View Full Version : USA - General discussion (Part 1)
It's amazing that some people, like Osama bin Laden and George W. (and the people behind their decisions) just can't get through their heads that nothing can be solved by hurting and killing others. :rolleyes: And both are well-educated men, surprisingly. Stupid idiots. :rolleyes:
I don't think he's trying to influence the elections, as he said neither Bush nor Kerry can protect their country.
The thing I liked about this tape is what Osama said to the American people. He did not come out and say he hated all Americans, and they're all going to die for being American. He blamed those who were responsible, the leaders of the country, not the average citizens. This sounds crazy, but he had a much more humanistic standpoint in this one; he said he knows people need security, and it's natural to defend it. He also spoke about freedom, and the actions free people take.
I'm definitely not saying I approve of Bin Laden and his actions of violence, but he rang out as less militaristic and more even keel and understanding.
Yeah he resigned or was resigned. Nothing to do with the fruitless efforts to locate wmd, it was just a coincedence :rolleyes: I guess it's like saying that Bin Laden never admitted 9/11 openly, etc. etc. :blabla:
If Bush would blame him he would be fired. Since he wasn't fired obviously Bush didn't find aything wrong with his work.
No, it's obvious I'm not dodging the issue as I'm trying to debate and refute all of your arguments the same way that you try to refute mine. But to say that I'm dodging the issue while you avoid answering at the same time, well it might be taken by some as an attempt to dodge the issue as well. :p
Adress WMD issue, not "freeing Iraqis". that was reason to go to war in the first place. Only after WMD weren't found it became "liberating Iraqis".
" 10 times worse" - was tongue-in-cheek as you very well understood but pretend you didn't.
When you say 10 tiems worse I thought you ment Iran was 10 times more dangerous. Sorry, I didn't realise you emant something compeltly else. :rolleyes:
That doesn't mean that at the time, the US-friendly, westernised Saddam regime was seemingly at least - more dangerous than the anti-western, terrorist-friendly islamic fundamentalist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini.
They were more convenient. It doesn't make them less dangerous.
The US was not the only western country that decided to back the Saddam regime. Anyway, what is your point in going 20 years back, in the midst of the Cold War to prove what exactly?
That US changes it's foreign policy and tries to hide mistakes of the past.
We have a current situation in Iraq right now, different to what it was 20 years ago.
And today's situation is result of actions taken 20 years ago.
But I suppose if you think that the best solution for the current state of Iraq and the world is to let the insurgents win and withdraw the troops in the midst of chaos and anarchy, well, then I suppose it wasn't.
The best solution would be not to go in in the first place.
Do they really have nuclear weapons ready to launch, or do they have a nuclear weapons program? It's a different thing.
They have 5-10 nukes.
All they could do would be to launch their missiles against South Korea, and create havoc in the area, and then, naturally, you'd have to blame the United States for their possible involvement.
Don't forget missiles capable of reaching US. Which is far, far more than IRaq had. Yet you consider IRaq bigger threat. Interesting. :rolleyes:
But allow me to maintain my position that a small isolated communist state is less dangerous than global terrorism.
Is it? Most deadly AQ attack killed 3.000 people. One nuke can kill at least 10 times more.
And what does global terrorism have to do with Iraq? Was there AQ presence in Baghda-controlled areas?
Interesting. How did they singlehandedly prevent the UNSC from passing resolution condemning Iraq for using CW exactly?
By employing veto power that 5 permanent members have.
If the US can lobby UNSC like that, then I suppose they would have also authorised the use of force in Iraq?
No, because other 4 members can use same veto power to block US motions.
But apart from that, I think that State Department and National Security Council also issued reports that showed Iraq was developing CW, sponsored terrorism and eventually, used prohibited weapons like CW against the Iranians and the Kurds. So basically it was a decision of the Reagan administration to disregard evidence; after all, Iraq was a US ally during the Iran/Iraq war.
Exactlly. They knew what was Saddam's true nature yet they supported him anyway.
It was the Cold War, a different ballgame all together. Still, I'm not trying to find excuses for them, cause they don't have any excuses. As all countries do, they placed their own interests above the rest, in what they thought it was right. It was obviously wrong.
Then they should admit it and not try to hide it.
On the other hand, while you're so meticulous in pointing out all liabilities on the US part, you should also take the time to investigate the involvement of other suppliers of weapons to Saddam Hussein thoughout the war - how about your beloved Soviet Union, France, and (West) Germany - any particular similarities between those three? Also, the selling of weapons to Saddam from Arab countries like Kuwait. I suppose they sold the weapons and the technology but they wouldn't imagine Saddam might turn them against them, right?...politics, politics.
Yes, but did they start calling Saddam next Hitler soon after they sold him weapons?
Yeah I know America is such an easy target and some people can't help it but single out everything that involves them while discarding everything else on their minds. But a better approach would be to try and see things a bit more objectively.
So much about ancient history...
While we are at objectivity look at US policy in same light.
:newyear:
http://www.votergate.tv/
This is a documentary done on the fallibility of the electronic voting machines in the election. Pretty interesting, seeing as how easily one could change the course of an election.
And spyretto, I agree with what you are saying.. :done:
thegurgi
31-10-2004, 07:48
those voting booth things are pretty complicated... i'm rather afraid to make a mistake, and i'm going to have my dad run me through the process, hahaha. We'd always get to do a mock election in high school and we'd get to use the real deal machine and i think i always pulled the curtain thing wrongly
spyretto
01-11-2004, 18:05
to luxxi:
I'll be back to the debate soon, if you join the Mijahadeen warriors in the meantime please let the forum know.
to all the rest:
One day for junior to come back to power. Some patriotic posters to celebrate the ocassion. :coctail:
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/index.asp
to luxxi:
I'll be back to the debate soon, if you join the Mijahadeen warriors in the meantime please let the forum know.
I will. If I can't look for RPG totting guy with Santa hat.
:newyear:
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/mommyabort.asp
:lol:
Some patriotic posters to celebrate the ocassion. :coctail:
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/index.aspThanks, good stuff there... :laugh:
I like this one (http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/preggersvictory.asp) :lol:
This one (http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/youre_next.asp) could actually be what's going to happen in the next four years. :bum:
Kerry will wait for results in Copley Plaza in Boston. I've been walking through that place every day when I was in Boston. It's kinda surreal that I was walking the same places that the next president of the US is now. ;)
thegurgi
02-11-2004, 18:52
well, i voted very early this morning... i just hope i did the right thing with who i voted for (cause i'm still not sure if Kerry is going to be a good president, - i'm not very into democrats big government stance)
Kerry and Bush apparently exceded the 1 billion dollar mark combined for both campaigns.
How many mouths could that kind of money feed, eh? :none:
redmartini
02-11-2004, 19:47
I've voted.. for Kerry, of course :D
redmartini, good for you! *respect*
thegurgi, Kerry will be fine, or at least he won'tbe worse then W (aka President Bush). And I'm glad you voted for Kerry! :D
*dances around*
*refreshes her CNN results page again*
*3 hours and 29 minuts 'till the next poll closes*
*bites nails*
ypsidan04
02-11-2004, 22:02
Well, I've had my say - for Kerry of course (I saw him in person last night in Detroit and heard him speak - that was real nice :D). I'm pretty anxious to see what happens. Hopefully, Democrats can take back control of the Senate (the House is a lost cause), because if Bush wins, - :gag!: :grustno: - then we have some control over his radical ideas, and if Kerry wins, he won't be able to get much done with a Republican controlled Congress.
Kerry has to win because he will allow funding for the stem cell research! That's really important!! Literally, millions of lives depend on stem cell research, and you never know when your loved one might get paralised for whatever reason and need new nerve cells...
And of course, there are those other reasons to elect Kerry. :gigi:
spyretto
02-11-2004, 22:57
It's gonna go down to the wire but the early exit polls indicate a surprise win..guess who that's going to be :bebebe:
I think I'll be getting a lot of slack in the following days :bum: :D
Well, I'll be with you spyretto.
Of course it is, this forum is founded on liberal beliefs to begin with. I wouldn't expect too many conservatives here... well, this forum needs diversity. :p
Bush won in a recent regional survey taken here. :cool:
Nothing will be a surprise victory since we're in a dead heat.
While you wait for the results to roll in...
Go SLAP George W.!!! Every Slap Counts!!
http://www.slapthecandidate.com/
:lol:
I don't really care who wins this time. Bush actually didn't do lots of favours to his country during his past period and now some one would need to do that hard job of bringing the States back on track.
QueenBee
03-11-2004, 00:21
I slapped Bush. Alot. :kawai:
QueenBee, if you take the hand a lot further from the face and then slap him harder you'll get a little party and an old man in a gold bikini... :gigi: :laugh:
I slapped Bush. Alot.Smack that bitch up. :nunu:
I couldn't get a better score than 8, i'm such a wimp. :gigi:
I just saw Bush on TV, just after he voted, he said that it "felt good"... LOL "felt good"? What did he do in the booth? :chupa:
What did he do in the booth? LMAO! Hahaha... What are you suggesting? Isn't he a bit old for THAT? :gigi:
For those looking for some live results, there are the websites I'm keeping an eye on -
http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults
spyretto
03-11-2004, 01:47
I have faith George can still turn things around :)
Is there a good website that has free live video coverage of the U.S. election results?
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 02:21
Is there a good website that has free live video coverage of the U.S. election results?
just keeping track of the cnn.com is good enough... it is pretty up to date, since i also have cnn the tv channel going ... you just dont get all the BS talk that comes with the TV :gigi:
they just said on ccn on tv that after 25% votes processed in florida - W. has 55% and Kerry has 45% .. Nader doesnt even have 1% yet. W. is about 1 millioin votes ahead in florida so far - that info is specially for you Kate ;)
spyretto
03-11-2004, 02:25
Everybody, lets dedicate a minute to pray for president Bush's victory
btw, Kerry's slapping was funnier ;)
coolasfcuk, I have the CNN website open, and I happen to have eyes, so you really didn't have to waste your time copy and pasting results here, lol.
It's just that I wanted to listen to some critics and analysts... Oh well. Never mind. I'll stick with the web results.
spyretto
03-11-2004, 02:29
kate, do you mean you need a link to CNN tv online? I've got ;)
spyretto, is it free? If so, please share!! :lady:
spyretto
03-11-2004, 02:38
sure :yes:
http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/stanti/tv/asx/prod/stanti_news_bbc_world_news_tv.asx
this link works for me, it has both CNN and BBC channels
spyretto, thank you so much!!! :coctail:
Everybody, lets dedicate a minute to pray for president Bush's victory
Let's. :D :cool:
This thing is looking good right now.
And if you want live coverage, why not turn on the TV? But not CNN. :bebebe: Lol go to Fox news! :p
goku, I only have 4 channels in NZ, and non of them cover the elections.
Bush is winning. :cry: How can that be? How can people not see that he is a terrible president? The whole of Europe sees it, for God's sakes! Where are Americans getting their news from? :bum:
spyretto
03-11-2004, 04:28
oh yeah Bush is cruising to a comfortable victory. I wonder who those idiots in the UK were who predicted a Kerry win at first.
spyretto, check this article out, you might not be so "comfortable" then, http://slate.com/id/2109079/
http://slate.com/id/2109079/Beh :dead: *brain fries* this system is way too complicated, why can't they elect directly their president like everyone else, lol.
Take it easy. We're in the middle of it for god sakes. They both got their expected states so far. The battleground states are still al opened.
Beh :dead: *brain fries* this system is way too complicated, why can't they elect directly their president like everyone else, lol.
Historic reasons, uneven distribution or population, etc
spyretto
03-11-2004, 05:02
Kate, I don't know who wrote that crap but if Bush wins the states he's winning at the moment, that would take him beyond the 270 votes he needs. So I think Bush is comfortable to say the least.
spyretto, keep in mind that only a few percent of the total votes were counted, and Bush is winning like 50% of 3% in most states... so... don't be rushing to conclusions. Kerry's catching up very well at this point. :D
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 05:11
coolasfcuk, I have the CNN website open, and I happen to have eyes, so you really didn't have to waste your time copy and pasting results here, lol.
wasnt copy and paste, dear ... it ws immediate typing of what they just said on TV - as I said in the post .. so really, what i said about the site being up-to-date is correct :heh:
sorry you cant hear the commentaries... :laugh: ... they are just so UNINTERESTING and repetition.. repetition.,.. of the same thing ... and the guests are just :dead: ....
...but it was ALL worth watching until now, just for these 2 minutes of live broadcasting of W. Bush in the White house ...watching the coverage.... WASTED :coctail: :laugh:
spyretto
03-11-2004, 05:15
Well, I guess it wont go down to Florida again. Bush has almost claimed it, that would take him to 280 votes.
So he has to lose a state with more than 10 votes or a compbination of states with more than 10 - with a tie Bush wins.
Ohio is 52-48 to Bush with 48% of the votes counted. If Kerry wins Ohio he can win. Otherwise he needs both New Mexico and Colorado where he's trailing 52-47 and 53-46 respectively.
Of the states Kerry is claiming he has to secure Iowa which is 51-48 at the moment.
Provided Kerry wins Iowa, it'll probably go down to Ohio ...
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 05:16
what is the conclusion .. at least so far.. which no where near the end result.... Republicans did/do/will vote for Republicans.. Democrats did/do/will vote for Democrats... and that's about it - regardless if its Bush, Swoosh, or Goosh runnig ... ;)
spyretto
03-11-2004, 05:18
what is the conclusion .. at least so far.. which no where near the end result.... Republicans did/do/will vote for Republicans.. Democrats did/do/will vote for Democrats... and that's about it - regardless if its Bush, Swoosh, or Goosh runnig ... ;)
Of course, as usual, but the elections will be decided on the few undecided ones ;)
It'll be close again, not as close as 2000 but Bush is now almost confirmed winner...go Bush!
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 05:19
Well, I guess it wont go down to Florida again. Bush has almost claimed it, that would take him to 280 votes.
He then needs to lose a state with more than 10 votes and with a tie Bush wins again.
Ohio is 52-48 to Bush with 48% of the votes counted. If Kerry wins Ohio he can win. Otherwise he needs both New Mexico and Colorado where he's trailing 52-47 and 53-46 respectively.
Of the states Kerry is claiming he has to secure Iowa which is 51-48 at the moment.
Im not sure if you are watching TV live spy... and what the web sites cover exactly... but I guess what it comes down to is that those 'critical' states cannot be projected yet.. because they are so 'couty-dependant' .. meaning... usually there are few counties in the states that are dominantly Democratic, but those are usually the counties of/around the Big Cities - so lots of votes - and if those arent included in the projection - voted can dramatically shift ..... so i say.. eveybody.. go do something for few hours... maybe even until tomorrow morning (American Eastern time) .. and then it will be almost sure who will have it :coctail:
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 05:21
yeah, it's more a vote for a party than a person. None the less, even though Bush isn't a very good republican (At all!) he's still supported by republican's because he'll have a republican administration. Democrats do not so good things with our economy and jobs, cause despite what they've tried to tell us all, the economy is doing better and jobs are being created. My father told me the reason he was voting Bush was because he doesn't want to lose his job, which wasn't something i wanted to think about and then i realised that American's can't vote for the interest that is Europeans and the rest of the world, we have to vote for our own interests as well... so i can completely understand why american's have been voting republican.
