Why am I not surprised?

[deganawida]

Read this. Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, take note of the byline, which says, "Associated Press".

 

You know, 4 years ago I knew a dangerous precedent was being set, and now it appears that I was right.

[Product of the Cosmos]

I don't back Kerry any more I would back Sylvester Stallone(lol). But I don't blame him. The whole count, and recount fiasco was a big screw up.

 

Also, the CEO of the maker of the electronic vote machines(I think it's die-bold or something like that) has been on the record saying he'll support Bush as much as he can. Odd these machines don't have paper trails. Not that I'm saying a conspiracy will, and has happened. But it's rather fishy...

 

 

"Bush voluntarily limited his recount donations to $5,000 each and raised nearly $14 million. Gore took unlimited donations and spent about $3.2 million on the recount."

 

lol, the normal Fox News spin. What they obviously didn't mention for bias reasons, is Bush got many parties who had numerous 5,000 or less donations. The Goldsteins(Larry Goldstein bought the WTC 6 weeks before they went down and benefitted multibillions of dollars in insurance as well as saved hundreds of millions in repairs needed as the building were destroyed) donated in 24 installments of donations from $50-2,500 dollars in election donations. This is one of the tactics of deception by politicians(Bush's staff are masters at it) so often to make claims more credible to their benefit.

[Ellester]

Well, it looks like it

[taks]

this is not unusual, deganawida. campaigns ALWAYS budget for recall battles. however, until recently, such propositions didn't have the media attention as now.

 

taks

[deganawida]

"Bush voluntarily limited his recount donations to $5,000 each and raised nearly $14 million. Gore took unlimited donations and spent about $3.2 million on the recount."

 

  lol, the normal Fox News spin.  What they obviously didn't mention for bias reasons, is Bush got many parties who had numerous 5,000 or less donations.  The Goldsteins(Larry Goldstein bought the WTC 6 weeks before they went down and benefitted multibillions of dollars in insurance as well as saved hundreds of millions in repairs needed as the building were destroyed) donated in 24 installments of donations from $50-2,500 dollars in election donations.  This is one of the tactics of deception by politicians(Bush's staff are masters at it) so often to make claims more credible to their benefit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Product, read a little closer. This is an Associated Press story, not a Fox News story. Thus, no "Fox News spin".

[Child of Flame]

Read this.  Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, take note of the byline, which says, "Associated Press".

 

You know, 4 years ago I knew a dangerous precedent was being set, and now it appears that I was right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Just out of curiousity...does your dad support Bush? You know, what with his religious ties and all; mine does.

[deganawida]

Just out of curiousity...does your dad support Bush?  You know, what with his religious ties and all; mine does. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Complicated answer. My dad's a moderate Southern Baptist minister (some would say liberal, but that isn't accurate, and I don't care what those people say anyway). His ministry and life have been made much more difficult by the Fundamentalists in the denomination, and so no one in the family likes mixing religion and politics. We are all glad that Bush is a Christian. (Allow me to diverge a moment. A lot of Bush's detractors and the press like calling him a Fundamentalist. In point of fact, though, he isn't. He's an evangelical, which is totally different. Though the two movements share some similarities on some issues, such as abortion and homosexual marriage, Fundamentalism is primarily a legalistic, political movement, while the evangelical movement is primarily a spiritual movement focusing on the role of the Holy Spirit and spreading the Gospel.)

 

Now, we all support Bush, and for much of the same reasons. Though we're all dirt-poor (my current salary is a little over $15,000, and that's with two degrees), we've never relied on the government to provide for us. If we didn't have the money for something, we went without luxuries. I realize that it's a radical concept nowadays, but one doesn't have to have cable, two plus new cars (we have junkers, but they get us where we're going), DSL, a top-of-the-line computer, money to blow eating at restaurants, and so on. We are able to live comfortably by doing without such luxuries (which is partially why I am so picky when it comes to games, as I can't afford to make a bad choice when I buy one). Would we like to have them? Yeah, you bet! However, we believe that it is morally and ethically wrong to expect others to pay for our excess, and we are determined to work our butts off until we can afford those luxuries ourselves.

 

Second, we've never liked big government. Now, there isn't much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to government size, and even less of a difference when one looks at Bush's domestic spending agenda, but there is a difference, and we like to err on the side that spends less.

