Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
-VIOLENCE-

No Child Left Behind

Recommended Posts

So you'd rather we go in hunt of 72 virgins in the sky by blowing up as many people as possible.

 

Excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh bite me neuronmaster you damn faschist.

Do you know anything about the principles of democracy? In principle there are two parties, each standing for something, which members of the general public then get behind. You have obviously been propagandized by fox and the bush (he no longer deserves a capital letter in his name) government so much, that you're starting to believe the number one phallacy that the bush administration is pushing - that if you don't believe in their policies, you're un-american, so therefore you must be a terrorist. That phallacy is so contrary to any ideal of democracy, that anyone who repeats it has clearly been brainwashed by the right-wing government. Way to show me you're a patsy for the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's how it works...Bush is just too christian for someone to logically vote for him.  He's all "Yay, I'm a slave to my leadore!" and he decides that everyone has to follow Christian rules now.  Which is retarded.

 

If Bush is supposed to represent Christianity, then I'll denounce my faith.

 

Just because someone isn't American doesn't mean they cannot participate in a debate about American politics. Foreigners are just as informed as you are, if they do their homework. Enough with such a reactionary response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, this is going to take a while. Please excuse my quoting without using the "quote-inside-a-box" feature, but I'm tired.

 

I've learned that debating people who believe because they *want* to believe is a useless practice, but, nonetheless, sometimes you have to charge off into the middle of someone else's flamewar just to make sure that the truth is being adequately represented. Here I am going to demonstrate How To Become Flamebait. I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings, but I'll probably be represented as such. I don't intend to sound elitist or superior, again, I'll probably be represented as such. I'm just calling it as it is in the real world, folks. I'll also probably be flamed for making a super-long post when you could all just as easily ignore it. Oh well. Moving on.

 

Neuron Master

 

"I'm sick of people saying that Bush is gonna reinstate the draft. Let me explain it for all you cheerleaders. T-h-e-r-e i-s n-o-t g-o-n-n-a b-e a d-r-a-f-t u-n-d-e-r t-h-e B-u-s-h A-d-m-i-n-i-s-t-r-a-t-i-o-n."

 

I agree. But the truth is, the Selective Service has begun re-mobilizing and preparing mass-recruitment programs. Does this mean that there's going to be a draft? Nope. Does it mean that Bush wants or is planning for a draft? Nope. But it does show that the military believes there is enough of a chance that one will become necessary to make contingency plans. This is probably an "end of the world" scenario, but college students all over the country are running with it.

 

The truth: Democrats should shut up and sit down. Bush shouldn't promise that he won't reinstate the draft, because the way he's going there *might* come a day when he has to. Not bloody likely, but we remember how good presidential candidates are at keeping promises. "Read my lips", anyone?

 

Neuron Master

 

"In reality John Kerry keeps saying he has a plan. Please ignore that he hasn't said what his plan is, other than he has one, or that the only senaters/representatives that actually support it are democrats."

 

Or you could just go to www.johnkerry.com and read through the *15* pages set up to describe his plan. Also, no-one can technically *support* his plan yet, because *he's not president yet*. One could say that anyone supporting his candidacy is also supporting his plan, in which case *lots* of people are supporting his plan.

 

random guy

 

"If Bush wants to even think about starting another war with Iraq and Afghanistan still ongoing, there probably will be another draft."

 

Another war with Iraq and Afghanistan? That's physically impossible. You mean Iran, but the point of the war was to bring US troops into Iraq *next* to Iran to 'budge' Iran in the right direction. Not a bad plan, really, but not the one he sold to the public. Remember WMDs? Yeah, sure....

 

Anyway, NO-ONE believes the US can launch another pre-emptive war. Our capacity is spent. If there is another war, we're all f-socked... but there won't be one for a while. And there won't be a draft unless things go horribly wrong.

 

Neuron Master

 

"Please explain to me why there is a waiting list to join the air force in that case, and while your at it explain why all branches are exceeding 100% of their recruitment goals, and why all branches are experiencing all-time highs in retention rates."

 

The reason for "all-time highs in retention rates" is that the military isn't letting soldiers take their deserved discharges. They're keeping people in the army who should have been let go 18 months ago. This is not political spin, this is policy. You should know this.

 

Also, the Air Force, great as it is, is the least combat-intensive of the services (well, except the Coast Guard.) In most countries with mandatory military service, the Air Force is the cushiest service to get into. People go through the Air Force and Air Force ROTC primarily for educational funds, not that that's a bad thing, and those nutjobs who *really* think a draft is coming might just be trying to escape all the other branches who actually see combat.

