|
Post by WaffleHouse on Jan 26, 2004 12:06:58 GMT -5
OK, here's a little political discussion.
Would you support Bush in a re-election campaign?
I definitely would not. I don't really think Bush is even the real person behind all the things he is credited for. The man really seems like a moron, I think its the people behind the scenes making all the decisions. I don't want a President that can't think for himself and a guy that is lacking of intelligence.
It might sound like I've played too much Metal Gear Solid, but is there anyway to believe that Bush is smart enough to head any military operation in any way.
Yeah I thought so
|
|
|
Post by Nostradanus on Jan 26, 2004 13:03:21 GMT -5
I wouldn't vote for Bush either, but then you have to look at the other side and then your head starts to spin from all of the options....kerry dean sharpton leiberman...ahhhh I personaly don't like any of the democrats either....the only thing i've heard them do so far is complain about bush and his policies, what i would like to hear is some original thoughts/ideas.....thats why im voting for donald trump
|
|
|
Post by H-Zence on Jan 26, 2004 13:13:33 GMT -5
If you're thinking about voting for bush, check out this ad: www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/The ad CBS won't air. Basically saying our generation is going to be paying off Bush's deficit.
|
|
|
Post by Nostradanus on Jan 26, 2004 19:53:29 GMT -5
although i don't completely agree with the commercial, I can appreciate the message, since its aimed at me..and i love the music.
When I think of great presidents, G.W. bush doesn't come to mind, but i kinda like the guy, and me being a republican doesn't hurt. The fact of the matter is, no single person (the president) has ever been solely in charge of america, there are always people behind the scences advising the president and making decisions without him. It just seems to be more of an issue with our current president. I don't agree with his stance on federal funding for faith based community organizations but then again, he spit in the face of the pope when he made a decision on stem cell research, which shows me he can make decisions by reasoning things beyond what his faith believes, which i can respect. So he may not be the best president we've ever had, and yes we have a huge deficit, the democrats claim that under bill clintons administration the deficit was completely erased, well that is partly true, and then again, they loosed corporate restrictions and regulations so companies could be more prosperous in not so legal ways. And now you hear about these companies, like Enron and Slyvania... So would I rather have things done the right way, and be in deficit, or would i rather have things done in a shady way, and have a fat wallet...
I'd vote G.W. over Screaming Dean anyday
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 27, 2004 12:54:58 GMT -5
Wafflehouse that is so funny, when i started reading your post before i even read the rest i was thinking about metal gear, such a great game. Whats that little group of 10 people called again?
Anyway im going to support GWB and theres no trick here, hes a christian and a republican, so im gonna vote for him. but just out of curiosity would you guys call yourself republican or democrat? Maybe a little explaination for why, if you would.
|
|
|
Post by H-Zence on Jan 27, 2004 13:04:59 GMT -5
Joel, you're going to support him just because he carries the label Christian?
It doesn't matter what his label is; his actions are far more important.
I don't think I'm republican or democrat. I don't really know.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 27, 2004 17:53:08 GMT -5
I guess i worded that poorly. Because of the fact that he is a christian and a republican he is going to be on the same side as me on many topics. One of them including abortion and his thing in iraq. Im not about to argue about the weapons of mass destruction because i dont care. In the end we liberated a country in tearony(im sure i butched that word). We freed the people and yes we did lose some troops but the number we lost was far less then the number we saved. Im all in support of keeping our noses in other peoples buisness. If we dont then something bad could happen.
|
|
|
Post by H-Zence on Jan 27, 2004 18:16:17 GMT -5
tearony=tyranny ;D
And this is where the true political debate begins.
Forget what you think you know and keep in mind that the media has been known to 'stretch the truth' (not necessarily on purpose). Everyone is convinced, for example, the Al Qaeda was behind the September 11th attacks. Everyone is also convinced that a plane crashed into the pentagon.
I beg to differ, only because I've read other people's views, not to mention sufficient evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Nostradanus on Jan 27, 2004 20:07:47 GMT -5
hzence said "Everyone is also convinced that a plane crashed into the pentagon.
I beg to differ, only because I've read other people's views, not to mention sufficient evidence."
please explain that little blurb, are you insinuating that a plane did not crash into the pentagon, it just blew up ....because there is security footage from the pentegon that shows it, and thousands of eye witness acounts.. if you truely believe that, then your just a monkey looking for conspiracy theories
|
|
|
Post by Nostradanus on Jan 27, 2004 20:38:44 GMT -5
also...I could really care less if Iraq had WMD's or not, you would really need to understand the world on a deeper level to see why Saddam had to go, regardless of what he had from america's position. The middle east has been and will continue to be the most hostile place in the world. There are 4 possiblities 1. The Jews and Muslims will settle their differences and be peaceful (psh, hahah) 2. Democracy takes a foothold in the region and calms things down (bush's approach) 3. The jews get permenantly pushed out of the region (not gonna happen while we back them up) 4. Nothing happens, and the insanity continues.
The west has been waiting 50 years (since Israels creation as an independent state) to get more democracies in the region, and with saddam, we saw our opportunity, granted if we found WMD's it would just be an added bonus, but really, we just want to add stability to the region. Stability = Prosperity. And not only are we serving our own ajenda, we free an oppressed people from the grips of its tyranical leader. This so far has cost us 87 billion dollars and 513 lives.....do you know how many thousands of people have died and all the money and prosperity lost due to the fighting and instability in the region?? I guarentee you it 10,000 times as much as we have put into the fight.
