PDA

View Full Version : USA - General discussion (Part 2)


Amy_Lee_Rocks
26-01-2007, 16:08
USA - General discussion (Part 1) (http://forum.tatysite.net/showthread.php?t=7956)


His first language is English. He is from America as well.


Nope, My first language is Spanish.
And im not from America. Im from Mexico living in America.

Talyubittu
26-01-2007, 21:26
You were born in America and live in America and speak English as well as anyone else in America. At least you have said you were born in America and Speak it that is. Anyways. I wasn't trying to offend anyone with my statements but it does upset me when people make Americans sound like they think they're superior for loving their country. There is a difference between supporting you're country and government and agreeing with them. I support America becuase it is my home, I don't agree with the choices made by the government but just because I do support them dosen't mean I am a bad person. Thats all my point was.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
26-01-2007, 22:12
You were born in America and live in America and speak English as well as anyone else in America. At least you have said you were born in America and Speak it that is. Anyways. I wasn't trying to offend anyone with my statements but it does upset me when people make Americans sound like they think they're superior for loving their country. There is a difference between supporting you're country and government and agreeing with them. I support America becuase it is my home, I don't agree with the choices made by the government but just because I do support them dosen't mean I am a bad person. Thats all my point was.


I never said i was born in America. I dont know where you got that from, I've always said i was born in Mexico.

Talyubittu
26-01-2007, 22:35
This is completely irrelevant. I stated numerous times when we debated about your legal status as a citizen in America. You told me that you were born in America in Texas and that you grew up speaking English. Even if that isn't the case, you've lived in America for a LONG number of years, and you are fluent in the language.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
26-01-2007, 22:53
I never said i was born in Texas, i still dont know how you got that. Besides i dont have to be born in the U.S to have a legal status. And I never told you I grew up speaking English, I didnt start speaking English till I was in the 6th grade because I've always been in ESL classes before. And even in that particular case come on, Its Texas, where most of the population only speaks spanish, its all over the place. Heck there are even stores that have nothing but spanish. Yes I've been here for a Long number of years, but its not the same growing up learning English as growing up already knowing english. Both of your parents are English speakers, my parents didnt know English, they had to learn it to have their business.

forre
26-01-2007, 23:57
Thinking of going to the States to check if the things are as bad as some of you say.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
27-01-2007, 01:41
1. Most of the texas population speaks English, followed by Spanish and Vietnamese/Taiwanese. "most" of the population, does not speak Spanish only.

2. It is illegal to run a business in the United States that does not cummunicate in English.

3. If you moved to the USA in 6th grade then I find that hardly impossible that you learned English then. For one - in order to even get a green card a backlog of nearly 5-7 years is usual for waiting for it. So unless you were an illegal immigrant at the time you joined the school, somthing quite fishy is going on. Not to mention - you're parents could not own a business until they were actual citizens, a green card only grants them the right to work and wages, they are not allowed to run their own business that I am aware of by united states law. So that would have been another six years for them waiting to get their actual naturalization papers and everything finnished and accepted into America as an actual citizen, so we are looking at about 12 years here, right? So if I'm correct, you would just now be an American citizen, and you're parents would have been participating in the owning of an illegal business? And even still the fact of the matter is you claim to have taken AP Government, you claim to have lived in the USA for 6 years prior to now, and you still have managed to spell the word "IRAQ" correctly, a term highly popular in the media since 2003, and widely popular in a AP Government class, you had no clue who Saddam Hussein was or anything else involving this country, which leads me to think this statement is as false as your last one.

On the numerous occasions that I have talked to you, your mother has been a caterer to the national government, a teacher and now she seems to own a business. It's clear you decided to open up notepad and forge a story for yourself, however with no clear talent for leiing you've failed to pass anything believeable by me.

Oh and by the way. If your mother was indeed a teacher, then why on Earth did she not speak English? I was under the impression you had to be fluent in this countries mother tongue to work in a government facility?.....Hmm. Who knows?




Forre - Trust me, it's not. Like I said, foreign news networks make life in America seem much more harsh than it actually is. There's nothing horrible about our country besides all the overweight people.


First of all..you didnt read right..
Second, I live in Texas, i know what is happening here ok..most of the population speaks spanish, and yes they also speak other languages.
Third "my parents didnt know English, they had to learn it to have their business" I said THEY HAD TO LEARN ENGLISH!!!. Meaning they learned it in order to run their business
Fourth, I moved here to the U.S when i was 4..incase you dont know what ESL means..its English as a Second Language, i was learning it. Meaning i was in classes that spoke spanish to me most of the time. Its not very hard to become a citizen, specially when you have a family member whose is already a citizen. My dad moved to the U.S way before my sister, mom and I moved here. He was already a citizen and married to my mom. We decided to leave our country to be with my father, and open up a business. My father was able to since he has been here alot longer than my sister, my mother, and I. I seriously dont know how you got "Teacher". I told you back in Mexico she was a nurse..by the way Catering is a business.
To make things shorter and more understandable, My dad has been going in and out of the U.S alot, before my mother had me he was in the U.S already a citizen. We moved to the U.S Huston first then moved to DFW 1 month later. Where they decided to have their own business And you're still with the "Iraq" thing? like i said before, i spell it however i feel like it..ok

PS: I've lived in the U.S for 14 years

PowerPuff Grrl
27-01-2007, 21:17
Thinking of going to the States to check if the things are as bad as some of you say.
It isn't, on the contrary it is quite a great place to be with some of the nicest people you'll ever meet. How great, or how nice depends on where in the States you end up. (IMHO, stay the hell away from Pennsylvania).

The only thing that got to me when visiting there is noticing that racial segregation is still alive and kicking.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
27-01-2007, 21:23
It isn't, on the contrary it is quite a great place to be with some of the nicest people you'll ever meet. How great, or how nice depends on where in the States you end up. (IMHO, stay the hell away from Pennsylvania).

The only thing that got to me when visiting there is noticing that racial segregation is still alive and kicking.

Yup, thats true. Some Mexicans can be assholes, just like whites and blacks. Most whites are very nice, and very respectfull, if you go to an all Mexican/Black (lower class) place dont be surprised if you get shot at, well at least here arroud where I live. Some places its very peacefull, calm, and enjoyable ^-^

Talyubittu
27-01-2007, 21:28
Yup, thats true. Some Mexicans can be assholes, just like whites and blacks. Most whites are very nice, and very respectfull, if you go to an all Mexican/Black (lower class) place dont be surprised if you get shot at, well at least here arroud where I live. Some places its very peacefull, calm, and enjoyable ^-^


That comment itself was racial segregation.



I've lived in big cities and I'm not sure what you meant by it powerpuff. Could you elaborate so I understand a bit more?

Amy_Lee_Rocks
28-01-2007, 00:10
That comment itself was racial segregation.



I've lived in big cities and I'm not sure what you meant by it powerpuff. Could you elaborate so I understand a bit more?

How is it racial segregation if its true, im not saying it in sarcasm or anything. I have nothing against my own race or blacks, some of my friends are black and they will tell you the same thing.

coolasfcuk
28-01-2007, 01:02
Thinking of going to the States to check if the things are as bad as some of you say.
when are you coming? come visit MEEEE :D

this is so fucking ridiculous - how many times do we have to say that being in different states in america is like being in a different country!
and please, stop presenting South Dakota as something great - i am sorry, but for the main part it is a big, steaming, pile of SHIT! and i am saying that from personal experience, i am probably the only other person here that has actually been there ;)

Khartoun2004
28-01-2007, 05:33
when are you coming? come visit MEEEE :D

this is so fucking ridiculous - how many times do we have to say that being in different states in america is like being in a different country!
and please, stop presenting South Dakota as something great - i am sorry, but for the main part it is a big, steaming, pile of SHIT! and i am saying that from personal experience, i am probably the only other person here that has actually been there ;)

Cools... You effing Rock!! :coctail: I'd give you rep points, but I can't at the moment... but they are definitely on the way to you :D

nath
28-01-2007, 13:33
when are you coming? come visit MEEEE
My coolie baby, come to join us to N.Y , the 20th of february to help me to make walk the baby Olga in the streets of New York when it will be -1° outside...if not she will stay in her hotel bedroom with the covers to the nose....she needs a slavic pulsion....Da!! :D

*me want to go to the Little Odessa*...da! I like gangsta ;)

coolasfcuk
28-01-2007, 21:56
My coolie baby, come to join us to N.Y , the 20th of february to help me to make walk the baby Olga in the streets of New York when it will be -1° outside...if not she will stay in her hotel bedroom with the covers to the nose....she needs a slavic pulsion....Da!! :D

*me want to go to the Little Odessa*...da! I like gangsta ;)

nath, I caaaaaant! I am in school and cant take long trips (esp. because i am teaching now as well)...so come to CALIFORNIA! It is way warmer here anyway :D

now to talyubittu - dude, stop listing those towns becuase it is not in your favour! :lol:
lets see:
I have lived in Cleveland, Ohio and Jacksonville, Florida. Please stop writitng my biography for me.
Cleveland, Ohio is SO fucking midwest! Jacksonville, Fl, ouch - east and south east are two different things ;)

as well as have been to various other cities including Chicago, Minneapolis and Atlanta and Charlotte.
wow, you've been to quite the cities: Chicago, large city, but still a MIDWEST large city. Minneapolis :laugh: MIDWEST city... Atlanta... south! Charlotte..WOW fucking SOUTH again! to tell you the truth, south might actually be worse that midwest, so shhhhhh

So please - back off. Visiting a place is not living there. So until you reside here, keep your mouth buckled.
yes, sir! Imma goinna keem them mouths shut! but dont use that horse language at me, 'cause i aint living there with you guys and those damn horse buckles you like to wear up there http://www.bucklesofestes.com/horses.htm :lol:

And if you are speaking from such personal experience, how about you present some if it? Where have you been, how long have you been there, have you taken every opportunity you could to experience everything offered by the region? I think not.
darling, i already feel bad enough chatting for my entertainment with a kiddie, but since i am selfish i will tell ya, i've lived in more places you can count on your fingers and toes - anywhere from communism to your god damn midwest shit to the complete oposite. oh yeah, and i have traveled plenty, lets say definitelly way more than you have.... kisses honey, just dont be such a bully, cause i bully back them ones like you! LoL

PowerPuff Grrl
28-01-2007, 23:24
Though I can certainly understand your frustation towards the South and the Mid-West, coolasfcuk and Khartoun2004 (especially gathering from the last two presidential elections and their unfounded resentment to the "liberal elites"), I don't think it helps to disparage everybody in your country that don't reside anywhere near the coast. Especially when you are doing it to the people that vote Democrat. Just because a city isn't San Fransisco, Boston, New York or L.A. doesn't mean it can't be fun, interesting, or even cultured. In fact, anybody can have fun anywhere in the world with the help from cool locals and an imagination. Granted in the Middle-East, it would be more convenient if you were a man. Nonetheless, you don't need the figurative big glowing neon signs that point to "fun."

I had a more exciting time visiting Madison, Wisconsin (freaking Wisconsin, you cannot get more Mid-West than that) than I ever had in an ultra-blue, near-the-coast state like New Jersey. And I won't even mention Pennsylvania.

That being said, New York was awesome and New Yorkers even moreso, I hope you enjoy every bit of it nath and forre.

And Talyubittu, I find it hard to believe that you don't see any racial segregation in any of the places you have been in. Either you just don't notice it when it is there (which I can't really fault you in) or you're in complete denial. Judging from your posts, you seem like the type of person that loves their country too much to recognize any apparent faults it may harbour.

Talyubittu
29-01-2007, 01:01
Though I can certainly understand your frustation towards the South and the Mid-West, coolasfcuk and Khartoun2004 (especially gathering from the last two presidential elections and their unfounded resentment to the "liberal elites"), I don't think it helps to disparage everybody in your country that don't reside anywhere near the coast. Especially when you are doing it to the people that vote Democrat. Just because a city isn't San Fransisco, Boston, New York or L.A. doesn't mean it can't be fun, interesting, or even cultured. In fact, anybody can have fun anywhere in the world with the help from cool locals and an imagination. Granted in the Middle-East, it would be more convenient if you were a man. Nonetheless, you don't need the figurative big glowing neon signs that point to "fun."

I had a more exciting time visiting Madison, Wisconsin (freaking Wisconsin, you cannot get more Mid-West than that) than I ever had in an ultra-blue, near-the-coast state like New Jersey. And I won't even mention Pennsylvania.

That being said, New York was awesome and New Yorkers even moreso, I hope you enjoy every bit of it nath and forre.

And Talyubittu, I find it hard to believe that you don't see any racial segregation in any of the places you have been in. Either you just don't notice it when it is there (which I can't really fault you in) or you're in complete denial. Judging from your posts, you seem like the type of person that loves their country too much to recognize any apparent faults it may harbour.

Lol. I know my country is NOT perfect by any means. But I get extra defensive when people go over the edge and say things they don't even know about. Like American politics. And then just for spite they run off saying that places are boring. Boring is an oppinion. I enjoy living in a place that pays above the national income, has top education, excelent health care and medical facilities, it's a clean place and I wouldn't move to the east or the west coast if given the option. America is a place made up of many cities and each of them offers importance. I'm sorry my city is so boring to you and so completely unworthy of being in existance. Perhaps thats why we're in the top 6 in the nation for Emergencey Response from D.C. and many other things. I know the USA is not perfect, but it's not a horrible place to live like some of you make it out to be. I should know - I live here, remember?


And thank you for your post PowerPuff. I'm glad someone dosent think I'm trying to be an arrogant prick for no reason.

coolasfcuk
29-01-2007, 01:48
PowerPuff Grrl, :kwink: you are talking to someone who has lived in the mid-west long enough... and as happy as i am that i left it, i also would not deny i had great friends and met a lot of intelligent people.
now.... one, the fact is, it just happens that in urban areas and along the coast is where the intelligent population is in way higher persentage... two, i just responded to some pretty funny comments and as i said in the post above, i respond to those the same way they were written - aka i bias the reply as i please

ta-da :p

Talyubittu, are you kidding me? all i think is that you are ... let see... my guess would b e between 15 and 17 :heh: that's why i said i feel guilty chatting with you
and i really wanna see your answer to the race prejudice in S.D. , because man... if you tell me there is any.... LOL!

Talyubittu
29-01-2007, 03:02
Age dosen't prove inteligence. If you cannot recognize that people come from all over the place and represent many different things. Some of the greatest people to influence American history came from these so called places you find "unimportant".

And no - I do not see any racial prejudice in SD. Not where I live at least.

coolasfcuk
29-01-2007, 04:01
LoL now you are putting words in my mouth

where did i say those states are 'unimportant'?

ha, you are humouring me! lets for the fun of it compare statistics:

Where you live, aka Sioux Falls, SD almost 90% of the population is WHITE! (according to the 2000 census - last completely calculated)
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=12976

Where I live less than 50% of the population is WHITE! (according to the same 2000 census)
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm

please, recognize that we arent talking about #, but persentage :heh:
so what diversity are we talking about.... diversity in the belt buckles? :laugh:

oh, and age wasnt about intelligence, but it;s about maturity and experience and common sense..live a little kid.. and travel a little :heh:

p.s. just to add more diversity comparison, since this is a gay-ish forum:

Where you live, people in same sex partnerships: score 56 where a score of 100 is the national AVERAGE.. you're like 50% below the AVERAGA! WOW http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/gayInfo.php?locIndex=12976

Where I live: score 479 :D http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/gayInfo.php?locIndex=10816

and you cant say that it's san francisco, it's the gayest, because look at providence, Ma, their score is: 2292 :lol: speak about gay town! then again, their diversity is limited, they dont have enough straight people LoL http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/gayInfo.php?locIndex=3099

Khartoun2004
29-01-2007, 05:31
p.s. just to add more diversity comparison, since this is a gay-ish forum:

Where you live, people in same sex partnerships: score 56 where a score of 100 is the national AVERAGE.. you're like 50% below the AVERAGA! WOW http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/gayInfo.php?locIndex=12976

Where I live: score 479 :D http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/gayInfo.php?locIndex=10816

and you cant say that it's san francisco, it's the gayest, because look at providence, Ma, their score is: 2292 :lol: speak about gay town! then again, their diversity is limited, they dont have enough straight people LoL http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/gayInfo.php?locIndex=3099

SEE... I told you Providence was the gayest city in the US!! :lol: SD guy... if you really want to see diversity come to my extremely over the top gay city. Hell come visit the entire state of Rhode Island, it's infested with Queer People :laugh:

:coctail: Thanks for making my night Cools.

coolasfcuk
29-01-2007, 05:38
oh thats right, Rhode Island, i dunno why i thought Ma LoL ... and to think i almost went to school at RISD ... that would've been fun, eh LoL

the questions is... where are the most femmie gay girls in usa... i think L.A. is on top of what ive seen so far ... hows providence, K?

PowerPuff Grrl
29-01-2007, 06:09
Well, to give credit to Talyubittu, cools, you can't have racial segregation if there are no black people to segregate.
;)

According to this article (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=398) (halfway down) however, South Dakota does have some issues with the Aboriginals and the state's growing attraction of White supremacists. But that isn't a problem that is unique to South Dakota. I'd even venture to say that Canadians, specifically central Canadians and the Quebecois, are highly susceptible to harassing the First Nations (not so much with the attracting skinheads, thank God).

But tell me what you thought of cities like Jacksonville, Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Charlotte. You'd be hard pressed to gloss over those cities. Chicago I have been in (there was segregation but at the same time some wealthy ass Black people too) to and Atlanta is predominantly Black.

This interesting site (http://www.censusscope.org/index.html) has charts and percentages of how segregated each city is by calculating how exposed each person belonging to a race is to people of other races and to his/her own. Thus the greater the difference, the more segragated.
For example Cleveland, Ohio (http://www.censusscope.org/us/s39/p16000/chart_exposure.html) you can see that Black people will mostly be exposed to other Black people and Whites to other Whites even though Cleveland (judging from the last column) is marginally more populated by Black people than anyone else.

This isn't what I based my personal observations on and quite frankly I really don't care if people are/aren't exposed to other races. What gets to me is the institutionalized, embedded racism that has permeated from the pre-"Brown vs. The Board of Education"/Jim Crow era of race relations.

coolasfcuk
29-01-2007, 08:36
Well, to give credit to Talyubittu, cools, you can't have racial segregation if there are no black people to segregate.

:lol: you're right, cause the 3 black people that live there are ropped off and have to be home schooled ;)

freddie
29-01-2007, 16:28
I think this discussion about inteligence distribution favouring coastlines (or anykind of geographical separation for that matter - North-South as well) is a bit skewed. Even if we're talking about about averages. It'd probably make a bit more sense to discuss possible average inteligence fluctuations in bustling metropolises with +500.000 inhabitants as opposed to rural areas. And this probably goes for the world as a whole, not just the USA. Large masses of people living in relatively confined spaces tends to shape the populace into an entity that's not just more inteligent, cultural and spiritual but also less prone to bigotry and narrow-mindness. Just goes to show you humans develop better and faster in large "herds".
This probably has something to do with educational system and people leaving smaller communities to go study in larger cities. Simply brain-drain. We had a nice representation of that in Slovenia before the world wars when everyone who was smart enough (and could afford it) went to study in Vienna and got germanized in the process. There was simply no city important or large enough to host a renowned university. Hence the nation's decline in any kind of scientific or cultural activity was striking. And this intelectual eclipse lasted for as long as Ljubljana University didn't get it's proper international status as a serious educational institution.

But yeah... on average I don't see why a large city in the midwest - say Chicago - would be any less enlightened than cities like Boston or San Francisco.


Talyubittu since you're obviously failing to see my mod remarks I'm going to try this one more time. It's "OPINION" damn it!&/%$

QueenOfLesbania
29-01-2007, 18:00
Talyubittu since you're obviously failing to see my mod remarks I'm going to try this one more time. It's "OPINION" damn it!&/%$
lmfao :lol: *go freddie, go freddie* get it off your chest mate

Argos
29-01-2007, 18:28
I think this discussion about inteligence...


Talyubittu since you're obviously failing to see my mod remarks I'm going to try this one more time. It's "OPINION" damn it!&/%$
Freddie, if it's so much fun to point at other people's spelling mistakes, I want to join:

[:znaika:] Intelligence is not based on Intel, although pretty smart guys there, but on lat. inter-legere, rl > ll (assimilation, you know!) so correctly: intel-ligence [/:znaika:]
*hides from wrath of the intellectuals*

Argos, where were you when Talyubittu was trashing another member for spelling Iraq wong?

Washing my own dirty clothes, didn't know that I had to send some kids to the corner!

Yeah, what Haku said. I apologize for my mistake but it was a typo. His is reccuring. And it wouldn't be remotely as annoying as it was if he didn't badger another member with proper English spelling of Iraq.