 

random guy

 

"You explain why Bush had to pull troops out of certain European countries recently to send home. Besides which, all those people need to be trained, and that takes time.

 

Not to mention the fact that Iraq is starting to end up like Vietnam - paper-thin premise for being at war, and that premise is slowly getting eroded, 1000 US soldiers dead and no sign of the war stopping...pretty soon the only way to get people to go to Iraq is to force them, much like vietnam."

 

Pulling troops out of Europe is overdue. That's one of the few things he got right, although yes he did it so as to reinforce the ground forces in Iraq, not on principle.

 

Vietnam had a premise. That war *could* have been carried out correctly with a massive bombing campaign in the early years. The way it was handled, of course, destabilized the entire region and made a mockery of US military might and restraint. The Iraq war, on the other hand, didn't have a paper-thin premise. It didn't have a premise at all. *If* it was stated "we're going in to kill Saddam Hussein", *that* would have been a proper humanitarian premise. And *that* should have been done during the first Gulf War, if not before. Shame on the rest of the world for not sending in commandos/assassins to do it in the interim. Anyway, the new war has reasons, but none of them truly in the national interest. Bad comparison.

 

Neuron Master

 

"1. There is no direct threat in Europe or its immediate environs anymore.

 

2. Yeah, a long time right 6-12 weeks depending on the department and, depending on which department again additional training 2-3 monthes.

 

3. Crumbling reasons huh?. I'll give you one, Saddam's systematic executions, eradication of the kurds, mass graves. All on top of being a hostile dictator.

 

1000 US casualties in this war. A fraction of what was lost in Vietnam. Nice comparison. Yeah, war is a bad thing. So you're pretty much saying we never should've deposed Hitler, Moussolini, etc."

 

1. Exactly.

2. Ok

3. I agree. But that's not why we went, remember?

 

The new figures show that 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since "major combat operations" began. Say that half of them died of natural causes (I'm being generous). 2300 people died on September 11th. If we're responsible for 50,000+ civilian deaths, doesn't that make us 25 times more responsible? You have the wrong perspective here. Don't just count our troops. That'd be like saying "holy crap, 19 arabs died on September 11th killed by American buildings."

 

We were right in WWII, and we're helping the Iraqis. It could have been done in a much better way, and dead people are dead people and that's the final tally in my mind, saving as many lives as possible while doing the right thing. In this regard, we failed miserably - saving non-American lives, that is. So a) don't tout our "humanitarian compassion" when we were guarding the oil-ministries but not medical supply depots, cultural landmarks, and ammunition dumps and :afro: don't dismiss any criticism to American conduct by citing things we did get right. We have blame here - not that we're depraved and evil, but thinking we're *always* right is a sure start down that road.

 

random guy

 

"The US army is in fact so over-stretched that people are being sent back to iraq when they are wounded, and also the rule thingy that lets people serve the rest of their term at home after their done overseas is being cancelled. Its so overstretched that reserves are being sent to iraq- reserves are supposed to stay at home and defend the homefront. Explain that to me, then tell me that another war would not force the draft to be reinstated unless the army were to become so overstretched they'd collapse.

 

There's two sets of numbers here, the numbers of wounded soldiers being sent back into active combat after basically getting a band-aid, and the numbers of reserve soldiers being sent off to active duty, then there's the numbers the army proudly displays to try to propagandise people like you."

 

They're not sent back if they're too wounded to serve. They *did* volunteer, remember? Geez, this whole "save the poor soldiers" movement baffles me. They *wanted* to be in the army! On the other hand, having the National Guard from Midwest states patrolling Fallujah baffels me too...

 

random guy again

 

"peaker after speaker at the conference sponsored by the Association of the United States Army, the Center for American Progress and the Center for Peace and Security Studies described the current situation in the Guard and Reserve. The news was not good. In what John Kerry has called a "back-door draft," thousands of Guard and Reserve soldiers are being barred from leaving the supposedly "all volunteer" force when their voluntary service periods are over. Men and women who joined understanding they would be part-time warriors are deploying to combat as much as or more than their active-duty counterparts. A host of elected leaders, senior military officers, government officials and defense policy experts mostly painted a dismal picture of military reserves pushed to the breaking point because of the war in Iraq, and because of the Bush administration’s stubborn refusal to increase the size of the active-duty force."

