[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Rictor
800k is not the biggest protest march, not even close. There were numbers in excess of 1.5 million in certain European cities during the big February 15th anti-war marches last year.

But was it 1.5 million all across Europe or was it 1.5 million in a single city? because 1,150,000 people (the official count of this number, not the 800K, was just confirmed a little while ago) marching in one city alone is pretty damn impressive. I don't know if it was the largest protest march in the world (I think it is, but i could be wrong) but without doubt it's the biggest protest march in American history.

That's still really impressive.

Originally posted by Rictor
Though I find it extremely disheartening that this event got a ****load of people to show up, but something as trivial as war.....nah.

Lots of people here in America believe that the war in Iraq was connected to the war on terror. Even those who didn't believe that a year ago (like me) do believe ever since the ****storm in Fallujah at the start of April that Iraq is now connected to the larger war on terrorism if it wasn't before. That might be a big reason people here in the US haven't protested the Iraq war as much as Europe.

Not to mention the fact that America has pretty much made it a point to do the exact opposite of everything that France does. And France really tried its best to prevent the war in Iraq. Go figure.

Originally posted by Rictor
The Anyone But **** crowd are deluding themselves if they think Kerry is in any significant way different than ****. He's a born and bred politcian, very wealth. Hell, they're both Bonesmen, can't get more arisocratic than that.

Democracy is not about picking the lesser of two evils. The American people have it stuck in their heads that there can only be two parties and thats that. Two parties is hardly what you would call a functioning democracy, when they all feed from the same trough. There is this notion that American politics are "more civilized than the barbarian hordes" who have themselves a revolution when things get really out of hand. Well, these nations who take to the streets and overthrow a tyrant instead of flailing about helplessly and whining to each other, they've got the heuvos to make democracy mean something.

When the politicians and the comitees and the endless debates, the lies, the mudslinging, the corporate payola, the broken promises, the passing of blame and general failiure to obey the will of the people - when they all fail, sitting around and voting for Kerry ain't gonna help. When it comes to the point when the Left is the Right and the Right is off the chart, being a pussy about it isn't going to change anything.

But thats just me aqnd I could be wrong.

Dude, Kerry and **** might both come from similar privileged backgrounds but you're as deluded as Ralph Nader if you think there's no fundamental difference between the two. let's examine the differences, shall we?

****: against the environment
Kerry: in favor of strong environmental protection

****: against a woman's right to choose an abortion
Kerry: in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion

****: in favor of budget deficits to fund tax cuts mainly for the wealthy
Kerry: favors tax cuts for the middle class and poor who need it more than the wealthy

****: favors unilaterally going to war with nations if we suspect they are a threat WITHOUT VERIFIABLE PROOF OF SUCH A THREAT
Kerry: favors diplomacy with our allies and strengthening ties with like-minded nations and going to war ALONGSIDE OUR ALLIES, BUT ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.

****: favors oil drilling in irreplaceable environmental preserves, instead of energy conservation
Kerry: favors energy conservation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources (like the Saudis, bless their religiously extremist hearts )

I'd go further, but it's late and you should have already gotten the point. (Rictor, I'm hoping that you're smarter than people  who wouldn't know the point if they sat on it.)

Originally posted by Rictor
also, were I an American, I'd vote for ****. Give the world four more years of Dubya, and then we'll see how far the American empire goes.

Wait, wait, this last statement doesn't make sense to me. If you were an American but hated the "American empire" (to use your words), you'd vote for four more years of it? How does THAT make sense? Or, if you were an American, you would WANT America to expand its empire? That doesn't seem to jibe with your earlier sentiments...

[Bobboau]

beacase Bush is being to overt about it and people see it.

wow, ether you'r an idealog or you copied that word for word off the DNC's webpage.

try this one,
Bush: corprate whore
Kerry: corprate whore

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Su-tehp
Wait, wait, this last statement doesn't make sense to me. If you were an American but hated the "American empire" (to use your words), you'd vote for four more years of it? How does THAT make sense? Or, if you were an American, you would WANT America to expand its empire? That doesn't seem to jibe with your earlier sentiments...

He's saying that if we leave **** in power for 4 more years, we'll be ganged up upon. Rather hard to form an empire when you're the one with sanctions upon you.