Talyubittu
29-01-2007, 20:47
LoL now you are putting words in my mouth

where did i say those states are 'unimportant'?

ha, you are humouring me! lets for the fun of it compare statistics:

Where you live, aka Sioux Falls, SD almost 90% of the population is WHITE! (according to the 2000 census - last completely calculated)
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=12976

Where I live less than 50% of the population is WHITE! (according to the same 2000 census)
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm

please, recognize that we arent talking about #, but persentage :heh:
so what diversity are we talking about.... diversity in the belt buckles? :laugh:

oh, and age wasnt about intelligence, but it;s about maturity and experience and common sense..live a little kid.. and travel a little :heh:

p.s. just to add more diversity comparison, since this is a gay-ish forum:

Where you live, people in same sex partnerships: score 56 where a score of 100 is the national AVERAGE.. you're like 50% below the AVERAGA! WOW http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/gayInfo.php?locIndex=12976

Where I live: score 479 :D http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/gayInfo.php?locIndex=10816

and you cant say that it's san francisco, it's the gayest, because look at providence, Ma, their score is: 2292 :lol: speak about gay town! then again, their diversity is limited, they dont have enough straight people LoL http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/gayInfo.php?locInde
x=3099


A lot has happened since 2000. Being it was seven years ago, quite a bit has change. Not only has the city expanded in culture. But the population has grown as well. Just becuase I don't live in an area with as many things as places you live does not mean I do not comprehend them. You seem to live in a different place than I do but we both understand English. So why do you talk to me like I am a two year old. Racial segregation isn't big here...it's not a problem. Homosexual's are also not common here, but it dosent mean they don't exist. we have everything any othe town does. Even if we aren't as big and flashy as where you come from.

I understand that it's also an oppinion freddie. I've stated that a billion times. Coolasfuck seems to need a reason to belittle me. Just because she is from a more urban area than I am does not mean I am stupid. I'm sure I have a much better understanding of American political themes than she does. She can look up statistics from a census 7 years ago. Thats nothing special When you have an understanding for how somthing works is when you are able to relate to it. She dosent need to tell me the demographics about where I live.......I live there remember? I know what they are. I'm not trying to be rude, but it's a bit annoying when her arrogance is speaking for a matter she knows little about. She has never lived here and never will. She has no right to make critical remarks about where I live nor more than I have the right to make them about where she does. Obviosuly I'm content with where I live, otherwise I would leave, I don't understand what she has to prove by saying my city is pointless becuase it's not what she considers a wonderous place. If she wants to start an argument thats fine, but don't jump on me for defending myself against an oppinion that was stated to START an argument.

And Haku: I was not thrasing him. I was completely baffled by the fact that he's lived in the USA for 14 years, claims to have taken AP Government and had no clue who Saddam Hussein was, where Iraq was or even how to spell it. It's not like I decided to go crazy on him for a typo.


But tell me what you thought of cities like Jacksonville, Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Charlotte. You'd be hard pressed to gloss over those cities. Chicago I have been in (there was segregation but at the same time some wealthy ass Black people too) to and Atlanta is predominantly Black.


Thank you. It's nice to see someoen recognizes that I have lived in places other than where I currently reside. Perhaps these reasons you are discussing are why I left?

freddie
29-01-2007, 22:41
I understand that it's also an oppinion freddie. I've stated that a billion times. Coolasfuck seems to need a reason to belittle me. Just because she is from a more urban area than I am does not mean I am stupid. I'm sure I have a much better understanding of American political themes than she does. She can look up statistics from a census 7 years ago. Thats nothing special When you have an understanding for how somthing works is when you are able to relate to it. She dosent need to tell me the demographics about where I live.......I live there remember? I know what they are. I'm not trying to be rude, but it's a bit annoying when her arrogance is speaking for a matter she knows little about. She has never lived here and never will. She has no right to make critical remarks about where I live nor more than I have the right to make them about where she does. Obviosuly I'm content with where I live, otherwise I would leave, I don't understand what she has to prove by saying my city is pointless becuase it's not what she considers a wonderous place. If she wants to start an argument thats fine, but don't jump on me for defending myself against an oppinion that was stated to START an argument.

It's a discussion board. Meant for people who want to share their opinions with others. Hence it's ill advised for you to take such things personally. Especially when posted on a forum which deals mainly with two Russian pseudo-lesbian pop stars.
You probably have a lot of insight on geopolitical circumstances in your State and it's near vicinity, yet sometimes one needs to look to an outsider to give a non-biased view. Though most of the time the truth is somewhere in the middle - hence it helps to share different viewpoints on a topic.

You presented your arguments in a very harsh manner and Coolz returned the favour. It's not my place to judge who's right or wrong, but one thing I know is that she didn't "belittle" you personalty, but rather expressed her views (though granted in a very straight-forward, non-PC fashion). You two just have clashing opinions. But you know the old saying... OPINIONS are like assholes. Everyone has one.

Talyubittu
29-01-2007, 23:57
I disagree. She's telling me I have no clue what diversity is because according to a census by her, I don't live in an area she considers major, not to mention blatant other things going on that shes throwing around. This isn't even what the topic is about. Why don't we get back on topic before we all start arguing, or just drop the entire discussion here? Deal?

coolasfcuk
30-01-2007, 03:23
:lol: pleeeeeeeeease, keep your OPPINIONS and i will keep my OPPINIONS :lol:
obviously you arent listening to what other people are saying, so why should i listen to what you are saying :heh:

that's right, you know everything and i know nothing, its ok, keep up that OPPINION, ok? i like that OPPINION..yeeeeeeeah, i agree with that OPPINION!
now ciao and

freddie
30-01-2007, 13:40
Okay this is going nowhere. No more personal messages. This isn't Irc. Use PM if you have a personal argument to settle. Back on topic please.

I can't say much about the USA, except from the view of an international observer. My time there was too brief to say anything conclusive and it only involved visiting two states. I have to say though. People in the two states I visited were as or more different than people in different European countries. And mind you these were neighbouring states. The only thing they share in common is history and language. Otherwise things feel entirely different on so many levels. So any kind of generatization made about a vast federation like that is totally delusional. Just as silly as making general statements about "Europeans" (which reminds me... a friend of mine from New Zealand is convinved all Euro peeps are blatantly promiscuous, wtf?! :p )

Infact I'd even go as far as to say people in certain regions of Europe that are separated with national boundaries (for instance mediteranean people in Spain, France, Portugal, Italy...) have much more in common (culturaly and sometimes even genetically) than two Americans from two different federal states.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
30-01-2007, 16:09
Here in Texas, we say "Howdy" very often:)
Did I mention we ride horses?

haku
31-01-2007, 16:42
US climate scientists pressured on climate change

US scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday 30 January. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.

Full article here (http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11074)


Nothing surprising from a country that won't even ratify the Kyoto protocol even though it's the biggest polluter on the planet.
Map of the Kyoto protocol ratification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png) for information.

PowerPuff Grrl
31-01-2007, 18:10
You seem to confuse "country" with "government." This government has lied about global warming precisely to avoid ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. So it isn't exactly two separate things and it isn't a national trend, it is a governmental trend.

Clinton signed the protocol and even shamed Republican President Nixon created the Department of the Environment. Americans themsleves are in fact environmentally aware and conscious, though some moreso than others.

In any case, it may be too early to tell but I thought it may be interesting to see into the 2008 Presidential elections; the only thing that isn't so totally depressing about the States right now.

Democratic candidates:
Sen. Hilary Clinton (http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm)
Sen. Barak Obama (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm)
Former Sen. John Edwards (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm)
Sen. Joe Biden (http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm)

Republican candidates:
Sen. John McCain (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm)
Sen. Sam Brownback (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sam_Brownback.htm)
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm)
Sen. Mike Huckabee (http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm)


Good God let Obama win it.

Khartoun2004
31-01-2007, 18:55
You seem to confuse "country" with "government." This government has lied about global warming precisely to avoid ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. So it isn't exactly two separate things and it isn't a national trend, it is a governmental trend.

Clinton signed the protocol and even shamed Republican President Nixon created the Department of the Environment. Americans themsleves are in fact environmentally aware and conscious, though some moreso than others.

In any case, it may be too early to tell but I thought it may be interesting to see into the 2008 Presidential elections; the only thing that isn't so totally depressing about the States right now.

Democratic candidates:
Sen. Hilary Clinton (http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm)
Sen. Barak Obama (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm)
Former Sen. John Edwards (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm)
Sen. Joe Biden (http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm)

Republican candidates:
Sen. John McCain (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm)
Sen. Sam Brownback (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sam_Brownback.htm)
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm)
Sen. Mike Huckabee (http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm)


Good God let Obama win it.


The only Republican I would ever consider voting for would be Rudy Giuliani because he is liberal on many important social issues and he's just a great man in general. NY Conservatives are very different from the rest of the republicans in the US. But I would only vote for him if Edwards won the Primary... I despise that man.

I'm currently leaning toward Barak Obama, I love Sentor Clinton but she's to polarizing even in the Party to secure a win for the Democrats in 2008. Obama has a much better chance given the Republican conpetition. I've also seen him speak and he reminds me of President Clinton, he grabs your attention and makes you listen to what he's saying. So yeah OBAMA 2008!!

Khartoun2004
01-02-2007, 03:45
Hillary Clinton has nothing stopping her. She has no major scandals behind her, not to mention shes a woman. Lots of people in the country are still in love with Bill Clinton - he's still my president. So Hillary will have a STRONG running. She's amaaaaaaaazing. I'm reading her autobiography now.

The problem with Hillary Clinton - don't get me wrong I adore her - is that people either love her or they hate her... Period. So I don't like her chances of stealing the independent vote away from a Republican like John McCain or Giuliani. It this point in time, it's really all about the independent voters. Party affliates will vote their party most likely with very little flip-flopping and conservatives hate her more than anyother liberal other than maybe Speaker Pelosi.

haku
01-02-2007, 16:40
Democratic candidates:
Sen. Hilary Clinton (http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm)
Sen. Barak Obama (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm)
Former Sen. John Edwards (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm)
Sen. Joe Biden (http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm)

Republican candidates:
Sen. John McCain (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm)
Sen. Sam Brownback (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sam_Brownback.htm)
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm)
Sen. Mike Huckabee (http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm)
Ok, this all look rather alien from a European point of view, none is really left wing (and some are scarily far right wing), no wonder we don't understand each other, our political spectrums have little in common.


Unrelated by revealing: crazy paranoia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6319211.stm) in the US, lol.

Talyubittu
01-02-2007, 20:49
LOL Haku, i caught about.....2% of that. Elaborate :)

haku
03-02-2007, 00:27
Yeah, like i said, we don't understand each other (or it's my poor English).

Anyway, what i meant is that most democrat politicians who are considered 'left' in the US would end up in center right parties in Europe (and most republicans would end up in extreme right parties), European socialist parties (what is called 'left' here) have no equivalent in the US.


Some comic relief (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whhbPVrb5KM), and the retard leads the most powerful country in the world. (Thanks Rach for the link :kwink: )

Khartoun2004
03-02-2007, 05:25
Some comic relief (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whhbPVrb5KM), and the retard leads the most powerful country in the world. (Thanks Rach for the link :kwink: )

That's hilarious Haku. Thanks for the link Rachel :coctail: :D I still can't wrap my brain around how that moron got into office... can we talk about "ROGUE" courts??

freddie
03-02-2007, 12:05
Anyway, what i meant is that most democrat politicians who are considered 'left' in the US would end up in center right parties in Europe (and most republicans would end up in extreme right parties), European socialist parties (what is called 'left' here) have no equivalent in the US.)

The labour party (http://www.thelaborparty.org/), maybe. :D


Some comic relief (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whhbPVrb5KM), and the retard leads the most powerful country in the world. (Thanks Rach for the link :kwink:

That was great. :D
I actually don't think Bush is as dumb as some think - people in this clip made some good points - he's not rhetoric savvy, but at the same time he's no Britney Spears either. Of course he's not qualified to be the president of ANYTHING, but that's far from labeling him as stupid. The man did graduate from Yale after all (presuming he didn't breeze through the classes hiding in his dad's pocket).

Amy_Lee_Rocks
08-02-2007, 04:21
I dont understand this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV_16PdWnBo

PowerPuff Grrl
08-02-2007, 22:58
POPOV35 and 36 are two pilots that identified a convoy on the ground. Hotel Manilla is the on the ground giving orders to the pilots to shoot the convoy. The one of the pilots sees that there are orange panels on either side of the convoy indicating that the convoy may be a group of "friendlies" i.e. allies. The British ally's missiles are usually orange. The one pilot repeatedly asks for Hotel Manilla to confirm that there are no friendlies on the ground and Hotel Manilla repeatedly confirms that there are none.

The pilots bomb the convoy and immediately afterwards "Lightening" informs them that there are friendlies on the ground. (I have no idea what or who "Lightening" is.) Hotel Manilla then states that there were in fact friendlies down there.

Part 2 of the tape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFdJ4X_wWj0), pretty much of the pilots saying "fuck," "Goddamn it," and "I think I'm going to be sick" and some pretty heavy breathing.

It's all really disturbing.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
09-02-2007, 15:59
POPOV35 and 36 are two pilots that identified a convoy on the ground. Hotel Manilla is the on the ground giving orders to the pilots to shoot the convoy. The one of the pilots sees that there are orange panels on either side of the convoy indicating that the convoy may be a group of "friendlies" i.e. allies. The British ally's missiles are usually orange. The one pilot repeatedly asks for Hotel Manilla to confirm that there are no friendlies on the ground and Hotel Manilla repeatedly confirms that there are none.

The pilots bomb the convoy and immediately afterwards "Lightening" informs them that there are friendlies on the ground. (I have no idea what or who "Lightening" is.) Hotel Manilla then states that there were in fact friendlies down there.

Part 2 of the tape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFdJ4X_wWj0), pretty much of the pilots saying "fuck," "Goddamn it," and "I think I'm going to be sick" and some pretty heavy breathing.

It's all really disturbing.


So in other words, that guy killed his own buddy?
Yeah, i think it is pretty disturbing. I was just confused..i guess
i wasnt paying much attention

PowerPuff Grrl
09-02-2007, 19:54
So in other words, that guy killed his own buddy?
Buddy as in the British soldiers on the ground who were mistaken for being Iraqi insurgents. Not buddy as in the other pilot.

haku
20-02-2007, 18:17
US appeal court confirms (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6379939.stm) that it is alright to detain people indefinitely without charges or trial in the Guantanamo concentration camp.

forre
03-03-2007, 18:43
A bit offtop here but since it's the USA General thread, I thought to add a few general comments. Sorry for being absent - right, I was in the States to check how the life is.

1. Everything works in this country. It just works. Whenever you've got a problem, people are generally very helpful and they won't ask you for a penny as for instance in Egypt or similar countries.

2. Americans are neither blind nor dumb. They perfectly understand what faults the country has and what can be better. They admit that there's a lot of fraud in big politics and they wished it could be the other way round.

3. People are polite and well behaved. I've spent 2 days in a big city of NYC visiting some weird places as China Town and Brighton Beach and still felt very safe. I'm sure criminals are doing exactly the same thing as in Europe but generally you don't feel threatened from any side.

4. Of course, being a tourist in a country and living there are 2 different things, that's why I payed attention to what my friends said. Basically, apart from a very expensive medicine and not a very sufficient social security, everything else is just as good or better that in Europe. One more thing - I haven't seen as many beggars in NYC as here in Paris.

Talyubittu
03-03-2007, 20:17
A bit offtop here but since it's the USA General thread, I thought to add a few general comments. Sorry for being absent - right, I was in the States to check how the life is.

1. Everything works in this country. It just works. Whenever you've got a problem, people are generally very helpful and they won't ask you for a penny as for instance in Egypt or similar countries.

2. Americans are neither blind nor dumb. They perfectly understand what faults the country has and what can be better. They admit that there's a lot of fraud in big politics and they wished it could be the other way round.

3. People are polite and well behaved. I've spent 2 days in a big city of NYC visiting some weird places as China Town and Brighton Beach and still felt very safe. I'm sure criminals are doing exactly the same thing as in Europe but generally you don't feel threatened from any side.

4. Of course, being a tourist in a country and living there are 2 different things, that's why I payed attention to what my friends said. Basically, apart from a very expensive medicine and not a very sufficient social security, everything else is just as good or better that in Europe. One more thing - I haven't seen as many beggars in NYC as here in Paris.


Thanks for the report forre! America's a great place to live! I love living here, it's not as cultural as I would like but I generally do feel safe and well cared for by my country. I'm glad you pointed out that we're not all stupid and rude like many think :). I am glad you enjoyed your visit to my country.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
04-03-2007, 00:02
A bit offtop here but since it's the USA General thread, I thought to add a few general comments. Sorry for being absent - right, I was in the States to check how the life is.

1. Everything works in this country. It just works. Whenever you've got a problem, people are generally very helpful and they won't ask you for a penny as for instance in Egypt or similar countries.

2. Americans are neither blind nor dumb. They perfectly understand what faults the country has and what can be better. They admit that there's a lot of fraud in big politics and they wished it could be the other way round.

3. People are polite and well behaved. I've spent 2 days in a big city of NYC visiting some weird places as China Town and Brighton Beach and still felt very safe. I'm sure criminals are doing exactly the same thing as in Europe but generally you don't feel threatened from any side.

4. Of course, being a tourist in a country and living there are 2 different things, that's why I payed attention to what my friends said. Basically, apart from a very expensive medicine and not a very sufficient social security, everything else is just as good or better that in Europe. One more thing - I haven't seen as many beggars in NYC as here in Paris.


hmmm, i dont know but i dont think you can judge a whole country just by goung to 1 place. You'd have to go to at least every major city to know the U.S well.

coolasfcuk
04-03-2007, 00:50
hmmm, i dont know but i dont think you can judge a whole country just by goung to 1 place. You'd have to go to at least every major city to know the U.S well.

:rolleyes:

what false statement!

Amy_Lee_Rocks
04-03-2007, 02:00
:rolleyes: < So Adorable!!!

what false statement!when are you coming? come visit MEEEE :D

this is so fucking ridiculous - how many times do we have to say that being in different states in america is like being in a different country!
and please, stop presenting South Dakota as something great - i am sorry, but for the main part it is a big, steaming, pile of SHIT! and i am saying that from personal experience, i am probably the only other person here that has actually been there ;)

:rolleyes: < This is so fetch!

Not everyone is friendly, if you come down here to Texas you'll find that alot of people can be donkey holes. I do agree that most people can be friendly, and i dont know about the people who beg for money, but not every place is friendly.
In New York City you might not feel threatened but places like Dallas you cant go out
alone. I havent been to New York yet, so i dont know what its like. But i've been to Dallas Houston, Autin, Oklahoma City, and Alburquerque. Honestly I felt more safe in Alburquerque.
Alot of people here are racist.

Correct me if Im wrong..hardly doubt im wrong about Dallas being dangerous.
:rolleyes: < this is so cute

Talyubittu
04-03-2007, 03:19
:rolleyes: < This is so fetch!

Not everyone is friendly, if you come down here to Texas you'll find that alot of people can be donkey holes. I do agree that most people can be friendly, and i dont know about the people who beg for money, but not every place is friendly.
In New York City you might not feel threatened but places like Dallas you cant go out
alone. I havent been to New York yet, so i dont know what its like. But i've been to Dallas Houston, Autin, Oklahoma City, and Alburquerque. Honestly I felt more safe in Alburquerque.
Alot of people here are racist.

Correct me if Im wrong..hardly doubt im wrong about Dallas being dangerous.
:rolleyes: < this is so cute

LMAO! I love you Yoshi.

Honestly - there isn't much difference in people from state to state other than their day to day activity. A lot of people have the same viewpoints and all. It's not like jumping from country to country at all. If you were in a room full of 100 people you didn't know and someone told you they were all from new york and they really weren't, you wouldn't be able to tell based on their personalities and viewpoints that they weren't. I do have to agree with Yos here a bit though at the same time I'm disagreeing. Many Americans find New Yorkers to be rude just becuase of the fast paced lifestyle they live, not becuase they're actually rude. It's just that they are always rushing. If you can handle being in New York, you can handle anywhere in the U.S.A. You should see more of it :) Try visiting some of the midwestern cities like Chicago, Denver or Minneapolis. Minneapolis is one of the nicest cities in America in my oppinion.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
04-03-2007, 04:21
LMAO! I love you Yoshi.

Honestly - there isn't much difference in people from state to state other than their day to day activity. A lot of people have the same viewpoints and all. It's not like jumping from country to country at all. If you were in a room full of 100 people you didn't know and someone told you they were all from new york and they really weren't, you wouldn't be able to tell based on their personalities and viewpoints that they weren't. I do have to agree with Yos here a bit though at the same time I'm disagreeing. Many Americans find New Yorkers to be rude just becuase of the fast paced lifestyle they live, not becuase they're actually rude. It's just that they are always rushing. If you can handle being in New York, you can handle anywhere in the U.S.A. You should see more of it :) Try visiting some of the midwestern cities like Chicago, Denver or Minneapolis. Minneapolis is one of the nicest cities in America in my oppinion.

