You Voted For Bush? I blame you! ~or~ Every1=Jail

[_Code]

Well, I really hate arguing politics only because I'm not as up as I'd like to be to argue a point.

Which is one of my bigger problems with america, everyones vote counts the same. My ill thought out opinion is just as valid as a politics major. Thats like taking your car to a service center, the technician saying your car wont start because of the battery, but all the office staff votes its the air intake. So by popular decision you need to replace your air intake >.>

but my points; I generally agree with alot of the points brought up in this thread....

nauren said:

It makes it acceptable because they died for what they believe in.

What the deciding levels of government believe in. Given some troops do agree with what we're doing over there, but i'm positive in this war, as well as every war throughout history, troops didn't always die for the greater good, or what they believed in.

nauren said:

This is the only war/conflict..that the people of the country actually are looking up to America and thanking them for their help.

Not true. Given it may have been greater good, but alot of the "free'd" citizens still hold a hatred for America, and didn't want a democracy to begin with. Our government has forced its ideals onto another country, other citizens, who didn't ask for it. Democracy isn't the only way. Not saying it wasn't the best choice, and I'm not saying we didn't do good. I'm also not, in any way taking away from our troops; they're better then I'll ever be. But occupying a country annd reforming it into a democracy isn't something that all of them are thanking us for.

nauren said:

Also..if religion has no place in the government..then the Constitution...Bill of Rights etc should all be abolished. There isn't going to be a decent reformation. You can't redo a document like that.

You can't redo a document like that.

The fact that document exists is because it was a redone belief system from where our original settlers came from. They disagreed with the Constitution/bill of rights/monarchy they hailed from, and redid it; to what we use today.

As a species, our role is to evolve. And not just in the darwinian meaning; times change, situations change, and beliefs, laws also need to change. Thats why our founding fathers left room for admendments to the constitution, What is good for today, may not be applicable tomorrow.

_Code

[Nauren]

Joining the military is completely voluntary. As history as shown..we know what we are getting into and understand out duties. So their belief is there..even though you don't think it is.

You didn't disprove my point. I said this is the "only country that the people are actually looking up to america" Ofcourse 100% doesn't feel this way. Even though the majority does. The point and fact is this is in fact the only country to thank us for our support.

A modern day reformation of the Constitution would be redundant. Everyone would disagree with it....people don't even know whats best for them. When the Constitution was written..everyone knew what they wanted....to live...now we want everything under the sun and no responsability that comes with it.

[tarick]

codeine said:

...but Religion has no place in our governmental decisions.... or appointment of officers

Do you think that she would be appointed if she was just any old christian? Do you honestly think she was appointed because of her religion. She was appointed because her views reflected his views on subjects. Is this related to religion? Sure, someone's religious background will reflect how they view issues. To wholly exclude anyone who is not christian would be wrong, sure...but the overall choice is made on his stances, which would be much more likely to be held by christians.

[_Code]

wasn't trying to disprove anything.

nauren said:

now we want everything under the sun and no responsability that comes with it.

and thats back to Taricks point. Both of which I agree with.

And Harriet's connection to Bush from his past, as well as her religion and views were the deciding role in it, i'd imagine.

But fact remains, and has been brought up by men much smarter then me; She is not qualified for the position, doesn't have the experience, and won out over many other people who were much better for it.

_Code

[Nauren]

hehe I was watching the news this morning and they were arguing over the new Supreme Court Judge. The 2 main Congressmen that were talking shit on him..well one was part of a commity that did not allow women in until the late 80's even though the womens rights were well past....and the other one was formally a part of the KKK lol.

[estara]

kaifu said:

2 partys isn't enough to show all the views in the usa now. It worked in the past becuase there wasn't as much to go on. The Amendment's were made also, in the past. But, the made them so that they could be changed in the future. Which is now.

The problem is, that the way that they are going about making those changes is wrong.

LOL kai... I just had to laugh when I read that. "Wasn't much going on". Too funny.

After reading "The People's History of the United States", I have to strongly, strenuously, perhaps even violently disagree. I would have to say that there is LESS going on now. Not in the number of events happening on a day to day basis though. Less people are involved, committed to changing our government than in the first 200 years of its existence.

There were wars on the streets, ordinary citizens being beaten to death, men and women, black and white, fighting together for all the things we take for granted. Fighting for things that are still being fought for all over the world. But in America, most people don't know, or care. They go about their daily lives, thinking things are fine cause they've got their food, their clothes, their video games, completely unaware that all those things somehow drain the ability of another community of people to take care of them selves.

One of you said "Presidents are bought." Hell, presidencies have ALWAYS been bought. Canidates were elected by rich men. There is not a President in our history who was not part of the elite class. All those men were there to protect the rights of their class (profit) from the working class.

