Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » LOL what a load of crap
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8302] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 15:49  |
 |
Blazer
Messages: 3322
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Administrator/General |
|
|
"Bush tells us to bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq may have bombs. He tells us to bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq curtails freedoms. He tells us to bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq may be abetting terrorism.
What then should we do about a country (the US) that has by far the most bombs in the world and that uses them most widely—and that brags about it shamelessly?
What should we do about a country (the US) that is currently curtailing freedoms abroad and moving to do so at home with a dangerously escalating vigor—and that brags about it shamelessly?
And what should we do about a country (the US) that is producing terrorism most aggressively – both terrorism directed at others and also terrorism which will be unleashed against us in reply—and that brags about it shamelessly.
What should we do about the U.S.? We should curtail its belligerency, change its regime, and fundamentally revolutionize its centers of wealth and power.
Support our troops, bring them home.
Support our troops, provide them housing.
Support our troops, provide them health care.
Support our troops, provide them socially valuable jobs.
Turn military bases into industrial centers for the production of low cost housing, schools, hospitals, daycare centers, rail lines, inner city parks, and other social and public goods that can enrich rather than snuff out life.
Support our troops and one day they will join the fight for unlimited justice for all.
Support our troops."
I just don't understand these fucktard US citizens, that according to them, the US is a terrorist country that opresses freedom. If they had their way, we would have no military at all. In a perfect world this might be possible, but guess what, we don't live on the Utopian world depicted in Star Trek. If you think that some place like Iraq is a better society to live in, why don't you move there, and after you watch your mom get raped a few times you might change your mind.
[Updated on: Thu, 20 March 2003 17:43] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8324] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 16:42  |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7431
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| Commando no. 448 |
Yeah! We have a moderator on our side! All hail blazer and his intellegence! Not implying the pro-war individuals lack intellegence. Yet they seem to be misguided in applying that intellegence.
|
I think you misunderstood his post...
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8349] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 17:58 |
|
Blazer
Messages: 3322
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Administrator/General |
|
|
I'm neither pro-war nor anti-war. Those words suggest a blind following of one way or another, no matter what the situation. I can understand people who don't want to go to war and protest against it. I don't understand the pacifists who insist there "must be another way". If there WAS another way, I would think we would rather take that way than to go to war. But there are those who insist that we WANT to go to war, and would do it even if there were options available.
You cannot keep crying out "there must be another way", while at the same time offering no other alternatives. You might as well stop breathing and say "there must be another way to get oxygen".
Some idiots would apparently have us totally disband our military...too bad the cries of "there must be another way" won't be much comfort when our country is overrun by terrorist assholes.
War sucks. Nobody wants to be on either the giving or receiving end of it. Sometimes though it is the only solution. If this were a perfect world there would be no wars, but only because in that perfect world there are no terrorists or people wanting to do bad things.
Unfortunately the real world we all live in is much more harsh that that, and there are many who would do us and our friends harm. We have no choice but to defend ourselves and our allies. And yes, defense sometimes includes a proactive action to stop something abroad before we are defending it in our very city streets.
While some view the military action in Iraq as "OMG the big bad US is flexing its muscles and stomping on Iraq just because they can", the fact is we are just nipping a problem in the bud now, before it grows into something which recent history and events has shown will definitely be a bigger problem in the future.
It's quite obvious this action is being done for a greater good, anyone who insists on their wild allegations that the US are "terrorists" or "zionists" are either brain damaged or they just like to argue.
http://www.renevo.com | 
http://strike-team.net/forums/ | XWIS Forums
http://www.n00bstories.com | Crimson is the 0wnage, and I Love her!
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8350] |
Thu, 20 March 2003 18:20 |
Bearxor
Messages: 137
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
What these kind of people fail to see, is that even though the United States has a huge military with arms that most other countries do not have, we dont go threating our neighbors every six months. We don't drop nukes on our own cities just because we're bored. We don't call our leader a 'president' and elect them by either a military coup, fear, or assination. We don't supress our media and execute people because they disagree with our leaders.
America having weapons of mass destruction and a lunatic like Hussein or Jong.
signatures suck
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8448] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 08:01 |
Bearxor
Messages: 137
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
other presidencies that have been decided outside of the electoral college:
1801: Thomas Jefferson
1824: John Quincy Adams
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
1888: Benjamin Harrison
We were due for it to happen again, IMHO, and I also feel that the electoral college should be thrown out. It is a relic of old, and current communications technology are more than able to transmit correct information in a timely manner.
Then again, being a native Texan under the GW governship and knowing how bad the state was during ann richards reign of terror, I am a little biased when it comes to GW.
As for executing criminals... I'm not even going to touch that with a 20 foot pole.
signatures suck
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8450] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 08:11 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Our election processes, while flawed, work. It is what allows the peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another. It is the best expression of that peaceful tranfer of power in the history of human civilization. Even the Roman Empire, while just as influential for it's time, didn't have peaceful transfers of power when public opinion swayed. It usually took an assasination.