Will do so, my brother is moving to Chicago in May to finish his Doctorate Degree in Metalurgical Engineering, so ill be visiting him.

coolasfcuk
04-03-2007, 04:42
oh my GOD! couple of teens presenting the American view... wonderful!
thanks for quoting me twice, but i think its not gonna work - i was rollnig my eyes becuase going to every major city in the US is still not going to give you a complete understanding of the country - i mean, your friend's S.D. world for example...
and that statement up there that people in all states are the same ... i mean, at this point it isnt even annoying anymore, it is more like HUMOR! i mean :laugh:
actually, i am glad you guys are posting here, its like a REAL TRUE representatoin of the views of mid-west/Texas (excluding Austin, since its a non-texas town in texas) teens :coctail:

Talyubittu
04-03-2007, 04:47
Forre obviously see's it as a nice place. I don't see why you need to get all worked up over it. The mid-west contributes tons to America, just because it isn't your cup of tea does not mean it's worthless.

Have you been to minneapolis before Yosimar? Chicago is beautiful...especially at night.

Khartoun2004
04-03-2007, 08:40
. If you were in a room full of 100 people you didn't know and someone told you they were all from new york and they really weren't, you wouldn't be able to tell based on their personalities and viewpoints that they weren't.

umm... I have to disagree with you to a certain extent. If a person from the South walked up to me and said they were from NY or anywhere other than the South really, I would know right off the bat that they were lying. Each state and even regions/cities have different accents. A Boston Accent sounds Nothing like a New York accent or even a Rhode Island accent and NY is only 3.5 hours away and RI only 30 minutes away.

I don't mean to sound like a prick, but your statement is way to generalized and factually incorrect. Regional Differences are quite noticable. Southerns piss me the hell off because they do everything from speaking to driving way to effing slow for my Northeastern Tastes and I'm sure I piss off Southerns for talking and driving way to effing fast. I'm over being a bit to general but I'm to lazy to write a whole essay on the differences of the States in the US.


Many Americans find New Yorkers to be rude just becuase of the fast paced lifestyle they live, not becuase they're actually rude. It's just that they are always rushing...

Are you joking? We are fucking rude :laugh:, but not to be mean. I was actually talking to my friend from North Carolina about this the other day. New Yorkers (or Northeasterns in general) will tell you to your face when you are pissing them off. It's a cultural brutal honesty and obligation to state things as the way they are. It's considered to be more rude and cowardly to not tell a person to their face that you dislike something they are doing. In the South or Midwest even people just smile and "ACT" like everything is fine and dandy, then turn around five minutes later and bitch to the entire town about something as trivial as "That bastard stole my parking place".

I personally would prefer to deal with issues I have with another person face to face then talk shit about them to the whole fucking world. But that's just another one of those many cultural differences found within the US.

Talyubittu
04-03-2007, 12:23
umm... I have to disagree with you to a certain extent. If a person from the South walked up to me and said they were from NY or anywhere other than the South really, I would know right off the bat that they were lying. Each state and even regions/cities have different accents. A Boston Accent sounds Nothing like a New York accent or even a Rhode Island accent and NY is only 3.5 hours away and RI only 30 minutes away.

I don't mean to sound like a prick, but your statement is way to generalized and factually incorrect. Regional Differences are quite noticable. Southerns piss me the hell off because they do everything from speaking to driving way to effing slow for my Northeastern Tastes and I'm sure I piss off Southerns for talking and driving way to effing fast. I'm over being a bit to general but I'm to lazy to write a whole essay on the differences of the States in the US.




Are you joking? We are fucking rude :laugh:, but not to be mean. I was actually talking to my friend from North Carolina about this the other day. New Yorkers (or Northeasterns in general) will tell you to your face when you are pissing them off. It's a cultural brutal honesty and obligation to state things as the way they are. It's considered to be more rude and cowardly to not tell a person to their face that you dislike something they are doing. In the South or Midwest even people just smile and "ACT" like everything is fine and dandy, then turn around five minutes later and bitch to the entire town about something as trivial as "That bastard stole my parking place".

I personally would prefer to deal with issues I have with another person face to face then talk shit about them to the whole fucking world. But that's just another one of those many cultural differences found within the US.

Well before you write me another essay - I should explain that I figured people would understand that my statement was a statement on their personalities, not their accents. That is why I said "Based, on, their, vew, points"

I doubt you've lived in the South/Midwest as well - becuase that is definately not how it is. Anytime anybody has anything to say, it is said. Thats a large generalization that all people who aren't from the north east just let problems slide by and then bitch about them later.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
04-03-2007, 17:29
oh my GOD! couple of teens presenting the American view... wonderful!
thanks for quoting me twice, but i think its not gonna work - i was rollnig my eyes becuase going to every major city in the US is still not going to give you a complete understanding of the country - i mean, your friend's S.D. world for example...
and that statement up there that people in all states are the same ... i mean, at this point it isnt even annoying anymore, it is more like HUMOR! i mean :laugh:
actually, i am glad you guys are posting here, its like a REAL TRUE representatoin of the views of mid-west/Texas (excluding Austin, since its a non-texas town in texas) teens :coctail:

I said cities because they are the ones with the highest populations.
Places that are not cities are usually the most friendly among themselves.
Austin is not a town, its a city, the Capital of Texas..:rolleyes:

Amy_Lee_Rocks
14-03-2007, 02:49
Sorry for double post..
But, i find it funny how Bush had alot of guards
when he went to Mexico, i think it was today or something..
But i dont understand why, if the last time he went he didnt have
that..

Talyubittu
14-03-2007, 02:53
LOL.

His last visit was in 2002 before everyone hated him.

Mexico is a dangerous country sometimes, especialy if you are foreign. I don't see why Bush would be doing anything in any "dangerous" areas though.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
14-03-2007, 02:59
LOL.

His last visit was in 2002 before everyone hated him.

Mexico is a dangerous country sometimes, especialy if you are foreign. I don't see why Bush would be doing anything in any "dangerous" areas though.

ummmm..no i dont think that was his last visit, i think his last visit was like
a year ago, Yes Mexico is a very dangerous city, but not dangerous enough
to want to kill bush, and No, its not dangerous especially if you are foreign.
Mexicans are the least racist agains foreigners, there are alot of French and
Russian people in Mexico, even some of the Celebs are Slavic.
Mexicans are dangerous to their own selves..The white Mexicans, hate the
dark Mexicans..and the Dark Mexicans hate the white Mexicans.

Talyubittu
14-03-2007, 03:59
ummmm..no i dont think that was his last visit, i think his last visit was like
a year ago, Yes Mexico is a very dangerous city, but not dangerous enough
to want to kill bush, and No, its not dangerous especially if you are foreign.
Mexicans are the least racist agains foreigners, there are alot of French and
Russian people in Mexico, even some of the Celebs are Slavic.
Mexicans are dangerous to their own selves..The white Mexicans, hate the
dark Mexicans..and the Dark Mexicans hate the white Mexicans.

I can't find anything anywhere about bush visiting Mexico after 2002 until now.
Mexico by the way, is a country to lol.
And I do have to argue that Mexico is not dangerous if you are foreign, my uncle flew to Mexico in 2004 and was told by two police officers that he had to pay them before he was allowed off the plane. Not to mention, bribing from other law enforcement officers is not uncommon. It's not safe to be in public alone in a big city, or to be out at all after night in smaller towns. Also not advisable for you to have money/credit cards out.

- Back on topic however. I don't think Bush is worried about the citizens of Mexico trying to assassinate him. He's worried about terrorists entering through Mexico, or other organizations that want him dead.


- And Russians and other Slavic immigrants are in a large minority. There are not "a lot"

PowerPuff Grrl
14-03-2007, 16:51
Amy Lee Rocks, is right. Bush was in Mexico last year, it was the Canada-US-Mexico Summit held there (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/29/DI2006032901029.html). I remember because Harper wore a silly looking orange vest that made him look like a dork in photo-ops.

Subject of gays in the military is up again. Surprisingly more conservatives are up for the idea but of course when you think about it, it's pretty obvious as to why.

Defenders of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy are running out of excuses. (http://www.slate.com/id/2161764?nav=tap3)

I personally am a little suspicious. Not that gays shouldn't serve or anything, but the fact that conservatives are starting to agree should be a red light to all queers. There's a shortage of troops in Iraq so how convenient that now, as opposed to 15 years ago, gays may just be welcomed into the service.

And while it may justify the gay rights cause exponentially in that if gays can be seen as people worthy to fight for their country, than surely the country can extend that worthiness to domestic rights as well. But that same shit was done by African Americans during the American Revolution, Civil War (on both sides), WWI, WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam. All it got them (before Vietnam) were segragated troops where the black troops would be in the front lines being the first to die.

Not that it's both the same struggle, just illustrating that being accepted into the military doesn't mean you will be accepted in law. Why fight/die for a country that doesn't even recognize your rights?

Amy_Lee_Rocks
14-03-2007, 20:15
I can't find anything anywhere about bush visiting Mexico after 2002 until now.
Mexico by the way, is a country to lol.
And I do have to argue that Mexico is not dangerous if you are foreign, my uncle flew to Mexico in 2004 and was told by two police officers that he had to pay them before he was allowed off the plane. Not to mention, bribing from other law enforcement officers is not uncommon. It's not safe to be in public alone in a big city, or to be out at all after night in smaller towns. Also not advisable for you to have money/credit cards out.

- Back on topic however. I don't think Bush is worried about the citizens of Mexico trying to assassinate him. He's worried about terrorists entering through Mexico, or other organizations that want him dead.


- And Russians and other Slavic immigrants are in a large minority. There are not "a lot"

Like PowerPuff Grrl said, Bush went to Mexico last year, and he did not have as many guards as he did when he went yeaterday. I understand about terrorist trying to assasinate him, but i still think its funny. Why didnt he do it before? there wasnt any threat before why now?

Im sorry about your uncle, but i mean no offence, but he was kinda stupid. Did he report that? he could have done that. What part of Mexico did he go to? If he went to Mexico City, of course its very common for that to happen, since the "Chilangos" (Mexico City people) are assholes to everyone. There are places in the city where they are very rude, and hate everyone who is not from there, If your unlce would of gone to Cancun, or Puerto Vallarta, or maybe even Acapulco, i hardly doubt that would have happend.
You are right about not being safe alone in Mexico City, you cant even walk arroud with a purse without being robbed. If you go to smaller cities like Durango, that is extremely rare, people are less stuck up and more respectful.
If you want to visit Mexico please dont visit Mexico City, its very dangerous i recomend
visiting other places like Puerto Vallarta, Cancun, Acapulco, Guadalajara or other places
that have neat luxurious stuff.

Yes its a large minority, but in some places there are alot of them.
Mexico is a werid country. But i love my country ^-^

Khartoun2004
15-03-2007, 03:17
And I do have to argue that Mexico is not dangerous if you are foreign, my uncle flew to Mexico in 2004 and was told by two police officers that he had to pay them before he was allowed off the plane. Not to mention, bribing from other law enforcement officers is not uncommon. It's not safe to be in public alone in a big city, or to be out at all after night in smaller towns. Also not advisable for you to have money/credit cards out.

umm that can happen in any city in any country all around the world... even here in the United States. Have you ever been to Philadelphia? I wouldn't walk around that city after dusk even in a huge group and I'm from the effing Northeast. Hell there are parts of Providence I wouldn't walk around in after dark either and I live here. So I don't think it's fair to portray safety issues in a big city as a solely 'Mexican' problem.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
15-03-2007, 03:35
umm that can happen in any city in any country all around the world... even here in the United States. Have you ever been to Philadelphia? I wouldn't walk around that city after dusk even in a huge group and I'm from the effing Northeast. Hell there are parts of Providence I wouldn't walk around in after dark either and I live here. So I don't think it's fair to portray safety issues in a big city as a solely 'Mexican' problem.

Thank You!

11Russia
15-03-2007, 04:10
Mexico is a dangerous country sometimes, especialy if you are foreign. I don't see why Bush would be doing anything in any "dangerous" areas though.
Every country is dangerous sometimes! not only Mexico, and it's sooooo much to have 3,500 guards we're not Irak :rolleyes:

Talyubittu
15-03-2007, 12:43
umm that can happen in any city in any country all around the world... even here in the United States. Have you ever been to Philadelphia? I wouldn't walk around that city after dusk even in a huge group and I'm from the effing Northeast. Hell there are parts of Providence I wouldn't walk around in after dark either and I live here. So I don't think it's fair to portray safety issues in a big city as a solely 'Mexican' problem.

Before I have everyone down my throats! I did not say it couldn't. We were talking about Mexico in our posts, had we been talking about the USA - I would have said the same thing for crowded area's - the same thing for ANY country. I never stated it was a Mexican ONLY problem, so don't put words in my post. But no, that is not common for our police to haggle people was my point.

- And yes, he did report it Yoshi :).

Amy_Lee_Rocks
15-03-2007, 16:27
Before I have everyone down my throats! I did not say it couldn't. We were talking about Mexico in our posts, had we been talking about the USA - I would have said the same thing for crowded area's - the same thing for ANY country. I never stated it was a Mexican ONLY problem, so don't put words in my post. But no, that is not common for our police to haggle people was my point.

- And yes, he did report it Yoshi :).

Did he get any of his money back?


Like PowerPuff Grrl said, Bush went to Mexico last year, and he did not have as many guards as he did when he went yeaterday. I understand about terrorist trying to assasinate him, but i still think its funny. Why didnt he do it before? there wasnt any threat before why now?


.....so about this?

Talyubittu
15-03-2007, 16:45
No. He just got an apology.

novayamodel
17-03-2007, 03:28
Mexicans are the least racist agains foreigners, there are alot of French and Russian people in Mexico, even some of the Celebs are Slavic.
Mexicans are dangerous to their own selves..The white Mexicans, hate the
dark Mexicans..and the Dark Mexicans hate the white Mexicans.

I'm sorry... But I have to disagree with that.
Mexico is a very racist country. Now don't get offended. My father is Mexican and I've been living there for many years now. So I know how the people are in there.
I know that not all Mexicans are racist... But it seems the mayority is...

Like you said... white Mexicans, hate the
dark Mexicans and the Dark Mexicans hate the white Mexicans.
But they're also racist with other foreigners.
I've met a Russian guy... he doens't speak that much... He's always carrying with him a "Russian to English Dictionary... many Mexicans get close to me only to say things like "Russians are idiots..." or "Smells like Russian shit",(Geez.. what a way to start a coversation...), stuff like that... always making fun of him simply 'cause he doesn't understand Spanish. And yet people do not know him. And do not want to make the effort to get to know him.

There are lots of Chinese people as well, and boy, do the Mexicans hate them...
They're more terrible with them... I dunno why... but it seems they hate Chinese people with a passion... Saying things like "Chino cochino" (Wich translates as something as "filthy Chinese pig") ... When they talk, the Mexican openly make fun of them in their faces... Imitating them and sayin "what did you said? Reapeat again!". They scream at them, yell at them... It's sad...
"Speak Sapnish! this is Mexico! If you want to speak Chinese, go back to your filthy country."

I'm also been a victim of racism... from adults and teachers.
I was born in US but at the age of 13, I went to live and study in Mexico.
The teachers hated me, simply because I'm American.

I remember on my first day at Junior High, my History teacher, started to call out our names, but she didn't mention my name... I got close and said quietly... "Um... You forgot to mention me..."
She quickly snapped at me and said "You're American. How is that I know you're American? Because you're rude and selfish".

I felt terrible. And it was weird because that was the first time I've talked to her... So how was I rude and selfish? :confused:

Not only her... my art teacher hated me as well... Even though I draw nicely... I never got good grades because my teacher said she doesn't accept "American Art". Whatever that means...

And this goes on and on...

Amy_Lee_Rocks
17-03-2007, 03:40
I'm sorry... But I have to disagree with that.
Mexico is a very racist country. Now don't get offended. My father is Mexican and I've been living there for many years now. So I know how the people are in there.
I know that not all Mexicans are racist... But it seems the mayority is...

Like you said... white Mexicans, hate the
dark Mexicans and the Dark Mexicans hate the white Mexicans.
But they're also racist with other foreigners.
I've met a Russian guy... he doens't speak that much... He's always carrying with him a "Russian to English Dictionary... many Mexicans get close to me only to say things like "Russians are idiots..." or "Smells like Russian shit",(Geez.. what a way to start a coversation...), stuff like that... always making fun of him simply 'cause he doesn't understand Spanish. And yet people do not know him. And do not want to make the effort to get to know him.

There are lots of Chinese people as well, and boy, do the Mexicans hate them...
They're more terrible with them... I dunno why... but it seems they hate Chinese people with a passion... Saying things like "Chino cochino" (Wich translates as something as "filthy Chinese pig") ... When they talk, the Mexican openly make fun of them in their faces... Imitating them and sayin "what did you said? Reapeat again!". They scream at them, yell at them... It's sad...
"Speak Sapnish! this is Mexico! If you want to speak Chinese, go back to your filthy country."

I'm also been a victim of racism... from adults and teachers.
I was born in US but at the age of 13, I went to live and study in Mexico.
The teachers hated me, simply because I'm American.

I remember on my first day at Junior High, my History teacher, started to call out our names, but she didn't mention my name... I got close and said quietly... "Um... You forgot to mention me..."
She quickly snapped at me and said "You're American. How is that I know you're American? Because you're rude and selfish".

I felt terrible. And it was weird because that was the first time I've talked to her... So how was I rude and selfish? :confused:

Not only her... my art teacher hated me as well... Even though I draw nicely... I never got good grades because my teacher said she doesn't accept "American Art". Whatever that means...

And this goes on and on...


Seems like Mexico needs its on thread.. Mexico (http://forum.tatysite.net/showthread.php?t=11644)

spyretto
23-03-2007, 20:49
The US are pulling out of Iraq by the end of 2008...the Congress has just passed it despite Bush's efforts.
So it seems they'll finally be going home leaving total mayhem behind...well done, dorks.
Though Bush has vowed to fight till the end...

also Bush has passed a gaming act in late 2006 which criminalises any form of internet gambling for all American citizens. But would they touch the Vegas and Atlantic Cirty syndicates? No, of course not.
so much for the land of the free ( pretty f**** up place, if you asked me ).

Talyubittu
23-03-2007, 21:02
It dosen't matter. It will never happen anyways. And even if it does - Clinton or Obama would remove a lot of things Bush has done.

spyretto
23-03-2007, 21:18
Yeah, I guess we have to wait for the Democrats to undo some of the BS that Bush has done...what a travesty.
Anyway, his friend Saddam says hi to him and he's expecting him soon. :p

Khartoun2004
24-03-2007, 15:17
also Bush has passed a gaming act in late 2006 which criminalises any form of internet gambling for all American citizens. But would they touch the Vegas and Atlantic Cirty syndicates? No, of course not.
so much for the land of the free ( pretty f**** up place, if you asked me ).

The Federal Government cannot do anything about Vegas because the State of Nevada legalized gambling. The Feds have no jurisdiction in that matter. Just like Native Americans can set up casinos in this country on their reserves even if the state has made gambling illegal... In the case of Native Americans state gov't and feds have no control over what the Native Americans do on the reserves.

People here would be more pissed off if the government tried to interfere with state laws. Our constitution isn't organized to allow for an extremely powerful Federal Government, the states still run much of everyday life here individually without the feds getting involved. And I prefer it that way, I'd be very worried about a strong central government; ie: what Bush has been trying to do.

Talyubittu
24-03-2007, 16:33
The supremacy clause allows the Federal Government's law to precede over any law that any state has signed in. So if this does indeed pass - gambling will be outlawed everywhere.

Expressed powers are stronger and take presedence over Implied powers do.

Khartoun2004
25-03-2007, 02:56
The supremacy clause allows the Federal Government's law to precede over any law that any state has signed in. So if this does indeed pass - gambling will be outlawed everywhere.

Expressed powers are stronger and take presedence over Implied powers do.

Yes I know that, however the Federal government won't pass a law to make gambling illegal across the entire country at the present time because of the backlash it would recieve from the people.

spyretto
25-03-2007, 07:38
But you have to go to that Indan reservation to gamble...or Vegas...or even go southwards to Mexico, the checkpoints are really lax. It makes it a bit difficult and definitely not an everyday activity.
Oh well, we all know the real reason of internet gambling being declared illegal, it's the fact that the majority of the companies are not American. Mostly from the UK, so what happened to Bush's solidarity with the Brits, wouldn't allow a few American dollars to go to UK hands? lol

Talyubittu
25-03-2007, 08:35
Yes I know that, however the Federal government won't pass a law to make gambling illegal across the entire country at the present time because of the backlash it would recieve from the people.

They've kept George Bush in office. How much backlash can they expect after that? lmao.