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 05:22
Of course, as usual, but the elections will be decided on the few undecided ones
of course.. i just said it, because LOTS of people thought it would be different because of the events that took place those past 4 years.. obviouslly NOT that much :rolleyes: lol
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 05:23
I say.. it will be what one of the guys on cnn projected 269 to 269 :D ... how exciting would that be... forgot the exact combination of states, but that is a possible outcome ... haha
spyretto
03-11-2004, 05:23
Im not sure if you are watching TV live spy... and what the web sites cover exactly... but I guess what it comes down to is that those 'critical' states cannot be projected yet.. because they are so 'couty-dependant' .. meaning... usually there are few counties in the states that are dominantly Democratic, but those are usually the counties of/around the Big Cities - so lots of votes - and if those arent included in the projection - voted can dramatically shift ..... so i say.. eveybody.. go do something for few hours... maybe even until tomorrow morning (American Eastern time) .. and then it will be almost sure who will have it :coctail:
Well, yeah but it's really as simple as that. Kerry needs to turn the tables in those aforementioned states. It's a very long shot at the moment.
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 05:24
ok, im back to the tv guys and girls... more comphortable on the couch :coctail: .. and i can watch the TV show where they turn guys into girls :laugh: ... while i sip a drink .. be back to discuss more results.. ciao
Kerry has 60.000 lead in Ohio
spyretto
03-11-2004, 05:31
Kerry has 60.000 lead in Ohio
what is your source? yahoo has this result so far:
Ohio President 6738 of 11477 precincts - 59 percent
George W. Bush (i) Rep 1,710,167 - 52 percent
John F. Kerry Dem 1,566,152 - 48 percent
Michael Badnarik NP 8,691 - 0 percent
Michael Peroutka NP 7,065 - 0 percent
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 05:35
Well, I am back for a sec... they just made a quick reference to Amendment 1 - which is for banning the same sex marriage - 11 states voting - 10 of them are CLEAR 'YES' so far and one - Oregon - is 52% 'Yes' and 48% 'No' .. surprise, surprise
edit: oh, and some people are still voting, since the lines were so huge ... and by law if there are people in line at the time of clising - they still get to vote ... so... patience
Hah... So according to Tom Brokaw, "alls he [Bush] needs to do is" win Ohio and Florida, plus one extra state (which is well within reach) to win..
spyretto
03-11-2004, 05:41
He just won Florida...
Wait for the news that Bush claims Ohio, that will be the end of the race.
One station has called Florida for Bush! Others won't confirm yet.
spyretto
03-11-2004, 06:04
It's safe to declare Bush a winner...that's all folks :)
Kerry's not catching up in Ohio, in fact he might be trailing soon in states that were predicted to be his. So long John Kerry :bum:
I'd like to congratulate myself for my accurate prediction and commiserate thegurgi for not being able to slam Kerry's win in my face.
Better luck next time :D
spyretto
03-11-2004, 06:49
As for stem cell research, that is now surely doomed... sorry Kate.
Gay marriage??? :D not even if hell freezes over. Better emigrate to Holland.
World peace?, well... just relax and watch the show as it unfolds in the next four years...I personally can't wait. :coctail:
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 06:53
Well, spy, you arent far away from being right.... its getting harder and harder for Kerry to catch up in Ohio... the only thing that seems like could be his light in the tunnel is all those people that are still waiting to vote and all those provisional ballots ..... and of course - he takes all the projected ones.. which are running oh soooooooooooooo close!
As for stem cell research, that is now surely doomed... sorry Kate
Some one else will have to do the job.
Gay marriage??? :D not even if hell freezes over. Better emigrate to Holland.
Bush will have to back off on this one sooner or later.
World peace?, well... just relax and watch the show as it unfolds in the next four years...I personally can't wait. :coctail:
If we ever had a one ... :rolleyes:
No Fresh Start For America but a Stronger America instead. People vote and get what they want. They apparently don't want any fresh starts. Hmmm ... I'm fine with the result.
Sorry Kate, your tatysite.net little compaign wasn't enough. There's a new chance in 4 years though. Keep it up!
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 07:04
what slam in your face? I'm actually republican, so i don't mind... i just don't like the man, not that i wouldn't support a republican administration again... at least now we won't be taxed because of new programs that won't get us anywhere... so, meh, things will remain as they are, and really, at least for me, things aren't that bad... they've been worse.
as for stem cell, well, bush can't stop the progression of medical science, stem cell research wil continue, just without the support of our government ( i think that our government shouldn't have anything to do with medical science, they should stay out of it, this would include medicinal issues like abortion as well )
spyretto
03-11-2004, 07:30
I think that's what you told me thegurgi.
If you're ok with having that cowboy puppet for president for another four years, it's fine by me.
As for Kerry, he paid the price for being too soft on the war issue, after all we know the US is thriving by making wars around the world. He should have been as aggressive as Bush in that aspect and he would have won based on the economy issues. I know he was sincere and stuff but that doesn't go down well with the Yanks...too late now.
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 07:52
Well Im off too bed... lets just say... that the mirracle Kerry's waiting for.... is almost non-existant.... and anyways, the senate and the house get even stronger Republican push - so who cares .... supposedly now it will get even more conservative and the Republican senate will get Agressive .. lets see what that means .... :eek:
Well Kate, sorry too ... but Bush is winning with such high persentage - higher than i expected as well. My logical side was telling me he would get re-elected, but i really hoped he didnt - oh well.... i will be like a nice journalist and not comment anymore, until its official... meaning those 'provisional ballots' are counted (if in case there are more ballots than the difference b/w W. and Kerry) .... and that would happen in 11 days :coctail: :blabla:
Bush will have to back off on this one sooner or later.
Im affraid that wont be happening while Bush is in power the next 4 years - absolutelly no way.
All night ive been watching on TV republicans and democrats, just being elected as senetors ... thanking god, telling me/us how with strong believes in the lord everything is possible.... :blabla: :ill: :the puking smiley: ... I finally had to shut the tv off!
with the lords permition, I am now going to sleep. may god watch all over all of us, and bless my dreams... amin and good night!
Some one else will have to do the job. I can always get the job in the UK. :D
Sorry Kate, your tatysite.net little compaign wasn't enough. There's a new chance in 4 years though. Keep it up! Well Kate, sorry too ... No need to be sorry. :) I still support Kerry - he's the best! :love: I respect the man, even though it doesn't look like he'll win at this point. I'm safe in New Zealand, I just feel sorry for those countries that American will try to 'protect" under Bush and of course, I'm sorry for the Americans... poor people... they've elected President Dubya twice... *shakes head* It's just beyond me, really... something I'll never be able to understand... seriously, it's beyond me... to infinity and BEYOND that is!!
Khartoun2004
03-11-2004, 08:39
Kate, Bush hasn't won yet. Not all the votes are in as of 2:31 EST. Ohio is still on the table and whoever wins the electoral college votes from Ohio will win. Bush/Kerry need 270 and Bush only has 237. Although all the votes are in for Florida and he's won it again. I wonder why? :rolleyes:
I just want to say that if Bush wins, I've lost complete faith in the American Gov't and I will be moving to Canada. Fuck the US.
Khartoun2004, I just called all my riends, and all of them are in shock... it's just UNBELIEVABLE that there are people supporting Bush at all, not to mention support him enough to re-elect him. it's just... I'm at loss of words.... My GOD, how is it possible? What kind of logic, reasoning, thinking, deciding re-elects an idiot? I don't get it... I think my head will explode... Lol. I'm sorry, it's not funny. *makes a serious face*
Well Kerry was to mellow. Like Gore 4 years before. Democrats really need a true charismatic figure like Clinton was. Plus Kerry is a flip-flopper which hurt him even more. I think this is more about Kerry screwing up then about Bush succeding. If he becomes a president for the 2nd time he can thank the fact that he ran against two bellow-average democrate candidates both times.
http://www.clowntech.com/win04/vote.htm
Interesting little video thingy... too late to show it to the Americans now... :bum:
Looks like some village in Texas will have to make do without their idiot for next 4 years. Bet there are some veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery dissapointed folks here. :D
:newyear:
http://www.clowntech.com/win04/vote.htm
Interesting little video thingy... too late to show it to the Americans now... :bum:
They've probably seen enough of that crap by now. Albright called it the dirtiest compaign in the history of the United States.
Kerry is picking up a bit. It makes it more interesting.
254 Bush 252 Kerry just now.
Bush is ahead in New Mexico and Iowa apparently.
Ohio is too close to call supposedley.
Another possible 4 years of Bush looms :bebebe:
I think most of the world will now turn its back on America if this is the case.
I think most of the world will now turn its back on America if this is the case.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20041103/wl_nm/election_world_dc
:newyear:
it's basically down to waiting 10 days and then pronounce what is already known by now :(
LOL. I've heard they're already planning on appointing a bunch of conservative judges. That'll clean up the whole "gay-marriages" issue quite nicely for them.
And tax cuts? With a huge deficit? By 2008 if the current spending goes up or even stays as it is they'll have a trillion $ deficit.
Massive migrations to Canada, anyone? :P
Then again... the stocks of millitary equipment companies have skyrocketed. Gee I wonder why.
All night ive been watching on TV republicans and democrats, just being elected as senetors ... thanking god, telling me/us how with strong believes in the lord everything is possible.... :blabla: :ill: :the puking smiley: ... I finally had to shut the tv off!Yeah, it gets sickening after a while... :ill: Fanatic christians everywhere, scary country.
it's just UNBELIEVABLE that there are people supporting Bush at all, not to mention support him enough to re-elect him. it's just... I'm at loss of words.... My GOD, how is it possible? What kind of logic, reasoning, thinking, deciding re-elects an idiot?Well, it may be an indication that eating GM and hormone foods on a daily basis is not good for the brain. :gigi:
Anyway, we've all been sentenced to 4 more years of Bush, the American people have made their choice, they want to continue the war against the infidels, they don't want any stupid Kyoto agreement that would reduce global warming, they don't want any evil scientific research that would go against The Lord, they want the ban of same-sex marriage, they don't want any arm control, and most importantly they want enough cheap gas for their oversized gas-suckling cars.
CBS just broadcasted that Kerry made a phone call to Bush and conceded.
:none:
Four more years are now official.
Yup, it's official. Kerry conceded.
http://edition.cnn.com/
Look at that smug smile. Don't you just want to smack him? :p
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 18:04
Well, at least that was a good move - I mean, c'mon... loosing tons more money/effort on a lost cause, such as thinking Kerry could win Ohio ... after he is what, about 130 000 votes behind, and Bush has close to 4 million more votes over all so far in the country??? It is clear that there is NO way to make the difference up.
What can I say :dead: ... and that's my last comment - i think it says it all for the next 4 years!
edit: oh, on a l ighter note: I was listening to Fresh Air this morning (a show on the public radio on USA) and they had an interesting interview with T. R. Reid, the x-London bureau chief for the Washington Postt, who has a book out called: "The United States Of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremecy". go get it, sounded interesing :D
finally: Exactly my opinion, too! I expected them to clap for Kerry, cuz he was brilliant most of the time, and to "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" Bush who's answers were bullsh1t (excuse my French).
you mean 'whose'??? for a possessive form :D ... excuse me, i couldnt resist, there has been a 'ghost' possessing me :gigi:
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 18:31
i dunno, kerry probably wouldn't have changed much, except kill our economy... i've decided that maybe it's for the best and maybe things may change, but who knows. For now things will stay the same, lets just pretend nothing happened.
I voted for kerry, but everything else i voted was republican (except for the Senator of Pennsylvania, cause the repub guy seemed a bit nuts... hahahaha). and it was definitely an exciting race and close at that, but i'm not sure if i would have been happy either way (no not really)...
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 18:44
I guess I am not done... lol.... forgot to ask my question :
first of all a disturbing observation i made: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NE/P/00/index.html - the state i currently live in is one of the 2 (Oklahoma being the other one.. wait and Alaska) that has NOT have a single county where Kerry won over Bush :dead: :flag: ... and it is disturbing to see that 18% of democrats voted for Bush :dead: !!! Even in the counnties of the bigest cities - the ones that have the Universities .... esp after knowing that the capital of NE, Lincoln, is #2 in the country (after San Francisco) for gay people PER CAPITA! :blabla:
ok here is the question... then if NE and Maine are the only 2 that could split electoral votes ... and NE has 5 e.v. .. with 67% for W. to 32% for Kerry - how did that produce 5 votes for Bush and 0 for Kerry?? anyone who knows how thats determined or has the time and energy to research it?
redmartini
03-11-2004, 19:03
It's official.. America's screwed.. I'm going to Canada. :/
Oh, and on http://www.slapthecandidate.com/ I got a 10 once slapping Bush :D
coolasfcuk, gee, sorry for a typo. :rolleyes:
Good luck to America - they're screwed. Lol. And so are Iraq-like countries...
Cheers to Bush for cheating etc etc. :coctail:
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 19:36
coolasfcuk, gee, sorry for a typo.
gee katbeidar, refer to the 'ghoust' in the 'How Spiritual Are You' Thread here (http://forum.tatysite.net/showthread.php?t=8022#post201919) ... or did you not get my 'campaign''? .. it is called: "with your stones on your head' :gigi:
about the Bush cheating ... you think Kerry isnt? please, tell me one single politician that isnt?? :confused: ... cause politics = dirty :laugh:
QueenBee
03-11-2004, 19:37
:rolleyes: I have no words.
politics = dirty
I heard that "poli" in Latin means "many" and "tics" means "bloodsucking creatures". :heh:
Good luck to America - they're screwed. Lol. And so are Iraq-like countries...
So who do we all think is next in line for some Bush "Liberation"?
Zimbabwe50/1
Somalia 25/1
North Korea18/1
Yemen 10/1
Iran 2/1f
Hopefully this time Tory Bliar doesn't follow him like som loyal poodle :mad:
So who do we all think is next in line for some Bush "Liberation"?I think Syria is next, it's small and defenseless, the US is like a big bully, it likes to hit on small ones.
Iran is a likely target as well, a tougher one though, but the US want to invade that country as well to control the whole region from Pakistan to Israel.
Saudi Arabia is also a target, it's an official "ally" but the Bush administration knows that most money for terrorism comes from Saudi Arabia (and not from Iraq like Bush has said to the Americans).
North Korea is safe though, the US won't touch it, it can nuke California, Bush is not *that* stupid. This is why Iran is going to do everything it can to get nuclear weapons, once you have nukes and can defend yourself, the US leave you alone.
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 20:26
Facial expressions are an interesting thing... and not only that... i find it interesting who and what Bush supporters look like compared to Kerry supporters: here are few pics from NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2004/11/02/national/20041102_WATC_SLIDESHOW_1.html :D
madeldoe
03-11-2004, 20:50
god. all i can say now is YOU IDIOTS!! When you or your children are getting drafted for the "NEW" war on terror in NORTH KOREA, you'll be regreting the fact that you elected an fascist war mongrel as your president.
its funny how people manage to pull out a justification for the war in Iraq out of their asses. Dig in there some more idiots, maybe you'll find weapons of mass destruction as well.
i concur
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 21:01
greg shakes his head at what has just been said
madeldoe
03-11-2004, 21:06
madel shakes her head at the tragedy taking place this very moment
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 21:09
what TRAGEDY?! ... some people are way too dramatic.
