VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:05:21 01/21/04 Wed
Author: Robert
Author Host/IP: host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de / 131.188.93.25
Subject: You would be astonished to know what people generally - including you - take for 'fair'....*L*
In reply to: Hierophant 's message, "I know the tricks that are used" on 13:58:18 01/20/04 Tue

luckily there's still science, and pertaining Fox - and the people who focus on Foc - I've fould some pretty funny stuff. Personally I wouldn't like to be one of them. :)

BTW you'll not have a chance to vote for Kerry. It will be either Clark or Dean.
Anyway, don't you think a general has a better grasp on military requirements than someone like - Bush? - Or, since we all know it's not him who decides what to do - Rumsfeld and Cheney? Don't think they've done a good job. And that's not just a leftist opinion.

Catching Osama will not make any difference for terrorism. Though it would be nice to get him of course. Maybe it will happen just before election. The current administration is great in propaganda timing, and to get him right before election will give a great boost for approval.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> Indeed......! -- Hierophant, 13:22:04 01/21/04 Wed (adsl-65-66-154-177.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/65.66.154.177)

"Catching Osama will not make any difference for terrorism. Though it would be nice to get him of course. Maybe it will happen just before election. The current administration is great in propaganda timing, and to get him right before election will give a great boost for approval."

You know I hate to say it but some of me feels as though it *will* happen. Then again..MOST LIKELY it won't. People like myself will notice this. 2 horrible leaders each caught at times of political needs? as almost agenda'd? *I* would notice this and immediatly turn on Bush...but the damn general public either won't notice...or won't care. I really don't think they'd hold out on catching him though. Hes a threat. More so then Saddam. If they are holding out, may God have mercy on thier soul. Or myself...if i ever met them , lol.

As for Clark, Yes he would probably be great at combating terrorism. The problem is hes not *clearly* outlining other ideas of his. He's finally getting off the bashing wagon and beginning to. I will listen to what Clark has to say but Dean's tearing up the media exposure so I never get a chance to check out Clark and hear him talk. I remember Shaun telling me once a year or so ago, he was reading a book that contained a lot of the Clinton Administration information. The military decreased practically 50% during his administration. That includes troops, tanks, aircraft, etc. As always , Democrats don't see a whole lot of need fora powerful, massive army. I myself...do. I don't believe Clark would decrease or hurt the military in any because hes seen first hand just how difficult it so to complete these military tasks. Expecially in the middle east.


Damnit. I have to go to my girlfriends. I'll be back on later tonight to continue this.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Um... -- Joe Taylor, 20:48:36 01/21/04 Wed (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

I remember Shaun telling me once a year or so ago, he was reading a book that contained a lot of the Clinton Administration information. The military decreased practically 50% during his administration. That includes troops, tanks, aircraft, etc.

Due to the end of the cold war, there was no need for so large an army. Even the 50% reduction was way too small.

As always , Democrats don't see a whole lot of need fora powerful, massive army. I myself...do.

Guerilla wars are not fought with large armies. They're fought with elite units and intelligence (in both its strategic and common meanings). The area Bin Laden probably hides in is so large and mountainous that no army can ever hope to find him using brute force - and he may well be somewhere else, considering that very few if any will recognize him if he shaves and dresses in western clothes. The only arms of defense that is useful against terrorism are intelligence and counterespionage, and in the medium-to-long run, the US needs to strike at the roots of terrorism, which are almost completely poevrty or its results.

I don't believe Clark would decrease or hurt the military in any because hes seen first hand just how difficult it so to complete these military tasks. Expecially in the middle east.

Oh, he won't - no one will. Implementing change requires a sort of political courage that few if any politicians have, and that Clark lacks completely.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Recall the title of O'Reiley's book? - 'Who's looking out for me?' - That's exactly what I'd suggest you to do.... -- Robert, 07:06:35 01/22/04 Thu (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

and I'm pretty sure this would make you turn against the current administration. That is, if you aren't one of the about 10% of Americans who are profiting. As soon as you'd be one of them, then you should do whatever possible to get such an administration - though I guess that may take you some time. :)
That's at least what I would do. Always looking for what the guys care - and if I'm not contained there, then I'd kick their ass.