Khartoun2004
25-03-2007, 15:41
They've kept George Bush in office. How much backlash can they expect after that? lmao.

good point lol I hadn't thought about that. :coctail:

Did anyone else hear about Bush trying to cockblock congress from subpoenaing interviews from Rove and other top aides under oath in a public session of congress? Bush will apparently let congress interview them, but only under the conditions that it, 1.) not be public 2.)not be under oath and 3.) essentially be completely illegal. Bush has actually threatened to sue congress over it, but taking this matter straight to the supreme court.

Any other Americans find this as hysertical as I do?? :lol: The President actually thinks he's above the law. :laugh: He's just pissing his pants because he knows if Rove is interviewed under oath in the public record... they'll have to lie just to stay in office because the Democrats are out to chop off heads (figuratively speaking of course) and when they lie... they'll still lose their jobs because of perjury :lol: What a predicament.

Talyubittu
28-03-2007, 22:29
Bush is trying to turn America into his country, it's not about the American people and the American dream of prosperity. It's The Ultimate George W. Bush Quest for Oil & Christianity.

And as ashamed as I am of Bush and his administration. I will never be ashamed of being an American. It's just sad that so many people don't recognize the difference between the public and the government. Because even we - the public don't have control or say in our government anymore :(.

PowerPuff Grrl
28-03-2007, 23:09
good point lol I hadn't thought about that. :coctail:

Did anyone else hear about Bush trying to cockblock congress from subpoenaing interviews from Rove and other top aides under oath in a public session of congress? Bush will apparently let congress interview them, but only under the conditions that it, 1.) not be public 2.)not be under oath and 3.) essentially be completely illegal. Bush has actually threatened to sue congress over it, but taking this matter straight to the supreme court.

Any other Americans find this as hysertical as I do?? ...
But didn't he do this with the 9/11 Commission?
They could interview him, but only if he had Dick Cheney by his side, not recorded, no transcripts, and not under oath. If he had it before, I not surprised he'd want it again.

Now included in the big list of victims to friendly fires:
-British soldiers
-Iraqi Soldiers
-Canadian Soldiers
-American Soldier(s) (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/washington/28tillman.html?hp)

Talyubittu
17-04-2007, 04:36
Police say they've preliminarily identified a gunman who massacred 32 people Monday at Virginia Tech in the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history, cutting down his victims in two attacks two hours apart before the university could grasp what was happening and get the warning out to students.

Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum would not release the name of the dead gunman, adding that the investigation was ongoing, and "we want to get it right."

The Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday night that authorities are investigating whether the gunman was a 24-year-old Chinese man who arrived in the U.S. last year on a student visa issued in Shanghai. Police believe three bomb threats on the campus last week may have been attempts by the man to test the campus' security response, the newspaper reported.

Flinchum also would not confirm whether the gunman, responsible for the bloodbath that left 30 dead in the school's Norris Hall classroom building, was the same person who killed two people — a male and a female — two hours earlier in a dormitory on the other side of the sprawling western Virginia campus.

"We have a preliminary ID, but we're not prepared to release it yet. The investigation is ongoing and we are making progress," Flinchum told reporters Monday night, adding that police had questioned a "person of interest" related to the first shooting, and that person was not the dead gunman.

"They're not the same person," the Flinchum said, referring to the person of interest and the gunman. "We are actively pursing all leads, and this investigation will determine whether they [the shootings] are related or not."

Flinchum refused to dismiss the possibility that a co-conspirator or second shooter was involved.

"I'm not saying there's a gunman on the loose," Flinchum said. Ballistics tests will help explain what happened, he said.

Sheree Mixell, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said the evidence was being moved to the agency's national lab in Annandale, Va. At least one firearm was turned over, she said.

Mixell would not comment on what types of weapons were used or whether the gunman was a student.

A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation was incomplete, said that the gunman had two pistols and multiple clips of ammunition. The student newspaper reported that police had sent two guns to the state police crime lab for forensic testing.

In all, the death toll of the two shootings was 33, including the gunman. At least 15 people were wounded, four seriously.

The methodical mass murder forever stamped tragedy on the picturesque campus nestled in the western foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

"I'm really at a loss for words to explain or understand the carnage that has visited our campus," Virginia Tech President Charles Steger said.

He also was faced with difficult questions about the university's handling of the emergency and whether it did enough to warn students and protect them after the first burst of gunfire.

Officials defended their actions, with the police chief telling people to "keep in mind that it takes time" to collect all the pieces.

While investigators offered no motive for the attacks, what is known is this:

A gunman opened fire about 7:15 a.m. in the West Ambler Johnston coed dormitory. Virginia Tech and Blacksburg, Va., police were dispatched to the scene and arrived to find the bodies of two people, a male and a female. Based on interviews with residents and witnesses, police identified and questioned a "person of interest." That person was not in custody Monday night, police said.

About two and half hours later, around 9:45 a.m., police received a second 911 call of a shooting at Norris Hall, an Engineering Department classroom building on the other side of the 2,600-acre campus. Officers arriving on the scene found at least two doors chained to prevent the building's occupants from escaping, police said.

Police broke down one door and stormed the building and followed the sounds of the shooting to the second floor when the sounds of gunfire stopped and they found the gunman dead, apparently of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, Flinchum said.

Thirty-one were killed in Norris Hall, including the gunman. At least 26 people were hurt, some seriously.

"It's probably one of the worst things I've seen in my life," Flinchum said, declining to further describe the scene.

Students in Norris Hall jumped from windows in panic. Young people and faculty members carried out some of the wounded themselves, without waiting for ambulances to arrive. Many found themselves trapped behind the chained and padlocked doors. SWAT team members and FBI agents with helmets, flak jackets and assault rifles swarmed over the campus.

Trey Perkins, who was sitting in a German class in Norris Hall, told The Washington Post that the gunman barged into the room at about 9:50 a.m. and opened fire for about a minute and a half, squeezing off 30 shots in all.

The gunman, Perkins said, first shot the professor in the head and then fired on the students. Perkins said the gunman was about 19 years old and had a "very serious but very calm look on his face."

"Everyone hit the floor at that moment," said Perkins, 20, of Yorktown, Va., a sophomore studying mechanical engineering. "And the shots seemed like it lasted forever."

Erin Sheehan, who also was in the German class, told the student newspaper, the Collegiate Times, said she was one of only four of the approximately two dozen people in the class to walk out of the room. The rest were dead or wounded, she said.

"It seemed so strange," Sheehan said. The gunman "peeked in twice, earlier in the lesson, like he was looking for someone, somebody, before he started shooting. But then we all heard something like drilling in the walls, and someone thought they sounded like bullets. That's when we blockaded the door to stop anyone from coming in."

She said the gunman "was just a normal-looking kid, Asian, but he had on a Boy Scout-type outfit. He wore a tan button-up vest, and this black vest, maybe it was for ammo or something."

"I saw bullets hit people's body," Sheehan said. "There was blood everywhere." She added, "My professor, Herr Bishop, I'm not sure if he's alive."

Kevin Tosh, 20, of Rocky Mount, Va., lives three floors above where the shooting occurred, but he said he said he woke up Monday like he usually does, showering and heading to class around 8:45 a.m. He only noticed something was wrong when he saw about one dozen police cars outside the entrance.

“I was in journalism class and somebody got the e-mail,” Tosh said. He said not too long afterward — about 9:45 a.m. or 10 a.m. — there was another e-mail, this one about the second shooting.

Tosh said he had mixed feelings about the speed of the official response.

“I think [the campus police] had it under control. … I thought they did a good job, but I think they could have done better,” said the sophomore communications major.

Lake Singh and his friend Michael Patrick Stone said they were in their dorms Monday morning when campus police began knocking on doors, making sure that anyone who was inside the dorm was locked in their rooms. Outside Singh’s window, he could see Norris Hall.

Singh, 18, of Burke, Va., said he was eating breakfast when he got the e-mail about the shooting. The sophomore aerospace engineering major said he thought it still could just have been part of the investigation into last week’s campus bomb threats. Then he began to see the police activity.

“Guys with M-16s started running across the drill fields,” Singh said. “That’s when I realized it wasn’t just a bomb threat.”

“It scared me,” he added.

The two said they were able to see body bags being removed from Norris Hall.

“It’s something that I know I’m never going to forget,” said Stone, 20, of Bumpass, Va.

Once they were allowed to leave, Stone and Singh said that campus buildings soon began filling up with armor-clad tactical police officers and buildings were closed down.

Despite the confusion and the chaos, the two said there were supportive of the way university officials handled the situation.

“The university did a wonderful job,” said Stone, a sophomore engineering major. Singh agreed. Stone said he believed there was little anyone could have done. Standing outside The Inn at Virginia Tech and Skelton Conference Center, where reporters were staked out, Stone opened his coat and said anyone could hide weapons to do the damage that was done Monday.

“If he’s motivated to do it, he can do it,” Stone said.

The two students said generally, the campus is safe, and last week’s bomb threats at the time seemed like huge news. Now they were going to be taking stock over the next few days, trying to figure out if they knew any of the victims.

“It’s been a hard day. I just hope nobody I know died,” Singh said.

While Singh and Stone felt campus police did their jobs, other students bitterly complained that there were no public-address announcements on campus after the first shots. Many said the first word from the university was an e-mail more than two hours into the rampage — around the time the gunman struck again.

Steger defended the university's handling of the tragedy, saying authorities believed that the shooting at the dorm was a domestic dispute and mistakenly thought the gunman had fled the campus.

"We had no reason to suspect any other incident was going to occur," he said.

Steger emphasized that the university closed off the dorm after the first attack and decided to rely on e-mail and other electronic means to notify members of the university, but with 11,000 people driving onto campus first thing in the morning, it was difficult to get the word out, he said.

Steger said that before the e-mail went out, the university began telephoning resident advisers in the dorms to notify them and sent people to knock on doors to spread the word. Students were warned to stay inside and away from the windows.

"We can only make decisions based on the information you had at the time. You don't have hours to reflect on it," Steger said. He called the massacre a tragedy of "monumental proportions."

Some students and Laura Wedin, a student programs manager at Virginia Tech, said the first notification they got of the shootings came in an e-mail at 9:26 a.m., more than two hours after the first shooting.

The e-mail had few details. It read: "A shooting incident occurred at West Amber Johnston earlier this morning. Police are on the scene and are investigating." The message warned students to be cautious and contact police about anything suspicious.

Everett Good, junior, said of the lack of warning: "Someone's head is definitely going to roll over that."

Edmund Henneke, associate dean of engineering, said he was in the classroom building and he and colleagues had just read the e-mail advisory regarding the first shooting and were discussing it when he heard gunfire. He said moments later SWAT team members rushed them downstairs, but the doors were chained and padlocked from the inside. They left the building through a construction area that had not been locked.

Until Monday, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history was in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, when George Hennard plowed his pickup truck into a Luby's Cafeteria and shot 23 people to death, then himself.

The massacre Monday took place almost eight years to the day after the Columbine High bloodbath near Littleton, Colo. On April 20, 1999, two teenagers killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives.

Previously, the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history was a rampage that took place in 1966 at the University of Texas at Austin, where Charles Whitman climbed the clock tower and opened fire with a rifle from the 28th-floor observation deck. He killed 16 people before he was shot to death by police.

Founded in 1872, Virginia Tech is nestled in southwestern Virginia, about 160 miles west of Richmond. With more than 25,000 full-time students, it has the state's largest full-time student population. The school is best known for its engineering school and its powerhouse Hokies football team.

The rampage took place on a brisk spring day, with snow flurries swirling around the campus. The campus is centered around the Drill Field, a grassy field where military cadets — who now represent a fraction of the student body — practice. The dorm and the classroom building are on opposites sides of the Drill Field.

A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified by the rampage and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia. "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said

After the shootings, all entrances to the campus were closed, and classes were canceled through Tuesday. The university set up a meeting place for families to reunite with their children. It also made counselors available and planned an assembly for Tuesday at the basketball arena.

It was second time in less than a year that the campus was closed because of a shooting.

Last August, the opening day of classes was canceled and the campus closed when an escaped jail inmate allegedly killed a hospital guard off campus and fled to the Tech area. A sheriff's deputy involved in the manhunt was killed on a trail just off campus. The accused gunman, William Morva, faces capital murder charges.




Picture (http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/041607_virginiatech_mourn8.jpg)
Picture (http://www.foxnews.com/images/277021/14_61_041607_shooting.jpg)


:( So sad.

People are sick.

Khartoun2004
17-04-2007, 08:59
But didn't he do this with the 9/11 Commission?
They could interview him, but only if he had Dick Cheney by his side, not recorded, no transcripts, and not under oath. If he had it before, I not surprised he'd want it again.


Yes that is true, but he also had the benefit of a completely Republican controlled Congress that bowed down to his every fucking whim. Luckily for us, not for Bush, there is a balance of power again with the Democrats in the Majority in both the House and Senate. This means we actually have our checks and balances back. He's not going to be able to pull the same BS again.

In regards to VTech, a very good friend of mine goes there and I was sooo relieved when she called me and told me she was alright. I think this should serve to show Congress that we need better gun control laws in this country. We don't need a fucking militia anymore, that's what the National Guard is for :rolleyes:

Talyubittu
17-04-2007, 09:39
Yes that is true, but he also had the benefit of a completely Republican controlled Congress that bowed down to his every fucking whim. Luckily for us, not for Bush, there is a balance of power again with the Democrats in the Majority in both the House and Senate. This means we actually have our checks and balances back. He's not going to be able to pull the same BS again.

In regards to VTech, a very good friend of mine goes there and I was sooo relieved when she called me and told me she was alright. I think this should serve to show Congress that we need better gun control laws in this country. We don't need a fucking militia anymore, that's what the National Guard is for :rolleyes:

What would you propose for better gun control?

Britney Spears
17-04-2007, 18:23
OMG What happend at Virginia Tech according to CNN the worst school shooting in U.S. history!!! :(

I don't understand how people can be that messed up and go do something like that? :(

If anyone here goes to Virginia Tech I hope you're alright or if anyone knows people that go there the same goes to them.

QueenBee
17-04-2007, 18:42
I wonder which hip hop artist/movie they're going to blame now. :rolleyes:

Why do these things only happen in the US?

the unforgiven
17-04-2007, 18:57
Why do these things only happen in the US?
second amendment? the NRA? 50 cent feat. Eminem? who knows?

edit : anyway, this story is sick
I wish the shooter wasn't dead so he could rot in jail

dradeel
17-04-2007, 19:21
I wonder which hip hop artist/movie they're going to blame now.
You're all wrong. The goths are to blame. Hehe.

I heard about the school shootings too. I chose to get late for work today to read through the whole article on todays newspaper. What a huge tragedy... it's horrific. 33 dead and some 20 people wounded, aye? I also read the uni was in a quiet country-side enviorment. Noone expected this thing to happen.

I wanna ask the same question as QueenBee; Why do these things only happen in the US? I think this should serve to show Congress that we need better gun control laws in this country.
I don't think it's the "guns" that are the problem. And isn't it so that most of the school shootings so far has happened in states that actually already have big laws for gun control? Don't get me wrong; as a pascifist I'm all against guns, and I'm happy to have grown up in a country where guns aren't usually kept in the home... but you can't blame guns for this. It's not guns killing people, it's people killing people. It's the people you have to change. Look at Canada. Aren't there more guns there per person than in the US? I can't say I've heard of any school shootings there.

I just don't think you can go around and pass laws that limits people and think that will fix the problem. I bet most people that have a gun haven't ever used it for anything bad. Heck, they might've not even used it. But they sure won't like it if you take it away from them. No, I don't think that's the way to attack this problem. And no, I have no answers. This is a complex matter with no quick answers, I'm afraid...

QueenBee
17-04-2007, 19:27
Meh, I wouldn't mind if they forbid guns totally. Why do people have guns, anyway? There's no need for them.

Talyubittu
17-04-2007, 19:43
Guns we're something that were common back when the constitution was written, it's not as common today. But people won't let it die.

- Bush spoke about this. This is the worst school shooting in the US history. It's so sad :( So many innocent students.

PowerPuff Grrl
18-04-2007, 05:30
Canada has actually had several shootings. The earliest and most heinous I can recall was in Montreal when some misogynist shot all the women in his engineering class, I think the number dead was 14. Then there was one out in Alberta, some dude got inspired by Columbine and shot another guy in his high school. And just this past year another guy in Montreal shot a girl in his college-prep school and injured several others.

I think there was a shooting (or a hostage situation?) in Northern Germany last year or the one before last. I specifically remember because it was the first one reported here that occured outside of North America and people there stating that this sort of thing never happens here and all that.

I personally think the authorities seriously fucked this one big time. The guy shot two people, took two hours to go over to another building and shot 30 more. Two fucking hours. Where the hell were the police? Why didn't the school just close down the place, cancel classes and all that? Fucking warning through an email, two hours after knowing two people are dead and the shooter is still on the loose?

Apparently there were warning signs coming from his room mates and some of his profs. It's easier to tell now in hindsight so no one can be blamed prior to the incident, I guess. But during?

Regarding guns, I used to be so anti-gun ownership but now I have completely done a 180 degree turn on this. The only thing that should change is the screening process, obviously don't let people without a clean record own any guns. Having a no-wait period is just ridiculous. Gun store owners could have easily have seen that the guy has had very recent stalking violations on his record and simply prohibited him from having any guns. Sounds a little too easy but surely some scrutiny must be practiced in these transactions.

As for the music to be blame, the guy apparently listened to a lot of Led Zepplin and Collective Soul particulary the song "Shine Down." Led Zepplin finally, the music of "troubled" and "misguided" baby boomers can be blamed for all of this. Ban all Classic Rock stations.

Talyubittu
18-04-2007, 05:33
Blaming anything but yourself is completely retarded.

A video game, music, tv is an image of something fake. - You should not act on that impulse.

These things are not to blame if you cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy, and if this is the case, you need to be locked up where you cannot hurt anyone but yourself.

Khartoun2004
18-04-2007, 05:57
What would you propose for better gun control?

For starters, did you know that to buy a shotgun all you have to be is 18 and they don't run background checks? You can just walk into a walmart or anyother sporting good store and buy one.

Secondly, I think people with children in their homes should not be allowed to have guns period. Have you ever seen the statistics on the number of children that die every year in this country because of gun related accidents in their homes? It's disgusting.

Thirdly, to hell with the second amendment when it comes to guns and the general population. The whole point of the second amendment was to ensure we would have a standing militia incase the Brits decided to attack us again (which they did in 1812:rolleyes: ). We now have the National Guard and Coast Guard which took the place of our informal militia, so guns owned by ordinary Americans is really totally unnecessary, in my opinion. The law should be changed so that only people with clean criminal records and Military or Police training are allowed to buy and keep pistols and semi-automatics.

I also think at the very least it should be illegal to keep live ammunition in the home and people should have to get licences to buy it. If your going hunting buy the ammunition on your way to the forest and only enough for that hunting session. Of course that would be nearly impossible to enforce.

Talyubittu
18-04-2007, 06:03
For starters, did you know that to buy a shotgun all you have to be is 18 and they don't run background checks? You can just walk into a walmart or anyother sporting good store and buy one.

It's not that easy. You cannot just buy a gun in America.

- No one said the 2nd ammendment was perfect nor needed. It was back then and just has not been revamped. And I don't think it should be.


It's not a matter of having a gun, it's how you treat having one and the responisblity that comes with it.

PowerPuff Grrl
18-04-2007, 13:16
According to this article (http://www.slate.com/id/2164373/nav/tap1/) however, it is pretty easy to acquire a gun in the States:

As our law stands now, anyone may sell a gun to anyone else; the FFL (Federal Firearms License) is required only of those who do so as a commercial venture. Sellers without an FFL may not buy and sell new guns for retail, but may trade in used guns—without background checks—to their heart's content.

With the exception of not refining the 2nd ammendment, I completely agree with you, Talyubittu.

Blaming anything but yourself is completely retarded.
You do realize I was joking, right?

freddie
18-04-2007, 15:13
I think it shouldn't really be turned into a strictly gun-related discussion. The guy was crazy. If he was deprived of the gun he'd shoot his victims with a cross-bow... or better yet a home made explosive device.

Some people are crazy. Period. It's the burden of modern society we need to face. If anything in this vast mass of souls on our planet I'm quite surprised why most are more or less ballanced. I would expect absolute chaos, to be honest. I'm afraid to find out just how many people refrain from doing illegal deeds just because it's punishable by law, rather than because it's innately wrong.

Talyubittu
18-04-2007, 17:34
I think it shouldn't really be turned into a strictly gun-related discussion. The guy was crazy. If he was deprived of the gun he'd shoot his victims with a cross-bow... or better yet a home made explosive device.


Thank You!

PowerPuff Grrl
18-04-2007, 17:37
It's understandable to be worked up over it though. All weapons can kill, no doubt, but the guy killed over thirty people in a really short period of time, you can't do that with a knife, or a bow and arrow, not even Legolas can do that. And homemade, easily transportable bombs can only take out about a third of that number and that all depends on how close people are to it. I think that guy in Germany used a bomb and only injured several people, unless I heard incorrectly, there were no fatalities aside from himself.