And another thing, Iraq has oil, i know, lets just do a little math huh? ok, it is estimated that we could profit around 5 billion dollars a year if we controlled the flow of Iraqi oil....we spent at least 87 billion dollars in iraq... 87/5 = 17 17 years it would take just to repay ourselves for all the money we spent there, the bottom line is, bush did not go to iraq for oil...so get your thumbs out of your asshole if you run around with your "no blood for oil" matching tshit and ball cap on. I realize that some people are just to stubborn to see it, but thats the way i see the situation, and thats why i support the war in Iraq, and i will continue to do so.
|
|
|
Post by H-Zence on Jan 27, 2004 21:05:14 GMT -5
Really? I haven't seen any footage that actually shows the plane crashing into the Pentagon. And even if there is any out there, who's to say it's real? Now for the longest time I truly did believe what you just said Dan, just as anyone else does; why would I deny that? Then I read this. Most compelling argument ever. Now I'm not saying that's true, I'm just stating that I'm not sure if the 'obvious' is actually factual.
|
|
|
Post by Nostradanus on Jan 27, 2004 21:45:08 GMT -5
(sorry for how choppy this is, i copy and pasted it from a conversation i was haveing on IM and didn't feel like typing it all again) i've seen an indepth investigation on the history channel into the collapse of the towers, there was no need for explosives, the design was flawed, and they did tests on scaled models with identical results the design was revolutionary in that there was no skeleton of steel cubes in the building, all the weight was supported by the outer walls, leaving the inside space to be very open and allows more space for actual offices and such it was built to withstand hte impact of a 707 and it did withstand it but they dind't take into account all of the jetfuel that comes along with planes planes whos fuel tanks were relatively full because they just took off the steel gurders that held up each floor can only with stand a couple thousand degrees of heat before they start to give...and jet fuel burns incredibly hot, so its easy to see how the floors gave way, going straight down, which is the direction the buildings fell
and there is footage of the pentagon plane but the government doesn't sell footage like that to the media, like private video camera operators did that saw the towers collisions its the fucking pentagon, who knows how many cameras there have and you can't tell me that the thousand people in washington that saw a low flying plane smack into the damn thing are all in on the conspiracy its a nice try, but the fact of the matter is, if it was anywhere close to true, a lot more people would have caught on by now
|
|
|
Post by Nostradanus on Jan 27, 2004 21:49:44 GMT -5
also, the guy on that website doesn't back up anything he says with actual evidence, he just states his opinions and makes them sound like facts, i've seen the footage of 911 more times that i've cared to, and i've never seen any "explosions" that look like bombs placed on the outside of the building.
hes just the typical pothead conspiracy theorist with no life, just sitting in his house, smoking pot (supporting terrorists) and making up bullshit about things he has no real clue about
|
|
|
Post by Lynnet on Jan 27, 2004 21:53:41 GMT -5
I'd have to go with Democrat, since it's much closer to Socialist ::chuckle:: I'm really not too enthusiastic about the whole party system though...it tends to give people less of a reason to pay attention to all of the issues that are going on, agree with just a few main ones that a party happens to support, and so stick with that party for ever and ever. I'm also not all for the whole system that you have to have a whole ton of money to run for prez...but that's another story. WGAL has a great comparison of the candidates' stances on various issues here: www.thewgalchannel.com/politics/2653202/detail.htmlWhile the war in Iraq is a major issue at this point in time, it's definitly not the only one. And it's not like we can do anything to change the fact that we went over, helped some people out, lost a few things but gained a few too, and now must not just walk away from what went on. No matter who gets elected, they will still need to deal with the left-over issues in Iraq; this doesn't mean it has to be Bush. Who better to establish democracy in Iraq than a democrat? I personally am not for the guy a whole lot after this past State of the Union address. Sure, we fought a decent war, meddlesome, yet decent. But we certainly didn't do a whole lot to reduce our dependence on oil, especially in the automotive realm. And Bush's "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage" just screams "Hey, people can't really love each other if they don't have a religion!" Well *that*'s really fair. I'd like to know how marriage became such a legal thing to begin with, if it's such a relgious thing, with that whole "Separate church & state" dealio. But before all that, Bush starts the topic by saying: "A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization." I certainly don't think certain individuals are being respected a whole lot by having their legal and moral right to be bound in marriage taken, just because they happen to be of the same gender. But back to the election...no matter who we elect, s/he won't be perfect; they're all human. What really matters is that this person will be willing to work hardest and come up with the best plans to institute freedom and equality to all possible, regardless of country of origin, sexual orientation, economic status, political party, etc. That's really what the country, and all the world, should be about. If I had to pick right now, I'd be for "Screamin' Dean" since he is sided on pretty much every issue I agree with, and he has such a way with words, and obviously doesn't have a problem with letting loose and getting excited over a cause.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 27, 2004 22:56:07 GMT -5
Nostradanus for once we actually agree on something, i like it. Its more fun to agree then disagree. Now i have herd that the amount of oil we get from iraq is like 5% and if we dug for oil inalaska we would be able to supply the USA with enough oil for like 20 years or something like that. But no we have to protect the trees. IF they ever make a law that says im not allowed to pee on a tree im leavin this country. So yeah i kinda made those numbers up but i believe they are close, maybe someone else knows. We have alwasy had a national debt and it has never been a problem, i have heard it said that with a national debt that large we must be a very powerfull country. It kinda makes sence when you think about it. the more we spend then more powerfull we are. Its kinda like the rich kid down the street who spends all his money but gets whole lot. He doesnt have a whole lot of money in his bank account but he still is known to be rich and powerfull. Okay i just made that up off the top of my head so please tare it apart but do so in a kind way because im fine telling you guys im an idiot when it comes to politics.
|
|