Take for example the global heating. The effects will be diasastrous, much wose than any terrorism could be. So, why don't they do anything about it, the US is responsible for 20%, by far highest per capita?
It's pretty easy. It would be a bit of a burden for economy - and you won't see an effect short termed. The disasters will even significantly increase next time. The effect of reducing the shit now will show up in some decades, it will prevent the worst disasters we would get else. So why should they care about it now? They want to be elected now! And they will be dead when the worst will come.
But it will affect you, and your kids. Do you agree to pay the bill in some decades - so that some guys now may have some more profit? I wouldn't.

Whatever the current administration may say, just have a look who profits and what are the effects on you. It's funny how many people don't care about this easy little thing. :)


BTW, the
State of the Union Dictionary has a lot of nice stuff. *L*


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> I *LOVED* "Whos looking out for you" -- Hierophant, 11:33:45 01/22/04 Thu (adsl-66-142-55-7.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/66.142.55.7)

O'Reilly covered much of the current administration and had many evil things to say about them, but like myself, be believe Bush himself is a good guy who wants to look out for the people. The administration however, doesn't care.

As for the global warming, I agree...something DOES need to be done now. The problem is the people, once again. Americans are so greedy. I've always said to myself in certain situations the best things come with sacrifices. Problem is Americans don't wonna sacrifice thier daily goodies to prevent future problems. Many people don't even think about the future and its not just America. Americans really need to start realizing that to do live in one of the best countries in the world. We have the power to do many things we want, we also have the power to cure many problems plaquing this globe. Terrorism being one of them.

It all comes back down to the people. It sucks being me though cause I would love to lead studies on how to prevent global warming, or things of the sort, but being 18 i have no power....yet. In a few years, I will. Even though i'll prolly end up being a cop :) Which i would LOVE. Can't wait to bust criminals ass and ruin thier day. Yeah, and i consider crime to be up with there with global warming. Its a threat to every community. A needless threat at that. Pointless...and retarded. Same with drugs, etc. Thats why I wonna be a cop. If you wonna do drugs and you got caught by me , your not getting any warnings. Your going straight to booking :) Even for weed. Why do I say that? Weed is a mind altering drug. The Problem is, however, its becoming more and more socially acceptable. Hell, listen to a fucking rap song, "Smoke weed everyday, its great!" That *IS NOT* censored ON RADIO VERSIONS! that our kids hear every single day!!!!!!!!


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Global warming, in Shaun's terrific opinion, is a bit overexaggerated. I think there needs to be an agenda of sorts...a list of problems and in what order we deal with them. -- Hero of Time, 14:16:42 01/22/04 Thu (adsl-66-142-55-7.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/66.142.55.7)

Terrorism is an active, dangerous threat now. Global warming (not heating, Robert *LOL*) may be a threat, but for now we need to focus on what's actually killing people presently. So we can do some stuff to work on global warming, but our focus really needs to be on the moment. We can have a lush, succulent, peaceful, fluffy future for our children and stuff, but if everyone's DEAD, well, the entire effort is a bit fruitless.

I love you..


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And to add to that...... -- Hierophant, 15:45:13 01/22/04 Thu (adsl-66-142-55-7.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/66.142.55.7)

Terrorism is indeed the main threat. Not because the U.S. is making it...the damn terrorists are. They don't care what so ever about anything but destroying the infidels (us) for Allah. It would be MUCH easier to focus on issues of the global warming sort if everytime we let our gaurd down we didn't have pussie suicide bombers trying to kill everyone. The United States actions and current situations does not lie solely on the United States.

There's a little theory commonly used with people "Get to the ROOT of the problem"

The root of the current situation IS NOT the U.S. Its the fucking terrorists. So if the rest of the world REALLY wants to see the U.S. stop sticking its nose in other peopels business, why don't they help us? We're doing a favor for the entire world. Much of the world is fairly dependant on much of our goods and technology. Not to mention POWER during wars like oh say...WW2. Many countries have debts upwards of billions of dollars to us. Not to mention all the debts of aide for reconstructions.

