


Evman wrote:

Maybe, instead of listening to God, he should listen to the American public... you know, the ones who voted him into office?
Voted him into office? No we didn't! biggrin Not the first time, anyway unsure

Fill wrote:

I actually liked Obama at the start, but he's been doing some weird stuff, such as not putting his hand over his heart to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Isn't that sort of... Un-American?
Unless you're being sarcastic, this is kind of a stupid comment. I couldn't care less about how he says the pledge of allegiance. What should matter is how good of a leader he is.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 3:23am

Post 178 of 191

Bucees

Force: 2477 | Joined: 4th Jun 2007 | Posts: 382

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -4

Rawree wrote:

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

The guy who led a group of people to fly passenger jets into the World trade Centre.
Only because God told him to. Aha! Bested by your own ridiculous logic.
"Wrong answer Mcfly"!!! God did not tell him to kill hundreds of people! his False God Did! I know I'm going to get chewd off again for this but...You are "ridiculous"! evil

Whatever I'm done with you Rawree!
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 4:57am

Post 179 of 191

King of Blades

Force: 1700 | Joined: 29th May 2006 | Posts: 794

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

Rawree wrote:

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

The guy who led a group of people to fly passenger jets into the World trade Centre.
Only because God told him to. Aha! Bested by your own ridiculous logic.
God did not tell him to kill hundreds of people! his False God Did! I know I'm going to get chewd off again for this but...You are "ridiculous"! evil

Whatever I'm done with you Rawree!
ChristianFilmer, you must come to a realization that there are more beliefs than your own. And your own belief is not the end-all of beliefs.

Another thing you must realize is what Rawree said was a joke. If you cannot take a joke, and go on about how your God leads the president of the U.S., you will continue to be flamed by other members and be ridiculed for your religious beliefs.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 5:14am

Post 180 of 191

Evman

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-2

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

God did not tell him to kill hundreds of people! his False God Did!
They're all false. This debate has gone well past the "arguing with a brick wall" phase.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 6:16am

Post 181 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

I'm not going to quote anything, but say that ChristianFilmer's uninformed attitude has not fairly represented all Christians, here, especially those who know what they're talking about.

To state this quickly, though I agree with the process of following His will, God's influence is not certifiable in Bush's case. Look at the path leading to Bush's declaration of his purpose of war for 'Godly' reasons and it's obvious to even the dullest people that he quickly drew his religion as a scapegoat for his own incompetent decisions.

I agree that God influences us. But ChristianFilmer, you don't know- to any degree of certainty, even - that Bush isn't just (get this) lying about his supposed 'divine influence'. Boy, people LIE! It's life! Now George Bush is a fine, decent human being. I've met him before, and I think he was pretty decent to his voters back when he was governor down here. But I'm not okay with Bush being President, and it's exactly for the aforementioned reasons.

And I know Rawree was just trying to (hilariously so) stir up controversy with ChristianFilmer, but as for 'God' influencing the 9/11 terrorism:

I'll accept for the sake of argumentation that other 'Gods' can exist, but even so; Allah is not the same being as Jesus and they consequently don't affect each other (religion-wise at least, not real-world-wise).

Even assuming they were the same entity, flying a plane into a building to kill people goes against the scriptures of both Islam and Christianity. For those educated on the matter (or having, like I, read the SparkNotes on said scriptures), following a supreme being's will is only acceptable until it reaches a fault in the doctrine or scripture.

As such, anything going against the rules laid out in the Koran, the Bible, or the Talmud is off-limits and not in line with the religion.



Gaghh, /rant
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 6:28am

Post 182 of 191

pixelboy

Force: 3000 | Joined: 13th Feb 2005 | Posts: 439

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-1

King of Blades wrote:

you will continue to be flamed by other members and be ridiculed for your religious beliefs.
But surely that sort of juvenile ridicule ought not be permitted on the forums? Hopefully any post ot that nature would be promptly deleted, yes?

