Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on July 26, 2004, 02:17:55 pm
-
Somethings troubling me lately. Making me a little depressed. A little uneasy. A little sick to my ****ing stomach. Could it be
a) That protestors at the Democratic National Convention will be caged off, under a bridge, a block away from the actual convention, with concrete blocks, chain fence and barbed wire?
I guess this is democracy in action? Especially since the "free speech zone" (Orwell would be proud) is UNDER A BRIDGE, so that on one end, taller protestors (taller than 5'8") will not be able to stand upright. Cost of this security zone? 60 million dollars, all to keep the evnt nice an clean from any dissent.
(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/07/25/image631676x.jpg)(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/25/dems.security/vert.armed.sunday.ap.jpg)(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0407/gallery.dems/gal.sunday.8.ap.jpg)
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040721/capt.bx11407212244.protest_lawsuits_bx114.jpg)(http://parkerpettus.com/fleet/slides/c1010075.jpg)
(http://parkerpettus.com/fleet/slides/c1010057.jpg) (http://parkerpettus.com/fleet/slides/c1010076.jpg)
(http://parkerpettus.com/fleet/slides/b1010011.jpg)
b) The Democratic National Convention is going to be 0% dissent, and 100% showbiz? Such political luminaries as Natalie Portman, Jerry Springer, DJ. Biz Markie (I have no idea), Amber Tamblyn (Joan of Arcadia).
BOSTON, July 25 /PRNewswire/ -- A series of video "moments" played
throughout the 2004 Democratic National Convention will highlight examples of
the ways John Kerry has touched the lives of families and communities, the
Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) announced today. The videos,
to be played Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights, are one of many ways in
which the Convention will help to introduce to the American People John
Kerry's lifetime of strength and service.
Among the videos that will be shown next week are:
John Kerry: Ambassador for Hope
The Story of Shannon Kinsella and the Brockton Little League
Eighteen years ago, a group of families in Brockton, MA started two little
league teams for local children with disabilities. When the national league
tried to throw them out after the first season, John Kerry became involved. He
is credited with saving the teams and eventually helping to launch the
"Challenger Division" that today includes tens of thousands of children in the
U.S. and 30 foreign countries.
Shannon Kinsella, who was born with cerebral palsy and did not walk until
age 4 1/2, was the first "Challenger Division" player. John Kerry threw her
the first official pitch.
The video will be played on Monday night.
John Kerry: Champion for the Next Generation
The Story of Michael Parker and YouthBuild
After dropping out of school when low grades bumped him from the
basketball team, Michael Parker enrolled in YouthBuild. He credits the program
-- and in many ways John Kerry -- with saving his life.
YouthBuild is a program in which at risk young people work toward their
GED or high school diploma while learning construction skills and building
affordable housing. After visiting the original program site in New York City,
John Kerry set out to expand the program across the nation to help change the
lives of ten of thousands of young people just like Michael Parker. Today,
over 40,000 youth have graduated from YouthBuild, and more than 12,000 homes
have been built for low-income families.
The video will be played on Tuesday night.
John Kerry: Loyal Friend and Brother
The story of the "Lost Six" from the Worcester Fire Department -- Engine
16, Ladder 2
On December 3, 1999, the Worcester Fire Department -- Engine 16, Ladder 2
-- received a report of a structure fire at the local coal storage warehouse
building. What started as a manageable fire quickly became a "monster,"
resulting in the tragic loss of six firefighters.
John Kerry was overseas in Burma when he learned of the fire, turned his
plane around, and was there -- standing shoulder to shoulder with the families
-- for most of the difficult 15 days that followed.
The video will be played on Wednesday night.
c) Or maybe its the fact that the hero, the hope for the future, the fearless leader, John Kerry, is exactly the ****ing same as Bush!
http://www.counterpunch.com/junaid07222004.html
-
Yeah. Stuff like this does not encourage me...
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_voxday_archive.html#109039364683638075
-
I disagree with the notion that Kerry is the same as Bush. Yes, they are both members of the wealthy elite, but Bush is a dullard who has surrounded himself with nut jobs, and they all have their evangelical religious beliefs fused with their politics. They've taken Machiavellian political practice to a whole new playing field, leading the US on a twisted moral crusade and getting a free ride by stamping all their policies with cheap patriotism. Kerry may not be super, but he's not cut from the same mold as the current administration.
-
So move to a different country if you don't like this one. i'm so tired of the "woe is me my country sucks" attitude. you don't like it? move. it's that simple. and don't cower behind the fact that you haven't got the money to move. if you really wanted to, you would find a way. if you don't really want to, and aren't going to do anything to change things....then don't ***** about it.
now i agree that telling people where they are allowed to exercise free speech is stupid. but in the end....so are these politically motivated threads. It seems to me that people have a choice.....evangelical religious beliefs fused with their politics....or....i didn't inhale and i didn't get a blow job in the oval office. Either way, people will find something wrong. My answer is simple, if you don't like it aren't willing to do anything about it, then you have come to accept it. if you have come to accept it, don't *****. or simply move away.
either way...there is business to be done under any form of government.
and for what it's worth, your entire disagreement about kerry being the same as bush was stated as opinion with no facts being shown as evidence of the claims. if you want to state your opinion that's fine, but please substantiate that opinion with facts that you are showing. a debate is one thing, posting just to slander is another. so please show facts along with opinion.
me personally, i don't care either way. I back our country, not the man who runs it for four years. I will vote for the one i like best.
that said....i am done reading this thread.
-
I have to admit that looking at the carefully stage-damaged US political convnetions - and to a lesser degree, those in the UK - it does bring to mind the carefully stage managed rallies you'd see in Germany or Italy in 1939.
But, then again, does anyone expect anything different from what is, by nature, a gathering of supporters? At the end of the day, real political change is achieved through talking to people, not showy conferences - or protests. One eloquent speaker, willing to respect and listen to people, will always have more of an impact than a thousand screaming protesters, or cheering supporters.
-
I never said I disliked the United States. I don't love or hate countries because I view them as constructs that should serve a purely practical purpose. When I'm disturbed by the direction that society is taking, I would rather influence it in a different direction than run from the problem. I am deeply afraid of the casual way in which this administration tampers with church/state seperation, distribution of wealth, and foreign policy. Why should I leave if I want to make a difference? Those who preach patriotism ought to be mindful of the principle upon which a democratic society functions: that dissent must be built into the system.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
So move to a different country if you don't like this one. i'm so tired of the "woe is me my country sucks" attitude. you don't like it? move. it's that simple. and don't cower behind the fact that you haven't got the money to move. if you really wanted to, you would find a way.
That's the single most stupid thing I've heard in weeks.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
That's the single most stupid thing I've heard in weeks.
You don't read the papers much do you?
-
Only the Metro :nervous:
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
So move to a different country if you don't like this one. i'm so tired of the "woe is me my country sucks" attitude. you don't like it? move. it's that simple. and don't cower behind the fact that you haven't got the money to move. if you really wanted to, you would find a way. if you don't really want to, and aren't going to do anything to change things....then don't ***** about it.
now i agree that telling people where they are allowed to exercise free speech is stupid. but in the end....so are these politically motivated threads. It seems to me that people have a choice.....evangelical religious beliefs fused with their politics....or....i didn't inhale and i didn't get a blow job in the oval office. Either way, people will find something wrong. My answer is simple, if you don't like it aren't willing to do anything about it, then you have come to accept it. if you have come to accept it, don't *****. or simply move away.
either way...there is business to be done under any form of government.
and for what it's worth, your entire disagreement about kerry being the same as bush was stated as opinion with no facts being shown as evidence of the claims. if you want to state your opinion that's fine, but please substantiate that opinion with facts that you are showing. a debate is one thing, posting just to slander is another. so please show facts along with opinion.
me personally, i don't care either way. I back our country, not the man who runs it for four years. I will vote for the one i like best.
that said....i am done reading this thread.
how typical.
1. I don't live in the US, nor do I ever plan to.
2. The "like it or move" mentality is bull****. People have a right to change their government if they don't like it. Its all in the Constitution, people seem to forget that.
Blind partiotism is one of the most profoundly stupid traits a person can have.
and now, for Mr. Kerry:
-Supported the Iraq War
-Supports sending more troops to Iraq, around 40,000 or so.
-Supports the PATRIOT act.
-In favour of unconditional support for Israel
-Supports the policy of pre-emptive war
-Supports neo-liberal economic policies world-wide
-Supports the overthrow of sovereign governments if it suits US interests.
-Commited war crimes in Vietnam, and actualy brags about it.
-Little respect for freedom of speech and assembly, as seen above.
-Supports the illegal detentions in Gitmo
-In the pockets of the same multinational corporations as Bush
-Cabinet made of all sorts of despicable characters, from Madeline Alright to Rand Beers (who asserts that FARC was training with Al Queda) to Welsley Clark.