[Rictor]

Well, you're not taking one important thing into consideration. For me, and this is just crazy old me, domestic policy is irrelevant. Well, not irrelevant, but I could care less if 5% of the world's population gets an extra $200 tax cut or not. Kerry or Dubya, Americans have it generally good, and while there are differences between the two parties in matters of domestic policy, neither is going to cause mass starvation or anything of that sort.. Foreign policy is the be-all end-all of an American president for me. Cause their foreign policy (economic as well as military) affects 95% of the world.

My reasoning goes like this: the Democrats are trying to stay away from being Republicans-lite when it comes to domestic policy becuase it is the American people who choose the next government. They can't afford to be bastards towards the people who are going to put them into office, so they maintain some sembelance of "looking out for the working man" as you'de pointed out above. Not only that, but they also play the Black and ehtnic cards, as well as the feminist cards. What happens to some poor asshole in Nigeria doesn't concern them. However, they must not inconvenience the America people, or otherwise they won't win. And as long as the American people have it nice and cozy back home, they don't care what happens to the rest of the world, so they're going to choose the party which best serves their own interests, and not the world's. Hence the disparity between Democratic domestic and foreign policy.

Also, yes, I do want to see an end of what I call the American empire. Thats why I would vote for Dubya. See, when smooth talkin' Billy was in office, he had the world eating out of his hand. He was still as bad as ****, but he had a nice smily and could pretend to be your best friend. So the world was fooled, and failed to notice any of the harm that America's foreign policy was causing. With Dubya, he;s brought the world together. He's universally hated. So, just give the world more of **** to show them whats its really all about. If Kerry were elected, he'd manage to smooth talk his way out of the pit **** dug, with his talk of multilateralism, democracy, freedom and whatnot. He'd extent the proverbial olive branch, and the (First) world would forgive and forget.

Also,t he size of the mob does not make a war any more or less just. Having allies means nothing, it doesn't give credibility to a war. Its just means that a larger number of people have been fooled than would have otherwise been. F**k multilateralism, its just a nice excuse to cover your ass..

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Bobboau
because Bush is being to overt about it and people see it.

wow, ether you're an idealog or you copied that word for word off the DNC's webpage.

Yup, you guessed it, Bobby. I'm an idealogue. A Democratic idealogue, true, but an idealogue nonetheless. Welcome to the political landscape of a nation split 50/50 right down the middle.

If it comes to a choice between me and my fellow liberals or the anti-woman, anti-choice conservatives over who should run the USA, well, I choose me and my fellow liberals. In a 50/50 country, political survival means you HAVE to be an idealogue. There's no middle ground anymore. Anyone who thinks there is still a middle ground in American politics is fooling himself. Current conventional wisdom now holds that less than 5% of the American voting public is independent and/or undecided. That means that 95% has already decided one way or the other, so whoever wants to get elected has to get more voters of their party to the polls. And THAT means securing your base, which means being an idealogue for the causes you and your party champion. Hence Bush running to the right and Kerry going to the left.

Politics in a nation where the two separate halves each hold the other in contempt require nothing less. Sad, but true.

Man, I'm just as cynical as Bush himself, aren't I? oh, well...

Originally posted by Bobboau
try this one,
Bush: corporate whore
Kerry: corporate whore

Yes, well, guess what? Money talks, bullsh!t walks. I don't like it, but we might as well deal with the reality. Our political system does have its flaws, but I have yet to see a better one.

[Rictor]

Wait, so Kerry falls under the "my fellow Liberals" category? Excuse me? I understand a nation split down the middle bit, but not your solution. Sure, the Libertarians walk between the Democrats and the GOP, but they're not going to get elected. I happen to like them becuase they're an isolationist bunch, but still have the low-government side that appeals to conservatives. The Dems can by no rational means be counted as "the Liberal Left". Barring Blair, no nation in the world would be inclined to label Kerry a Liberal.

With everyone concentrating on the next term or two, you loose sight of the long-term situation. And that is that the Democrats are and will continue to slide towards the right, while the right continues to slide off into...god only knows. It doesn't matter who wins this round, what matters is that Americans are now stuck with a 2 party system that is starting to look very uninviting and dare I say, undemocratic. This is becuase most people still live in a two-party world, and only wackos vote for independents. I can understand being passionate about your party of choice, I would be too, so long as they upheld the value which they are supposed to stand for. But in 5-10 years, all thats going to be left of the Democrats is the name. Why not support Nader or your third party candidate of choice? If everyone always votes for the lesser of two evils, thats all you're ever going to get. