Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Onion of Death on January 30, 2004, 07:08:20 PM
-
Here is my promised thread. Start debating now. Gorgon, this is your time to prove to the others that we aren't idiots.
-
I would promise myself to only read this thread and never the other one, but I'm a glutton for the punishment of myself and others.
-
So when are we gonna get to the "serious disscusion" I seem to have been promised upon opening this page? My splew on Bush seemed to turk a lot of people off because I got some stuff out that they didn't agree with, so where is the debating that you all say you love so much? I don't mean to be rude but my rant didn't start a debate, only mud-slinging, and Onion's doesn't seem to be doing it's job so if you all love debating so much lets hear it!
-
So yeah. I could talk about the european union - how i despise its new constitution, with its inclusion of speaking against the european commision being regarded as treason, a 300 year regression - and how i find the fact that tony blair is not allowing a referrendum on the subject of this most glorious country signing away its very freedom to a bunch of beaurocrats in brussels infuriating - but....
You have not really got the brains to comprehend it, have you? Oh, and try spelling the damn topic right next time. No "s" on political.
-
Well since you started the first one, we kind of expect you to keep this one going.
Do a little research on the websites. Say "I think this person is a good candidate because he believes X and Z and is against Y."
I think Kerry looks like a good democratic candidate, and hope he continues to do well. He is big on women's health care rights, and such things - allowing women to claim their gynecologist as their primary medical practicioner, and requiring all insurance and HMO's to cover birth control costs for all women. He's for civil union rights for gay couples, but against actual marriage. That is why I like Kerry.
-
It is not lack of brains, it is lack of knowlage. Remember that. There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. If you plan on attacking us personally simply because we have not had the opportunity to learn that you have had, due to our age, then maybe you aren't really inteligent enough to pick on someone your own age, hmmm?
But lets not get into that because this is supposed to be about politics.
-
So I hit the "s" on accident. I'm so sorry...
Quick! The heretic has added an extra letter! Go, and find me a rope, and a stout tree! There's gonna be a hanging!
s
-
Gorgon, you're being attacked because it's assumed that you're smart enough to KNOW BETTER than to talk about something you don't have knowledge of.
And just because this is the Internet doesn't mean we all tolerate people spouting off stuff without thought.
-
Frankly, if your opinions are not based on facts and knowledge, then what are they based on? Gut feelings? Regurgitated opinions of those you respect?
-
Fuzzy Octopus, my statement was not directed towards you. Also, was I wrong? Was my statement incorrect? No? Then it's just stating both a fact and my opinion, and if you get one I do too.
-
I am dreadfully sorry if my statements offend you when I have a few facts which I tie together. True, I do not have an overly extensive knowlage of politics. True also that I do not have an overly extensive experience.
But nothing I said was not grounded in some fact that I have picked up along the way. Every fact is regurgitated from someone or something.
-
Yes, but we like to delude ourselves that your opinons need to have reasons behind them.
Now it just seems that we don't like your reasons for hating Bush. It's not that we like Bush, just that we like to think of ourselves as mature and impartial and so we have to have good reasons for hating Bush.
We don't agree with your reasons. The reasons you gave are very commonly spouted and often with no thought whatsoever- they are heard, they sound good, and they get repeated with no real thought behind them. Thus, when you appear TOTALLY out of the blue on this message board, (about GAMES) and the first thing you do is tell us how much you hate Bush, we react badly.
-
So I do not make the same mistake again, and to humour me, wha was so horrible about my reasonings? Just because they were based in commonly known facts shouldn't make them horrible reasonings. I have thought about these facts and based my opinion around the big things, for the fine details is not what matters at this part of the presidency, in my opinion. No amount of fine details can distort the way he screwed up, in my opinion, and just because I don't have in depth of a knowlage as you does not mean my opinion is illegitimate, it is just not as well supported as yours. It is, however, supported so it's not like I based my opinion on what others think. If you think I did then you are sorely mistaken.
-
The real point of this thread is to discuss issues people have with Bush.
My main issue with him would be that he did to some degree mislead the American people into a costly war. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a very evil, and very cruel man. But I don't see why we have to go around playing Saviour of the World whenever something bad happens. I believe it would be best if we attempted to fix our own problems before everyone elses.