 

Yes, Kerry's plan is to add two active divisions. This is very necessary. And yes, the military is keeping people past the point they should have been released. Yes, it's fundamentally evil to risk people's lives by violating a contract between government and citizen.

 

That's not the same as drafting college kids, though. The soldiers, sadly, *did* sign their lives to the service of their government. I'd have more outrage if they were just grabbing kids off the streets again.

 

KyokugenKiss

 

"I still dont consider this whole Iraq thing war, it was never declared...it is Vietnam all over again....and i hear if they reinstate it will be much harder to dodge it, HA HA HA, I laugh because im a dual citizen! i'll be soo outta here!

 

but its soo obvious that they will oneday do it, i mean why the hell is there still a selective service!"

 

It was authorized and declared. The Selective Service is there to draft you.*

 

* only in case of nuclear holocaust

 

Skythe

 

"Bush is not reinstating the draft. The Democrats put out a fake email to college students by scaring them with false facts that if Bush stays in office then they will get drafted."

 

That's one hell of an accusation. First off, the assertion isn't that there is *going* to be a draft... the fact that the Selective Service is "gearing up", and has been given huge budget increases over the last two years. If that's enough to scare someone... well, it makes sense, doesn't it?

 

Neuron Master

 

"xactly what I've been saying, getting ignorant kids to vote liberal with scare tactics."

 

As opposed to Cheney's comments that we will be attacked by terrorists if Kerry's elected?

 

"Ranbom Guy: You have ignored all the facts I have given you. Do you even know what a retention rate is? It's soldiers staying in the army. Some of the people who get injured and go home, yes they do go home, want to go back. Maybe down in Australia you guys don't have that companionship, but we Americans do. Whine all you want."

 

They stay, but not by choice. That's what makes this whole thing so pointedly *bad* for the administration.

 

"Propaganga numbers? Neh. False. American wounded troops adds up to around 7,000 Even our wounded troops can't possibly add up to the people that Saddam killed in his 25 year reign.

 

Random Guy: I'll say it again. You aren't American, so stay out of it.

No Body count

1,000 casualities and only 7,000 wounded is unheard of in war.

Only 7,000 injured. And all branches are exceeding 100% of their recruitment goals, and all branches are experiencing all-time highs in retention rates.

I'm not sure about you Australians, but America does not need a draft with those statistics."

 

Except for the fact that our military *is* over-committed (over-extended is not exactly apt.) And you're right that 1000 casualties in a war that ended up with our marginal occupation of Iraq is pretty good. Of course, most of those casualties happened *since* "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED", which *doesn't* look too good for us (it really didn't take a genius to do better, which is why there were so many dissenting opinions on troop-levels.)

 

"And we didn't go in for Oil.

Our (America's) GDP is almost 12 trillion dollars. You have to add the next six nations (Japan, UK, Germany, Italy, france and China) to roughly equal America's alone. What is Iraq's GDP? 18 billion. America produces that much (18 billion) every 14 hours! Our GDP is around 6,000 times the size of Iraq's. The coalition needs 4 billion per month for operations, supplies and reconstruction. According to the "No Oil For Blood" paranoid crowd, we'd therefore be spending 4 billion per month for 1.5 billion in oil. We've spent in excess of 300 billion dollars which would dictate we wait 15 years to get our money back (and thats just considering what we've spent thus far)! Alright! What a great investment! And that's only in the case that we are "stealing" all the oil or money of Iraq, while as a matter of fact, all the money that oil yields is spent to provide food, medications and of course to pay salaries to the Iraqis."

 

Sure we did. Of course, that's not even the primary reason, but there *is* a reason why the Oil Ministry was protected while the National Museum and all the hospitals weren't. You don't seem to understand the concept of people getting rich off of war, or presidents being re-elected during war-time despite failed economic policy.

 

"The aims of the war were freeing the Iraqi people, eliminating saddam, fighting state sponsored terrorism and spreading freedom and democracy in the middle east. We're trying to turn Iraq into the jewel of the middle east."

 

No, no they weren't. They really really weren't.

 

Freeing the Iraqi people? Could have been done in 91. Or by not installing and supporting Saddam in the first place.

 

Eliminating Saddam? Why? He wasn't even a threat, and we have many more powerful threats to deal with than to embarrass ourselves by being unable to peacefully occupy a country on account of Saddam.