-Has stiffled dissent from within the Democratic Party (Kucinich et al)
-Is not is favour of gay marriage
-Environmental policies differ only slightly from Bush's
-Is not in favour of universal health-care
There's more, though I'm too lazy to look it up. This is just off the top of my head.
-
so the whole reason you posted was to flame me? is it stupid because you don't see a way it can be done...or stupid because you know you wouldn't have the guts to try? which is it...cowardice or short sightedness?
before you answer....
you totally missed the point. the point is simple...if you want something bad enough you will find a way. if you give up on finding a way...well you didn't want it as badly as you thought. so here's the thing...if you want to ***** about the country, then make some changes, or at least try. if you want to ***** because you don't like it and aren't willing to do anything about it, then swallow the burger, you could have called and ordered pizza if that's what you wanted. If someone is going to *****, and do nothing, then please...go someplace that will make you happy.
Money is a means to an end....not the only means however. if you want something enough, you will find a way.
unless of course your happiness revolves around the ability to flame someone.
The bottom line is...if you aren't happy with your current situation, change your situation. it really boils down to you in the end.
oh and rictor....if you read the last two sentences in paragraph 2, you will see that i in fact do agree with you. i love people who are willing to attempt change.
-
I agree with that post Rictor, but! Big But...
We cannot change crap, freedom is just an illusion IMO
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
But, then again, does anyone expect anything different from what is, by nature, a gathering of supporters? At the end of the day, real political change is achieved through talking to people, not showy conferences - or protests. One eloquent speaker, willing to respect and listen to people, will always have more of an impact than a thousand screaming protesters, or cheering supporters.
Dunno bout that mate, people who are willing to stop and listen to other people usually dont get heard at all. Anyways, like Mao said, change must come at the barrel of a gun.
-
The bottom line is...if you aren't happy with your current situation, change your situation. it really boils down to you in the end.
:yes:
-
I never posted to flame you, unless you're offended by the "blind patriotism is stupid" remark.
Look, the way I see it, the government should conform to the wishes of the people, not the other way around. And until it does so, I have every right to *****, protest, and generally raise hell. I also believe, and this is a bit off-topic, that the people who's wishes the government should obey are not limited to only citizens, but to anyone who is affected by its policies. So, essentially, this means that foreign policy is a whole other matter than domestic policy, and if its going to be democratic, then everyone who is affected by foreign policy, US citizen or otherwise, should get a say.
However, I do not consider this *****ing. I consider this, at worst, spreading information in a slightly irritated fashion, and at best (if people got with the damn program), political discourse. I don't think you can even argue that whats happening in Boston at the DNC is a farce. Free speech zones? Gimme a break. Though I have to admit, I find it all quite amusing.
So they want Kerry do they? Well, enjoy. Don't mind the cages and assult rifles, cause hey, at least he's better than Bush.
-
no it wasn't you i was referring to with that. and beleive me i agree that blind patriotism is idiocy. i said i back my country. that doesn't mean that i agree with it. i think that our job is done over in iraq. bring em home. we were told that our boys would be returning once the iraqis ratified a constitution. they did that. now it's up to them to enforce it without us.
-
That's it!!! I'm running for president!
No wait, I can't...
You know why?
Why can't we nominate are own people to run for president?
Because the Government pwns us, there are many issues that have to be dealt with, like Shadowsomething said... "we have to deal with it" Not by moving, that's just bullcrap... But by doing whatever we can before our life is over from nuclear holocast.
-
Blind partiotism is one of the most profoundly stupid traits a person can have.
Is there any other kind of patriotism?
Kerry's impression is rather ambiguous due to the fact that, like most politicians, he tries to win votes from as many demographic groups as possible. I'm certainly not happy that he supported the war and the Patriot Act, or that he's opposed to gay marriage, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a politician who was outspoken on the other side. As for universal health care, at this point I think we'd need Jesus to campaign for that dream.
Second, I'm not so sure all of that is true. I've heard nothing about his support for Israel or for illegal detention, and certainly nothing about war crimes.
As for being in the pockets of corporations, that is, sadly, the name of the game. Any politician who wants to have a prayer has no choice but to sell his soul to the lobbyists. It's going to take social reform of the most drastic degree to really change that, and until then, Kerry has no choice but to play the corporations' ball game.
The bottom line is...if you aren't happy with your current situation, change your situation. it really boils down to you in the end.
I would say that voicing your thoughts is a way to effect change.
With that said, the notion that anything can be accomplished with enough will power is, I think, a liability where social awareness is concerned. It is because of that kind of social Darwinism that the poor are often foresaken by those who are too self-righteous to recognize that one's situation is very often subject to random, uncontrollable chance.
-
Kerry admits to war-crimes, MP3 clip:
http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3
Kerry's Israel policy papers (its official, despite being linked to on electronic intifada. I could find another place, but I already had a link to this)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2864.shtml
edit: I'll try to find some stuff about Guantanamo Bay later on.
-
Well all right, I see where you're coming from. I think what he's trying to say is that the Vietnam War was, in and of itself, one giant atrocity.
As for his position on Israel, you're right, it's not good.
-
You know, this isn't really news. They've been caging off the national convention for at least a century- doubly so ever since the police riot of '68. Man, we need to start that **** again. Quick, get me ten thousand hippies, some picket signs, and the most ****ed-up cops you can find!
-
Hmmm, well, has it always been this blatant? I can't imagine how, though I'm reffering to the period since the end of the hippy movement.
What gets me is the submisiveness of the protestors. Even those who refuse to be caged will likely not make a stir. Wouldn't want to offend the police or even *gasp* the people they are protesting against. Yes, lets hold a silent protest, a block away, outside the line-of-sight of the convention. That will surely get the message acorss. Oh just wait until they see our signs, some of the things written on there are downright mean.
Lets see how far they can push this. Maybe next time, the "free speech zone" will be conveniently placed in the middle of the Nevada desert. You know, keep the unruly mob at bay and all that.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Is there any other kind of patriotism?
If you are so dense you can't see beyond that form of patriotism I suggest you refrain from involving yourself in any sort of political event.
Patriotism is the love for one's country. Not the need to defend one's government against everything and anything. Patriotism is the feeling one has to defend one's country from any threat, foreign and domestic. And one's own government can very well be a threat to the country itself and it's people.
Note how I stress 'country'.
Country != government.
And blind patriotism doesn't make that distinction. That's also why it is just plain dangerous.
-
You know, it's rather funny about what caused the current political situation in the United States. The completely undemocratic state of affairs was caused by a reform that was designed to end a different undemocratic state of affairs. Specifically, the institutions of the Civil Service Exam. Deprived of the old way of getting elected (bribing your supporters with bureaucratic positions), now they were forced to go crawling to the special interests.
-
Tiara, first of all, I agree that patriotism does not necessarily entail unconditional support for the government. For example, cheering for your country in football is benign patriotism. You get the idea.
But let me ask you this? If it comes down to a matter of welfare for your countrymen, though less deserving, or for foreigners, though more deserving, does patriotism come in the play there. For example, will you let 100 of "your people" die to save the lives of 1000 others. This is speaking purely hypothetically, since, unfortunately, most people don't even need to think twice in that situation.
-
I'm uncomfortable with the concept of loving a country, for the same reason that I'm uncomfortable with institutionalizing spirituality: It narrows perspective. I try to view all human beings in the same light, and from what I see, unflinching support for something as arbitrary as a country is contrary to that. A country is a social contract that we are entered into by birth; the need to take pride in something like that makes me uneasy.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But let me ask you this? If it comes down to a matter of welfare for your countrymen, though less deserving, or for foreigners, though more deserving, does patriotism come in the play there. For example, will you let 100 of "your people" die to save the lives of 1000 others. This is speaking purely hypothetically, since, unfortunately, most people don't even need to think twice in that situation.
:wtf:
Saving other people != patriotism
-
this keeps getting better and beter.
They took down an al-Jazeera banner (from a skybox paid by al-Jazeera, which had previously been approved), and replaced it with a sign saying "Strong for America". It is the only media banner that was taken down .
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FD55FF1-CD66-40BC-8453-C65D9CE709BE.htm
Looks like police are getting a bit nervous
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=CVN%20Security
Even an unattended baby stroller briefly became cause for alarm. Commuter rail service on the Framingham line was stopped for about an hour while hazardous materials teams boarded the train in Southboro, about 25 miles west of Boston, only to discover the stroller was empty.
-
Yeah people are a little uptight. I'm not sure what I think. I've seen much worse human rights violations on the part of the US government than this.
-
Given the current state of affairs in the world today, I have no issues with the security measures taken for the DNC.
Besides, why protest it at all?