An article I can totally identify with:
Misunderestimated again!
http://slate.com/id/2109079/
Sigh. I really didn't want to have to write this.
George W. Bush is going to win re-election. Yeah, the lawyers will haggle about Ohio. But this time, Democrats don't have the popular vote on their side. Bush does.
If you're a Bush supporter, this is no surprise. You love him, so why shouldn't everybody else?
But if you're dissatisfied with Bush—or if, like me, you think he's been the worst president in memory—you have a lot of explaining to do. Why don't a majority of voters agree with us? How has Bush pulled it off?
I think this is the answer: Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.
Bush is a very simple man. You may think that makes him a bad president, as I do, but lots of people don't—and there are more of them than there are of us. If you don't believe me, take a look at those numbers on your TV screen.
Think about the simplicity of everything Bush says and does. He gives the same speech every time. His sentences are short and clear. "Government must do a few things and do them well," he says. True to his word, he has spent his political capital on a few big ideas: tax cuts, terrorism, Iraq. Even his electoral strategy tonight was powerfully simple: Win Florida, win Ohio, and nothing else matters. All those lesser states—Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire—don't matter if Bush reels in the big ones.
This is what so many people like about Bush's approach to terrorism. They forgive his marginal and not-so-marginal screw-ups, because they can see that fundamentally, he "gets it." They forgive his mismanagement of Iraq, because they see that his heart and will are in the right place. And while they may be unhappy about their economic circumstances, they don't hold that against him. What you and I see as unreflectiveness, they see as transparency. They trust him.
Now look at your candidate, John Kerry. What quality has he most lacked? Not courage—he proved that in Vietnam. Not will—he proved that in Iowa. Not brains—he proved that in the debates. What Kerry lacked was simplicity. Bush had one message; Kerry had dozens. Bush had one issue; Kerry had scores. Bush ended his sentences when you expected him to say more; Kerry went on and on, adding one prepositional phrase after another, until nobody could remember what he was talking about. Now Bush has two big states that mean everything, and Kerry has a bunch of little ones that add up to nothing.
If you're a Democrat, here's my advice. Do what the Republicans did in 1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation, stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff the executive branch of the federal government. You don't need one of them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don't have.
The good news is, that person is already available. His name is John Edwards. If you have any doubt about his electability, just read the exit polls from the 2004 Democratic primaries. If you don't think he's ready to be president—if you don't think he has the right credentials, the right gravitas, the right subtlety of thought—ask yourself whether these are the same things you find wanting in George W. Bush. Because evidently a majority of the voting population of the United States doesn't share your concern. They seem to be attracted to a candidate with a simple message, a clear focus, and a human touch. You might want to consider their views, since they're the ones who will decide whether you're sitting here again four years from now, wondering what went wrong.
In 1998 and 1999, Republicans cleared the field for George W. Bush. Members of Congress and other major officeholders threw their weight behind him to make sure he got the nomination. They united because their previous presidential nominee, a clumsy veteran senator, had gone down to defeat. They were facing eight years out of power, and they were hungry.
Do what they did. Give Edwards a job that will position him to run for president again in a couple of years. Clear the field of Hillary Clinton and any other well-meaning liberal who can't connect with people outside those islands of blue on your electoral map. Because you're going to get a simple president again next time, whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that president will be from your party or the other one.
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 21:32
But if you're dissatisfied with Bush—or if, like me, you think he's been the worst president in memory
I can think of a few.... yep, but of course not from my life time but from what i've heard from others.
But Kate, i commend what you've said, it's very well thought out and glad you're not taking this like, well... ummm, i'll just say "others"...
My school is very democrat, so they are like weeping in the streets. I'm republican, but i'm liberal, so i'm like "meh" ... as you can tell. But i think people are just being way way way way way way to dramatic cause, unlike them, i actually have hope for the future.
madeldoe
03-11-2004, 21:37
what TRAGEDY?! ... some people are way too dramatic.
please dont call me dramatic when you have no idea what this election means to me. thanks.
Now look at your candidate, John Kerry. What quality has he most lacked? Not courage—he proved that in Vietnam. Not will—he proved that in Iowa. Not brains—he proved that in the debates. What Kerry lacked was simplicity. Bush had one message; Kerry had dozens. Bush had one issue; Kerry had scores. Bush ended his sentences when you expected him to say more; Kerry went on and on, adding one prepositional phrase after another, until nobody could remember what he was talking about. Now Bush has two big states that mean everything, and Kerry has a bunch of little ones that add up to nothing.
I definately agree. People have said that it was hard to relate to Kerry on a personal basis. I'm also looking forward to what John Edwards will be able to offer, and although I would love to have a woman president who is a democrat, I highly doubt Hilary will be able to win the already blue states, much less win over any red ones. *sigh* I just hope some good comes out of this..
Once again, people complaining the most are non-americans. Go figure......
:newyear:
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 21:42
please dont call me dramatic when you have no idea what this election means to me. thanks.
what? and you think this election meant nothing to me? I do think you're being dramatic if you're accusing the american people of being ignorant of the issues that we're at hand, because unlike 4 years ago, or even 8 years ago, people have been more informed than ever. Everyone was debating, all the time. We voted for who we thought could be best in charge of ourselves, not because the rest of the world is afraid of the tyranical administration that's just been made up by our medias and the imagination of the masses.
madeldoe
03-11-2004, 21:43
Once again, people complaining the most are non-americans. Go figure......
what exactly are you implying?
what? and you think this election meant nothing to me? I do think you're being dramatic if you're accusing the american people of being ignorant of the issues that we're at hand, because unlike 4 years ago, or even 8 years ago, people have been more informed than ever. Everyone was debating, all the time. We voted for who we thought could be best in charge of ourselves, not because the rest of the world is afraid of the tyranical administration that's just been made up by our medias and the imagination of the masses.
Your not touching on those in rural areas, who have said that their main priority is, not the war on terror, not the economy, but MORALS. It's a saddening thought that these people didn't have these major issues in mind. I hate the thought that most Ohioan votes were from white evangelicalsticksuptheirasses, who voted with a religious bias. And yoru telling me all these people are informed?? More than half of the Bush supporters I've spoken to can't give me a proper explanation as to why they voted for him, other than religion.
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 21:54
EXCUSE ME!?!
My family voted for bush, my father is agnostic, he hates organised religion with every fabric of his being, he was abused with it. and yet HE voted for bush. Why? Cause democrats kill our economy... that's why
what you said, shows just how ignorant you are, for you're information, i'm FROM one of those rural areas... i live very close to ohio, i have family in ohio, who would never EVER vote based on what you've stated. In fact, what's this about "white" crap. Cleveland has a really abundant black population, as does cincinnatti and columbus. What's that say to you're like tirade?
not because the rest of the world is afraid of the tyranical administration that's just been made up by our medias and the imagination of the masses.It's no imagination, with this new election the US have become even more conservative and christian fundamentalist, this administration has been arrogant with the rest of the world and will be even more so in the next 4 years. We are afraid for good reasons, the last 4 years have shown us exactly what this administration is capable of, and it's only going to get worse now that it is even stronger.
Like an American said on another forum "People abroad are always bitching that our nation wants to rule the world, but what those people fail to see is that we already are the rulers of the world."
spyretto
03-11-2004, 21:59
Once again, people complaining the most are non-americans. Go figure......
:newyear:
oh please, now are we getting from one side to the other? I'm sure you're now laughing your ass off with people here but it makes no difference. If you're not going to join the Mujahadeen you're as wortless and weak as the rest of us. Go figure :D
By the way, Bush's win was a slap in the face of all those anti-americans out there...go figure :p
madeldoe
03-11-2004, 21:59
Oh come on! We can all pull examples and justifications out of our asses, but im not going ot waste my energy, since my wrist hurts from all this typing. The majority of those people are biased because of their religious beliefs. Thats sad and it pisses me of. Because if I can seperate my religious beliefs from what I believe is right, then I don't think it's too much to ask that middle aged adults should do the same.
Cleveland has a really abundant black population, as does cincinnatti and columbus. What's that say to you're like tirade?
Yes thats what my sister said; "But Georgia is a predominantly black state". But what religion are they?? They are most likely of evangelical faith.
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 22:02
Like an American said on another forum "People abroad are always bitching that our nation wants to rule the world, but what those people fail to see is that we already are the rulers of the world."
Well, that's simply not true and rather arrogant.
I'm sure an administration change wouldn't help the situation the rest of the world cares most about. I'm positive that nothing would change in Iraq if Kerry was president, except maybe things would get worse, cause the democrats don't have a good handle on these things.
spyretto
03-11-2004, 22:05
So who do we all think is next in line for some Bush "Liberation"?
Zimbabwe50/1
Somalia 25/1
North Korea18/1
Yemen 10/1
Iran 2/1f
Hopefully this time Tory Bliar doesn't follow him like som loyal poodle :mad:
Give us an alternative. Lib Dems can't win the election. Tories support the war. What shall we do now?
madeldoe
03-11-2004, 22:09
Like an American said on another forum "People abroad are always bitching that our nation wants to rule the world, but what those people fail to see is that we already are the rulers of the world
oh that is so true. america thinks it can push anyone around in the name of democaracy. people want to argue that the people in Iraq were suffering from Saddams rule, well how about the civil war thats going on in Africa? Why not help those suffering people? Why? because America wont gain anything from it. But in Iraq, yes, they have oil and if Karzai is appointed, we have an democratic string that we can pull at anytime. pffffft..
and just as long as they can keep raising the terror alert from yellow to bright flaming red, then they will find some way to justify the invasion of N. Korea..
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 22:10
[..] with this new election the US have become even more conservative and christian fundamentalist, this administration has been arrogant with the rest of the world [..]
Thats exactly what frightening .... all this conservatism :hmmm:
and about the Religioin issue.... a simple comparison, Im not sure how accurate it is, but: Just imagine .. imagine a Eropean president giving a speach which ends with: 'God Bless France!... or .. God Bless Germany!... and so on... its unheard of! .... now on the other hand, Bush regularly ends his speeches that way: 'God Bless America!'. And then I think... who else, who else does that - the Muslems Bush is trying so hard to free ... it is no secret that Allah is constantly involved .... and it is generally agreed that those muslim countries are 'BEHIND' .... so Im sorry, but all i can think about politics and religion being so mixed... is that it is just WRONG! and very ...very.... frightening
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 22:13
coolsies, are you being sarcastic? if so, thumbs up
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 22:14
coolsies, are you being sarcastic? if so, thumbs up
absolutelly not sarcastic .... its a fact - politics and religion SHOULD NOT mix
and about the Religioin issue.... a simple comparison, Im not sure how accurate it is, but: Just imagine .. imagine a Eropean president giving a speach which ends with: 'God Bless France!... or .. God Bless Germany!... and so on... its unheard of! .... now on the other hand, Bush regularly ends his speeches that way: 'God Bless America!'. And then I think... who else, who else does that - the Muslems Bush is trying so hard to free ... it is no secret that Allah is constantly involved .... and it is generally agreed that those muslim countries are 'BEHIND' .... so Im sorry, but all i can think about politics and religion being so mixed... is that it is just WRONG! and very ...very.... frighteningI totally agree.
Here in France politicians never mention god or religion, *never*, that would be the end of their career, they have to stay neutral and "godless".
When i hear American politicians constantly talking about god that totally freaks me out, it's like this country is run by the christian church, it's totally frightening. The US is a christian fundamentlist country, and it scares me as much as the muslim fundamentlist countries. It's no wonder that they can't stand each other and want to go at war, it's the old christians against muslims rivalry.
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 22:27
absolutelly not sarcastic .... its a fact - politics and religion SHOULD NOT mix
but you know they are going to, everywhere, people's morality is always influenced by their culture's religions. Even though i'm very non-religious, i know where my moral code comes from. Government is based on religion for the most part, it's just that the church shouldn't be able to directly influence the government, and it doesn't for the most part. But what the people believe will sway their vote. But if they were more informed about scienctific methods maybe they would be. Whenever i've explained the truth about stem cell research to a relgious person directly against they would usually reply "oh, i see... well, i guess it's a good thing then"... hehehehe. I really like it when that happens.
even though i don't believe in god, i like to know when people do, or at least to know what they believe, so i know they at least believe in SOMETHING
with this new election the US have become even more conservative and christian fundamentalist Now that's really scary. As Bush leads America into the darkness of religion, he will gain easy control over them. Before long he'll be able to say, "Because God told me so!" as an excuse for his screw-ups. :gigi:
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 22:49
As Bush leads America into the darkness of religion, he will gain easy control over them.
and you really think we're that gullible. i'm insulted (not entirely... that is, hehe, cause i'm sure some would)
thegurgi, religious people are easier to contol - it's a fact, cuz they tend to have a tunnel vision syndrome - God. Why do you think religion was invented? Why is it that church and kingdom/empire leaders always cooperated? Religion is a huge power over people, it's like controlling robots that go to church automatically every Sunday. Aaaaaaaahh, history has made a full circle - I dunno for the rest of the world, but America is definitly sailing back into the middle ages. :D
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 22:54
well, we're not. You know, I actually live here. I actually know quite a lot of people who live here, and despite their religions they are free thinking individuals who can make decisions for theirselves and believe what they want and don't always believe what their told.
thegurgi, well, I view your nation as a whole from aside, and that's what I see... sailing off into the sunset of middle ages.
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 22:58
well, you're wrong
even though i don't believe in god, i like to know when people do, or at least to know what they believe, so i know they at least believe in SOMETHING
That's not the point. The point is that Bush is calling on a SPECIFIC god. Just like the muslims are praying to Allah, he's turining to the Christian god and regularly mixes political statement with ridiculous biblical morals which should have NO relavance in a modern outlook on politics. It's not a question of what you belive in.. as a polititian you should make absolute certain that your beliefs will not influence you when you're talking about POLITICAL decisions. After Buttiglione was axed in the European Parlament for saying homosexuality is a sin, just shows me that Europeans got that part figured out, while americans are on the level of an average medieval country. At least they don't burn witches anymore. Always a plus. :p
thegurgi, well, I think you're wrong. Boo-hoo. It's not about who's write or wrong -- it's about the impression America gives people. Bush pushed away all your allies. America can't stand and be strong alone for long.
"God be with you". :coctail:
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 23:04
yeah, but we don't fire people for saying what they believe... which apparently they do in Europe. I respect Bush for saying what he believes, even though i think they are grossly insensitive and wrong, at least he cans, and i like knowing his stance on it, so i know how hard it's going to be to get things overturned and we'll know just how hard it will be to work. If we didn't know his stance, we wouldn't know these things. Luckily, in Pennsylvania, nothing like that is an issue.
Lol. Which reminds me. For a religious person, Bush hasn't learned his ten comendments very well, "Thau shalt not kill", "Thau shalt not steal". :)
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 23:11
There's more to christianity than the 10 commandments Kate
Religion has always been a tool to govern over people. It's not new. At least Europe is not printing everywhere "God bless ...", which is a good sign.
thegurgi, 10 comendments are common sense! Every person's morals should be based on these 10 little sentances. They are in every religion. So far all Bush does that is religious is pray. :rolleyes: Praying hardly helps anyone - except that it slowly blurrs the minds of Americans, turning them into religious zombies. It proves to be useful seeing that Bush got re-elected.