Point in Short. Terrorism is a global threat but mostly directed towards America and Western culture. If it weren't for terrorism..America would not be in Iraq right now, nor Afghanistan, or North Korea (as much), or knocking on Syria's door, etc. It wasn't the Bush administration who put Thousands of the worlds most elite fighting force on foriegn soil. It was TERRORISM. So like I said...get to the root of the problem. If the rest of the world REALLY wants America to stop what its doing...it better help fight terrorism...cause America and Britain will never stop fighting it. The longer it takes us..the longer we'll be sniffing up every countries ass.

Get what i'm saying?....YO!!!!!! lol.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> pussie = pussy... -- Auto-Correct Feature, 17:00:20 01/22/04 Thu (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)

My only explanation for your failure to spell that is a lack of experience with it. *L*


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> HA HA HA. Look who's talking, lol. -- Hierophant, 17:02:07 01/22/04 Thu (adsl-66-142-55-7.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/66.142.55.7)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're a young fool. It's not about terrorism. That's simply the currently most convenient excuse to do what your government wants to do anyway - invade "lesser" countries to get cheap oil - with whatever excuse is handy for that particular year. -- Lethal Larry, 18:34:14 01/22/04 Thu (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)

Notice how great an excuse the world trade center was? Oh, man, some evil, lesser country attacked you - what more could your warmongers want??? The PERFECT excuse to go and blow up people in any country they feel like blaming, which, as it turned out, was several, so far.

THIS is what makes me suspect that the trade center bombing might have been done by some american agency - either "official", as in cia, nsa, something even more covert, or some non-government organization. If someone's agenda was to bring america's goons squads to the middle east, what better motivation? Kinda reminds me of when I was in school... the class bully sat in the fourth row... the kid behind him was hated by the kid in the fifth row... jerk in row 5 shoots a spitball at bully in row 3, kid behind bully in row 4 takes the blame and get beaten on at lunch. The bully was neither smart enough to figure out whether or not his chosen victim was the guilty party, nor discerning enough to care if he was guilty - he had someone to blame. That was enough.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Considering Osama came out PUBLICLY and TOOK CREDIT for the attack!? -- Hierophant, 20:23:36 01/22/04 Thu (adsl-66-142-55-7.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/66.142.55.7)

Saying the WTC attacks were done by any other then Al-Quida is ridiculous. STRAIGHT ridiculous.

The WTC DEMANDED action. If our country sat back and was like "well maybe we should talk this out" I would fucking throw up. Why are we over there? We're taking the war to them. Al-Quida has no concept of negotiations. You know that. We're taking the war to terrorist. Like Bush said in the State of the Union Address. They wanted war and war is what they got. So where does Iraq play into this? Ohhh Saddam APPLAUDED the attacks and is responsible for terrorist funding AND covering.

Alright. Lets try the lefts way. Lets sit back here at home, remove our people from the "Lesser countries" and watch them regenerate.

Keeping steady forces in other countries keeps pressure on them. They'll never get a chance to build another terrorist training camp, have large meetings, etc with our presence.

Argh.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll believe anything that I see on american TV as soon as bush comes out and publicly admits he's retarded. That's not goign to happen, and I'm not going to trust anything your government tells me. I know, I know, it's not at all like the CIA to do anything sneaky like put someone in makeup and an arabic costume to say he's the villain you're looking for, and admit that he did the things you want to blame him for.... noooo.... your governement would never fabricate evidence. They're honest. -- Lethal Larry, 22:27:27 01/22/04 Thu (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Um........yeah. Okedoke. -- Pendraconian What The Fuck?, 14:58:29 01/24/04 Sat (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> By the way... "The WTC DEMANDED action".... that's WHY it was done, by whoever it was. -- Lethal Larry, 22:30:00 01/22/04 Thu (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The administration has the motive... -- Joe Taylor, 20:27:16 01/22/04 Thu (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

...but little else. That's not to say that there're no holes in the official story: there are 48906125.5 different official versions regarding what Bush did when he was told about the attacks, and the passport found in the ruins of one of the towers is just laughable.