-
Oh, and by this I take it that you think that the fencing off is for nothing but security purposes? C'mon, thats naive beyond belief. Its political, quite clearly. Or is it simply a coincidence that anyone who does not fully support Kerry and his policies gets to wait in the pen outside?
The event is little less than a photo-op. Clinton will be there, Gore too. Sharpton and Dean and Kerry and Edwards, all smiling under one roof, a happy family. Meanwhile, anyone who decides to hold the Dems accountable for what amounts to selling out their principals (or, at least what I quite foolishly and idealistically believe to have traditionally been their principals), well they're **** out of luck.
Don't even bring up security. You could make the case for any sizeable political event, at any time until the bogus War on Terror bull**** is over, which according to the government itself, could take a while, if it will ever be over.
So, essentially, that means no more protesting in any significant form, at any event worth protesting, ever. Its not up to you ionia, wise and all-knowing though you may be, to decide whether something is worth protesting. If I want to, I should be able to, simple as that.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Oh, and by this I take it that you think that the fencing off is for nothing but security purposes? C'mon, thats naive beyond belief. Its political, quite clearly. Or is it simply a coincidence that anyone who does not fully support Kerry and his policies gets to wait in the pen outside?
People weren't prohibited from protesting, they were prohibited from grabbing Kerry's lapels and saying "What's wrong with you???". These days, better safe than sorry. Never underestimate mob mentality. Just look at the WTO protests for example. So yes, I do believe it's for no purpose other than security, otherwise they wouldn't have been permitted to protest at all.
I use the same argument for those who march outside of Planned Parenthood clinics. Do you really think those people should have unlimited physical access to the people who are entering and exiting such facilities?
So yes, I do believe it is for security, nothing more.
Originally posted by Rictor
The event is little less than a photo-op. Clinton will be there, Gore too. Sharpton and Dean and Kerry and Edwards, all smiling under one roof, a happy family. Meanwhile, anyone who decides to hold the Dems accountable for what amounts to selling out their principals (or, at least what I quite foolishly and idealistically believe to have traditionally been their principals), well they're **** out of luck.
Seems kind of a silly place to bring up accountability, the Convention that is. Yelling and screaming about this and that to a group of persons who aren't there to listen to anyone but each other. Protest, fine, but it will amount to nothing. That's reality.
Originally posted by Rictor
Don't even bring up security. You could make the case for any sizeable political event, at any time until the bogus War on Terror bull**** is over, which according to the government itself, could take a while, if it will ever be over.
I already did earlier up. The war on terror will never end, that's what war is.
Originally posted by Rictor
So, essentially, that means no more protesting in any significant form, at any event worth protesting, ever. Its not up to you ionia, wise and all-knowing though you may be, to decide whether something is worth protesting. If I want to, I should be able to, simple as that.
The right to protest isn't in any danger. As previously stated, they could protest still. and in response to this little nugget:
Originally posted by Rictor
Its not up to you ionia, wise and all-knowing though you may be, to decide whether something is worth protesting.
I quote myself as originally stated:
Originally posted by Ionia23
But, why protest it at all?
[/B]
I believe that is a question, not a condemnation.
-
Just look at the WTO protests for example.
The WTO protests teach us more about trigger-happiness than the mob mentality. The police fired randomly at protesters using rubber bullets, totally without provocation, and several people were damn near killed.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The WTO protests teach us more about trigger-happiness than the mob mentality. The police fired randomly at protesters using rubber bullets, totally without provocation, and several people were damn near killed.
'tis true. The mob mentality applies to the police too. Same thing happened down here a few years back when the local college basketball team won the Final Four. First major riot seen here since Vietnam. Some kid down on the street got hit in the face by a beanbag bullet.
Mobs don't always get violent, but when they do it's bad.
-
Look, freedom is something you cannot risk letting your grip of slip even for a second. Just now, they're fenced in and kept far away, how long before you can't report on them in the press because of the "disorder" it could cause. How long before you can't protest in public crowds of that size because it's "disorder". How long before you can't question the government in public because it's unpatriotic (almost there anyway)?
Read the orange text in my sig for the best warning ever written.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Meanwhile, anyone who decides to hold the Dems accountable for what amounts to selling out their principals (or, at least what I quite foolishly and idealistically believe to have traditionally been their principals), well they're **** out of luck.
You expect them to have principles? Political parties in the United States have never had principles. Whenever one party ends up on top for a long period, they become conservative. Then, the other party becomes liberal in response, trying to steal voters. And by liberal, I do not mean the common definition of liberal, but rather the willingness to break the status quo with new ideas. By this definition, neither of the mainstream parties in the United States is anything other than die-hard conservative.
-
Freedom isn't taken, it's handed back, one piece at a time.
To freely give up freedom is a strange thing to do, I must admit :(
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/free_speech_denied_protest_pens.html
Obviously biased, but a pretty good account nonetheless :)
Edit : Look at it this way, the only way on Earth you can have 'Free Speech Zones' is if they are in a non Free-Speech country, else without the polarity, they simply could not exist.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Look, freedom is something you cannot risk letting your grip of slip even for a second. Just now, they're fenced in and kept far away, how long before you can't report on them in the press because of the "disorder" it could cause. How long before you can't protest in public crowds of that size because it's "disorder". How long before you can't question the government in public because it's unpatriotic (almost there anyway)?
Read the orange text in my sig for the best warning ever written.
A valid point, of course. One that really can't be argued with.
Unfortunately, the same "not one shred" mentality is currently being used to justify the war on terror.
-
first of all, the WTO protests (I'm assuming you mean Seattle) were for the most part non-violent. Out of the 40,000+ protestors who were there, less than 50 caused the actual damage, and from what I know it was largely property damage and not directed against people.
Secondly, this is not a case of preventing people from physically mauling Kerry. Look, the first thing you need to realize is that this is America. People, unfortunately, don't do that ****. They hold a banner and sign a petition which in the end amount to **** all.
Secondly, there is a difference between protecting Kerry and the other atendees, and isolating the protestors like this. They're out of view of the Fleet, with a construction yard between them, under a bridge, surrounded by razor wire, conrete, mesh fencing and armed National Guardsmen. Why would the simple "police line seperating protestors" not suffice? The point here is not that they far away to protect Kerry, they are out of sight, and out of mind. Simply don't ackowledge that any dissent exists, and for all intent (read: national media) it doesn't.
I agree with you, protesting doesn't accomplish ****. 10 million people marching last February couldn't stop the war, so whats a few pissed Dems going to do? But the right to protest is essential to a democratic system. If you've got several thousand, or even several million, people who want your head on a platter, maybe that indicates that you're doing something wrong, no?
So, let me say it again. For as long as the War on Terrorism continues, which is for years and years, any effective (and note the word effective) demostrations can be killed off simply by crying "security", as if a politician's photo-op is suddenly more important than freedom os speech and assembly. So, wherever a politician of any importance goes, or whenever an event of any importance is held, security will be the first priority, which means that protestors can just piss right off, is that it?
The reason Kerry didn't ban the protests altogether is a) becuase he can't b) because it would send a very bad image, even more so than now and c) its unneccesary.
Thankfuilly, most people seem to be ignoring the free speech zone (how Orwellian), other than a group of Palestinian protesors who think the image of them as seen through the fence of razor wire is especially appropriate.
-
Rictor, you realize that Kerry wasn't the one who set up the convention, don't you? The ones setting up the convention, IIRC, would be Terry McAucliffe and the governor of New Mexico.
-
I use John Kerry's name and the DNC (Democratic Nation Congress, not the convention) intergengably. Which is, I think, not unfair, considering that he exemplifies everything that the Democratic party has come to stand for, and since it is he who is recieving the nomination.
That like saying "Bush's assult on civil liberties". Technically, its John Ashcroft, in theory Bush has no part in it (though in this specific case, he and Ashcroft are particularly chummy) but people get the point. Same deal here.
-
Meh, you're replacing one mason with another, what do you expect?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
-Supported the Iraq War
not in the way you're trying to make use think he does
-Supports sending more troops to Iraq, around 40,000 or so.
because that's what's required to un**** this situation
-Supports the PATRIOT act
show him supporting this act, past it's initial passing (which was in the days that you would be instnatly branded a traitor for disagreeing with bush
-In favour of unconditional support for Israel
_WHINE_
-Supports the policy of pre-emptive war
documentation pls
-Supports neo-liberal economic policies world-wide
documentation of what the **** you're talking about
'neo-liberal' no such term
-Supports the overthrow of sovereign governments if it suits US interests.
docuemtnation please - put in context please
-Commited war crimes in Vietnam, and actualy brags about it.
