Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on February 21, 2004, 11:55:57 am
-
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzmac0221,0,7767423.story?coll=ny-business-headlines
In order to make up for the loss of a couple million manufacturing jobs, the president is considering classifying people who work for McDonald's as working in the manufacturing industry. :sigh:
-
Methinks he should stick to queer bashing and leave it at that. :blah:
-
It's like when they attacked Reagan for the whole Ketchup debacle.
THE PLAYBOOK is really getting old.
-
Where's Brutus when you need him?
-
*faces East and sings "Jerusalem"*
-
*faces East and sings "Petroleum"*
-
Originally posted by an0n
Where's Brutus when you need him?
dunno, i thought he got imprisoned the last time he offed a ruler.
-
*eats faces and sings "A visit to McDonalds....."*
-
Brutus died in the ensuing civil war IIRC
-
oh, must have mistaken him for someone else.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
*faces East and sings "Petroleum"*
[color=66ff00]Hehe :lol:
[/color]
-
Of course he's a good president! Look, he created 12 bajillion jobs in the manufacuring industry!
How are bus drivers part of that industry? Or burger flippers for that matter?
Well, they manufacture services.
You can't manufacture services. And besides, wouldn't that make them part of the service industry?
They are. Why can't they be counted as both? Look, why do you have to be so negative all the time? Why do you have to question everything? Don't you trust the government? The President's doing a great job, all the TV stations say so. I don't think you're being patriotic enough. Go back to France you commie!
But it's a legitimate complaint. You can't just change the definition of words to suit your political agenda. The same thing is going on with the prisoners at Guantanamo bay. By being classified as "enemy combatants", they're denied the right to due process and the protection afforded to prisoners of war by the Geneva convention. Does that not distrub you?
Queer loving, treehugging Commie liberal pinko! Get out of my country damnit!
-
Bush is a great president. He's creating more jobs, strengthening the economy, increasing US holdings and making the world a safer, happier place for all white Americans.
Last edited by Homeland Security on 02-21-2004 at 08:35 PM
-
Bush is a great, big, (FOLLOWING MATERIAL IS CLASSIFIED)$#*&ÐV!***&=!$#*ŠÆLVB#%&?$, money grabbing bastard!
Piæka, pizda, kurèina,papak, pizdun, izrod, majmun, idiot, isprdak, šupèina!
*You DON'T want to know the translation!*
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Piæka, pizda, kurèina,papak, pizdun, izrod, majmun, idiot, isprdak, šupèina!
*You DON'T want to know the translation!*
:wtf:
Last edited by Homeland Security on 02-21-2004 at 08:35 PM[/I]
:nervous: :blah:
-
Speaking of people who dislike Bush...look at this! (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0EE30E43-B137-417C-9FA4-E629E849E7DC.htm) :D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Piæka, pizda, kurèina,papak, pizdun, izrod, majmun, idiot, isprdak, šupèina!
*You DON'T want to know the translation!*
He's right, you really don't :D :D
-
Idiot is on Cratian the same..
and No...you really don't...
-
The jobs were leaving before, Clinton was just better at covering it up. Add to the fact that his policies and treaties are what allow them to be sent to lower wage countries and you can see what the real beef nationalist, social conservative americans have against Bubba.
-
So, to summarize, everything that's gone wrong under Bush is Clinton's fault, everything that's gone right (what little there is) is all Bush?
This is not a new refrain. Nor is it fooling anybody.
-
I heard that Bush's polling numbers have gotten so low that they've moved up the capture of bin Laden to September.
-
I'm not saying Bush is perfect, he's flawed like the rest of us. It's just that most of his opponents/detractors are more flawed.
Also notable, ask any economist worth his calculator, it takes years(5+) or decades for meaningful economic change to take place.
-
Yeah, only because they go "You've got 12 years to comply with this new law".
-
So if, say, Exxon starts losing money (due to new taxes, change in the business environment, all its competitors suddenly deciding there's a better market or production environment somewhere else, whatever), it takes the company 5 years to start firing everybody it can reasonably get away with? Or it just takes five years for those people to no longer have money after they're fired, and cease to contribute meaningfully to the economy until they're rehired?