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 23:16
Well ... the clock turns.. times change... and so over centuries the 'world power' re-locates.. from continent to continent and so on... maybe the times of America being THE world power are nearing ....more and more with each day passing :eek: ... would we witness this in our lifetimes?
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 23:16
we didn't start the whole "God" stuff until the cold war. It was our response to atheist communism, to say that our country had the right to believe in something, in doesn't say "Christian God"... even Atheist (not all of them) understand this part of the United States mantra.
and Kate, so what's your point? There's also the golden rule "treat others as they'd treat you..." in which respect, we are doing to the terrorists
coolasfcuk
03-11-2004, 23:18
thegurgi, we all respect your opinion here... but i think that book I talked about earlier today in this thread .... would be a good read for you if you havent read it yet :D
Bush pushed away all your allies. America can't stand and be strong alone for long.well wouldn't go that far. Even though danes were cheering for Kerry I'm sure support will still be provided if it's needed. Perhaps not as quick as last time, but going against the US in anything is just not really an option I see as possible. Not with the current people pulling the strings in Danish parliament.
As for the 10 commandments - whos living in the past now? :spy: don't think you can really locate anyone following all blindly.
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 23:18
think that book I talked about earlier today in this thread
what book?
teeny, we all follow our own comendments that are in our mind, aka we can destinguish right from wrong. :) You don't have to be religious to know that it's wrong to kill others and that it's wrong the steal people's stuff. Right?
In Europe a single employer might fire people on religious bases (which would later get overturned of course as in any case, if it came to court). But the problem with america is more fundamental. It's not a single problem of religious intolerance here and there. The whole stance of the country seems to be based on religious ideas. It seems like the religion (Christianity of course) is in a way incorporated into the structure of the country. The whole "in god we trust" writings on money is just the tip of the ice berg. What is REALLY worrying is when there is a president who is absolutely delusionaly conservative when it comes to religion and people still elect him with 4 million votes advantage in the popular vote, then you seriosuly begin to wonder about the state of mind of the nation in question. Exaggerated conservativism and references to political dogmas when it comes to issues of modern society is usualy a sign of fear and distrust. Or ignorance.
You don't have to be religious to know that it's wrong to kill others and that it's wrong the steal people's stuff. Right?and therefor your sentance about Bush in the context before made no sense. Cos you seemed to imply just that.
Well ... the clock turns.. times change... and so over centuries the 'world power' re-locates.. from continent to continent and so on... maybe the times of America being THE world power are nearing ....more and more with each day passing :eek: ... would we witness this in our lifetimes?I don't know if i'll live long enough to see it, but China will become the new first power of this world in a few decades. The US will have kept that position for about a century (from 1945 to about 2050 i'd say).
The war between the US and terrorism is actually good news for China, it can just watch the US exhaust itself in a war that will last decades and cost many lives and a lot of money. During that time China is going to develop exponentially and reach its full power which will be considerable.
teeny, but Bush makes sure people know that he's religious, thus I would expect him to follow the 10 comendments if he doesn't have his own moral values...
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 23:28
Kerry made sure we knew he was religious as well, so has every other president in our history.
and Coolsies, that book does seem interesting. but it's not out yet
freddie, It's called a poor general level of education. Statistically, people blindly trusting in God have low or middle education only. Highly educated people and the country leaders have to show a diplomatic appoach to this question in order to build up a career. It's a strategy. Some of them are of course believers - but the percentage is lower and none of them will admit that in fact they don't give a shit about religion as it may damage their reputation.
thegurgi, Kerry did say he was Christian, but he also said that his religious views are not gonna effect his decisions about scientific research etc. :) And they shouldn't.
thegurgi
03-11-2004, 23:34
America is a totally manufactured country with manufactured values and a totally ignorant amd narrow view of the outside world.
You may not fire people for what they say but you fire them them for what they are...which is practically the same thing if not worse.
uhhh, no we don't. It's completely against the law in Pennsylvania at least to fire someone for their beliefs, race, sexual orientation, or anything other than incompetence in the job. If some one even thinks they were fired for the reason, there are lawsuits to follow.
and, i know kate, and i respected him dearly for it, but i just remember how many times he said "i'm catholic"
teeny, but Bush makes sure people know that he's religious, thus I would expect him to follow the 10 comendments if he doesn't have his own moral values..sure.. you can expect him and just about anyone to do so in America. Move Bush to Iraq and I'm sure he would downtone his religious stands quite a bit.
If politicians are to be expected not to break any of the commandments they wouldn't even be able to have a campaign, cos most of the promised issues will be broken anyway.
spyretto
03-11-2004, 23:44
uhhh, no we don't. It's completely against the law in Pennsylvania at least to fire someone for their beliefs, race, sexual orientation, or anything other than incompetence in the job. If some one even thinks they were fired for the reason, there are lawsuits to follow.
and, i know kate, and i respected him dearly for it, but i just remember how many times he said "i'm catholic"
At the end of the day, a company can fire somebody because he or she's gay, atheist or whatever, and be prepared to pay them compensation for their actions but it'll be practically the same thuing. They'd still be fired...
freddie, It's called a poor general level of education. Statistically, people blindly trusting in God have low or middle education only. Highly educated people and the country leaders have to show a diplomatic appoach to this question in order to build up a career. It's a strategy. Some of them are of course believers - but the percentage is lower and none of them will admit that in fact they don't give a shit about religion as it may damage their reputation.
Yeah exactly. What's so sad is that most of them will actualy alter their views JUST to please that simple-minded gray majority in the population. Of course a man of politics shouldn't be saying that a marriage is between a man and a woman, or that he "doesn't know" whether homosexuality is a choice or not, but he HAS to if he wants to pierce that religious veil, of a narrow-minded commoner.
uhhh, no we don't. It's completely against the law in Pennsylvania at least to fire someone for their beliefs, race, sexual orientation, or anything other than incompetence in the job. If some one even thinks they were fired for the reason, there are lawsuits to follow
As is in every western country. But those rules are all in vain if general politics are discriminating on acount of religion.
i know kate, and i respected him dearly for it, but i just remember how many times he said "i'm catholic"
Yet he didn't spread the word of Christ as his own policy on leading a modern democracy. Sensible religion I'd call that. Something GWB has MUCH to learn about.
spyretto, no one wants to LIVE in America. jeez, not after this election for sure. It's the first election I've kept track of (I was only 14 in 2000, I didn't really care), and I have totally lost faith in America. Just to think that I payed $350 USD for a U.S. multi-entry visa... and the state I was going to visit was Ohio... it makes me sick!! :bebebe:
spyretto
03-11-2004, 23:48
The assumption that only simple-minded people with poor level of education trust in God is a gross simplification.
Also, it seems that the fiercest critics of the US politics are those who aspire to go, live and prosper in America - like Kate for example. a contradiction in terms or what?
spyretto, I don't want to go live there anymore, as I said. I can find a job somewhere else. Who wants to live in middle-ages? I'll get burned as a witch for doing stem cell research in the U.S. Lol.
Give us an alternative. Lib Dems can't win the election. Tories support the war. What shall we do now?
Thing is..i agree with that statement.
I may not like what Labour has become but the first 20 odd years of my life were under Tory rule between that evil Witch Thatcher and John Major.I'm not prepared for that to happen again.The day it does is the day i start voting SNP.
The best we can hope for in Britain is the Lib Dems to do enough to become a credible 2nd force.
Both the major parties in this country have been compromised by Big Business(check out Captive State by George Monbiot)and as the years go past it gets harder for the people to stop anything.
what exactly are you implying?
That peopel who complain most here are not Americans.
oh please, now are we getting from one side to the other?
No, my positions are same. But I think Us elections are US internal thing, something we, non-americans have no place to complain about.
I'm sure you're now laughing your ass off with people here but it makes no difference. If you're not going to join the Mujahadeen you're as wortless and weak as the rest of us. Go figure :D
:spy:
By the way, Bush's win was a slap in the face of all those anti-americans out there...go figure :p
Really? Think again. What will Bush likely do?
1. More fighting in Iraq. Which likely means more deaths which means more support for insurgents.
2. continued support for Isael. Which means more Palestinians dead which menas more support for Hamas et al.
3. Pressure on IRan. Which means hardliners will use US pressures as emans to supress reformists.
Face it, Bush's victory is great victory for those who aren't buddies with US.
:newyear:
The assumption that only simple-minded people with poor level of education trust in God is a gross simplification.
Also, it seems that the fiercest critics of the US politics are those who aspire to go, live and prosper in America - like Kate for example. a contradiction in terms or what?
Ah. But I didn't say that those were teh ONLY religios people. Those are the ones that represent the majority, since an average intelectual is less lightly to be religious. And thus those people are the ones that bring in the most votes.
Yeah, people wamt to live an dwork there. Maybe I will as well in the future. Yet I can still disagree with their policies. I'd just take the GOOD parts of the liberal capitalism, out of it. Making money. Maybe I'd detest the hypocracy, double standards and near fanatical conservative catolicizm, but that doesn't concern me directly as a person. I certainly wouldn't go chosing a country I live in by how appropriate it's goverment is.
I can find a job somewhere else.Maybe you could find a job in China (you speak Chinese if i remember correctly), i'm sure this country will dedicate a lot of money to scientific research in various fields including genetics in the coming years. :)
haku, maybe. Ain't it great? I can speak three most important languages in the world, Russian, English and Chinese. :D Lol. Lucky me.
thegurgi
04-11-2004, 00:02
this is getting crazy, i'll leave you to your strange delusions, but i'll continue to live as comfortably as I can and not have to worry about the heavy taxation of my parents and to know that nothing will change for a while. I'm fine with it, maybe the rest of you will just have to get over it all.
See you tomorrow
coolasfcuk
04-11-2004, 00:04
Yeah, people wamt to live an dwork there. Maybe I will as well in the future. Yet I can still disagree with their policies. I'd just take the GOOD parts of the liberal capitalism, out of it. Making money. Maybe I'd detest the hypocracy, double standards and near fanatical conservative catolicizm, but that doesn't concern me directly as a person.
:D exactly - good and bad things all over the world... gotta learn to take the good :coctail:
Hmmm, i've never been tempted by emmigrating to the US to live and work, lol. I mean, crazy hours, no social security, almost no vacations, ugly architecture and cities so big that you have to take your car for everything, horrible food, and christian fanatics everywhere... :dead:
But that's just me. :)
Oh, and being topless is forbidden on beaches. :rolleyes:
coolasfcuk
04-11-2004, 00:16
Hmmm, i've never been tempted by emmigrating to the US to live and work, lol.
:gigi: cause you are lucky enough to be born in France ... Let me not list to you the BAD sides of living in Bulgaria 7 years ago :flag:
and I really think it is great for a person to travel and live in different places .. the more the better :coctail: ... projected future for me - live in EU country for a while... after that we will see :D
Oh, and being topless is forbidden on beaches. Exactly! What's the point of having boobs if I'm not gonna show them? :gigi: Just for the record - I'm kiddin'.
Well, I was unlucky enough to be born a Russian, but lucky enough to have a dad that got us to NZ. :D
so big that you have to take your car for everythingthose big, big cars.. then again the cars aren't as expensive there as in Denmark and gasoline is cheaper aswell..
But I'll remain in Denmark. It doesn't matter as much who wins the election here, it's just about the same and even if it's the wrong ones that win it's little that actually does change.
Just hope that we will take part in the Euro sooner or later. And that is one of the few things that can actually heat up the masses here. :p
coolasfcuk
04-11-2004, 00:35
Well, I was unlucky enough to be born a Russian, but lucky enough to have a dad that got us to NZ.
the NZ conversation wasnt enough for you at the Russian Forum, ah Kate? :laugh: Maybe you should start talking about Mars, ah? :lol:
coolasfcuk, I love NZ. Whatcha gonna do? Bite me? :) If you want to talk about Mars, you don't have to ask for my initiation, go straigh ahead. ;) And if you like these childish "quarrels", I recommend you join a kindergarden or continue them here, whatever. I'm not gonna endorse them from my side.
ypsidan04
04-11-2004, 01:11
I had a whole disparaging post about the sad state of affairs in this country if Bush, after all the crap that has gone on, can get more popular votes than any President in history (over 50 million), but I lost it, by accidently hitting the back button. Anyway, you can stop waiting:
Bush will be re-elected.
:bow: :done: ----> Spyretto
freds, come visit me in ann arbor! i would love to have you. ;)
on another note, we're fucked, here in america.
Well actualy I always aspired to move to North America at some point. Whether it'd be USA or Canada, I don't really care. I just like the lifestyle I guess. I actualy LIKE the architecture, the food, the people, the whole diverse culture etc I know many people hate it, especialy Europeans, (and some Americans as well probably), but it's definitely something different for me. WAY different, while still being in the west. I guess I just wasn't meant to live in a country which nationalty is 85% homogamous. And I'll be damned if some silly polititian will weaken my intent to go or not.
Though something tells me that in a decade or two Europe might be economicaly more powerful then US.
freds, come visit me in ann arbor! i would love to have you. ;)
Heh. I might :p
ypsidan04
04-11-2004, 02:07
freds, come visit me in ann arbor! i would love to have you. ;)
Yeah, me too, people! :p
On a similar note, here's what my Mom wrote to our local paper recently:
Dear Sir,
In light of the demographics of Washtenaw County which is a college community, I am appalled that your editors endorsed Bush for the election. I do not know how the election will turn out as I am writing this on Monday evening. I would have expected your paper to more accurately reflect the views of its readers.
I am moving away from the Ann Arbor area shortly after Thanksgiving. If not for this fact and that my subscription is already entered with an ending date, I would cancel my subscription. I do not want my money going to causes of any sort that endorse views I do not share.
I sincerely hope you realize the extremely poor example you set for our young adults who are voting in their first election tomorrow. You have told them that it doesn't matter if you lie, doesn't matter if you break the rules and that it is alright if there is one standard for the US and another standard for the rest of the world. I do not know if the voters will be smart enough to make the right choice tomorrow. I know that I have a son for whom tomorrow is his first presidential election and he, fortunately, is educated enough to see the lying, cheating and double standards that exist. Shame on you as a business for not being able to see what an 18 year old can clearly see ! (<---- Hmm, wonder who that is... ;) )
And again, my mother (a very intelligent person, and certainly a person with convictions):
Dear Mr. Albom,
About your article today in the Free Press, I would like to add my simple comments.
You wrote, in part … "Take your sign down.
Pull up the stakes. Rip up the cardboard. Throw the whole thing in the trash.
We are no longer Bush or Kerry this morning, we are no longer right or left. Our reds and blues need to be united now, by the pure and neutral white that completes the American flag."
Simply put, this will never happen. If 2000 wasn’t bad enough to divide the nation, this is absolutely much worse. I know many non citizens from other countries. In fact, my husband is not a citizen and thus wasn’t eligible to vote. In the face of all of these acquaintances, family and friends, I am ashamed to be an American. There is no comprehensible explanation for my fellow citizens who endorsed lying, murder and double standards at the polls yesterday. All I can do is cry and tell these people I had nothing to do with it. When we were trick or treating with our children on Halloween last week, I walked past houses with Republican signs on their lawns. I will never ever set foot in the state of Ohio again in my life for any reason whatsoever ( I am 43 ).
