Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on September 17, 2004, 08:34:23 pm
-
They stole0rz my idea. My only complaint is that somehow, Nader is missing from the top 3, and yet the Socialist Party (never heard of them, and neither I suspect have you) is in second, ahead of the Greens (who would have been my second choice). Oh and Kerry is leading, which just plain sucks, and considering that this is, I assume, mostly being done by people outside of the US, shows a bit of a lack of information.
http://www.usworldvote.org/
Oh well, pass it on.
-
Well, seeing as you all want to be citizens and vote and all, I guess paying taxes wouldn't hurt either. You know, the more you help us, the more we can help you.
;)
-
Paying taxes has nothing to do with political voice, it has to do with using the services provided by those taxes. Like using American roads, getting protection from American cops, getting mail from the American postal service and so forth.
The basic premise is, if a certain policy has an effect on you, you are entitled to a say in the matter. For example, my neighbor can't sell my house to someone and call it "foreign policy". Since I live in the house, and that decision affects me, I should be able to at the very least have an equal vote.
Though a nice first step would be to actually give *American* citizens some power over policy, as in refferendums and so forth, not just picking the lesser of two evils every 4 years. For example, if the war in Iraq had been put to a popular vote, with 60% needed to pass, do you think it would have happened? Much less giving Iraqis the vote.
-
Well, I was half kidding. But you'll be wishing you had been paying your voting taxes when we run out of money to fund our planes and bombs that come in and save you from your despotic rulers.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Well, I was half kidding. But you'll be wishing you had been paying your voting taxes when we run out of money to fund our planes and bombs that come in and save you from your despotic rulers.
They hate our freedom KT, remember that :lol:
Note: This was a joke.
-
I hate your freedom.
-
there actualy was quite a lot of suport for the war when it started, now it's at about 50% goes back and forth within a 20% zone
-
Actually, if it truly practiced what it preached and stood up for what it claims to, I would be quite happy to pay tax to America in order to have a say in it's political system, including the same human and civil rights. The ideals that America is built on could, with some work, form the basis of a global culture. However, the reality of America is that it is no better than anyone else. I'd like to see a Global Government, simply because it leaves no-one who isn't a civilian to wage war on, and you have to try to be very fair when you are a few hundred thousand people working for billions of them :)
Still, I'm sure we'd find some way to turn it into a disaster ;)
-
I've recently come to the realization that Kerry is a bastard. Before, I just thought he was a political weasel with no character and little in the way of morality.
I now realize that he hasn't changed one damn bit from the traitorous bastard who lied 35 years ago to Congress and the American people about the goings on in Vietnam and met with North Vietnamese officials in Paris and has a monument in the Hall of Heroes in Hanoi. He is trying to use the war for his own purposes and everthing and everybody else be damned. I hope Satan has a special place for that vermin somewhere in Hell.
-
Now...this is just a hunch mind, but are you, by any slight chance, a Republican? ;)
-
stay of topic (ish) please.
Who's bothered to vote, and for whom?
BTW Lib, his speech to Congress may have been the one time in his life when Kerry told the truth. Or are you one of those people who are still of the opinion that Vietnam was a great and just war?
-
"I voted for Nader! I hate everybody!"
Sorry, couldn't resist. Still itching for Season 3.
-
What's that from?
I like it.
-
I now realize that he hasn't changed one damn bit from the traitorous bastard who lied 35 years ago to Congress and the American people about the goings on in Vietnam
Check your facts. He didn't lie to congress about americans committing atrocities in Vietnam. That actually happened. I think you should re examine your flawed conclusions with TRUTH.
He is trying to use the war for his own purposes and everthing and everybody else be damned.
He is doing that now, but Bush exploited 9/11 on numerous occasions as well as Iraq. I don't see you blasting him on that. Why not?
-
RvB I think,
if you want to vote in an American election emigrate to America, simple.
-
without questioning wather crimes were commited in Vietnam, are you sure he witnessed them
-
Sure he witnessed them, he commited them.