My entire ass. Changes take place precisely when they do. If there is a delay, one will see a gradual change over five years as whatever change it is slowly takes effect, not some ****ing magical extended holdoff where everything stays the same until suddenly everybody simultaneously realizes the economy was supposed to go down the ****ter five years ago. What we've seen here is a rapid worsening of status starting roughly from the time Bush started dicking with things, exacerbating an existing bad situation.
-
I am impressed with your use of the word 'exacerbating'. Kudos.
*gives Stryke a cookie*
-
Well, occasionally "fuck" just won't do it.
Occasionally.
-
See. Not all those who oppose Bush are hippy treehuggers. Ocassionally, you get a raging madman among the ranks. How do you like dem apples.
And Liberator, not to completely discredit your 5 year rule, but is it not very convenient that the time it allegedly takes for economic change to occur just slightly exceeds the length of 1 Presidential term? That way, whatever goes wrong up to and including the re-election bid by an encumbent can easily be blamed on the previous President. Am I wrong?
-
I only became a "raging madman" thanks to how ****ed politics are nowadays, thank you very much. You Democrat pussies are too busy sucking neofascist cock, somebody's got to be pissed off at how badly things are going and now much nobody cares.
Hell, matter of fact I can only recall one occasion in the past four years when you lot actually put up a coherent opposition to something Bush wanted in Congress. So, really, what gives you the right to sneer at anybody's politics. At least the far-right wackos get things done...
-
It sure makes your posts funnier to read, though. :D
-
Well, the point was more that they're more fun to write this way, but whatever.
-
Death to the pie!
-
And I never said I disagreed. I am a supporter of the Left's ends, but of the Right's means.
They have an agenda, and will sooner die than give in. The current Dems in America, though I'm not really old enough to remember any other kind (which might be saying more about them than about me), will take everything laying down. So long as the big bad men don't yell at them. Or call them horrbile, incomprehensible names. Such as Liberal.
I doubt they could mount a serious opposition if they tried, which they don't. The recent Democratic candidacy business is a nice example. How they go about winning, is they support the most right-leaning candidate. They stake their victory not on providing a better alternative to Republican policy, but rather on being a more moderate kind of Repulicans. Sharpton was never really considered a serious candidate, and Kucinich was sidelined from day 1, instantly disqualifying him. Now, Dean has dropped out, and who you're left with is the two most right-wing of the possible candidates. Wonderful how that works, eh? That is, if they even win. Which, given the fact that they are making 0 effort to prevent Bush & Co. from stealing it again via electronic voting machines proven time and again to be rigged, is not too good.
But hey, what am I gonna do about it. This is going on cause the American people are allowing it. Four more years? Forty more? Ain't nothing gonna happen 'till people wise up and develop a backbone. Half of those people (in all likelyhood, more) currently gving Bush the finger were giving Clinton standing ovations while he instituted more or less the same policies as Bush. Somehow, people get the idea that unjustified, illegal, immoral war is somehting that Dubya thought up one day. Cause it easy to say "Yeah, Bush as a President sucks, look how he's perverted our peace-loving, just ways". Its a whole lot harder to admit that pretty much every President in recent times has done that, regardless of political leaning. With your consent. Except they had more brains and either a)got better PR or b)got the CIA to do it in secret.
Viva Canada, where the PM actually, get this, promised to resign if he was found guilty of being in any way involved in a recent scandal involving large amounts of stolen government money. What we need is good old fasioned invasion from up North.
/rant
-
Aight then.
Though I think the popular catchphrase these days is anti-American, not Liberal.
After all, why turn a legitimate political outlook into a perjorative when you can get these great McCarthyist overtones and come out sounding like some horribly maligned innocent minority?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It's like when they attacked Reagan for the whole Ketchup debacle.
THE PLAYBOOK is really getting old.
Yeah. Shame they attacked Reagan with the truth: ketchup isn't a vegetable. And reclassifying a service job as a manufacturing job is NOT job creation.
Lets deal in facts instead of insinuating that disagreeing is the same as spinning it or lying.
-
I find it odd that'd you differentiate between spin and lying.
-
Well, the whole point of spin is that it's not technically lying. It's exaggeration, selective use of the truth, etc. So that politicians and the like can lie and then say it was an innocent misunderstanding when they get called on it.