 

Fighting state-sponsored terrorism? Why not Iran, then? Why not Syria? Why not Saudi Arabia??? Why not the Palestinians or Israelis, both of whom are spreading "might makes right" philosophies?

 

Spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East? I'm trying to sound somewhat dispassionate here, but you're kidding, right? We? The US? We the country that ended a 140-year tradition of democracy in Argentina? The country who entered the Treaty of Numbers with Stalin? The country who supported the military junta in Greece, allowed the invasion of Cyprus, and continues to sell F-16s and M-16s all the better for the Israelis to shoot the Palestinians with (not to mention the bulldozers to run them over with)? There's a reason other countries call us hypocritical, and you just summed it up.

 

We're trying to turn Iraq into the "jewel of the Middle East"? With 100,000 civilian casualties? By assuring the Iraqis that they'll have a government no other Muslim government will trust or want to work with? When was the last time you saw a political leader concerned for the well-being of the Iraqis at the level of concern for our troops (who represent our will in the world, not our babies)?

 

"Democrat from Massachusetts says he is strongest Presidential Candidate

on National Defense!

He said Check the Record.. We Did! Here is what we learned.

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle

He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank

He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988

He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system

(used by the Navy to protect against ship killing missiles!!)

He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle (considered by everyone to be

the top aerial fighter in the sky today!)

He voted to Kill the Block of 60 F-16 Fighter aircraft

He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade (Submarine patrol aircraft--YES! some smaller countries now have subs!!)

He voted to Kill the B-1 Bomber (A staple in our bomber fleet along with the B-2)

He voted to Kill the B-2

He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system

He voted to Kill the FA-18 (A top Navy fighter/attack aircraft!!)

He voted to Kill the F117!! (this is our night flying stealth bomber!!)

He voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988, INCLUDING a bill for battle armor for our troops!!!!!

It is most likely, if Sen. John Kerry is elected as President and Commander in Chief

of our Armed Services, that they will literally cease to function

making it impossible for our country to protect itself, let alone be able

to assist those who may truly need our help!!

John Kerry voted to kill all anti-terrorism activities of each and every agency

of the U.S. Government.

He voted to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%,

He voted to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%,

He voted to cut the funding for the NSA by 80%."

 

This is the crappiest source I've ever seen. It fails to mention that this was all in the post-Cold-War military-spending cutting effort that *BOTH PARTIES SUPPORTED* after the USSR collapsed. First off, it sounds like a Hot Wheels advert ("Our night flying stealth bomber!!"), second, how is adding two active divisions our "Armed Services... will literally cease to function"? These people were either high or deceptive when they presented this list this way.

 

"But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!!!

 

Is THIS a President YOU want?"

 

YES. For one, who remembers 2002? When we *OWED THE UN 300 MILLION IN BACK DUES*! Dues that *every other country in the world* had paid? 300 million dollars is nothing to the US government... but when the rest of the world didn't vote the US onto the "Human Rights Abuse" panel, GW threatened not to pay our DEBT to the UN until we were given a special exemption and forcefully instated into the committee. Do I want a non-deadbeat president, who voted to increase our funding to the UN because we owe them money? Actually, yes I do.

 

random guy

 

"The real reason for the invasion of iraq WAS oil. Oil and every other industry Iraq had to offer. There are classified documents which have leaked out of the white house detailing the plans to privatise the whole of Iraq, in order to put the entire country in the hands of American businessmen. And the worst part about this? Those plans were made up in 2001, and that was a year before Bush had even mentioned going to war."

 

That much about the plans is true. It's also true that Operation Iraqi Freedom was originally titled Operation Iraqi Liberation, and was quickly renamed for obvious reasons. But oil wasn't the only, or primary, reason for the war.

 

"And of course the reason Osama Bin Laden hasn't been caught yey was that Osama Bin Laden is in fact the son of one of the Bush family's most generous campaign contributers and closest friends, Salem bin Landen. And there's ample evidence to support that a large proportion of al Qaeda's funding comes from Salem bin Laden and other Saudi Arabian royal family members."

 

That's ridiculous.

 

"This war was both an exercise in big business playing war "

 

Now you're getting it.

 

"See what you seem to fail to understand is that sure this war is costing a fortune - but that money is coming from the taxpayers- ie you poor suckers. For big business involved in the reconstruction of the country, it's a wet dream - nothing but wall to wall profits. They in turn will keep bribing...erm making "campaign contributions" to Bush, and everybody wins.

Except the taxpayers.

And the 95% of the American public who aren't rich and therefore won't see a cent from Iraq.