 

Third, we don't like the Democrat Party's stance on criminals, the role of the courts, and abortion. IMO, the Dems are too lenient on criminals (and, yes, I do know how prison environments can have a detrimental effect on rehabilitation). We don't view it as the government's responsibility to rehabilitate criminals (the onus there is on the criminal, as no one else can change them), but to enforce the law and punish the guilty. We don't believe that new laws should be made in the courts (I've never found "right to choose" in the Constitution), but that they should be made in the legislature and determined in the courts if they violate our founding documents only. Regarding abortion, none of us believe in it. I have two adopted sisters, whose mothers were originally planning to abort; I'm eternally grateful that they didn't. Personally, I don't buy the whole "when can a fetus survive on it's own" argument, because I know for a fact that children can't survive without constant adult supervision until at least 4 years of age (medical research, BTW, has shown that newborns will die without human contact). Further, the argument to me is whether or not the fetus has a unique genetic signature; as human cloning has yet to be accomplished, the answer to that question is always yes, and as such the zygote/fetus/baby is a person (BTW, ever wonder what "fetus" means, since there seems to be a distinction between fetus and baby in all talk on abortion? It means "baby".). There's always an exception (such as endangering the life of the mother), but I hate how we've cheapened human life.

 

Finally, and this opinion is pretty much mine, as most of my family doesn't get this deep into politics, the concept of an American empire doesn't bother me. When one looks through human history, the most enlightened times in our civilizations have been when most of the world was controlled by an empire. Whether said empire was the Persian, Greek, Macedonian, Roman, Holy Roman, or British, we wouldn't have gotten where we are today without the stability offered by those empires. Science has flourished in the majority of these empires (Holy Roman being the exception, though art did advance quite significantly, as well as exploration), and the lot of people after the empires fell or turned inward was better than it was before the empire. The US has been thrust into the position of being the most powerful nation on earth, and I believe that it is folly to not try to use our power to help improve the lot of those living on this wondrous orb. Will we screw up? Yup. Will some people get mad at us no matter what we do? Yup. Will some people view us as oppressors rather than liberators or helpers? Yup. Does this mean we shouldn't try? Nope. I've only lived on this earth for 28 years, and I've seen both the best and worst from people, and have concluded that no one is perfect, nor will anyone ever be. Imperfection, though, is not an excuse to not try to better the world. No, it won't be perfect, but it could be much better than what currently exists. For example, by behaving more as an empire in Africa and the Middle East, we could significantly reduce the slave trade in those areas (as slavery is illegal in our laws), which currently is greater than at any other time in the world, even during the 17th and 18th centuries. That's just one example. Before you dismiss the idea as folly, though, take a moment and try to imagine where the world would be without the empires that have dominated our histories. Also, look at how empires behave, as far as generally not being too involved in subject nations' internal affairs (though there was some involvement, in each case the empire left most things up the the subject nations' native governments). Finally, remember that science, art, literacy, mathematics, and jurisprudence wouldn't be where they are today without the stability offered by the empires and the far-reaching influence that they had to spread those concepts.

[Child of Flame]

Just out of curiousity...does your dad support Bush?  You know, what with his religious ties and all; mine does. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Complicated answer. My dad's a moderate Southern Baptist minister (some would say liberal, but that isn't accurate, and I don't care what those people say anyway). His ministry and life have been made much more difficult by the Fundamentalists in the denomination, and so no one in the family likes mixing religion and politics. We are all glad that Bush is a Christian. (Allow me to diverge a moment. A lot of Bush's detractors and the press like calling him a Fundamentalist. In point of fact, though, he isn't. He's an evangelical, which is totally different. Though the two movements share some similarities on some issues, such as abortion and homosexual marriage, Fundamentalism is primarily a legalistic, political movement, while the evangelical movement is primarily a spiritual movement focusing on the role of the Holy Spirit and spreading the Gospel.)