-
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?
-
...Is a lie. Yes. His attempt to turn it into spin by insisting that sex technically had to include multiple sets of genitals at one time failed, because it was stupid. It would have been spin if he said he had not had sex with her at more specific times, or that they had not had sex together, or if he'd held up a picture of her and said "Now come on, do you really think I'd schtup that thing?".
-
... but it made us all laugh, for years to come.
-
Yeah, so long as we're careful to avoid thinking about the things he supposedly didn't do to her. Ow, my inner eye.
-
D'you think he smoked that cigar?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
...and who you're left with is the two most right-wing of the possible candidates. ...
/rant
Let me get this straight, you think John Kerry is Right wing?!?!? He's further left than that slush, Ted Kennedy. I'll ask you this, why vote for a man who has promised to raise your taxes the second he office?
Edwards has no credibility as a serious candidate, I mean I've never even heard of the guy before this whole business.
As far as THE PLAYBOOK goes, I was refering to the Democrat/Liberal/Leftist/Red Diaper Doper Baby propensity to fan the flames of racial tension and class warfare as political tools to acheive their goals of God only knows what, but it is destroying the fabric of America in the process. I mean think about it, our grandparents, the generation who saved the world* didn't have Headstart or one of thousands of other government programs from the 60's and 70's and they turned out just fine.
through their industry, they defeated Hitler and the Axis powers and then prevented a second Dark Age in Europe by helping to rebuild that shattered continent. Also, through their actions, by rebuilding Japan and setting it on path of a republic created a force by which the rest of the world measures economic conditions.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
they defeated Hitler and the Axis powers
:wtf:
prevented a second Dark Age in Europe
:wtf:
-
:sigh:
-
(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/saab/images/spineyes.gif)
-
Everybody knows that it was only a matter of time until Hitler developed The Bomb and dropped it on England, that's assuming he didn't invade first. With Britain out of the way, Hitler could have focused on Russia, which if he had The Bomb, with jet powered bombers, would have been a smoking crater as well. Europe would be speaking german today, had it not been for America. Learn history.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Everybody knows that it was only a matter of time until Hitler developed The Bomb and dropped it on England, that's assuming he didn't invade first. With Britain out of the way, Hitler could have focused on Russia, which if he had The Bomb, with jet powered bombers, would have been a smoking crater as well. Europe would be speaking german today, had it not been for America. Learn history.
You first.
By the end of the war in 1945, Germany had an incomplete nuclear bomb programme, which he attempted to send to Japan (by u-boat).
alongside, Hitler had a programme known as the 'Amerikabomber', intended to drop a nuclear bomb on New York. The prototypes for this bomber were all at least 5 years from completion (the creators of one were recruited by the Us for their expertise and worked with NASA on the Saturn V rocket amongst others).
i.e. Germany was never near to developing either a nuke or jet bomber in time to avert the Russian victory.
Russia own their end of the war without difficulty - they wer emanufacturing 8 times more tanks than the Germans were, and inflicting massive losses in Stalingrad (IIRC it cost the Germans several hundred troops to capture a single street, maybe more). coupled with the Russian winter, it was inevitable that the Germans would be pushed out - regardless of the allies involvement.
Not to mention that Britain had repulsed the Luftwaffe by the Us military involvement. you could say the Us provided aid with arms, but those were sold and practically bled Britain dry of resources - including when the Us sent a destroyer to an British colony to pick up gold bars, the last 'bankable' resource left.
Would the Germans have been defeated without the US? Yes - the russians had vastly superior numbers, and the german economy could not sustain the war.
Would Britain have been invaded? Probably not by the Germans, it;s hard to say what the russians would have done.
Should we be grateful to the US? Of course - they were allies -they did the right thing.
Are we indebted to the US? Of course not. It was always in the Us interests to become involved - this was a world war. Even if the Us had not intervened, they would have eventually been faced with either a German superpowerr (unlikely), or a USSR covering the entire continent of europe. Not to mention the inevitability of Japan attacking at some point. And the US made a fair few bob selling arms to the UK, anyways.
-
Precisely.
Firstly, Hitler had a few strange ideas about Britain, due to his insane ideas about 'master races' - he figured Britain would at some point join up with Germany in smiting the 'lesser races' of the world.
