Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Tiara on September 01, 2004, 03:07:55 am
-
What the hell is up with this election ****? Its complete and utter bull****. I don't see why people even watch/come/support these 'shows'.
Seriously, this was on the news here last night about the G.W.B republican show;
- Rock bands :wtf:
- Pop bands :wtf:
- Home-made billboards aren't allowed because they could have 'a wrong message'. Instead you get a pre-made board made by children to make it look 'real'.
- Balloons at the end. The intentionally put a few thousand more ballons in tthere to outperform the Democrat balloon show.
- Speeches are read from a television screen which are all full of blatant lies and empty promises. :blah:
And add about another gazillion things that make it look like the ****ing MTV Video Music Awards show. :ick:
I really can't see why people even call this 'politics' anymore. I am so glad only America holds this type of 'show-politics'. I'd be embarrased to be American if I saw that happening in my country.
Discuss.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
What the hell is up with this election ****? Its complete and utter bull****.
You've never noticed before?
-
Yeah, but it just seems to get worse and worse. More hypocritical with each election.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Yeah, but it just seems to get worse and worse. More hypocritical with each election.
Yup
-
the repugnanticons are a bunch of bigoted moronic assholes - i'd advocate ignoring them if they weren't busy ****ing up our country.
as for the dems: nobody in the democratic part, other than the people who go to the convention, care about the convention as far as i can tell.
-
yeah, the people who go to the convention, the people who protested at the convention, and the people who watched the convention, which is, at last count...everyone.
The Democratic convention was no better. Not only was there a greater amount of celebrity endorsement, which I find stupid, but you had Kerry parade around a small army of generals, in what has quickly become a dick-measuring contest.
Propaganda is to a democracy what force is a dictatorship, and the big players in American politics have mastered that art.
-
A) i didn't attend any conventions
B) i didn't protest any conventions
C) i didn't watch any conventions
therefore your last count is wrong
by your analogy to you simply mean a manner to manipulate? because that's what propaganda is, how you manipulate people: unlike force though, only the unwise are fooled by it
-
i've given up caring, to be quite honest, with politics in general, all politicians are idiots, it's all a matter of electing "the lesser of two morons"..
that's all i'll say about it..
-
not in this case -- it's choosing between
* one who uses the constitution as toilet paper, ****ed up a state's education, health care, enviornment, etc
* one who served in a war, was re-elected to his senate seat numerous times, will listen to arguments before making a decision, will respect the constitution
-
Originally posted by Kazan
not in this case -- it's choosing between
* one who uses the constitution as toilet paper, ****ed up a state's education, health care, enviornment, etc
* one who served in a war, was re-elected to his senate seat numerous times, will listen to arguments before making a decision, will respect the constitution
well, not like the australian greens, they tried to legalise many illicit drugs, and ban cars..:rolleyes:
yet their leader has a woodheater:p
but, i get your point, i'm just sick of the over-televisation and mud-slinging, the fact that i'm american or not is moot, i'm just sick of hearing about it on television to be quite honest..:blah:
-
If the Dems were serious they'd have chosen Edwards who's an order of magnitude more competent than the dork they've got at the moment.
US show-politics does seem ludicrous compared to what we've got in the UK. Private funding for election campaigns has its obvious flaws and every bit of exposure in the media by the candidates and parties seems comically cheesy. Differences in culture, okay, but it's still the most wacky intepretation of political process anywhere in the world.
-
Fortunately, the UK hasn't got quite to the state of US electioneering...possibly it's even going the other way because 'minority' parties are gaining power as an alternative (i.e. the Senior Citizens Alliance got a seat at the Scottish Parliament during the next elections), pariticulary in Scotland because of the introduction of a more proportional system.
Of course, the US is so big that I'd imagine the vast sums of money required for a national campaign leave the candiaites particularly (& willingly) open to mainipulation by their main financial backers.
Most people here (the UK), if *****ing about politics, would almost certainly say 'at least we're not as bad as the US'.
Read into that what you will.......
-
I particularly liked the signs that read "W stands for Women".
edit: at the Republican convention that it.
-
I read in "Dude, Where's my Country?" the Demos. had wrtiiten off 2004 before it had even begun. They're waiting for 2008 when Hiliary Clinton may run.
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
I read in "Dude, Where's my Country?" the Demos. had wrtiiten off 2004 before it had even begun. They're waiting for 2008 when Hiliary Clinton may run.
IIRC they had. But then they saw how well Bush was doing at winning them back votes, and decided an anti-Bush would have a chance.
-
errr...being in a republic where most of the politicians are over 40 and corruption is pretty low, I can safely say that my nation's politics 0wnz you.
Although it does suck a bit too.
-
US politics is too polarized. You can't have real issue-based election when you only have two major parties which are roughly equally powerful.
-
Originally posted by Singh
errr...being in a republic where most of the politicians are over 40 and corruption is pretty low, I can safely say that my nation's politics 0wnz you.
Although it does suck a bit too.
Shh.... or they'll liberate you next!
-
I actually agree with tiara on some limited basis. The use of Jacque Valasquez to apeal to hispanic voter was discusting and ridiculous. I personally hate the direction that the conventions have taken. It is all about changing the appearences on the RNC. HOWEVER, the Democrats are not any better. In 2000 they had al gore kiss his wife on stage and it was one of the most disgusting things ever. IT WAS NOT PROPER. Not the fact they were kissing on stage but the fact it was being used that way. Personally, the conventions need to be about the issues and not about painting an illusion. Could you imagine the continental congress or the signing of the declaration of independence involving this kind of circus. obviously not. However, at the declaration of independenc jack daniels was in great supply. aside from that, the founding fathers would be sorely disapointed with the way the political climate in the US has turned out.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I actually agree with tiara on some limited basis.
:eek2:
HOWEVER, the Democrats are not any better.
I never said that. i just used the Reps as an example :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I never said that. i just used the Reps as an example :p
Still I am only pointing that out. That it is on both sides of the isle.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Still I am only pointing that out. That it is on both sides of the isle.
Yeah, knew that. Should've given some examples of the Dems 'show' as well. Kerry's hair for example. It's a violation on it's own. A grave insult to each and every hair on this planet (including pubic hair).
-
Every time I see these carefully orchestrated US conferences, it reminds me more and more of the Nuremburg rallies..... the rhetoric is (thank God) different, but the orchestration, the paritsan showmanship, is there.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
.
- Rock bands :wtf:
- Pop bands :wtf:
- Home-made billboards aren't allowed because they could have 'a wrong message'. Instead you get a pre-made board made by children to make it look 'real'.
- Balloons at the end. The intentionally put a few thousand more ballons in tthere to outperform the Democrat balloon show.
- Speeches are read from a television screen which are all full of blatant lies and empty promises. :blah:
:blah: :wtf: :wtf: oh great
-
I know that many people aren't going to accept this, but politics has always been this way. During the War of Independence, the most effective way that the cause for independence was popularized was to have big, flashy parades. The vast majority of any population has always been most responsive to appealing images and easy catch phrases because most people either cannot or will see issues for their real complexity. Distasteful as it may be, this is what politics is: The art of advertisement.
-
The conventions are of little value, my humble opinion.
-
hey, at least Churchill did his own speeches. He had wit enough to make himself a likeable figure without a $10 million PR budget.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
What the hell is up with this election ****? Its complete and utter bull****. I don't see why people even watch/come/support these 'shows'.
Seriously, this was on the news here last night about the G.W.B republican show;
- Rock bands :wtf:
- Pop bands :wtf:
- Home-made billboards aren't allowed because they could have 'a wrong message'. Instead you get a pre-made board made by children to make it look 'real'.
- Balloons at the end. The intentionally put a few thousand more ballons in tthere to outperform the Democrat balloon show.
- Speeches are read from a television screen which are all full of blatant lies and empty promises. :blah:
And add about another gazillion things that make it look like the ****ing MTV Video Music Awards show. :ick:
I really can't see why people even call this 'politics' anymore. I am so glad only America holds this type of 'show-politics'. I'd be embarrased to be American if I saw that happening in my country.
Discuss.
AMEN!!!
and on top of that...
There were people actually agreeing with the crap that uttered from his mouth! :rolleyes:
-
Its called a convention, designed to gather support and get across their message to swing-voters, i don't see anything overly wrong with the concept.
-
All flash and no substance, thats the problem.
-
kinda like a PETA rally.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
the repugnanticons.....
Bwuahaha. Sounds like a goddamn set of Transformers.
Bill Clinton could be Copulous Prime.
But I think Bush would have to be relegated to being a Gobot. ****ing rip-off series.
-
you'll have to forgive my friend. Lacking a full grasp of the political landscape, he must make do with simple slogans and schoolyard name-calling.
But the upside is, if I twist it enough, I might actually get him to acknowledge the existance of an economic school of thought called neoliberalism.
"The Neolibericons vs The Repugnanticons: Fight for the Throne."
only on PayPerView.
-
neoliberalism - a new variant on 'liberalism' involving getting a nose ring and pouring coffee for a living. It's principles include making the successful feel guilty.
-
Bah. I'll wait and catch the highlights.
****ing SkyNet, always trying to rip you off with the sport.
-
First:
[q]Bill Clinton could be Copulous Prime.[/q]
:lol: :yes:
[q]It's principles include making the successful feel guilty.[/q]
Actually it's principles include the state screwing it's citizens rights over and appearing to be inactive in international affairs while quietly either ensuring situations stay "static" or small nations governments are toppled.
[q]errr...being in a republic where most of the politicians are over 40 and corruption is pretty low, I can safely say that my nation's politics 0wnz you.
Although it does suck a bit too.[/q]
You live in India right? Haven't you got a little cold war going on over there right now? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
you'll have to forgive my friend. Lacking a full grasp of the political landscape, he must make do with simple slogans and schoolyard name-calling.
But the upside is, if I twist it enough, I might actually get him to acknowledge the existance of an economic school of thought called neoliberalism.
"The Neolibericons vs The Repugnanticons: Fight for the Throne."
only on PayPerView.
The Autocratbots
Led by Copulous Prime
The Repugnanticons
Led by Megalowmart
Next episode: The season finale where Megalowmart and Copulous Prime both claim to battle Usamicron!
-
Dude, dont come down on the republicans so hard. The dems are just as guilty of that stuff as the republicans are if not more so. BTW, this kind of stuff makes American politics what it is. I would much rather have the flashy showy stuff than the candidates rigging ballots, bribing government officials or intimidating the other party with armed malitias.
-
The Democrats come down on each other pretty hard.
Read into that however you see fit........
-
I enjoy watching the Republican Convention on TV, and not all of it is rock and pop bands. They show up as basically the intermission between segments. Instead of letting everyone stand around for 5, 10, maybe 30 minutes, they put on entertainment.
But when you compare the two conventions, Democratic ones were more of a Bush-whacking ceremony, whereas this one is not a Kerry-hating ceremony.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I enjoy watching the Republican Convention on TV, and not all of it is rock and pop bands. They show up as basically the intermission between segments. Instead of letting everyone stand around for 5, 10, maybe 30 minutes, they put on entertainment.
But when you compare the two conventions, Democratic ones were more of a Bush-whacking ceremony, whereas this one is not a Kerry-hating ceremony.
Yeah, more of an everybody who isn't a card-carrying member of the Party-hating ceremony :p
Afterall, you can't just accuse the folks of hating only Gays and Muslims ;)
-
Call it what you want Ace, but I still enjoy watching it and listening to what the people have to say, and nearly cried watching the Ronald Regan video.
-
in my opinion, the Democratic convention was not Bush-bashing enough.
I mean, you have someone who is widely regarded as the worst American president in recent memory. And they let him off the hook by taking positions that are the same or actually to the right of him. The Democrats are letting Bush off easy, and I resent that.
-
they dont make fun of him enough because there is not enough to make fun of......
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Call it what you want Ace, but I still enjoy watching it and listening to what the people have to say, and nearly cried watching the Ronald Regan video.
but...but...they're lying. Its so obvious they're lying. The whole thing is a PR set-up, there isn't a single line or a single haircut that the image consultants haven'ty double-checked. Its no insincere. Its not about the issues, its about Jenna's jokes, and the "image" that Laura Bush puts forward. Its about Arnie acting tough, and simple lines that people can remember and cheer for.
Seriously, Tiara said it best, its like watching the MTV awards. Politics is supposed to mean something, but instead everyone is focusing on whether Kerry spent Christmas 500m left of the border or 500m right of the border. Its all about personality and image, and the actual policies are secondary.
-
The whole purpose of the convention is to attract attention and get everybody fired up. I dont really see whats so bad about the showy stuff, as long as it doesnt get out of hand (which it didnt.)
-
No, Rictor, they are not lying. In fact if anyone on either side of politics is lying, it is most likely Kerry. Second, Bush is not the worst president in history. In fact he has done better than Clinton EVER could have done as president, and yet he was viewed as "Quite good in his position". Give it a rest already. No one cares if Bush screwed up a few words in his speech or didnt follow what was good at the moment, which is what Kerry is GOING to do. I would much rather have someone like Bush in office then someone who is more likely to screw this country like Kerry.
-
for the last time, I am criticizing Kerry as much or more than Bush.
How can you possibly believe Arnie's "When Nelson Mandela was let out of prison, America was there with him. When the berlin wall fell, America was there" BS. They are faking some sort of value or principals, when in fact it is very obvious that they (they meaning politicians) have none.
My only comfort is that hardly anyone outside of the US takes this stuff seriously.
-
Are you guys watching tonights' (wed) ? This Democrat Turncoat Senator is really funny. :D
-
I was watching the RNC about 20 minutes ago before I came up, played some NS, then checked out the boards. What confuses me is how a lot of non-Americans even CARE about our politics. I rarely (if ever) see anyone saying how they can run Germany, France, Australia, or England's politics better other than the people who live in the country themselves. If you dont live here and havent even visited America, dont think you know what is better for us when you have not even stepped foot on the ground we walk every day. I would never in my life make a topic *****ing about British, German, or French politics and how much they suck and how much more intelligent I am over your political system, and how I know better than all of you. I wouldnt do it, and neither should you.
-
[q]and nearly cried watching the Ronald Regan video.[/q]
So did half of Indo-China.
-
yes, but do you think that American politics affects only Americans? thats why you never hear people talking about French or Swedish politics, or in any case not as much, because whatever they decide affect only their citizens. But what the US decides affects the whole world.
Now, if you're a nation who is in good standing with the US (such as Britain or uh....Britain), or is powerful enough to protect its sovereignty (such as Russia or China), then you have less to worry about. But if you are not powerful enough, be it economically, militarilly or politically, to guard against foreign influence on your nation's politics (say...Bulgaria for example. Or Haiti), then you are deeply concerned with what happens in Washington.
-
[q]I rarely (if ever) see anyone saying how they can run Germany, France, Australia, or England's politics better other than the people who live in the country themselves.[/q]
Meet the neoliberal left and WTO-based right, they call it "old Europe" and accuse nations of being cowards for wanting no part in a pointless war.
-
[q](such as Britain or uh....Britain)[/q]
I refer you to Sun Tzu. Know your enemy.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
yes, but do you think that American politics affects only Americans? thats why you never hear people talking about French or Swedish politics, or in any case not as much, because whatever they decide affect only their citizens. But what the US decides affects the whole world.
Now, if you're a nation who is in good standing with the US (such as Britain or uh....Britain), or is powerful enough to protect its sovereignty (such as Russia or China), then you have less to worry about. But if you are not powerful enough, be it economically, militarilly or politically, to guard against foreign influence on your nation's politics (say...Bulgaria for example. Or Haiti), then you are deeply concerned with what happens in Washington.
Yes, and Im sure any minute now, we are going to mobilize ALL of our troops on an immediate attack on Germany, France, and all European nations within weeks, due to the simple fact that we dont like them. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I was watching the RNC about 20 minutes ago before I came up, played some NS, then checked out the boards. What confuses me is how a lot of non-Americans even CARE about our politics. I rarely (if ever) see anyone saying how they can run Germany, France, Australia, or England's politics better other than the people who live in the country themselves. If you dont live here and havent even visited America, dont think you know what is better for us when you have not even stepped foot on the ground we walk every day. I would never in my life make a topic *****ing about British, German, or French politics and how much they suck and how much more intelligent I am over your political system, and how I know better than all of you. I wouldnt do it, and neither should you.
Nicely said :lol: .
Even if there is a ripple effect, Americans are usually concerned about what happens to them first and their allies second. If it was the other way around I would be very concerned.
-
[q]due to the simple fact that we dont like them[/q]
Son, it doesn't always rely on military power. It's called politics.
-
did I say germany or france? No, they are both in good standing and powerful enough to have their way. I was reffering to Latin American nations, East European nations, some Middle-East and South Asian nations and most of Africa.
now, these are the ones to hav to feat direct intervention (rarely military, its usually more subtle than that). However, there is hardly a single country, including the above mentioned "immune ones" that will not in some way be affected by American politics. Can the same be said of Norway or Scotland?
-
[q]Can the same be said of Norway or Scotland?[/q]
You what? *gets out Union Jack and waves menacingly* What you meaning?
-
Rictor, we didnt attack Iraq because we didnt like them, the guy running them, or how their political system was put together. We attacked because they had fairly obvious links to Al Queida, and we made it VERY clear at the start of the war we would attack anyone who harbors or supports terrorsists, so that was his final warning. Comply or die. We also liberated the rest of the people in the process of bringing down the guy who funded them pretty heftly.
-
I really am inclined to post a 2 page rant about how everyone loves to criticize when there is no possible gain to be had from it, but I'm not getting involved. No one who isn't already convinced one way or another is going to be convinced, and those that have already made up their minds won't give the other side a chance. It's just like talking politics here. All I can say is that we really don't need like 5 active threads on the topic, all saying essentially the same thing.
And TinCan, stop. Stop now. That's a fight you can't win.
-
Tin Can knows as much about politics as my cat it seems
Bush better than clinton: ROTFL - economic numbers say: nay, national security: nah (Clinton had drawn up a total and complete, and in hindsight would have been utterly effective, battle plan to completely cripple al qaeda in one swift stroke, it was finished late in his second term, HE GAVE BUSH THE BATTLE PLAN AND BUSH IGNORED IT), yada ya da -- every real indicator of a president being good shows: Clinton GOOD, Bush ****
Tin Can you need to stop using "Fair and Balance" (they're the antinym of that) Faux News for your media source -- Rupert Murdoch (owns fox news) has REPEATEDLY, OPENLY stated that he INTENDED TO BE BIASED and IS BIASED
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Rictor, we didnt attack Iraq because we didnt like them, the guy running them, or how their political system was put together. We attacked because they had fairly obvious links to Al Queida, and we made it VERY clear at the start of the war we would attack anyone who harbors or supports terrorsists, so that was his final warning. Comply or die. We also liberated the rest of the people in the process of bringing down the guy who funded them pretty heftly.
every source, including your own government, has said that there were in fact no links between Iraq and al Queda. Osama on numerous occasions criticized Saddam for running a secular country. They were enemies, get your facts straight.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
We attacked because they had fairly obvious links to Al Queida...
Obvious links to Al Qaeda such as...?
Ohh that's right, you don't have any :p
It's one thing to wage a war, but you have to have a good excuse. Bush not listening to his advisors when it comes to making one is not an admirable trait. Of course, we're all supposed to praise him for his initiative and self-assertiveness...
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
We attacked because they had fairly obvious links to Al Queida,
this statement is completely, totally and unequivocally false -- both British Intelligence and the CIA _KNEW_ that there was no such link, but the Bush Administration didn't want to hear it, and had cheney lean on the CIA until the CIA falsified reports saying what they wanted
Once again: Stop using the, self admittedly, radically-right-biased Rupert Murdoch Propganda Network (Fox News) as your information source -- INDEPENDANT (as in non-political-organization, multiple-university cooperation) studies have shown that 80% of Fox News viewers hold opinions that are completely factually FALSE -- you're and example of one of them (they have also corrected for every possible variable imaginable - it's a damn good study, and I don't say that jsut because it damns you ignorant fools)
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I was watching the RNC about 20 minutes ago before I came up, played some NS, then checked out the boards. What confuses me is how a lot of non-Americans even CARE about our politics. I rarely (if ever) see anyone saying how they can run Germany, France, Australia, or England's politics better other than the people who live in the country themselves. If you dont live here and havent even visited America, dont think you know what is better for us when you have not even stepped foot on the ground we walk every day. I would never in my life make a topic *****ing about British, German, or French politics and how much they suck and how much more intelligent I am over your political system, and how I know better than all of you. I wouldnt do it, and neither should you.
That's because Britain, Germany and France don't impose their iron (Cruise Missile) fist on the rest of the world.....
Well, anymore.
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Rictor, we didnt attack Iraq because we didnt like them, the guy running them, or how their political system was put together. We attacked because they had fairly obvious links to Al Queida, and we made it VERY clear at the start of the war we would attack anyone who harbors or supports terrorsists, so that was his final warning. Comply or die. We also liberated the rest of the people in the process of bringing down the guy who funded them pretty heftly.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You know the people who you are defending openly admitted that is not a true statement, right?
-
meh, CNN and the rest are not much better.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Tin Can knows as much about politics as my cat it seems
Bush better than clinton: ROTFL - economic numbers say: nay, national security: nah (Clinton had drawn up a total and complete, and in hindsight would have been utterly effective, battle plan to completely cripple al qaeda in one swift stroke, it was finished late in his second term, HE GAVE BUSH THE BATTLE PLAN AND BUSH IGNORED IT), yada ya da -- every real indicator of a president being good shows: Clinton GOOD, Bush ****
Tin Can you need to stop using "Fair and Balance" (they're the antinym of that) Faux News for your media source -- Rupert Murdoch (owns fox news) has REPEATEDLY, OPENLY stated that he INTENDED TO BE BIASED and IS BIASED
I see it more as, clinton was in the right place at the right time.
-
Kaz, those numbers were obviously pulled out of your ass, because in fact if you looked, unemployment is down, economy is up, and in fact we have boosted our military power after Clinton cut it down to size. As I said, those numbers were obviously pulled out of the very thick crack in your ass.
As for Fox News, I actually listen to them only ever so often.
You can get me to believe that Clinton actually set the stage for Bush and all his sucess, then I will admit I was wrong, but until then I think that you only say what you like to say and when its good to say it.
And TinCan, stop. Stop now. That's a fight you can't win.
And no, because it seems Im one of the only people who can take gripe after gripe from the same people without backing down just because Im being argued with. Im standing up for my ideals and Im not backing down, I'm not quivering under the pressure.
-
links between Al Queida and Sadam... I'll let the denials pass given the context in wich it was started.
-
Well then I'm willing to stand up and say I was wrong about it. Fair enough, now lets move on to other matters.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Kaz, those numbers were obviously pulled out of your ass, because in fact if you looked, unemployment is down, economy is up, and in fact we have boosted our military power after Clinton cut it down to size. As I said, those numbers were obviously pulled out of the very thick crack in your ass.
Unemployment... down? From what... last month?
-
From since economy got better? Duh? :wtf:
-
@Tin Can
Taken from the CIA site
The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 saw the end of boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially.
Here's the link to the info above - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
and it seems it has been decreasing... well... because in the beggining of the "Bush years" it rose a lot. Here's a link to show you the latest - http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
-
And it's from the CIA, so you know it's fact.
Err... :nervous: hehhe....
-
I really can't see why people even call this 'politics' anymore. I am so glad only America holds this type of 'show-politics'. I'd be embarrased to be American if I saw that happening in my country.
Right on. I agree with you 100%. What is pathetic is all of the attack ads running. What is even more pathetic is how many people seriously believe them. Not to mention all of the hate that is on the right. It's sad when any opposition to a policy is labeled as "treason". Isn't that what democracy is all about? Isn't that what US alledgedly invaded Iraq to give people?
-
the ecconomy started to crash months before Bush was elected (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=%5EIXIC&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=&c=%5EDJI)
the red line is the dow, the blue line is the Nasdaq (tech heavy)
-
Notice how the sharpest drop is right when his presidency is announced? :p
Also note that the lowest point during the end of the Clinton admistration is still higher than any point on the Bush administration.
-
:lol:
-
OK... just to keep everyone honest... you have to think global... cause since the cold war has ended, that's how economics has been... global... There are a number of reasons the economy was good in the US during the late '90's... Alot of them had to do with the crash in Indo-China and Russia (yes, that actually boosted the American economy, and I'll explain how if someone wants explanation). Some of them had to do with the Telecom boom and a new industry growing to proportions larger then it could sustain. And NONE (well maybe one or two) of them had to do with the policies of the President at the time. Numbers were hidden, spending increased... But as it went, there was a Democratic President with a Republican Congress, and here in the United States of America, that means it's hard to pass anything that isn't widely supported. Meaning alot of Presidential "policy" required Republican approval to go thorugh... Anyhow the problem we have now, is that the Republicans pretty much rule capitol hill... and so some wackjob extreme stuff gets through... only to be knocked down by supreme courts. It's not that the Republicans are wackjobs, both parties have wackjobs... It's just when both houses and the Presidency are controlled by the same party, then it's easier for that party's wackjobs to get their bills passed... Unless there's fillabuster... :P
But don't fall into the stupid fallacy that every brain dead TV zombie seems to believe: The President does not single-handedly influence and control to US economy by himself... You can make an argument that Congress can... but even then it's tough...
-
this one (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=%24INDU&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&PT=1&CP=1&C5=8&C6=2000&C7=12&C8=2000&C9=0&ComparisonsForm=1&CA=1&CC=1&CE=1&CompSyms=&DisplayForm=1&D5=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0) is a little clearer, it lets to zoom in to a custom date range. if you look you'll find the ecconomy peaked at the begining of march 2000, the election wasn't untill 9 months later
-
About the Al Qaeda - Iraq link:
(http://swooh.com/peon/Tiara/proof.jpg)
:p
-
Tiara wins this debate, hands down :)
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Right on. I agree with you 100%. What is pathetic is all of the attack ads running. What is even more pathetic is how many people seriously believe them. Not to mention all of the hate that is on the right. It's sad when any opposition to a policy is labeled as "treason". Isn't that what democracy is all about? Isn't that what US alledgedly invaded Iraq to give people?
What's really sad for me, is that every politicial party in the UK* seems to follow the same tact of attacking the opposition instead of advertising the benefits / philosophy of their own policies.
It's not a case of 'vote for me, I'm the best!', it's now a case 'don;t vote for them, vote for me, cos I'm not them'. We now have parties which seem to be dedicated to playing on peoples prejudices like UKIP and the BNP, which win votes by being against something rather than having any apparent policies of their own.
*don't know how prevelant this is in other countries, seems even worse in the US though
-
create an effect and be against it's cause
-
Originally posted by vyper
You live in India right? Haven't you got a little cold war going on over there right now? :wtf:
With China and Pakistan.
But we've already started peace talks with both nations, and so far its been going pretty well. The artillary guns went quite over Kashmir a few months back.
They havent sounded off again yet.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Kaz, those numbers were obviously pulled out of your ass, because in fact if you looked, unemployment is down,
"Government Unemployeement" is down, "Real Unemployment" is at a record high - when Clinton would talk about his Unemployement number he'd use 'Real Unemployment" -- bush is using "Government Unemployement"
you know what the difference is?
"Government Unemployeement" only counts people A) Drawing Govt Unemployeement Benefits B) actively using government job placement facilities
"Real Unemployement" counts all able-bodied persons of workforce age who are without job
economy is up,
only on poor indicators, and poorly so as well
and in fact we have boosted our military power after Clinton cut it down to size.
"after clinton cut it down to size" -- exactly, the clumsiness of your own wording shows something -- military spending is the wrost deficit spending we have right now -- and most of it is on overpriced hardware -- things we could make equally effective, yet cheaper versions, of ---- furthermore in this massive deficit spending military budget BUSH CUT SOLIDER COMBAT PAY --- good job
As I said, those numbers were obviously pulled out of the very thick crack in your ass.
no - your position was spoon fed to you by the Rupert Murdoch Propaganda Network
As for Fox News, I actually listen to them only ever so often.
Often enough to get you terribly misinformed
You can get me to believe that Clinton actually set the stage for Bush and all his sucess, then I will admit I was wrong, but until then I think that you only say what you like to say and when its good to say it.
Bush _HASN'T_ been a success -- let;s see here
A) Ignored Critical CIA reports on Terrrorism
B) Ignored Critical Battle Plan against largest terrorist organization on the planet
C) Had Vice Pres lean on CIA until the CIA falsified reports to "tell them what they want to hear" to get them to go away
D) Went from having almost complete global support for the 'War on Terror' when we, correctly, went into Afghanistan to having almost complete global opposition for incorrect invasion of Iraq (Global Support = good thing for the following reasons: they buy our goods, they willingly aid us anyway they can, etc)
E) Has a 2.2 million job NET LOSS since he became president
F) HAs knowingly and willingly, of his own volition, instigated violation of the US Constitution
G) Created an atmosphere of "If you don't agree with me, you're a traitor" immediately after 9/11 -- stifling the Right to Free Speech that our founding fathers fought and died to protect
H) Used said atmosphere (G) to pass the USA PATRIOT act - a functional duplicate of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution (hint: that's how hitler seized power)
I) Has attempted to write bigotry into our constitution
I could go on... but that's a good summary for now
And no, because it seems Im one of the only people who can take gripe after gripe from the same people without backing down just because Im being argued with. Im standing up for my ideals and Im not backing down, I'm not quivering under the pressure.
So you're standing up for the ideal of Theocracy, Bigotry, HAtred, Ignorance, Opression and War --- Good job, you could be a Dictator's henchmen!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the ecconomy started to crash months before Bush was elected (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=%5EIXIC&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=&c=%5EDJI)
the red line is the dow, the blue line is the Nasdaq (tech heavy)
it started to drop when investors ancipated possibly victory for him - and then he made the comment "we're in a recession" (even thouh we weren't!)