A) atleast he has the guts and honesty to admit what he and other soliders were _ORDERED_ to do was wrong
-Little respect for freedom of speech and assembly, as seen above.
he didn't order the "freespeech zones", almost certainly the SS (wow.. fitting abbreviation) did
-Supports the illegal detentions in Gitmo
documentationp lease
-In the pockets of the same multinational corporations as Bush
proof please -- especially since his economic plans will hurt these corporations -- oh then there is the fact that since he/his wife are their own successful business persons they will be much less easily bought -- unlike bush who bankrupted every business he owned
-Cabinet made of all sorts of despicable characters, from Madeline Alright to Rand Beers (who asserts that FARC was training with Al Queda) to Welsley Clark.
A) What is your issue with Albright?
B) Who os Rand Beers and wtf is FARC
C) We all kno Wesley Clark is a ****ing moron, your point being?
Just because a cabinant member is less than ideal can be made up for with a more intelligent president
-Has stiffled dissent from within the Democratic Party (Kucinich et al)
oh.. wow, because the other's lost in the primaries then Kerry is guilty of stifling dissent... oh the humanity
except for NOT - you're being retarded (Kucinich was a ****ing retard btw)
-Is not is favour of gay marriage
We know, nobodies perfect -- he alteast supports civil unions -- which is a lot better than bush
Perhaps he's even fence sitting on that issue to get moderate convservatives
-Environmental policies differ only slightly from Bush's
*Cough* bull**** *cough*
documentaiton
-Is not in favour of universal health-care
waaaaa, waaaa, waaa - almost nobody in the US is in favour of it
There's more, though I'm too lazy to look it up. This is just off the top of my head.
we all know how accurate lazy biased utlra-socialists are
-
But Kazan, tell us how you really feel. Don't be shy.
-
we all know how accurate lazy biased utlra-socialists are
:yes: :yes: :yes:
-
So, wanting public healthcare is being lazy biased ultra-socialists?
I don't think so.
Having the very basic services (healthcare and education) offered by the state, and have them a decent level should be the foundation of every advanced democracy.
Healty and well educated people == political awareness == better protected civil rights.
This usually works unless you managed to buy the media (Italy).
Let's not mix up egoism with politics.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
So, wanting public healthcare is being lazy biased ultra-socialists?
I don't think so.
Having the very basic services (healthcare and education) offered by the state, and have them a decent level should be the foundation of every advanced democracy.
Healty and well educated people == political awareness == better protected civil rights.
This usually works unless you managed to buy the media (Italy).
Let's not mix up egoism with politics.
The two have nothing to do with each other (wanting healthcare and being ultralib). Ultra-liberalism and ultra-conservatism may have different platforms but the same ultimate agenda. My Way Or The Highway.
As for free public health care for non-emergencies, you've got to be kidding me. No way. Not at our present stage of development and certainly not in this country at this time. As a co-worker of mine in our office in Vancouver put it "That which don't spend in money you will spend in time." Good words of wisdom.
Not that any of this has anything whatsoever to do with the right of public assembly, which some people believe is under attack.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
'neo-liberal' no such term
Seriously, read a dictionary :p
neo-liberal
neoliberal adj : having or showing belief in the need for economic growth in addition to traditional liberalistic values n : a liberal who subscribes to neoliberalism
-
B) Who os Rand Beers and wtf is FARC
You've never heard of FARC? They're some left-wing guerilla group in Columbia giving the government a lot of trouble. For a couple of decades now they've been locked in a death struggle with the feds, and a lot of bystandards have died in between.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3810803.stm
-
Ultra-liberalism and ultra-conservatism may have different platforms but the same ultimate agenda. My Way Or The Highway.
Indeed. That characterizes just about anything taken to the ultra degree. But then again, what is extreme is also subjective. Mike Savage would say I'm an extremist, but I would say he's a fascist pig. There is no objective standpoint.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
As for free public health care for non-emergencies, you've got to be kidding me. No way. Not at our present stage of development and certainly not in this country at this time. As a co-worker of mine in our office in Vancouver put it "That which don't spend in money you will spend in time." Good words of wisdom.
Why should anyone spend his lifetime savings (provided there are with the credit card system) for getting healthcare?
There is plenty of non emergency needs that should be covered by the public finances...
-
[q]As for free public health care for non-emergencies, you've got to be kidding me. No way. Not at our present stage of development and certainly not in this country at this time.[/q]
You've hit your peak already, what more do you want? Ah... thats it, no poor people to bother you with thier lack of opportunities and upward mobility... silly me.
-
Hm. I see the real message isn't getting through, so I'll try again:
"What you do not pay for in money you will pay for in time."
It's not a 'rich vs. poor' thing, it's supply vs. demand.
-
Supply versus demand cannot be applied for the social environment, it only screws up things by hugely increasing social disparities...
And you will have to explain the time thing...
The top two world healthcare systems are public ones, so...
And the third one is not US ;)
-
okay, fair enough. Not that any of this has anything to do with Public Assembly....
What discourages people from seeking health care? Cost. Even though I do have health care coverage through my employer, it's still a financial issue. Do I really want to blow 15 bucks on this? That sort of thing.
yes, I'm aware of what doctor care costs without insurance.
Now, health care IS available to everyone, everywhere. Question is, can they financially afford it? Not in many cases. Keeping it as is means you spend money, but you save time. Less time in line (obviously I haven't been to emergency care any time in distant memory).
With health care free of charge, as far as money goes, you can count on insane waiting periods to receive even routine care. Long waiting periods for appointments bounded by long waits in line once you get there. I don't know about the rest of you, but my time is money. Wasting my time is committing murder against me, just a little bit at a time.
There are a few 'free' clinincs here paid for by donations, grants, etc. Waiting periods of 18 hours or more just to see a doctor are not uncommon.
Supply vs. demand. There simply aren't enough physicians available to cover it. More to the point, for what physicians are expected to pay for malpractice insurance, I can see why people would want to stay out of the health care game.
See what I mean?
-
Can i ask why the US built a fort for this Democratic Convention? Its like "i work for the people, but i dont want the people around"
Seems the rights of the US people are being slowly taken from them....
-
You don't seem to get it either, with the same amount of money put into healthcare though tax as there is in private insurance the waiting times drop. The quality increases. Your precious time is saved and the poor kid with lukemia actually gets treatment and lives. End of debate.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
_WHINE_
Think you're misunderestimating the importance of this one Kaz. Kerry is a freemason, who trace themselves back to the men who built the temple of Solomon, on the spot where the dome of the rock now sits. One of the aims of freemasonry is the rebuilding of the third temple, which puts them into the same boat as christian zionists, ie people who are trying to start ww3.
-
I'm sorry but i can only half subscribe your point of view.
It's truly hard to have an efficent public healthcare system, but when you have one then the problems you list have a lesser impact.
Sadly, i have a pretty good knowledge of my healthcare system (italian), but i can assure you waiting times are not really a big issue...
Sure, you cannot get an appointment like with a private doc (If you want to get that kind of service you still can) whenever you want, but you get reasonables times and emergencies are handled quite fast...
-
Gank?
This theory is pretty new to me...
Massonic lobbies can go only as far...
-
Slasher: Yes i've heard of them, now that you say who they are, i just didn't remember the acronym
vyper: tell that to my gf's dead great uncle "saved by the wonders of social medicine"
it's not my job to pay for your expenses.
-
fact is, socialized medicine will NOT work in the US at the present time. It's used as a political buzzword to swing votes in the lower income brackets. It's a practice, though I'm quite a bit on the democratic side of things, I find shameful. We have too great a population in proportion to healthcare providers to make such a system efficient.
Many employers provide some kind of health insurance who's payment remains the choice of the employee. Heck, i know of a few companies that cover the whole deal (few and far between). The rule with health care is "you get what you pay for". If you are working and have some decent healthcare package, you're set. If you're not and have to endure insane waiting times for free care, that's the price paid.
Even a McDonald's employee has health care access at the full time level. I don't believe part-timers get it though. Then again, if you're 30 years old, have four kids, and are working at McDonalds, you might consider taking advantage of all the 'free' options availble in education and better yourself.
Incidentally, many a year ago I lived homeless on the streets of the city I know live in. You could say I have a unique perspective on 'the other side'.
There is no such thing as "free" healthcare. Someone is going to have to pay for it. More often than not, the people who work are going to be paying the medical bills for the people who don't (or won't). I don't make these arguments because I lack compassion, I make them because I want to keep what I work so hard for.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Can i ask why the US built a fort for this Democratic Convention? Its like "i work for the people, but i dont want the people around"
Seems the rights of the US people are being slowly taken from them....
Security. There's a more intense debate about this further up.
Since the 'rights' we have were used against us, many of them have been eroded. I'm divided on that particular issue.
-
[q]it's not my job to pay for your expenses.[/q]
Ah the conservative war cry - it's not my responsibility.
[q]vyper: tell that to my gf's dead great uncle "saved by the wonders of social medicine" [/q]
I never said any specific current state health system was ideal.