By his own admission, he did witness them, and I think thats pretty likely considering he was involved with Phoenix.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
What's that from?
I like it.
Bob was right, it's Red vs. Blue. I can't find the link to this particular video, unfortunately, they must have taken it down. :o
-
Originally posted by Rictor
stay of topic (ish) please.
Freudian slip? ;)
Besides this is HLP, the 'Fractal Thread' Forum :p
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Check your facts. He didn't lie to congress about americans committing atrocities in Vietnam.
I will cop to that...with one caveat. It was WAR, despite whatever the politicians called it. Atrocities happen in war, I won't defend the atrocities that did happen, I refuse to believe that it was as common as Kerry has everyone believing.
He is doing that now, but Bush exploited 9/11 on numerous occasions as well as Iraq. I don't see you blasting him on that. Why not?
A minor difference, the tragedy of 9/11 defined Bush's term in office. Kerry is just glomming on.
Now, answer me this question. And think very hard about your answer before you give it.
If you are going to vote for Kerry, are you voting for him because he's John F. Kerry, The most liberal senator in Washington and wannabe war hero, or is it because he is not George W. Bush. Also, if you are for him because he's John F. Kerry, give me one concrete promise that he has made in his campaign and not flip-floped at least once on.
I'll give you the only one: He's promised to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Wealthy being anyone who makes ~$100,000 a year or more.
'Cause they can afford it is no a good reason. They worked for their money just like the rest of us and they are more likely to spend it in the creation of new capital creation, IE purchasing Big Ticket items or starting their own business which in turn creates jobs. I've never heard of a poor person starting a small business.
-
"the tragedy of 9/11 defined Bush's term in office."
and Kerry's public life wasn't defined by Vietnam!?! :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"the tragedy of 9/11 defined Bush's term in office."
and Kerry's public life wasn't defined by Vietnam!?! :wtf:
Owned.
If you are going to vote for Kerry, are you voting for him because he's John F. Kerry, The most liberal senator in Washington and wannabe war hero, or is it because he is not George W. Bush. Also, if you are for him because he's John F. Kerry, give me one concrete promise that he has made in his campaign and not flip-floped at least once on
You assume much but know little. I am not a registered voter, so in many ways, it makes no difference to me. I don't like either of them.
they are more likely to spend it in the creation of new capital creation,
That is not true at all. If you had taken any decent economics courses you would know that.
You're also forgetting about that looming $7 trillion the government owes. What is Bush going to do about it? Make it bigger.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I will cop to that...with one caveat. It was WAR, despite whatever the politicians called it. Atrocities happen in war, I won't defend the atrocities that did happen, I refuse to believe that it was as common as Kerry has everyone believing.
A minor difference, the tragedy of 9/11 defined Bush's term in office. Kerry is just glomming on.
Now, answer me this question. And think very hard about your answer before you give it.
If you are going to vote for Kerry, are you voting for him because he's John F. Kerry, The most liberal senator in Washington and wannabe war hero, or is it because he is not George W. Bush. Also, if you are for him because he's John F. Kerry, give me one concrete promise that he has made in his campaign and not flip-floped at least once on.
I'll give you the only one: He's promised to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Wealthy being anyone who makes ~$100,000 a year or more.
'Cause they can afford it is no a good reason. They worked for their money just like the rest of us and they are more likely to spend it in the creation of new capital creation, IE purchasing Big Ticket items or starting their own business which in turn creates jobs. I've never heard of a poor person starting a small business.
But you should realize that since Bush cut taxes to the richest 1%, Kerry lowering them would just be returning to normal. I'm not a big fan of the trickle-down theory, or giving the rich tax-cuts because it somehow supposedly creates jobs.
There is no way to ensure that rich people will create jobs, or that those jobs will be in America and not outsourced to keep costs down. You should only give tax cuts to people who can produce evidence that they have created jobs.