And the soldiers.

And the people of Iraq.

And muslims in general who are being demonized."

 

Finally, someone considers the actual PEOPLE affected by the war. Kudos.

 

"And even if all your propaganda numbers were true, ask yourself, how many consecutive wars do you really think the US can be involved with simultaneously? Four more years of Bush would mean likely mean four more wars. Coupled with Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which require heavy commitments of soldiers already, how on earth do you think that you will be able to build up that sort of army without reintroducing conscription? At the very least, it would leave the home-front perilously undefended, meaning if you were invaded you'd be screwed."

 

Dude, we're not getting invaded. A friend and I tried, for curiosity's sake, to tabulate the *exact* amount of military force that would be needed to invade America - just trust me, it ain't happening any time soon. Or ever.

 

Four more wars? No, this was it. Not that that says much.

 

Neuron Master

 

"You aren't American. Shut up and sit down."

 

This is exactly why people hate America. It's because of people who have never been outside of America saying "this is the greatest country on earth". It's because of statements like this.

 

random guy

 

"Read harder. This war is all about big business making bucks, but the problem is the cannon fodder (american citizens) are wearing thin. Therefore conscription will have to be introduced so more of you blockheads can get shipped off to stand in front of rocket launchers so that big business can make more money, while they all the while have a warm glow inside because they believe in the president - that is until the rocket explodes and their insides get splattered all over the outside. One more victim of an unjust war so that big business can line their pockets over the suffering of common citizens."

 

DUDE, THERE WILL BE NO DRAFT.

 

"I've already told you, the costs of the iraq war come from the taxpayers, but the profits of invading, and much more importantly, reconstructing Iraq flow straight into the private sector - big business. They, in turn keep giving Bush kickbacks.

There's no money in the Iraq war for you. The taxpayer will never see any flowback or if they do it will be pitifuful compared to the amount of money it cost."

 

Now you've hit the jackpot.

 

Skythe

 

"Both Kerry and Edwards at first voted for the war on Iraq as they were given the exact same intel as President Bush. As time went on, they saw the oppotunity and switched to against it to one up some of the American people that disagreed with the war."

 

No. They didn't vote "for the war". They voted for THE AUTHORIZATION OF FORCE. Why don't bushies get this? Congress didn't get to vote for war, they got to vote for the authorization of force... the sabre to rattle, no more no less. The president got to decide what to do with that force, remember? The vote was in November, and the go / no-go decision was in MARCH. If they had voted against the authorization of force, now *that* would have crippled the *legitimate* efforts to get Saddam to allow complete inspections.

 

"Not even 72 hours after Christopher Reeves died, the Democrats decided to use him in an attempt to win some voters. They said that Bush hasn't and never cared for Stem Cell Research. That Kerry does and if he wins then everyone with Paralysis, Diabetes, etc will instantly be cured. NEWS FLASH!! Bush has been the ONLY president to fund the Stem Cell Research. Clinton had banded it. Plus, there are yet any cures using Stem Cell Research."

 

Except that Kerry was on the phone with Reeve two days before he died. The man was involved, and he deeply cared about the issue. Also, his WIFE, who had stayed with him out of love through 9 years of his complete physical incapacitation ALSO came out and campaigned for Kerry. Christopher Reeve would have wanted that, and that's not just a pretty-sounding sentence. It's the truth. True that Bush has been the only president to fund stem-cell research, but he's also planning to completely block the use of *already frozen* embryonic stem-cells in future research. And you can't blame Jimmy Carter for not funding the research, as it didn't exist back then. Not too sure about Clinton's term, though. Interesting question.

 

"That whole thing about the war being about oil is a big pile of Micheal Moore. Stop dramatizing life with bullsh!t."

 

Well said, but that doesn't mean that suspicion-of-government is bad. I mean, we do have 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths on our platter. Let's make damn sure the people who could do something to keep those numbers down *did*, and the people who told us we were going for a good reason provide one after all the stated ones turned out to be false.

 

Jjangthekid and AntiWinner, I'm with you 100%.

 

random guy

 

"No it really is about oil. The very reason that the US and other "friendly countries" are running out of oil and the fact that the US is becoming more and more dependent on the Saudis for oil was one of the driving reasons for the Iraq war. Bush wanted direct control of pipelines in the middle east, he was far too in debt with the Saudis to even think about trying to get his hands on some of that oil, so he cooks up some fake bullshit about WMDs in Iraq so he could get his hands on all the oil."