My sincere apologies if I have offended you should you have voted for Bush. Votes are personal and should stay that way. But you know what you did and if the shoe fits personally, I hope your conscience can live with it.
The ONLY good thing I can say about this election is that I live in Washtenaw county and I am proud to say that I live in a county that votes Democratic and also that the state of Michigan as a whole had more people that knew what they were going on about yesterday. Unfortunately, there are more red-necks in the United States than there are people like myself.
For that, I can just apologize to my husband who pays his taxes and can’t have a voice at the polls.
Voters in Ohio make me sick. I am a registered voter in Ann Arbor,
Michigan which for those not familiar with the area is 30 minutes
north of the Ohio state line. I used to go into Ohio every now and
again because it was close by. Never Never Never again. It is bad
enough that we have Buckeyes down there. Choke ()*( Gag ^%^$^*&. But
if you were a Buckeye voting for Kerry, I would be proud to shake your
hand. This was much bigger and more important than football but Ohio
showed its true colours. Very very sad that 51% of you endorsed
lying, cheating, stealing, double standards and we haven't even began
to discuss job loss in the economy. Thank the good Lord for term
limits in this country, that is the only thing saving our souls, Ohio
voters sure aren't going to do it. For those who don't remember their
political history, term limits were voted in by a Republican Congress
too.
For those 49% of you Ohio voters who had your blinders off and showed
a modicum of common sense to vote with the majority of Michigan
voters, let us stand united this morning along with Bruce and sing a
very rousing rendition of " No Surrender ". We did NOT vote for lying
and killing. Just remember that it is NOT our fault every day for the
next 4 years, we did the right thing. We will never surrender our
souls.
:( (Term limits for President where, thankfully, put in by Republicans who were pissed b/c Dem. Franklin Roosevelt was elected four times.)
Well, I was unlucky enough to be born a Russian, but lucky enough to have a dad that got us to NZ. :D
Heh, and what's wrong with being a Russian? Ok, it kinda sucks here. Not as glamarous as all you people think, or don't think.. It's cold also... But I'm still proud to be a Russian.
NZ must be awesome though. I was lucky enough to been born with connections, giving me money and things I needed for school and travel.
Well if you people aren't the most pessimistic people I've seen! I don't feel sorry for the Americans, I think that they made the right choice, and they voted for who they wanted (well enough did). They should be allowed to get who they choose. And I've seen a lot of bad politicians, but for Americans, I feel you can take comfort in that it would be really hard (even for Bush) to remove America from super-power status. Best of luck and fortune to you and your leader. :)
As for everyone else... well... just don't make the US mad. ;)
Ok, since the election is over but there are and will be plenty of stuff to discuss about the things the Bush administration is going to do, i have widened the topic to US policy in general.
So you can discuss the aftermath of the election, the war in Iraq, the future wars in Syria, Iran, or North Korea, and the international policy of the US in general.
OK for some reason I seriously suspect Iran is next. It'd go well with the trend of semi-correcting old mistakes. Maybe Dick Chainey could be the new Shah Of Iran. :p
OMG... analists on CNN predict that one of the crucial moments in the election actualy happened BEFORE the election, on the super-bowl, when Janet Jackson flashed her boob. Saying as though "the american people finaly saw how RAUNCHY things have become"... I mean... WHAT THE FUCK? A boob?! Could they BE more prude? The boob thing is something we could only smirk about in Europe for sure. It wouldn't be a subject of general outrage. :p
spyretto
04-11-2004, 04:50
That peopel who complain most here are not Americans.
No, my positions are same. But I think Us elections are US internal thing, something we, non-americans have no place to complain about.
Yeah but why are you constantly complaining about non-Americans complaining about US elections? Two wrongs don't make a right ;)
Having said that, those elections were a bit different, as the candidates had a different view on the role of the US' foreign policy, which inevitably concerns us non-Americans as well; especially during these turbulent times.
Really? Think again. What will Bush likely do?
1. More fighting in Iraq. Which likely means more deaths which means more support for insurgents.
2. continued support for Isael. Which means more Palestinians dead which menas more support for Hamas et al.
3. Pressure on IRan. Which means hardliners will use US pressures as emans to supress reformists.
Face it, Bush's victory is great victory for those who aren't buddies with US.
:newyear:
I'm not sure that he's gonna do more fighting in Iraq than Kerry would do, what indication is there of that? We simply don't know, the situation now is in control of the Pentagon. As for continued support for Israel, that is guaranteed whoever is in power in America, don't you think so?
Not to forget, Bush is supposed to be the guy who's gonna crack down the terrorist networks, seek the terrorists out of their holes and stuff, right? :spy:
Maybe you could find a job in China (you speak Chinese if i remember correctly), i'm sure this country will dedicate a lot of money to scientific research in various fields including genetics in the coming years. :)
Not to mention you'll be absolutely treated like a god there ;)
spyretto
04-11-2004, 05:14
OK for some reason I seriously suspect Iran is next. It'd go well with the trend of semi-correcting old mistakes. Maybe Dick Chainey could be the new Shah Of Iran. :p
OMG... analists on CNN predict that one of the crucial moments in the election actualy happened BEFORE the election, on the super-bowl, when Janet Jackson flashed her boob. Saying as though "the american people finaly saw how RAUNCHY things have become"... I mean... WHAT THE FUCK? A boob?! Could they BE more prude? The boob thing is something we could only smirk about in Europe for sure. It wouldn't be a subject of general outrage. :p
I don't think there will be an attack in Iran or Syria or North Korea unless the US is struck on home soil again. If that doesn't happen he'll have a relatively peaceful four years but if they're struck again, you should expect a US retaliation ten times more catastrophic.
Then we'll be probably heading for a world war :bum:
I don't think there will be an attack in Iran or Syria or North Korea unless the US is struck on home soil again. If that doesn't happen he'll have a relatively peaceful four years but if they're struck again, you should expect a US retaliation ten times more catastrophic.
Then we'll be probably heading for a world war :bum:
Well I think it's a "now or never" chance for the terrorist to get the MOST impact out of another attack. It's crucual for then to strike in these next few years. Bush is too predictable not to take advantage of that. When and if a new attact happens there'll be many people who'll say that American people "deserved" what they got with electing Bush for their president. I'm sure there'll be reactions like that.
Bush is too predictable not to take advantage of that. When and if a new attact happens there'll be many people who'll say that American people "deserved" what they got with electing Bush for their president. I'm sure there'll be reactions like that.
I strongly disagree with that. There will be a few, sure, as there were a few happy reactions on 9/11. But most of the world was with the US; I don't think most countries would be glad that terrorism is occuring, because it shows that they are vulnerable as well, and that terrorism is a problem.
I do not think that a world war will occur, though it may be possible. I predict that these battles on terrorists will go on as it has for the past couple years.
madeldoe
04-11-2004, 06:05
Hmmm, i've never been tempted by emmigrating to the US to live and work, lol. I mean, crazy hours, no social security, almost no vacations, ugly architecture and cities so big that you have to take your car for everything, horrible food, and christian fanatics everywhere... :dead:
i love how you painted the US in that sentence :D
That peopel who complain most here are not Americans.
pffft.. not true. my classmates and teachers [all red blooded americans] were enraged at todays results. my math teacher was sooooo pissed, she was bright red after our discussion..good times though :p
on another note, we're fucked, here in america.
yeh..were the hell is kakey?!! aye you need a roommate eh? eh? :D
Ok, since the election is over but there are and will be plenty of stuff to discuss about the things the Bush administration is going to do, i have widened the topic to US policy in general. Now that's what I call good moderating! :done: Some mods here (I'm not gonna name names, so don't take it personally) contribute nothing to the forum. :rolleyes:
What's wrong with being an American or live there? A rich country which is able to take care of own citizens, where is more democracy than in Russia or China or Middle East for that matter. I think we are more critical about the States because it's a clear super power which stands constantly in the focus. Okay, I live here in Sweden and have a pretty good life so I don't have any plans to seek for a better life "over the lake" but I would have spoken differently if I lived in Russia now. That's for sure.
Yes, Haku, a good idea to edit the thred-title. Thanks!
Some mods here (I'm not gonna name names, so don't take it personally) contribute nothing to the forum.and some mods were around in times of trouble.
Yeah but why are you constantly complaining about non-Americans complaining about US elections? Two wrongs don't make a right ;)
Having said that, those elections were a bit different, as the candidates had a different view on the role of the US' foreign policy, which inevitably concerns us non-Americans as well; especially during these turbulent times.
OK, how would you feel if majority of posters here would say what idiots you Brits are because you voted for insert name of party here and not for insert anme of another party here ? You would say:
1. Yes, we are idiots. I know now because whole world thinks so. Please forgive us for using our democratic right and electing government you, non-British citizens, do not approve of. Please tell us how we should run our country, because our government must reflect wishes of outside population and we, British citizens, have only seconary say in this matter.
2. Bloody Yanks, mind your own f*cking business.
:newyear:
i love how you painted the US in that sentence :DI said that on top of my head... :D
I would also be worried by the level of violence in the US, the number of homicides and rapes is much higher than what we have in Europe.
It's also incredible that anyone can buy automatic guns at the local store, it's just insane that regular citizens can buy military grade weapons (or any kind of handguns for that matter).
Finally, i am appalled by the fact that the US still practice the death penalty, that's just barbaric. The US is one of the very few countries in the world that execute minors and mentally-ill people (and all other countries that do such things are dictatorships, even *Iran* has abolished death penalty for minors). And this is the country that wants to give "lessons" to the rest of the world. :rolleyes:
I was not surprised to see that one of the first acts of the new US-appointed Iraqi governement was to reestablish death penalty. Of course, how can you build a democracy without death penalty? :rolleyes:
A few more things i've read about the recent election that shows how conservative the US has become:
Jim DeMint was elected senator by South Carolina, Jim DeMint has publicly stated that homosexuals and single mothers should be banned from teaching positions in schools because they are a bad influence on children and do not represent America's values.
Tom Coburn was elected senator by Oklahoma, Tom Coburn supports death penalty for doctors who have performed abortions.
Tom Coburn thinks that rape is not such a bad thing but abortion is a huge crime, he explained that his grandmother got pregnant from being raped by a local sherif, so without that rape and if his grandmother had aborted, his lineage wouldn't exist!
Tom Coburn has also said that social security is not really an issue for black people because black people have "a genetic predisposition to a short life expectancy."
John Thune was elected senator by South Dakota, John Thune thinks that gay couples should be banned from having/adopting children because those children would have a higher risk of getting sexually abused by such parents.
John Thune also supports compulsory prayers in schools for all children.
Those three guys are Republicans i suppose, and they've been elected after saying that kind of stuff? That's amazing. In Europe those people would be considered "extreme right" (neo-fascists).
OK, how would you feel if majority of posters here would say what idiots you Brits are because you voted for insert name of party here and not for insert anme of another party here ? You would say:
1. Yes, we are idiots. I know now because whole world thinks so. Please forgive us for using our democratic right and electing government you, non-British citizens, do not approve of. Please tell us how we should run our country, because our government must reflect wishes of outside population and we, British citizens, have only seconary say in this matter.
2. Bloody Yanks, mind your own f*cking business.
:newyear:
You'll all have your chance next year when we either vote in the Red Idiots or the Blue Idiots.
Only 2 parties have a realistic chance of winning Government in the U.K.Scotland and Wales have the 3rd option of SNP or Plaid Cymru(not sure of spelling)
Whatever happens(and this goes for anywhere really)they will ALL make promises they won't keep and go against the Will of the People.
Profit and Privatisation always comes first.Check out the PFI(Private Finance Initiative) project in this country and see how many MPS are gaining money from having their fingers in that particular pie.
i am appalled by the fact that the US still practice the death penalty, that's just barbaric. The US is one of the very few countries in the world that execute minors and mentally-ill people (and all other countries that do such things are dictatorships, even *Iran* has abolished death penalty for minors). And this is the country that wants to give "lessons" to the rest of the world. :rolleyes:
.
Pat ...pleeeeeaaaasssseeee.....I agree with the fact to condamn death penalty, but......PLEASEEEEE.....don't use IRAN for giving weight to your argumentation.... ;)
even *Iran* has abolished death penalty for minors.-->really?.....in the laws to be in peace with the rest of the world or in the REAL FACTS ?
I mean , you should speak about that to Elisabeth Badinder...she pushes actually people to sign a petition to save a little girl....
This little Iranian Girl is 12 years old....and she will probably die soon if the rest of the world can't stop it !.....She is accused to have had sexual relationships with her brother who is 14 years old....We absolutely don't know in which conditions she had this realtion with her brother...we don't know if she agreed or if she was raped by her brother...
Just the fact are here: The brother was condamned and he had received 180 blows of whip, may be he is still in life , may be not... and the little girl was condemned to be lapidated by crowd UNTIL DEATH... a few weeks ago, another 14 year old little girl died, she was condemned to be hung in top of a crane (to be well seen by
crowd)(following a judgment of the State!!!): she had had sexual relationships with her boy-friend......
So, may be another comparaison than with Iran would be better. :(
Yesterday night , on the radio , i've heard E.Badinter saying the little girl was 12 years old...so , you can send your petition to save her to "ni putes, ni soumises" (here)
http://www.niputesnisoumises.com/html/index.php?page=petition
http://www.ixcea.com/portail/html/modules/news/article.php?storyid=128
http://journal.gayattitude.com/pierem/20041029142935/
or directly to the Iran Ambassy
AMBASSADE DE LA REPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D'IRAN
4 av Iéna 75116 PARIS
I strongly disagree with that. There will be a few, sure, as there were a few happy reactions on 9/11. But most of the world was with the US; I don't think most countries would be glad that terrorism is occuring, because it shows that they are vulnerable as well, and that terrorism is a problem.
I do not think that a world war will occur, though it may be possible. I predict that these battles on terrorists will go on as it has for the past couple years.
You missunderstood. I never said people would be GLAD terrorism is occuring. Everybody would probably condem the terrorists, but at the same point many would point out to the US elections and the recent US policies which (as the elections showed apparently) most of americans SUPPORT. So many would say they've CHOSEN an agresive stance to subdue their nemesis. I didn't say this was my opinion I'm just saying that this will be on many people's minds. There'll never be a WORLD war with the Arab countries, simply because there's not enough of them to resist the rest of the world (which IS divided now, but as soon as there'd be a true united Arab efford to subdue the west they WOULD stick together). Not to mention that there are internal strugles amongst the Arabs and Islamic people in gereral as well. And nor was the aim of the terrorist to ever go into a full-blown war... they seek chaos and fear in order to make themselves and their problems be noticed. They do have territorial goals, but not really to conquer the WHOLE world.
Haku Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn & John Thune should not only be banned from ever practicing politics, they should be charged with spreading racial, sexual and religious intolerance. Shocking :eek:
Rocco Buttilglione seems like a champion of gay rights compared to these fellows. And furhermore...
...it WOULD be better if Tom's grandma wouldn't get raped by that Sheriff. For the whole human race. You know what I mean? ;)
even *Iran* has abolished death penalty for minors.-->really?Really. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20041026/wl_mideast_afp/iran_justice) It's not voted yet, but it will be soon, which means Iran will have abolished death penalty for minors before the US.
So, may be another comparaison than with Iran would be better.There is no better comparison, except for the US, countries which executes minors are all dictatorships, except for the US, there is not many democracies which still have death penalty at all actually. And as we all know, death penalty is forbidden by the EU, any country that wants to join the EU has to abolish death penalty.