Evman wrote:

They're all false. This debate has gone well past the "arguing with a brick wall" phase.
Apparently not. Posts like this only serve to pollute these forums. Just how difficult is it to refrain from insulting people's beliefs? My faith is all that I am, without it I am nothing at all. Ridicule and belittle that if you must, but to find such a thing humorous is just sick.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 6:35am

Post 183 of 191

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

pixelboy wrote:


Evman wrote:

They're all false. This debate has gone well past the "arguing with a brick wall" phase.
Apparently not. Posts like this only serve to pollute these forums. Just how difficult is it to refrain from insulting people's beliefs? My faith is all that I am, without it I am nothing at all. Ridicule and belittle that if you must, but to find such a thing humorous is just sick.
A level-headed, non-offensive post amongst all the tomfoolery. +1.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 8:39am

Post 184 of 191

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

FreshMentos wrote:

Do you really think that not putting his hand over his heart would make him a bad president?
You know, I don't really give a damn if it would make him a bad president. Why doesn't he do it? That's a part of our nation, a tradition held dear to a lot of Americans. I figure, if he can't bother to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, I can't bother to respect him very much, much less elect him into the Presidency.

It isn't so much that the lack of putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance would make him a bad President, it's what speaks about his character that, I think, would make him a bad President. I can't stand people who defy "social norms" for the explicit purpose of standing outside those norms, thinking they're above the rest of the "normal."

Also, I rather dislike Obama largely due to his support for social welfare, and his disregard for the right that I hold the most dear: My right to keep and bear arms.

FreshMentos wrote:

So basically you mean that Allah told Osama to hit the trade "centres" and god told Bush to wage war on Iraq.
And God told Charles Manson to murder well-known White families, forged to look like racially-spurred killings to start a race war.

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

"Wrong answer Mcfly"!!! God did not tell him to kill hundreds of people! his False God Did! I know I'm going to get chewd off again for this but...You are "ridiculous"!

Whatever I'm done with you Rawree!
You've got to be kidding me.

Do you even know why you believe in the Judeo-Christian God? It's because, since you were born, you went to church as your parents instructed you to, and you went to your youth group every Wednesday. At a very young age, that's a rather potent influence that can probably best be described as "brainwashing."

Do you find it appalling that people like me believe that there isn't a God? Do you find it incomprehensible that people like me could think that? Do you find it a black-and-white argument, that there is no possible way God COULDN'T exist? Because, given your typically religiously-laced posts for that past few pages, I would bet that's largely the case.

The President of the United States of America is no more chosen by God than the Emperors of ancient China. "Tiānm├Čng," or the "Mandate of Heaven," the idea that the leadership of a state is guided by a divine intelligence, is wrong. Thomas Jefferson, a Christian, wanted church and state separated to the utmost extent. He was a President. You think the God that told Bush to invade Iraq would let that fly?
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 8:49am

Post 185 of 191

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah God told Bush to invade Iraq. Bush said he "prayed" a lot. How about reading up on Iraq? Oh wait...

Bush had to be told the difference between the Sunni's and the Shiite's.

If you don't already find organized religion abhorrent by now, I don't know why. You have a man saying he invaded a country because of his God and a country split into civil war over how much their wife's eyeballs are poking out of their cloak.

When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 9:23am

Post 186 of 191

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Before everyone goes blaming the supposedly 'ridiculous' concept of God telling people to do things (and subsequently shooting it down as impossible, which is unnecessary)...

Let us first accept that in all likelihood someone has lied about God "telling" them to do something. I mean from Bush's camp it makes sense, seeing as Bush's supporters would gladly accept God as a scapegoat, a near-perfect one at that.

As for Pickle's 'separation of church and state' comment: you might be surprised to learn that said separation was instated to protect the church, not the state. As churches in America have gained more acceptance (and therefore more power) the rule has reversed, as it were, to protect the opposite entity. I'm not saying the rule shouldn't have a purpose, but before everyone goes pointing the finger at 'fantasy-believing Christians' I wanted to get my facts straight.