Bush, further, is not a "good guy." He represents two contituencies: the far right, particularly the religious right - as seen in his homophobic, anti-choice, and fundamentalistic policies; and his corporate buddies, as seen in his support of Enron and Halliburton (I'm sure that the facts that Ken Lay is a close friend of Bush's and that Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton have nothing to do with that...). He cares about the American people to the same degree he cares about the Papuan people, with the sole difference being that he knows that the American people exist.

Take the Patriot Act. There's no proof that it helps combat terrorism. It's so damn easy to blow up a plane that the best the Patriot Act can do is force Al Qaida to blow up planes without any coordination from above. I have no idea about other people, but I just don't give a rat's ass about the name of Big Brother, whether it is the Department of Homeland Security or the Taliban, and I think it idiotic to destroy civil liberties and kill tens of thousands in order to derail soemthing that will in a very low probability destroy civil liberties and kill tens of thousands.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wag the Dog. -- Lethal Larry, 22:35:22 01/22/04 Thu (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> QUICK JOE! NEGATIVITY! NOW!! HURRY!! No positive thoughts, they might cramp your style. -- Hero of Time, 04:50:55 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It would be nice of you to stop being so abusive. -- Joe Taylor, 08:44:45 01/23/04 Fri (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wouldn't it? -- Hero of Time, 12:31:12 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)

It'd be nice if you said something we could all smile about every now and then too.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Guess that's impossible..... -- Robert, 13:58:55 01/23/04 Fri (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

never encountered anything that would make ALL people laugh. I guess you wouldn't have enjoyed the stuff I've read today - maybe you even would have been mad on me for laughing about it.
But for me it was a very funny and relaxing time. :)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> See, you're a positive, happy guy. You say things that make me smile, usually. Joe, however, does not. Everything is wrong, everything is conspiracry. Everything is a stupid cultural convention, etc to him. -- Hero of Time, 14:10:39 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe, but I sorta can understand him..... -- Robert, 11:01:58 01/24/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

after all it's him who lives in the US, not me. *L*

Though living there I'd probably join Moore's team. I'm sure he enjoyes the stuff he makes as much as I do, writing my posts. :)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's all well and good, but the point is Joe is aggravating, and you're not. I can't stand Joe or his whinery, but I have untold amounts of love for you. Hold me. -- Heroic Affection, 13:08:27 01/24/04 Sat (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I guess you're better off with AJ, he's easier to access anyway..... -- Robert, 13:46:20 01/24/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

poor guy, I pitty him. Deeply.

One more reason I'm better off living here. *L*


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> pitty=pity -- Auto-Correct Feature, 14:56:51 01/24/04 Sat (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This was meant to increase the amount of pity, pitty sounds more pityful . *L* -- Robert, 03:36:07 01/27/04 Tue (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> pityful = pitiful -- Auto-Correct Feature, Redux, 18:45:38 01/27/04 Tue (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just the same - 'y' indicates deep compassion. :) -- Robert, 12:12:39 01/28/04 Wed (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Moore is a sellout -- Joe Taylor, 21:23:47 01/24/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

First, the guy is too much of a demagog to my taste. And second, I consider his endorsement of Clark nothing short of selling out. Suddenly he cares about "electability" and "beating Bush," as if either matters. His positions are AFAIK identical to Kucinich's on everything, and yet he endorses someone else.

That's exactly selling out (expect an article on that on my website and on OSP shortly).


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Article up on my site -- Joe Taylor, 08:57:42 01/25/04 Sun (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

http://leftist.i8.com/2003.html


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'When the facts change, I change my mind'..... -- Robert, 05:52:37 01/27/04 Tue (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

about the stuff I'm cronfronted with - not about what I prefer though. I don't see sellout at Moore, and I don't see it at Clark - of course according to what I know.

Dean however IMO is. The 'committed believer' thing of Dean you mention is result of 2/3 of Americans prefering a religious president. So he poses as religious. An article mentioned that the book he named as his favorite one from new testament sadly is a old testament one. *L*

Personally I vote strategically. It depends on what I rate to be the best thing. My personal preference for whatever candidates and parties is only part of the reasons that make up my decision.