My point was not to say that Iran is better than the US, of course it's not, my point is: How come the crazy fanatic Iranian Ayatollahs can see that executing minors is wrong and should be abolished, but US politicians who are supposed to be "civilized" can't see it?
it WOULD be better if Tom's grandma wouldn't get raped by that Sheriff. For the whole human race. You know what I mean?Absolutely. :p
About Death Penalty in general:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/monde/article/1,151,1065,102004,819982.shtml
"Selon un décompte tenu à partir des informations de la presse iranienne, 85 personnes ont été exécutées en Iran depuis le 1er janvier 2004, dont 52 depuis le 1er juillet.
En 2003 et 2002, il y avait eu respectivement 108 et 113 exécutions, selon l'organisation de défense des droits de l'Homme Amnistie internationale."
-->According to a calculation held starting from information of the
Iranian press, 85 people were carried out in Iran since January 1, 2004, including 52 since July 1.
In 2003 and 2002, there had been respectively 108 and 113 executions, according to the organization of defense of the humans right Amnesties
international.
-->How many Death Penalty Executuions in the States during the same period? And are the reasons of condamnations the same?
Really. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20041026/wl_mideast_afp/iran_justice)
I'm as SAINT THOMAS, you know....I'ld believe it when i'll see it in TRUTH, not only on the Official Papers: when it would be used by the government by making respecting the laws and when the same government would condamn the ones who follow the "tradition rules" and kill the members of their own family for the same reasons..
Haku: My point was not to say that Iran is better than the US, of course it's not, my point is: How come the crazy fanatic Iranian Ayatollahs can see that executing minors is wrong and should be abolished, but US politicians who are supposed to be "civilized" can't see it?
WHY?.....yep, interesting question ......because of a suddendly "free counsciouness criticism" or because "economical compensations" that could be behind this decision ?....What do you think ?...
I'm against Dealth penalty..I think it's a pity that the States don't have a more social policy....but i'm tired to see the States judged so easely as a refuse of a refuse tip!....
By my own side , I would prefer to live in the States than in Iran, in Irak (even without war), in Russia, in Bulgaria, in Turkey, in a lot of other countries....because , even , if they have big faults in this country , you have something which exists : Freedom of Expression...
And that has NO PRICE.....I saw the clip of Eminem against G.W.Bush....A such thing wouldn't exist , even in France, about a french candidate...
So.....hit , hit on the States with your comments (i speak in general, not for you Haku..)...with the phenomen of crowd , it becomes stronger.....if you feel it....
But , may I have a suggestion: in another thread, try to do the same thing with some other countries....for exemple , you choose 10 other countries, including european countries....and you follow the same rules of the game: one begins to criticize, and the others follow, bidding higher....and after a delay , we could COMPARE...it could be interesting ....
Because on this site , more often I JUST SEE ONLY ONE TARGET: THE STATES...so it isn't that I want to defend them but , as says Forre kidding about me : "You knows : FRENCH!..." ;) ...I mean , personnaly , I prefer when there is a better balance , a better egality in the targets .....so Guys....Why to put again, here, The States in the center of the World?....Give their chances to other countries too.... ;) I'm a little again the Monopole of the States in a such case....
Ps: just wrote what I think, not angry at all...I understand the right of some of your posts.....but.....anoyed by just one little thing......the treatement of States as the only one target here ...makes me just think to one thing which doesn't exist anymore in Iran since 2002 (Thanks God!): STONING !
How many Death Penalty Executuions in the States during the same period? And are the reasons of condamnations the same?Does it matter? Numbers and reasons are irrelevant. Death penalty is barbaric, for whatever reasons.
Because on this site , more often I JUST SEE ONLY ONE TARGET: THE STATES.This thread is about the US, so of course people are talking about the US. And people are talking about the US because the US is the only superpower in the world and the current US administration has decided to impose US values on the rest of the world by force. If Zimbabwe was doing the same thing, people would be talking about Zimbabwe.
Anyone is free to create another thread to discuss *any* other country's policy. Go ahead, no problem.
STONING !Stoning is absolutely barbaric, but electric chairs and gas chambers are just as barbaric, there is no hierarchy in barbarism.
Does it matter? Numbers and reasons are irrelevant. Death penalty is barbaric, for whatever reasons.
Death penalty is barbaric, okay .....but to kill somebody because he/she killed other persons in the most horrible, crual, sadic and torturing ways and to kill a women just because she cheated her husband or because she chose another boyfriend instead of the husband that her family wanted for her, makes a difference for me. Sorry.
And the difference between the electric chair and the stoning...even if the result is the same...is that the electric chair as to purpose to be enough quick....The stoning obeys to certain rules: you don't have to take too big stones...cause they kill too quickly , nor too small stones which are without effect....you have to choose middle stones for the "show" and the suffering have a longer time and the stones might be cutting very well in the purpose to get the more blood as possible for giving the most impressive "show" as possible...These 2 things are in the texts....
"Barbaric" has here a different connotation here for me too.
thegurgi
04-11-2004, 21:09
but electric chairs and gas chambers are just as barbaric
and we have those in states? really? hrmmm, from what i thought it was lethal injection. But what do i know.
In my morals class here at the university, we had a lengthy discussion of the Death Penalty (which isn't carried out in my state, so it doesn't effect us here)... and there are currently lots of opposition going on in the country towards this treatment. But usually it's the families that contest such things, that want to feel a sense of justice of having the person they think murdered their loved one killed, it's so strange. I'm against it too, but we do it a way that i think is less than barbaric, you know, we don't behead anyone. As for retardation and juviniles, there hasn't been a case like that in long while. It's a sobering experience here, because so many people feel it's wrong, but the "victims" create this system, not the people from the sidelines.
and thank you Sunwalk for your comments, and i'd just like to say that i would NEVER criticise any of your countries, especially their people, which i'm seeing a lot happening, and i don't really appreciate it (and neither do my friends whom i've read some of your comments to). But i'll still allow you to say what you want, cause you are allowed to think what you want to think, even if i disagree.
spyretto
04-11-2004, 21:35
OK, how would you feel if majority of posters here would say what idiots you Brits are because you voted for insert name of party here and not for insert anme of another party here ? You would say:
1. Yes, we are idiots. I know now because whole world thinks so. Please forgive us for using our democratic right and electing government you, non-British citizens, do not approve of. Please tell us how we should run our country, because our government must reflect wishes of outside population and we, British citizens, have only seconary say in this matter.
2. Bloody Yanks, mind your own f*cking business.
First of all, I'm not Brit. Second, I find both responses unconstructive. Stating my reasons for my choices and attempting to shed a light upon the choices of my "fellow Britons" - in case people have misunderstood us - would be a more constructive alternative. You can be arrogant or stupid, I prefer to be neither.
Polarising tactics are certainly Bush's tactics - from where you've inspired your analogy, I presume?
and we have those in states? really? hrmmm, from what i thought it was lethal injection. But what do i know.
You don't know?
Lethal injection is the most common method while electrocution is still practised in certain states.
and thank you Sunwalk for your comments, and i'd just like to say that i would NEVER criticise any of your countries, especially their people, which i'm seeing a lot happening, and i don't really appreciate it (and neither do my friends whom i've read some of your comments to). But i'll still allow you to say what you want, cause you are allowed to think what you want to think, even if i disagree.
It'd be better for the sake of this debate if you indeed criticised them.
thegurgi
04-11-2004, 21:48
You don't know?
i was being sarcastic...
and i won't criticise another country, i have no reason to, and the only other countries i've been to are Canada and Poland, and i have nothing bad to say about them, and i'd only criticise a country i'd actually been to.
spyretto
04-11-2004, 21:54
and i won't criticise another country, i have no reason to, and the only other countries i've been to are Canada and Poland, and i have nothing bad to say about them, and i'd only criticise a country i'd actually been to.
Is there any particular reason about that?
thegurgi
04-11-2004, 22:01
well... i don't think it's fair. You don't criticise a painting you've never looked at, or a song you've never heard, or movie you've never watched. Nor would i criticise a restaurant i'd never been too, despite what i've heard from other people, i only criticise things i've experienced for myself, cause i can never know if the opinions of others will truely be the opinion of myself. It's just one of my philosophy's in life. I'm in art school, i'm taught to be overly critical, so i'm focusing all my critical abilities on art, not countries, and i don't think it's my place in the world to criticise someone's home.
sunwalk, maybe it's just me, but, can you pleeeeeeeaaase type your sentances properly without the constant "...". If you have something to say, start with a capital letter and end with a period! It's really hard to read all that scrambled, unconnected opinions. :rose:
spyretto
04-11-2004, 22:24
well... i don't think it's fair. You don't criticise a painting you've never looked at, or a song you've never heard, or movie you've never watched. Nor would i criticise a restaurant i'd never been too, despite what i've heard from other people, i only criticise things i've experienced for myself, cause i can never know if the opinions of others will truely be the opinion of myself. It's just one of my philosophy's in life. I'm in art school, i'm taught to be overly critical, so i'm focusing all my critical abilities on art, not countries, and i don't think it's my place in the world to criticise someone's home.
Yeah but being in this country or that country don't mean much. You have to live, work, socialize, take on your responsibilities and do all the things citizens do to be in a position to say you know the country. Tourist experiences are not much better than second hand experiences.
I don't think the problem is the country or the people of the US anyway, the problem is the country's foreign policies, and they're the ones we criticise and we feel they somehow concern us and they need to be re-evaluated. What the US are doing - or fail to do - around the globe ( as the only superpower with the invested interest in policing the world ) naturally echoes all over the world. And people in the US don't even seem to care about it.
coolasfcuk
04-11-2004, 22:27
sunwalk, maybe it's just me, but, can you pleeeeeeeaaase type your sentances properly without the constant "...". If you have something to say, start with a capital letter and end with a period! It's really hard to read all that scrambled, unconnected opinions.
Maybe its just you. i dont have problem understanding ... and sunwalk has lots to say usually :gigi: I am answering because I also use the '....' all the time .... (as in right now) ... i also dont use capital letters and end with periods most of the time. this isnt an essay ... this is an internet forum .... and think of the '....' as little pauses - same ones you use when you speak ;)
thegurgi, people criticise your country because your country influence the rest of us, whether we want it or not. Your country kills, your country steals... and your country's leader is, frankly, dumb (see quote in my signature).
thegurgi
04-11-2004, 22:35
there are other countries that kill, steal and have dumb leaders... that's all i'm saying.
But i was simply stating my philosophy on criticism for myself because i was asked. But my country was highly influenced by christianity and many other philosophies, and, hehehe, i have absolutely no trouble criticising those. But i wouldn't criticise New Zealand, i've never been there, although from the pictures i've seen, it seems very very beautiful and you should indeed feel lucky to live there. But i feel lucky to be here, where i could be adaquately taken care of for my disability, and i wonder what other countries (other than canada, where i did recieve treatment) that i could have been taken care of the way i have (my parents have never paid a medical bill for me, EVER)... so i'm grateful to have been born in this western christian society, and i'm fine with you're criticism of the current governmental administration ( i still have my own )... but just don't critisize us, we're just like everyone else in the world, trying to make ends meet and survive in our respective societies and areas.
And people in the US don't even seem to care about it.
I care, and i know quite a few that do as well
coolasfcuk, well, whatever. I just find your kind of writing really hard to read, cuz it seems illogial to me. Anyway, I usually skip posts with lots of "...", so don't worry. :cool:
okay Kate i'll try ... (sorry..hihi...) . But my mind is made like that : I can't say : I think that DOT. My sentences are always long cause I can't think to an idea without my mind screams to me : "Yes, but you can't say that just like that : you have to think to the opposite argument to make the balance, if not something is missing".So I just write as I think with the "...." which correspond to a pause in my reflexion ...so in my mind , there is a connection in what I say , even if i could use an argument and it's opposite...but i'll try to improve...promised...
Be indulgent, one and half year ago , I couldn't understand one sentence of one post of this site without translator...
But I speak in the real life like that ...with sentences. So you'll have to train too for when we'll meet in the real life :)
Which country doesn't kill, which country doesn't steal? Does it exist ?
First of all, I'm not Brit. Second, I find both responses unconstructive. Stating my reasons for my choices and attempting to shed a light upon the choices of my "fellow Britons" - in case people have misunderstood us - would be a more constructive alternative. You can be arrogant or stupid, I prefer to be neither.
Even if members would keep saying you are certified moron for voting specific party, that is beyond them how any perosn could vote for that party etc etc?
Polarising tactics are certainly Bush's tactics - from where you've inspired your analogy, I presume?
No, I didn't get this from Bush. I'm just amused with double standards of soem peopel here who feel they must criticise Yanks for electing Bush while get all worked up when US prez amkes similar comments.
:newyear:
sunwalk, much, much better! Thank you for understanding. :rose: I get where you're comming from and all, but it doesn't change the fact that the posts seems messy with too many "...". Anywho, thank you. :)
thegurgi, trust me, in NZ we pay high taxes to take care of our uneducated Maori people, disabled, mentally retarded and pregnant teenage girls. But at least we don't rush to war with countries we don't approve of. :)
Bush Makes Not-So-Good Headlines in Europe
The re-election of President Bush dominated British newspapers Thursday, and many cast impartiality aside in reporting the result. "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" the liberal Daily Mirror asked in a Page One headline. Inside, several pages of coverage were headed "U.S. election disaster." The Independent bore the front-page headline "Four more years" on a black page with grim pictures including a hooded Iraqi prisoner and an orange-clad detainee at Guantanamo Bay. "Oops — they did it again," Germany's left-leaning Tageszeitung newspaper said in a front-page English headline. More... (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041104/ap_on_re_eu/bush_international_headlines)
thegurgi
04-11-2004, 22:56
and the american people supported our "rush to war" collectively? trust me, we criticised like mad, we weren't completely with it, but we decided as a whole to support our soldiers in whatever they did.
And i just said that i don't know if other countries have the specialists that i required in my process of recovery, but i know that here i do and can be confident that i've worked with some of the best doctors not only in north america, but the world. one of my doctors was world reknown in his lifetime, and he wrote a medical paper about me, but that's somethng different (just felt like bragging a bit).
But i just want to point out that it's very easy to point out what's a bad about a place, i believe it takes an enlightened mind to see the good in even the worst situations. Not that i have one, i'm kind of naive (i'll admit it)... but, i think you should all think about how easy it is to criticise, as that's what i've learned in my 2 years of art school, just how easy it is to see the bad in even some of the world's greatest masterpeices.
thegurgi, so? How does that explain voting for Bush TWICE? Kerry could have supported your soldiers by bringing them home to their families as soon as possible. Bush'll keep those soldiers in Iraq for as long as their's oil for him.
It's very nice that you support your country, but there's really no point. Let's just be objective here, ok?
thegurgi
04-11-2004, 23:06
Kerry wouldn't have. It's as simple as that. There's nothing he could do differently that would bring them back sooner. It doesn't make a difference, seriously. You have no clue how many discussions i have had with people about this, professors, my parents, other peoples parents, my grandparents, all with a different opinion (and lets not forget that many of these people are actively involved with the american political system and have been all their lives, and know a hell a lot more about it than probably anyone on this forum) and all of them completely immersed in the issues... but one thing most of them agreed with, Kerry wouldn't have made a difference in Iraq, in fact, many of them believed that he'd f'ck it up even worse, by trying to get us out too soon and causing even worse complications.
did you say there is no point in me supporting my country?