Secondly, he messed up pretty badly when he got the Luftwaffe to stop attacking the RAF and start bombing London after Britain bombed Berlin, because he was ever so close to destroying the RAF completely and gaining the air-superiority required to put Operation Sealion into effect... assuming that we was actually going to do that at all, which may not have been the case 'cause he started moving troops and manufacturing tanks to engage the Russians, not building lots of aeroplanes to take out the RAF.
Thirdly, Russia completed owned Germany on their front. After they stopped the German advance, Russia laid the smack down big time.
I'm more inclined to say that it was the result of a joint effort by all of the Allies and bad moves on the part of Germany (even starting the war was a bad move, considering that Hitler wanted a few extra years to get ready and thought that everyone'd back down over Poland) than saying that America saved the world and won the war singlehandedly, all the time waving an American flag and shouting 'A-MER-RI-CA! A-MER-RI-CA! WOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO!'
-
I have no objection to prasing the US for their involvement - just the notion that we should eternally kow-tow to them because they had the guts to get involved.
Personally, I'd consider that an insult to all the Commonwealth, Russian, Polish, Czech, French, Chinese, etc soldiers & civillians who died in the war, as if we should ignore their sacrifices because the big bad Americans came along.
-
Clinton was a far better Presiden than Bush...PERIOD!
-
Dudes, have you not seen Saving Private Ryan? Or Band of Brothers? The US won the war all by themselves. Who are you to dispute the word of Tom Hanks?
-
especially considering, that Russia alone suffered so much more casualties than the US, it ain't even funny.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Dudes, have you not seen Saving Private Ryan? Or Band of Brothers? The US won the war all by themselves. Who are you to dispute the word of Tom Hanks?
More Brits fought for Hitler than most people think. I'll dig out a link or two...
Offhand, I know of 8000 that fought against Russian for finland (Finland was a German ally IIRC).
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/facts.html
-
I have no objection to prasing the US for their involvement - just the notion that we should eternally kow-tow to them because they had the guts to get involved.
Oh, indeed. That's why "joint effort". Everybody did stuff.
More Brits fought for Hitler than most people think. I'll dig out a link or two...
I'm pretty sure there was a British SS squad...
-
Well, for that matter, there was a russian SS squad. Pretty spiffy for someone who wants to kill everyone not Arian (read: German)
-
There was also Axis Sally and Lord Haw Haw.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
I'm pretty sure there was a British SS squad...
:nod:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It's like when they attacked Reagan for the whole Ketchup debacle.
Well the first ****up there is that tomatoes are a fruit, not a vegetable. That's not even going into the nutritional stuff on ketchup v.s. a vegetable :)
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Well, for that matter, there was a russian SS squad. Pretty spiffy for someone who wants to kill everyone not Arian
An estimated 1.5 million Russians fought for the germans during ww2, in all services. Remember Hitlers atrocities werent widely known at the time while Stalins were very well known to them. Also any russians captured by the Germans were shot on Stalins orders even if they managed to escape so there was little choice for them.
There were also Dutch, French, Belgian, Arab and even Indian german voluteer units.
Btw the Aryan race originally came from Russia.
Originally posted by Liberator
Europe would be speaking german today, had it not been for America. Learn history.
Learn some history yourself. America was second fiddle to the Russians in liberating Europe. Russians killed and captured more Germans at Stalingrad alone then the US lost on both pacific and european fronts during the whole war. Inflicted greater losses on them during operation bagration, the largest military offensive in history, which took place at the same time as the Normandy landings.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Would Britain have been invaded? Probably not by the Germans, it;s hard to say what the russians would have done.
Its unlikely that Russia would have continued the war past Germanys borders, the warsaw pact sattelite states were only created as a buffer zone to prevent another attack. 20 million dead will make you slightly paranoid about stuff like that. Besides Stalin had more than enough to deal with in Russia itself without having to worry about the rest of Europe.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Let me get this straight, you think John Kerry is Right wing?!?!? He's further left than that slush, Ted Kennedy. I'll ask you this, why vote for a man who has promised to raise your taxes the second he office?
Edwards has no credibility as a serious candidate, I mean I've never even heard of the guy before this whole business.