Twain mentions in his autobiography a Republican who told him that according to his understanding the parties have to be balanced. To do this he educated his son to prefer Democrats, and he says, 'if his son should ever turn towards Republicans then he would turn towards Democrats - though this would contradict his conviction'. :)

Such stuff is part of it. The BASIC question is what is the best thing for the community you live in, preferably based on long term considerations and considering interaction with the surrounding world. It's no sellout to base your actions on it. Actually it's the only reasonable way to do it.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> About Clark... -- Joe Taylor, 10:20:59 01/27/04 Tue (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

...did he support the war or not? I still have no idea what his *real* position is.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with strategic vote. I do see a lot of wrong things with thinking that "anyone is better than Bush." If you really think that Lieberman is going to be a good president, then vote for him by all means. But don't vote for him because he's "not Bush," because it's idiotic. And this is what the 2003 Sellout is about - the delusion (I dare not say doublethink) that suddenly things will get better if Bush is booted. They won't. They didn't when Clinton was elected (okay, they to some degree were but that's independent of his being elected), and they don't now.

I don't know if Clark's a real 2003 Sellout - in fact, I'm not so sure that Dean is, anymore; when I developed the concept, I thought he was a secular moderate-liberal who actually believed in what he said. The quote at the beginning of my article says it all. The 2003 Sellout is the Anyone But Bush movement; Dean just personifies it.

Moore is one of the main culprits because he doesn't oppose Kucinich for "making a bad president" but for not being able to win. And that's abhorrent, considering that Clark may well win the election, but if nothing changes then there's very little point to winning. If I want Team A vs. Team B, I'll watch a Yankees vs. Red Sox game, or Liverpool vs. Manchester, or whatever. Moore never said something like "Kucinich will be a bad president because he supports canceling international agreements unilaterally, which I find a bad foreign policy." This is one of the reasons I oppose Kucinich; Moore, however, never gives it or any other similar substantiative reason, and rather talks solely about "beating Bush."

If you ask me, the parties don't need to be balanced - they need to be broken up into at least two factions each. With a multiparty system I might be able to vote for candidates who can win and who aren't 12 units to my upper-right on the Political Compass (scores range from -10 to 10 on two scales: economic, on which socialist is left and capitalist is right, and on which I score -5; and social, on which liberal is down and conservative is up, and on which I score -9; Bush's scores are +9 and +4 respectively, which means he's 19 units from me).


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Clark is Moore's decision, and if I'd be american, he would be my decision too.... -- Robert, 12:55:46 01/28/04 Wed (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

what the hell is wrong with chosing among the candidates? And doing it of course has to be based on some stuff. THe ability to beat Bush is one of them. Don't you recall what Moore wrote in one of his former messages? - most of the candidates aren't bad.
To defeat Bush is important. Foul more years will cause a lot of shit for many people who are affected by it, in Amarica and outside. Actually I don't mind much who will - hopefully - replace him. Whether it's Clark, Dean or Kerry.
My choice is Clark, but I'm ok with Dean or Kerry. And I'm sure, that's Moore's position too. To be pro Clark doen't mean to be against the others.

It's impossible to change basic stuff in a sudden. Evolution works bit by bit. It's already quite a bit to move stepwise towards the right direction. And you can't get all at once either.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> See, I don't bash you for supporting Clark -- Joe Taylor, 20:46:20 01/28/04 Wed (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

I bash Moore for supporting someone when there's another candidate who a) could use his endorsement and b) agrees with him on everything.

Didn't Moore lament how the Democrats acted like Republicans and how Clinton was all words and no action? There's no proof or evidence that Clark will be better.

Four more years will hardly be worse than four years of a Clintonesque Democrat with the spine of an earthworm.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nor do I bash you for bashing Moore.... :) -- Robert, 05:19:24 01/29/04 Thu (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

IMO Clark is Moores honest choice. That's where I disagree with you.

Of course you can't have any proof that Clark would act different from Clinton - sadly proofs pertaining the future still aren't available. *L*
However IMO there would be difference. Enough difference to justify supporting him.

