[quote=“mesheel”]I don’t believe that understanding a country, it’s politics, culture and people does require having lived there. This is not to say that I understand what US politics, though.
So which post do you refer to Flipper? The one about America being the land of the free? You don’t actually believe that, do you?[/quote]
do you not realize that most of the anti-war articles and links that are quoted on this forum were produced by americans in america? do you not realize that 2 of the biggest newspapers in the country(nytimes and latimes) have been strongly against the war since the very beginning? do you not realize that a large number of americans opposed the war?
there are many posts on this very forum talking about how evenly divided americans are.
a couple of news outlets have conducted little experiements by having reporters go to different regions wearing clothes supporting kerry and bush. bush supporters in kerry/anti-war territory were met with many more insults than kerry supporters in bush territory.
you live on a continent where almost all the media feed you the same opinion on the war. a vast majority of europeans have the exact same position so there is no debate at all. never have i seen such universal group-think. and you call america brainwashed?
your criticism of the iraq war debate in the us exposes your complete lack of knowledge of america. so yes, you can throw your baseless criticism around, but don’t be surprised if americans point out what a complete crock your arguments are.
Okay, regarding gay marriage I don’t think it’s a backlash. Since marriage in modern times often doesn’t involve religion, it is discrimination against homosexuals to prohibit their right to marry and enjoy the benefits thereof (i.e. tax and legal status (seeing a loved one in hospital, opening joint bank accounts, etc.)). For many people, not being married means that there is not a serious union, which has to be validated by marriage. Many Republicans feel that asking for one’s natural rights is somehow ‘shoving things down other’s throats.’
Secondly, the right to bear arms was a necessity during a guerrilla war and for the subsequent paranoia about being invaded after independence was to be achieved. Nowadays, however, it is obvious that guns are responsible for the 11,000 or so murders-by-guns reported in the U.S. (it’s likely this number is higher). Keeping an amendment that hurts society simply because it is part of the Bill of Rights is sanctifying something useless and antithetical to the American philosophy of pragmatism. As William James believed, anything that was not useful for a society should be rejected. You can love guns as much as you want, and I’ll admit to enjoy hunting and shooting at firing ranges, but they shouldn’t be legal.
Finally, why is it that under Clinton we enjoyed a BALANCED BUDGET, whereas Republicans love to talk about ‘small government’ after they spend us and all future generations into massive debt?
Is not going into debt all that bad? Has going into debt done any good? Now the dollar is being further devalued because we are too dependent on foreign currencies. Will Bush really help? :loco:
guns
Clinton - balanced budget
Sometime in the weeks leading up to the election, have someone with access to the central Diebold GEMS server (which tallies all votes from every precinct) install a program that gives remote access to this machine (a “backdoor”).
The GEMS server runs under Windows XP, so this is really easy since there are many existing programs that give you remote access on Windows without the user of the computer ever knowing about it. Anti-virus software like Norton can’t detect this stuff either.
This person can install the backdoor directly in about 30 seconds or the backdoor can easily be hidden inside a “normal” program that you could give as a CD to the owner of the machine and have them install it for you (like Microsoft Office).
Simply peruse this site to discover all the backdoor programs you could choose from:
On Election day, have someone access the backdoor via a remote computer. Since the GEMS server likely runs on an internal, statewide intranet, you would need someone, anywhere within the state, who had access to this network.
Since the GEMS software is built using Microsoft Access, simply have your person upload a simple Visual Basic script (via the backdoor) that modifies the database totals directly and then execute it during the day. Congratulations! You’ve changed the election!
Make sure that the totals are close enough (like 5%) so that you ensure that won’t be any recounts (which might expose you) but not too far apart to raise alarm.
After the election, have your person remotely uninstall the program and any other files. This guarentees there is no proof of wrong doing.
Repeat, as necessary, for as many states as needed to ensure victory.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
[quote=“spook”][color=blue]Meanwhile, back at the Worst Case Scenario Ranch . . . [/color]
The dollar continued its decline in global currency markets yesterday, intensifying worries among some economists that mounting U.S. budget and trade deficits could send the U.S. currency into a tailspin. . . [/quote]
It’s called capitalism, and it’s ok by me. Nothing wrong with profit, comrade.