This being said, I agree with Pickle's comments about Obama and the whole 'hand-over-heart' thing. Conventions like this in America, even though possibly trivial, are not without reason or tradition; and it is by disregarding simple, accepted acts of patriotism in this right that makes a candidate questionable.

Now I am by no means saying this is something not to elect him for, but compare these small transgressions to someone like John McCain- who finds great physical pain in lifted either arm above his lower-body as a result of his 9-year torture (for his country, at that), yet still manages to put wrist to chest when pledging- and Obama's paltry crime seems rather large.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 10:52am

Post 187 of 191

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:


I'll accept for the sake of argumentation that other 'Gods' can exist, but even so; Allah is not the same being as Jesus and they consequently don't affect each other (religion-wise at least, not real-world-wise).
I'm guessing Religious Studies isn't a big part of the US education system....

I don't know by other Gods if you mean Thor or Odin but the Islamic Allah is very much the same God as the Christian God, there's just a different book and some different interpretations. But then again we have Protestantism and Catholicism so it shouldn't be a hard concept to follow.

Yes Allah is not the same being as Jesus... but nor is the Christian God the same as Jesus.

Jesus is considered to be a prophet in Islam rather than the son of God but is still a very important figure. Indeed it is Jesus who, with Mohammad, will come back to save the world in the last battle between good and evil. If you ever take time to learn about the Koran and Islam you will find the same events portrayed and recounted with the same names but a slightly different interpretation. The similarities between the major world religions are much more striking than the differences. It is sad that deviations from the written words and true beliefs (on all sides) introduced by men lead us to the world we share today.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 11:37am

Post 188 of 191

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:


This being said, I agree with Pickle's comments about Obama and the whole 'hand-over-heart' thing. Conventions like this in America, even though possibly trivial, are not without reason or tradition; and it is by disregarding simple, accepted acts of patriotism in this right that makes a candidate questionable.

Now I am by no means saying this is something not to elect him for, but compare these small transgressions to someone like John McCain- who finds great physical pain in lifted either arm above his lower-body as a result of his 9-year torture (for his country, at that), yet still manages to put wrist to chest when pledging- and Obama's paltry crime seems rather large.
It could always be that Obama is making a gesture in the same way that McCain is; in pledging allegiance to the country he would symbolically be pledging allegiance to the problems of that country and the decisions taken by those in charge. Perhaps he wishes to show his dissatisfaction with the state of the country and highlight the fact that he wishes to bring about change. Probably just thinks it's an outdated or unnecessary practice though (although I'm sure details like this are carefully worked out with his "image" people first). The more and more I hear about McCain the more convinced I am that he's a cartoon character.

Fox for President!
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 12:32pm

Post 189 of 191

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rawree wrote:

ben3308 wrote:


This being said, I agree with Pickle's comments about Obama and the whole 'hand-over-heart' thing. Conventions like this in America, even though possibly trivial, are not without reason or tradition; and it is by disregarding simple, accepted acts of patriotism in this right that makes a candidate questionable.

Now I am by no means saying this is something not to elect him for, but compare these small transgressions to someone like John McCain- who finds great physical pain in lifted either arm above his lower-body as a result of his 9-year torture (for his country, at that), yet still manages to put wrist to chest when pledging- and Obama's paltry crime seems rather large.
It could always be that Obama is making a gesture in the same way that McCain is; in pledging allegiance to the country he would symbolically be pledging allegiance to the problems of that country and the decisions taken by those in charge. Perhaps he wishes to show his dissatisfaction with the state of the country and highlight the fact that he wishes to bring about change. Probably just thinks it's an outdated or unnecessary practice though (although I'm sure details like this are carefully worked out with his "image" people first). The more and more I hear about McCain the more convinced I am that he's a cartoon character.