And God help us if John Kerry is the most liberal man in the Senate. Have you seen his voting record?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
There is no way to ensure that rich people will create jobs, or that those jobs will be in America and not outsourced to keep costs down.
sence when did you care if American workers got shafted?
Originally posted by Rictor
And God help us if John Kerry is the most liberal man in the Senate. Have you seen his voting record?
that talking point was actualy based on annalasis of Kerry's record over the last year or somethng, not that that means anything, he's taken three sides of every two sided issue.
-
Meh. Someone I knew and respected once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form of government."
...you can now carry on bickering.
-
:nod:
Socialism(in all its myriad forms: communism, fascism, et al) looks great on paper, what with everyone helping everyone else. Socialism assumes that everyone is the same, that they all have the same drives, ambitions and abilities.
The problem is that humans are not all alike and never will be. For every Michael Jordan, there's the unknown fat guy with no athletic ability. For every Bill Gates there's a row farmer in rural Mississippi that wouldn't know shrewd business practices if they bit him on the tushie.
Now, tell us you socialists out there, what motivation is there for Joe or Bubba to get off there butts and do something worthwhile if they are guarenteed a check every two weeks? What motivation is there for Bill Gates to make millions if the government is going to take it all but a minimum from him and give it to someone else?
-
how about that guy over there with the gun saying "get to work"
-
Hang on a minute, this is supposed to be a WORLD leader? So where are the other world candidates?
There should be at least a token vote for Gerhard Shroeder, Jaques Chirac and to a lesser extent Tony Blair.
And what about Kofi Annan?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Now, tell us you socialists out there, what motivation is there for Joe or Bubba to get off there butts and do something worthwhile if they are guarenteed a check every two weeks? What motivation is there for Bill Gates to make millions if the government is going to take it all but a minimum from him and give it to someone else?
Let's reapply this logic.
What motivation is there for a christian to get off his butt and do anything useful on Earth if he knows he's going to heaven as long as he prays enough?
See how stupid your logic was? Probably not.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Let's reapply this logic.
What motivation is there for a christian to get off his butt and do anything useful on Earth if he knows he's going to heaven as long as he prays enough?
See how stupid your logic was? Probably not.
Y'know. I was chatting to a brick wall yesterday and the same arguement came up. What are the odds of that, eh?
-
42 to 1.
-
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world's only superpower. Some say a "hyperpower". America holds sway over the world like no other country in the entire history of humankind. It dominates in the 5 spheres of power: political, economic, military, technological, and cultural.
Ugh, I hate that site already....
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What motivation is there for a christian to get off his butt and do anything useful on Earth if he knows he's going to heaven as long as he prays enough?
Well, I will only speak from my experience; but with the full knowledge of where I am going after I die, the reason I do things useful here (like helping others) is that part of being a Christian is to love others. How can you love someone by doing nothing when you see someone in their need? So there's plenty of reason to do things useful on Earth. Seems pretty logical to me. :)
-
Yeah, people don't realize that not all Christians are loonies like Ashcroft or Bush, who believe that the best way to serve God is to force Armageddon to get here so that Jesus will come and clean house. The way I choose to interpret Christianity, though I admit my knowledge is limited, is in a kind, helpful, pious fashion, like the life Jesus himself supposedly lived. Helping other and that kind of stuff. Maybe thats just an idealization on my part, but I have seen plenty of Christian organizations founded on those principles.
Originally posted by Clave
Hang on a minute, this is supposed to be a WORLD leader? So where are the other world candidates?
There should be at least a token vote for Gerhard Shroeder, Jaques Chirac and to a lesser extent Tony Blair.
And what about Kofi Annan?
That would be great, so long as they have authority over US foreign policy. And incidentally, please don't think that everyone who hates Bush and US imperialism loooves Chrirac and Kofi Annan and their kind. I certainly don't. Chirac and Shroeder are both bastards, and are just as corrupt and power-hungry as any other politician, and pretty big interventionists at that. Same goes for Annan, though to a lesser degree. Mostly, he just has no backbone to stand up to assert the UN's independence from political coersion.