Be assured, four more years of Bush will be worse. It's possible though that there are some few positive effects - boosting european unity for example, or it may wake up some more Americans. But I don't think such stuff is worth the bill to pay for another period. I deny to take any responsibility for it.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whether he's a sellout or not - depends quite a bit on your understanding of 'sellout' - I like him. :)..... -- Robert, 03:49:08 01/27/04 Tue (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

Same thing applys to 'demagog'. And additionally I enjoy it. And Clark still is the candidate I'd prefer too. Kucinich may be not bad, but I don't think he'd be a good president.

BTW - Moore ALWAYS was into beating Bush. Past election, though he endorsed Nader, he later for example in Florida told people that voting for Nader may be the wrong thing because it supports Bush.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me too. -- Lethal Larry, 17:06:15 01/27/04 Tue (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Um....Larry? After all that fighting we did before, and taking so much Goddamn effort to patch it up, don't you think that's being a little insultive? "You're a young fool" is hardly fair. But that's just me. This isn't my arguement. I won't feed these flames this time - burn yourself alive if you want. I just thought I'd provide a heads-up. -- Heroic Heads-Up, 04:53:43 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I ignored it as long as I could. And my comment wasn't stated as an insult, just as an observation - it was a foolish thing for him to say. -- Lethal Larry, 14:13:39 01/23/04 Fri (px2wh.vc.shawcable.net/24.69.255.203)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, maybe. However, I remember you saying back on the old RCC in regard to me calling Joe and idiot for something he posted "I support his right to say that." -- Hero of Time, 14:53:46 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Right.......... -- Hierophant, 17:42:06 01/23/04 Fri (adsl-65-66-154-237.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/65.66.154.237)

Well. I may be foolish but your concept of 9/11 has definitly ranked as my "Most Ridiculous Item Of The Decade"
I should send it to Bill O'Reilly so he can share in the good laugh.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You called HIM a fool. You did not say that his statement was foolish. -- Pendragon, 19:48:17 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> *L* - maybe look up the facts.... -- Robert, 11:23:34 01/23/04 Fri (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

Iraq wasn't about terrorism. Saddam was a secular bastard. He and Osama hated each other. As long as Saddam was in control, religious fundamentalist were persecuted in Iraq.
Now he's gone, Iraq is swarming with al Quaida. Funny, isn't it? *L*

And ya wanna know why other counties aren't very much into aiding the US there? I'll tell ya: As long as the US are occupied in Iraq, it's unlikely they'll cause trouble elsewhere. And, be assured, this will last as long as the current administration continues. Until you'll manage to elect a somewhat more trustworthy administration, the opposition will remain, or rather increase.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not Al Qaida -- Joe Taylor, 21:28:10 01/24/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

Terrorism in Iraq is mostly homegrown - there're terrorist organizations that have operated since the 1970s and worked to replace Saddam's secular dictatorship with their religious dictatorship; and now they're on the Governing Council, although they're still terrorizing women who go out unaccompanied by men or go out in jeans.

Andrew Sullivan is now advancing the the theory that Iraq will draw many terrorists so the USA will have an easy time tracking and killing/catching all. Now that is funny.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Indeed a nice concept..... -- Robert, 06:42:50 01/27/04 Tue (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

it works with sugar and wasps - why shouldn't it work with Iraq and terorists. *LOL*

But al Quaida is contained there too, only part of it of course.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ok, then warming - though it will become pretty hot for many people :) - ....... -- Robert, 10:54:54 01/23/04 Fri (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

your approach is exactly what most people do. The problem with climate however is that it works different. It's a long termed thing.
It's already too late to prevent a lot of shit. And if you continue to wait for some more years, until you'll notice that something should be done, then it will be completely too late.
But again, it's your problem, not mine - you'll have to deal with the worst of it. :)

And pertaining the terrorism thing - maybe you should check the relations. Moore's new boook has a nice chapter about it. Your chance to die from terrorism is about zero. You have a MUCH higher chance to die from traffic accident, from flu, from whatever. Just look up the numbers. Alert orange, the flu is approaching! *L*
Sure, it's a threat, it's necessary to act against it, but there's absolutely no need to panic about it. And if you want to focus on what actually kills people - gun kills in the US are about 12.000 a year. What about a bit more gun control?