What you call ‘go[ing] against the US Dollar’ I call his ability to profit from poorly executed fiscal policies. As long as Bush fails to act in a fiscally responsible manner, guys like Soros will be there to take the American dollars Bush would be forced to shed as the final result of (what can only be described as) sheer folly.
Conservatives used to understand this.
Crying that Soros is ‘evil’ while failing to hold Bush accountable for his part in the fiscal policies of the past four years is as bad as Democrats crying that Bush is ‘evil’ while failing to hold the Dems accountable for their overall lack of a relevant, coherent message in the past election.
The other shoe in the Worst Case Scenario is the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities sometime this spring before Iran reaches the point of no return in its nuclear technology program.
That will be an act of war of unpredictable consequences for the Middle East, including a possibly catastrophic chain of events.
So the world potentially eschewing the dollar and Iran’s uranium enrichment program are the two real wild cards in America’s near-term future.
How George Bush is the man to lead us through the shoals ahead safely is completely off my radar. I’m glad somebody understands his good qualities well enough to have voted for him though. Maybe we’ll all get lucky after all.
You’ll have to do better than than. “Assault weapons” are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes. According to the FBI, in the year 2003, only (count them) 24 people were murdered during robberies committed in the US with a rifle [i]of any type.[/i] During the same period, 29 children were murdered by their babysitters. I haven’t notced anything in the Consitution about babysitters either…perhaps the framers missed them too?
You need to cut back on the hormone supplements, Fearless Leader. I didn’t say Israel doesn’t have a good reason to fear Iran’s nuclear program. I think it’s fair to say there’s a measurable chance that once Iran goes nuclear, some of that technology could find its way into the hands of terrorists.
The fact remains though that it won’t be a simple matter of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and walking away without a fight because the line between Iran’s legitimate needs to develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons technology is not a sharp one. To the degree that Iran believes its sovereignty and legitimate rights have been violated it will take the fight to the finish to the US and Israel.
A second front in the Middle East may be the straw that breaks the proverbial came’s back.
At the very least the potential consequences should be clearly thought through and prepared for.
[quote=“spook”]
At the very least the potential consequences should be clearly thought through and prepared for.[/quote]
For 60 years the Jews have had to consider what happens when a nation says they want to exterminate them and has the power to do so. I very much doubt they will allow anyone, anywhere to decide their future. They won’t get in the cattle cars quietly ever again.
[quote=“sbmoor262004”]Okay, regarding gay marriage I don’t think it’s a backlash. Since marriage in modern times often doesn’t involve religion, it is discrimination against homosexuals to prohibit their right to marry and enjoy the benefits thereof (i.e. tax and legal status (seeing a loved one in hospital, opening joint bank accounts, etc.)). For many people, not being married means that there is not a serious union, which has to be validated by marriage. Many Republicans feel that asking for one’s natural rights is somehow ‘shoving things down other’s throats.’
[/quote]
60% of kerry’s votes came from people who opposed gay marriage. it’s not just a “republican issue”.
[quote]
Secondly, the right to bear arms was a necessity during a guerrilla war and for the subsequent paranoia about being invaded after independence was to be achieved. Nowadays, however, it is obvious that guns are responsible for the 11,000 or so murders-by-guns reported in the U.S. (it’s likely this number is higher). Keeping an amendment that hurts society simply because it is part of the Bill of Rights is sanctifying something useless and antithetical to the American philosophy of pragmatism. As William James believed, anything that was not useful for a society should be rejected. You can love guns as much as you want, and I’ll admit to enjoy hunting and shooting at firing ranges, but they shouldn’t be legal. [/quote]
the great thing about the us constitution is that it can be changed. unfortunately, only a tiny percentage of people in the us believe guns should all be illegal. until they agree with you, guns will be legal. the constitution is not changed through diktat. will of the people and all that.
And weren’t there threats on some “chicks” bands life?