On another note, the Iraqi rebels now have the ability to win by simply not losing. If the casualties keep mounting, eventually we will pull out. No one wants another Vietnam.
-
The problem, in my mind, is that you gave a situation (a large deficit) and then blamed it on something without showing your logic. You said the Patriot Act was bad, but never said a) why it was bad or b) why you blamed it one Bush (well, you said why you blamed it on Bush, but "because I said so" isn't a valid argument).
It's like writing an essay. Give us a thesis (There is a big deficit), a conclusion (it was Bush's fault) and a bunch of evidence explaining WHY. That's the part you left out.
-
what was so horrible about my reasonings? Just because they were based in commonly known facts shouldn't make them horrible reasonings. I have thought about these facts and based my opinion around the big things, for the fine details is not what matters at this part of the presidency, in my opinion.
From my personal perspective, your reasonings are not the best, because we don't know how things would have turned out if they had been done differently. You criticize Bush for 'starting a war' and isolating us from the U.N. without saying, "He should have done this instead because I think this would have been the result and we would be better off than we are now." From a personal point of view, I think that things like capturing Sadam is good, but the reasons Bush had for doing it might not be the best.
And this was mentioned before, but if you don't like Bush as a president, I would like to hear WHO you think would be a better president, and why you think it, specifically. Telling us you don't like Bush isn't news. Lots of people don't like him. Tell us something interesting that makes us think, and gives us something to respond to. Or, if not, then say in your post - "Man I just need to get this off my chest, but I don't expect a response." When you create a new thread, you anticipate debate/discussion.
-
If the casualties keep mounting, eventually we will pull out. No one wants another Vietnam.
Pay attention kid. The US has lost, perhaps, 300 men. 25 thousand united states soldiers died on the first DAY of Omagh beach. This is no vietnam, far from it.
-
Note: This particular post contains no controversy; merely an amusing anecdote.
So since my birthday is in January I turned 18 before the primaries last election. I, and several other students from my AP Government class got to volunteer to help out with the voting- we helped out at the ballots and did cool stuff like that. We were all paired with regular election workers, mostly elderly ladies.
So on the day of the primaries a bunch of high school students went into on particular place to vote... and the old ladies wouldn't let them in! These women were convinced that the minimum voting age was still 21, and could NOT be convinced that it was now 18. The students were very frustrated, but man, that was the funniest thing that happened for weeks in our town. I think eventually they called the mayor down (it's a small town) to explain to them that the voting age IS, in fact, 18.
-
Like this...
The patriot act is Bush's fault. I believe this because he not only majorly impacted it's creation and passing, but did not have the sense of mind to vetoe it. Because of this bill american rights are going down the crapper and no one should really want that, in my opinion. As it can easily be seen Bush's impact on congress was heavy and he is therefore a major factor in the passing of such a horrible law, and a president should not do that.
Of coarse that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...
Gorgon the Wonder Cow
-
Pay attention kid. The US has lost, perhaps, 300 men. 25 thousand united states soldiers died on the first DAY of Omagh beach. This is no vietnam, far from it.
I understand this. I know the casualties will never be near any of our other major wars. But I don't think America can stomach very many more body bags coming home.
Back in WWII, the American people for the most part believed wholeheartedly in the cause of defeating the Axis nations. Now, the country is pretty much divided into many small groups, all with different opinions on what should/should have been done. Support for the war will continue to shrink as long as American blood is still being spilt in Iraq.
-
If you continue to ask me the same question I will continue to answer with the same answer.
I will not give my ideas for what I would do if I was president, because I am not, and do not plan on becoming, president. If I was trying to run for president I would, however have ideas that would get me elected. I wouldn't promise them then not perform. I know you'll respond "Every president broke a few promises...blah-d-blah blah" and I probably would too, to a degree. But cutting funding from my own educational program...
-
I'll give you my idea for if/when I become president.
I'm going to take all those useless states, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, all those states in the useless upper mid-west. Then we'll rent the states out to countries that need to make some dough. They'll get some cash from the taxes/purchases/etc made in those states. And tada, surplus.