Let's get one thing straight: Kerry hasn't promised to raise taxes on me. He's promised to cancel some of Bush's tax cuts for the people who need them the least. I don't fall into that category. I'm one of the people who saw no benefit--no worse than that: a deficit--from the Bush tax cuts. To pay for those tax cuts, Bush cut funding to public programs that I and other people in my tax bracket use. We've discussed the Bush tax 'cuts' already. Do a search. I went into excruciating detail showing who got what cuts and how much, and what it boiled down to in real numbers.
As for Edwards: your loss. I knew who the guy was, but that's because he's one of my politicians. I'm personally hoping for a Kerry/Edwards or Edwards/Kerry ticket. But to be honest, at this point, I'd vote for Stryke if it would get Bush and Halliburton^WCheny out of the White House.
-
You'd vote for me anyway, peon, or I would crush you in my iron fist of doom in the new world order I would establish.
Well, it wouldn't be a new world order so much as a modern version of the Mongol hordes, but it's all about the same in the end. Either way you don't want to **** with it, just mine has the entire population of Minnesota riding tanks over the Canadian plain.
-
Did I say Stryke? I meant Vadar, or the guy that does the landscaping in my apartment complex. Hell, I'd pretty much vote for anyone who would promise me that the US would stop sucking the oil tit.
-
No oil here. My armies would run on the blood of the foreign dogs, not oil!
Hee hee, I'm liking this idea more and more. Maybe I should rethink ignoring power as a goal in life...
-
You should have been in the recall...
-
[q]The White House McDonald's, whose customers include many White House staffers, though no president since Bill Clinton, is an economic indicator of its own.[/q]
No president since Bill Clinton, eh? Wow, what a lineup. :lol:
And regardless of the "debate" concerning whether McD dude are manufacturing burgers or not, I think the parallel is hilarious. They're about as healthy and as tasty as something that came out of a manufacturing plant. :p
(In all fairness, McD's isn't all that bad - their burgers are just so completely impersonal and, well, assembly-lined, that one has to wonder...)
-
Originally posted by Gank
Its unlikely that Russia would have continued the war past Germanys borders, the warsaw pact sattelite states were only created as a buffer zone to prevent another attack. 20 million dead will make you slightly paranoid about stuff like that. Besides Stalin had more than enough to deal with in Russia itself without having to worry about the rest of Europe.
Then again, there is evidence that in the 1950ies, just prior to Stalin's death, he was already planning another war against the United States.
Frankly, Stalin didn't give **** about numerical casualties. Heck, his own "cropsaving" strategy caused the death of 10 million. The only reason why the won WWII was due to sheer numerical superiority. We're talking about the country who put their airfields near the border of the USSR at the beginning of the war, and ordered them not to retaliate. We're talking about the country whose one of the highest generals Zhukov, was known for his strategy to send men directly assaulting a heavy tank group. And if he failed, he'd just bring more men, and do it again.
No, Stalin was already pushing for another war.
-
First of all we're talking about a what-if scenario, where the US didnt enter the war in europe, so Stalin couldnt have been planning a war against them, because they werent anywhere he could reach.
Stalin had good reason to plan for a war against the US in the fifties, the US at the time was violently anti-communist with the McCarthney purges in full swing and the Korean war fought in the start of the decade. I seriously doubt he actually intended to start one though, whatever else about him he wasnt stupid and considering the US came through ww2 relativly unscathed while Russia was devestated it would have been a particularly stupid thing to do.
Stalin didnt give a **** how many Russians he killed, he did give a **** about how many somebody else killed. And they werent just numerical casualties, 20 million dead, the majority of them young men was a sizable percentage of Russias workforce.
Zhukov is widely regarded as one of the best generals of ww2, the above mentioned operation bagration achieved complete strategic surprise on the germans. No mean feat seeing as nearly 2 million Soviet troops took part in the offensive. Earlier in the war poorly equipped and trained infantry were sent against superior forces not because of poor leadership, because there was nothing else to send. Russia suffered staggering losses in both trained men and equipment during the german advance and needed time to build more tanks and planes and train men to use them. It was done out of neccessity rather than a disregard for human life (though there wasnt much of that on the eastern front) and bought the russians enough time to turn the tide in their favour.