 

Now, we all support Bush, and for much of the same reasons. Though we're all dirt-poor (my current salary is a little over $15,000, and that's with two degrees), we've never relied on the government to provide for us. If we didn't have the money for something, we went without luxuries. I realize that it's a radical concept nowadays, but one doesn't have to have cable, two plus new cars (we have junkers, but they get us where we're going), DSL, a top-of-the-line computer, money to blow eating at restaurants, and so on. We are able to live comfortably by doing without such luxuries (which is partially why I am so picky when it comes to games, as I can't afford to make a bad choice when I buy one). Would we like to have them? Yeah, you bet! However, we believe that it is morally and ethically wrong to expect others to pay for our excess, and we are determined to work our butts off until we can afford those luxuries ourselves.

 

Second, we've never liked big government. Now, there isn't much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to government size, and even less of a difference when one looks at Bush's domestic spending agenda, but there is a difference, and we like to err on the side that spends less.

 

Third, we don't like the Democrat Party's stance on criminals, the role of the courts, and abortion. IMO, the Dems are too lenient on criminals (and, yes, I do know how prison environments can have a detrimental effect on rehabilitation). We don't view it as the government's responsibility to rehabilitate criminals (the onus there is on the criminal, as no one else can change them), but to enforce the law and punish the guilty. We don't believe that new laws should be made in the courts (I've never found "right to choose" in the Constitution), but that they should be made in the legislature and determined in the courts if they violate our founding documents only. Regarding abortion, none of us believe in it. I have two adopted sisters, whose mothers were originally planning to abort; I'm eternally grateful that they didn't. Personally, I don't buy the whole "when can a fetus survive on it's own" argument, because I know for a fact that children can't survive without constant adult supervision until at least 4 years of age (medical research, BTW, has shown that newborns will die without human contact). Further, the argument to me is whether or not the fetus has a unique genetic signature; as human cloning has yet to be accomplished, the answer to that question is always yes, and as such the zygote/fetus/baby is a person (BTW, ever wonder what "fetus" means, since there seems to be a distinction between fetus and baby in all talk on abortion? It means "baby".). There's always an exception (such as endangering the life of the mother), but I hate how we've cheapened human life.

 

Finally, and this opinion is pretty much mine, as most of my family doesn't get this deep into politics, the concept of an American empire doesn't bother me. When one looks through human history, the most enlightened times in our civilizations have been when most of the world was controlled by an empire. Whether said empire was the Persian, Greek, Macedonian, Roman, Holy Roman, or British, we wouldn't have gotten where we are today without the stability offered by those empires. Science has flourished in the majority of these empires (Holy Roman being the exception, though art did advance quite significantly, as well as exploration), and the lot of people after the empires fell or turned inward was better than it was before the empire. The US has been thrust into the position of being the most powerful nation on earth, and I believe that it is folly to not try to use our power to help improve the lot of those living on this wondrous orb. Will we screw up? Yup. Will some people get mad at us no matter what we do? Yup. Will some people view us as oppressors rather than liberators or helpers? Yup. Does this mean we shouldn't try? Nope. I've only lived on this earth for 28 years, and I've seen both the best and worst from people, and have concluded that no one is perfect, nor will anyone ever be. Imperfection, though, is not an excuse to not try to better the world. No, it won't be perfect, but it could be much better than what currently exists. For example, by behaving more as an empire in Africa and the Middle East, we could significantly reduce the slave trade in those areas (as slavery is illegal in our laws), which currently is greater than at any other time in the world, even during the 17th and 18th centuries. That's just one example. Before you dismiss the idea as folly, though, take a moment and try to imagine where the world would be without the empires that have dominated our histories. Also, look at how empires behave, as far as generally not being too involved in subject nations' internal affairs (though there was some involvement, in each case the empire left most things up the the subject nations' native governments). Finally, remember that science, art, literacy, mathematics, and jurisprudence wouldn't be where they are today without the stability offered by the empires and the far-reaching influence that they had to spread those concepts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Interesting views. Though it doesn't sound like you particularly like Bush or Kerry....have you thought about voting for a third party candidate like Nader?

[Judge Hades]

Third party candidates never win.

[Child of Flame]

Third party candidates never win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Because not enough people vote for them.....if you vote for them....they will win.

[Judge Hades]

Not really. We have this thing called the Electoral College. No one in the EC will vote for a third party candidate. Hell, they don't even have to vote for the majority of the state voted for.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Time for revolution?