Originally posted by Tiara
Ugh, I hate that site already....
Well, its true, you know that as well as I do. You happen to live in a country fortunate enough to be able to resist or ignore any outside influence, be it political or economic. Don't make the mistake of assuming that that is the norm.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Well, I will only speak from my experience; but with the full knowledge of where I am going after I die, the reason I do things useful here (like helping others) is that part of being a Christian is to love others. How can you love someone by doing nothing when you see someone in their need? So there's plenty of reason to do things useful on Earth. Seems pretty logical to me. :)
Of course there are reasons. As I said it was a stupid piece of logic to assume that cause there is a heaven all you'd do is sit about on Earth and wait.
However it's just as stupid to believe that Bill Gates with his 40+ billions did it all for the money. You could probably prevent Bill from making a single penny more and I doubt he'd give up working for MS cause he works there cause he enjoys it.
The point I was making is that humans are complex creatures and we don't do or not do something like work for a living solely because of the money involved.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, its true, you know that as well as I do. You happen to live in a country fortunate enough to be able to resist or ignore any outside influence, be it political or economic. Don't make the mistake of assuming that that is the norm.
Ok, lets go through it shall we;
Political; This one's true.
Military; Also true.
Economical; America is way more dependant on Europian and/or Asian economy then the other way around.
Technological; America isn't the end all of technological advancements. Though they are way up there, a lot of technology in use today and probably the future comes from outside the US itself. The most advanced part of the tech side is the military technology, not something productive.
Cultural; ROFLMAO! :lol::lol::lol::lol: 99% of American culture is practically born from foreign culture. Only in the last century has America shown signs of an individual culture. But that doesn't even come CLOSE to the European and/or Asian culture bases. The only 'pure' culture is the Indian culture in America.
-
Alright, so the important ones, political and military are true, technologically they are the best where it counts (military hardware) and even when they are not, are able to simply buy the best technologies from foreign nations. Now economically, they're pulling the strings of argueably the 3 most powerful financial institutions in existence, the IMF, WTO and World Bank, as well as having the usual excessive influence over UNCTAD, though they (unctad) have shown some independence. Yes, the American economy is heavily dependent on foreign markets, but especially in Asia, those appear to be well under control.
So, the 4 most important ones are for the most part completely true, and the culural one is debatable. Can you think of any sign more universally recongizable than Coke or McDonads, or Mickey Mouse, or MTV? American corporate branding has left no corner of the world untouched, and is today perhaps one of the few common threads between almost all nations and all peoples.
-
Who's been voting democratic party? They're gettin quite a high percentage.
-
I guess that would be Canadians, Americans (I know) and Europeans mostly, I've checked the detailed stats (you have to give them your email). They make up the biggest chunk of voters. Which makes sense, since these people would least be affected by US foreign policy, and so are able to safely ignore Kerry's stance on it.
-
I'm a Brit and I voted Nader.
Go figure. :wtf:
-
No, I'm just talking about the statistics on their site. if you wanna take a look, I'll PM you my login.
I also voted Nader. I guess we both hate everyone, though I'm a tad bit confused as to whether I'm also supposed to hate other Naderites as well :wtf: ;)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I guess that would be Canadians, Americans (I know) and Europeans mostly, I've checked the detailed stats (you have to give them your email). They make up the biggest chunk of voters. Which makes sense, since these people would least be affected by US foreign policy, and so are able to safely ignore Kerry's stance on it.
It's simple. they're picking the person who a) they've heard most of and b) isn't Bush. I've never heard of any of the other mob, to be honest.
-
Not even Nader? Surely, someone must have mentioned "that bastard who gave us 4 years of Bush", no?
edit: I think you hit it right on the head aldo. Its a shame though.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Not even Nader? Surely, someone must have mentioned "that bastard who gave us 4 years of Bush", no?
edit: I think you hit it right on the head aldo. Its a shame though.