-
Gemm - we should sell it to someone like Japan where land is worth waaaay more than it should be anywhere. ;)
-
See, fuzzy gets the idea. SE didn't when I first proposed it to him. Of course, he's morally blindsided by old-fashioned politics and the such. Not the new-age Gemm-inized politics that will hit hard upon the 21st century.
-
And that's what scares us all.
I got it. I just thought it was stupid.
-
Ahem...
You all have been bugging me to know what I would do if I were president. I have more than likely been pissing you off by saying," I will not give my ideas for what I would do if I was president, because I am not, and do not plan on becoming, president."
So here it is...
I would pressure congress into making a law that requires flue shots to every american citizen. It does not matter in age, size, race, religon, ect. Then I would work out a tax scam which included dropping a few dolars from every american with a wae of $55000 dolars or under a year. I would "find out" about my scam and blame it one hunderd percent on my secutary of treasury. He would go to prison for a very, very long time. I don't think I would like my secutary of treasury...
Then I would, if needed (which I don't think it would be) pressure congress into passing a law that evenly spreads the money the government lost across everyone and is to be payed as soon as humanly possible. I would do everything as the majority public wanted it for as long as it takes for this bill to be passed.
When this bill comes in and the government recieves it's due I would slowly seep money from the nuclear weapons and space exploration department and pay for a patented nano-bot like object. Let me explain these.
These nano-bots are so extremely small than theylatch on to your cells. It would latch on to every cell on your heart, brain stem and red blood cells in your body. They would be powered by body heat. Every citizen of the united states would volunteerly have them in their body. You wanna know why? Because I will get them into the manditory flue shot. If you are bad, I shock you to death by starting a chain reaction of electrical amplification in which an electical spark hits shoots from one, easily passes through your mostly water body, and hits an antennea on another and amplified. The process time estimated before your entire body shocks itself to death is less than half a minuite.
Once every citizen on the United States has these in him or her I would make an example of my cabinet and the audience of my state of the union address on live TV.
Once everyone understands their peril I will use the excact fequency shot out of eveyones brain. You know, the natural frequency of an object. I will take that frequncey and shoot it into everyones ear, hopefully wiping their memory clean by instantly destroying brain cells. A telephone, boombox or computer can do this easily. I will then cause everyone to believe I was their loving ruler and they wanted to go to war against Canada because of an unacceptable deed done.
Once we invade Canada, I will do the same there.
And slowly but surely I will own the world. The estimated process time after I become president is 15-30 years. That is why you don't want me as president. Of coarse, I might be better than Bush...
Gorgon the Wonder Cow
-
uhm... the subject is "Serious" political discussion
-
hey, they asked...
-
So you're saying there is 0 chance of you becoming president because your platform is stupid.
-
Precisley. If I was actually going to become president I would have real working ideas. But I'm not, so those who want to should have ideas. I'm not running, you are. Give me something that I like or get out of the game, Mr. Bush.
Gorgon the Wonder Cow
-
I think the question has not been "what would you do if you were running for president," but rather, "what would you like to hear from the candidates about their policies?" I personally would like to hear that myself, from the candidates, like Brenna was talking about. I hear a lot of "I didn't vote for the Patriot Act" in ads around here because it's a very liberal area. Which makes you wonder, given Mustard's citation of the 99 to 1 Senate vote.
Personally, I struggle with who to vote for because I rarely hear anything of substance from anyone in the running, Republican or Democrat. From Bush, it's campaign stumping disguised as State of the Union, from Democrats it's "I'm not Bush." Partly it's my own inherent laziness; I'm sure I could look up their policies and figure it out. Part is also the nature of party politics. Sometimes I consider myself a Democrat, sometimes a Republican. I don't agree completely with either party's platforms, and I tend to vote on issues, when I've made myself become informed about them.
-
I agree one hundred percent. I would like to hear aout some policies that involve getting troops out of Iraq and letting them solve their own problems. I would also like to hear some qualities that are moral. Like, give equal tax breaks to the little people, and, how bout we don't invade countries if we don't have to without the UN. I would like to hear some policies that involve winning our friends respect back as well.
-
Right SE. Except if I were to run, I would never mention that. I know people wouldn't understand, at least ordinary everyday commonplace folk. Instead I'll take topics that are currently being bashed upon and what not. Like health care systems, and military policies, and the occasional tax plans. Also maybe some sort of reconstruction acts for cities that could use it. Like Buffalo, which I believe, just keeps putting itself in the hole.