 

Actually, we get a bunch of oil from places like Venezuela, Norway, and soon Alaska. Also, we *will* be getting less dependent on oil in the near future. The oil is more important in terms of political clout, the "we don't need you" factor... and we're not gaining much on that front from this war. We just look like the mad bull, goring at random. And we still need, and buy, oil from OPEC. And guess what? Prices are going sky-high... and we're *still* buying from OPEC. Guess someone knows how to keep our head low in their presence. Certain people are going to be making a boatload of money from Iraqi oil, however... but the country's not better off for it.

 

Skythe

 

"Doesn't matter how stereotypical you want to look at it, Bush is the only president that has funded the research. BTW, the same point you tried to make could be made towards Kerry. A Catholic for abortion. Also note that Kerry did say he has strong Catholic beliefs. Apparently not that strong."

 

First off, if Bush has the only president who's been in office while the technology has existed (I need to look this up), then it's not such a big deal. Second, John Kerry is not pro-abortion. He's personally against abortion. He's pro-Church-State-Separation. Which is good. In fact, it means he's a much more Jeffersonian American than Bush, which makes me very happy with him. He keeps his beliefs... and let's the government operate governing, not preaching from the White House.

 

"Oh yeah. It has been announced some days ago that there are some key items in the nuclear power plants in Iraq, that can be used for nuclear weaponry, noted missing."

 

Interesting, need to look this up.

 

"There's no conspiracy with Haliburton either. That should end too."

 

No, because conspiracies are meant to be kept secret. No surprise, Halliburton is currently being investigated for dealing illegally with the US gov't on the no-bid contracts they got. Apparently, several whistle-blowers on the inside confessed everything. This should become more interesting as the weeks go by.

 

samoht

 

"Well...I'm actually a US citizen, and Bush can kiss my ass.

 

Here's the grim truth: No matter how much anyone may think they know about what's really going on, they will NEVER actually know the truth."

 

In my mind, this post is tonight's big winner.

 

darkmage479, good to hear you're campaigning, just promise not to get too put off if we lose this year. I'm very afraid. You'll have to excuse people talking as if they know everything, I think it's partly due to the gravity of the issues being discussed. This is "save the world vs ruin the world" politics in many people's minds, and with good reason I guess.

 

random guy

 

"So he used a few dirty words, and now he's a racist. Republican Zell Miller was a long-time advocate of slavery, among other things. But then I guess he's not racist, because he's a republican right?"

 

Actually, Zell Miller is a Democrat. But he's also campaigning for Bush. He's a bit of an oddity. I don't like him very much for my own reasons.

 

"Oh and kyokugenkiss, I don't know about anyone else, but over here voting is compulsory once you reach 18, and in fact I just voted twice in 2 weeks just weeks ago (for both local and federal parliament)"

 

It's the same in Greece (where I spend a good portion of the year.) Greeks are highly political by nature, so it's not as if they wouldn't get involved, but they are SO much more informed about their government than most of my fellow citizens over here are. I wonder if the size of the country has a big part to do with it, and that's certainly not addressable without a surprise secession (Oregon, Washington, British Columbia - Let Our Powers Combine!!!), but I think compulsory voting would greatly help to educate the citizenry. I wish we had it here.

 

caramba

 

"Black Caucus Racist?

 

Need i remind you that the US still imprisons blacks at a higher rate than South Africa during apartheid?

 

And who consistent pushes for mandatory minimum setencing?

Republicans

 

And who pushes for tougher drug laws?

Republicans

 

And who voted against Martin Luther King jr. day?

Republicans"

 

Cheney himself voted against Martin Luther King jr. Day, interestingly enough, yet black support for the president might potentially double from the last election. I would have expected the opposite, but people's interests and beliefs are varied enough to account for this.

 

You can't deny a charge against the Black Caucus by saying that Republicans are racist (which they have been since the great liberal-conservative switch of the early twentieth century, excluding Dixiecrats.) The sad truth is that America *is* racially fractured, why else would we *need* a Black Caucus? So kinda they are... in that the stated purpose of the group, who are elected officials, is to represent black Americans more strongly than white Americans. Still, it's a complex subject, and one *neither* side is really willing to deal with and move on. Shame on both sides.

 

And yeah, Thurman and Rehnquist are pricks. (I can say that here, right?)

 

random guy

 

"Oh bite me neuronmaster you damn faschist.