Nope. As only the Repubs and Dems have held power in the US, only they have had enough publicity to be casually aware (over here) of what they are actually like.
I wonder how many people outside the UK are familiar with the likes of Charles Kennedy, though?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I wonder how many people outside the UK are familiar with the likes of Charles Kennedy, though?
[color=66ff00]Isn't he from Neighbours?
[/color]
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Nope. As only the Repubs and Dems have held power in the US, only they have had enough publicity to be casually aware (over here) of what they are actually like.
I wonder how many people outside the UK are familiar with the likes of Charles Kennedy, though?
Point taken. Though admitedlly, US politics is of greater interest to non-Americans than UK politics. Greater influence you see.
...MP, leader of the Liberal Democrats, biggest third party. In effect, the British Nader.
...ugh, preceded by Paddy Ashdown. Hmm, Respect-O-Meter just went down a notch.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Point taken. Though admitedlly, US politics is of greater interest to non-Americans than UK politics. Greater influence you see.
True... it's hard to find an exact parallel, there's not many democratic (well, democratic at face value anyways)expansionit superpowers left.
-
Originally posted by Clave
Hang on a minute, this is supposed to be a WORLD leader? So where are the other world candidates?
There should be at least a token vote for Gerhard Shroeder, Jaques Chirac and to a lesser extent Tony Blair.
And what about Kofi Annan?
They don't have American guns. And that's what that website was all about anyway... The United States of America of the World is a HYPERPOWER! ;)
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Cultural; ROFLMAO! :lol::lol::lol::lol: 99% of American culture is practically born from foreign culture. Only in the last century has America shown signs of an individual culture. But that doesn't even come CLOSE to the European and/or Asian culture bases. The only 'pure' culture is the Indian culture in America.
Europe might have a deeper cultural basis, but I'd say the US is far more effective at exporting its culture. Come on, the Indian movie industry is pretty much known as Bollywood. If that's not a nod to american cultural imperialism I don't know what is. :p
Just because the US imports ideas and whatnot from other places doesn't mean it doesn't have a massive effect on the rest of the world, because all the ideas it brings in get filtered and changed them thrown back out.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Europe might have a deeper cultural basis, but I'd say the US is far more effective at exporting its culture. Come on, the Indian movie industry is pretty much known as Bollywood. If that's not a nod to american cultural imperialism I don't know what is. :p
But how much of that exported culture is itself derivative of that of the original and present day immigrants?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
But how much of that exported culture is itself derivative of that of the original and present day immigrants?
Which is, again, irrelevant. It's America doing the exporting, so it's America with the cultural dominance.
-
If you consider drink brands, etc culture... :p
Everything you call 'culture' is either food or other products. That's hardly culture. Culture isn't viewed as a phenomenon generated by more fundamental processes of economics, but as a lasting effect on society through history, deeds, words, actions, etc.
Culture != economic imperialism
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Which is, again, irrelevant. It's America doing the exporting, so it's America with the cultural dominance.
Not really. How can you judge how well America 'exports' culture if that same culture is already present in a country/region?
Of course, a secondary issue is how much of said exported culture is actually accepted.
-
Heh, McDonalds is a part of your culture? the main thing they sell are *French* fries :lol:
-
The only American cultural dominance is in movies and television... nothing else methinks.
EDIT:
Tiara, freedom fries ;) :lol:
-
Oh, and Disney isn't culture? MTV isn't culture? You may want to keep your definition of culture pure, restricted to such things as art, literatuer and so forth, but in this day and age, almost everything is commercialized. Branding has *become* a part of culture.
And anyway, just look at Holywood. Mickey Mouse, Warner Brothers, the Simpsons, Starbucks, Nirvana, Metallica, Eminen. Its all American, and American culture is more widespread than any other, thanks to the commercial interests of the companies to which those brands belong.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Tiara, freedom fries ;) :lol:
:lol: Perfect example of trying to convert foreign culture and sell it as their own :lol:
:p
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Oh, and Disney isn't culture? MTV isn't culture? You may want to keep your definition of culture pure, restricted to such things as art, literatuer and so forth, but in this day and age, almost everything is commercialized. Branding has *become* a part of culture.