The VTech killer couldn't have killed that many people with anything else...
Man, he killed a lot of people.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
18-04-2007, 22:24
Here where i live, its pretty easy to buy a gun..

But anyways..its pretty sad that so many people
had to die

haku
19-04-2007, 03:02
The guy mailed a media package to NBC News between the two shootings, pics and videos here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/).

Amy_Lee_Rocks
19-04-2007, 03:12
ewww, thats just disturbing

freddie
19-04-2007, 11:33
I just hope there won't be any hate crimes targeting Koreans and Asian people in general during the next few months.

spyretto
19-04-2007, 16:42
Let me jump into the bandwagon of gun- restriction related chat show: There will be no gun restriction cause it's against American "freedom". End of discussion.

( while we're in the issue of America - meaning the U.S. of course - I would advice people to avoid buying foods made in the USA cause they put a lot of junk in the form of preservatives, colours and even added protein. I don't want my tofu with added protein, thank you very much. I pay to buy the pure product. Why they do that is beyond me... )

I'm also waiting for the ignoring - be careful of the distinction here, not ignorant, just ignoring, arrogant - frenchies to tell me who won the French election. Wanna hear it from the frenchies themselves so I'm not going to check the news

PowerPuff Grrl
21-04-2007, 00:37
The VTech shootings, NASA gunmen (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2041318220070420), and today is the anniversary of the Columbine shootings. It has not been a good week for gun advocates in the States. Last week wasn't so good for race relations either.

Spyretto, the preservatives are so that the food could last longer and therefor wouldn't need restocking. The junk that is put into food in American foodstuff is the primary reason why there is an obesity epedemic there. Most Americans don't actually eat that much food, they just eat a lot of processed food which is really, really unhealthy.

Talyubittu
21-04-2007, 07:59
Spyretto, the preservatives are so that the food could last longer and therefor wouldn't need restocking. The junk that is put into food in American foodstuff is the primary reason why there is an obesity epedemic there. Most Americans don't actually eat that much food, they just eat a lot of processed food which is really, really unhealthy.

I believe the reason why obesity in America is such an epidemic can be summed up in three words.


McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's.

Americans spend WAY to much time in drive thru's and not enough time at home making good meals.


- Many Americans eat more times a day than you are supposed to, whether it's snacking or an actual meal. It's not just that eating this unhealthy food twice a day brings you to obesity.


It's not really that big of a deal anyways. If you're a fat ass - go on a diet. Don't bitch because you can't resist the temptations of a big mac.

Amanda
21-04-2007, 10:17
I hate how most people I know say they don't have time for cooking home made meals. They do, they just don't want to be bothered with it. Figure a fatty, disgusting burger is easier and better tasting. My mom works a full time job, does a lot around the house and she still finds time to cook meals often.

freddie
21-04-2007, 12:11
I really don't know why home-cooked meals are supposed to be better. You can cook fatty foods at home too. Not to mention most ingredients one would use for home cooking are heavily processed as well unless you only use bip-grown products. Then on the other hand you can order a sallad and diet Coke at McDonald's. It's now where you eat - it's the kind of food you choose to it.

VT related: This might sound a bit heartless but.. as they say... nothing bad about the dead. But I can't help but noticing people are going totally overboard. Say you'll miss the person but don't hail them as a half-deity just because they're dead for god sakes. "huge insipiration to the community"... "invaluable member of the student society..." Come ON. All these students were friggin' saints or what? If I died I wouldn't want anyone to sugar-coat my death. I'd like them to say something like: "He was a good for nothing slavic slacker who never amounted to anything good. In his life he achieved nothing worthwhile. He was loved by no one and no one really looked up to him. The world will be better off without him anyway. If anyhthing his aimless life should be an inspiration for all you other people to do better." Harsh but that's how I want it done. :p

Talyubittu
21-04-2007, 17:45
I really don't know why home-cooked meals are supposed to be better. You can cook fatty foods at home too. Not to mention most ingredients one would use for home cooking are heavily processed as well unless you only use bip-grown products. Then on the other hand you can order a sallad and diet Coke at McDonald's. It's now where you eat - it's the kind of food you choose to it.

VT related: This might sound a bit heartless but.. as they say... nothing bad about the dead. But I can't help but noticing people are going totally overboard. Say you'll miss the person but don't hail them as a half-deity just because they're dead for god sakes. "huge insipiration to the community"... "invaluable member of the student society..." Come ON. All these students were friggin' saints or what? If I died I wouldn't want anyone to sugar-coat my death. I'd like them to say something like: "He was a good for nothing slavic slacker who never amounted to anything good. In his life he achieved nothing worthwhile. He was loved by no one and no one really looked up to him. The world will be better off without him anyway. If anyhthing his aimless life should be an inspiration for all you other people to do better." Harsh but that's how I want it done. :p


When 33 of your closest friends and family members drop dead at the hands of some lunatic bastard - then you tell us how you feel.




- My mother does as well Amanada. I don't see how its so hard to do.
And Freddie - compared to a McDonalds caloric intake list, home cooked meals average about 500 less calories.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
21-04-2007, 21:36
There isnt anything wrong with eating McDonnalds or whatever hell.
It all depends on the person my rule is..that if i eat something fatty
that same day and the next day i go outside and jog, or dance or do
something that burns the fat. Its not really hard to do it.
U just have to get ur lazy ass up.

I just love the word Bastard:D

freddie
22-04-2007, 08:04
When 33 of your closest friends and family members drop dead at the hands of some lunatic bastard - then you tell us how you feel.

What's that got to do with anything? For one thing I sure wouldn't want to glorify them artificially.

] - My mother does as well Amanada. I don't see how its so hard to do.
And Freddie - compared to a McDonalds caloric intake list, home cooked meals average about 500 less calories

That's just it... how do you define a "home cooked meal". It's a very broad term. It can be either rice & veggies or a fatty steak.

Talyubittu
22-04-2007, 08:51
What's that got to do with anything? For one thing I sure wouldn't want to glorify them artificially.



That's just it... how do you define a "home cooked meal". It's a very broad term. It can be either rice & veggies or a fatty steak.

Even a "fatty steak" is much more healthy than processed food.



- Amy_Lee-Rocks | There is absolutely something wrong with eating fast food. Talk to any nutritionist, you should have fast food at MAXIMUM, once to twice a month. IF that much. It's pollution for your body. It's not just fat that is bad, it's contributing to extremely bad LDL cholesterol build up, and a lack of nutriets that are replaced by non essential waste.

spyretto
22-04-2007, 13:29
freddie, it's your choice if you want to eat healthy or not. I personally cook 90% of my food and 90% of it is non animal food.
But to suggest that a home made food is not necessarily healthier than junk food is not on. First of all when you buy your own ingredients from the market you can check what you buy, whereas at MacDonalds and co, you eat it without knowing what they put it in. Yeah, I suppose they can assure you it's all "innocent" but do you really trust those people?
If I am to make potato fries or hash browns - which is the typical unhealthy food - myself I have a choice of what kind of oil to use and how to cook them. With Macdonalds you don't have a choice and you'll be treated to that reused lard-drenched junk whether you like it or not.
I also partly disagree with what Amy_Lee_Rocks says: you can't always rely on your body's ability to dispose of the toxins all the time when you keep feeding it with toxins.

There is absolutely something wrong with eating fast food. Talk to any nutritionist, you should have fast food at MAXIMUM, once to twice a month. IF that much. It's pollution for your body. It's not just fat that is bad, it's contributing to extremely bad LDL cholesterol build up, and a lack of nutriets that are replaced by non essential waste

I also think that junk, processed, fatty foods have something to do with alcoholism too. I'm not an expert but I talk from my personal experience. I haven't touched alcohol since last year where I've switched my diet but it wasn't done deliberately. I just couldn't stand the thing anymore. It must be some kind of chemical reaction that triggers the craving for alcohol. I think it's not random that the teenagers of the UK whose diet consists of predominantly Macdonalds develop traits for alcoholism and binge drinking very early.

ahe, maybe the mods can move the last bit of the discussion bit to the food and drinking section bit as this has hardly to do with the USA? Well, in a way it has but that's another story ;)

Khartoun2004
30-04-2007, 08:37
Kansas City Mall Shooting Leaves Three Dead (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/30shoot.html)...

Well here's another shooting to add to the lists for Pro-Gun Control politicians... It's really quite sad that people still argue that gun control laws are a bad idea.

Talyubittu
30-04-2007, 08:55
Kansas City Mall Shooting Leaves Three Dead (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/30shoot.html)...

Well here's another shooting to add to the lists for Pro-Gun Control politicians... It's really quite sad that people still argue that gun control laws are a bad idea.

Gun control laws? Are you serious?

The only thing that a gun should be controlled by is a person. And if that person makes bad judgement, then it's their fault, not the guns, and not the laws.

coolasfcuk
30-04-2007, 19:54
yeeeeeeeeeeeeap, it's in Kaaaaaaaansas this time... next time South Dakota (imagine nasty midwest accent while reading this post) ... get 'er done!

Amanda
30-04-2007, 20:08
Gun control laws? Are you serious?

The only thing that a gun should be controlled by is a person. And if that person makes bad judgement, then it's their fault, not the guns, and not the laws.It's that persons fault to a certain extent. But people are so aggressive these days. We have to stop relying on their "good judgment" and do something about the weapons and the ability to get them. I know there's other things to kill people with, like knives, or drugs, or psychical abuse...shootings are just far more extreme and need to be tackled first.

IMO.

Talyubittu
01-05-2007, 20:35
yeeeeeeeeeeeeap, it's in Kaaaaaaaansas this time... next time South Dakota (imagine nasty midwest accent while reading this post) ... get 'er done!



LMAO.

Khartoun2004
03-05-2007, 23:28
House Passes Gay Hate Bill, White House Threatens Veto (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/05/050307hatevote.htm).

So the House rules in a 230-180 vote in favor of the Bill of Rights, Constitution and Americans... and Bush is a fucking idiot. If he vetos this bill the Republicans will be fucked in 2008.

My sources in the Senate have informed me that they expect the bill will pass as well, but aren't sure when the Senate will take up the debate. Unfortunately they do not believe it will pass with a 2/3 majority which is needed in both the House and Senate to override a Presidential Veto.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
04-05-2007, 00:48
House Passes Gay Hate Bill, White House Threatens Veto (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/05/050307hatevote.htm).

So the House rules in a 230-180 vote in favor of the Bill of Rights, Constitution and Americans... and Bush is a fucking idiot. If he vetos this bill the Republicans will be fucked in 2008.

My sources in the Senate have informed me that they expect the bill will pass as well, but aren't sure when the Senate will take up the debate. Unfortunately they do not believe it will pass with a 2/3 majority which is needed in both the House and Senate to override a Presidential Veto.

arent the reps already fucked? lol

Khartoun2004
04-05-2007, 01:04
arent the reps already fucked? lol

it appears so... but I wouldn't underestimate the power of the Dark Side. The Republican debate tonight will shead more light on their plans for 2008. They have a strong candidate in Rudy Giuliani and Senator McCain maybe a threat. Of course we'll have to wait until the primaries next year to have a clearer idea. Also, I think Giuliani is to moderate for the conservatives in the Bible Belt to win the primary, but you never know.

The Democrats need to step up and define the party platform early on in the debates. They have very strong candidates in Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama... It will most likely come down to those two in the Primaries. However, like in 2004 election, if a strong Moral vote comes up again like Gay Marriage... the Democrats are weak.

Ace of Order
04-05-2007, 01:24
Hopefully the angst over gay marriage and abortion has wore off after several election cycles. The Democrats DID manage to win in November 2006, even with several gay marriage bans on the state ballots.

Honestly, I think Iraq is a little more pressing at the moment than allowing same-sex couples to marry. Eventually, the American public will wake up.

(Read: "Eventually" is hopefully November 2008)

Khartoun2004
04-05-2007, 01:36
Hopefully the angst over gay marriage and abortion has wore off after several election cycles. The Democrats DID manage to win in November 2006, even with several gay marriage bans on the state ballots.

Honestly, I think Iraq is a little more pressing at the moment than allowing same-sex couples to marry. Eventually, the American public will wake up.

(Read: "Eventually" is hopefully November 2008)

We can hope dear... however you of all people should know how absolutely ridiculous the Republican party can be. They will bitch and moan about even the tiniest most insignificant thing if they think for a second it will get them one more vote...

Need I remind you of the 4 hour long debate in the RI General Assembly over the definition of Tethered and Leashed by the Republicans???

Talyubittu
04-05-2007, 04:36
Hmm. I think my official respect for my countries government just went from 4% to 2.

Khartoun2004
06-05-2007, 01:38
The hate crimes act passed by the house also includes Gender Identity/Expression :D

See the House of Representatives doesn't fail... just the Executive branch.

Ace of Order
06-05-2007, 01:41
Oh dear...

The President's approval rating is at the lowest of any president in a generation, and the Republicans are considering splintering on the issue of Iraq.

How awful.

Talyubittu
06-05-2007, 07:44
Gender Identity/Expression

lmao.

Khartoun2004
06-05-2007, 09:40
lmao.

why is that funny?

Talyubittu
06-05-2007, 09:43
why is that funny?

It's not to you.

I however, find it hilarious.

Khartoun2004
06-05-2007, 09:48
It's not to you.

I however, find it hilarious.

Really? Then I suppose you don't have a problem with people who think it's hilarious when people talk about adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation... or National Origin which is also a completely cultural and societal construct which you claim gender indentity is.

Talyubittu
06-05-2007, 09:52
Really? Then I suppose you don't have a problem with people who think it's hilarious when people talk about adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation... or National Origin which is also a completely cultural and societal construct which you claim gender indentity is.

I said Gender Expression. - Nothing about National Origin or Sexual Orientation.

- Besides, I don't really think that being black, Mexican, w/e is something that you "socially construct".

I'd also like to say, that I was not laughing at the fact that they are protected by laws, I think thats good. I Just think the term is completely hilarious.

Khartoun2004
06-05-2007, 09:58
- Besides, I don't really think that being black, Mexican, w/e is something that you "socially construct".


Black is a race my dear, not a national origin.

As for Mexican, it is completely a societal construct, along with every other national origin... why? Because the idea of countries is also a societal construct. They change over time, people fight wars, sign treaties, ect and the land of the "Country" changes. People are pretty much the same, whether they be French, American (especially for the US, since we are basically a melting pot for everything else), English, Chinese, Mexican, whatever... When you break it down to the cellular level the only real difference between human beings are the three different types of Mitochondria.

Talyubittu
06-05-2007, 10:00
Black is a race my dear, not a national origin.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

Khartoun2004
06-05-2007, 10:02
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

thank you for proving my point.

Talyubittu
06-05-2007, 10:12
thank you for proving my point.

Black is a racial, political, sociological or cultural classification of people. No people are literally colored black, but many people who have dark skin color are considered to be. A variety of socio political and biological factors are used to define categories of black people.

.....?

Khartoun2004
06-05-2007, 10:30
Black is a racial, political, sociological or cultural classification of people

Black is a race... saying that it is a national origin is like trying to say that Caucasian is a national origin, meaning caucasian people are from the county caucasia, or that Asian are from a country of asia... Asia is a continent, not a country. Africa is a continent, not a country.

All races have their own political, sociological and cultural classification, that is part of what makes them a race.

National Origin deals specifically with the country you were born in. A person born in England, is English. A person born in Japan is Japanese. People born in the United States are American... are you getting my point? Race and National Origin are not always the same thing. I have friends from South Africa that are white... see not the same... or would you like me to explain it in a different way?

Amy_Lee_Rocks
06-05-2007, 18:36
This land is your land, this land is my land.
From California, to New York Islands.
From the red wood forrest, to the gulf spring
waaaaaaters. This land was made for you and me!

spyretto
09-05-2007, 09:21
The Democrats are stuffed with Hilary and Obama...right now I'm willing to put at least 1000 bucks on the Republicans to win next election...the price is right, more than double the money for a sure bet.
Not only will the Americans not going to vote a woman or an African American in office - like the French didn't - the Democrats are very well capable of messing things up even further with their stupidity.

Therefore, put all your savings, possessions, house and kids on the Republicans win...a new start without Bush, change etc.

The Democrats won't be seeing the White House for quite a while I reckon. They only have themselves to blame...

PowerPuff Grrl
09-05-2007, 14:29
McCain doesn't want to pull out of Iraq and Gulianni is both pro-choice and gay friendly; the Republican base wouldn't like any of that.

Race is a social construct. Even in the link you provided Tallybittu, what it means to be black differs between the States and Brazil.

Ace of Order
09-05-2007, 16:12
The Republicans will probably lose in 2008 regardless of the Democratic nominee unless the Iraq war does a near-complete 180 in the next month or two.

From the elephant's mouth: If there isn't viable progress by the fall months, the Republicans will not be able to stay cohesive and support the President.

The lack of cohesion on the Democrats' part was part of the reason they were ousted from power for so long, and it sure wouldn't help the Republicans...

Or.... the Republicans could stay firmly behind the President and his ridiculous foreign policies until 2008, in which case the country will be even more sick of "keeping the course" that they'll elect a Green party President before another Republican.

So either way, Republicans are in for a hell of a next couple years unless Iraq suddenly quells.

And it isn't looking good for the GOP when the President keeps vetoing war spending bills (He just threatened one the Dems proposed two days ago). HE'S the one keeping the money from the troops by being a stubborn crybaby, not the Congress.

Khartoun2004
10-05-2007, 03:08
The only hope the Republicans have of winning in 2008 is if Giuliani wins the nomination... he is the only one that can bring in the Independent vote which is heavily against the War at the moment, and for the most part Pro-choice.

Of course the Republicans will do what the Democrats did in 2000 and 2004, kill their best candidate. McCain will not win unless he distances himself from Bush, which doesn't seem likely.

Romney will just be painted as a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry ever was by Both parties, so he doesn't have a prayer.

Seriously, Spy what papers do you read? The GOP has been fucked since October 2006. The Dems have control of congress are conducting numerous inquiries at the moment... things are not getting any better for the "Grand Old Party".

Amy_Lee_Rocks
10-05-2007, 03:41
Not only will the Americans not going to vote a woman or an African American in office - like the French didn't - the Democrats are very well capable of messing things up even further with their stupidity.

This is the U.S we are talking about..not France

PowerPuff Grrl
15-05-2007, 21:12
Am I a bad person for smiling at this? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6634769,00.html)

Khartoun2004
16-05-2007, 00:14
Am I a bad person for smiling at this? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6634769,00.html)

I don't think so... Maybe we'll get lucky and the religious right wing will fall apart... they certainly seem to be lossing a lot of their top people.

Talyubittu
27-08-2008, 04:17
Hillary Clinton's speech at the Democratic Convention was one of the most inspiring, uplifting and truthful speeches I have ever heard. Talk about mind blowing.

dradeel
30-08-2008, 05:56
What's the people's opinion on McCain's choice of VPILF? Suddenly I can just see the election being a much closer run, just for that exact reason. :)

PowerPuff Grrl
31-08-2008, 01:15
What's the people's opinion on McCain's choice of VPILF?
VPILF?!

Anyhoo, I think it's pathetic and desparate. Looks like they bought the whole disillusioned Clinton supporters crossing over hook, line and sinker and are trying to capitilise on it. This is tokenism pure and simple, if McCain was serious about running with a woman he should've picked a seasoned politician like Senator Kay Bailey-Hutchison of Texas. Palin was just governor of Alaska for what, like 18 months? And before that, mayor of a town that had a population of around 5000. I don't know, maybe she'll really shine during the convention or the debates (though I doubt it, Biden will wipe her clean), I just think that there was no real reason to pick her other than to attract Clinton's supporters. All I know is had she been a man I doubt they would even let her into the RNC, let alone offer her the VP spot.

Anyway, I guess now whoever wins it'll be at the very least historic for the US.

dradeel
31-08-2008, 02:52
VPILF?!Hahaha, yeah? Vice President I'd Like to Fuck :laugh: All the channels on youtube that like to comment american politics call her a VPILF, and seriously, I think she's been chosen partly because of her outer qualities. She's the charismatic and beautiful face that will pull some of the more one-dimensional voters, while McCain deals the experience.

It would surprise me a little if Obama wouldn't win either way, but I think it's a pretty clever choice by McCain - even if it's NO shocker that he'd choose a woman... There might be other better women he could've chosen, but I don't think this choice is the worst he could've done. I think he was more or less forced to choose a woman either way. Just another old white man wouldn't draw any attention at all. :p

Edit: VPILF.com (http://www.vpilf.com/) :laugh:

Khartoun2004
31-08-2008, 06:48
Oi Vey, I think it is utterly HYSTERICAL that McCain, who has been questioning Obama's Foreign Policy Credentials, picks a woman who has barely ANY political experience. Is a Freshmen governor of one of the least populous states in the Union and also Mayor of a town with fewer then 9,000 people where their biggest concern is whether or not it will snow enough for dog sledding races. She has ZERO foreign policy experience and if you look at her positions (Sarah Palin on the Issues) (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm) she doesn't have an opinion, let alone a solution or policy for 90% of the actual issues in this election.