Kerry wouldn't have. It's as simple as that. Well, now you'll never know whether he would have or wouldn't have, will you? :) You're all stuck with Bush. And I congratulate you. I just hope the end of the world won't come in the next four years cuz I wanna live. :)
thegurgi
04-11-2004, 23:21
I just hope the end of the world won't come in the next four years cuz I wanna live.
me too, but i'm confident that everything will be ok.
at least, for us
thegurgi, I'm not so sure, watch this: http://forum.tatysite.net/showpost.php?p=203469&postcount=118
thegurgi
04-11-2004, 23:28
i've seen that before, i don't think you should put your projection of the future on a satirical flash cartoon... hehehe :)
I get where you're comming from and all, but it doesn't change the fact that the posts seems messy with too many "...".takes some getting used to I guess.. normally I'm using the .. most of the time aswell, but if it's something I got figured out in advange it gets better.
Skipping to read the comments all together just isn't an option to me I guess.. especially if it's a debate I've been following. Then one would be left with half the conversation.
greg - sure about that? I mean it has been on the Internet.. so it could be true :laugh:
spyretto
04-11-2004, 23:39
Even if members would keep saying you are certified moron for voting specific party, that is beyond them how any perosn could vote for that party etc etc?
It doesn't make much difference coz 90% of people go and vote according to a usual pattern. From that 90% maybe a 89% would criticise their party for being "this" and "that", but when the moment of truth arrives they'd go and vote like drones - cause it's a "family matter, tradition, invested interest" and the like. So I don't know, maybe the expression "certified moron" is a bit harsh but voting like that is not exactly what I would call intelligent. So those who keep saying that they should be the first ones to prove they've put their fingers on the wound, sort of speak.
Now if you asked me, if people convinced me that I was a "moron" to vote for party A and not for party B, I wouldn't admit it publicly - of course - but what I'd do it's my own business. ( other than being pissed off ) :p If it was unsubstantiated, I'd be very pissed off and eager to refute the "certified moron" accusations.
No, I didn't get this from Bush. I'm just amused with double standards of soem peopel here who feel they must criticise Yanks for electing Bush while get all worked up when US prez amkes similar comments.
Well, we criticised them a little bit for electing Bush but we also stressed that it was an internal US issue from day one - at least I did - and of course they're free to elect whoever they want. ( even it is the Texan cowboy corporate puppet )
Having said that, I noticed he has improved somehow since the last elections.
But how many people here came out and declared they voted for Bush? I don't think I recall anyone.
thegurgi, no one thought Bush will rush to war with iraq, but he did, didn't he? So who is to say that he won't find an excuse to use a nuclear weapon on North Korea or something?
spyretto
04-11-2004, 23:45
thegurgi, no one thought Bush will rush to war with iraq, but he did, didn't he? So who is to say that he won't find an excuse to use a nuclear weapon on North Korea or something?
Because he's not a dictator and the US is not a dictatorship. The country itself won't let him - even if it's his greatest ambition -
A slightly optimistic prediction but I'll take it :) This war has divided people enough already.
The country itself won't let him - even if it's his greatest ambitionThe country doesn't have to let him, war does not require a popular vote. Bush has been elected with a large majority, he controls the senate and the house, he is the chief of armed forces, that gives him the legitimacy to launch a nuclear attack if he feels like it.
spyretto
05-11-2004, 00:07
But I think this war will have the social and economic effects that the Vietnam war had in America, especially if it goes on for a while. Furthermore, Bush can't fight too many wars at the same time ;)
And the argument that he's gonna use "weapons of mass destruction" on his own - when he's allegendly fighting a war over "wmd", does not make sense.
Unless you think that Bush is Hitler, of course. :p He can't be, he's the good guy.
I'm also optimistic that people in America will finally begin to wake up.
He's fighting his war, he's staked his claim. That's it for now. The next president will fight his own war, and so on.
Furthermore, Bush can't fight too many wars at the same time yeah, let's hope he at least learned something in the history lessons
US is not the only country in the world with the nuclear arsenal. Who would be that stupid to push the button? All right back to the policies. Are we worried about the international affairs of the States or national business? I personally don't give a piece what is happening budgetwise, or similar inside the country. Bush already gave a big favour to the rest of the world by using the reserve funding, which caused fall of the dollar rate.
Human rights? There a few countries in the world that sustain human rights generally and US is one of them. As for the European newspapers, they would be raving anyway. If Kerry has won, they'd start digging immediately in his and Mrs. Ketchup's past and we don't even know what we'd get. Bush is predictable while Kerry is a blank spot. I think that's the reason why Americans voted as they did.
And the argument that he's gonna use "weapons of mass destruction" on his own - when he's allegendly fighting a war over "wmd", does not make sense.The US has a problem with WMD only when they are in other countries, lol, but it doesn't have any problem with the fact that it owns more WMD than all other countries combined. The US has enough nuclear fire power to annihilate all countries on this planet in a few minutes, why does it need so much fire power? To spread democracy?
Bush's internal policy is based on fear, the american people are constantly told that the threat is "imminent", people are afraid, the terrorist alert level (or whatever it's called) is always on orange or red.
Invading Iraq was a preemptive strike, there was no "imminent" threat (there was no threat at all actually, but whatever), it will be easy for Bush to hold the same speech for another target and say that the US needs to strike now before it's too late.
The fact that it was a lie the first time did not prevent his reelection (obviously american people don't care that he lied about that) so i don't see why peope would not believe him again if he tells the same lie twice.
spyretto
05-11-2004, 00:25
yeah, let's hope he at least learned something in the history lessons
Yeah, and also under the "new world order" isolated regimes like North Korea are nothing but a nuissance. They wouldn't get the support from anybody.
So the biggest threat is terrorism, the "invisible enemy". The possibilities are countless. As they reach their objective in Iraq after a hard-fought conflict, the war might be moved somewhere else, even in US soil.
I know a lot of people are waiting to witness the destruction of the US empire. Will it happen? Will it not? Bet's on!
US is not the only country in the world with the nuclear arsenal. Who would be that stupid to push the button?Well, the US used nuclear weapons in WWII, i don't see why it wouldn't use them again in another war.
spyretto
05-11-2004, 00:30
The US has a problem with WMD only when they are in other countries, lol, but it doesn't have any problem with the fact that it owns more WMD than all other countries combined. The US has enough nuclear fire power to annihilate all countries on this planet in a few minutes, why does it need so much fire power? To spread democracy?
Bush's internal policy is based on fear, the american people are constantly told that the threat is "imminent", people are afraid, the terrorist alert level (or whatever it's called) is always on orange or red.
Invading Iraq was a preemptive strike, there was no "imminent" threat (there was no threat at all actually, but whatever), it will be easy for Bush to hold the same speech for another target and say that the US needs to strike now before it's too late.
The fact that it was a lie the first time did not prevent his reelection (obviously american people don't care that he lied about that) so i don't see why peope would not believe him again if he tells the same lie twice.
What will they do with their weapons of mass destruction? Bomb the hell out of Iraq? Level Afghanistan borders with the hopes of getting Osama? They can't.
Yes, invading Iraq was a pre-emptive strike - with substantiated reasons but unsubstantiated evidence - and one that they might regret. How will they stop terrorism? They can't do it with weapons, for one terrorist killed another ten appear.
Bush is going against regimes because he can't see the enemy. Their war plan is pathetic.
You tell me how they're gonna win the "war on terror".
Well, the US used nuclear weapons in WWII, i don't see why it wouldn't use them again in another war.
In 1945 US was the only country with nuclear bombs ready for actual use, now they've got some "competition". That's the reason why they won't use it.
You tell me how they're gonna win the "war on terror".They won't, they're going to lose it. You don't fight fundamentalism with a conventional war. Like you said, for each terrorist killed, ten are rising.
That's precisely why there is a risk of escalation, this conflict is going to last for years, and terrorism will only get worse, as the years pass the US will become more and more frustrated to see that they are not winning despite all their power and they will be tempted to use more powerful and definitive weapons to put an end to all this, permantly.
He's fighting his war, he's staked his claim. That's it for now. The next president will fight his own war, and so on.
Exactlly. and elt's not forget that on average, Clinton started wars more often than Bush did.
:newyear:
Bush is predictable I disagree. No one predicated Bush's Iraq war thingy...
In 1945 US was the only country with nuclear bombs ready for actual use Just because USSR didn't use nukes, doesn't mean that it didn't have them ready to launch. ;)
Now they've got some "competition". That's the reason why they won't use it. Who is to say that America doesn't have some top secret super-dooper-looper atomic bomb that it thinks other countries don't have? They can launch it as a test, miscalculate it's power (which happened a lot with the U.S.) and fry the world?
ypsidan04
05-11-2004, 03:11
This was written by a friend of a friend:
My friends and I here plan to start wearing black arm bands about the election. I'm asking you guys to do the same. I think this will be a
quietly powerful statement if we can get it to catch on across the
country. The more I hear the Christian right bubbling over their
victory, the more I think we need to have a visible symbol of our
dissent.
I'm going to do as such ASAP. If you're fed up with the last four years, and are dismayed over the prospects of the next four, take up this cause. And pass the word around.
Or just buy this shirt (http://www.cafepress.com/cp/browse/N-1279+3949+20385789_pv-onehorseshy.14400141_Ne-25_nr-1_bt-1), like two members of my family are doing, or something like it. :D
spyretto
05-11-2004, 05:22
I disagree. No one predicated Bush's Iraq war thingy...
Still, many people thought he wouldn't stop with Afghanistan, and Bush made it quite clear in his patriotic speeches. It made absolute sense to me that after the pre-emptive attack of 9/11 the US would engage in a long conflict, a preemptive attack of their own that would claim geometrically multiple casualties to 9/11. The only question was against who. Some predicted Iran, others Korea, others made the right prediction with Iraq. Bush was relatively quick to turn towards Iraq ( Saddam had no more friends in the Arab world ) and it became evident he wouldn't back down.
The wmd scenario was backed by Blair and the rest is history. This war has claimed 100000 lives and we're still counting.
Exactlly. and elt's not forget that on average, Clinton started wars more often than Bush did.
Clinton did it with UN support though and he at least made some efforts towards peace.
thegurgi
05-11-2004, 06:20
hehehe, yeah, but Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden and didn't take it. if only he had, we wouldn't be in this mess at all....
spyretto
05-11-2004, 06:36
I guess he was too busy in the oval office for that sort of thing ;)
Clinton did it with UN support though and he at least made some efforts towards peace.
So? War is war. And not all, or even most were with UN support.
:newyear:
I disagree. No one predicated Bush's Iraq war thingy..
Not exactly, but Bush is predictable by now.
Just because USSR didn't use nukes, doesn't mean that it didn't have them ready to launch. ;)
As far as I know technical assignment to build such a bomb was specified in 1946 and the product was built and tested in august 1949 in the USSR. With another words - in 1945 USA had a very clear military SUPER advantage and could seriously threaten the world without any risk for a revange attack on that level.
Who is to say that America doesn't have some top secret super-dooper-looper atomic bomb that it thinks other countries don't have? They can launch it as a test, miscalculate it's power (which happened a lot with the U.S.) and fry the world?
Who is to say that they have? This is a level of pure speculation based on no facts at all.
coolasfcuk
05-11-2004, 17:58
:laugh: Michael Moor is at it again, here's what he had to say:
17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists...by Michael Moore
Dear Friends,
Ok, it sucks. Really sucks. But before you go and cash it all in, let's, in the words of Monty Python, “always look on the bright side of life!” There IS some good news from Tuesday's election.
Here are 17 reasons not to slit your wrists:
1. It is against the law for George W. Bush to run for president again.
2. Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
3. The only age group in which the majority voted for Kerry was young adults (Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%), proving once again that your parents are always wrong and you should never listen to them.
4. In spite of Bush's win, the majority of Americans still think the country is headed in the wrong direction (56%), think the war wasn't worth fighting (51%), and don’t approve of the job George W. Bush is doing (52%). (Note to foreigners: Don't try to figure this one out. It's an American thing, like Pop Tarts.)
5. The Republicans will not have a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. If the Democrats do their job, Bush won't be able to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues. Did I say "if the Democrats do their job?" Um, maybe better to scratch this one.
6. Michigan voted for Kerry! So did the entire Northeast, the birthplace of our democracy. So did 6 of the 8 Great Lakes States. And the whole West Coast! Plus Hawaii. Ok, that's a start. We've got most of the fresh water, all of Broadway, and Mt. St. Helens. We can dehydrate them or bury them in lava. And no more show tunes!
7. Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut. May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan.
8. 88% of Bush's support came from white voters. In 50 years, America will no longer have a white majority. Hey, 50 years isn't such a long time! If you're ten years old and reading this, your golden years will be truly golden and you will be well cared for in your old age.
9. Gays, thanks to the ballot measures passed on Tuesday, cannot get married in 11 new states. Thank God. Just think of all those wedding gifts we won't have to buy now.
10. Five more African Americans were elected as members of Congress, including the return of Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. It's always good to have more blacks in there fighting for us and doing the job our candidates can't.
11. The CEO of Coors was defeated for Senate in Colorado. Drink up!
12. Admit it: We like the Bush twins and we don't want them to go away.
13. At the state legislative level, Democrats picked up a net of at least 3 chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the 2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53 chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47 chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber (Montana House) is still undecided.
14. Bush is now a lame duck president. He will have no greater moment than the one he's having this week. It's all downhill for him from here on out -- and, more significantly, he's just not going to want to do all the hard work that will be expected of him. It'll be like everyone's last month in 12th grade -- you've already made it, so it's party time! Perhaps he'll treat the next four years like a permanent Friday, spending even more time at the ranch or in Kennebunkport. And why shouldn't he? He's already proved his point, avenged his father and kicked our ass.
15. Should Bush decide to show up to work and take this country down a very dark road, it is also just as likely that either of the following two scenarios will happen: a) Now that he doesn't ever need to pander to the Christian conservatives again to get elected, someone may whisper in his ear that he should spend these last four years building "a legacy" so that history will render a kinder verdict on him and thus he will not push for too aggressive a right-wing agenda; or b) He will become so cocky and arrogant -- and thus, reckless -- that he will commit a blunder of such major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from office.
16. There are nearly 300 million Americans -- 200 million of them of voting age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide -- it means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million. If you had 58 yards to go before you reached the goal line and then you barreled down 55 of those yards, would you stop on the three yard line, pick up the ball and go home crying -- especially when you get to start the next down on the three yard line? Of course not! Buck up! Have hope! More sports analogies are coming!!!
17. Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for a trend it should be this -- that so many Americans were, for the first time since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has always been filled with evangelicals -- that is not news. What IS news is that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact, that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about November 2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of surprise in 2008.
Feeling better? I hope so. As my friend Mort wrote me yesterday, "My Romanian grandfather used to say to me, 'Remember, Morton, this is such a wonderful country *-- it doesn't even need a president!'"
But it needs us. Rest up, I'll write you again tomorrow.