Then, then once I am elected, Operation Supreme Business Venture wil be put into place. See, I know what I'm doing.
-
I think we could also use universal heath care, that is once we get ourselves out of the hole. I think nany venture or buisness that makes over a billion dolars a year, like microsoft, should give ten percent of the profit to the government. There's no reason anybody needs that much profit. It's insane.
-
sounds awfully socialist. Don't think it'll fly here. Things like universal health care and such cost a LOT of money, which drives taxes up, for everyone. Meaning even the poor people it was intended to help.
Not that I particularly favor it, but just for the record, the fact that those businesses make that much money IS good for a lot of people (which is why they get tax breaks, not just because they have buddies, though that's part of it too). A company makes a huge profit, it tends to pay its employees more (so it can retain them - recruiting is a huge expense with only a very distant recoup on it - and so it can have the more skilled people in the field). Those employees and the company then spend and invest in other places and companies. Driving stock values and profits up, which means that more employees are getting paid more, perpetuating the cycle.
At least, that's the theory. it's not just a decision to give someone's buddy a break, it's because it helps the economy as a whole, which is good for everyone.
-
I don't believe entirely free health care would end up working in the end. It is a good idea, but the actual implementing of it would be a very tough thing to do.
However, I still don't like the idea of some poor kid not getting a heart transplant, or something like that, just because he can't fork over $500,000 for the doctor to get a new Porsche.
-
I guess I just don't like over simplifying with you, for while I agree with the sentiment, remember that the huge expense of an operation like that covers the removal of the heart in the first place, at a facillity capable of doing so without damaging the heart, the transportation costs (which can add up FAST since it has to be RIGHT AWAY and usually involves high speeds of travel in air planes or helicopter), the storage (which also has to be more than just a cooler with ice in it), the assistants, the facillities to perform the operation, the tools, the drugs. All of which are significantly non-trivial amounts. (yes, I'm aware that last sentence had an amusing redundancy).
-
I was just giving a heart transplant as an example of an operation that costs a lot of money. I didn't mean to say that it's easy or cheap to perform.
-
I know. Like I said, I agree with the sentiment, but it was an over simplification, and i'm compulsive to the point of not being able to leave it at that.
-
Driving stock values and profits up
I have heard another theory. It is called overspeculation. If you go back in history every fall in the economy is started by an overspeculation of something. In the early days it was shipping, then land, then railroads and buisness, and today it is the stock market.
Now I am probably putting myself out on the line here by saying I don't think high stocks are a good thing. If we could keeps stocks on an average which is slightly higher, or better yet at, than what would today be considered a decent price. This would cause the buying of stocks to be less frequent, but frequent enough to keep the market from crashing (or as is my theory). This would stop overspeculation, in the stock market anyway, and prevent another depression and/or recession. The only problem is keeping stupid people from overinvesting in other things.
Of coarse, this would come across extremely anti-american so would be a horrible thing to try and do at one time. But over time if we keep companies from making to much profit this can be acheived.
Of coarse, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...
Gorgon the Wonder Cow
-
actually, the problem I see with that is that companies are then not encouraged to improve things so they can make more money and be more valuable. Resulting in the higher wages I mentioned earlier.
-
THERE IS NO SOLUTION!! :o
-
Oh goody. Caps lock abuse as well.
-
NO NEED TO SHOUT, WE CAN HEAR YOU FINE! :)
Anyway, I do think that medical etc. could be subsidised if, y'know, they spent less money on weapons, but I suppose killing people is far more important than saving them. The Earth *is* overpopulated.
-
Entropy, really, you're over reacting. It was four words. And it's not like he has a pattern of it. Chill, and give him a chance.
-
While universal healthcare may be cost prohibitive, a cap on awards given in healtcare lawsuits, the importation of inexpensive phamaceuticals from overseas followed by a forced reduction in insurance rates might be a nice solution to some of our health care woes.
-
Also another problem with universal health care is something Canada's has, which is the goverment there is very slow on paying the bills so the doctors/hospitals take those up there with private health care over public, wich results in increadbly long waiting times for those that need it.