The Republicans are done, over, finished. Especially after the speech Obama gave the other day. I had goose bumps the entire time I was listening to that speech. Finally we have a presidential candidate that actually understands what it truly means to be an American and what actually makes our country so Great. If Obama wins, I will be proud to say, no scream, that I am an American.

PowerPuff Grrl
02-09-2008, 00:10
The result of Palin's abstinence only program. (http://www.slate.com/id/2199047/)
Heckuva job Palin!

God, why do I get the really uneasy feeling that no matter how unqualified, hypocritical, scandal-ridden this woman is, McCain will still win the election? The Evangelicals haven't said anything yet, probably still trying to get over the initial shock (though people have been speculating for a while that the youngest child, Trig, is actually Bristol's baby too), but they'll just say how brave the girl was for keeping the child... which is so convenient seeing as how she's from a well-to-do family unlike most unwed teenage mothers.

But what I think is the biggest crime in all this is that Gov. Palin name her children Bristol, Willow, Track and Trig.....

Track and Trig?
Are those even names for children or classes you take in high scool?
:dknow:

RE: VPILF
dradeel, I did know what it meant and was just aghast that she was called that. But now in hindsight I see that it is downright fitting. After all the progress women have made, particularly in politics, particularly with Clinton as this formidable force (though I would argue that she wouldn't have done it without Bill), this is what is what the US ends up with? Experienced, unquestionably qualified women are passed up for women who are aesthetically pleasing and fertile? Palin, whose career is thanks in large part to a feminism she abhors; she's against equal pay for equal work, advocates for patriarchy though she doesn't participate in it, among other things.
I swear, McCain could not have made a bigger slap to feminism.
This is quite a feat.

freddie
02-09-2008, 06:47
The result of Palin's abstinence only program. (http://www.slate.com/id/2199047/)
Heckuva job Palin!

Haha :D

Why do these things ALWAYS happen to republicans? And how can they be so proficient at talking it down so quickly? I'm totally convinced no one will remember this come election day. I even think it's something that might backfire on the democrats if they intend to exploit it.

In other news... the almighty seems to be siding with democrats this year. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/01/usa.republicans2008)

dradeel
02-09-2008, 14:14
RE: VPILFHehehe, yeah. Well, I didn't understand it right away :laugh: allthough I didn't know they were talking about a VP candidate though. But yeah, in general it's bad for politics, but still a dangerous tactical move by the Republicans, cause I bet there are some that will vote with their other head + the ones voting simply because she's a woman... And with a pretty face she'll have charisma towards everyone, even if she's inexperienced. It's probably among the best choices McCain could've done, even though it to me seems like just another reason not to vote for him. Hehe.

Red State Update on Sarah Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W5IAPK0hbU) :D

PowerPuff Grrl
03-09-2008, 18:18
It's probably among the best choices McCain could've done...
I honestly think it was the stupidest decision he could have ever made and it pretty much highlights what bad judgement he has if this was his choice which according to this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1220461245-cB4pmxVvsOXxekgJTIIn0g), it wasn't.
Maverick, my ass!

Why do these things ALWAYS happen to republicans? And how can they be so proficient at talking it down so quickly?
Well, it doesn't always happen to them but they are the only ones who superficially touts for "family values" so the schadenfreude is just so much sweeter when this kind of shit does happen to the GOP. I wouldn't say they are good at downplaying it, the Dems don't attack but there really is no need to, Republicans always manage to sink their own ship. It's with everything else, the Dems fail.

Man, the US elections just got sooooo much more interesting.

Argos
03-09-2008, 19:07
I'm quite used to jokes in politics, but can anybody tell me why the Reps chose Palin, who
1. gives her children names resembling comic figures
2. lives in a heavily overcrowded state, which will add at least how many votes to McCain?
3. doesn't know what a VP has to do
4. has met the wannabe president only once before
5. is involved in an abuse of position case
etc. :confused:

How do the Reps choose their candidates? Did they draw her from a number pool? How come that the majority of delegates approve? McCain isn't much of a spellbinding speaker, does she have her qualities in this field? What ARE her qualities? Has she a rich uncle who showers the party with regular big donations? Do the Reps take the election serious?

dradeel
03-09-2008, 19:30
I honestly think it was the stupidest decision he could have ever made and it pretty much highlights what bad judgement he has if this was his choice which according to this article, it wasn't.
You're right... seems like it wasn't among the smartes choices after all. Hehehe. But only time will tell if it will turn out "good" or "bad" for McCain, cause I'm not sure whether her daughter's mess or her own historic mess will bring any harm to their campaign. It's typically christian conservative to be quick on the trigger to criticize others while repelling any recieved criticism of the same nature. Palin will probably be immortal to any such attacks from Democrats through the campaign, yet still attract some voters because she's a woman with a neat face. However, I assume she will be frequently shot at by the media :laugh: It'll be fun to see how things evolve. Hahaha.

Talyubittu
04-09-2008, 18:59
I'm quite used to jokes in politics, but can anybody tell me why the Reps chose Palin, who
1. gives her children names resembling comic figures
2. lives in a heavily overcrowded state, which will add at least how many votes to McCain?
3. doesn't know what a VP has to do
4. has met the wannabe president only once before
5. is involved in an abuse of position case
etc. :confused:

How do the Reps choose their candidates? Did they draw her from a number pool? How come that the majority of delegates approve? McCain isn't much of a spellbinding speaker, does she have her qualities in this field? What ARE her qualities? Has she a rich uncle who showers the party with regular big donations? Do the Reps take the election serious?

Dear Argos,

She has a vagina. The end.


They're trying to appeal to Hillary's supporters.

Argos
04-09-2008, 19:06
Dear Argos,

She has a vagina. The end.


They're trying to appeal to Hillary's supporters.
I'm not so into US elections in general (those which are not covered by international media), but are there really persuasive precedents that it ever worked?

Talyubittu
04-09-2008, 19:31
I'm not so into US elections in general (those which are not covered by international media), but are there really persuasive precedents that it ever worked?

Not one. That's what's so funny about it. She was only picked becuase she's a woman. On top of that, she has no experience with foreign policy, comes from one of the most sparsely populated states in the union, and...has a knocked up daughter for the rest of America to devour. Haha!

Argos
04-09-2008, 19:38
Not one. That's what's so funny about it.
Thanks Tim, I was afraid I would eventually begin to understand American elections! :laugh:

freddie
10-09-2008, 06:35
Oh no! (http://hillbillywhitetrash.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccainpalin-take-lead.html) LOL

The feminist/novelty/former disillusioned republican voters do their job, apparently. And suddenly the appointment of a clueless, hypocrit like Palin doesn't seem that dumb anymore. If anything it totally hits home with her target voters.

Khartoun2004
10-09-2008, 07:55
Not one. That's what's so funny about it. She was only picked becuase she's a woman. On top of that, she has no experience with foreign policy, comes from one of the most sparsely populated states in the union, and...has a knocked up daughter for the rest of America to devour. Haha!

You know... South Dakota only has 100,000 more people in it than Alaska so you're one to talk ;)
:laugh:

I find it HILARIOUS, and I do me hilarious, that Palin is the governor of one of the LARGEST (by landmass) States in the US.... Yet my tiny, tinnnnny little state of Rhode Island (the smallest state by landmass) has over TWICE the population of Palin.... So if population size of the state you are governor in, is the ONLY qualifications necessary to be a V.P candidate for the Republican ticket.... Palin is still the WORST choice because their are far more populated states in the Union with better candidates... which means she's still a Shitty choice even without considering the fact that she doesn't know anything about our Economy, Foreign Policy, or Energy Concerns (the three major issues in this election) and she's sooo far right that she's alienating all the Moderate Republicans who I might add are now jumping over to the Obama camp in massive numbers and helping him campaign door to door in battle ground states.

It doesn't matter now if Palin can rally the Fundamental Right (25% of the country, scary number) to McCain's cause... the other 75% of the country is following Obama. Hate to break the news people, but it's really the independents that decide elections, not a Political Party's base. And the independents love Obama.

Talyubittu
10-09-2008, 07:59
You know... South Dakota only has 100,000 more people in it than Alaska so you're one to talk

But Mike Rounds isn't a running mate to one of the candidates! :p

PowerPuff Grrl
10-09-2008, 12:33
Hate to break the news people, but it's really the independents that decide elections, not a Political Party's base. And the independents love Obama.
That may be true but American Independents seem to have the memory of goldfish.
Sorry but I'm expecting the worst out of this election.

freddie
11-09-2008, 06:52
You're sort of missing the point though... McCain actually took the lead from Obama! How's that for independent voters?

dradeel
12-09-2008, 00:00
A video for all McCain supporters to see and understand (http://blip.tv/file/1223458) ... and for everybody else to enjoy: A POW on McCain as a presidential candidate.

Khartoun2004
12-09-2008, 06:15
You're sort of missing the point though... McCain actually took the lead from Obama! How's that for independent voters?

Actually McCain hasn't taken the lead. At least not in the vote that counts which is the Electoral College. Here's some proof for you NY Times Electoral Map (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html)... States that have traditionally been solid Republican states are swinging or are toss up states. Ohio is currently a toss-up leaning Blue, they have 20 electoral votes (Brings Obama to 258), Michigan is leaning Blue with 17 electoral votes (which gives Obama 275), New Hampshire is leaning Blue with 4 electoral votes (Obama would have 279), Colorado is leaning Blue which has 9 electoral votes (Obama 288).... HEY! That's well over the 270 votes he needs to win.

If the election were held tomorrow, McCain would only be able to muster 250 electoral votes, guess what he looses. And that's even assuming that New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia continue on a Red Trend... But I doubt that will last long with Republicans jumping ship and joining the Obama campaign in droves daily. Not to mention the HUGE voter registration drives every bloody college campus is going to be having in the next few weeks and that demographic is overwhelmingly Democratic and behind Obama.

freddie
12-09-2008, 10:06
We will see. I just don't like the looks of Palin making McCain more trendy than he really is. Since she's been named as a potential vice president their campaign has been on an upswing and if it continues to go down that road they might still surprise on election day. Hopefully not, though. Eight years of lunacy might give people at least some common sense and prevent them from falling into the trap of small-town populism.

EDIT:
Palin talks about a possible war with Russia. (http://http://news.spreadit.org/palin-russiapalin-war-with-russia/) These are definitely not words of someone who has experience in interantional politics. Sure NATO is obligated to protect it's members but you DO NOT say something like that out loud during a tense time like this. That's the abc of diplomatic relations. That's her first "axis-of-evil" type slip-up. If she becomes the VC how many more are yet in store I wonder. :-/

PowerPuff Grrl
20-09-2008, 18:05
Now they turn to Socialism! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)
What ever happened to the Free-Market Enterprise and having no government intervention... and oh, I don't know... PULLING YOURSELVES UP BY YOUR OWN FUCKING BOOTSTRAPS!!!

This is sickening.
I am sickened.

That money could have gone to Univesral Healthcare, or actually reforming the public educational system, freaking New Orleans, or even to buying out the interest of mortgagees which was actually proposed by a congressman last year but was rejected because it stood against capitalist principles.

But no, instead it'll go to the very people who lobby for no regulation which was the very cause of this credit crunch. Generations of taxpayers' money will be doled out to save the people who have rarely paid taxes via Bushes tax cuts.

Privatise Profits, Socialize Losses.
People, revolutions were started for lesser reasons.

Khartoun2004
21-09-2008, 04:15
Now they turn to Socialism! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)
What ever happened to the Free-Market Enterprise and having no government intervention... and oh, I don't know... PULLING YOURSELVES UP BY YOUR OWN FUCKING BOOTSTRAPS!!!

This is sickening.
I am sickened.

That money could have gone to Univesral Healthcare, or actually reforming the public educational system, freaking New Orleans, or even to buying out the interest of mortgagees which was actually proposed by a congressman last year but was rejected because it stood against capitalist principles.

But no, instead it'll go to the very people who lobby for no regulation which was the very cause of this credit crunch. Generations of taxpayers' money will be doled out to save the people who have rarely paid taxes via Bushes tax cuts.

Privatise Profits, Socialize Losses.
People, revolutions were started for lesser reasons.

Actually what is more disturbing than this... the fact that Governor Palin thinks she has the authority to disband the Alaska Legislature because it Subpoenaed her husband in their impeachment investigations against her. That is frighteningly similar to what Hitler did to Germany's parliament when he made himself Dictator.

But as usual, no one seems to remember that history repeats itself. If McCain wins, I am leaving this country before she takes over and tries to kill off anyone that isn't a white Christian conservative in this country. My Jewish survival skills are kicking into overdrive at the moment.

freddie
21-09-2008, 11:25
Now they turn to Socialism! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)
What ever happened to the Free-Market Enterprise and having no government intervention... and oh, I don't know... PULLING YOURSELVES UP BY YOUR OWN FUCKING BOOTSTRAPS!!!

This is sickening.
I am sickened.

That money could have gone to Univesral Healthcare, or actually reforming the public educational system, freaking New Orleans, or even to buying out the interest of mortgagees which was actually proposed by a congressman last year but was rejected because it stood against capitalist principles.

But no, instead it'll go to the very people who lobby for no regulation which was the very cause of this credit crunch. Generations of taxpayers' money will be doled out to save the people who have rarely paid taxes via Bushes tax cuts.

Privatise Profits, Socialize Losses.
People, revolutions were started for lesser reasons.

A direct contadiction of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" principle of liberal capitalism. And this coming from a country that is it's loudest supporter of it. If anything the government should let all these financial institutions ridden with speculative investments get washed away. Despite the fact it was the government who spawned the whole thing with it's encouragenment of speculative investments, it was Wall Street greed that took the bait. A lot of people made billions of dollars of profit, bailing in just in time before the whole thing collapsed. If the government helps these ailing giants it just gives off a signal that anything they'll do the government will come and bail them out eventually. At least they did the right thing with Lethman Brothers.

And when American consumers aren't buying the whole globla economy collapses (aside from teh EU but we have enough of our own problems - inflation being the most severe). I've lost so much money in the Brazil-Russia-China-India market sector in 2008 that my head is spinning in utter disbelief. :(

novayamodel
26-09-2008, 07:21
Argh... can somebody explain me more about the North American Union and the microchips? :(

Khartoun2004
13-10-2008, 21:58
Here's the latest polling from pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php), the race is pretty much over if a conservative leaning source has Obama nearly 10 points ahead of McCain. And traditionally red states are now up for grabs... We'll be cheering President Obama soon enough.

In the Senate and Congressional races, Democrats are poised to win a Filibuster proof 60 seat majority, and gain another 20-30 seats in the House of Reps.

I'm so excited, I'm not sure what to do with myself. We're in another political playing field shift like 60 years ago it looks like. Really North Carolina is leaning blue people, along with West Virginia and Indiana?? WTF? :lol: :laugh:

freddie
16-10-2008, 17:11
What I don't get is that Georgia is still massively on McCain's side, eventhough it's a country with a big presence of coloured people. One would think black people would vote for their own guy. :p

McCain is making a few last ditch efforts, to promote his potenial as the messiah who'll save the flagging economy, with populist statements like promising to cut all public spending for anno domini 2009.

Khartoun2004
21-10-2008, 06:14
What I don't get is that Georgia is still massively on McCain's side, eventhough it's a country with a big presence of coloured people. One would think black people would vote for their own guy. :p

McCain is making a few last ditch efforts, to promote his potenial as the messiah who'll save the flagging economy, with populist statements like promising to cut all public spending for anno domini 2009.

yeah, but no one believes him so it won't work. The NY Times and CNN are both calling the election in favor of Obama... The only thing left to worry about is the Bradley Effect... but if donations are any indication, I don't think the Bradley Effect with cause to many upsets in this election.

Khartoun2004
05-11-2008, 04:15
OBAMA WON!!!!! :flag::flag::flag::flag::D:D:D:D WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

USA!

Amy_Lee_Rocks
05-11-2008, 04:24
omg.. i love the "I Voted" stickers

Javier_Moedano
05-11-2008, 04:45
OMG IM SOOO HAPPY!!! :D:D

Talyubittu
05-11-2008, 05:44
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

freddie
05-11-2008, 08:01
A major turning point in history no doubt.

A very vital step towards moderate politics and let me just say I personally think Nov.4th 2008 will go down in history as the date 2nd cold war was prevented and also a day capital stopped having a dictatorship over US politics (although it will no doubt still be present in decision making - those 1.5 billion dolars don't come out of thin air). One danger I see is people expecting too much too soon. Not all problems will fix itself magically over night. Disillusionment is bound to happen. Only countries where they're really absolutely "satisfied" with their leaders long-term are hard-core dictatorships a la Russia/North Korea/China.

little_polar_bear
05-11-2008, 08:08
YES. Very touching and good speech, Obama! Good luck for realizing change furthermore!

PowerPuff Grrl
05-11-2008, 11:07
A major turning point in history no doubt.

A very vital step towards moderate politics and let me just say I personally think Nov.4th 2008 will go down in history as the date 2nd cold war was prevented and also a day capital stopped having a dictatorship over US politics (although it will no doubt still be present in decision making - those 1.5 billion dolars don't come out of thin air). One danger I see is people expecting too much too soon. Not all problems will fix itself magically over night. Disillusionment is bound to happen. Only countries where they're really absolutely "satisfied" with their leaders long-term are hard-core dictatorships a la Russia/North Korea/China.
One step at a time freddie, Americans no longer have to cry themselves to sleep. At the very least, this president will be competent and surround himself with other competent, but diverse staff members.

I went to sleep when Ohio went blue, knowing Obama now had the electoral votes to win with the West Coast still pending, but hot dang Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada all went blue too?!!!!! It was so freaking swift!

Unfortunately, Prop 8 looks likely to pass in California.
That really, really sucks.

freddie
05-11-2008, 13:53
One step at a time freddie, Americans no longer have to cry themselves to sleep. At the very least, this president will be competent and surround himself with other competent, but diverse staff members.

I know, I know. And I expect him to deliver fully on that note. But seeing people huging each other in the middle of the street, tearful reverant Jessie Jackson, a mass of people devotedly sucking up every word of his victory speech... it made me sort of worried. He morphed from a popular politician to an almost messiah-like figure in the eyes of most people. And that will be hard to fulfill fully once the real world kicks in. Again I have absolutely no doubt he'll be one of the best - if not the best presidents America has ever had. But will it be enough for people who expect literaly miracles from him?

I do hope it'll be enough for a second term though. Cause you know what they say... once you go black... :p

Obama Rolling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg)
True to his word... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&NR=1)

coolasfcuk
05-11-2008, 16:51
freddie, let the people celebrate!!!! yesterday was a huge day wtf!
no one expects him to snap his fingers in jan and things to be pink and pretty- he even emphasized that in his speech ....
about your earlier georgia comment- i know you're a nice guys and dont take this the wrong way, but it is such an ex BALKAN white man comment! sorry, but i am also going on knowledge of how people in bulgaria i know feel.."oh... they will NEVER elect a black guy...." well guess what, this time it wasnt about race.... dig up statistics if you'd like (no time to do so), but what was more important for the voters was AGE... not RACE! i mean obama is winning in places un-thought of- white, suburban america....the hispanic population (which is now huge, and may i add statistically shouldnt be in favor of blacks).... ALL types of people ... and yes, as predicted he took the independents pretty much fully..... america isn't just JOE the mother fucking plumber (god, am i happy this fictional character just died!) - what an insult from McCain's camp.... america is diverse.... very diverse... and this election finally showed it.
Obama is @ 349 el votes at the moment with 2 more states being counted...Missouri will most likely go to McC, putting him @ 174 and North Carolina will go to Obama, putting him @ 364 !!! this is basically a KILLER win... last 2 elections that ive seen here bush won one with 271 and one with 284 ....

anyways, of course there is LOTS... LOTS more to be asked about change....but it's a great step- as a resident of CA, it is killing me and i cannot comprehend how is it possible that a chicken has more rights than a human being?!?!?!? HOW?! im saying this as prop 2 passed (to stop animal cruelty) and prop 8 (ban on gay marriage) did as well .... it was great to hear obama include ALL types of people in his speech though (gays included)... so, the fight continues....

coolasfcuk
05-11-2008, 18:22
oh on a totally lighter and FUN note i wanted to add that Michelle Obama was wearing a Narciso Rodriguez dress from his critically acclaimed Spring 2009 collection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yxrBPJp62s) ... Loveeeeeeeeee her ... Watch out Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. America is back :D

Talyubittu
05-11-2008, 22:43
On another happy note, Measure 11 (banning abortion) failed to pass in South Dakota for the second time. It failed by a 10% margin of 55 to 45%.