Yours,
Michael Moore
from: www.michaelmooore.com
forre, a lot of things, such as the development of advanced military weapons, are kept secret. As a matter of fact, we only find out about the "new" technology 12 years (on average) after it was invented by any government. So, what USSR told everyone is almost for sure not what it had. :)
forre, a lot of things, such as the development of advanced military weapons, are kept secret. As a matter of fact, we only find out about the "new" technology 12 years (on average) after it was invented by any government. So, what USSR told everyone is almost for sure not what it had. :)
USSR were trying to tell the opposite at that time. The info above is not what USSR told to everyone. This info became available much later. Even if US has its laser air based guns ready to use it will constantly be under the atomic threat. Besides, USA has economic interests in many countries - especially in Asia and Middle East. So, no nukes for now.
So, no nukes for now. Well, thank god. :gigi:
ypsidan04
05-11-2004, 21:50
OMG... analists on CNN predict that one of the crucial moments in the election actualy happened BEFORE the election, on the super-bowl, when Janet Jackson flashed her boob. Saying as though "the american people finaly saw how RAUNCHY things have become"... I mean... WHAT THE FUCK? A boob?! Could they BE more prude? The boob thing is something we could only smirk about in Europe for sure. It wouldn't be a subject of
general outrage. :p
Let me make it plain and clear that that incident went almost immediately into the recycle bin of my brain. I was like, "Oh, that doesn't seem like something that was planned...". And then I FORGOT ABOUT IT. It wasn't until I heard people on the radio talking the next morning, and I was like "Oh yeah!". And you couldn't even see her nipple, for crying out loud! You see the same thing in Maxim quite often (quite a lot of boob showing, but not the whole thing), and that's in plain and clear sight on newstands everywhere. BFD. That's just one reason I've signed the petition at www.stopfcc.com
Also I was reading a liberal magazine that comes to my house, and they had a list of all the failures (in the eyes of 49% of American voters who had their votes counted) Bush has had over the last 4 years. I got about half way thru, and then put it down. I just couldn't take any more. Working against the environment, against labor unions, against civil liberties, against the sovereignity of foreign nations....It's depressing.
Let me make it plain and clear that that incident went almost immediately into the recycle bin of my brain. I was like, "Oh, that doesn't seem like something that was planned...". And then I FORGOT ABOUT IT. It wasn't until I heard people on the radio talking the next morning, and I was like "Oh yeah!". And you couldn't even see her nipple, for crying out loud! You see the same thing in Maxim quite often (quite a lot of boob showing, but not the whole thing), and that's in plain and clear sight on newstands everywhere. BFD. That's just one reason I've signed the petition at www.stopfcc.com
This boobphobia has to stop in the US. Someone must create a boob liberation front, naked boobs should have the freedom to be shown. :p
Here in Europe we are exposed to a lot of naked boobs and we are not traumatized. :gigi: I'm sure Americans could cope as well.
thegurgi
05-11-2004, 22:21
i thought that whole incident was HILARIOUS, but then it got annoying.
I do get annoyed with the pruditity of the american heart land, not so much here, or maybe i'm just used to it, but i'll never forget my grandma (the crazy christian one) freaking out that i drew nude models in drawing classes. that was pretty funny as well. "they're NAKED?!"
I think the super bowl incident however lightened the mood on such things, and since then, despite the FCC crack down, things have been more relaxed lately.
It's wierd how Hollywood totally misrepresents America...
Here's the cover of the Daily Mirror (http://img109.exs.cx/img109/9162/tabloid.jpg) after the US election.
And since some people want some balance, here's a nice article in The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004512444,00.html) about the French president who has been nicknamed "Le Worm" by The Sun (i'm not sure why, i think it has to do with the fact that French people never shower and are all greasy and squishy).
Oh! By the way ! Kate and haku and all the other people who are great to find links on Google...I'm searching something: May be 3 weeks ago, I've heard on "France-Info" , a french radio of information that it was a report about the Irak 's War...
The conclusions were that No chimical weapons were found in Irak.
It was, too, notified that Saddam Hussein had given a lot of Foreign Countries a lot of BACKHANDERS...
-->"Charles Duelfer's report from the October 6th 2004."
After I didn't hear again about this report...but as i'm enough curious , I would be very interesting by knowing the names of all these countries which obtained from Saddam Hussein "some money"...I'm sure my country would never get such presents :D but i'm curious to know about the other countries... ;)
So as you have a lot of informations about this war , it would be so kind to you to help me to find more informationsabout this report, please ! By advance , thanks a lot !
EDIT: Just found that : http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=914
But I'd like to find more and nobody hepls me :cry:
"Hundreds of individuals and companies from more than 40 countries, and government officials in Syria and Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and the UAR, are said to have funneled arms and goods to Iraq in violation of sanctions. They include names in France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Others on the lengthy list include Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his Russian Liberal Democrat Party, Charles Pasqua, former French interior minister, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri, the son of Lebanese president Emile Lahoud and the Peoples Liberation Front of Palestine."
Oh! WHAT! :eek: My so pure and moralist country would be involved in such affairs! ...dead here... ;)
Khartoun2004
06-11-2004, 00:34
Ok I haven't gotten around to verifing this information, but it's still disturbing none the less.
One of my friends told me yesterday that should the US start drafting (which we all know will happen eventually in the next 4 years) that anyone found out to be gay will not get a dishonorable discharge. Instead the government will have us thrown into Levingworth National Prision. You know the place they send wife beaters and rapists.
So not only are we not allowed to serve in the military voluntarily, but now we're going to be thrown into jail because they refuse to treat us like human beings.... WTF?
I'm totally moving to Canada before they close the border down in January whether I get into McGill or not.
The election was decided cause of moraly concerned citizens. Prude Evangelists came in masses to support Bushes ideas that a marriage between a man and a woman is an ideal and family values will SAVE america (makes you wonder what family values are... I always thought that LOVE is a family value, not gender separation, but anyway)
So since the moral and righeous people of america were so outraged about the steady decline in public morals and general human state of mind, it was OBVIOUS that they wanted to bring some of those good old-fashioned values back that were such a typical characteristic of young men and women of that great country and it's leaders in the past...
My Lai massacre (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/My_Lai_massacre.jpg) - Lt. William Calley, a platoon leader in Vietnam, had led a massacre of several hundred Vietnamese civilians, including women, babies, and the elderly...
I state only THIS example. Yet there are numerous cases through history dating back from the 19th century. Over and over again, americans were getting upset over pornography, showing of intimate body parts, overly sensitive when it comes to faul langauge... all that when there was SO much wrong that has been done overseas. Bloody mass masacres repeadedly, dating back for 150 years. No better then those that Al Zaquaui's insurgents are doing today in Iraq, except on a grander scale. The torturing of the prisoners in Iraq and teh prolongued unlawful retention of Guantanamo Bay prisoners are just two later examples. And while there's so much wrong going on IN the country itself as well. I mean, some big cities have practicaly turned into battlegrounds where criminal gangs are controling urban areas, openly homophobic and racist people get elected for senators, big corporations dodging on taxes is considered as somethng normal and unavoidable (said in his words by Bush himself), the rich taking advantage of the poor, companies having sweatshops in 3rd world countries, taking advantage of pre-teen workforce, is just a fact of life... ALL that is happening in the land of the free... and they talk about family values and the ideal that a man and a woman joined together in marriage, represent. There's no way you could EVER speak about something like that without being hypocritical, in a society that is faul in it's core.
thegurgi
06-11-2004, 03:30
i've decided to let you all to your own devices, this country's government is fucked up, just don't, you know, say stuff about the culture, and society. Cause i am result of that culture and society, and i think i reflect it pretty well, and you all know i don't like to be insulted. or you shall feel the wrathe of the greg
Aaaaah!!! Look at this!!!
Disillusioned Americans eye New Zealand's alternative bush
Enquiries from Americans wanting to move to New Zealand have skyrocketed since George W. Bush was reelected president of the United States. :eek: :eek: :eek:
Thousands of North Americans have migrated to New Zealand in recent years -- attracted by the country's small population, clean, green image of bush-clad mountains, and isolation from world trouble spots -- but the number now looks set to soar. More... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041106/ts_alt_afp/nzealand_us_vote&cid=1506&ncid=2043)
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo... Get them out of here!! :cry: NZ doesn't need them to elect a Bush alternative over here... :cry: Please, somebody do something!! :cry: :bum:
I know they are avoiding Bush, but it doesn't change the fact that their American neighbors elected President Dubya twice!! They all have the similar mind set.
coolasfcuk
06-11-2004, 05:47
haha Kate, watch out ... see what you get when you start saying things. Shh so you dont jinx yourself even more.
Also your post shows that you dont really know what you're saying. America is a very diverse country. Just think of its land area - how many European countries combined is that? Not to mention it is relatively new and there is constant flow of new and new immigrants - even as we speak.
Can you even imagine the difference between living in different states. Lets call them the 'blue' and the 'red' states as they did on T.V. The people in the 'blue' states have such different environment from those in the 'red' ones - blah blah blah i can sit here and list millions of things like for example: they even have different taxes. It could be so extreme that someone joked that there should be a new reality show on tv: where people from the 'blue' states meet people from the 'red' and vise versa and they get to know eachother better.
Also - are you saying you dont want diversity in N.Z.? You arent from N.Z. anyway - you are also an immigrant ;)
coolasfcuk, I think the election have shown it very well - over 50% of Americans are conservative Bush-lovers. I personally think that you should watch what you say and don't accuse people of stuff and assume things about their opinion. ;)
We have plenty of diversity in NZ as it is. :) I just don't think it needs any more people to ruin it's clean & green image. And I am against conservatists anyway, which is most of Americans proved they are. :bum: No offense to Americans, though, I am sure there are plenty of good people in the U.S.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo... Get them out of here!! :cry: NZ doesn't need them to elect a Bush alternative over here... :cry: Please, somebody do something!! :cry: :bum:
We have plenty of diversity in NZ as it is. :) I just don't think it needs any more people to ruin it's clean & green image. And I am against conservatists anyway, which is most of Americans proved they are. :bum: No offense to Americans, though, I am sure there are plenty of good people in the U.S.
Ah Ah Kate...You'll never change in beeing so sincere.. :D It seems as if Immigation in New-Zeeland had to stop after you and your family arrive there....you 're too funny !...
But read again all what is written about The States here! Would you refuse the political refuge/sanctuary to the poor Americans who have to endure to live in a such country!!!
It is just Not Human!! Not Christian! ;)
But don't be upset Katie baby, i just woke up and to read that makes me laugh a lot and gives me Good Mood for the rest of the day...Kiss Kiss
We have plenty of diversity in NZ as it is. :) I just don't think it needs any more people to ruin it's clean & green image. And I am against conservatists anyway, which is most of Americans proved they are. :bum: No offense to Americans, though, I am sure there are plenty of good people in the U.S.
People are moving around the world all the time and you are one of the immigrants, so what's the big deal with a few Americans to come to NZ? I'd understand your consideration if Russian mob were heading there.
coolasfcuk, I think the election have shown it very well - over 50% of Americans are conservative Bush-lovers. I personally think that you should watch what you say and don't accuse people of stuff and assume things about their opinion. ;)
We have plenty of diversity in NZ as it is. :) I just don't think it needs any more people to ruin it's clean & green image. And I am against conservatists anyway, which is most of Americans proved they are. :bum: No offense to Americans, though, I am sure there are plenty of good people in the U.S.
Think about it kate. People that want to immigrate to another country BECAUSE Bush was elected more then lightly WON'T be Bush lovers, as you stated yourself as well. And you are so very close to conservative views yourself, you know? You have numerous times here challenged and slandered gay life-style it's ridiculous. Marriage to you is between a man and a woman as well, right? So you displayed much of Bush narrow-mided conservativism yourself, as Bush ever did. So explain to me Kate... in what way are you AGAINST conservativism? :P
some big cities have practicaly turned into battlegrounds where criminal gangs are controling urban areasThat's true. In the meantime, "good people" are building "community towns", also known as "bunker towns" to live in their own perfect bubble.
For people who don't know, community towns are privately owned towns, they are surrounded by a security wall and only people who live there are allowed to enter the town. Community towns are sometimes embedded in a larger city, or built just outside a larger city.
There is generally only one gate to enter the town and security inside the town is handled by a private security company. Everybody who wants to enter the town has to have a resident badge, if you are a visitor, you have to be invited by someone living inside, at the gate the security guards will check you out and phone the person who has invited you for verification, you'll get a temporary "guest badge" while you are in the town.
Inside those towns, everything is perfect, everything is clean, everything is shiny, everything is within the norm, perfect people with perfect families and perfect lives, anything "outside the norm" is not tolerated.
In Florida, there is a community town which has been built by Disney Corporation, it's called Celebration. Disney Corporation is planning to build several Celebration towns across the US. According to Disney Corporation, Celebration towns will be places where America's traditional values will be preserved and where a new generation of good Americans with strong moral values will grow and form the elite of the nation. Celebration towns are the perfect image of America, perfect places where perfect traditional families can live isolated from the rampant immorality of modern society, in Celebration towns, everything is nice, everything is beautiful, and nothing ever goes wrong (of course, only straight white christians live there).
The only road to access Celebration. (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/tatu/Celebration1.jpg) (With only one road it's easier to control people who enter the town.)
A typical Celebration street with typical Celebration houses. (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/tatu/Celebration2.jpg)
Celebration hospital. (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/tatu/Celebration3.jpg)
Office buildings. (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pagd/tatu/Celebration4.jpg)
As a former architecture student, i'll add that Celebration is an architectural nightmare, an unfortunate mix of various pseudo-classical architectures from different origins, a summit of bad taste.
Celebration web site (http://www.celebrationfl.com/), in case you would be interested in moving over there.
It seems as if Immigation in New-Zeeland had to stop after you and your family arrive there.... I know!! Am I wierd or what? I guess I wasn't against it so much, but after studying NZ bioconservation in University this semester, I just looked at NZ in a whole different light -- a fragile ecosystem that is being slowly and painfully killed by increasing human population. You know, not every one buys recycled paper and donats money to bioconservation programs like my family does... and NZ is one of those last green corners in the world...
Marriage to you is between a man and a woman as well, right? So you displayed much of Bush narrow-mided conservativism yourself, as Bush ever did. Well, I am all for civil unions between homosexual people. :) That's not conservative is it? Plus, when it comes down to it, I don't really care. If gays want to get married, fine. Why should only straight people suffer divorce? :heh:
katbeidar, We are all here on recycled paper and have been sorting the garbage for the past 8 years now. Cans, plastic pet, etc. Right now we have more problems with Arctic ice melting and US can't even sign the Kyoto agreement (Kyoto Protocol To The United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change). That's bad. I have to say that US environmental policies are horrible.
I have to say that US environmental policies are horrible. Again, this supports my point. NZ doesn't need people who don't care about the environment.
Anyway, back to U.S. policies.
Kate, when people immigrate to another countries, they learn how to follow the domestic customs. So if a couple of thousands Americans get a different view on environmental problems and the importance to preserve natural resources, it can serve to the best of humanity. It's not American people who don't want to sign the Kyoto protocol, it's the government. Americans in themselves are easy to deal with. Good people generally. Less snobism and surely open minded.
forre, humans are selfish. New Zealanders are ruining the environment with agriculture as it is. With more people comming NZ will be forced to increase the number of farms and industries... I know Americans are good people, but being selfish is something every human is born with.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.