If you want to really, really, really know what the root problem with society is, you can start with studying the history of Capitalism. Look at how the entire process has been one of the working class fighting to regain their rights (shelter, health, subsistence) from the elite classes. For me, Looking so closely at this history has brought the realization that the system cannot be changed from within, because it is inherently flawed. It is flawed in favor of giving more power to those who will abuse and cheat their way into gaining the most wealth. For me, the realization is that the system needs to be destroyed, if humanity wants to really have what it wants (what that is, how to get, and if it is even possible, I don't know).

Yes, I sound like a socialist. But after reading the history of socialists I think that's a good thing. I didn't say communist, or Stalinist, or fascist, cause I think those are all bad. But socialism, though it has its inherent flaws, is a far more preferable system than capitalism.

[sarchar]

A lot of you attack the president simply because you've deepseated hatred for him. Anything worth nothing that you disagree with simply is an excuse for you to attack someone you hate because of principles.

Did anyone actually look at the bill? thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03402:

The whole point of that bill is to combat crime: Violence against women, retail theft, rape, and more. This one article is a complete exaggeration of a single clause deep within the miscellaneous section.

Also, do you guys forget that this Bill, before even getting a chance to be signed by the President, has to pass both the House and the Senate with more than a majorities vote? Uh, hello, there are Democrats in Congress that voted for this bill:

clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll501.xml

Wow, 189 democrats voted Yea. I bet Kerry would have.

Seriously, stop farting over something so stupid. You and I both know that there are many, many, many, regulations and laws that are not enforced--I guarantee you this will be one.

And about civil liberties? I'd rather the gov't watch me in my own home than see thousands of people die because some idiots blew up the GW bridge.

[estara]

sarchar said:

A lot of you attack the president simply because you've deepseated hatred for him. Anything worth nothing that you disagree with simply is an excuse for you to attack someone you hate because of principles.

I don't hate him. Heck I don't even know him.

But I reserve the right to flame and/or make fun of anyone with a lower IQ than I have, who decides that they can be president.

And as for his principles. Well, I guess "More for me, none for you" is an alright principle. Or how about "I work hard 5 weeks of the year, so therefore I should have the rest off." Do you realize Bush has taken more time off than any other president in our history? And that while there's a war.

Or how about this one (direct quote): "Owning something, as far as I'm concerned, is freedom."

So does that mean all those who don't own something cannot be free? Does that mean that we should go back the system where only people who owned a certain amount of property could vote? Does that mean that since American corporation own most of the wealth in the world, they should be able to do whatever they want to the people who happen to LIVE on the property they claim to own?

And how the hell does one own property anyway?? I can see that working if you lived on and from the land you supposedly owned, but what if you've never even seen the land you supposedly own? How can someone who has never visited a piece of land own it?


As for the bill, it's another useless attempt by government to control what people can say. But it won't work. The wording is to vague and subjective. Besides which, it goes in violation of that great document, the Bill of Rights.

As for why they threw it in there, probably has something to do with terrorism and the Patriot Act expiring.

Have you ever noticed how whenever the Bush team want to side-step a question they start talking about terrorism...?

[Nauren]

As I have said.....politics in general is like a disease to me. Never in the world has so many people known they are right about one subject.

I disagree about all presidents being rich. Abraham Lincoln grew up very poor. His infamous log cabin and all. Most early presidents were war hero's and generals. Yes they may have been monetarily stable in most cases of their adulthood, but in most cases it was well earned as such noble jobs were rewarded as they should be. Today...they are rich before they are even considered for presedency....propaganda, commercialism abroad is what wins the people vote.


History has shown us that power and money run hand and hand. During the Rennasaince and Medieval time's the church ruled...and were among the wealthiest in the world even among some Kings.

[tarick]

estara said:

LOL kai... I just had to laugh when I read that. "Wasn't much going on". Too funny.

You misread what he wrote. He said there wasn't as much to go on, which I imagine would be in regards to media and dissemination of information.

estara said:

If you want to really, really, really know what the root problem with society is, you can start with studying the history of Capitalism. Look at how the entire process has been one of the working class fighting to regain their rights (shelter, health, subsistence) from the elite classes. For me, Looking so closely at this history has brought the realization that the system cannot be changed from within, because it is inherently flawed. It is flawed in favor of giving more power to those who will abuse and cheat their way into gaining the most wealth. For me, the realization is that the system needs to be destroyed, if humanity wants to really have what it wants (what that is, how to get, and if it is even possible, I don't know).

Yes, I sound like a socialist. But after reading the history of socialists I think that's a good thing.

Firstly, health, shelter and subsistence are not rights, in my opinion. You have the right to health? No matter what? Even if you sit on your ass all day and do nothing, someone should provide a dr. for you? Someone should provide shelter for you? and food?

I interpret socialism as egalitarian, materially and otherwise. If this is incorrect, I'm sorry. I don't understand how this would be a good thing. Again, I'll relate it to ffxi. Some of the LS members have more money than others, because they worked for it, got high craft skills, whatever. You feel that we should pool the money and everyone get their split? Even the person who only xp's and doesn't bother making any money?