-
I'd agree wholeheartedly you Kazan, as long as I were certain that people were getting what they paid for and only paying for what they are getting. The problem is not in the Health System it is the fact that several drug companies charge up 4000% the price of making a pill, and that's in the Western World, in much of Africa that prices is even higher due to lack of supply, which has been proved on occasion to be deliberately choked to keep prices up.
The problem, at least in the UK, with the Health service is that non-medical staff, mainly middle management are soaking up a hell of a lot of money, the NHS spends more money each year paying Public Relations, Personal Assistant, Secretaries, Finance officers etc than it does on training nurses. Basically it's been turned into a beuraucracy. The government loves paperwork, and the more paperwork there is, the longer it takes to process and the easier it is to lose. So we get left with a shabby, understaffed and overworked Medical side to the system.
National Health CAN work, it DID work in the UK for many years, oddly enough until the era of subcontracts and privatisation, which was bought in by our own conservatives. There will always be leeches in any system, everyone has someone at their workplace who earns loads of money and yet never appears to actually be doing something. The trick is not to worry about the actions of the few, but to take responsibility for the health of the many.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
National Health CAN work, it DID work in the UK for many years, oddly enough until the era of subcontracts and privatisation, which was bought in by our own conservatives. There will always be leeches in any system, everyone has someone at their workplace who earns loads of money and yet never appears to actually be doing something. The trick is not to worry about the actions of the few, but to take responsibility for the health of the many.
The WHO did a survey of the worlds health care systems. Every single system in the top 10 was a public health care system (France came top in case you were wondering). Thanks to years of mismanagement Britain came 18th.
USA was 38th, 6 places in front of Croatia who at the time were only 4 years out of the war. :rolleyes:
While I might agree that America can't instantly change over to an NHS equivalent it's rather stupid of them to use that as an excuse to never try. Especially considering the shambles the system must be in to rank such a low placing.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
While I might agree that America can't instantly change over to an NHS equivalent it's rather stupid of them to use that as an excuse to never try. Especially considering the shambles the system must be in to rank such a low placing.
Would you expand on 'shambles', please? Serious question, I want another perspective.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Would you expand on 'shambles', please? Serious question, I want another perspective.
What needs explaining? The NHS is in a dreadful state yet somehow it scored 20 places above the USA.
I heard a case a little while back from someone I know in the USA who had a severe heart related problem that caused her to collapse. They called an ambulance and sent her off to hospital. She was treated in hospital and the case was diagnosed as being due to an existing heart complaint she already knew about. They gave her some pills that would greatly reduce the chance of anything going wrong and then sent here home. With a $60 bill for using an ambulance but not requiring hospitalisation.
The girl was nearly uncontious but yet they thought that since she didn't have to stay in hospital she should pay.
If that isn't a shambles I really don't know what is.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What needs explaining? The NHS is in a dreadful state yet somehow it scored 20 places above the USA.
I heard a case a little while back from someone I know in the USA who had a severe heart related problem that caused her to collapse. They called an ambulance and sent her off to hospital. She was treated in hospital and the case was diagnosed as being due to an existing heart complaint she already knew about. They gave her some pills that would greatly reduce the chance of anything going wrong and then sent here home. With a $60 bill for using an ambulance but not requiring hospitalisation.
The girl was nearly uncontious but yet they thought that since she didn't have to stay in hospital she should pay.
If that isn't a shambles I really don't know what is.
Of course, if we want to go case-by-case we could find a treasure trove of incidents where someone is treated badly by the health care system of any nation. That doesn't really answer the question. What makes the US healthcare system a shambles?
-
What?
That's ludicrous!
Hell, in the same situation here the patient would have been hospitalized for at least a couple of days and get some serious exams!
Damn, we're not talking about silicon implants, but the cure of some serious illness dammit!
Hell, it took a century for the social system to reach the current height, and now what some people would want is to demolish it!
And for what?
Having a 2% tax discount?
I really hope you will feel well for the rest of your life... You'll need it with that kind of health care...
Also, i would like to point out a thing...
If your illness goes on for too long your insurance company can drop you (and will, especially if medical cost is higher than any potential legal one), while public healthcare won't.
It can't stand such a short sighted view... Hell, do you really think that people would have voted Bush if they received a decent enough education?
-
It's easy to describe our current health care system as a "shambles" if were talking about case-by-case, digging out the worst of a bad lot and using that as a shining example.
-
That's not an isolated incident. It's an example of the kind of money-driven attitude that results in the system being a shambles. It's incidents like that. Incidents where HMO's insist on substandard care for their patients because they don't want to pay for operations and things like that which make the healthcare system a shambles. The fact that you might end up with a large bill for calling an ambulance means that people are going to hesitate to call one. Or even go into hospital at all even when they have a very serious condition.
What dragged America down is not the quality of it's care for the people who can afford it. That's top-notch obviously. It was the substandard care for the 40 Million Americans who can't afford it. The biggest irony of all is that despite their poor showing Americans actually spend the largest percentage of GDP on health of any country in the world.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
That's not an isolated incident. It's an example of the kind of money-driven attitude that results in the system being a shambles. It's incidents like that. Incidents where HMO's insist on substandard care for their patients because they don't want to pay for operations and things like that which make the healthcare system a shambles. The fact that you might end up with a large bill for calling an ambulance means that people are going to hesitate to call one. Or even go into hospital at all even when they have a very serious condition.
What dragged America down is not the quality of it's care for the people who can afford it. That's top-notch obviously. It was the substandard care for the 40 Million Americans who can't afford it. The biggest irony of all is that despite their poor showing Americans actually spend the largest percentage of GDP on health of any country in the world.
You just had to bring HMO's into this, didn't you.:lol:
THAT is a shambles. That is the single worst mistake ever made in the history of health care in this country. HMO's exist for the sole purpose of making someone else profit off the suffering of others. Having some pencil pusher deem whether or not I can get treatment for anything? Bull****. That's why I'm not with one. I know better. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know HMO's are a complete and utter ripoff for the consumer. A failure? Depends on your definintion. For improving healthcare, yes. For making the investors rich, not by a long shot. It succeeded admirably at that.
I worked at an HMO for a few weeks back in 1997 taking calls. We were having to explain to senior citizens why their rates were doubling and, in cases where a generic equivalent was available for a prescription drug, if they chose the brand name they would have to pay their co-pay in addition to the price difference between the two. For certain heart medications this amounted to several hundred dollars.
This HMO's motto was: "Because we care". :wtf:
Again, we're back to getting-what-you-pay-for. Financially it costs less to be a member of an HMO, but oh...you pay dearly for it. Medical insurance is more, but again there are red tape issues to be dealt with. Paying out-of-pocket is probably the hardest.
Trying to convince the 'top-notch' that they are responsible for paying the health care costs of the lower income brackets is simply not going to happen. They love that money and will not give it up without a fight. Could they afford it? Sure. But it's theirs to decide on.
Solution?
1. Doctors have the ultimate authority on what care will be provided in the best interest of the patient.
2. Find a way to pay for this that doesn't increase taxes (maybe investments using all that's collected from Social Security).
3. Incentives to people wanting to go for medical degrees in college. Go for a med degree, get your tuition paid for in full. Great recruitment tactic.
4. Job waiting for them when they get out, as an employee of the government.
5. Remove medical care for illegal immigrants, other than emergency care required to return them to their country of origin.
6. Price caps on prescription drugs. I think Canada does this (please correct me if I'm wrong).
7. Caps on malpractice awards.
8. The number of times a physician has been sued for malpractice cannot be used to increase their insurance fees, only the number of times they've lost said suits.
what do you think?
-
[q]
3. Incentives to people wanting to go for medical degrees in college. Go for a med degree, get your tuition paid for in full. Great recruitment tactic.[/q]
This is true, my mate's girlfriend also gets about 30K a year in wages as of next year (she's in 3rd year Uni just now).
[q]7. Caps on malpractice awards.[/q]
Doctors play God if you let them get away with it, lawsuits are the only modern way to keep them in check.
[q]Find a way to pay for this that doesn't increase taxe[/q]
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]it's not my job to pay for your expenses.[/q]
Ah the conservative war cry - it's not my responsibility.
except i'm not a conservative
-
BTW HMO's should be killed
-
Originally posted by Kazan
BTW HMO's should be killed
for the same reasons outlined?
-
didn't read the reasons outlined
why? because they are anything but health organizations -- doctors should have control not pencil-pushing-money-grubbing sons of *****es
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Trying to convince the 'top-notch' that they are responsible for paying the health care costs of the lower income brackets is simply not going to happen. They love that money and will not give it up without a fight. Could they afford it? Sure. But it's theirs to decide on.
Nope. It isn't. They are part of America and as such it's up to the entire country to decide what the tax rate should be.
Unfortunately the electorate of America (like the electorate of every other country) is made up mostly of morons who can't see the big picture and just vote based on what sounds like the best deal for them.
Remember that almost every European country managed to bring in a national health system. They weren't present at the birth of these European nations.
Besides as I said before America actually pays more for its health care than anywhere else in the world. While the super-rich would end up paying more for an increase the middle classes would probably end up better off.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Think you're misunderestimating the importance of this one Kaz. Kerry is a freemason, who trace themselves back to the men who built the temple of Solomon, on the spot where the dome of the rock now sits. One of the aims of freemasonry is the rebuilding of the third temple, which puts them into the same boat as christian zionists, ie people who are trying to start ww3.
That would be rather odd, as Kerry is a Catholic, and Catholicism and Freemasonry have been at odds for centuries. That's the entire reason for the Knights of Columbus. Also, the origin is highly debated. As you can read in the Wiki, these are all suggested origins:
1. The Knights Templar
2. An offshoot of the "Mystery Schools"
3. Part of the Priory of Sion (which would be Zionists)
4. The Roman Collegia
5. Comacine masters
6. Intellectual descendents of Noah
None of which follow what you suggest.
-
I haven't been able to confirm this, but it is my understanding that by the standards of its health care system, the United States ranks as a Second World nation.
-
Here's a CSV file that lists the child mortality rates that you can mess with in Excel: http://www3.who.int/whosis/core/download/6-169341.csv
By child mortality rates, the healthiest nation in the world is Iceland. The United States comes in between Croatia/Cyprus and Cuba, at 34th. The UK, meanwhile, is at 26th, with Canada at 20th.
-
Let me tell you something. All over the world, for every one person who's not happy with the United States, and who *****es about everything it does, there's 1000 kids who'd give their ****ing legs to be a resident in the country.
You're not happy, get the **** out. simple as that. sure it's got its flaws. every country, society and government on this PLANET has its flaws... but i guarantee you that you wouldn't be able to do a tenth of the **** you do in this country if you were in most other countries in the world. and did i mention that you've got a better chance of making a life for yourself in this country too? c'mon man. if you hate the country so much, move out. no one's stopping people from moving out, only from moving in...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Unfortunately the electorate of America (like the electorate of every other country) is made up mostly of morons who can't see the big picture and just vote based on what sounds like the best deal for them.
Gotta disagree with you there, friend. They're people used to dealing in abstracts. They only see the effects of their decisions on bars and graphs. They do see the big picture, but not the things that make the picture.
-
Stealth: this "if you don't like the way things are going: LEAVE" crap is ****ing moronic
"if you don't like the way things are going: CHANGE THEM" is an appropriate response
to that we would respond "WE'RE WORKING ON IT'
-
Stealth, first of all, I don't recall anyone saying that they hate America. Second, what's your point? Are you going to tell everyone who finds injustice in the United States that they should leave? Because by that token I think we must be living in a Utopia.
America is a lucky country; it's prosperous, its government is well-constructed and provides its population with plenty of breathing space, and we have room to be optimistic. But it is also a country like every other country, in that it is part of human civilization, and until the human psyche undergoes an evolutionary leap of monumental proportions, there will always be the same tendency towards self-interest and tyranny. Democracy is not the natural state of human affairs; it requires constant effort to be maintained. Effort means making use of its provision for unhindered expression and letting the society know when you think it is at fault, and it means being empathetic with regards to the misfortune of others. A country is as imaginary as money; you are a human being before you are an American.
-
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
"Freedom is not having to care who's running the show and where the borders are." - Ionia23
My other favorite, along Kazan's line earlier up:
"If you really want to **** things up, run for office. I did." - Jello Biafra
-
/*same thing I said when Bush did it*/
though this is slightly worse.
interesting that fox news hasn't jumped on this.
-
And my point is that no one's ever happy with what they have. give them the hand, they want the arm. give them the arm, they want the leg. it's never good enough.
i mean, no one's mentioned that in many countries they wouldn't be able to protest at all, but just because they aren't allowed to protest in the middle of the damn convention arena, somehow it's unconstitutional? Why not think about it from the other standpoint. People have the right to assemble too. To assemble without being interrupted, disturbed, and otherwise broken up by protesters. no one's stopping the protestors from protesting!!! the constitution says nothing about having the right to protest WHEREVER YOU WANT. do you think it would be right for them to protest inside the convention center? to disturb those assembling?
Kazan: Talk is cheap. You want to get something done that you have a problem with, you don't ***** about it in a forum. Call your congressman, email the president. do something that has a slightly higher chance of actually working than *****ing about it to us.
-
I've got 2 pages to read through, but here's a quick response to Kaz' jibbajabba on page 2.
Supported the war:
--he voted to go to war. Its quite a simple process really, you say yes if you are in favour, and no if you are not. Thats how voting works.
Supports sending more troops to Iraq, around 40,000 or so.:
--Haven't we learned by now, problems solved at the end of a gun do not stay solved. Troops can not "fix" Iraq, they can only deteriorate the situation further, since the Iraqis do not want them there. Only a political solution can bring lasting results. If you think that the longer troops stay, the better things will get, well, ...
-Supports the PATRIOT act:
--So, what you're saying is, he bascally gave in to peer pressure? Isn't that what all the commercial say that 12 years olds shouldn't do, when someone offers them a smoke? Thats a lousy excuse and you know it. "Going with the flow" is not a legitimate justification for passing something such as the PATRIOT act.
In favour of unconditional support for Israel:
-- "WHINE" Yes, I must say, thats a brilliant point. Your arguement is without flaw, your logic impecible.
-Supports neo-liberal economic policies world-wide:
--If you don't know what the term means, I don't see how you have a right to comment on it, much less dismiss it. Read a book, look it up, then come back with more than ignorance of the subject.
Supports the overthrow of sovereign governments if it suits US interests.:
--says he was a supporter of the coup in Venezuela.
Commited war crimes in Vietnam, and actualy brags about it.:
--He volunteered for the Army AFAIK. Which means, the choice was his, which means, the responsibility it his. If he was drafted, you might have had a point, but he volunteered.
-Little respect for freedom of speech and assembly, as seen above.
--He didn't object to them either. And I don't see why you would think that the person who is about to accept the Democratic nomination for presidential candiate has no say in how things are run.
Supports the illegal detentions in Gitmo
Its like 3am, later.
-Supports the policy of pre-emptive war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4322203,00.html
"Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am,'' he said at a news conference at his Washington headquarters."
"I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation.''"
-In the pockets of the same multinational corporations as Bush
This ought to be easy enough. Bush and Kerry share many of the same campaign contributers.
-Cabinet made of all sorts of despicable characters, from Madeline Alright to Rand Beers (who asserts that FARC was training with Al Queda) to Welsley Clark.
FARC is a Columbian guerilla faction. Rand Beers is Kerry's foreign policy chief (worked for the previous 4 administrations, inclduing Bush). His claim that FARC was training with Al Queda was generally regarded as the laughing stock of the intel community. Not one shred of evidence was produced to support it. Sort of like John Bolton's (I think its John) claim that Cuba is cooking up WMD. This is the guy in charge of Kerry's foreign policy.
And yes, Welsley Clark is an asshole. And when somone put people like him on his cabinet, that reflects on what type opf person he is, and what type of policies he's likely to persue.
"It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."
Madeline Albright's response to a '96 interview question about the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under sanctions. She later got it through her head that what she said was not good PR, so she tried to weasel her way out by saying that thats not what she meant, though if you read the transcript, its a very straightforward question with a straightforward answer..
also: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?”
-Has stiffled dissent from within the Democratic Party (Kucinich et al)
So, to summarize your arguement "you're an idiot, shut up". Yes, that should do it, I'm well and truly beaten now.
-Is not is favour of gay marriage
And here I am, in my naivete thinking that fence-sitting is a bad thing. That is shows lack of principals and a willingness to sell to whoever is buying. Silly me.
-Is not in favour of universal health-care
oh well, I'm fine just where I am. But next the hospital tells you to **** off because youi're not covered, remember who you voted for.
There's more, though I'm too lazy to look it up. This is just off the top of my head.
I have listed fully 16 things wrong with Kerry, covereing every major issue. Thats lazy?
Hardly worth replying to, but I'll bite. Don't throw around fancy terms like ultra-socialists, unless you know what they mean. No one who is in favour of private property, which I am, could be called socialist, much less an ultra-socialist. But I guess "social democrat" just doesn't have that same evil ring to it.
edit: for the one or two that I missed, they're the ones that need documentation and Im afraid that sleep is a priority right now, so you'll have to sit tight.
-
Go at your local party meetings and ***** there...