Fox for President!
Or could it simply be a piece of email propaganda that people are keen to believe in order to kick Obama when in fact it isn't even true? That's the problem with spam emails, there's always people out there ready to believe them (those tablets won't make you bigger either guys).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/169/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/hand-over-heart.html

I think what's more insidious is the ease with which you seem able to accept comments highlighting that this man has a middle name which is Hussein (which is relevant how Thrawn?), references to Osama (very Christian and utterly ill informed) and to belive (without even the quickest Google search which would show it to be an urban myth) that Obama is anti-American. And no he's not Muslim either, that was another untruth (though what if he was Muslim?).

I have little knowledge of this man or any of your political candidates but see an undercurrent of racism here that supports the theory that there won't be a black president in my lifetime.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 12:57pm

Post 190 of 191

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

wrote:

As for Pickle's 'separation of church and state' comment: you might be surprised to learn that said separation was instated to protect the church, not the state. As churches in America have gained more acceptance (and therefore more power) the rule has reversed, as it were, to protect the opposite entity. I'm not saying the rule shouldn't have a purpose, but before everyone goes pointing the finger at 'fantasy-believing Christians' I wanted to get my facts straight.
I have no idea where you got that information. Churches haven't been gaining power in the least, certainly not in the latter quarter of the 20th century or the early 21st century.

Separation of church and state has to do with freedom of religion -- you can't very well say you have a religiously free society if you have a state-sponsored religion.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."
-Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
-Thomas Jefferson

I'm not against religion. I'm against religion's grimy little fingers working in and around secular functions.

pete2 wrote:

Or could it simply be a piece of email propaganda That peopl are keen to leap on to kick Obama when in fact it isn't even true? That's the problem with spam emails, there's always people out there ready to believe them (those tablets won't make you bigger either guys).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/169/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/hand-over-heart.html
Oh, so he just didn't feel like putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, then? Oh. That's different. That's okay then... right?

No. It's not. I acknowledge that this isn't a perfect country, and that it has a ways to go before ever being such. But I still salute the American flag when the National Anthem plays at 4:30 on base, or I put my hand over my heart when I'm not in uniform. And it's okay for the human avatar of this nation NOT to do so?

This isn't really disputable, a picture says a thousand words, and that picture was taken by Time Magazine DURING the playback of the National Anthem. Is it a vote killer? No. Is it disrespectful, and something that someone could expect someone contending for the presidency of this nation to respect? Hell yes. Does it irritate me a little? Yes, I'm not going to lie. Now, I'm not going to decide on his abilities as a civic leader based on this shortfall, mistakes are made and maybe he just wasn't taught or something. Fine. But it's still somewhat irritating.

pete2 wrote:

I have little knowledge of this man or any of your political candidates but see an undercurrent of racism here that supports the theory that there won't be a black president in my lifetime.
That's a pessimistic statement. Obama is a front-running candidate, who happens to be black. Hillary is the leading candidate who happens to be a woman. Are there people in this country who DO judge like that? Yes, most unfortunately, there are. But I highly doubt anyone here is remotely guided by the color of one's skin, and as a result I'd really consider re-writing that statement.

As I'm sure is the case with everyone here, I have legitimate qualms with Obama -- namely, his distaste for what I perceive to be my most coveted right: The Second Amendement, and his social welfare policies. I'm definitely conservative, through and through, and Obama... isn't. He doesn't jive with my thinking on virtually any issue.
Posted: Thu, 27th Dec 2007, 2:16pm

Post 191 of 191

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

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

SuperUser

Right guys, I think we've shown (once again, sadly) that there are some people here who aren't grown up enough to discuss certain topics sensibly.

Having warned some of you in PMs to avoid religious discussion (some of you several times), certain people have still continued. I think you know who you are.

Sorry to everyone else who wanted to have a discussion in a mature fashion.

If you have any comments, feel free to PM me.

Regards,
Arktic.