Do you know anything about the principles of democracy? In principle there are two parties, each standing for something, which members of the general public then get behind. You have obviously been propagandized by fox and the bush (he no longer deserves a capital letter in his name) government so much, that you're starting to believe the number one phallacy that the bush administration is pushing - that if you don't believe in their policies, you're un-american, so therefore you must be a terrorist. That phallacy is so contrary to any ideal of democracy, that anyone who repeats it has clearly been brainwashed by the right-wing government. Way to show me you're a patsy for the Republicans."

 

Actually, you're not describing democracy at all. You're describing a Representative Republic, which is meant to facilitate government over great geographic areas. And you're describing a strictly two-party Representative Republic at that. It's not very condusive to indiviual rights and liberties, which is why the Bill of Rights was so necessary. And why the Patriot Act chafes so much (I can think of three of the first ten Amendments ripped to shred by the PA. Anyway...)

 

Polemic langauge aside, you've pretty much described the neo-con MESSAGE to a tee. Of course, the individual citizens who vote for the neo-cons are, on the whole, just as nice people as the uber-hippy-commune-dwelling-anti-property-rights groups, if not nicer. Just very, very on message. Which pretty much describes a fascist, for that matter... odd how people take terms which have had a strong impact in history and use them as these extreme view-points. Fascism isn't that complicated, and yes, that's pretty much what we're moving towards - not that we'll ever get to the Mussolini level of tyranny (tyranny, by the way, has only recently taken on a negative connotation - politically it just means "absolute authority resting in one public official", such as the case in many empires.)

 

Chaotica

 

"If Bush is supposed to represent Christianity, then I'll denounce my faith."

 

I'm an atheist. I love Christianity and Christians, because basically you guys are my cultural family. So I deeply hope you understand that I'm not saying this flippantly - George W Bush doesn't represent Christianity. Living in America and having Christian friends and Mormon friends (among others), after having a good amount of exposure to many OLD Christian churches, I really believe that not many churches in America represent Christianity AT ALL. That's not to say that they don't have the right to their beliefs... but yeah, they hardly resemble the original churches and message. Don't sweat it, Bush is a *long* way off from being Jesus's mouthpiece on earth.

 

"Just because someone isn't American doesn't mean they cannot participate in a debate about American politics. Foreigners are just as informed as you are, if they do their homework. Enough with such a reactionary response."

 

WORD. Living in the geographical area of an event doesn't give you some mystical greater understanding of said event. The only thing that helps is study, study, study - and the ones who've taken the time to find out the truth, WHEREVER they're from or WHATEVER analysis they might have, show it through their knowledge of events and circumstances. The problem is that the world is SO big now-a-days that for every event you have 10 sides wanting you to believe their version of the truth. Gods help you if you only watch FOX News, or even CNN for that matter, or only read one newspaper, or even only read newspapers from one COUNTRY. It takes a lot of hard work to keep up on events, but I'm very grateful that so many people are taking the time in this modern world to become informed. I really look up to those people, and those others who say "you're not economically invested in this election" or whatever and try to silence the educated voices... well, they're the ones who have to live in ignorance for the rest of their lives, right? Don't be too hard on them, they've brought their own punishment down upon themselves.

 

Well, I'm out. No-one will read this whole thing, probably, and whoever does will find typos and minor factual errors, perhaps. I don't take flak on opinion, but feel free to flame me for spelling a name wrong or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a Christian take on Bush that hasn't really been shown in the news:

This website serves as notice to Christians across this nation that President George Bush over the past few years has compromised his "Christian faith" by promoting evil and openly supporting wickedness. It is our hope and prayer that he would Repent and turn from such blatant sin. He is not our friend and cannot be trusted.

This website is dedicated to providing up-to-date factual news information tracking the president's anti-Christian and ungodly behavior. We encourage you to pray for Mr. Bush.

 

http://www.bushrevealed.com/

 

I guess not all Evangelical morons want him elected. :afro:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh. Reading that site kinda scares me. They're against Bush, but they're also against gay people. Do these people have *any* friends?

Edited by Swithin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent post, Swithin. I just hope people will actually read all of it. :afro:

Edited by GryphonKlaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't quote that huge post, but on the first point you got me wrong, what I was saying was that if another war was started with troops still ocupied in Iraq and Afghanistan it would put a terrible strain on the army.

2. The only "premise" for Vietnam was stopping the terrible wave of communism through a tightly controlled propaganda campaign designed to instill a fear of a certain subset of people based solely on their religious/political beliefs. Sound familiar? Good comparison (if you ask me anyway).