If you do it good enough then you can start a political career ;)
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Go at your local party meetings and ***** there...
exactly. because *****ing about how corrupt your country is is ultimately, not going to do your country any good.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Gotta disagree with you there, friend. They're people used to dealing in abstracts. They only see the effects of their decisions on bars and graphs. They do see the big picture, but not the things that make the picture.
By big picture I basically meant what you say. That the small actions have knock on effects. Sure everyone wants world peace but there are plenty of morons who think you can get that by taking the actions Bush has taken. (i.e invading a country and only then realising that you hadn't got the faintest f**king clue what to do next).
Tax is a good example. Many lower class people vote republican because they don't want a tax increase. So instead they end up paying more for their health care because although a tax rise would mean they took home less money they'd actually not have to pay for health care and would end up better off.
When I say "the big picture" I of course include the things that make up that picture. Any fool can think "Free health would be nice".
-
and while we're on the subject:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/29/wus129.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/29/ixnewstop.html
Rand Beers, the national security adviser to the Kerry campaign, opened a high-level briefing with a warning: "In many ways, the goals of the two administrations are in fact not all that different."
America's allies expecting a shift in United States foreign policy from a President John Kerry should think again, his top advisers said yesterday.
Instead, members of Mr Kerry's inner circle could promise only "stark contrasts" of personality and style between President George W Bush and their candidate, who they vowed would be a "hands-on, engaged, diplomat-in-chief"
His silence was unsurprising. Although 95 per cent of rank and file delegates to this week's convention opposed the Iraq war, Mr Kerry voted for it, and has hinted that he might keep US troops there for several years.
His views were echoed by Labour MPs attending the convention. Mike Gapes, Labour MP for Ilford South, said: "I don't believe there will be a massive change in foreign policy if there's a change in administration.".
-
rictor you're so bloody naive
so since world war II was fixed at the point of a gun then it'll come back eh?
yes.. he soo stifled dissent by winning he primaries! OH THE HUMANITY
etc etc etc you just repeated your naive ultra-socialist biased drivel -- rictor kindly stay the hell out of politics, you're too ****ing naive
-
Well I love you too sunshine.
-
Kazan, with all respect, Rictor maybe should stay out of politics because he's naive, but so should you, because you're quite arrogant ;)
no offense :D
-
You're one to talk, you're as bad as rictor
-
No no, it sounds like you're all perfectly cut out for politics. :D
-
except for the fact that i don't play politics - i just call it as is without sugar coating
-
now where have I heard that before?
when you become a famous conservative radio personality, don't forget about your buddies, ok? Its bad enough that Rush won't return my calls, don't you dare do it too.
-
You have to mail him pills to get his attention.
-
DO NOT QUESTION THE KAZAN!
-
Originally posted by Kazan
You're one to talk, you're as bad as rictor
i haven't said a word about any political candidate, etc. as you and Rictor have been. all i said was if you don't like the country, get the **** out.
don't know how you could compare me to Rictor :wtf:
-
Estimated time to thread lock: 5 hours.
If you want to avoid getting this thread locked, you have to do a few things:
1. Stop attacking each other.
2. Actually state something new. Repeating the same comments without backing is really quite annoying.
-
If anything, this proves that the whole "assembly" thing is in no real danger of being outlawed. People are still going at it full tilt.
That argument never got resolved, btw.
-
See guys? When you think your life's ****ty, you can always lean back and think... "At least I don't live in America".
Well, not you guys. But all the rest of us are sorted. :nod:
-
You know, I'de keep this up, but we can't very well have two Don Quixotes. Think of the confusion it will cause.
-
yes.. because im further center than you Rictor that makes me "conservative" except for the fact that i am left of center most decidedly
-
So claims Tony Blair. :lol:
-
excuse the **** out of me for being liberal and yet disagreeing with "free ride economics" -- the same way i disagree with "trickle-down"/supply-side economics
I'm all for giving a helping hand, but not a ****ing handout
being liberal is much more than economics - but everyone likes to boil down the conservative vs liberal differences to eocnomics when they're soo much more
-
Kazan, you're taking the thing at the extremes...
European systems are market based economies with public "corrections" made to balance the free market excesses.
These are necessaries because free market alone cannot ensure equity (not to be misplaced with equalitarism).
This is actually taken from a translation of an US economics book, so the source is as unbiased as it gets (and i get the US advertisment here :))...
-
Zarax: i am fully away of what the European economies are, and that capitalism needs rules
However paying for someone elses healthcare (unless they absolutely need it in the short term) is not one of the things required to make sure capitalism stays "fair"
-
Not everyone can afford it Kazan, and you don't want to face the consequences of lack of medical coverage...
Public healthcare and education are made to soften social disparities, and they are a good thing.
If you want to get private healthcare you can, but don't mess with social equity principles, not after all the fight there's been to obtain it...
-
Zarax: you're not catching a subtly in my statements
A) no national healthcare because it's not a _SHORT_ _TERM_ thing -- helping someone for a short period is fine .. however people should _NOT_ be dependant on the system
Public education is a completely different story, and it _IS_ required for a functional electorate and society. Public healthcare is not an equity issue -- it's a "i wanna handout".
however healthcare in this country is overpriced
-
No matter how you slice it, America is immersed in a health care disaster, and the problems we face are the result of health care being left in the hands of the private sector. When there are people all over the country being forced to choose between eating and taking their medicine, I think that constitutes a major crisis.
-
i agree - i just disagree that we should pay everyone's bills for them (note i said: everyones)
I think we need to do a little neck-breaking on the side of the people setting prices
-
Personally I think healthcare is a basic human right and not a paid for privelidge.
-
Perhaps a hybrid would work. Not a goverment-run agency, and not private sector, but rather a large, nearly independent, nonpolitical body to regulate the industry.
-
that is a possibility
01010: getting your healthcare paid for by other people isn't however
-
You can't spell "Phoenix Program" without "john kerry". Well, not really, but then again, I never was that good a speller. ("http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/29/wus129.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/29/ixnewstop.html")
--------------
Originally posted by Kazan
yes.. because im further center than you Rictor that makes me "conservative" except for the fact that i am left of center most decidedly
I have little doubt that, when it comes to domestic policy (healthcare, education, religion etc), this is true. However, thats only half the equation...
---------------
On healthcare: it is a human right. There are certain things which should be considered before money. Doesn't matter who pay or why, just so long as people aren't dying from easily preventable dieseses.(sp?)
-
Personally I think healthcare is a basic human right and not a paid for privelidge.
Amen to that.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
On healthcare: it is a human right. There are certain things which should be considered before money. Doesn't matter who pay or why, just so long as people aren't dying from easily preventable dieseses.(sp?)
yes -- and i find the more equitable and fair way is making sure health care providers are not trying to be extortionists
-
Kazan, if public healthcare is well managed everyone ends paying less for it.
Remember that a nation can use the benefit of large scale buyouts and so on...
And about healthcare being a short term thing...
I'm sure you know that many illness are not a short term thing, how do you consider chronical diseases, especially with elder people?
Do you think any insurance company would realistically keep that kind of customers?
In the end, you aren't paying other people bills, but you pay the insurance that your healthcare system won't drop you.
Something that you cannot say with any other system...
BTW, what makes you think that people can become dependant to the system? Hospitals are no theme parks...
-
Kazan the amount that comes out of my wage for the healthcare system over here (NHS) is so small I don't even notice it. I don't care about paying for someone else because I know when I need it, I'll be able to get treated (I hope, ha ha). Seriously, I'm pretty sure for most people it would be a smaller amount to pay in the long run than medical insurance.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Kazan the amount that comes out of my wage for the healthcare system over here (NHS) is so small I don't even notice it. I don't care about paying for someone else because I know when I need it, I'll be able to get treated (I hope, ha ha). Seriously, I'm pretty sure for most people it would be a smaller amount to pay in the long run than medical insurance.
Almost certainly. Insurance companies turn a profit. Government systems don't.
It's fairly obvious that a large chunk of that money everyone pays to insurance companies isn't going to any medical treatment but instead is going straight into the pockets of the company providing the health care.
The only people who would get seriously screwed by a public health care system are millionaires and billionaires. And lets face it after 4 years of Bush they've got it easy.
-
Militarism a go-go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25812-2004Jul29.html
and some (more) censorship thrown in for good measure.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/1327236
-
A) the Washington Post is not a reliable source
B) Nothing knew, same old unacceptable garbage perpetrated by all parties
-
Someting occurs to me Kaz. And that something is that you have not read thr article, and yet find it fit to comment on it. How do I know that you have not read it? Because registration is required, and I'm willing to bet any amount of money that you are not registered at the Washington Post. Oh go ahead and register now, just to prove me wrong, I don't mind, seriously. Which brings up the question, how many times have you done this in the past? You know you're right, so whats the point in even posting links or actually, you know, discussing. In one ear and out the other, or in this case, not even in one ear. It just so happens that this time, its quite easy to prove that you have no intention of even considering a viewpoint other than your own. And even so, its pretty stupid to say that the Washington Post is not a reliable source, especially when what they are commenting on is fact. If Person A was at Place B and said Thing C, thats a fact, and no amount of stopping your ears or shouting unreliable source is going to change that.