Khartoun2004
06-11-2008, 03:29
And Massachusetts decriminalized Marijuana :smoke: :lol:
Honestly I thought CA or NY would Decriminalize pot long before the most puritanical of the New England States would. But I was proven wrong... watch 2010 will see RI, VT and NH doing it as well.

Oh and Rhode Island is officially the Bluest State with only 11 Republicans left in State Politics. Governor, 5 State House Reps and 5 State Senators... they are seriously going to be an extinct party here in another couple years. :lol:

thegurgi
06-11-2008, 03:31
And Massachusetts decriminalized Marijuana
alright, i'm moving to boston.

Khartoun2004
06-11-2008, 04:32
alright, i'm moving to boston.

:laugh: Seriously for a state that only just started allowing liquor to be sold on Sunday a few years ago, I'm shocked they passed it. But yeah we should all move to Boston and start a massive clean up project because that city is UGLY. :coctail:

thegurgi
06-11-2008, 04:37
start a massive clean up project because that city is UGLY.
it can't be any uglier than Philadelphia and SE DC. haha, how are property prices? haha... i'm kidding. I can't really afford a move to a different city right now. But, maybe may next ventures can get me up there...

I won't talk about my opinions on this election. as i'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. i'm very curious about the next 4 years and i hope i can go to the inauguration... seeing as work like 5 blocks from the national mall.

coolasfcuk
06-11-2008, 05:09
i mean ... i see you guys are joking, BUT the truth of the matter is.... chickens, pigs, drugs and shit like that got favored, while human rights for equality got denied!
ive been progressively been getting angrier throughout the day... and am SO pissed i am not in CA @ this moment so that i can participate in one of those rallys, which are happening in basically every city- LA, SF, San diego, Sacramento (http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3871126/10553289).... that's right conservative, god worshiping motherfucking christinas (i apologize to all christians but i cannot NOT explode here for a sec)- the young people simply will NOT tolerate that kind of discrimination... it's only a mater of TIME!

freddie
06-11-2008, 08:52
Hmm... I would consider it a breach of human rights in case gays didn't have any other alternatives. But their unions would still be recognized as legally equal to marriages, right? Otherwise... who cares what they call it? As logn as society recognizes the union in the first place, I have no problem with that. It's purely symbolic. For instance I have absolutely no desire of getting married since I think it's an obsolete and back-wards ritual, that psychologically chains people together, while I would definitely share my life with someone and mate for life, but without this needless pressure in the background.

Sure I still understand gays somewhat, wanting to be 100% equal to straight couples, even if it's just a symbolic gesture and of course it's really amusing how certain religious organizations should care that much about the issue of sanctity of marriage (just goes to show you how we're all self-serving hypocrits), but I wouldn't go as far as calling it "denying people human equality", since an alternative is offered. Sometimes it's just not worth it trying to shovel shit against the tide and most of my gay friends agree with me on this issue.

Khartoun2004
06-11-2008, 13:32
i mean ... i see you guys are joking, BUT the truth of the matter is.... chickens, pigs, drugs and shit like that got favored, while human rights for equality got denied!
ive been progressively been getting angrier throughout the day... and am SO pissed i am not in CA @ this moment so that i can participate in one of those rallys, which are happening in basically every city- LA, SF, San diego, Sacramento (http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3871126/10553289).... that's right conservative, god worshiping motherfucking christinas (i apologize to all christians but i cannot NOT explode here for a sec)- the young people simply will NOT tolerate that kind of discrimination... it's only a mater of TIME!

The problem with California is that people in the cities are really Liberal and all for equal rights... but then when you get out to the suburbs and rural areas and the ghettos... the people are other stuck up hoes or just ignorant and prejudice.

I don't think California is ready for Marriage Equality. In Massachusetts if a vote came up now, any mention of banning Marriage Equality would be easily shot down by the general public. New Englanders tend to be more liberal across the entirety of the states, rather than just in the major cities. Not to mention all of Romney's attempts to get an amendment passed the legislature to allow a vote, never made it out of the Constitutional Convention to begin with. SO our politicians were behind it.

I'm not so sure that is the case in California. But we shall see what happens. There is always the Supreme Court and hopefully by the time it gets there Obama will have replaced some of those old conservatives.

volk1
06-11-2008, 18:00
Sure I still understand gays somewhat, wanting to be 100% equal to straight couples, even if it's just a symbolic gesture and of course it's really amusing how certain religious organizations should care that much about the issue of sanctity of marriage (just goes to show you how we're all self-serving hypocrits), but I wouldn't go as far as calling it "denying people human equality", since an alternative is offered. Sometimes it's just not worth it trying to shovel shit against the tide and most of my gay friends agree with me on this issue.

I think it's bullshit.
It's like the whole "Separate but equal" concept. :mad:

Khartoun2004
07-11-2008, 00:24
Of course it's not really over California... yeah they passed Prop 8, but CA's laws concerning constitutional amendenments are screwy. There are two ways to Amend the constitution. 1: constitutional amends (like prop 8) that don't change the spirit of the constitution, but change say something like needing a 2/3 majority in the house to pass a budget. Stupid Shit.

Then there is an amendment that changes the actual wording and spirit of the constitution which can only be done in a Con Con and then must be passed by a 2/3 majority by the population of CA. Prop 8 was not this type of amendment.

So essentially the wording of the Supreme Court decision back in July, said that Gays had a fundamental constitutional right to marry. Therefore the SC can actually strike down Prop 8 because it goes against the spirit of the constitution and is the wrong type of Amendment. In other words people, calm down... I don't think that the SC is going to allow it to stand after they just said it was a right. Have faith and be patient... be proactive, send letters, stage peaceful protests... This is by no means the end of marriage equality in the state. Especially since Prop 8 barely passed and the type of amendment needed has to pass a con con... and if it does, there is not enough support in the state to pass a ban by 2/3 majority.

uykusuz
07-11-2008, 11:41
I'm not interested in USA's domestic policies but International policies especially Middle East.
And I dont think there will be a CHANGE. There will be no discontinuity between Bush and Obama's policies, Cause i do think that US International policies are not determined by the president.

8 years ago, someone needed Bush..(expansion!)
And now Obama was the man who is needed.(it's enough for now, let's stabilize)

Maybe Obama will call US Army back home (and if he does so, i think that will cause a disaster in Iraq) but USA has already got what they wanted, big petroleum contracts and such.. Now they will want to look "sweet" to public of region with their new president (whose middle name is Husayn, whose father is/was Muslim) although they killed more than 1 million so far for their "sacred" mission of bringing democracy to Iraqian people.

For me, he is just the new pawn.

Khartoun2004
07-11-2008, 17:05
I'm not interested in USA's domestic policies but International policies especially Middle East.
And I dont think there will be a CHANGE. There will be no discontinuity between Bush and Obama's policies, Cause i do think that US International policies are not determined by the president.

8 years ago, someone needed Bush..(expansion!)
And now Obama was the man who is needed.(it's enough for now, let's stabilize)

Maybe Obama will call US Army back home (and if he does so, i think that will cause a disaster in Iraq) but USA has already got what they wanted, big petroleum contracts and such.. Now they will want to look "sweet" to public of region with their new president (whose middle name is Husayn, whose father is/was Muslim) although they killed more than 1 million so far for their "sacred" mission of bringing democracy to Iraqian people.

For me, he is just the new pawn.

Dude, first of all Obama is not Muslim, so get over it. You said yourself that you're not interested in our domestic politics, when those are the very ideals that shape our international policy.

The President sets the tone for our interaction on the global stage. Obama will change our current policy which by the way is called the Bush Doctrine since it so completely different from any other President's policy, though it really should have been called the Cheney Doctrine. No one in this country is happy with the direction our country is going in. That is why Obama did not just win this election, he got a Mandate from the people to lead. 349 electoral votes is quite a feat, especially when the last couple elections have been sooo close.

Bush was a pawn because he's retarded. McCain would have been a pawn because he's old. Obama will be a true leader worthy of the comparisons to JFK, FDR, Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

freddie
10-11-2008, 08:47
Bush was a pawn because he's retarded. McCain would have been a pawn because he's old. Obama will be a true leader worthy of the comparisons to JFK, FDR, Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

I don't think Bush is retarded. He's actually dyslexic imo. That's why he came off as an idiot on so many occasions. But people underestimate just how smart the guy really is. His simplistic guy-next-door demeanour is actually quite manipulative and it's probably one of the reasons behind his rather surprising re-election. No doubt he did a horrible job as a president and got manipulated himself by capital players from teh background, but still... far from retarded.

Talyubittu
11-11-2008, 07:24
I don't think Bush is retarded. He's actually dyslexic imo. That's why he came off as an idiot on so many occasions. But people underestimate just how smart the guy really is. His simplistic guy-next-door demeanour is actually quite manipulative and it's probably one of the reasons behind his rather surprising re-election. No doubt he did a horrible job as a president and got manipulated himself by capital players from teh background, but still... far from retarded.

What does Dyslexia have to do with Bush and his inability to run a country? Other than his speaking skills, nothing. Bush is an idiot when it comes to foreign policy - totally ignorant of various world cultures and not even wanting to realize their existence if they stand between his oil and his goal of establishing a Christian democracy somewhere in the world. Bush has no understanding of the economy, he simply things that printing more money and raising taxes will fix the never-ending national debt he's sank us into. His simplistic "guy-next-door" demeanor is nothing more than his lack of intelligence shinning through his blank face. He is a failure as a president, and a primary cause for the ruination of American politics and what America is supposed to stand for.

dradeel
11-11-2008, 08:00
What does Dyslexia have to do with Bush and his inability to run a country? Other than his speaking skills, nothing. Bush is an idiot when it comes to foreign policy - totally ignorant of various world cultures and not even wanting to realize their existence if they stand between his oil and his goal of establishing a Christian democracy somewhere in the world. Bush has no understanding of the economy, he simply things that printing more money and raising taxes will fix the never-ending national debt he's sank us into. His simplistic "guy-next-door" demeanor is nothing more than his lack of intelligence shinning through his blank face. He is a failure as a president, and a primary cause for the ruination of American politics and what America is supposed to stand for.Dyslexia doesn't have anything to do with the inability to run a country, but sadly enough it can make someone come off as an idiot, when he/she in fact isn't.

Say what you want about his foreign policies - yes, they are fucked up, no question about that, and I don't like Bush in any way -, but the policies are so because of a fucked up political direction in general that Bush is only a part of... and be aware that even though Bush was pushing America's foreign policy to a new level, this has been more or less the foreign policy of America over the last 50 years; Sticking their nose into other people's business and waging war all over the world. What Bush did is in no way strange behaviour of an American administration. Does this defend his actions? Of course not. :)

Say what you want about his economic policies of printing money etc - they're wrong, irresponsible and it will only build upon the problem, no doubts about it ... but also know that these actions have made them able to postpone the problem a really long time. It's actually quite amazing how they've been able to go on for so long with this, behaving like they've done, and still be able to keep everything pretty smooth and running. Are they stupid and don't know any better? Or do they act upon a policial theory and idea saying they can survive like this? I think the latter. We are in an economical crisis now, but the possible (REAL) problems have not even appeared yet. So we'll see if they have been able to survive this, or if it indeed was a kamikaze mission to begin with. The coming months and years will be interesting, indeed.

But calling Bush (a man who has twice been elected president in the world's most powerful country, a man who was able to dupe the politicans both in America and in "the rest of the world" into believing that entering Iraq was correct and easy) an idiot is clearly underestimating the fellow. Yes, Bush had some really clever people working for him, but there's no reason to believe that he was just a puppet (at least, not completely so). His policies were wrong, absolutely, but that doesn't make him an idiot. I'm thinking that if Bush is an idiot because of his policies, then Hitler must've been the least intelligent retard to ever have set foot on this earth, yet I think we can all agree that Hitler was insanely clever.

I think actually the fact that Bush (and Hitler for that matter) is smart is the worst thing about him. If he was a complete and utter retarded idiot he would've been out of office long time ago, or even better; wouldn't be able to enter office at all. He will go down in history books as one of the worst american leaders ever, not because he's stupid, but because of being disliked by the public for his actions. He will be studied in times to come, not because he's stupid, but because of his weird and charismatic behaviour and how he was able to do what he did.
Obama will be a true leader worthy of the comparisons to JFK, FDR, Washington and Abraham Lincoln.Let's not write history before it's made. For yours, america's and the world's sake I hope you're right though... but I still have my slightest doubts. Forgive me for saying I'm expecting him to be "just okay" :) A positive surprise, however, would make me very happy indeed!

Talyubittu
11-11-2008, 09:19
Dyslexia doesn't have anything to do with the inability to run a country, but sadly enough it can make someone come off as an idiot, when he/she in fact isn't.


But calling Bush (a man who has twice been elected president in the world's most powerful country, a man who was able to dupe the politicans both in America and in "the rest of the world" into believing that entering Iraq was correct and easy) an idiot is clearly underestimating the fellow. Yes, Bush had some really clever people working for him, but there's no reason to believe that he was just a puppet (at least, not completely so). His policies were wrong, absolutely, but that doesn't make him an idiot. I'm thinking that if Bush is an idiot because of his policies, then Hitler must've been the least intelligent retard to ever have set foot on this earth, yet I think we can all agree that Hitler was insanely clever.

You obviously didn't understand what I said. Bush did nothing to better America, and has been the ruination of this country. THAT is why he is an idiot. I do find him highly unintelligent on many subjects, but that's another tangent. Focusing on your last paragraph (which I didn't quote) - Bush will go down as an idiot because of the poor choices he made. The fact that he's educated has nothing to do with it. Smart people can make stupid decisions - and he has made his fair share again and again - and again.

Say what you want about his economic policies of printing money etc - they're wrong, irresponsible and it will only build upon the problem, no doubts about it ... but also know that these actions have made them able to postpone the problem a really long time. It's actually quite amazing how they've been able to go on for so long with this, behaving like they've done, and still be able to keep everything pretty smooth and running.

Right, becuase the appropriate thing to do IS to postpone and make matters worse for the American economy. It's obvious you don't live in the U.S. because NOTHING is "smooth' and "running" unless you're a millionaire. Foreclosures are a daily happening, interest rates on loans are so high that nobody can afford anything anymore. Gas is finally "affordable" now that everyone is used to paying $3.50 a gallon. Minimum wage isn't HALF of what is needed to live comfortably, and on top of all of this - the entire economic future of this country for my generation is unknown. Social Security is down the drain, so why do I even pay into it as a working American? - Beats me. If everything was "smooth" and "running" like you say - then that million dollar bailout wouldn't have even been proposed. But currently, America is all about making the rich guy richer and keeping those in the middle class in debt for eternity.

coolasfcuk
11-11-2008, 17:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY :done::bow:

Talyubittu
11-11-2008, 18:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY :done::bow:

Thank you for posting this. I'm really glad Keith Olbermann did this. Major respect for him.

dradeel
11-11-2008, 20:24
You obviously didn't understand what I said. Bush did nothing to better America, and has been the ruination of this country. THAT is why he is an idiot. I do find him highly unintelligent on many subjects, but that's another tangent. Focusing on your last paragraph (which I didn't quote) - Bush will go down as an idiot because of the poor choices he made. The fact that he's educated has nothing to do with it.All I'm saying is that calling him an idiot or unintelligent isn't very accurate or right. However, you can call him a jerk and an asshole, perhaps even insane, and you'd be quite correct.

As I said; calling Bush unintelligent because of his policies is like saying Hitler was the biggest retarded idiot of an unintelligent being that has ever set foot on this earth, yet people have no problem agreeing that the guy was clever, smart and highly intelligent, possibly so to an insane degree ... it's in my opinion this intelligence that has made him able to do such straight out evil and unfair actions.
Right, becuase the appropriate thing to do IS to postpone and make matters worse for the American economy. It's obvious you don't live in the U.S. because NOTHING is "smooth' and "running" unless you're a millionaire.
Nono, I didn't say it's the appropriate thing to do. Quite the contrary - it's irresponsible and foolish. There IS a crisis at the moment, yes, and Bush's policies have only made it worse, of course... but know that it's amazing that such insane politics haven't run USA into a inflation-like situation like post 1929 germany or something. Bush has been very good at "selling" america and the dollar and by such been able to spend wildly yet not commit murder to america, if I could use that term... it's only mild torture atm. This is what I mean with "pretty smooth and running" --- you're supposed to take the whole situation into consideration of what it could've been, and it could've been much worse... (actually, it might still get even more worse, and it won't get better for still some years. Also know that when America bleeds the world is suffering. Naturally since it's without comparison the biggest market in the world! I don't have to live in America to suffer from your economic problems.)

This is why I'm saying Bush and people in Bush's administration are smart. Highly irresponsible and deluded from what is a good way to run a country, yes, but they've been able to act so insanely because they've been clever about it.

But again lemme emphasize that I do not support Bush in any way by saying this. I'm not coming to his defence. I just think it's kinda 'missing the point' by calling the guy stupid and unintelligent.
Smart people can make stupid decisions - and he has made his fair share again and again - and again.Depends on what they want. If Bush gets what he wants, and doing it will cost him a lotta popularity and many people will suffer, then I'd call him clever for being able to pull it off, but a huge fucking jerk from my point of political view. Just like how Hitler came to power, and became both "prime minister" and President thus proclaiming himself as der Führer, and manipulated a whole nation and several neighbour countries into starting the biggest war in history, was a remarkably clever feat, but still the worst thing that could happen to mankind.

You know, I'm quite certain we agree on Bush, but I might just be a tad too picky about the choice of words that people make. So yeah, please forgive me for doing so :)

the unforgiven
11-11-2008, 20:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY :done::bow:

ok he's ace!
for real ... like freakin A

Argos
11-11-2008, 21:18
I just think it's kinda 'missing the point' by calling the guy stupid and unintelligent.
I remember, more than 8 years back, when I heard his name for the first time, people asked what does the 'W' stand for in his middle name, and a wise man said 'Widiot'. Ever since that time, whenever Bush was in the Europian media, this statement has been proved, again and again. Well, this two-brain-cells-president will be my all time favourite among the not so small list of quite dumb US presidents in the 20th to 21st centuries. :D

dradeel
12-11-2008, 12:14
I remember, more than 8 years back, when I heard his name for the first time, people asked what does the 'W' stand for in his middle name, and a wise man said 'Widiot'. Ever since that time, whenever Bush was in the Europian media, this statement has been proved, again and again. Well, this two-brain-cells-president will be my all time favourite among the not so small list of quite dumb US presidents in the 20th to 21st centuries. :D
Hahahaha... Well, he seems to be very "folksy" and kinda careless - not a representative of the intelligencia by far... :p

freddie
16-11-2008, 16:49
Click (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY)

Talyubittu
16-11-2008, 19:33
Click (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY)

This was posted by Cools awhile back.

freddie
17-11-2008, 09:38
This was posted by Cools awhile back.

Oops. Hadn't noticed! But it's good enough to be repeated I think. :P

And this is sort of what I think of labeling Bush as "stupid". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA) Sure, he was a shockingly bad president but then again… a lot of high-flying intellectuals wouldn't do a much better job given the chance. Labeling him as dumb or stupid, when the guy's been a twice elected leader of a super-power is just... stupid.

Argos
17-11-2008, 16:04
And this is sort of what I think of labeling Bush as "stupid". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA) Sure, he was a shockingly bad president but then again… a lot of high-flying intellectuals wouldn't do a much better job given the chance. Labeling him as dumb or stupid, when the guy's been a twice elected leader of a super-power is just... stupid.
Nowadays people who show stinkfingers are heroes...braaaaaavo!

freddie
23-11-2008, 11:36
Nowadays people who show stinkfingers are heroes...braaaaaavo!

Christopher Hitchence has his own (rather arrogant and contraversial :p) style of putting things across but he's a distinguished intellectual nonetheless.

Argos
23-11-2008, 18:12
Christopher Hitchence has his own (rather arrogant and contraversial :p) style of putting things across but he's a distinguished intellectual nonetheless.
Oh I understand. Some intellectuals raise indoctrinatingly their forefinger, others the middle finger. See me adore Christopher Wise Finger! :bow::bow::bow:

Endri
02-12-2008, 11:56
On December 1, President-elect Obama announced that Hillary Clinton would be his nominee for Secretary of State. Clinton said she was reluctant to leave the Senate, but the new position represented a "difficult and exciting adventure". The appointment will require confirmation by the full Senate and a Saxbe fix. As part of the nomination, Bill Clinton agreed to accept a number of conditions and restrictions regarding his ongoing activities and fundraising efforts for the Clinton Presidential Center and Clinton Global Initiative.

Great! :D

PowerPuff Grrl
23-12-2008, 14:44
Hot dang! (http://wonkette.com/405127/here-are-your-topless-obama-pics-as-promised#comments)

I fully concur this is a deliberate move to distract from the whole Rick Warren thing.
Mission Accomplished!