And anyway, just look at Holywood. Mickey Mouse, Warner Brothers, the Simpsons, Starbucks, Nirvana, Metallica, Eminen. Its all American, and American culture is more widespread than any other, thanks to the commercial interests of the companies to which those brands belong.
If you consider that cultural dominance, i pitty you. I really pitty you.
I'm actually glad you were the ones that came up with the idea for MTV *shrugs* At least they can't blame me for that abomination.
Also, I never said that America has no culture of it's own but it's nowhere NEAR that of Europe or Asia. Do you have a history about a few millenia long? Did America have the medieval era? Does America have any artists/visionaries that have influenced everyone throughout the centuries?
Just to name a few REAL cultural landmarks;
- Hippocrates
- Leonardo DaVinci
- (Sorry to say this :p) The Church and the Christian religion
- Chinese dynasties
- [insert about a gazillion other cultural landmarks]
That's culture. Not some gawdforsaken TV program that'll be forgotten in a hunmdred years... Not some fast-food branch that'll be gone in time. No, culture is something that LASTS[/b]. Period.
-
Definition of culture;
n. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought characteristic of a community or population. 2). A style of social and artistic expression peculiar to a society or class.
For a country to export culture, it most be adopted by another. Insofar as I can tell, this has not happened to US culture. Whereas, for example, a degree of British culture was exported through the Empire. The US is simply too young a country to have developed and exported its own culture...it took Britain hundreds of years to even make a minor influence.
-
Politard thread again? doesn't anyone ever get siock of these stupid things?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
If you consider that cultural dominance, i pitty you. I really pitty you.
I'm actually glad you were the ones that came up with the idea for MTV *shrugs* At least they can't blame me for that abomination.
Also, I never said that America has no culture of it's own but it's nowhere NEAR that of Europe or Asia. Do you have a history about a few millenia long? Did America have the medieval era? Does America have any artists/visionaries that have influenced everyone throughout the centuries?
Just to name a few REAL cultural landmarks;
- Hippocrates
- Leonardo DaVinci
- (Sorry to say this :p) The Church and the Christian religion
- Chinese dynasties
- [insert about a gazillion other cultural landmarks]
That's culture. Not some gawdforsaken TV program that'll be forgotten in a hunmdred years... Not some fast-food branch that'll be gone in time. No, culture is something that LASTS. Period. [/B]
I think you're using the wrong definition of culture there Tiara. Landmarks don't do a great deal for behavioral patterns which is really what culture is all about. With coke comes american culture, with american culture comes levis, with levis comes more american culture... it doesn't matter if it's shallow and a flash in the pan. It's far more pervasive, even little bits of it, than almost anything else.
-
maybe that's becase it's realy good and everyone likes it :)
-
It's a high speed culture for a world that is accelerating. It's not about spending 200 years carving angels in the flying buttresses anymore, which is kind of a pity, but it's also not unexpected.
Even Art these days is largely done in a very short space of time, DaVinci spent years working on his pieces. Once again, not worse, just different.
Theres no such real thing as culture, it's easy to wrap History up in the same box and call it culture, but it's not really.
Take Canterbury Cathedral. Yes, it's a gorgeous building, but while it was sitting there, being gorgeous, and being used by the Elite of society, 90% of the people in the country were busy just trying to get food on the plate, and maybe having a bath once a month ;)
-
That's right. Without us, you wouldn't have Levi's. Or Cowboy hats. Take that world culture!
-
I hate jeans.
-
Jeans are life.
-
Chinos are the way to go. I haven't worn jeans since I was about 11.
-
you must be a terrorist then,
someone call Lord Ashcroft, this one needs to be taken away.
-
You invented Levis, but 'tis just a brand name using Jeans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans