The Political Discussion

[Gilles Goodman]

I certainly don't want to cause conflict on the board, but I feel I should be able to speak my mind about 9/11.

I was in NYC the day after, volunteering for the Salvation Army, who was managing the influx of water, tools, blankets, etc. that were being sent in from across the U.S. and around the world to help survivors/rescuers. I sifted through the huge air-shipping containers that were coming into the airport at JFK and sorted out canned food, clothing, bathroom supplies, kitchen supplies, even toys for kids into separate boxes, so they could be loaded onto trucks and moved out.

So, with that out of the way, I have to say, we need to stop fucking putting so much emotion and time around 9/11 and move on, already. Sure, I was emotional that day. Its been 7 years. Sorry, I'm not emotional about it anymore. Now, Bush and John McSame use 9/11 as a fucking weapon against Americans, trying to scare us into voting for them as if our lives are in danger, which is complete bullshit.

9/11 isn't about terrorist attacks on the US anymore. Its about asshole Republicans playing the bullshit fear card to get votes, and I'm fucking sick and tired of it. 9/11 has been perverted into a political ploy, and no longer deserves the respect that it should be worthy of.

[Sidhearcher]

I certainly don't want to cause conflict on the board, but I feel I should be able to speak my mind about 9/11.

~snip~
9/11 isn't about terrorist attacks on the US anymore. Its about asshole Republicans playing the bullshit fear card to get votes, and I'm fucking sick and tired of it. 9/11 has been perverted into a political ploy, and no longer deserves the respect that it should be worthy of.

Which is why it's important for me personally that places like here actually provide a respectful memoriam. The Vietnam Conflict was a lifetime ago, and I don't see anything inappropriate with respecting the memory of the lost, fallen, and forgotten from then, so why should I balk at doing so for the victims of 9/11?
The event itself was an horrific occasion, and yes, it's just plain self-serving for politicians to use it as a tool for garnering votes... but it cannot lessen the impact that was made on my life by that day. All that does is lower my opinion even further of the people that try to gain mileage off of it.

I don't remember what I was doing prior to, but I remember with chrystal clarity when the news broke into the background noise of the TV. It gave me vertigo.
I woke up my honey and we sat in silence, watching while the shocks continued to pile one on top of another. I didn't realize I was crying until he wiped my tears and kissed me.
My honey began preparations in case he received a call from his previous employer, and I started making phone calls to all my loved ones. I grieved, and felt guilty for doing so because I didn't lose anyone close to me. It took a long time for me to realize that I grieved for the loss of my countrymen, and the loss of a feeling of being safe because we're America.

[Ringos]

Deleted due to the thread move. (although qouted elsewhere) :)

[moorewr]

While your work is appreciated, it doesn't make your statements any more valid. If the Mods are going to allow discussion about politics and the war on terror, I'll proudly rip you apart on this thread. Otherwise your post should be deleted.

Oh for crying out loud. Just speak your peace about your own beliefs and leave it at that.

Sheesh.

[Gilles Goodman]

While your work is appreciated, it doesn't make your statements any more valid. If the Mods are going to allow discussion about politics and the war on terror, I'll proudly rip you apart on this thread. Otherwise your post should be deleted.

So, the topic of 9/11 is valid for this area of the board, so long as the comments are positive and not negative?

Sorry, did I accidentally wander onto the fucking DDO boards by accident?
:rolleyes:

[Coldin]

Ringos and Giles. As long as it's civil discussion, I don't care a lick what you guys talk about, or what your views are towards the subject. I'll let the board police itself for the most part about what's acceptable and not.

[Ringos]

This one deleted as well.

[Ringos]

So, the topic of 9/11 is valid for this area of the board, so long as the comments are positive and not negative?

Sorry, did I accidentally wander onto the fucking DDO boards by accident?
:rolleyes:

If you would like to start a debate about left vs right, it might be best to start your own thread. Is that too much to ask? The intent of this thread, I thought, was totally different. I will withdrawl my earlier offer to engage in discussion, as it will serve no useful purpose.

Edit: And here we go :)

[Gilles Goodman]

Ringos and Giles. As long as it's civil discussion, I don't care a lick what you guys talk about, or what your views are towards the subject. I'll let the board police itself for the most part about what's acceptable and not.

Sounds fine to me. I think my post, while negative, accurately reflects how I "remember" 9/11, and we'll leave it at that.

[Rommalb]

I was sitting in school 1st period when we heard a plane had hit, I dont recall if we had the news on when the second plane hit but we were sure watching when the towers fell. I remember we still went to every class that day but did nothing in any of them except watch the news.

Without trying to be too political though I will agree with Giles that its been 7 years, as tragic an event as it is there needs to be a time when we can move past it without stopping everything we do on Sept 11th. I mean hell, more people died on June 6th than Sept 11th but 70% of kids now days probably dont even know what happened then, or on August 6th (years left out to see if you know what they are, Im guessing most people here do). The only difference is that Sept 11 happened in the US and those other days all happened somewhere else

[moorewr]

Rommalb - you remind me of the morning of the Challenger disaster.. I was sitting in English class and Lance - who was normally the class bully and clown threw open the door to the room - his face was white as a sheet.. he'd been watching the launch.. that moment and the image of the rockets curling away from the wreck of the shuttle are tattooed in my brain.

[Vic]

...more people died on June 6th than Sept 11th but 70% of kids now days probably dont even know what happened then, or on August 6th
Huh, I admit, I had to look it up.

Sargoth - That is one hell of a story, man. Thank you for sharing.

[Shamguard]

I mean hell, more people died on June 6th than Sept 11th but 70% of kids now days probably dont even know what happened then, or on August 6th (years left out to see if you know what they are, Im guessing most people here do). The only difference is that Sept 11 happened in the US and those other days all happened somewhere else

Actually both events happened in response to aggressive attacks by nations that had already killed many more. Granted many of the people they had already killed were not Americans either. They were European and Asian civilians who were brutally tortured and murdered by the governments of these nations. To even compare a cowardly attack like the one that happened on 9/11/2001 to these two events is wrong.
Oh as far as what happened on June 6, 1945: My father and bunch of young men were in a landing craft off the shores of France; getting ready to help liberate that country from an evil dictator who had taken control of that nation. My father was a medic in the Army that day he had just turned 21 two days before, many of the men he was with never did turn 21.



...

[Rommalb]

My comparison was not that one was more justifiable than the other, to the contrary despite us still taking shit for August 6th I wholeheartidly believe it was the right move. My comparison was simply a crude one of bodycounts and how quick people forget what in the long terms of history are more pivotal moments

[Shamguard]

My comparison was not that one was more justifiable than the other, to the contrary despite us still taking shit for August 6th I wholeheartidly believe it was the right move. My comparison was simply a crude one of bodycounts and how quick people forget what in the long terms of history are more pivotal moments

There were many battles in WWII that took more lives than Pearl Harbor. Yet we remember December 7, 1941 more often than June 6, 1945.

It is also forgotten all but two of the Battleships sunk that day were raised and repaired and actually fought in WWII.


...

[Rommalb]

well, December 7th is another day a lot of people dont remember as much as they probably should. You can ask a room full of high school kids about that day and probably less than a quarter will actually know it was Pearl Harbor without telling them the year. As for the Battleships; yeah, unless you get people who have actually studied the Naval side of the war most just assume all the ships were lost. Although, of the ones that were raised few saw much action until Leyte aside from being used as bombardment assistance to landing troops.

Though Leyte alone was pretty justifying on their end, I think anytime a battle is remembered afterwards as a "Turkey shoot" you can claim you got your revenge

[moorewr]

Oh I know about Pearl Harbor...
My dad enlisted in the USMC in August of 1941. He said he knew we'd be at war soon and he figured it was better to beat the rush.

ps: Marianas Turkey Shoot - amazing battle! We were almost completely out-smarted throughout that fight, but our pilots & planes were so good none of it did the Japanese any good. That should have told them the jig was up even more than what followed in the Phillipines.

[Sidhearcher]

Life goes on, and so do we.
This is taking a few moments to share a memory of a day that affected all of us in one way or another- not making the whole day grind to a halt to rub ash in our hair and dress in sackcloth.
I don't think anyone here suggested we do that.
Julez started it with her experience, and each post added a few words.
Leave politics out of it.
bleck.

[Yeti]

I certainly don't want to cause conflict on the board, but I feel I should be able to speak my mind about 9/11.

I was in NYC the day after, volunteering for the Salvation Army, who was managing the influx of water, tools, blankets, etc. that were being sent in from across the U.S. and around the world to help survivors/rescuers. I sifted through the huge air-shipping containers that were coming into the airport at JFK and sorted out canned food, clothing, bathroom supplies, kitchen supplies, even toys for kids into separate boxes, so they could be loaded onto trucks and moved out.

So, with that out of the way, I have to say, we need to stop fucking putting so much emotion and time around 9/11 and move on, already. Sure, I was emotional that day. Its been 7 years. Sorry, I'm not emotional about it anymore. Now, Bush and John McSame use 9/11 as a fucking weapon against Americans, trying to scare us into voting for them as if our lives are in danger, which is complete bullshit.

9/11 isn't about terrorist attacks on the US anymore. Its about asshole Republicans playing the bullshit fear card to get votes, and I'm fucking sick and tired of it. 9/11 has been perverted into a political ploy, and no longer deserves the respect that it should be worthy of.

I disagree, I believe we should still mourn their deaths, just not mourn the occasion and honor those who helped. But the public election doesn't matter anyways so who cares :/. Anyways...I was in 2nd grade and living in NY of course most of the kids were getting taken out but I wasn't, none of the kids knew what was going on so it was odd...don't really remember much else. Some kids in my school lost their relatives, even a few lost a parent that day, must suck to go to school on this day.Also today we watched a youtube video in memory of the event...stupid Bush's speech in the background. We also debated a bit on what is the difference between an act of terrorism or an act of freedom fighting, which was pretty interesting but the people in my county are all republican retards who just follow what their parents say(nothing against republicans but the people here are all white catholic republicans who are rich and just bad people. So the general message for one of the instances which was Country X is in war with Country Z and kills a few civillians during a bombing. People were saying it was a freedom fighting act which is stupid when they could've obviously went in with ground troops and saved lives(he said it was a few buildings or a military base). Though I also said in a larger situation like WW2 with the bombing of Hiroshima it saved lives because the Japanese would never back down.

[Sargoth]

I disagree, I believe we should still mourn their deaths, just not mourn the occasion and honor those who helped. But the public election doesn't matter anyways so who cares :/. Anyways...I was in 2nd grade and living in NY of course most of the kids were getting taken out but I wasn't, none of the kids knew what was going on so it was odd...don't really remember much else. Some kids in my school lost their relatives, even a few lost a parent that day, must suck to go to school on this day.Also today we watched a youtube video in memory of the event...stupid Bush's speech in the background. We also debated a bit on what is the difference between an act of terrorism or an act of freedom fighting, which was pretty interesting but the people in my county are all republican retards who just follow what their parents say(nothing against republicans but the people here are all white catholic republicans who are rich and just bad people. So the general message for one of the instances which was Country X is in war with Country Z and kills a few civillians during a bombing. People were saying it was a freedom fighting act which is stupid when they could've obviously went in with ground troops and saved lives(he said it was a few buildings or a military base). Though I also said in a larger situation like WW2 with the bombing of Hiroshima it saved lives because the Japanese would never back down.

I disagree with your assessment. If country A is attacking an objective of country B's, and I have the choice of risking the lives of my soldiers or launching an airborn strike, i'm going to launch the airstrike every time.

In the words of Patton: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

[Ringos]

I disagree, I believe we should still mourn their deaths, just not mourn the occasion and honor those who helped. But the public election doesn't matter anyways so who cares :/. Anyways...I was in 2nd grade and living in NY of course most of the kids were getting taken out but I wasn't, none of the kids knew what was going on so it was odd...don't really remember much else. Some kids in my school lost their relatives, even a few lost a parent that day, must suck to go to school on this day.Also today we watched a youtube video in memory of the event...stupid Bush's speech in the background. We also debated a bit on what is the difference between an act of terrorism or an act of freedom fighting, which was pretty interesting but the people in my county are all republican retards who just follow what their parents say(nothing against republicans but the people here are all white catholic republicans who are rich and just bad people. So the general message for one of the instances which was Country X is in war with Country Z and kills a few civillians during a bombing. People were saying it was a freedom fighting act which is stupid when they could've obviously went in with ground troops and saved lives(he said it was a few buildings or a military base). Though I also said in a larger situation like WW2 with the bombing of Hiroshima it saved lives because the Japanese would never back down.

White Catholic Republicans. Yeah...that's who causes the world's problems. You forgot the Jews and the Native Americans in your little rant I think. When attempting to formulate intelligent posts, you may also choose to leave out the word 'retards'.

[lostinjapan]

Moving all of that over here out of the remembrance thread. Read and discuss as you like (or not).

I'm going to stay out of this because I refuse to force my political opinions on other people.

I just believed this deserved its own thread instead of making a mockery out of Jules'.

[Lazarus]

Personally I think politics is a forum landmine. I know there are three commonly banned forum topics known together as 'the trinity', religion is one, politics is two, and I think the third is sex but I'm not sure. It often just takes one of the first two in a forum or chatroom to cause a breakdown. I won't ever suggest deleting the thread, but if it degenerates into spitting anger than walk away people, walk away.

On the 9/11 topic or 11/9 by international date standards. I was working as a window cleaner at the time, I think it was early morning in New Zealand when it happened, and I think I didn't find out until I got to work. The same day or just after I was working cleaning windows in and outside of the central police station, even half a world away things were hectic there. Security around certain jobs became stupidly annoying, I'm glad we lost the airport contract well before the 11th of September.

I can't say I had any emotional reaction. Your too far away, I didn't know anyone effected, or know anyone who knew anyone who knew anyone effected. What I do remember (don't shoot me for this) is feeling pessimistic that it would give the American government the excuse to do whatever they want, at home, and abroad. The newspapers and television were blanketed for weeks, and when the panic died down anthrax came on the news. I remember a music video where someone was switching between porn and images of the two towers falling, than they wiped a certain body part on the American flat (one of the guys in the flat downstairs had a collection of very sick videos including that and some other two towers stuff). I watched and read as your constitution was changed, as rights were stripped away, and as America brought war to countries who may have held those responsible. I remember Fox news going on trial for openly lying, the judges saying it was ok for them to lie, and days later someone putting up big billboards outside his town saying how 'patriotic' Fox news was (CNN are commies because they show the bad stuff?).

[nakano]

Side note Yeti, sweeping generalizations are generally not the way to win friends or influence people. My family is caucasion, historically conservative and most certainly catholic. Quite obviously the spawn of absolute evil.

Thanks for reading.

K

[Murnk]

This post brought to you by CNN.
:beatdeadhorse:
Murnk/Rinket

[Gilles Goodman]

Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush

By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; Page A01

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary.

"America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before September 11, 2001," she said at the deployment ceremony, which drew hundreds of military families who walked from their homes on the sprawling post to the airstrip where the service was held.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews

Brought to you by The Republican Party.

[Murnk]

When I did it, it was funny. Yours was not.

If you wanted a political debate try one of the many forums available.

http://clearresolutions.com/stuff/sean_penn___bono_2.jpg

Murnk/Rinket

[Ringos]

I'm convinced Giles. I'm voting for Obama.

[moorewr]

My thoughts..

Why is 9/11 now politicized?
In one sense it was inevitable, but it could have been delayed and softened.

In another sense the answer is Iraq Iraq Iraq.

The original Sin was committed when Republican strategists decided to link Iraq to 9/11 and use both as a wedge in the 2002 campaign. That won a lot of midterm elections then, but it enraged Democrats & ignited a fight we still haven't seen the end of.

What is the lesson of 9/11?
Stuff we should have known ever since 1941. We can't safely affect the world around us while simultaneously ignoring it. We can't fight terrorism if we are deeply divided about the pursuit (or stuck on a single simple-minded tactic in that war). That we can't simply impose our will on the World and shouldn't try, that military or diplomatic means alone will never defeat a stateless enemy.

How should we remember 9/11?
We should honor the dead without trying to score political points or justify today's events.

[Ringos]

My thoughts..

Why is 9/11 now politicized?
In one sense it was inevitable, but it could have been delayed and softened.

In another sense the answer is Iraq Iraq Iraq.

The original Sin was committed when Republican strategists decided to link Iraq to 9/11 and use both as a wedge in the 2002 campaign. That won a lot of midterm elections then, but it enraged Democrats & ignited a fight we still haven't seen the end of.

What is the lesson of 9/11?
Stuff we should have known ever since 1941. We can't safely affect the world around us while simultaneously ignoring it. We can't fight terrorism if we are deeply divided about the pursuit (or stuck on a single simple-minded tactic in that war). That we can't simply impose our will on the World and shouldn't try, that military or diplomatic means alone will never defeat a stateless enemy.

How should we remember 9/11?
We should honor the dead without trying to score political points or justify today's events.

Some good points here. Some of my own thoughts...

Politicians are pretty damn shady overall. Left, right...all of them. Exceptions? Yep. Varying degrees? Yep. Whatever it takes to get elected, by all sides.

Iraq war: Republicans? Hmmm. Seems to me that more than a few Democrats voted for the war. Daschle, Harkin, Clinton....any of these folks ring a bell. They weren't innocent people duped into backing Bush. If you think that's true, you have a very low opinion of them.

What the ADMINISTRATION (read: NOT Republicans or Conservatives) did was horrible on many levels. As I sat there watching TV and listening to Bush, I just shook my head. If he wanted to go into Iraq for the sake of doing it, like many said, he sure used the wrong justification. There were plenty of legit reasons to do it, and he did a terrible job of conveying his message the whole time. It should also have been considered that teh American public can't stomache a drawn-out conflict. I'm not saying that it's good or bad, but it's a fact. When the tide turned and the public started calling for troops to come home, politicians started changing their tune. I think a lot of us saw this coming.

The knee-jerk reaction to 911 was horrible. Tossing together the Dept of Homeland Security? Stafing and structuring it? Holy sheet...my crazy mother coulda done at LEAST as good. Having citizens get patted down in a small Iowa airport while a National Guard troop holds an M-16 just MAY be taking things a bit too far. Were we lax prior to 911? Yes, but don't go from one extreme to the other. Why had it been OK to have nail clippers on a flight to Topeka before but not since? I'm really surprised they didn't require passengers to have their arms strapped down.



A few things...

-Politicians will say and do what it takes to get elected, for the most part. You can bring up all the stories you want about it here but everyone already is aware.

-You can pick up any newspaper and find a bad story about a Republican. Every hear that the media has a Liberal slant? Yeah, you could spend all day posting those stories too. Posting YOUR Liberal opinions may be a better option than simply posting previously published work that we can get anywhere.

-This administration is NOT the whole of the Republican party. Some seem to think it is, but it isn't. Bill Clinton isn't the Democratic Party and this administration isn't the Republican Party. Bush is also not a Conservative.

-I know another Rich White Catholic who, by today's standards would probably be a Republican. John F. Kennedy.

-If people like Bono and Sean Penn would forgo a few sets of sunglasses, all of the hungy in the world would be pushing away a third helping fo steak and potatoes. (BTW...Bono does a lot of great things, I just wanted to get that one in)

-Judge a man or woman as an individual. the whole "whites are this' or 'Muslims are that' is a bunch of shit. That's being ignorant and lazy at best. (most people here know this already I'm sure)


Cool. :beatdeadhorse:

[Senoshen]

[QUOTE=Yeti;9575]....(nothing against republicans but the people here are all white catholic republicans who are rich and just bad people. QUOTE]


Folks,

I believe we can all agree that this is a very hot topic. We have many members of HouseT from all walks of life, from different nations, different ages and different qualifications.

I have strong opinions about how the GOP has used 9/11 as a tool for leveraging their politicians into office when they are truly not qualified, but I won't detail them here, because forums are a poor mechanism for debate. If anyone would like to discuss this issue, look for me online, and I'll gladly sacrifice my online adventure time to group with you and discuss the inadequacies of the Bush43 administration, and it's strong parallels to dark times in human history.

However, what needs to be addressed, directly, is Yeti's comment about White Catholic Republicans. I am not Catholic nor Republican, but I take very strong offense to stereotyping groups based on religion or political affiliation. Based on Yeti's post, I can tell he is very young, and I invite him to consider three important philosophical points.

1. Diversity is our strength as the human race. Because we are not all of one religion, one political party nor of one skin color, we are better able to respond and overcome the challenges of conflict, disease, economics and ensure the support of the development of our children. When anyone identifies or stereotypes a group identified with any of the five key protected affiliations; race, reglion, ethnicity, gender or age...and a sixth not currently protected under US law, sexual affinity; they not only do a diservice to the group to which they have charged, they also do a diservice to themselves, as they distance themselves from the diversified strengths of the group they have labeled.

2. I have met many Catholics in my years who are also Republicans. I see no correlation between that segment of our populace and behavior as specifically bad or good. In other words, I believe your statistical sampling is poor. For more on the concept of statistical sampling, I would recommend coursework in Statistics when you enter college.

3. Want to make a lot of money in your career? Don't ever make comments like the one in your previous post. Even if this is your opinion, which you are entitled to, the most lucrative positions in business, politics and government are offered to those who pass very thorough background checks. High caliber employers do not want to employ candidates who openly make comments like yours because, if hired, and if you continue to make such comments, your employer can be sued. Your previous post, even years from now, can be easily found through web-search tools, and can prohibit you from exceptional opportunities. How do I know this? Because I'm the guy who hires people for those kinds of positions for a global corporation.

So, Yeti, chin up. Be careful what you write and say, and you can maximize your opportunities in life... and in turn support the human race.

[Gilles Goodman]

Iraq war: Republicans? Hmmm. Seems to me that more than a few Democrats voted for the war. Daschle, Harkin, Clinton....any of these folks ring a bell. They weren't innocent people duped into backing Bush. If you think that's true, you have a very low opinion of them.


Just so you know, you've just repeated a Republican talking point.

The AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) was sold to Congress by the Bush Administration as a bargaining chip. The Bush Admin said that they could not effectively negotiate with Saddam if Saddam thought that their threats had no teeth. Remember, Saddam was fully aware that the U.S. could not invade without Congress approving it. So, Bush claimed that if he had the AUMF, it would allow him to bargain with Saddam from a position of power.

No one in congress, not even the Republicans, were under the impression they were signing a declaration of war (it wasn't, by the way).

[moorewr]

Seems to me that more than a few Democrats voted for the war. Daschle, Harkin, Clinton....any of these folks ring a bell.

Absolutely they did - I was leaving aside all discussion of the merits of the war and the enabling act. I think everybody knows where everybody stands on Iraq by now. Dear God!

Right or wrong both parties in Congress voted together to give Bush the power to invade Iraq in 2002.. Very few prominent Democrats opposed this - Feingold, Kucinich.. (Obama opposed it but he was just a Chicago city pol back then).

My point was just about the political events in the '02 elections.. Those same dems were repaid by ferocious attacks on their patriotism - remember Max Clelland in GA? Triple amputee, Vietnam vet.. he was attacked as unpatriotic. I don't think this country was ready for politics as usual - but that's what we got. That's why I called it the "original Sin" when it comes to 9/11.

I hear you about Bush v. conservatives or Republicans. I am always at pains to explain to people that Liberal doesn't mean I think we should withdraw from Iraq now that we are there, that the Left is no more monolithic than the right. And that Obama is not one of ours (us being the Left) at all.

[Ringos]

Seno, the BEST thing about your posts is imagining your voice in my head while reading them. :)

...and as far as the Bush thing goes, I'd love to chat with you sometime and get your thoughts. In many cases, discussing things will expand people's knowledge and open minds.

Bush: Liberals and Democrats hate him, Conservatives don't like him. This Administration makes the best case yet for getting away from the two-party system and having a SLIGHT possiblity of elcting someone decent. At least he ain't Jimmy Carter. That's about all I can say...

[Ringos]

Just so you know, you've just repeated a Republican talking point.

The AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) was sold to Congress by the Bush Administration as a bargaining chip. The Bush Admin said that they could not effectively negotiate with Saddam if Saddam thought that their threats had no teeth. Remember, Saddam was fully aware that the U.S. could not invade without Congress approving it. So, Bush claimed that if he had the AUMF, it would allow him to bargain with Saddam from a position of power.

No one in congress, not even the Republicans, were under the impression they were signing a declaration of war (it wasn't, by the way).

Yeah...and? It seems to me that you are saying they were duped. I predicted this.

[Ringos]

Absolutely they did - I was leaving aside all discussion of the merits of the war and the enabling act. I think everybody knows where everybody stands on Iraq by now. Dear God!

Right or wrong both parties in Congress voted together to give Bush the power to invade Iraq in 2002.. Very few prominent Democrats opposed this - Feingold, Kucinich.. (Obama opposed it but he was just a Chicago city pol back then).

My point was just about the political events in the '02 elections.. Those same dems were repaid by ferocious attacks on their patriotism - remember Max Clelland in GA? Triple amputee, Vietnam vet.. he was attacked as unpatriotic. I don't think this country was ready for politics as usual - but that's what we got. That's why I called it the "original Sin" when it comes to 9/11.

I hear you about Bush v. conservatives or Republicans. I am always at pains to explain to people that Liberal doesn't mean I think we should withdraw from Iraq now that we are there, that the Left is no more monolithic than the right. And that Obama is not one of ours (us being the Left) at all.

Yeah, labels are funny in politics. It also blows that we have a choice of two people, and for the most part neither one has ideas that jive with most folks.

Nothing in politics seems to be off limits, and both sides sling the sheet. I would be remissed if I didn't point out that being a Vet and amputee doesn't necessarily mean that one is patriotic, just as being someone who has never served that still has all his/her limbs doesn't mean you aren't. :)

[Shyv]

Just so you know, you've just repeated a Republican talking point.

The AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) was sold to Congress by the Bush Administration as a bargaining chip. The Bush Admin said that they could not effectively negotiate with Saddam if Saddam thought that their threats had no teeth. Remember, Saddam was fully aware that the U.S. could not invade without Congress approving it. So, Bush claimed that if he had the AUMF, it would allow him to bargain with Saddam from a position of power.

No one in congress, not even the Republicans, were under the impression they were signing a declaration of war (it wasn't, by the way).

So which was it? The greatest dupe of all time or the act of a clueless congress?

Seems to me they knew what they were signing. Well that or they didn't bother to read what they were signing.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

It's very easy after the fact, once a war has become unpopular to say "I didn't know what was going to happen." and absolve yourself of guilt with your voting constituants. I guess it's better to be clueless than guilty of once supporting an unpopular president. Self-preservation at it's best.

[moorewr]

I'd like to use the parliamentary proportional system in the House and keep winner-take-all in the Senate.. and have the house elect the head of government.. and have the electoral college elect a head of state who is a ceremonial figure. But I can't see our current political system reforming itself.

So which was it? The greatest dupe of all time or the act of a clueless congress?

Seems to me they knew what they were signing. Well that or they didn't bother to read what they were signing.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

It's very easy after the fact once a war has become unpopular to say "I didn't know what was going to happen." And obsolve yourself of guilt with your voting constituants. I guess it's better to be clueless than guilty of once supporting an unpopular president. Self-preservation at it's best.

Oh hell yeah. They should have known. They might have told themselves otherwise, but they knew.

I certainly knew what it meant, and I was just sitting on my ass watching C-SPAN. :)

[Gilles Goodman]

So which was it? The greatest dupe of all time or the act of a clueless congress?


Again, a repetition of a Republican talking point.

They were clearly told, time and time again, by the Administration that the authorization had to have teeth (i.e. be actionable), yet they were promised that Bush did not intend action, but instead, intended to use it as a negotiating tool, and action would be a last resort.

I find it disturbing that so many people can simply forget history, especially such well documented, recent history, in favor of talking points put forth by the people that wanted the war since before Bush was even elected.

[Shyv]

in favor of talking points put forth by the people that wanted the war since before Bush was even elected.

Well now that we've put on the tin-foil conspiracy hat I'll excuse myself from the conversation.

[Ringos]

Again, a repetition of a Republican talking point.

They were clearly told, time and time again, by the Administration that the authorization had to have teeth (i.e. be actionable), yet they were promised that Bush did not intend action, but instead, intended to use it as a negotiating tool, and action would be a last resort.

I find it disturbing that so many people can simply forget history, especially such well documented, recent history, in favor of talking points put forth by the people that wanted the war since before Bush was even elected.

You keep stating that it's 'a republican talking point' like it negates what a couple of us are saying. It doesn't. They were either on-board or duped. They were 'wrong' or pawned like total political noobs. One or the other. Talking point or not.


BTW...folks talking about Bush and the Iraq war: That's just an Ol' Democratic talking point. It must not carry any validity according to Giles' logic.

[Magikan]

Though I also said in a larger situation like WW2 with the bombing of Hiroshima it saved lives because the Japanese would never back down.

Yeti

I suggest you check your history before making statements not based in fact.

Really, it was also too late to use it against Japan, too. Already the Japanese were looking for terms of surrender, but these approaches for peace from Japan, not made public, even to members of the Manhattan Project, were ignored. The U.S. wanted no terms, no conditions; not even the safety of the Emperor could be guaranteed (although that request was granted, after the two atom bombs were dropped). Japan had to surrender immediately and unconditionally - the U.S. knowing full well that Japan could never go for that.

lifted from http://www.greenwych.ca/hiro2bmb.htm

It should also be noted that using slurs to prove a point just undermines your own argument.

Magikan

[Murnk]

What I find disturbing is that 126 of the 208 democrats voted no. Based on your logic, the 126 should have voted yes, because it was just a bartering chip afterall.

Wait! Did the 126 see something that the no one else saw and kept it quiet? That's probably what it was... No one in the entire process stood up and said 'Well, you know they might go to war if we sign this.".

Mystery solved.

Murnk/Rinket

[Sargoth]

Ok, here is my interjection in this.

Sadam was a genocidal murderer and his sons were sadistic psycopaths. The government they had in place was tailor made to perform these actions at will.

What part of removing these people is a bad thing?

Do i like the shady actions of the current administration? NO
Do I think the Iraq government needed to be removed? Yes, many many years ago.

Ever notice how everyone screams about Iraq, but noone seems to mind that we are still fighting in Afganistan as well and the southern part of that country is still a warzone ruled by taliban and drug czars?

[Coldin]

I made a separate board for Political discussion. I've been considering doing it for a while now, but decided it would be pointless if no one was actually discussing anything related to it.

So anyway, now there's this whole forum here. Same rules that apply to the House T forums still apply here, so I still expect everyone to play nice. If things take a turn for the worse, I will pull this thread over and dole out punishment. So you can argue, but argue intelligent and with respect for your fellows.

[Murnk]

[QUOTE=Yeti;9575]....(nothing against republicans but the people here are all white catholic republicans who are rich and just bad people. QUOTE]


Folks,

I believe we can all agree that this is a very hot topic. We have many members of HouseT from all walks of life, from different nations, different ages and different qualifications.

I have strong opinions about how the GOP has used 9/11 as a tool for leveraging their politicians into office when they are truly not qualified, but I won't detail them here, because forums are a poor mechanism for debate. If anyone would like to discuss this issue, look for me online, and I'll gladly sacrifice my online adventure time to group with you and discuss the inadequacies of the Bush43 administration, and it's strong parallels to dark times in human history.

However, what needs to be addressed, directly, is Yeti's comment about White Catholic Republicans. I am not Catholic nor Republican, but I take very strong offense to stereotyping groups based on religion or political affiliation. Based on Yeti's post, I can tell he is very young, and I invite him to consider three important philosophical points.

1. Diversity is our strength as the human race. Because we are not all of one religion, one political party nor of one skin color, we are better able to respond and overcome the challenges of conflict, disease, economics and ensure the support of the development of our children. When anyone identifies or stereotypes a group identified with any of the five key protected affiliations; race, reglion, ethnicity, gender or age...and a sixth not currently protected under US law, sexual affinity; they not only do a diservice to the group to which they have charged, they also do a diservice to themselves, as they distance themselves from the diversified strengths of the group they have labeled.

2. I have met many Catholics in my years who are also Republicans. I see no correlation between that segment of our populace and behavior as specifically bad or good. In other words, I believe your statistical sampling is poor. For more on the concept of statistical sampling, I would recommend coursework in Statistics when you enter college.

3. Want to make a lot of money in your career? Don't ever make comments like the one in your previous post. Even if this is your opinion, which you are entitled to, the most lucrative positions in business, politics and government are offered to those who pass very thorough background checks. High caliber employers do not want to employ candidates who openly make comments like yours because, if hired, and if you continue to make such comments, your employer can be sued. Your previous post, even years from now, can be easily found through web-search tools, and can prohibit you from exceptional opportunities. How do I know this? Because I'm the guy who hires people for those kinds of positions for a global corporation.

So, Yeti, chin up. Be careful what you write and say, and you can maximize your opportunities in life... and in turn support the human race.

Not that it can't be traced back to him, but I think 95% of the time he'll be ok. Just don't put Yeti on his job application.

[Shyv]

Not that it can't be traced back to him, but I think 95% of the time he'll be ok. Just don't put Yeti on his job application.

And here I thought putting "I am Shyv" on my resume was a selling point. :D

[Gilles Goodman]

What I find disturbing is that 126 of the 208 democrats voted no. Based on your logic, the 126 should have voted yes, because it was just a bartering chip afterall.

You've just validated my point.

Look, you, as a private citizen, got to look at the AUMF, read it, and interpret it. I do not think your interpretation is wrong, and I'm not saying its wrong. You guys are right - it authorizes military force against Iraq. Period. I'm not arguing that.

What you guys don't know, and could not know, is how the Bush Admin negotiated with everyone (Dems and Republicans) about how he would use it. He promised that force was a last resort (there are videos on youtube to prove this, I can find them if you don't believe me, but this is historical fact.)

What it boiled down to was either trusting/believing Bush, or not trusting/believing him. Many Democrats, as EVERYONE knows, are very centrist (some are even conservative) and had it within them to trust Bush. So, they voted yes. Even some of the more liberal Dems decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, and voted yes. If you want to call them "duped and stupid", that's your choice, but that would be the Republican talking point I referred to. They were not stupid, they understood what the AUMF said and what it empowered Bush to do, and they opposed it, but were convinced that Bush's viewpoint (the need to have teeth to negotiate) was important, so they acquiesced and voted yes.

Many of them have told this story countless times to the media and how they regret that vote and wish they voted no, but alas, they don't have time machines.

To paint them all with a broad Republican brush and say "they either were for war or just stupid" is ignoring the reality of the situation.

[Shyv]

Many of them have told this story countless times to the media and how they regret that vote and wish they voted no, but alas, they don't have time machines.

Once the war became unpopular with their voting constituants they told their story to the media because it's what they needed to do to keep their jobs come election time. Politicians (both left and right) are the most self-serving, self-preserving group of people in the history of the world. Anything they say after the fact needs to be looked at in those terms and taken with a grain of salt.

[Murnk]

This is interesting. You try to defuse my point by saying "What you guys don't know, and could not know". You however do know. I guess we lose the argument becuase we don't have the same access to certain media as you do. Oh how do you do it.

The DOD, CIA, NSA uses youtube a lot, it's fact. I know it, but you couldn't. It's impossible for you to know that.

Murnk/Rinket

[moorewr]

Once the war became unpopular with their voting constituants they told their story to the media because it's what they needed to do to keep their jobs come election time. Politicians (both left and right) are the most self-serving, self-preserving group of people in the history of the world. Anything they say after the fact needs to be looked at in those terms and taken with a grain of salt.

QFT. That's why anyone who voted yes under those circumstances is tarnished in my book - be that Kerry, Clinton, whoever. If you weren't right when it was unpopular why should care that you're right now (for right now)?

(Also I'd venture that vote alone was enough to cost Clinton the nomination this year..)

[Doctorwhofan]

I was RECRUITING FOR THE NAVY that day. My family has served this country, every generation giving up someone to the military, since the Revolutionary war.

When that happened, I spent the day calming and reassuring recruits while being terrified myself. But life moved on. The US was hurt and today, it was barely acknowledged. And I live in a place where dates of conflict are fondly remembered. To forget such actions, good or bad, are asking to have them repeated. Quite frankly, I'd rather not go through such senseless actions for the third time, but I am afraid we will.

Let's make it clear where I stand: I don't have a stance. I cannot, even when I am out of the military. I believe that right to an opinion and to speak out about it is one fo the most important things America has. I have been to countries where you are arrested for saying that the leader has an ugly tie.

Saying that, as we say alot when I was in: I will die for your right to protest against me.

Politics are ugly, but who ever is voted into office, that is the boss. If it goes badly, we can only blame ourselves, even the ones who didn't vote for him. 11 years in the Navy taught me that I can shake President Clinton's hand in '98 and say nice things and smile.

My stance on any politics: I don't trust ANY politician who hasn't served, if they can. How can they presume to speak for me, if they are nothing like me? Also, they need to know how to talk to other countries, have a logical domestic policy, and a plan to lower the debt.

For the record: I didn't vote Democrat, Republican, or Independant in any of the last 4 elections. None had the criteria that should be in office, and who I voted for is my business, not yours.

And sorry, whatever you feel, you are my friends. I don't care about politics enough to ruin my gaming experiance with it, because, quite frankly, none of them are worth it.

And yes, I voted.

[Ringos]

You've just validated my point.

Look, you, as a private citizen, got to look at the AUMF, read it, and interpret it. I do not think your interpretation is wrong, and I'm not saying its wrong. You guys are right - it authorizes military force against Iraq. Period. I'm not arguing that.

What you guys don't know, and could not know, is how the Bush Admin negotiated with everyone (Dems and Republicans) about how he would use it. He promised that force was a last resort (there are videos on youtube to prove this, I can find them if you don't believe me, but this is historical fact.)

What it boiled down to was either trusting/believing Bush, or not trusting/believing him. Many Democrats, as EVERYONE knows, are very centrist (some are even conservative) and had it within them to trust Bush. So, they voted yes. Even some of the more liberal Dems decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, and voted yes. If you want to call them "duped and stupid", that's your choice, but that would be the Republican talking point I referred to. They were not stupid, they understood what the AUMF said and what it empowered Bush to do, and they opposed it, but were convinced that Bush's viewpoint (the need to have teeth to negotiate) was important, so they acquiesced and voted yes.

Many of them have told this story countless times to the media and how they regret that vote and wish they voted no, but alas, they don't have time machines.

To paint them all with a broad Republican brush and say "they either were for war or just stupid" is ignoring the reality of the situation.

Riiiight....no need to be accountable for your actions/voting record. Just say that Bush lied to you and all is forgiven. Geesh.

'But I only voted for it because Bush said it would be the last resort, I SWEAR! We were duped!'

[Gilles Goodman]

I don't trust ANY politician who hasn't served, if they can. How can they presume to speak for me, if they are nothing like me?

Re-read that statement to yourself, and see if it makes sense the second time around.

I mean, really think it through.

[Gilles Goodman]

Riiiight....no need to be accountable for your actions/voting record. Just say that Bush lied to you and all is forgiven. Geesh.

'But I only voted for it because Bush said it would be the last resort, I SWEAR! We were duped!'

Ahh, sorry, I didn't realize you were a Dittohead. My bad. I'll stop trying to have an intelligent conversation with you now. Please feel free to vote Republican and screw yourself in the process, as usual.

[Doctorwhofan]

Re-read that statement to yourself, and see if it makes sense the second time around.

I mean, really think it through.

It does. Sorry it does. There are exceptions to any rule, and I am flexible enough to see past that, but at the end, I have more respect for those who do than those who did not.

That is my stance. Agree with me or disagree it doesnt matter. I respect you and your rights.

[Ringos]

Ahh, sorry, I didn't realize you were a Dittohead. My bad. I'll stop trying to have an intelligent conversation with you now. Please feel free to vote Republican and screw yourself in the process, as usual.

You didn't know I was a Dittohead? The Reagan avatar didn't give it away?

All of your attempts at intelligent conversation up to this point have failed, feel free to stop at any time.

I'd vote for Ron Paul, but it wouldn't matter. Guess I will vote for a Republican, although don't quite know how that's gonna 'screw me in the process'.

[Shyv]

Please feel free to vote Republican and screw yourself in the process, as usual.

Stop by Michigan and see how happy everyone that voted for a Democrat as Governor is and you'll see a true example of a group of people screwing themselves as usual.

[Doctorwhofan]

Re-read that statement to yourself, and see if it makes sense the second time around.

I mean, really think it through.

You also didn't READ what I wrote underneath. I vote for those who deserve it, I think will run this country, regardless of political back ground. I have criteria, and if they meet the most out of any canadidate, that is who I vote for. Voting party only is walking around with blinders on. Voting the way you believe to run the town on up to the country if far more important voting because he wears an donkey or a elephant badge.

Stop by Michigan and see how happy everyone that voted for a Democrat as Governor is and you'll see a true example of a group of people screwing themselves as usual.


I'm from Michigan, and I vote there. While I am not sure the Republicans would have done a better job, the democrats royally screwed up. I think it will have an impact on the election.

[Shamguard]

Ahh, sorry, I didn't realize you were a Dittohead. My bad. I'll stop trying to have an intelligent conversation with you now. Please feel free to vote Republican and screw yourself in the process, as usual.

Belive me no matter which party you vote for, and yes we vote for political parties not people these day, you are screwing yourself. The best we can do is make sure that different party from the president controls congress. At least then we don't get the rubber stamp politics we got in the mid 90's when the Dems controlled the whole thing, or the 03-04 mess we had when the Republicans controlled it all.

The bigest problem we have in Washington today is that we have a goverment that is more interested in doing what's popular and not what's right. Then you add to this the fact that many of the issues that they have to deal with have long term solutions that may have short term pain. When you are try to get re-elected every 2, 4, or 6yrs your not interested in a 10-20yr plan to help energy issuse. You want something that will get the gas prices lower today so you can get re-elected. Even if it'll just make the problem worse in the long run.


...

...

[Gilles Goodman]

I'd vote for Ron Paul, but it wouldn't matter. Guess I will vote for a Republican, although don't quite know how that's gonna 'screw me in the process'.

Well, your taxes will be higher under McCain than Obama (unless you make over $603k/year, but I doubt that). We'll be in more wars of aggression, instead of less. The economy will keep doing down, instead of going back up. We'll have less healthcare instead of more. Energy prices will get higher instead of getting lower. We'll lose more jobs to other countries instead of gaining jobs.

Oh, but wait! We'll ban gay marriage and abortions, so, that makes all those other things irrelevant...
:rolleyes:

[Sargoth]

My stance on any politics: I don't trust ANY politician who hasn't served, if they can. How can they presume to speak for me, if they are nothing like me?

I and my family are also in this boat. If you are going to be the Supreme Commander of the US military, I personally believe you should have worn the uniform.

[Gilles Goodman]

Believe me no matter which party you vote for, and yes we vote for political parties not people these day, you are screwing yourself. The best we can do is make sure that different party from the president controls congress. At least then we don't get the rubber stamp politics we got in the mid 90's when the Dems controlled the whole thing, or the 03-04 mess we had when the Republicans controlled it all.

You mean these 90's ?

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c53/RPGamerd00d/Politics/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

Yeah, that would suck! Dems and Repubs are clearly the same in that pic....
:rolleyes:

[Sargoth]

Now, explain how they achieved that surplus.

[moorewr]

I look at the military service question two ways:

The framers of the Constitution had plenty of opportunities to require military service for citizenship, voting or public office, and they did not choose to require it. They existed in an era where mass conscription was unthinkable, so who knows what would have come from a Constitutional Convention in, say, 1867, but there it is. I think they were wise - these soldiers, lawyers, and planters, in this respect.

(addendum:)
The Framers also intended for the President to have far less leeway to send the armed forces into battle - they never conceived of a permanent military presence abroad, nor did they envision congress abdicating its war-making powers. In retrospect too much power was placed in the hands of the President... which combined with the greatly enlarged influence of the military industrial complex creates risks to our system down the line.

Now, politicians who came of age during conscription (IE, after 1940 and before the all volunteer force) who found ways to avoid their service? This I do hold against them, especially if they supported the conflict they evaded.

[moorewr]

Now, explain how they achieved that surplus.

one part reasonable bipartisan tax reform, two parts tech bubble.

[Gilles Goodman]

I and my family are also in this boat. If you are going to be the Supreme Commander of the US military, I personally believe you should have worn the uniform.

Worst President in History: George W Bush (military experience)
Best President in History: Abraham Lincoln (no military experience)

Kinda shoots your whole "qualified=military experience" argument.
:D

[Doctorwhofan]

I and my family are also in this boat. If you are going to be the Supreme Commander of the US military, I personally believe you should have worn the uniform.

And for the record: JFK was democrat.

And George W. "service" didn't count.

But Daddy BUsh does. They a plane at the Naval Aviation Museum that when they were looking at the books when they aquired it they noticed the Daddy Bush flew it several times.


As for the Gay marriage and abortion issues: SOrry, nothing to do with running a country and a military. Eviroment however IS an issue.

For the record, I am a gun toting, patriotic, tree hugger. I REALLY have to think outside the box at the ballot.

[Doctorwhofan]

Worst President in History: George W Bush (military experience)
Best President in History: Abraham Lincoln (no military experience)

Kinda shoots your whole "qualified=military experience" argument.
:D



No, that's you opinion. Mine is good ol' Teddy, who served as a volunteer soldier in the Spanish American, and was Sec. of the Navy.

Lincoln was a good president.

So was Washington.

Take down the Blinders AND read what I said, please.

[Sargoth]

I didn't say it should be required to hold office, vote, or have citizenship. I said if you are to be Commander in Chief you should be fully aware of what it means to wear a uniform and serve. If it is peacetime or war, the President should be aware of exactly who he is sending into harms way when the situation arrises. The military also tends to hold certain values sacred...such as the Navy's Honor, Courage, Commitment....these foundations I look to be fundamental in someone who is trying to lead a nation. When I say military service, I don't look for Bush's Air national guard time...I look for true military experience. Yes, I will probably end up voting for our Republican canidate, but only because I find him to be the lesser of two evils. IMO Obama doesn't have enough time under his belt to lead us. It seams in the last two elections...I haven't been voting for anyone...I have been voting against the other canidate.

[moorewr]

Nobody can argue that Buchanan wasn't the worst president.. I mean, look: half the country seceded and it was the half he was from. How do you top that?

[Sargoth]

Worst President in History: George W Bush (military experience)
Best President in History: Abraham Lincoln (no military experience)

Kinda shoots your whole "qualified=military experience" argument.
:D

Pure opinion

[Gilles Goodman]

No, that's you opinion.

Incorrect. That is everyone's opinion.

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

Check the poll numbers in the chart half way down.

Lincoln trades off the #1 and #2 spots consistently, while Washington dips into 3rd and 4th place.

And everyone knows Bush is the worst president, but his term isn't up yet, so his rank is artificially high.

[Shamguard]

You mean these 90's ?

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c53/RPGamerd00d/Politics/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

Yeah, that would suck! Dems and Repubs are clearly the same in that pic....
:rolleyes:

If you remember, that budget surplus happened after a Republican Congress was elected on a fiscal responsibility platform and forced Bill Clinton to spend less money.
Just to prove my point though those same Republicans once they got a president that would rubber stamp what ever they wanted. Started spending money like drunken sailors on leave in San Diego.

Oh could you do something for me get the deficit numbers for 1994 & 1995.


...

[Sargoth]

Give me Teddy R. or Thomas J. any day over Abe. Hell, my personal favorite is Teddy R. with Andrew Jackson coming right behind.

[Shyv]

Incorrect. That is everyone's opinion.

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

Check the poll numbers in the chart half way down.


In each of those polls only roughly 1000 people were surveyed. Hardly "everyones opinion."

[Gilles Goodman]

Give me Teddy R. or Thomas J. any day over Abe. Hell, my personal favorite is Teddy R. with Andrew Jackson coming right behind.

That's nice, but I quoted actual poll numbers from multiple sources over multiple years. The above is just your opinion. At least my claim is based on consensus.

[moorewr]

everyone.. wikipedia.. :confused:




If you remember, that budget surplus happened after a Republican Congress was elected on a fiscal responsibility platform and forced Bill Clinton to spend less money.
Just to prove my point though those same Republicans once they got a president that would rubber stamp what ever they wanted. Started spending money like drunken sailors on leave in San Diego.

Oh could you do something for me get the deficit numbers for 1994 & 1995.


...

The reasons for the surplus were the tax increases and reforms pass by the congress in 1992 & 1993 under GHW Bush and Clinton.. you'll recall Gore casting the tie-breaker to pass the second tax deal.. followed by all the tax revenues from the tech stock bubble. Without them the government would have been running about even.. and in fact without the Iraq War AND without the tax cuts passed in 2001 we'd have run close to even except during the post 9/11 recession.

Congressional discretionary spending has been on a steady upward climb since 1982.

[Gilles Goodman]

In each of those polls only roughly 1000 people were surveyed. Hardly "everyones opinion."

And your quote was a poll of 1 - yourself.
I'll take the professionally conducted 1000 person polls over one person's opinion, thanks.

[Gilles Goodman]

everyone.. wikipedia.. :confused:

Classic. You lose the argument, so you attack the source.
Read the data on the page and where it comes from. Hint: its not Wikipedia.

[Shamguard]

Incorrect. That is everyone's opinion.

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

Check the poll numbers in the chart half way down.

Lincoln trades off the #1 and #2 spots consistently, while Washington dips into 3rd and 4th place.

And everyone knows Bush is the worst president, but his term isn't up yet, so his rank is artificially high.

Yes this from an American public that thinks Hamilton and Franklin were president just because they are on our money.

The average American couldn’t name more than ten presidents if you offered them a $1M to do it. Sorry popularity polls do not make someone the best president.

Oh, FYI Lincoln wasn't that popular when he was president either. He almost wasn't re-elected. He's only popular today because he was shot.
It’s funny how much more popular a president becomes if he's shot in office.


...

[Shyv]

And your quote was a poll of 1 - yourself.
I'll take the professionally conducted 1000 person polls over one person's opinion, thanks.

Including your own apparently. In each of the polls you hold as sacred in regards to who the best president is, roughly 1000 people were surveyed in each, some more some less and all from different years. 1000 people is a small sample size to base your own opinion. Though I don't actualy think that that is your opinion on who's the best, simply a way to try to state someones else's opinion as being wrong.

And as a side note, your prediction of doom if McCain is president is very close to what Michigan is already going through, under a democratic run state.

[moorewr]

Gilles - protip: figure out which side of an argument someone is on before you say they lost. It might help to glance at my avatar and read back up-thread where I jumped all over someone who wanted your OP deleted.

While I'm dispensing free advice: if you simply want to make people angry, you are doing great. If you actually wish to persuade and convince - well - your approach is not working, because the first step in persuading an audience is to gain their empathy - the mind is then more receptive to unpleasant and dissonant information.

But on with your bad self. I'd be proud to defend the right of any American to troll whenever the foreigners invade our forums. Stand tall, countrymen, and flame!

[Ringos]

Well, your taxes will be higher under McCain than Obama (unless you make over $603k/year, but I doubt that). We'll be in more wars of aggression, instead of less. The economy will keep doing down, instead of going back up. We'll have less healthcare instead of more. Energy prices will get higher instead of getting lower. We'll lose more jobs to other countries instead of gaining jobs.

Oh, but wait! We'll ban gay marriage and abortions, so, that makes all those other things irrelevant...
:rolleyes:

You can see the future. You must be Miss Cleo or something. BTW...how would McCain get things pushed through a Democrat-controlled House? Would he lie like Bush to get his way? Would the Dems cry foul after they get duped again? Who makes the laws in this country anyway?

As far as your chart goes, it yet again proves that you know how to use Google to dig up some liberal spin. You can make numbers and charts show about anything you want. I would love to know how it came to be that the President of the US has total power over the economy. Nobody has ever explained that to me, so i hope you will.

You sound like someone who has been brainwashed by the liberal media, spewing out those 'talking points' you disdain from Republicans. Blame, blame blame. Someone else's fault. Point the finger. Business as usual.

[Ringos]

Gilles - protip: figure out which side of an argument someone is on before you say they lost. It might help to glance at my avatar and read back up-thread where I jumped all over someone who wanted your OP deleted.

While I'm dispensing free advice: if you simply want to make people angry, you are doing great. If you actually wish to persuade and convince - well - your approach is not working, because the first step in persuading an audience is to gain their empathy - the mind is then more receptive to unpleasant and dissonant information.

But on with your bad self. I'd be proud to defend the right of any American to troll whenever the foreigners invade our forums. Stand tall, countrymen, and flame!

Yeah, leave me alone now man! :)

[Yeti]

Well unless for some reason I don't change my email or put my name on the app. I doubt it will matter anyways...to those about the "catholic" thing, I am catholic(and jewish) though I am now an atheist, anyways, it was just a description, I was more pointing to the whole white and rich part. Also Sar the people who are fighting choose to fight, they knew they could die any day or any time, the civillians should be able to keep their lives.

[Doctorwhofan]

But on with your bad self. I'd be proud to defend the right of any American to troll whenever the foreigners invade our forums. Stand tall, countrymen, and flame!

/salute


I proudly die for your right to protest me.


Polls are opinions. If 1000 people said it was cool to leap over a cliff to certian doom, would you?

For my Opinion: Lincoln was a very good president, JFK, FDR, Teddy, Jefferson and Washington. I see Giles you did not say anything to Washington, who did serve BEFORE we were a country. Without him we wouldn't be a country.

There are EXCEPTIONS TO EVERY RULE, even my own. The Trick is to be flexible in your own thinking to see that you can be wrong sometimes.

I can, can you?

[Eldamir]

If you remember, that budget surplus happened after a Republican Congress was elected on a fiscal responsibility platform and forced Bill Clinton to spend less money.
Just to prove my point though those same Republicans once they got a president that would rubber stamp what ever they wanted. Started spending money like drunken sailors on leave in San Diego.

Oh could you do something for me get the deficit numbers for 1994 & 1995.


...

Hey! you leave the drunken sailors in San Diego out of this!!

Back on topic.. I read somewhere a few years back that it takes 6-8 years for a presidents economic reform to 'show up on the books'.. Using that timeline, it was Reaganomics that were primarily responsible for the upturn in the economy under our old friend Mr. Clinton.
If I didn't have a headache and wasn't supposed to be actually working this afternoon, I might actually go try to find that article again..

[Sargoth]

You're correct. It is my opinion. However my opinion is what I am concerned with the most...after all, it is my vote.

You are also missing my point Yeti, as a battlefield commander, I wouldn't hesitate in the slightest to use a bombardment if it saved my soldier's lives. If a war is going on, and the civilians are staying in the combat zone near a military target, then they accept the risk of their actions.

[Shamguard]

Well, your taxes will be higher under McCain than Obama (unless you make over $603k/year, but I doubt that). We'll be in more wars of aggression, instead of less. The economy will keep doing down, instead of going back up. We'll have less healthcare instead of more. Energy prices will get higher instead of getting lower. We'll lose more jobs to other countries instead of gaining jobs.

Oh, but wait! We'll ban gay marriage and abortions, so, that makes all those other things irrelevant...
:rolleyes:

Here's my prediction for the election.

It doesn't matter who wins, our taxes will go up. Unless the rest of the world suddenly decides to just become pacifist, we will be involved in more wars. The economy will go down and back up. Everything healthcare, energy, food, etcetera will cost more. People will lose jobs and there will be new jobs. In other words life will continue just like it has for the last six thousand plus years.

...

[Ringos]

Well unless for some reason I don't change my email or put my name on the app. I doubt it will matter anyways...to those about the "catholic" thing, I am catholic(and jewish) though I am now an atheist, anyways, it was just a description, I was more pointing to the whole white and rich part. Also Sar the people who are fighting choose to fight, they knew they could die any day or any time, the civillians should be able to keep their lives.

I know you are young, but please...

You are a Catholic, Jewish AND and Atheist? Do you see anything odd about this statement?

Rich whites? I blame the poor blacks. That's about as logical.

[Ringos]

Here's my prediction for the election.

It doesn't matter who wins, our taxes will go up. Unless the rest of the world suddenly decides to just become pacifist, we will be involved in more wars. The economy will go down and back up. Everything healthcare, energy, food, etcetera will cost more. People will lose jobs and there will be new jobs. In other words life will continue just like it has for the last six thousand plus years.

...

Yep.

[Murnk]

I am still waiting for an explanation of how Gilles knows more than anyone who objects to his opinion. After all, it's impossible for us to know some of the things he knows.

Murnk/Rinket

[Shamguard]

Polls are opinions. If 1000 people said it was cool to leap over a cliff to certian doom, would you?

Not again.:p


...

[Shamguard]

And as a side note, your prediction of doom if McCain is president is very close to what Michigan is already going through, under a democratic run state.

and California is doing under a RINO governor and a Democrat run house.

...

[moorewr]

A flag pin oddity:
http://media.tumblr.com/OqCfT1elUdsqxhc7RREXAeWEo1_500.jpg

[Murnk]

http://media.nowpublic.net/images//5b/a/5badbd53f1185afb37692d9a0a8fc3eb.jpg

[Ringos]

How did I know that one would surface... :)

[Murnk]

I'm sure the defense to the picture is real, there are other pictures of presidents wearing various garb in their political careers. It doesnt change that is a funny picture!

Murnk/Rinket

[Jundak]

I've been a die-hard Republican for as long as I can remember. My family's military service can be traced back to the Revolutionary War on my father's side and back to the Civil War on my mother's. Every single generation has served this country, including my sister and myself.

Trying to make some sort of correlation between our current candidates and our leaders through history is just silly. The Presidents I look back to are the ones who were in office during my lifetime, so here's my opinion: Reagan was the greatest president during my lifetime...followed by Bill Clinton. I didn't vote for Clinton in either term, but (in my opiniion) he did a great job, overall.

With everything that has happened since 9/11, I've taken another look at my blind loyalty to the Republican party. Now, for the first time, I'm listening to what both sides are saying. As of now, my vote is penciled in for Obama...that may change depending on what my own research digs up on their respective agendas. I seriously doubt that I'll be voting for McCain, regardless.

I will always listen to opinions of others. But I don't let them sway me, especially if they get bent out of shape over their politics. I've read this thread in its entirety...and some of you need to cool your jets on projecting your outrage over this. Anger is not gonna help anyone at all on whichever side of the fence you're sitting...it's just going to get people stubbornly defensive.

My only advice to everyone is this: Listen to each side with an open mind, for once. Seriously...it's time to get rid of the red and blue thinking. It just doesn't work as well as we'd all like.

Nuff said from me on this subject

[Ringos]

Lol...Jundak, the voice of serenity and reason? Wow...next Bran will stop by and lead us all in a light-hearted jig! :)

I don't think all that many people are getting steamed because some have differing opinions. I get along with plenty of Lefties here. :) (Hey, I even voted for Clinton the first time!)

[Yeti]

I know you are young, but please...

You are a Catholic, Jewish AND and Atheist? Do you see anything odd about this statement?

Rich whites? I blame the poor blacks. That's about as logical.

Well I my dad is catholic and my mom is jewis, so I know how most of the religions go, also I meant now I am atheist....Also I am saying most rich white people have scewed(sp) views that only help them and not the rest of the world or their communities or the nation. Also Sar, he meant as in civilian nurses etc., but anyways, with bombing civillian buildings to kill a bunch of terrorists etc., would you really bomb it with the chance of civilians getting killed with them? When you have superior technology I would rather just send in ground troops, also, in the case of Iraq it would be hard to get out of the warzone because of a hard time getting over the border and getting past if you run into any rebels on the way.

[Yeti]

Well Jun good thing there :D. At the end of the day I don't care what their views on politics are, just because it has nothing ta do with gaming, but I would never vote for McCain even if I could or actually was in the electoral college(the only thing that matters :/) because of his old age, if he can't make the 4 years then Palin comes in play who is crazy, hasn't been out of the country at all(she just got a passport last year :|) and she is a hardcore christian and would probably touch things that shouldn't be touched...man that sounds wrong :rolleyes: and even though she can't control her daughter to a certain extent, it just makes you wonder when she is getting pregnant.

[Shamguard]

Unfortunatly for me I can't bring myself to vote for either one of these candidates. I may go to the polls to vote for my congressman and local stuff and just leave the president box blank this time.

The funny thing is in past ellection I either was voting for someone or at least voting against someone. In this election I can't bring myself to do either.

...

[Ringos]

Well I my dad is catholic and my mom is jewis, so I know how most of the religions go, also I meant now I am atheist....Also I am saying most rich white people have scewed(sp) views that only help them and not the rest of the world or their communities or the nation.

Religion isn't really passed down through the genes. Knowing 'how a religion goes' doesn't really mean you can mark it down on your stat sheet.

"Most rich white people have screwed up views" Actually, the majority of rich white folks are pretty decent people, or else the world would be pretty darn bad. I would imagine that the percentage of these people that you know is pretty small. I could argue that since the majority of people in prison make under $30,000 a year, almost everyone that makes under $30,000 a year are screwed-up bad people. Is that ridiculous? Yes. So are your views of 'white people throughout the world with money'.

[Ringos]

Well Jun good thing there :D. At the end of the day I don't care what their views on politics are, just because it has nothing ta do with gaming, but I would never vote for McCain even if I could or actually was in the electoral college(the only thing that matters :/) because of his old age, if he can't make the 4 years then Palin comes in play who is crazy, hasn't been out of the country at all(she just got a passport last year :|) and she is a hardcore christian and would probably touch things that shouldn't be touched...man that sounds wrong :rolleyes: and even though she can't control her daughter to a certain extent, it just makes you wonder when she is getting pregnant.

Wow. The old, the rich, whites, Catholics, women...the longer this thread goes the less chance there is that someone will get left out.

[Yeti]

Well Andy wanted me to say why I choose to become an atheist, it's pretty simple, with many things becoming discovered and such, religion is being destroyed by things like evolution and such I knew that it couldn't be true, at first I just believed well maybe god is there but there isn't a heaven or such(if you look around or have seen on the history channel a greek guy made hell yada yada...meaning heaven couldn't be real either...if it is in the clouds also then we would've seen something...). Also what is taught is wrong, saying jews killed Jesus and such. Sure it is a good way to teach morals and such, but it creates tensions between groups. Which is another reason why I don't like religion's ways. But going politically,obviously seen, people will only vote for those who are in their same religion, which is why you almost always only see whites and christians. But anyways, I think we should stay wayyyyy out of religion and anything with abortions and such.

[Yeti]

Wow. The old, the rich, whites, Catholics, women...the longer this thread goes the less chance there is that someone will get left out.

You are putting words in my mouth now, I said about McCain and Palin :|. Also, I said sc-u-d, not screwed, I am saying that most are in their only little worlds, look at rappers, celebrities in so on, what Lil Wayne could do with that million instead of spending it on his gold and diamonds he could be giving money to education and so on...Also I know those 2 religions because I have been taught about them, you don't know who I am, I went to hebrew school for 7years and my dad taught me a lot about catholic religion and I learned a lot from my friends, family and the History channel.

[Jundak]

Yeti...

Your religion/beliefs are your own, so don't bother trying to explain yourself to others. There's no need, dude. That's for a discussion in a completely (and as yet uncreated) thread. :)

So let me touch on a point or two in regards to the rest of your post:

/snip

but anyways, with bombing civillian buildings to kill a bunch of terrorists etc., would you really bomb it with the chance of civilians getting killed with them? When you have superior technology I would rather just send in ground troops, also, in the case of Iraq it would be hard to get out of the warzone because of a hard time getting over the border and getting past if you run into any rebels on the way.

Yes, I would bomb an area even if there were civilians held captive...If I had no other choice to deal with the threat of said terrorists. Terrorists don't give a damn about religion (it's something they hide behind to justify their evil), and they certainly don't give a damn about the lives of non-combatants. I hate to say this, but killing the civilians with bombs along with the terrorists will save more lives overall when the ground troops are sent in. We have a set of strict combat laws that (for the most part) we strive to obey. The terrorists and the Iraqi insurgents don't...they plan to kill en masse by any means necessary. The more terrorists we kill by blanket bombing, the better...collateral damage is saddening, but sometimes necessary.

We can all say we would never do such a thing...but then again, I'd wager vast amounts of money that 99% of House T has never been faced with a life or death decision involving innocents. Opinions a great...but an informed opinion is even better. :)

As for crossing the border...that's a helluva lot easier than you'd think. The entire length of the border isn't patrolled by rebels or Haters in general. hehe

[Yeti]

Yeti...

Your religion/beliefs are your own, so don't bother trying to explain yourself to others. There's no need, dude. That's for a discussion in a completely (and as yet uncreated) thread. :)

So let me touch on a point or two in regards to the rest of your post:



Yes, I would bomb an area even if there were civilians held captive...If I had no other choice to deal with the threat of said terrorists. Terrorists don't give a damn about religion (it's something they hide behind to justify their evil), and they certainly don't give a damn about the lives of non-combatants. I hate to say this, but killing the civilians with bombs along with the terrorists will save more lives overall when the ground troops are sent in. We have a set of strict combat laws that (for the most part) we strive to obey. The terrorists and the Iraqi insurgents don't...they plan to kill en masse by any means necessary. The more terrorists we kill by blanket bombing, the better...collateral damage is saddening, but sometimes necessary.

We can all say we would never do such a thing...but then again, I'd wager vast amounts of money that 99% of House T has never been faced with a life or death decision involving innocents. Opinions a great...but an informed opinion is even better. :)

As for crossing the border...that's a helluva lot easier than you'd think. The entire length of the border isn't patrolled by rebels or Haters in general. hehe

Well then, stupid on their part, though if they can't hitch a ride, sure would be a long walk :P. But I meant more as, they are hiding underground and next to them is a building with civilians but still I doubt that would change your answer, but as I said with the whole Hiroshima thing, if I could save more lives then take, I would do it, also I forgot to mention before, Magikan I knew about that, but they would most likely go in anyways, so I would choose the nuke over ground troops.

[Ringos]

Well Andy wanted me to say why I choose to become an atheist, it's pretty simple, with many things becoming discovered and such, religion is being destroyed by things like evolution and such I knew that it couldn't be true, at first I just believed well maybe god is there but there isn't a heaven or such(if you look around or have seen on the history channel a greek guy made hell yada yada...meaning heaven couldn't be real either...if it is in the clouds also then we would've seen something...). Also what is taught is wrong, saying jews killed Jesus and such. Sure it is a good way to teach morals and such, but it creates tensions between groups. Which is another reason why I don't like religion's ways. But going politically,obviously seen, people will only vote for those who are in their same religion, which is why you almost always only see whites and christians. But anyways, I think we should stay wayyyyy out of religion and anything with abortions and such.

Your post makes me sad for a few reasons.

BTW...you know the part where you said people only vote for others of the same religion? That is possibly the most bogus statement I've read yet on this thread.

What White Christian shit in your Wheaties man? It's a bit late to stay out of religion whe you kinda already threw it out there. :rolleyes:

Here is a bit of a news flash, for those that didn't know....'Whites' come from different backrounds and cultures. I know, I know, it's a bit of a shock at first, but it's true. We didn't all decend from folks that paddled over on the Mayflower. Not all of us have ancestors that owned slaves, in fact some whites actually have been slaves themselves. (Read a bit about the history of the Arabian region or the Irish immigrants in America for further information) It can also be said, with some basis in fact, that not all White people are American. In fact, they can be found in almost every country on the planet.

Do you see where deciding what a person is all about by the color of their skin can be a bit dangerous?

I would also caution those that rely on TV programs for 'facts' to do a bit more research if they are interested in a topic. I once saw an alien autopsy on TV. Imagine if I based my life on what I saw that night. :)

[Sargoth]

Yes Yeti, i would still drop a bunker buster on a hardened subterrainean target vs send my ground troops into a defensive structure where the entire facility is geared to repel invaders. In midevil times, it took a 20 to 1 attrition rate to siege and take a prepared castle. Something like a hardened underground bunker takes a considerably harsher rate. So yes, i would happily drop that bomb.

[Yeti]

Your post makes me sad for a few reasons.

BTW...you know the part where you said people only vote for others of the same religion? That is possibly the most bogus statement I've read yet on this thread.

What White Christian shit in your Wheaties man? It's a bit late to stay out of religion whe you kinda already threw it out there. :rolleyes:

Here is a bit of a news flash, for those that didn't know....'Whites' come from different backrounds and cultures. I know, I know, it's a bit of a shock at first, but it's true. We didn't all decend from folks that paddled over on the Mayflower. Not all of us have ancestors that owned slaves, in fact some whites actually have been slaves themselves. (Read a bit about the history of the Arabian region or the Irish immigrants in America for further information) It can also be said, with some basis in fact, that not all White people are American. In fact, they can be found in almost every country on the planet.

Do you see where deciding what a person is all about by the color of their skin can be a bit dangerous?

I would also caution those that rely on TV programs for 'facts' to do a bit more research if they are interested in a topic. I once saw an alien autopsy on TV. Imagine if I based my life on what I saw that night. :)

:| I don't mean everyone, I meant it is obvious to see that most people vote for those of the same religion, it's not like I am making an essay for a grade where I have to say everything just perfectly, your knit picking everything I am saying, also History channel is based off of science and fact or at least a well driven theory if it is something you wouldn't be able to know(things like the end of the world and such). It's not like i'm saying I got this info from a conspiracy website or South Park.

[Ringos]

You are putting words in my mouth now, I said about McCain and Palin :|. Also, I said sc-u-d, not screwed, I am saying that most are in their only little worlds, look at rappers, celebrities in so on, what Lil Wayne could do with that million instead of spending it on his gold and diamonds he could be giving money to education and so on...Also I know those 2 religions because I have been taught about them, you don't know who I am, I went to hebrew school for 7years and my dad taught me a lot about catholic religion and I learned a lot from my friends, family and the History channel.

No words were put in your mouth, I simply pointed out a few of the choice groups of people you decided to comment on. Since there are several you missed, i can help you out if you would like.

True, and I never claimed to know who you are. My point is, you can know about EVERY religion ever concieved by man, but it doesn't mean you ARE that religion. I'm fairly certain that it is impossible to actually be an Jewish Athiest Catholic.

I like me some History Channel, but I would never use that as the basis for many of my rants. Grab some books man! :)

[Yeti]

No words were put in your mouth, I simply pointed out a few of the choice groups of people you decided to comment on. Since there are several you missed, i can help you out if you would like.

True, and I never claimed to know who you are. My point is, you can know about EVERY religion ever concieved by man, but it doesn't mean you ARE that religion. I'm fairly certain that it is impossible to actually be an Jewish Athiest Catholic.

I like me some History Channel, but I would never use that as the basis for many of my rants. Grab some books man! :)

It's not a rant, it is my opinion, and you are putting words in my mouth, and I didn't talk about other people because they didn't have anything to do with what I was emphasizing at the time as much as those people. Also, I will say it again, I never said I was actually into the catholic religion and never said I am still Jewish. I am saying I know a lot about it because of my background and now I am an atheist because of information and science...

[Ringos]

:| I don't mean everyone, I meant it is obvious to see that most people vote for those of the same religion, it's not like I am making an essay for a grade where I have to say everything just perfectly, your knit picking everything I am saying, also History channel is based off of science and fact or at least a well driven theory if it is something you wouldn't be able to know(things like the end of the world and such). It's not like i'm saying I got this info from a conspiracy website or South Park.

"But going politically,obviously seen, people will only vote for those who are in their same religion, which is why you almost always only see whites and christians."

It may not be what you meant, but it's exactly what you said. It's not even close to true. It's not nitpicking at all, but when you are discussing topics such as these, it's important to show great care in the words you choose.

ALL TV, newspapers etc. are controlled by groups of people. Liberal, Conservative, folks in the center...doesn't matter. People have agendas, weather overt or hidden, subconsious or purposeful. There is a spin on almost everything you will come across. Taking everything at face value is not wise. Are there facts included? Yes, but it doesn't mean everything is a fact.


Sorry about the 'teacher' tone of the post btw. :)

[Ringos]

It's not a rant, it is my opinion, and you are putting words in my mouth, and I didn't talk about other people because they didn't have anything to do with what I was emphasizing at the time as much as those people. Also, I will say it again, I never said I was actually into the catholic religion and never said I am still Jewish. I am saying I know a lot about it because of my background and now I am an atheist because of information and science...

I use 'rant' meaning post, writing or something like that. i'm lazy and 'rant' is quick to type and it's hard to screw up the spelling! :)

[Yeti]

"But going politically,obviously seen, people will only vote for those who are in their same religion, which is why you almost always only see whites and christians."

It may not be what you meant, but it's exactly what you said. It's not even close to true. It's not nitpicking at all, but when you are discussing topics such as these, it's important to show great care in the words you choose.

ALL TV, newspapers etc. are controlled by groups of people. Liberal, Conservative, folks in the center...doesn't matter. People have agendas, weather overt or hidden, subconsious or purposeful. There is a spin on almost everything you will come across. Taking everything at face value is not wise. Are there facts included? Yes, but it doesn't mean everything is a fact.

Well i'm not the news, i'm not the TV, i'm still a teen learning from his mistakes and choosing his/her path, if I make a mistake it is not like someone who is wise and at an important position like a news corp. and such and such so that shouldn't matter, but for a laid back drama-less forum, it is knit picking.

[Lazarus]

This isn't exactly a coherent rant, you might want to judge each sentence separately. I'm not even gonna touch your local politics, it's none of my business and beyond my control. Many of the people labeled 'terrorists' or 'insurgents' are freedom fighters in their own eyes, some have been known to ask permission from locals before attacking the invaders. In the next few sentences I'm not saying Saddam was good, far from it, just stating the facts as I know them which could be wrong. Saddam himself for all his sins hated 'terrorists', and did what he could to prevent them, he and his regime were terrorist targets. Saddam killed many people, he ruled Iraq with an iron fist, but before the international wars he'd made Iraq into a first world country where everybody ate, and where women could walk safely in the street alone without full body garb (I understand that's rare in the middle east). Before he took power Iraq was in anarchy after the political group the English put into power failed to control the country. The Muslim group Saddam was part of were the minority in Iraq, 'terrorists' who fight in the name of religion are more often from the other larger more extremist sect, that's the sect that's been put into power. Iraq was attacked to raise petrol prices, which it managed quite well, no other excuse that I know of hasn't been debunked.

I won't touch the Afghanistan/Bin Laden/911 side of things. That's such a mess of conspiracy and fervour it would no doubt piss everyone off.

My Dad had a worker who was an Iraqi Christian, formerly from the Iraq army, he managed to escape the country with his family after the first gulf war when Saddam was ordered to reduce the size of his army. One thing he told my father adamantly is that to all Muslims we are infidels, and they hate us. He also hated Saddam venomously but he would rather Saddam was still in power than have the situation they have now.

[Ringos]

Well i'm not the news, i'm not the TV, i'm still a teen learning from his mistakes and choosing his/her path, if I make a mistake it is not like someone who is wise and at an important position like a news corp. and such and such so that shouldn't matter, but for a laid back drama-less forum, it is knit picking.

Dude, don't get me wrong. Try to read my 'rants' without imagining me as some a-hole that has differing opinions. :) Sometimes a lot of what is in writing will be overlooked or taken wrong if the person reading isn't jiving with the way the person wrote it. I ocassionally read stuff and take it the wrong way (I did on this thread but I PMed the person and we're good).

As a side, I stated several times my oposition to bringing political discussions here. I was duped into one on a thread I didn't know contained any. :eek: I would have prefered to discuss DDO with everyone here, maybe arguing about the best weapon to use on an undead rat, but here we are. :axe:

Discussions like this CAN be great. :)

[Ringos]

This isn't exactly a coherent rant, you might want to judge each sentence separately. I'm not even gonna touch your local politics, it's none of my business and beyond my control. Many of the people labeled 'terrorists' or 'insurgents' are freedom fighters in their own eyes, some have been known to ask permission from locals before attacking the invaders. In the next few sentences I'm not saying Saddam was good, far from it, just stating the facts as I know them which could be wrong. Saddam himself for all his sins hated 'terrorists', and did what he could to prevent them, he and his regime were terrorist targets. Saddam killed many people, he ruled Iraq with an iron fist, but before the international wars he'd made Iraq into a first world country where everybody ate, and where women could walk safely in the street alone without full body garb (I understand that's rare in the middle east). Before he took power Iraq was in anarchy after the political group the English put into power failed to control the country. The Muslim group Saddam was part of were the minority in Iraq, 'terrorists' who fight in the name of religion are more often from the other larger more extremist sect, that's the sect that's been put into power. Iraq was attacked to raise petrol prices, which it managed quite well, no other excuse that I know of hasn't been debunked.

I won't touch the Afghanistan/Bin Laden/911 side of things. That's such a mess of conspiracy and fervour it would no doubt piss everyone off.

My Dad had a worker who was an Iraqi Christian, formerly from the Iraq army, he managed to escape the country with his family after the first gulf war when Saddam was ordered to reduce the size of his army. One thing he told my father adamantly is that to all Muslims we are infidels, and they hate us. He also hated Saddam venomously but he would rather Saddam was still in power than have the situation they have now.

The biggest reason to keep Saddam in power would have been stability in the region. It's actually turned out MUCH better than I would have thought. I won't go into more boring Ringos details, but everything wasn't roses for a great number of people in that country, most notibly the Kurds. There are a lot of great things happening because wewent over there, bad things to of course, but still good things.

[Murnk]

The wealth of knowledge this thread has is so immense. Thanks House Tharask, I've learned so much today!

Murnk/Rinket

[Lazarus]

Holy heck this thread is growing fast (like a tumor), there's a new page or five every time I check.

[Rommalb]

wow, I came in, saw Yetis original post and had this nice long post going about civilian deaths in airstrikes vs seiges... and then saw the 12 other pages after it. Damn.

[Eldamir]

I go lock my family in the basement for one tiny little tornado warning and this thread grows 3 pages!:eek:

[Rommalb]

This is why I try and keep politics off forum boards, its just ugly.

[Ringos]

Sorry guys...several of these pages are mine. :o

What ever happened to the good ol' days...JackNCoke, Eriik and Dragonseis instead of McCain, Bush and Obama! :)

[Shyv]

Sorry guys...several of these pages are mine. :o

What ever happened to the good ol' days...JackNCoke, Eriik and Dragonseis instead of McCain, Bush and Obama! :)

Did you just use Jack n' Coke, Eriik, and Dragonseie in the same sentance. :eek:

[Yeti]

I go lock my family in the basement for one tiny little tornado warning and this thread grows 3 pages!:eek:
Now where do you live again?? *Looks up the number for 911 and gets ready to call*. I sure hope you has a gewd reason for this *uses smilie holding bat like the one from his forumz*

[Bunker]

Sorry guys...several of these pages are mine. :o

What ever happened to the good ol' days...JackNCoke, Eriik and Dragonseis instead of McCain, Bush and Obama! :)

JackNCoke - McCain
Eriik - Bush
Dragonseis - Obama

JackNCoke - Bush
Eriik - Obama
Dragonseis - McCain

JackNCoke - Obama
Eriik - McCain
Dragonseis - Bush

How would you pair them?

[Eldamir]

Now where do you live again?? *Looks up the number for 911 and gets ready to call*. I sure hope you has a gewd reason for this *uses smilie holding bat like the one from his forumz*

I live in the Kansas City area .. According to the national weather service (and most other folks that I know), the basement is the best place to be in the event of a tornado -- and since we were under a tornado warning from 17:40-18:14 tonight, I decided that going in the basement with my family was probably a good idea..

Right now, it's nothing more than a severe weather warning, a flash-flood warning (rainfall in excess of 1"/hr does that), a flood watch, a flood advisory and tornado watch for the majority of the weekend , so other than doing a once-over on the gutters again and verifying that the basement is prepped, its all good :)

[Ringos]

JackNCoke - McCain
Eriik - Bush
Dragonseis - Obama

JackNCoke - Bush
Eriik - Obama
Dragonseis - McCain

JackNCoke - Obama
Eriik - McCain
Dragonseis - Bush

How would you pair them?

Even RINGOS won't touch this one! :help: I think you may be twisting my own post against me. Oh the humanity! :death:

[Ringos]

I live in the Kansas City area .. According to the national weather service (and most other folks that I know), the basement is the best place to be in the event of a tornado -- and since we were under a tornado warning from 17:40-18:14 tonight, I decided that going in the basement with my family was probably a good idea..

Right now, it's nothing more than a severe weather warning, a flash-flood warning (rainfall in excess of 1"/hr does that), a flood watch, a flood advisory and tornado watch for the majority of the weekend , so other than doing a once-over on the gutters again and verifying that the basement is prepped, its all good :)

I THINK it was a joke :)

[Eldamir]

I THINK it was a joke :)

yeah .. me too.. at least I'm not out filling sandbags like someone was earlier this year :)

[Yeti]

yeah .. me too.. at least I'm not out filling sandbags like someone was earlier this year :)

What a fail but your the one locking them in the basement :D.

[Rommalb]

trust me yeti, when you have even the slightest chance of a tornado you head for the basement and dont leave. If youve ever seen a wallcloud, it doesnt take much motivation to take to the ground

[Ringos]

yeah .. me too.. at least I'm not out filling sandbags like someone was earlier this year :)

I'll have the last laugh though...I plan on selling my sandbags on eBay as momentos. Maybe it will defer some of the cost for the loss of two buildings. Wait, i guess I WON'T be laughing... :confused:

[Doctorwhofan]

This isn't exactly a coherent rant, you might want to judge each sentence separately. I'm not even gonna touch your local politics, it's none of my business and beyond my control. Many of the people labeled 'terrorists' or 'insurgents' are freedom fighters in their own eyes, some have been known to ask permission from locals before attacking the invaders. In the next few sentences I'm not saying Saddam was good, far from it, just stating the facts as I know them which could be wrong. Saddam himself for all his sins hated 'terrorists', and did what he could to prevent them, he and his regime were terrorist targets. Saddam killed many people, he ruled Iraq with an iron fist, but before the international wars he'd made Iraq into a first world country where everybody ate, and where women could walk safely in the street alone without full body garb (I understand that's rare in the middle east). Before he took power Iraq was in anarchy after the political group the English put into power failed to control the country. The Muslim group Saddam was part of were the minority in Iraq, 'terrorists' who fight in the name of religion are more often from the other larger more extremist sect, that's the sect that's been put into power. Iraq was attacked to raise petrol prices, which it managed quite well, no other excuse that I know of hasn't been debunked.

I won't touch the Afghanistan/Bin Laden/911 side of things. That's such a mess of conspiracy and fervour it would no doubt piss everyone off.

My Dad had a worker who was an Iraqi Christian, formerly from the Iraq army, he managed to escape the country with his family after the first gulf war when Saddam was ordered to reduce the size of his army. One thing he told my father adamantly is that to all Muslims we are infidels, and they hate us. He also hated Saddam venomously but he would rather Saddam was still in power than have the situation they have now.


Been there did that and have a Turkish T-shirt. My opinion on Saddam is he shoulda been taken care of in 1992. But that is neither here or there.

The biggest reason to keep Saddam in power would have been stability in the region. It's actually turned out MUCH better than I would have thought. I won't go into more boring Ringos details, but everything wasn't roses for a great number of people in that country, most notibly the Kurds. There are a lot of great things happening because wewent over there, bad things to of course, but still good things.

See above.

Did you just use Jack n' Coke, Eriik, and Dragonseie in the same sentance. :eek:


Jack is definiatly MCCain.. I hope he's ok over in Iraq. An Ass he may be, but he's our ass, and I don't want him dead. SOme sense knocked into him, yeah, dead, no.

[Brother Tuck]

Hey Gilles why dont U post all your toons so I know who to add to MY personal list....thanks much very appreciated. :mad:

[Eldamir]

wait .. i thought Jack went to somalia or something on a relief mission ...

[Ringos]

wait .. i thought Jack went to somalia or something on a relief mission ...

He did. He was there 3 days before they decided whatever suffering they were going through already was enough. He was shipped out within the hour.

[Agahnim]

WOW what a thread!

just a few comments,
1) Hillary Clinton admits she did not read the AUMF
2) if you believe polls, most Catholics vote democrat
3) the media largely says it is liberal
4) Saddam violated the cesefire agreement 17 times, after the first violation the U.N. and/or any involved nations had the right to resume military operations. The claim that Iraq was involved with 9/11 may be false, but doesn't mean we couldn't/shouldn't have gone in
5) 11 of 18 regions of Iraq are under complete control of the Iraqi gov't, with international troops acting as support
6) megaditto's to all Ringo's posts

[Ringos]

WOW what a thread!

just a few comments,
1) Hillary Clinton admits she did not read the AUMF
2) if you believe polls, most Catholics vote democrat
3) the media largely says it is liberal
4) Saddam violated the cesefire agreement 17 times, after the first violation the U.N. and/or any involved nations had the right to resume military operations. The claim that Iraq was involved with 9/11 may be false, but doesn't mean we couldn't/shouldn't have gone in
5) 11 of 18 regions of Iraq are under complete control of the Iraqi gov't, with international troops acting as support
6) megaditto's to all Ringo's posts

Megadittos to you! :)

[moorewr]

Heh. About the "dittohead" business in general: Why anyone would be proud of not thinking about a position independently is beyond me. That's a very foreign concept for me.

[Ringos]

Heh. About the "dittohead" business in general: Why anyone would be proud of not thinking about a position independently is beyond me. That's a very foreign concept for me.

Why anyone would be anti-gun and pro-abortion are hard for me to grasp. That's why there are multiple political groups.

Megadittos to all, and to all a good night! :)

[Gilles Goodman]

I've been a die-hard Republican for as long as I can remember. My family's military service can be traced back to the Revolutionary War on my father's side and back to the Civil War on my mother's. Every single generation has served this country, including my sister and myself.

Trying to make some sort of correlation between our current candidates and our leaders through history is just silly. The Presidents I look back to are the ones who were in office during my lifetime, so here's my opinion: Reagan was the greatest president during my lifetime...followed by Bill Clinton. I didn't vote for Clinton in either term, but (in my opiniion) he did a great job, overall.

With everything that has happened since 9/11, I've taken another look at my blind loyalty to the Republican party. Now, for the first time, I'm listening to what both sides are saying. As of now, my vote is penciled in for Obama...that may change depending on what my own research digs up on their respective agendas. I seriously doubt that I'll be voting for McCain, regardless.

I will always listen to opinions of others. But I don't let them sway me, especially if they get bent out of shape over their politics. I've read this thread in its entirety...and some of you need to cool your jets on projecting your outrage over this. Anger is not gonna help anyone at all on whichever side of the fence you're sitting...it's just going to get people stubbornly defensive.

My only advice to everyone is this: Listen to each side with an open mind, for once. Seriously...it's time to get rid of the red and blue thinking. It just doesn't work as well as we'd all like.

Nuff said from me on this subject

Ahh, Jundak, I only wish some of the "dittoheads" on this board would simply do the same thing you did - open their minds and, as you said, just start listening to what both sides are saying.

Here are some simple questions they should ask themselves:

Who has actually told us what they intend to do in office, Obama or McCain?

- Who supports healthcare for everyone?
- Who wants to lower our taxes more? (assuming we make under $603k/year)
- Who has an actual plan to make America energy-independent?
- Who has a better foreign policy plan?
- Who is tied to lobbyists?
- Who has kept their campaign about issues and who has made it about attacking the other guy?

I guarantee you that some of the posters in this thread will either refuse to actually find out the answers to these questions, or else they will post lies about them. The fact is that Barack Obama is the clearly superior choice for President, regardless of what party you're in. His positions on the issues are right, and well known since he actually talks about them. McCain has, to date, not actually talked about any of his policies of his own volition, instead using simple rhetoric like "We'll bring change to Washington!" and "Country First!" without any details of what he will do for us.

[Gilles Goodman]

Why anyone would be anti-gun and pro-abortion are hard for me to grasp. That's why there are multiple political groups.

No one is pro-abortion.

Why are you anti-choice? Do you hate women? Are you a male chauvinist? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you think you have the right to control a women's body against her will ? Why do you think you have the right to violate a woman's constitutional rights to privacy?

[Ringos]

- Who supports healthcare for everyone?

Entitlements. Let give everyone free sneakers and haircuts while we're at it.

- Who wants to lower our taxes more? (assuming we make under $603k/year)

Yeah...Democrats have a long history of lowering taxes.

- Who has an actual plan to make America energy-independent?

Nobody has one that will work.

- Who has a better foreign policy plan?

Boy, here's a pretty broad question. Let me cover the pros and cons of both on a DDO message board.

- Who is tied to lobbyists?

ALL of them.

- Who has kept their campaign about issues and who has made it about attacking the other guy?

The Democrats.

[Coldin]

You sure noone out there is pro-abortion? Maybe there's some guy that believes no life should be created at all, and thus all women that concieve should have abortions. Sure, it's rather crazy, but there's bound to be at least one person out there that might think so. Just saying, don't deal in absolutes.

[Ringos]

No one is pro-abortion.

Why are you anti-choice? Do you hate women? Are you a male chauvinist? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you think you have the right to control a women's body against her will ? Why do you think you have the right to violate a woman's constitutional rights to privacy?


You gotta be pretty messed-up in the head to think that Democrats aren't about big government and control. I take it that you are also attempting to paint yourself as the defender of women and others as pigs in order to garner favor. Here's a hint...people here aren't that stupid. Healthy dose of Liberal Guilt spoon-fed to us by Giles Goodman. Can I get a side of entitlements with that?

:)

[moorewr]

Why anyone would be anti-gun and pro-abortion are hard for me to grasp. That's why there are multiple political groups.

Megadittos to all, and to all a good night! :)

:rolleyes: The point isn't this or that belief - it's the pride in failing to examine one's beliefs I hear often from the Limbaugh ditto crowd. You may be innocent of this (despite your use of the term), but the idea seems like it is parodying Colbert's truthiness instead of the other way around.

I mean, lots of people like Jon Stewart, and he's pretty liberal, but nobody I know who agrees with him goes around proudly declaring that they've outsourced their critical thinking to an entertainer.

For the love of god let's not debate abortion here.

-Walter, a pro-choice gun-owner - pro-individual freedom all around

[moorewr]

You gotta be pretty messed-up in the head to think that Democrats aren't about big government and control. I take it that you are also attempting to paint yourself as the defender of women and others as pigs in order to garner favor. Here's a hint...people here aren't that stupid. Healthy dose of Liberal Guilt spoon-fed to us by Giles Goodman. Can I get a side of entitlements with that?

:)


From my perspective the modern GOP seems to want to massively intervene in private lives on religious "family values" grounds. And in Republican hands the government has expanded quite a bit - and opened a whole new frontier in big corporate socialism.

I forget when I voted for taxpayer-funded golden parachutes for failed CEOs or to have my morality outsorced, but I'd sure like to take it back.

[Sargoth]

I am withdrawing from this conversation, the material is beginning to leave the political arena and move to darker areas.

Thank you for your opinions.

[Ringos]

:rolleyes: The point isn't this or that belief - it's the pride in failing to examine one's beliefs I hear often from the Limbaugh ditto crowd. You may be innocent of this (despite your use of the term), but the idea seems like it is parodying Colbert's truthiness instead of the other way around.

I mean, lots of people like Jon Stewart, and he's pretty liberal, but nobody I know who agrees with him goes around proudly declaring that they've outsourced their critical thinking to an entertainer.

For the love of god let's not debate abortion here.

-Walter, a pro-choice gun-owner - pro-individual freedom all around

In all seriousness, I know very few people that listen to Rush and blindly follow his words. Most of the listeners have the same core beliefs, so it's obvious that they agree on the majority of things. I never stop taking in information, listening to people and discussing important topics. That's how we learn and it allows us to formulate better, more informed decisions. Too many people do outsource their thinking to politicians or a certain party.

I must say that finding Rush on the TV many years ago is what helped transform me from a Democrat that spent time blaming others and hating the rich to someone that is able to step back, take a good look at things and make my own decisions.

Agreed about the abortion topic. (and I wasn't implying that YOU were either of those statements personally, just using extremes to make the point). Open discussion is great, and I'm all for it. I do think that maybe politics, abortion and sex are best left to other sites. :)

[Ringos]

I am withdrawing from this conversation, the material is beginning to leave the political arena and move to darker areas.

Thank you for your opinions.

You are obviously a lot smarter than some of us! :)

[Ringos]

From my perspective the modern GOP seems to want to massively intervene in private lives on religious "family values" grounds. And in Republican hands the government has expanded quite a bit - and opened a whole new frontier in big corporate socialism.

I forget when I voted for taxpayer-funded golden parachutes for failed CEOs or to have my morality outsorced, but I'd sure like to take it back.

I can't much argue the push into private lives, but I think it's done in the name of security...though the end result is the same. Democrats are just as bad. Why in the heck do people find it necessary to teach sex-ed to a 5 year old? It's both major parties, although some folks don't want to see their side as being guilty as well. As stated before, Democrats today aren't what they were in JFK's day (prior for sure) and Republicans today are much different as well. Personally I'm a 'lesser of two evils' voter when it comes to the major offices. Two-party sucks. Ron paul is spot-on on a number of issues. In my area, Liberals and Conservatives got behind him. Too bad the old boy network keeps out some decent folks.

[Rommalb]

Personally I'm a 'lesser of two evils' voter when it comes to the major offices. Two-party sucks. Ron paul is spot-on on a number of issues. In my area, Liberals and Conservatives got behind him. Too bad the old boy network keeps out some decent folks.

QFT

I avoid ever trying to explain what my political beliefs are because they are seriously messed up. In debates before Ive been accused of being as far right wing and as far left wing as can be, which in wave theory makes me about as center as they come. In my opinion the two party system, especially the blind loyalty to it that Jun mentioned, is the number 1 threat to this country, even moreso than Bush. Its that rigid us vs them mentality that suffocates new thinking on both sides and makes it hard for anyone to work together. So many politicians claim they can work bi-partisian but why should they even have to say that? It should be a given you can work together, and if you disagree with your party a little bit you shouldnt have to suffer for it. Case in point, last year Gov Pawlenty here had vetoed a Democratic road construction bill, which after much congressional movement was overturned by a single republican vote. That republican was subsequently ostarcized from the party and they refused to back him on re-election instead nominating someone else in his place. Thats the kind of political nonsense that happens on both sides (sorry republicans, that was the only example i had) that we need to fix first in this country before we worry about what our plans are for health care or the economy first.

Cause lets face it, if we believe all the political hype the worlds going to end every 2 or 4 years if we dont vote for them, but it still hasnt ended in the last 200

[moorewr]

I can't much argue the push into private lives, but I think it's done in the name of security...though the end result is the same. Democrats are just as bad. Why in the heck do people find it necessary to teach sex-ed to a 5 year old? It's both major parties, although some folks don't want to see their side as being guilty as well. As stated before, Democrats today aren't what they were in JFK's day (prior for sure) and Republicans today are much different as well. Personally I'm a 'lesser of two evils' voter when it comes to the major offices. Two-party sucks. Ron paul is spot-on on a number of issues. In my area, Liberals and Conservatives got behind him. Too bad the old boy network keeps out some decent folks.

Security and religion both, in my opinion. I know what Bush conservatism looks like, and I am eager to give the other side a shot at screwing up. At least they'll put up some windmills, save some polar bears, and take a shot at the health-care mess along the way.

Ron Paul is waiting in the wings. If things keep goign the way they're going the old boys may turn to him yet. But only in extremis.

Sex Education - ok, I'll get specific here. Been staying above the fray, if you will. :)

not for five year olds, you're guilty of repeating a badly misleading McCain ad there - at some point you have to ask what the cost of not educating juveniles about sex in age-appropriate ways is, and whether a responsible society is willing to allow extra STDs and teenage pregnancies to happen. The reality is the parents can opt their children out of these programs (I remember bringing home a sheet for my parents before sex ed in 6th grade), or even send them to private schools on taxpayer money in many states.

So is the imposition is really denying decent education to avoid offending a group of parents, or providing it over their moral objections?

[Ringos]

Security and religion both, in my opinion. I know what Bush conservatism looks like, and I am eager to give the other side a shot at screwing up. At least they'll put up some windmills, save some polar bears, and take a shot at the health-care mess along the way.

Ron Paul is waiting in the wings. If things keep goign the way they're going the old boys may turn to him yet. But only in extremis.

Sex Education - ok, I'll get specific here. Been staying above the fray, if you will. :)

not for five year olds, you're guilty of repeating a badly misleading McCain ad there - at some point you have to ask what the cost of not educating juveniles about sex in age-appropriate ways is, and whether a responsible society is willing to allow extra STDs and teenage pregnancies to happen. The reality is the parents can opt their children out of these programs (I remember bringing home a sheet for my parents before sex ed in 6th grade), or even send them to private schools on taxpayer money in many states.

So is the imposition is really denying decent education to avoid offending a group of parents, or providing it over their moral objections?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

This is from ABC News...not Fox and not Rush. It doesn't say that Omaba is going to be sitting in the classroom with visual aids, but it gets under my skin.

Should children be informed? YES! When the Mom and Dad decide it's the right time. Can you opt out? Yes. Did you ever have people in your classroom growing up that were different than the majority of the class? i remember in 2nd grade, whenever we would stand for the Pledge of Alligence, Jehovah's Witness in the room remained seated This singled them out. During celebrations, they left the room. How did that make them feel? Did other kids ride them for being different/ Not me, but I can bet it happened. Why should my 5 year old have to leave the room while the majority remains and then be subject to ridicule for being different? It's hard enough being a kid without adding more of that to the mix. SOME things need to be left up to the family and this is one of them. Sex education, when children are older, is fine from the health perspective. This should be well afte children are taught in the home. What of those that aren't? Well, if you aren't for government control and intrusion into the family, then you have to accept that some people are just going to be bad parents.

(btw...when i use 'you' in most cases, I mean 'people')

[moorewr]

That article accurately states - despite some muddy language in the lede - that Obama is against sex ed for kindergartners (edit: and for local autonomy).

the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had "moved to clarify" in his Senate campaign that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

This is from ABC News...not Fox and not Rush. It doesn't say that Omaba is going to be sitting in the classroom with visual aids, but it gets under my skin.

Should children be informed? YES! When the Mom and Dad decide it's the right time. Can you opt out? Yes. Did you ever have people in your classroom growing up that were different than the majority of the class? i remember in 2nd grade, whenever we would stand for the Pledge of Alligence, Jehovah's Witness in the room remained seated This singled them out. During celebrations, they left the room. How did that make them feel? Did other kids ride them for being different/ Not me, but I can bet it happened. Why should my 5 year old have to leave the room while the majority remains and then be subject to ridicule for being different? It's hard enough being a kid without adding more of that to the mix. SOME things need to be left up to the family and this is one of them. Sex education, when children are older, is fine from the health perspective. This should be well afte children are taught in the home. What of those that aren't? Well, if you aren't for government control and intrusion into the family, then you have to accept that some people are just going to be bad parents.

(btw...when i use 'you' in most cases, I mean 'people')

[Ringos]

Well, take the article as a whole first of all. Secondly, 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' pretty much states that there WILL be sex education for 5 year olds. Otherwise, he would have made a MUCH different statement. The fact that he didn't deny it and the fact that he failed to be specific leaves a VERY large area for interpretation an wiggle room down the road. Just how do 'we' 'think about it'? He leaves himself unable to be pinned down. Classic politician.

[moorewr]

Well, take the article as a whole first of all. Secondly, 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' pretty much states thatthere WILL be sex education for 5 year olds. otherwise, he would have made a MUCH different statement. The fact that he didn't deny it and the fact that he failed to be specific leaves a VERY large area for interpretation an wiggle room down the road. He leaves himself unable to be pinned down. Classic politician.

Look at his example to see what he's talking about, and also his declaration that it is a local control issue, not something to mandate. Those are mainstream opinions I agree with.

So what should be taught to a five year old about Sex? If they ask about babies, you should reply truthfully at an age appropriate level (..not storks). They should be taught to recognize danger signs from strangers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html?bl&ex=1221278400&en=139555dd265b8c71&ei=5087%0A

In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators.

Are you in favor of sexual predators? Would it be fair of me to say so in a TV ad or on talk radio?

[Ringos]

Look at his example to see what he's talking about, and also his declaration that it is a local control issue, not something to mandate. Those are mainstream opinions I agree with.

So what should be taught to a five year old about Sex? If they ask about babies, you should reply truthfully at an age appropriate level (..not storks). They should be taught to recognize danger signs from strangers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html?bl&ex=1221278400&en=139555dd265b8c71&ei=5087%0A

In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators.

Are you in favor of sexual predators? Would it be fair of me to say so in a TV ad or on talk radio?

Dude, to tell you the truth, I have seen ZERO ads, as I don't watch much TV. I can honestly say, any reference to me buying into an ad is totally unfounded. I'm not here to defend McCain's ads and never claimed to be. It's politics man.

Stranger danger is totally different than sexual education. You need to teach kids to be aware of strangers, you don't need to get graphic and explain what a stranger might to to them in detail and why. I'm not advocating leaving kids out there without the proper education, so please don't imply that anymore. Read what i wrote. I advocate people taking responsibility for their own family and teaching their own children what they need to and when they deem it appropriate.

[Shyv]

Stranger danger is totally different than sexual education.

For real. McGruff the crime dog teaches kids about stranger danger. You wouldn't want him giving advice to the kids about sex education. All that talk about doggysty.........nevermind. :eek:

Yes I know it's bad. Had to lighten the mood a bit. :)

If one of my kids were to ask a teacher about babies I would hope the teacher would divert the subject and let me know later on. As a parent it is my right, duty, and responsibility to teach my own children about that subject, not the responsibility of the state.

[Yeti]

- Who supports healthcare for everyone?

Entitlements. Let give everyone free sneakers and haircuts while we're at it.

- Who wants to lower our taxes more? (assuming we make under $603k/year)

Yeah...Democrats have a long history of lowering taxes.

- Who has an actual plan to make America energy-independent?

Nobody has one that will work.

- Who has a better foreign policy plan?

Boy, here's a pretty broad question. Let me cover the pros and cons of both on a DDO message board.

- Who is tied to lobbyists?

ALL of them.

- Who has kept their campaign about issues and who has made it about attacking the other guy?

The Democrats.

The last one is both sides, though now the republicans are rallying about Palin, so they aren't bashing the "Change campaign" and now Obama is doing some bashing. I think that is stupid though, seeing as Palin is just so weird...Ima go ahead and take away my last statement just so I don't get anyone pissed

[moorewr]

I don't mean to accuse anyone of anything. Sorry if it came off that way. :)

The point I was trying to drive home was that Obama is no more for teaching kindergartners clinical sexual ed. than you (in the general sense) are in favor of sexual predators.

[moorewr]

For real. McGruff the crime dog teaches kids about stranger danger. You wouldn't want him giving advice to the kids about sex education. All that talk about doggysty.........nevermind. :eek:

Yes I know it's bad. Had to lighten the mood a bit. :)

If one of my kids were to ask a teacher about babies I would hope the teacher would divert the subject and let me know later on. As a parent it is my right, duty, and responsibility to teach my own children about that subject, not the responsibility of the state.

ha ha! thanks for the laugh, although now i'm concerned that macgruff slash already exists on the internet. don't wanna look... :eek:

[Coldin]

ha ha! thanks for the laugh, although now i'm concerned that macgruff slash already exists on the internet. don't wanna look... :eek:

Rule 34...

[calierron]

bah i am like the jedi on that situation i hate all politicians. they are all corrupt and all have no souls. before you know it your gonna see the empire rise and :swduel NO DARK JEDI IS GONNA BEAT ME!!!!!

[Ringos]

I don't mean to accuse anyone of anything. Sorry if it came off that way. :)

The point I was trying to drive home was that Obama is no more for teaching kindergartners clinical sexual ed. than you (in the general sense) are in favor of sexual predators.

No worries...just wanted to clarify that! :)

From what I read, about the actual quote (and diregarding the spin) is that it cannot be ruled out that he will push for that type of education. His quote leave a BUNCH of 'wiggle room' and I don't like it. It is, however, business as usual for most politicians.

Yeti, agreed that both sides sling the mud. Nobody is without sin in this race for sure. I was illustrating the point that if someone asks these questions, they had better be sure the answers are ones they can live with.

Shyv...too funny man!

[Ringos]

bah i am like the jedi on that situation i hate all politicians. they are all corrupt and all have no souls. before you know it your gonna see the empire rise and :swduel NO DARK JEDI IS GONNA BEAT ME!!!!!

All? Not me. Most? Yep! Let's all look to Star Wars Episodes 1-3 for a very good representation of a classic politician. I know all of us geeks here know what I mean. :) And remember that sometimes the Dark Side is hard to detect when folks are running around kissing babies.

[Doctorwhofan]

STOP IT NOW!!!!

All of you can go to your rooms and don't THINK about dessert!


Everyone has their own opinions and NO ONE'S RIGHT!!!!!

Practice IDIC and realise this site is designed for gamers in mind! Politics and religion destroy more friendships and start more wars than anything else. This is not a debate anymore.

DONE, DONE, and DONE!!!

Lock the thread, please.

[Coldin]

I rather agree with DoctorWhoFan. Most of this hasn't been very productive conversation.

So, the politics board will be going away. Besides, one thread doesn't really warrant a whole forums.

[Yeti]

I don't think anyone can really get mad at someone for this, just because they have different views, Ringos ticked me off for a tiny bit obut it's not a big deal, I doubt anyone would not game with 'em just for something like this...if so that is foolish of them for ignoring a person just because of their views/opinions. If it got to name calling, that would be a reason to close, but otherwise I don't see why this was closed.