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There should be something done about global warming, sure. It is a problem, like Aj said. -- Hero of Time, 12:56:15 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)

I don't trust anything Michael Moore says. He's such a hateful man, and I've read from a lot of sources that his information isn't exactly accurate either. I heard he "quoted" John Lott's speech and actually fused words from seven sentences together to make it sound like he said something he did not. Or something. I dunno, regardless, I just don't trust the facts of one guy who hates everything about something (in this case, the country that protects his rights to say it). It'd be like actually listening to Joe or something.

I personally don't panic about terrorism. Partly because I'm fairly confident in what'd being done to prevent it. If anything, even if the Bush Administration is lying or overstepping their boundaries, AT LEAST America has some consolation. Even if it is a bit mislead. Because honestly, there isn't a whole lot you could do if someone hijacked your plane short of kicking his ass, and unless you're a god like me, the odds of doing it are slim. *L*

I read a book called "Fear Less", by Gavin DeBeckett...it was in theory the truth about terrorism and WMD. It seems to be a book designed to calm people down. If what it says is true, terrorism is far less a danger than anyone could imagine. I did a presentation to my class on this subject, using many facts from this book and others, kinda as a means of showing just how hard it is to actually kill someone on the scale these psychos want to. So yeah, I'm not worried about terrorism...but it's higher on my ladder of concern than global warming.

Do we have to debate the semantics of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." ? I'm not worried about guns in the least. Hell, I've got one in my apartment, though I don't think the landlady knows about it; also got a couple of swords, two knives, and a butterfly knife. And soon as my new job provides it's massive WEEKLY paychecks, I plan on buying more...maybe a flail or a mace, in case zombies ever come in. I think I'll also plant traps in the hallway going to my room, which I see as the most plausible vector for ghouls. *L*

I'm also immune to ALL diseases and stuff, being the embodiment of perfection. And I actually almost DID get hit from the side by another car...I told Aj about it. Didn't panic at all, I simply turned the wheel and hit the brakes, and effectively dodged the car. It's odd because he ran a stop sign, and would've hit me at at least 30 mph. However, being the owner of a 1985 Volvo, I'm basically in a Goddamn globe of invulnerability. Still, I don't even think I blinked when I saw he was going to hit me (car full of teenagers, of course)...I simply hit the brakes and turned out of the way, and continued on my journey. Odd. *L*


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe you should reconsidering your opinion...... -- Robert, 13:47:40 01/23/04 Fri (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

If you really like fun, then Moore is awesome. Whenever I'm in need of some fun, I just read a some of his stuff. Never fails! The term 'hateful' doesn't match a bit - that's just the opinion of the guys who are mad on him, because he makes fun of them. And I don't know anyone who's better in making fun of someone. If I'd be one of the guys he's after, I'd never would let him come close to me - Moore's coming, everyone hide! *L*
And pertaining what he says - don't you think he would be sued if these guys would find any lie in his books and movies? Nothing happened. Makes his opponents look a wee bit stupid. Actually since he's aware of the danger, he has hired a lot of people to check and recheck what he writes. Easiest way to avoid troubles anyway.

Of course guns don't kill people, but if the US per capita has more than ten times the amount of gunkills than comparable countries, then obviously something is wrong. About 90% could be avoided, that's about 10.000 a year. But of course if you're fond of having 10 times the chance of being shot than me - I don't deny anyone any fun. *L*


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm invincible!! -- Heroic Stoneskin, 14:58:58 01/23/04 Fri (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And yeah, I forgot to mention - I too have weapons stored at home.... -- Rbert, 10:50:41 01/24/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

- virtual ones, my savegames contain HUGE stockpiles of neat stuff!

The only RL weapons are in the kitchen, they're great to assault ham, sausages and other such evildoers though - and I always win!!! *L*


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rbert = Robert -- Auto-Correct Feature, 16:30:30 01/24/04 Sat (66-189-224-182-rcp1.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/66.189.224.182)


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rbert is just the first step of shorting Robert.... -- R, 05:55:34 01/27/04 Tue (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.