Socialism (again, the way I interpret it, which may be incorrect) is a system that rewards the lazy and incompetent by giving them an equal share. Capitalism rewards those of greater ability and work ethic, by giving them a greater share.

[sarchar]

estara said:

sarchar said:

A lot of you attack the president simply because you've deepseated hatred for him. Anything worth nothing that you disagree with simply is an excuse for you to attack someone you hate because of principles.

I don't hate him. Heck I don't even know him.

But I reserve the right to flame and/or make fun of anyone with a lower IQ than I have, who decides that they can be president.

That's fine. I'm sure you know what his IQ is and what yours is. You've taken an IQ test before, right?

I dare you to play the "he paid his way through college" card.

And as for his principles. Well, I guess "More for me, none for you" is an alright principle. Or how about "I work hard 5 weeks of the year, so therefore I should have the rest off." Do you realize Bush has taken more time off than any other president in our history? And that while there's a war.

Frankly, do I care how often he works? Do you?

Honestly?

Does it matter that he's taken more time off than any other president? Would I not reelect him because of that? These are the same tiresome arguments that people make when they know they've got nothing to go on.

Yeah, so what if he's taken more time off during the year than others? Until you tell me he takes 26 weeks of the year off, I don't give a flying rats ass. As long as he gets the job done, then I say: more leisure time for the both of us!

Or how about this one (direct quote): "Owning something, as far as I'm concerned, is freedom."

So does that mean all those who don't own something cannot be free?

Read into it all you want. Equating property ownership to a freedom is a very honest equation. The ability to be free implies you are allowed (not that you necessarily can afford) to own property. Owning property implies that in some sense of the meaning, your government recognizes your ability to own something--the same as having some freedom. So in a strict sense of the meaning, owning property is freedom. If you disagree, then why is there an amendment to our constitution guaranteing such rights?

And how the hell does one own property anyway?? I can see that working if you lived on and from the land you supposedly owned, but what if you've never even seen the land you supposedly own? How can someone who has never visited a piece of land own it?

"Owning" something is as simple as saying that the government recognizes that it belongs to you--that nobody can take it away from you without just cause. That is your right as a free citizen. You cannot own something if the government says you cannot--try owning a bar or dance club... in Cuba. Try it.

As for the bill, it's another useless attempt by government to control what people can say. But it won't work. The wording is to vague and subjective. Besides which, it goes in violation of that great document, the Bill of Rights.

The bill was not an attempt to control what people say and do. Look at the freakin' votes! Only 4 poeple in the entire house of repsentatives voted against it! It's a law that is used to guide where the executive branch places its enforcement. It's used to make YOUR life better, so that when you leave work you're less likely to be raped.

As for why they threw it in there, probably has something to do with terrorism and the Patriot Act expiring.

Yeah, I'm sure. You've got it all figured out.

Have you ever noticed how whenever the Bush team want to side-step a question they start talking about terrorism...?

No, actually, I havn't. Again, people see what they want to see. I'm pretty sure I know what you want to see.

[estara]

nauren said:

I disagree about all presidents being rich. Abraham Lincoln grew up very poor. His infamous log cabin and all. Most early presidents were war hero's and generals. Yes they may have been monetarily stable in most cases of their adulthood, but in most cases it was well earned as such noble jobs were rewarded as they should be.

Abraham Lincoln was part of the elite class, by which I mean the class that went to school and became deeply indocterined to the rights of that class.

And no, most of our early presidents were not generals and war heros. Washington was, but he was also the richest man in the United States. The leaders of the Revolution were all wealthy business men, lawyers, and land owners. Their stake in the war was being able to run their own country and not pay taxes to Britain. Their biggest problem was convincing the lower classes to join in their war. One of the biggest problems with our army at the time was desertion by common soldiers (those not officers) because they didn't see what they were throwing their lives away for. For the majority of people living at the time, it was simply a transfer of tyranny. After the war, their tyrants were on the same continent as them.

I would say for anyone who hasn't, read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States". It gives you the history of the working class, slaves, and native americans. It's sources of legal documents from the times and small publications. It is a really, really good text on how and why and what our country is and has come to be. If you really want to understand our nation, you have to start at the beginning.

[flyingsnow]

sarchar, who are you? just curious as i have not see you post in any other section and i'm not familiar with this name. thanks.

[sarchar]

flyingsnow said:

sarchar, who are you? just curious as i have not see you post in any other section and i'm not familiar with this name. thanks.

A friend of a friend

[tarick]

He was the LS leader for Chelestra, where Relik, Lucretsia, Codeine, Yunalenne, Nauren, Zorich, Melica, Angelita, Nedicinevi, and I came from.

Now he's just a slacker that plays once a week and plays WoW.