So, in conclusion, would you rather have the most destructive forces on earth held accountable by electoral processes of the democratic instutions, OR do you prefer power struggles, and assasinations and the instability they bring?
Deleted
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8455] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 09:27 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| KIRBY098 |
Our election processes, while flawed, work. It is what allows the peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another. It is the best expression of that peaceful tranfer of power in the history of human civilization. Even the Roman Empire, while just as influential for it's time, didn't have peaceful transfers of power when public opinion swayed. It usually took an assasination.
So, in conclusion, would you rather have the most destructive forces on earth held accountable by electoral processes of the democratic instutions, OR do you prefer power struggles, and assasinations and the instability they bring?
|
Uh...I think that's a little too far from what I was saying (not that that really matters), I just mean that the US election system should be popular, not via states.
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8459] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 09:37 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7431
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
The Electoral College not only was put together because of the difficulty in communication at that time, but it prevents the more populated areas from completely ruling the less populated areas. States like Montana and Wyoming would be completely voiceless. This form of balance is also noticed in the Senate where each state gets an equal amount of Senators (2).
Not to mention changing the process would make HUGE changes to the Constitution and you can imagine how many years it would roll around in the House and Senate before anything (if ever) happened.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8495] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 11:35 |
Carl
Messages: 165
Registered: March 2003
Location: Washington, US
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
the thing is, electing a president isnt about each states opinion (or it shouldnt be).
When it comes to FEDERAL elections, it should be a FEDERAL vote. in other words, EVERY citizen as one group. Every citizen with equal voice. and the electoral college does not save montanto from not having a voice. they get less electoral votes. But thats not the point. Its not a hout a states voice when it comes to pres. election. its about individual voice.
y0
http://www.dead6.net
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8502] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 11:44 |
 |
Cpo64
Messages: 1246
Registered: February 2003
Location: Powell River, B.C. Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Carl |
the thing is, electing a president isnt about each states opinion (or it shouldnt be).
When it comes to FEDERAL elections, it should be a FEDERAL vote. in other words, EVERY citizen as one group. Every citizen with equal voice. and the electoral college does not save montanto from not having a voice. they get less electoral votes. But thats not the point. Its not a hout a states voice when it comes to pres. election. its about individual voice.
|
This is called “Representation by Population”, it works very well. At least I think it does.
-->
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8518] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 12:30 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7431
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
That's right, little Carl is more intelligent than our forefathers... those who built this nation and this form of government over 200 years ago. What were they thinking?
I found a VERY good article that illustrates my point in plain, simple English as to why the Electoral College absolutely can not be taken away.
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm?ID=10
I recommend it for everyone, even if you support the Electoral College, as it gives you even more arguments against the idiots.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8521] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 12:46 |
|
Cpo64
Messages: 1246
Registered: February 2003
Location: Powell River, B.C. Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
This does bring up some very good points, but if you change it from Rep by State, to Rep by Region, it balances it out, such a system works in Canada, but we have a much smaller population, that is much more spread out. Like one seat is located around Vancouver, while in my town we have a much larger zone, but with the same number off people
So if we have say City Alpha with 10,000,000 people
And Town Bravo, Charley, Delta... Hotel, India, and Juliet with 1,000,000 people each, you would put City Alpha in its own Riding, with all those towns in another. So you two areas, equal population, equal number of seats in the government.
With the US you have a bigger problem, you have cities that are massively sprawling with like 6,000,000,000 people so to balance out the ridings, you would need either one riding that takes up half the country, or very small ones in your cities.
Also with so many ridings, you would have a lot of seats, which means more senators (?), which means a slower democratic process.
-->
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8538] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 13:42 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Carl |
the thing is, electing a president isnt about each states opinion (or it shouldnt be).
When it comes to FEDERAL elections, it should be a FEDERAL vote. in other words, EVERY citizen as one group. Every citizen with equal voice. and the electoral college does not save montanto from not having a voice. they get less electoral votes. But thats not the point. Its not a hout a states voice when it comes to pres. election. its about individual voice.
|
this is why we use the electoral college, to make sure that the majority are represented. to give each individual a vote toward election directly would ensure only that the states with the most people are represented while those with less population are not. the needs of those in california and new york are vastly different than the needs of those in nebraska and alaska. to go one for one would not ensure proper representation for all states. it is about a state's voice in election, that is the whole point. states take care of their people, the president takes care of the states that is how it was meant to be and that is how it should be.
edit: keep in mind that bush won 30 out of 50 states. that means that the majority of the population in the majority of states wanted bush.
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8561] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 14:26 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
[quote="spotelmo"]| Carl |
edit: keep in mind that bush won 30 out of 50 states. that means that the majority of the population in the majority of states wanted bush.
|
What bothers me is that if in a state only 51% of the people vote for Bush, all votes of that state go to Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LOL what a load of crap [message #8569] |
Fri, 21 March 2003 14:40 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
|
Yes, but if a state has 4 votes in the college, and 51% votes for Bush, imo it would be more fair to give Bush 2 votes from that state, and not all 4.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Feb 10 15:36:47 MST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01120 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
