You support Bush?

PicassoCT · Post by **PicassoCT** » 14 Oct 2006, 16:30

Well it is okay for Music... although i don09├â┼©t support it... not drunk enough for that...

Oh, you meant that President that didn`t appear to do his job ? Well somebody who not does anything, can`t be supported ? The Rest is... Vietnam in the Sands...

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 14 Oct 2006, 16:51

Decimator wrote:forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism

shotgun=force imho

If you want we can discuss this further in pm or chat. Here will turn into a flame fest. I wrote what i did because i feel as a pacifist it is my responsibility to contradict the advocation of violence, particularly in this case because i feel it is in the name of an illegitimate government.

Decimator · Post by **Decimator** » 14 Oct 2006, 17:12

Decimator wrote:I have an F word of my own: Fail.

The Dictionary wrote:fas‧cism /ˈf├â┬ªʃɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
├óÔé¼ÔÇ£noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922├óÔé¼ÔÇ£43.

Pacifists can only exist because of those who are not pacifists

Nemo · Post by **Nemo** » 14 Oct 2006, 20:45

In response to the links FA posted...do you really expect people to take any of those sites seriously? The media research site is probably the most subtle on there (the others are of the "SEE HOW OUR SAVIOR, PRESIDENT BUSH, HAS BEEN VISCIOUSLY ATTACKED BY LIBERAL SCUM TODAY!" variety), and its featured bit of news is how Jon Stewart comparing Bush to an 8 year old while talking to Letterman is evidence of LIBERAL BIAS. The man's a comedian, for christ's sake. What do you expect out of him?

The numbers you quoted were taken from a random guy's book. Sweet. It was in a book, must be true, right? The author (Richard Miniter) himself is best known as a neocon commentator. Seems to me like he threw those figures out in his book because it would get him more attention to write shocking things like that, NOT because any of it had facts behind it. His other books include gems such as "Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush is Winning the War on Terror." Nope. Nothing to gain at all from saying something as outragous as the figures you quoted. Why has NOBODY else mentioned these finds, except him? Don't you think the administration, or say, Fox News, would be eager to share finds like that with the world as evidence that their invasion was justified? It speaks volumes of the guy's credibility when not even Fox News is willing to use the figures from his book.

The 500 "weapons of mass destruction" that everyone was so excited about turned out to be degraded shells from before 1991, and (this is somewhat important) unusable in their current state. So we found 500 old artillery shells with mustard/sarin gas in them, not even able to be shot out of anything without exploding on launch.

Them's some nasty WMD's right there, eh?

Graah. talk about misinformation.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 14 Oct 2006, 20:54

On a note that you don't seem to address, the United States does have a massive surplus labour market and in theory the jobs to employ all the homeless within the nation. However, corporations are loathe to use this market due to what it would cost them in comparison to foreign labour. In Decimator's statements about employment, motivation and welfare - there is exhibited a certain measure of the often unrecognized form of idealism that forms the basis of conservative free capitalism.

Yes, these people would attempt to work, but there is a structural flaw in the system. Any attempt to force the corporations to hire impoverished Americans would in turn be a direct violation of the intended laws (or lack thereof) in free capitalism.

Ironically, some groups use our surplus labour market to further persuade foreign nations to allow investment. This insane state of affairs is similar to that surrounding national finance. We are economically bankrupt, and if a number of nations called in our debt, we would be broken. However, nobody will ever call in our debt and our currency will continue to flow meaninglessly because the destabilization of the global economy is not worth the rectification of our collosal debt.

Decimator · Post by **Decimator** » 14 Oct 2006, 21:30

The jobs are getting filled by illegals as well. There are at least 13 million of them in the US right now. They work for considerably less than minimum wage, yet obviously survive alright.

mr sharpoblunto · Post by **mr sharpoblunto** » 15 Oct 2006, 00:30

Decimator wrote:Mind if we send you the bill for people who don't plan ahead?

Well technically we all do, its called tax (okay yes I'm being a smartass)

But seriously, I wouldn't call having a mentally handicapped child an example of "not looking ahead", especially if you don't support abortion (which seems to be pretty popular amongst the welfare hating crowd).

Shooting criminals etc. only deals with the effects of social problems, not the causes which are poverty and a lack of education. If the means to get out of a downward spiral are not provided then how can you expect these people to become valued members of society as opposed to criminals.

Simply implying that people should get a job doesn't necessarily provide a way out of poverty. For example a single income family on minimum wage earns less significantly less than the federal poverty line figure for a family of three. In addition to this expenses involved in higher education mean that poorer people have less opportunity to increase thier skills in order to climb out of this downward spiral.

I don't advocate some sort of commie forced solution to enforcing equality, but I am saying that by improving access to higher education and improving minimum wage there are solutions to these issues other than abolishing welfare and buckshot to the face.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 15 Oct 2006, 10:49

SwiftSpear wrote:Electricity is produced primarily from oil based power plants. Electricity is responsible for virtually every commodity in the world. Peak oil would mean a economic depression would strike that would be at least twice as serious as the great depression of the 1930s. Enjoy your bike ^_^

Depends on the country you're in, my country produces about 4% of its energy with oil, even wind and solar cover more than that. The biggest source is coal and we could start digging that stuff up again (we do sit on a coal depot large enough to warrant french occupation after WW1) if we couldn't import it. I hear France covers like 70% of its electricity needs with nuclear.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 15 Oct 2006, 11:21

Decimator wrote:Mind if we send you the bill for people who don't plan ahead?

Like I said earlier people physically unable to work should be an exception, and even they can get jobs, it's just harder. Like the quadraplegic at my church, he has a job. Children and loved ones are also perfectly capable of working, asssuming they aren't toddlers. They can do things at home, so the other has more time to make money.