The main reason I'm against it is because you know that the goverment is going to horribaly missmanage it, no govement could do it right. So less then 50% of the govement would alocate to it would actualy goto health care costs. As for paying for it, we could easly pay for a medicare plan if the govement cut out all the pork and special intrests benifits, it's freaking insane what percentage of our taxes goto those. In 2003, we spent 22 billon dollars on things like how cow farts affect the ozone and studing the habbits of gay native americans.
Fun site for you political junkies like myself http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer
But then again I'm a guy who beleaves that the govement should provied the bare nessacitys, ie defence, economic stability, law & order (dang I love that show) and the freedoms to ensure life liberty and the persute of happyness.
-
Are there any good examples of nations where free healthcare actually works? Canada's a pretty rotten example (I knew a guy who had to wait eight months to get an MRI on his knee -- something that you'd only have to wait three or four weeks for here).
It works pretty good in Sweden, from what I gather, but their tax rate is pushing 65% of total income. If you're willing to live with that, I'd be fairly surprised.
And Gorgon, unfortunately overspeculation is not a problem we can blame on the government (and therefore fix). Overspeculation is caused by individuals (or companies) spending money they don't have (buying on margin). Until the general populace can learn to stop gambling, we're going to have overspeculation.
-
Finland has a system that appears to work decently at first, but there's a growing discontent and there is a growing movement to re-privatize health care.
I mean, we complain a lot about taxes here in the US, but those nutty Europeans find weird stuff to tax. A tax on TVs? What? Just to own one? Not to purchase? That's weird. Supposedly it's for the signal. Except that once the signal is broadcast, it's out there, and doesn't cost anything to receive. Unless it's cable, which means you're already paying a subscription. Then there's people like me, who own a TV but don't use cable AND don't receive broadcast. My TV is used for NOTHING besides viewing Video tapes and DVDs. Yet in FInland I'd still be taxed for it. I'm happy to vacation there for a week or so in the summer, but I couldn't ever live there.
-
Here all brits pay a TV liscencing tax, that goes towards the BBC. Since a lot of people don't like the BBC, and watch only sky digital, that makes them rather irate.
-
See, I would happily pay a TV tax if we got something akin to the BBC. I really like the concept of a major news network that doesn't have to affilate itself with sponsors (other than the gov't -- still, the BBC doesn't seem too biased toward the government either).
Then again, a Brit would know better.
-
hmm there was a huge scandal that ended up getting a lot of folks at the BBC fired lately, namely for saying that the government exaggerated the WMD evidence in Iraq.
Dont know how true your statement is anymore.
-
The BBC is notoriously leftie now. It spent the entire war moaning about it, and saying things like, "An american has died. This is the worst possible news for bush...". It got turned off on our aircraft carrier because the troops got pissed off with it.
They got fired for exaggerating the exaggerations of the Government. We british never seem to do things the easy way.
-
Here's something interesting that I read today: We hear constantly what a terrible thing the Patriot Act is. However, of the 17,000 official complaints filed against the federal government, only 17 were for abuses of the Patriot Act, and none of the claims were made by US citizens. Also, none of the claims have been proved yet to be real abuse. Interesting.
-
very interesting indeed...
-
A law doesn't have to used often to be a bad law.
-
That's true. I just find it interesting that it's such a major subject of controversy, despite the fact that there have been no proven cases of abuse.
It seems like people are wasting a whole lot of time talking about something that has yet caused no damage, when they could be discussing more pressing issues.
-
I think it's because most people know complaining to the government is pretty useless. It's not like they really care about the people.
-
I don't think that that is necisarrily true, especially here. I don't think it's that the government doesn't care about out opinions, mostly because their jobs depend on it, but it's that they care about their own opinion more, and figure they can justify it when election day comes rolling around.
-
Uh, yeah. Well done for noting part of the point of being a leader. IE, doing it your way, not everyone elses way.
-
I heard a snippet on the news yesterday about New York State supreme court judge striking down a section of the patriot act...
Thats the second state supreme court judge in three months... must mean something got prosecuted and was challenged.
I dont have the details though
-
Hopefully that is setting a precedent. I would love to see the Patriot Act declared unconstitutional and struck from law altogether...
-
http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20001104
I'm starting a write-in campaign.