3.The soldiers are still human beings and they still therefore have basic civil rights - which are being violated by the Bush tactic of keeping them on after they've been injured and refusing to let them leave after their active service has finished.

And beside that, consider the fact that as you know, a growing number of the troops over there are reserves and guardsmen - people with jobs and families who are being pulled out of their lives into a battlefield. That's close enough to a draft that even if I didn't believe that another war would lead to a for-real draft I'd still consider there to be an informal draft happening.

4. I know oil wasn't the ONLY reason for the war, but that and the other millions of dollars private companies are reaping off of the suffering of Iraqis was no doubt the driving reason behind it.

5. I know that you buy your oil from the global suppliers - and so does Bush and he's sweating about it. And we've seen what he did about it....

6. It's what I've always been saying but I'm glad you agreed with the way I put it that time

7. Whoops, you're right about that, although I don't know if you can still call him that (didn't he defect to the dark side once he started slamming Kerry at the RNC?)

8. I have to disagree with your analysis there. Sure, in principle large groups of parties should have an equal shot at controling the top spot, but in reality the incumbent government has the ultimate say over what happens (look at what Bush has managed to get away with!)

Hey, I'm not too fond of democracy either, but the one thing it does promise is that everyone is allowed to have their opinions and that their votes are allowed to reflect those opinions. That was the point I was trying to make - equating people who oppose the war on Iraq, or the USA PATRIOT act, or even Bush himself with terrorists is contrary to that very principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh. Reading that site kinda scares me. They're against Bush, but they're also against gay people. Do these people have *any* friends?

 

These are the extreme Christians. I just like to call them idiots.

 

These are the people who would vote for Michael Peroutka.

This is his platform:

webbanner.gif

Edited by GryphonKlaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an edit of that gif I made sometime last month. I didn't want to put in the same post because then it's just be confusing.

 

I'm pretty sure you can figure out what I added into it.

petrouka2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Ok, I see you weren't saying oil was the only reason. I just have a thing against putting it first, because the political implicationsand *globally* economic implications of the word "oil" overpower the more pedestrian implication of "profit". Which profit, as you pointed out very well, comes from a lot more than oil.

 

2. Vietnam was to stop communism from spreading. Made sense under the zeitgeist of the time. The whole world thought that way. We didn't enter Iraq to stop anything, and it sure as hell doesn't make sense to any other country (except our personal fluffer, 'Great' Britain.)

 

3. As for the troops being kept over, hell yeah I feel bad for them. Sucks to be them in the worst way. I just have this other thing against people who join the military to sit around, smoke, and weight-train. Or to go to college; being a country's gun is *not* a part time job to finance your education! Sure the military is tough on you, but a lot of recruits don't ever expect to go to WAR, which is a lot tougher. And basically, that's what they're agreeing to - when we need you to die for our country, you've signed over your life so step up and do it. If it was anything *less*, military service (and any and all positives that go along with it) wouldn't be so dramatic. They volunteered to be cannon fodder. They wanted to be soldiers, they wanted to see war. If our government doesn't do war very well, tough on them. Soldiers are just very tough pawns, historically, now, and forever. That's what we need. If we didn't make it abundantly clear, if they weren't really willing to sign over the lives, I'd hope for them that they never joined the army in the first place. Volunteering to kill and die for your country kind of puts you in a fuzzy area on civil rights, in my opinion. Soldiers are our knives and swords. We do logic and the sanctity of sacrifice harm when we start looking at them like teddy bears.

 

7. Yeah, Zell's a nutcase. He's also got a worse case of froth-mouth than Howard Dean. In other words, he uses rhetoric that attempts to win votes by making the voting public DUMBER. I hate him.

 

8. Oh, I'm plenty fond of democracy. I just think that once you bring parties into the mix, and you will, you need a *very* educated electorate. If the people don't take charge of their own education (as I mentioned is the case in Greece - somewhat), then there should definitely be mechanisms in government to inform the public of what's going on. That just doesn't work too well in a two-party system. The founders of America's constitution did a good job (for the time - only land-owning racial-majority males get to vote?) of countering voter-indoctrination and voter-ignorance, but with the years we've been indoctrinated and dumbed-down like nobody's business. The whole system would work if the government found a way to check the lies and inform the voters - that's why I said mandatory participation would help.

 

On the other points, you're absolutely right. I was a bit over-zealous. Sorry bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...