Yes, I know you hardline liberals love to claim that capitalism is perfect and everyone who wants to and is capable of making money can do so. What a surprise that this stance is the most widespread among those who don't need help and are in a position where they can help themselves. Now try adding the terminally ill, handicapped or plain incompetent to the equation and you see millions of people who cannot follow your example because they are incapable of it. Sure, let them die, you're better off for it because you don't have to spend a part of your income on helping the poor and can instead waste it on big screen TVs. Until you get terminally ill or badly injured and crippled or whatever, then you suddently can't help yourself and you notice that neither your savings nor your insurance can help you forever. I hope you're as willing to die then as you are willing to send others to their death.

What put the Homo Sapiens over other monkeys was his willingness to help the weaker members of his herd instead of leaving the old and weak to die or using them as bait for predators. We're stepping back into the dark ages here. Who would keep a handicapped child if it was just a drain on his financials and would never bring a return? If we've already been trained to let people die when they can't work, why don't we start with it as early as possible so we don't waste our ressources on them? Throw the handicapped children off a cliff. We can't afford feeding them, we need to make children en masse to work as our retirement fund.

Yep, welcome bacl to the medieval times.

bwansy · Post by **bwansy** » 15 Oct 2006, 18:23

Imagine this:
You live in a village woth utterly no defence, but you know that someday there will be a huge plane flying over your village, droping hundreds of bombs, and one of them will hit your house directly, and everyone and everything you love, you care and you know would be vapourised in a split second. Isn't this terror?
Excuse me for saying this, but I would love to see him being D-Gunned.

War is the souce of terror,
Bush is the souce of war,
Terror is the essence of Bush.
All are intertwined:
Bush, war , terror.

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 15 Oct 2006, 18:51

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 15 Oct 2006, 18:59

Orwell is teh best author EVAR!

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 15 Oct 2006, 19:34

1984, the year I'm born in.

raneti · Post by **raneti** » 18 Oct 2006, 16:02

the real question is if you support yourself, if your interest is represented by bush then you do

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 18 Oct 2006, 16:31

If your interests are properly represented by Bush you're probably clinically insane.

espylaub · Post by **espylaub** » 18 Oct 2006, 16:42

KDR_11k wrote:If your interests are properly represented by Bush you're probably clinically insane.

No, you're very rich and you've donated to the republicans.

Most people who vote for him aren't. They just see that he says that he's a born again christian, he's against gays and lets Americans kill brown people overseas somewhere. They don't care about the rest. And one day that will come back to haunt them.

grumpy_Bastard · Post by **grumpy_Bastard** » 18 Oct 2006, 22:58

I really havent looked into it much. His problem may be more of what people think of him, from his speeches than anything else. If I stood infront of a crowd to make a speech about something, well hell even think about job interviews.

It doesnt matter how qualified you are, what education you've had, and how many years of experiance you have... If someone gets the impression that you have absolutley no idea what your talking about, id bet money they will lose respect and interest in what you have to say rather quickly.

Which leads me back to bush. The man could be a genious, but all I see is someone who seems to have a hard time putting his thoughts into a complete flowing sentance.

An individual in that position will always have a group of people who claim they could have done better, and a group of people who think that individual has made excellent decisions from day one.

I joined the USAF knowing there would be a good possibility I would find myself deployed in Iraq, or some other fun location near it. I knew that bush, for at least 3 years, would be the Commander-in-Chief. BUT, that does not mean I support him. Its not black-and-white here, but if I have to take a stance on this:

I support my country, and usually whomever we (as a country) vote into power.

Cabbage wrote:Lucky for us the U.K and most of Europe use much higher quality fuel (93 - 97 octane rather than 87) and get much better mileage and performance as a result...

Higher octaine does not mean better quality, and it will not offer better fuel economy, unless the engine actually required high octaine fuel to begin with. Higher octaine fuel also costs more, so it seems rather pointless to only offer the higher end of fuels, especially if you only need to power something mild like an average car engine.

Cabbage wrote:that and we don't drive cars that are about as efficent as a.. grughh! must resist!

I hope your not confusing fuel economy with engine efficency. Trains and semi-trucks are far more efficent than any cars out there, if you look at it as amount of fuel burned per weight moved. As far as efficency of converting fuel into power goes, most engines are fairly close in comparison. What happens, is you get a large car like mine, with an even larger engine... It doesnt matter if the engine is three times more efficent than the best engine in the world, its still going to consume large amounts of fuel.

The problem here in the USA, in my opinion, fuel economy doesnt sell. 25-30+ mpg out of a car is old news, 40 year old news. The toyota, honda and mazda ads act as if they have broken some magic barrier, that allows their small 4 and 6 cylinder car to get what small 4 cylinder cars got decades ago.

Though, I will continue to drive my car with its 8.2L V8 regardless. Theres more to life, than being economic.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 18 Oct 2006, 23:04

KDR_11k wrote:If your interests are properly represented by Bush you're probably clinically insane.

which is worse? clinically insane or irreprably stupid?

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 18 Oct 2006, 23:37

What makes our engines more efficient is the diesel fuel we use.

Forboding: What, you support the Patriot Act, unlimited wiretapping with no judical oversight and completely wrecking the national budget?

grumpy_Bastard · Post by **grumpy_Bastard** » 18 Oct 2006, 23:45

KDR_11k wrote:What makes our engines more efficient is the diesel fuel we use.

Diesel engines are also sold elsewhere in the world, even in the USA.

grumpy_bastard wrote:As far as efficency of converting fuel into power goes, most engines are fairly close in comparison.

The diesel engines shouldnt be any different from those sold in europe, though my main angle of attack was cabbage statement, mentioning higher octaine (gasoline) allowing cars to be more efficient.

Spring RTS Engine

You support Bush?

You support Bush?