[/quote]
just as there are threats on rush limbaugh’s life all the time. what are you trying to prove, exactly?
first of all, the bbc has always had a very anti-iraq-war bias so let’s not even go there.
you guys have to import american news sources and learn english to get ANY opinions on the other side? looks like your own media does a great job of brainwashing you!
[quote]
yes, because not so long time ago, when the whole thing in Iraq started, you were not a good patriot, if you did criticize the “war on terror”. :loco:[/quote]
you mean like michael moore who goes to europe and tells everyone how idiotic americans are? no, i don’t really consider that patriotic, do you?
I agree. That’s why Bush was right to go into Iraq and take out Saddam before Saddam had a chance to do the same.[/quote]
Tigerman, can you explain why Hussein would have supplied weapons to Islamic terrorist organizations dedicated to his own destruction? The political principle behind this escapes me at the moment.
Two points to make.
Flipper, many people in the U.S. feel that guns should be banned or far more strongly restricted than now. Unfortunately, the NRA (behind Bush 100%) is too powerful an influence on the gov’t.
As for Americans being ‘brain-washed,’ there was a great deal of opposition to the Iraq war. I was at one protest in DC that drew tens of thousands if not 100,000. I feel there was a lot more division than there was during European countries wars of conquest; many Europeans still feel that Christian missionaries improve the world rather than destroy cultures. Before France, Italy, Germany and England began to invade and divide China, Africa and other parts of the world, there was a far higher degree of public sentiment. Unfortunately, when action now IS necessary in some cases (i.e. Kosovars being massacred, Somalians dying because UN food aid trucks were being plundered, etc.) they yawned and let the U.S. sacrifice its soldiers. Some wars are necessary to fight in (World War I and II, the Korean War, etc.) because losing them would cost too great a price. Many Americans realized that this was not the case with Iraq, in which the President and his staff blatantly misinterpreted information and lied even though most evidence pointed to the contrary. The war in Iraq is still highly divisive in the U.S.; many people who support it simply don’t want to risk demoralizing the troops, which could result in even more deaths. When France invaded Algeria what was public opinion then? There is far more hostility against Arabs in France than in the U.S.
Is it really so inconceivable to you? Have you never heard of enemies cooperating to defeat a common foe? Have you no clue as to the fact that Saddam did indeed support terrorists, even if not al Qaeda terrorists?
I’m sick of that pathetic line of argument you guys always keep pulling out of your collective asses.
Answer this:
Why did Saddam support Palestinian terrorists?
And, since Saddam did in fact support Palestinian terrorists with funding, why is it inconceivable that he might in the future support them with weapons? We know that Saddam provided funding to Abu Sayaff for weapons… why is it soooo difficult to imagine that he might in the future support them with weapons?
And we know that the nuke guy in Pakistan was running his own deal on nuke technology. Why is it soooo difficult to imagine that, were the Saddam regime to develop or obtain nukes or othr WMD, someone in the Saddam regime, if not Saddam himself, might look to profit from the illicit sale of the know-how possessed? Gosh, I just can’t imagine such a thing…
Come on… the fact that we cooperated with Stalin to defeat Hitler should be sufficient to keep anyone from ever raising the stupid argument that al Qaeda and Saddam could never cooperate.
Until you address my points above, I have no interest in entertaining this idiotic notion that cooperation between Saddam and terrorists in inconceivable (especially since we know that Saddam did cooperate with some terrorists, even if not with al Qaeda).
yes, because not so long time ago, when the whole thing in Iraq started, you were not a good patriot, if you did criticize the “war on terror”. :loco:[/quote]
I think I begin to understand what Mesheel’s problem is, the poor little deer, or dog, or cow, or whatever you call that thing in her avatar. But I digress.
Mesheel is used to living in dictatorships where the government tells people what to think, and to do otherwise invites a trip to the Lubyanka. Having no experience with American culture and politics, she naturally assumes that the same is true there. Thus, Saddam’s recent election, where he got 100% of the vote, is simply normal day-to-day life for her, whereas a real election, where someone only gets 51% of the vote (possibly 52% now – some sources say the absentee ballots are strongly pro-Bush) merely shows that the so-called “president” is an ineffective dictator who cannot even control the ballot boxes properly.