[Child of Flame]

Time for revolution?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm game. :D

[tripleRRR]

I agree with most of what deganawida said, surprising that his views mirror mine so closely.

 

Anyway electoral college is specified in the constitution, it is their as a means of keeping the countries leaders from being directly chosen by the people, because there are times when people are stupid. I don't see it going away anytime soon.

 

 

TripleRRR

[Product of the Cosmos]

"but there is a difference, and we like to err on the side that spends less."

 

The last 3 Republicans have spent more then all the other presidents combined.

 

"Anyway electoral college is specified in the constitution, it is their as a means of keeping the countries leaders from being directly chosen by the people, because there are times when people are stupid. I don't see it going away anytime soon."

 

Which is why saying we have a democracy is rather naive.

[taks]

we don't have a democracy by design, PoTC. we have a republic. that's not some big secret or anything...

 

taks

[Product of the Cosmos]

I know.. But tell that to like 50% of the USA..

 

 

How can we spread democracy amongst other nations when we dont have it here!!!?

[taks]

we aren't trying to spread "democracy," PoTC, we're trying to spread democratically elected governments. which is what ours is...

 

true democracy suffers the same as any ideal governmental system. as soon as the mob realizes it can vote itself the keys to the treasury, it will. the result is anarchy and, likely, some totalitarian rule...

 

taks

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Finally, and this opinion is pretty much mine, as most of my family doesn't get this deep into politics, the concept of an American empire doesn't bother me."

 

It bothers me. I'm Finnish and I like our system better than yours. You guys seem pretty closeminded on some issues (I mean, how the hell can stuff like gay marriage and abortion be major issues in a western country?). I don't like our social system, but I sure as hell don't like yours better. Your government sounds awfully cumbersome (though, EU seems to be quite bureucratic, but it got some good things in it that I like) and corrupt in comparison to ours (then again, last I heard, we've got the lowest corruption %) and so on and so forth. While as you say, they'd leave most of it alone, they're going to mess with some of it.

 

Of course, if you're talking about just expanding to cover some African and Middle Eastern countries, and not a global empire, I wouldn't mind so much. Of course, I wouldn't like it, since I believe in our times we have better ways to achieve those things you mentioned. Empires cause too many bad things and I'd like for them to stay dead.

 

"I've only lived on this earth for 28 years, and I've seen both the best and worst from people [...]"

 

While this is just my 17th year here, I'd say it's too early to tell until you're knee deep in the grave.

[taks]

hehe, you're probably still too young to make even that statement.

 

taks

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Probably, but I don't think he is old enough to say what he did either, so there's already a precedent for these kinds of things here.

 

[Grandpa]

I know.. But tell that to like 50% of the USA..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Try 75%. It isn't an exact number, but I bet it reflects the truth a little closer.

 

 

Of course, if you're talking about just expanding to cover some African and Middle Eastern countries, and not a global empire, I wouldn't mind so much. Of course, I wouldn't like it, since I believe in our times we have better ways to achieve those things you mentioned. Empires cause too many bad things and I'd like for them to stay dead.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Empires have never been dead. Since the Babylonians and Mesopotamians, there has been an empire somewhere. Including now. Some larger than others, some more benevolent than others. Now is no exception.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

^ Ok.

 

Any empire that's reading this right now:

 

Plz go kill yourself.

 

kthxbye

 

---

 

Ok, guess you have a point there. I'd like for them to drop dead.

[Grandpa]

Fair enough.

[Gorth]

Ok, guess you have a point there. I'd like for them to drop dead.

 

Oh, those notorious Finnish anarchists!

 

Look at the bright side, as bad a thing as empire building is, no empire lasts. The Roman empire grew complacent, diluted with foreign ideas and ethnic groups in their armies and edministration, the Spanish empire grew complacent, navel fixated and convinced of their own superiority. The various Chinese, Indian, pre-Columbian, British etc. did the same. Even a recent one like the communist Soviet empire choked to death in paranoia and overspending on their military budgets to sustain their global ambitions (and literally fell apart, when the infrastructure couldn't carry the weight anymore).

 

Preprogrammed selfdestruction seems to be part of any empire, it's just that you can't really set your watch after it

 

B.t.w. what does "Sarjahurmaaja" mean, does it translate into something, or does it just sound "Finnish" ? B)