For everyone else, sorry, I don't know what happened. I was able to get to the article just fine when linked from another website. Here's the basic jist of it:
But Kerry tried to address a stickier military-political issue at his party's convention here, where he surrounded himself not only with former Navy colleagues but also with prominent retired military brass. The goal, Democratic insiders said, was to battle the long-held public perception that Republicans are tougher and more trustworthy in waging war and dealing with military matters in general.
Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination himself, came straight to the point in his convention speech Thursday night. "Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the best defense of our nation is committing a fraud on the American people," he said. "John Kerry is a leader, a fighter, and he will be a great commander in chief."
-
Rictor it's well known that the washington times is a limbaugh-republicanist shill
the situation in iraq in ****ed up thnx to bush-- kerry's got to un**** it -- an immediate withdrawl would leave things ****ed up, not un**** them --- get real and learn about war before talking in relation to it
-
[q]the situation in iraq in ****ed up thnx to bush-- kerry's got to un**** it -- an immediate withdrawl would leave things ****ed up, not un**** them --- get real and learn about war before talking in relation to it[/q]
The situation in Iraq is exactly what your leaders expected it to be. It's only ****ed up if you believe we went in there to stop WMD proliferation.
-
If you would be so kind as to read my posts Kaz, you will notice that at this thread was not made regarding the war. My views on that are, I think, quite clear.
What this thread is about is John Kerry, and the Democrats in general. If you want to talk about the war, go make a new post.
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor it's well known that the washington times is a limbaugh-republicanist shill
a) The article is by the Washington Post, not the Washington Times. Smart move.
b) Let me say this one more time. The article is reporting on things that actually happened. You know, physical reality and so forth. Their claim that Kerry surrounded himself with military figures at the DNC, and that so-and-so said such-and-such can not be disputed, becuase it, here's the punch-line, happened.
Also, I don't think you can seriously argue that Kerry is not playing up the military angle on his campaign. How many times has he brought up his Vietnam record? He's trying to outdo even Bush for jingoist bravado. Posing in front of the naval destroyer to copy (and hopefully one-up) Bush's aircraft carrier stunt. Promising to send 40,000 moer troops to Iraq? His whole campaign is just dripping with militarism.
-
I don't know if anyone has actually been watching the Democratic Convention, but Kerry specifically mentioned that he is calling for 40,000 more troops just to bolster the military, not to send to Iraq. And he said exactly that: "Not to Iraq."
-
rictor: gotcha -- corssed Wash Times/Post there *goes back and reads*
ok, what's wrong with looking strong on defense?
ford prefect: perhaps to station in the US? or to send to afghanistan where we should have been concetrating our attention?
-
Yeah. I don't know where he wants to put them. He just said that Iraq has caused the military to be spread too thin. And yes, Afghanistan has definitely gone by the wayside. (I think that Bush's administration had every intention of letting that happen.) I just hope that they don't magically catch Bin Laden sometime in mid-October.
-
From John Kerry
"I support US participation in the International Criminal Court, but also believe that US officials, including soldiers, should be provided some protection from politically motivated prosecutions."
The Republicans must have jumped for joy the moment Kerry got chosen over Edwards, who'd have a decent chance of usurping Bush. I can't believe the Democrat candidate could piss in the wind so blatantly.
-
Yeah yeah... this is a dem thread. However what is Kerry doing to get the beastiality vote?
(http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~huffman/images/bushandturkey.jpg)
It seems like Bush is definately trying hard to get that percentage of voters...
-
(http://www.sinfest.net/comics/sf20040720.gif)
ace: lvlshot is your friend. and everyone else's too.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
rictor: gotcha -- corssed Wash Times/Post there *goes back and reads*
ok, what's wrong with looking strong on defense?
ford prefect: perhaps to station in the US? or to send to afghanistan where we should have been concetrating our attention?
Now, excuse my faulty mastery of the English language, but doesn't "defense" usually mean, you know, defending something. The US's territorial integrity has not been threatened for well over a century.
There's nothing wrong with looking strong on defense, if defense means putting a ****load of soldiers on your borders to guard them against invasion. However, I reject that "defense" in the way in which you use it (and pretty much everyone else uses it), means defense. The "defense industry", which is a nice way of saying military industry, has been used for nothing but offense in recent times (recent times being the past 100 years or so, and especially since WW2). And before you wring up WW2, that is the expection that proves the rule. Its only one of a number of US wars, and even then, it was not technically defense in the literal meaning, but rather defense of an ally, though most people (myself included) consider that to have been legitimate given the circumstances.
I thought that the Dems were supposed to be the doves on the US political scene. 95% (and thats a statistic Kaz) of the Democratic delegates in attendance at the DNC (not the protestors outside, the actual delegates at the convetion) were against the war in Iraq. And yet, the Democratic party has chosen a pro-war figure as its candidate. Does this seem odd to anybody?
In past decades, the Republicans have campaigned for a stronger military and a "stronger America", which is a term worthy of Orwell for being so loaded with political spin, yet meaning nothing, the very characterisitics of Newspeak. The problem is, that when they say "a stronger America", that usually means "bigger military, which we will not be afraid to use to kick the **** out of anyone who looks at us sideways". And now, the Democrats have taken up the banner, and instead of denouncing Republican militarism, they have chosen to beat them at their own game.
-
Kerry actually voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war if the proper rationale were provided. Naive? Yes. But it's not the same thing as voting to go to war.
-
Oh almost forgter about your 20,000 troops comment. Over here, what with having only basic cable, only bits and pieces of the convention were broadcast. I only saw a few minutes, during which time Kerry, in perfect photo-op, political image conscious style said "Reporting for duty". I then got pissed off/sick and changed channels.
Did he really say that the 40k addition troops would bot be going to Iraq? Becuase he mentioned many times before that he would bolster the Iraq contigent by just that amount. We'll see, though I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw India. (to borrow someone's phrase, I don't remember who's). Boosting the military in general by 40k is not an admirable goal to me, even if they're not going to Iraq. More troops means more invasions/occupations/military bases in foreign nations.
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Kerry actually voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war if the proper rationale were provided. Naive? Yes. But it's not the same thing as voting to go to war.
Look, every 13 year old could see that Bush was gearing for war. Giving him the authority to do so is voting for the war. Thats like giving Hitler the authority to invade Poland. I'm not ready to believe that John Kerry, or anyone else for that matter, was not really wise to the fact that Bush would jump at the frst opportunity to invade, since he was basically pushing for it for several months. Giving Dubya the authority amounts to an endorsement of invasion.
-
Yeah, yeah, it was a stupid move and I don't condone it.
Boosting the military in general by 40k is not an admirable goal to me, even if they're not going to Iraq. More troops means more invasions/occupations/military bases in foreign nations.
Agreed, but it does still make a difference that he's not sending them to Iraq. And yes, he did say that very directly during his speech.
-
what if more troops means we get done doing what ever it is that we're doing over there?
would you suport that?
assumeing that leaveing before we're done is not an option.
-
what if more troops means we get done doing what ever it is that we're doing over there?
would you suport that?
Yes I would, but I'm convinced that's not the case.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
what if more troops means we get done doing what ever it is that we're doing over there?
would you suport that?
assumeing that leaveing before we're done is not an option.
under those circumstances, yes
But you should realize that as long as US troops are on Iraqi soil, there will be an insurgency to fight them. No one has any intention of leaving. Tne troops are there for a while, as are the bases. They fought this hard to gain a military base of operation in the Middle-East (I mean a better one than exisiting bases ala Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) and they're not going to give them up. There is no goal to accomplish and after that, oh well, we're done, lets leave.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
That would be rather odd, as Kerry is a Catholic, and Catholicism and Freemasonry have been at odds for centuries. That's the entire reason for the Knights of Columbus. Also, the origin is highly debated. As you can read in the Wiki, these are all suggested origins:
Aye, but the ban on excommunication for joining them has been lifted a long time. Theres nothing to stop catholics from joining freemasonry, I guess it all depends on how catholic you really are, and judging from Kerrys views on various issues hes willing to ignore his beliefs if it gets him votes. Besides he a member of the skull and bones, which is almost certainly a masonic lodge.
As for their origins, they arent really that important in regards to what I was saying, its more their aims that are relevant. The Knights Templar are relevant though and if you read up on them you'll sse why.
Zarax, Masonic lodges have little influence? Whats all that masonic symbolism on the dollar bill doing there then, the pyrimid with the eye, the six-pointed star?