Cats_In_The_Hat
16-02-2009, 03:20
Obama got elected president! Sweet! Now I can make black jokes! :gigi:

(I'm kidding of course, I don't know any good jokes..)

Talyubittu
05-04-2009, 01:49
Iowa Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage)

DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.

The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.

The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."

The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.

Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who represented gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."

At a news conference announcing the decision, he thanked the plaintiffs and said, "Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream."

Plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."

"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.

Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.

"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.

"Today, dreams become reality, families are protected and the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality and fairness has been fulfilled," Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor said.

John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University, said Iowa's status as a largely rural, Midwest state could enforce an argument that gay marriage is no longer a fringe issue.

"When it was only California and Massachusetts, it could be perceived as extremism on the coasts and not related to core American values.

"But as it extends to states like Iowa, and as attitudes toward gay marriage have evidently changed, then people will look at it as an example of broad acceptance," Logan said.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for the case to be reconsidered.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said.

Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said.

Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said many Iowans are disappointed with the ruling and do not want courts to decide the issue.

"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," English said. He said the group immediately began lobbying legislators "to let the people of Iowa vote" on a constitutional amendment.

"This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue."

Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.

Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state's equal protection clause on which Friday's ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa's language means almost "exactly the same thing."

Still, he said, it's difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices.

Linda McClain, professor at Boston University School of Law, said she doubted Iowa's ruling would be "a realistic blueprint" for the U.S. Supreme Court," particularly considering the court's conservative leadership.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.

Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.

Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.

AshMcAuliffe
05-04-2009, 11:38
i have a friend who lives in Iowa who called me when this happened and she was like crazy ecstatic over the phone. Now she and her girlfriend can get married.
Over here it's called Civil Partnership which i despise totally! I wouldn't consider doing it until it was called marriage like it is for the heterosexuals. is it actually /recognised called Marriage over in the US or does it have a silly name like Civil Partnership that us Brits have to call it?

Talyubittu
05-04-2009, 18:19
I just think it's hilarious that the most unlikely state ever to actually legalize gay marriage, has actually done it. Midwestern progressiveness is where it's at baby.

Khartoun2004
05-04-2009, 18:49
I just think it's hilarious that the most unlikely state ever to actually legalize gay marriage, has actually done it. Midwestern progressiveness is where it's at baby.

Progressive and the Midwest are not words I would ever use in the same sentence. It's hardly "progressive" to legalize gay marriage now after MA has had it for nearly 5 years and two other states have legalized it (although CA did overturn it) and several more have Civil Unions.

Plus the Supreme Court of Iowa only ruled on it after the state legislature passed a law banning Same-Sex Marriage. Striking down what the court considers an unconstitutional law is very different from a court just deciding to take matters into there own hands before the legislature even makes a decision either way and rule in favor of gay marriage like the SJC of Mass did back on November 17th 2003.

The Northeast and more specifically New England remains the most progressive region in the nation when it comes to LGBT rights and it was only a matter of time before the rest of the country started to get with the program and legalize gay marriage once a New England state or two legalized it.

Talyubittu
05-04-2009, 19:41
I don't see why you have to get all technical about it. The point is it's a step forward. Does it really matter how many steps backwards we had to take in order to finally reach the destination?

Khartoun2004
06-04-2009, 07:20
I don't see why you have to get all technical about it. The point is it's a step forward. Does it really matter how many steps backwards we had to take in order to finally reach the destination?

No, Iowa is probably the most liberal place in the Midwest.... but I wouldn't call it liberal or progressive when compared to the regions/States of this country that are actually Liberal and Progressive... and are smeared relentlessly by conservatives as such.

Iowa is a swing state. It can be incredibly liberal depending on which way it's swinging. Or it can be ridiculous conservative. So at the moment it has a very liberal court, with a conservative legislature... That is not the formula for true progressive legislature. The SC decided to strike down a law it found unconstitutional... big deal that's what their job is. The only reason people are making a big deal out of it, is because it legalized Gay Marriage.

Let me know when a mid-west state legalizes gay marriage without it being the result of a court tearing down a law passed by it's legislation and general population. That will be true Progressive Policy initiatives.

sorry if this is all over the place. I'm more than a tab bit intoxicated atm

Talyubittu
06-04-2009, 07:55
It really doesn't need to be dissected. If New England was really that liberal, gay marriage would be legalized throughout the entire region. Liberal policies are good, but gay marriage - seriously? Three states out of the entire US allow the union, and only two of them are in the northeast. The point isn't how it happens, but that it's legal. It's a great step forward, especially in the midwest (And actually, you'd want to check out Minnesota if you're looking for the most liberal Midwestern state). People bitch and bitch about how the government doesn't respect what its ethical or humane, and when it actually does (case and point, Iowa's supreme court overturning the decision to ban gay marriage) - people like you complain that it doesn't reflect the public's overall opinion on the issue just to have something to say. Seriously, don't turn it into an argument. Just be happy that these people can live a lifestyle previously unavailable to them now.

Khartoun2004
06-04-2009, 08:23
It really doesn't need to be dissected. If New England was really that liberal, gay marriage would be legalized throughout the entire region. Liberal policies are good, but gay marriage - seriously? Three states out of the entire US allow the union, and only two of them are in the northeast. The point isn't how it happens, but that it's legal. It's a great step forward, especially in the midwest (And actually, you'd want to check out Minnesota if you're looking for the most liberal Midwestern state). People bitch and bitch about how the government doesn't respect what its ethical or humane, and when it actually does (case and point, Iowa's supreme court overturning the decision to ban gay marriage) - people like you complain that it doesn't reflect the public's overall opinion on the issue just to have something to say. Seriously, don't turn it into an argument. Just be happy that these people can live a lifestyle previously unavailable to them now.

I was only pointing out the fact that Progressive and Midwest do not belong in the same sentence. It has nothing to do with Iowa passing gay marriage.

But since we're on the subject of every other state in the Midwest versus New England. Every New England State has something (with the exception of RI, but they will honor same sex marriages performed in MA or elsewhere, so everyone just goes to MA anyway). MA and CT have Same-Sex Marriage, VT and NH have Civil Unions, Maine has Domestic Partnerships which are similar to that thing the UK has.

Now the Midwest... Iowa is the only state with Marriage... and every other state in that region has either a statue banning same-sex marriage or a constitutional amendment which not only bans marriage, but also any same sex unions no matter what it's called. And sorry but Constitutional Amends are a bitch and a half to change. So I doubt any other state in the Midwest will be legalizing it any time in the near future.

Here's a map to show you what I'm talking about Same-Sex Marriage in the USA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg)

Talyubittu
06-04-2009, 08:45
I know which states DO and do not recognize what, I don't need a map.


Now the Midwest... Iowa is the only state with Marriage... and every other state in that region has either a statue banning same-sex marriage or a constitutional amendment which not only bans marriage, but also any same sex unions no matter what it's called. And sorry but Constitutional Amends are a bitch and a half to change. So I doubt any other state in the Midwest will be legalizing it any time in the near future.

Big deal? If anything, Iowa represents the biggest bout of freedom for any of us who are GLBT in the Midwest.

Khartoun2004
22-03-2010, 05:13
The 111th Congress of the United States has passed HR 3590, aka Health Care Reform Bill... It will now be signed into law by President Obama sometime this week. WE DID IT! 219 - 212... This is HUGE. Obama ran on a platform of change and Health Care Reform is his first major victory. I applaud the American Public and our elected officials who voted for reform on their commitment to improve the quality of life for all Americans and future generations of Americans.

The Reconciliation Bill also passed in the house and is expected to be voted on by the Senate in the next week or two.

I'm happy to say that I can once again say I am proud to be an American and I love my Government.

If Speaker Pelosi wants to run for the White House in 2016, she totally has my vote.

Argos
22-03-2010, 18:58
From what media tell here, the whole thing was pretty much of a breech delivery. They hardly let Obama keep his briefs, if I can trust our news coverage. Didn't have time to get informed what exactly is left from the original plans, but I guess it's a huge success anyway - such a big project finished in the middle of his first election period, where the president often has a depression in popularity. I know another president who began a senseless war for that reason.

For an European it's not easy to understand why it took so long for the USA to understand the benefits of a firm health care system, considering our ongoing efforts to stabilize the lower end of the chicken ladder, and we developed well with this philosophy, well, at the expense of explosive debt overload.

little_polar_bear
22-03-2010, 22:24
I haven't had the chance either to see what exactly was kept from the original plans, but one has to congratulate Obama - he is a real fighter and a politician that works for what he believes in. I'm very happy for him and the American people who supported him on the way! Especially in these days that American politics are more corrupted than ever.

Khartoun2004
22-03-2010, 22:49
I haven't had the chance either to see what exactly was kept from the original plans, but one has to congratulate Obama - he is a real fighter and a politician that works for what he believes in. I'm very happy for him and the American people who supported him on the way! Especially in these days that American politics are more corrupted than ever.

Umm our government is not corrupt. You want to see corruption look at some South American governments or Russia. Unconstitutional laws are not being passed, laws are not being circumvented... I'm curious as to what this "corruption" is that you're referring to in our government. Please elaborate...

Talyubittu
23-03-2010, 02:28
Umm our government is not corrupt. You want to see corruption look at some South American governments or Russia. Unconstitutional laws are not being passed, laws are not being circumvented... I'm curious as to what this "corruption" is that you're referring to in our government. Please elaborate...

LOOOL!

Our government is corrupt as the day is long! I don't trust any of them, anywhere, anytime. I'm with little_polar_bear on this one.

Argos
23-03-2010, 20:20
Umm our government is not corrupt.
"You can come out of the hole now!" says the cat to the mouse. "No need to fear me any more! I've become a vegetarian, honestly!" :D

Khartoun2004
24-03-2010, 23:55
There's a huge difference between not trusting your government because they are a bunch of moronic retards... and having a truly corrupt government that murders people for the fun of it or because someone disagrees with them.

Our government is in serious need of some new blood and a slap in face to bring them back to reality, but you are not going to be hauled off by secret police and shot in the back of the head in a field somewhere for voicing your opinions. That is true corruption my dear Timmy.

I'm not saying that our government doesn't have issues, but the laws are still followed and we still have our rights. That is not the case in a lot of places. China is a hugely corrupt place, Sudan... I don't think I need to explain why Sudan is a corrupt government. Russia is pretty corrupt look no further than Putin.

Lobbyists have always been a part of American Politics and they always will be, out entire system was set up around that, the very fact that we have Political Parties in the first place makes them a necessity. It's not corruption if the system is working the way it was designed to work. The problem here is the general apathy of the public and the fact that fewer and fewer constituents are becoming active in politics as their own lobbying groups. So naturally the corporations are winning the battle for influence. But that's not true corruption.

Talyubittu
25-03-2010, 01:44
There's a huge difference between not trusting your government because they are a bunch of moronic retards... and having a truly corrupt government that murders people for the fun of it or because someone disagrees with them.

Our government is in serious need of some new blood and a slap in face to bring them back to reality, but you are not going to be hauled off by secret police and shot in the back of the head in a field somewhere for voicing your opinions. That is true corruption my dear Timmy.

I'm not saying that our government doesn't have issues, but the laws are still followed and we still have our rights. That is not the case in a lot of places. China is a hugely corrupt place, Sudan... I don't think I need to explain why Sudan is a corrupt government. Russia is pretty corrupt look no further than Putin.

Lobbyists have always been a part of American Politics and they always will be, out entire system was set up around that, the very fact that we have Political Parties in the first place makes them a necessity. It's not corruption if the system is working the way it was designed to work. The problem here is the general apathy of the public and the fact that fewer and fewer constituents are becoming active in politics as their own lobbying groups. So naturally the corporations are winning the battle for influence. But that's not true corruption.

I'm not talking about lobbyists. I'm talking about true corruption in American politics. Just because people aren't being hauled off and murdered does not mean the USA is not corrupt. True corruption are things like banks, companies like MERS and the breaking up of millions of mortgages in the united states, putting them into a pool and allowing various companies to purchase these pieces to proceed with foreclosures. Something the government is aware of and allows to happen despite being illegal. ENRON, John Yoo and his dirty work for Bush, The Patriot Act, torture in the middle east and GITMO, the E-mail issues in the white house during Bush's administration, dismissing the US Attorney's in 2006 and tons of other issues involving the testing of chemical agents in New York City subways by the Army and other medical experiments carried out with the consciousness of our government. That's true corruption my dear Alex.

Khartoun2004
25-03-2010, 05:07
I'm not talking about lobbyists. I'm talking about true corruption in American politics. Just because people aren't being hauled off and murdered does not mean the USA is not corrupt. True corruption are things like banks, companies like MERS and the breaking up of millions of mortgages in the united states, putting them into a pool and allowing various companies to purchase these pieces to proceed with foreclosures. Something the government is aware of and allows to happen despite being illegal. ENRON, John Yoo and his dirty work for Bush, The Patriot Act, torture in the middle east and GITMO, the E-mail issues in the white house during Bush's administration, dismissing the US Attorney's in 2006 and tons of other issues involving the testing of chemical agents in New York City subways by the Army and other medical experiments carried out with the consciousness of our government. That's true corruption my dear Alex.

All good points and also under a different administration. Bush was corrupt, I know that better than most. And banks being corrupt, umm absolutely, I could give you far worse examples from when I worked for Bank of America... But all of this was allowed under a different administration than the current one. And banks are not the government, and interceding in the business practices of private corporations is not easy to do.

The corruption issue under the Bush administration came from people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the architect of it all Karl Rove. Those people are slowly being made to answer for their crimes under the current administrations in the White House and Congress... But the process is slow and inquiries need to be completely to build cases against them. The banks are being dealt with, but that also takes quite a bit of time... and the Republicans stalling the Senate does not help speed up the process. Bush should have been impeached in the beginning of his second term and probably would have been had the Democrats gained control over the Senate or the House in 2004, rather than 2006... At that point it really wasn't worth the hassle.

I was speaking mainly about the Obama Administration though. There is far less corruption in the current administration than the last one. But this is usually the case with a Democrat in office, at least over the last 40-50 years (Johnson being the exception, but he's also from Texas). Prisoners at GITMO are finally being put on trial or at least things have been put into motion to finally put them on trial. Obama respects the law, Bush always thought (and wrongly) he was above the law.

Obama can't undue all the damage done by Bush and his lackeys in a year... it takes far longer to fix things than it does to destroy them and Bush had 8 years to truly fuck this country up. I still have faith in this Administration to right many of the wrongs of the previous one. Patience is the key.

Argos
25-03-2010, 19:15
You want to see corruption look at some South American governments or Russia. Unconstitutional laws are not being passed, laws are not being circumvented...
...
There's a huge difference between not trusting your government because they are a bunch of moronic retards... and having a truly corrupt government that murders people for the fun of it or because someone disagrees with them.
...
but you are not going to be hauled off by secret police and shot in the back of the head in a field somewhere for voicing your opinions. That is true corruption ...
...
I'm not saying that our government doesn't have issues, but the laws are still followed and we still have our rights. That is not the case in a lot of places. China is a hugely corrupt place, Sudan... I don't think I need to explain why Sudan is a corrupt government. Russia is pretty corrupt look no further than Putin.
Lot of quotes, I know, but I think you pack too many 'virtues' into the word corruption which don't have much to do with it. Corruption is operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain. (that's not my own definition, but the one of Transparency International, and it encompasses bribe, venality, acceptance and granting of undue advantage by a public official). Illegal killings, brutality etc., though regularly connected with corruption, are not corruption. In that sense mentioning Putin as corrupt is a little bit bold, unless you see (original) macchiavellianism as corruption. In fact Putin and Medvedev are some of the few Russian politicians who actively fight corruption.

On the other hand, the case with lobbyism is not so simple as you want to depict. From the moment you change a law or the bill of a law to the advantage of some interest group in order to get the agreement, you are already in the middle of the morass of corruption, no matter whether "...the system is working the way it was designed to work", if it's legalized or even anchored in the constitution - it is corruption. Strictly taken, it's not even necessary that anything in that direction is done. The fact alone that a lobbyist takes a public office, which makes it possible to cause inequality of competitors, is enough to abet corruption regardless of whether there has been some irregularity or not.

Needless to say that corruption is an integral part of every government, every political practice everywhere on Earth. It is impossible to govern without a certain amount of corruption. The fact, that in the USA this is done quite transparently and is openly accepted by law, makes their approach to the problem the most honest one of the western democracies. The real concern and the touchstone for a government is - what remains for the people? The end justifies the means.

Khartoun2004
26-03-2010, 15:27
Argos, I don't disagree with you. I know there is corruption in my government. My point was that it's no where near as bad as it is in other places. And this particular administration is far more transparent and less corrupt than previous administrations.

Argos
26-03-2010, 21:27
And this particular administration is far more transparent and less corrupt than previous administrations.
That's what I never will deny. Even if the Democrats try as hard as they can, they'll fail miserably. :gigi: How could they replace a Dick Halliburton (...or whatever his name is...)? And they don't have the heavenly imagination like the Reps to invent the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Detention Camp with exclusion of the Geneva Conventions and the "enhanced interrogation techniques" , the lies of Colin Powell before the UN Security Council etc etc...and not to forget such great philosophers like Rummy (you know - the tamer of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns) :laugh: (oh God, how I miss him! :love: )

Back to the catalyst of the corruption debate:
Especially in these days that American politics are more corrupted than ever.
I'm quite sure that Aileen wasn't referring here to the Obama administration, more what happened with American politics in the last decade (that is - the last 'days' of Clinton and the whole Bush era) with all it's scandals and finally causing a financial crisis all over the world. There will be much work for Obama to regain trust in Americas economic policy.

uykusuz
30-05-2010, 14:56
Fareed ZakariaMay 29, 2010 Newsweek

Obama vs. Al Capone
Whose foreign policy makes more sense?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. But the recent snapshot of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva embracing Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has launched tens of thousands of words of commentary. Rarely has a single photograph irritated so many people.

The target of the most criticism, however, was a man who was not even in the picture. “Full credit for this debacle goes to the Obama administration,” declared The Wall Street Journal. The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer was less restrained. Writing in The Washington Post, he thundered, “that picture—a defiant, triumphant, take-that-Uncle-Sam—is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there’s no cost in lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.”

This is now the settled line of attack against Barack Obama’s foreign policy. He is too soft, and other countries are taking advantage of him. First it was the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians. Now even the Brazilians and Turks are joining in. “There’s nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries,” writes Krauthammer.

Some of this reflects a familiar pattern of criticism against an American president. Bad things happen in the world, and we say to the White House, “How could you let this happen?” The worse the oil spill gets, the surer we are that Obama should be doing something to stop it and get those images off the television screens.

The critics are angry, for example, that Obama did not make the Green Revolution triumph in Iran. But the Iranian regime is both repressive and resourceful, using guns and money to keep itself in power. It also has some significant support among the poor, the old, and those in rural areas. This is not a regime like North Korea’s that survives solely on its brutality. Nor is it isolated like Pyongyang. Brazil and Turkey are hardly alone in their overtures to Iran. The 118 countries that make up the nonaligned bloc routinely pass resolutions supporting Tehran in the battle over its nuclear program. A more belligerent speech by Obama would not have made the Tehran regime collapse.

His conservative opponents believe that Obama needs to get tougher, to push around these other countries and show them that America means business. There’s just one problem: that policy has been tried extensively and failed miserably. The administration of George W. Bush consciously defined its foreign policy as tough and aggressive. “It is better to be feared than loved,” Dick Cheney used to say, quoting Machiavelli. Donald Rumsfeld chose a less upmarket source, often citing Al Capone’s line: “You will get further with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word.”

Have we forgotten the results of this experiment in foreign policy as machismo? America’s oldest allies in Europe turned against the United States. Governments publicly criticized Washington on policy after policy and refused to support its efforts. By 2007, large majorities of people in country after country, even historically pro-American places like Britain, had turned against America.

Turkey, as it happens, proved a case study of how not to handle an ally. The Bush administration treated the country with the usual mixture of high-handedness and arrogance, threatening it with dire consequences if it would not allow U.S. troops to attack Iraq from Turkey. Seemingly unaware that Turkey had become a flourishing democracy, and that 95 percent of the Turkish public opposed a war with Iraq, the Bush administration was totally blindsided when the Turkish Parliament voted no, upending U.S. war plans.

There is a broader trend that Obama’s critics have completely missed. Countries like Turkey and Brazil (and China and India) have been growing in economic power over the last two decades. In 1995 the emerging-market countries made up about a third of the global economy. This year they will make up half—and rising. They weathered the economic crisis far better than the Western world. They are politically stable, rich, and increasingly confident, determined to play a larger role on the world stage. Under these circumstances, the idea that Obama just needs to throw America’s weight around more is foolish and dangerous. Brazil and Turkey will not become more cooperative if Washington threatens them more. America’s task is to find ways to partner with and convince the emerging powers of the world that they have an interest in a more stable and decent world. And Al Capone is not much of a model for how to make that happen.