I have to say, that was a little harsh. Wookie may be a political idiot, but I'm sure he has many redeeming qualities... like a stupid moustache... or something. Steve, a little help?



Obviously, I'm not a fan of abortion (and wouldn't encourage someone to have one). I chose the term since I'm no fan of people trying to demonise the other side by picking happy, innocent names for themselves, such as "pro-life" or "pro-choice". Those terms are the sort of thing tree-hugging PC pinko liberals would come up with! You're either for the right to abortions, or against it! Real men say what they mean!



Sure, but it doesn't affect anyone else. And a party that's about "Leave me alone, I can look after myself" would have no problem with it.



I'm not saying Bush or the administration is doing it, but there seem to be an awful lot of people saying, "he's the president! He's infallible! Don't criticise him!" I think those people secretly wish they lived in a monarchy. Ol' George should be considered no more special than you or I (because everyone is equal). His opinion is, of itself, no more important than yours or mine. Of course, America requires a guy to be president and Bush is currently that dude. He makes decisions, but it should never be assumed that they are above reproach.



Yeah, I got sick of writing "pro-the right to..." and just went with the thing that should be legalised.

There was some wacky amendment to illegalise burning the flag. One of those political stunts that pops up every now and then to garner votes.

Tenshu: the only truly objective requirements for the President of the United States are as follows:



That is to say, if a person meets those requirements, he or she can become President. The Constitution is the authority on such matters. You are not. Straight?

Your philosophy or political science professors, or whoever gave you the unfathomably stupid notion that you can declare your opinion the objective truth and not be ridiculed as an arrogant fool, should be lined up against a wall and shot.

?

Fact is, over here in Belgium, we have a similar problem with democracy, one which I have posted about before. Last election, 5 months ago, 25% of the people elected a fascist party into government, making it the third most powerful/influential party over here. This is a party which has bonds with neo-nazi groups, burns leftist student libraries and celebrates the birthday of Hitler btw.

So what, Tenshu? They got elected through Democracy®. Accept that.

No, man. 25% of the people are wrong. At the risk of sounding like an 'arrogant fool', but somehow I really stopped caring about what my internet text projection buddies think about me. That also means, stop sending me email threats (you know who you are).

25% of the people are wrong. **** this extreme fundamentalist democracy. That party should've been screened out and put off the voting list. This is my opinion of course, cause facts are off-limits here.

In a similar way, Bush should've been screened out. Someone with a lacking IQ, charisma, social calibration, ... who got through politics through connections and not through accomplishment, should be screened out.

Now it's too late of course, but the constitution should definitely include some measurable screening to determine if someone is suitable to be a president. Wolfy talks about only being able to screen out people based on physical flaws; I don't believe that. Let's see if he could stand up to the test.

They are wrong, in your opinion, but for those people who voted for the facisit party have every right to vote for the facist party, even if you despise it. That is, in fact, democracy in action. You may not like, but it is more the definition of democracy than you might be willing to admit to yourself. The facisit party you describe has every right to exist in a democratic system. Anyone should be able to form a party, no matter how outrageous their views. Obviously, there are enough people who support the party to give it some power.

Furthermore, if only 25% of the people are voting, there are far bigger problems than the parties that are running for office. Maybe this last election will light a fire under some of thsoe lazy sloths who thought it would be fine not to vote. Sometimes it takes a poor showing by the government to drive change in the political system.

If you think there should be more qualifications for president, that's fine, but that's not the way it works at this time.

I'm not Bush's biggest fan, but they don't exactly give Harvard MBAs away. I'm tired of the whole "Bush is a retard" argument.

No, I didn't. I said that the comparison of requirements to be a president and the physical requirements to join organizations such as the armed forces was a fallacious one. It's apples and oranges.

And, no, I couldn't "stand up" to the physical tests of the armed forces, due to my obesity. Yes, I said it. I'm obese. I'm a fatty-fat-fat-kid. Fatty-fat-fatso. Store cops search me for suspected stolen hams.

What you're proposing, Tenshu, is a dictatorship, where only the groups you approve of are the ones that are allowed to be on the ballot. Sorry, but democracy doesn't work that way -- freedom of speech and all that jazz. Things may be different in Belgium -- maybe your waffles are even better than they are over here -- but, then, this ain't Belgium.

What do you get when you spell Evian backwards?

SukIm?

As opposed to spend spend spend and cutting taxes?


In a way it already is.


Spreading democracy? That's a rather Orwellian way to put it. He's doing an awful job at spreading anything good there. He's spreading terrorism more than anything. The guy he appointed is turning out to be rather fascist as well; he's disrupted the free press.


It makes most of America intolerant then.


They're non-biased. Even Dick Cheney quoted them (even though he was wrong).


I respect what you did, but that doesn't mean that Bush is doing humanitarian things in Iraq.


That's like what they said about interracial marriage.


Perhaps it was, but saying that we're mostly humanitarian is offensive. I do believe if you think that then you're in denial.


The use of free-speech zones is terrible, as is having people arrested for wearing anti-bush t-shirts in his vicinity.
And Bush has said "there should be limits to freedom of speech".


That's terrible.


WTF?!?! Say who it is loud and clear, if you know. You should also contact an admin, they can report this person to their ISP.


When your dad has the right connections they do.

When your dad is the rich ex-president of the united states they do.

Who does that apply to?

ur mom

Apparently you have a difficulty with reading comprehension because they clearly support his claims (while at the same time they deny they do, which is an example of them spinning).

They don't support his claims.

She never told me her dad was a rich ex-president. *****.

Go away.

That's somthing we can all agree on.

The so called facts they post support Cheney's claims. Even while they deny that they do.

... Wow.

?
Fine, how did they agree with what he said?

I thought Kerry was exaggerating when he said Bush didn't have a plan to win the peace. I guess he wasn't:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

Agreed. I wasn't really surprised that he said it though.

And? Cut the lowest bracket to 0% and leave the rest alone. Someone making $600,000 would receive a $700 reduction in taxes, whereas a guy with a taxable income of $6000 would only have a $600 reduction.

The rich will always receive a larger dollar amount tax break unless you couple low-bracket breaks with high-bracket increases. The ratio of the tax break to total taxable income is what needs to be considered to determine if a tax relief plan inordinately favors the rich.

The Tax Policy Center link on factcheck.org isn't working for me, so I don't know if it has any break-to-income ratio information. If it does, I don't know why factcheck.org concentrated on dollar amounts.

That link showed a chart with the average size of the tax break for people in each tax bracket.

Fascism has nothing to do with 'disrupting the free press'. And are you talking about the 30 day ban on Al Jazeera?

My point to both of you is that his dad wasn't any rich ex-president when he went to college. Duh!

I think we can all agree with the fact that factcheck.org stated on their site after the debate that they did not support the VPs claims (or words to that effect).

They then make the following statements (I simply went back to the 'debate lies' thread where I had already quoted them):





As you can see there is numerous wording throughout about how Cheney's wrong and Edwards' was mostly right but then the actual facts they report do very little to criticize Cheney and, in my opinion, do much to support Cheney's original point. I am also unsure if factcheck.org has pointed out that Haliburton was awarded no-bid contracts, as it was in the Clinton years, not because of Cheney's "connection" to the company but because they are the only American company capable of doing the work.

I'm not familiar with George Bush senior's career, but rich senator then? Or at least rich alumni. Either way

That's better.

Yes.


He still had the connections.


They still dispute several of his points.

Which is why I say they spin. They dispute them while factually supporting them. I think they're full of themselves anyway.

I don't know about Belgium, but some countries have constitutions that prevent the sort of mob-rule democracy you're talking about. Our legislature could not pass a law, and our President could not enforce it, if it were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Besides, who the hell are you to define charisma and social calibration, and who are you to tell someone they can't have a future in politics if they've had connections in life? You, by yourself, do not get to do that. All of us do. It sounds like you're exactly the sort of threat that the US Constitution protects against.



I think George Orwell would have not written 1984 and Animal Farm if he knew people such as yourself would so flippantly refer to them while completely ignoring his other writings. If we're going to talk about Orwell, we should also mention his disgust at the way people throw around the word "fascist" as if it meant anything undesirable, and also at professed pacifists who, by criticising only the US, Britain and other democracies, are in fact professing a secret admiration of tyrants.

re the al Jazeera ban in Iraq:

Almost all western democracies have a history of limiting freedom of speech during times of war. The US, for example, did not allow Charles Schenk to demonstrate against our involvement in World War I. "Words can be weapons", I think, was the rationale the Supreme Court used.

This is the part where I would ask a reasonable person if they honestly thought this constitutes fascism.

It's not like I don't realize that pretty much anything can be bought, it's that I was under the impression that Harvard, especially, had a reputation for treating rich preppy boys rough.

Um... no. Money = cushy life, why would anything be rough?

How does it make a difference?

It makes a difference because the original implication was that he got in because his dad was a rich ex-president which was idiotic.

Your last post may very well be debatable but at least it is plausible.

Because if a University has any self-respect, it probably isn't going to take kindly to some rich boy thinking he can come in and buy and sell the place. A Harvard MBA is considered 'the best' because of the high standard one must meet to get it. Harvard is gonna make it easier for Bush, or anyone, and have the value of its reputation tarnished, and its degree taken with a grain of salt?

Not everything can be bought, when the posessor has some self-respect. It's possible that he got it because of money or nepotism, but that's just plain ignorant to say that because he's rich, and his dad was the president, he, without a doubt, never had to earn a thing in his life.

But of course I'm just so naive...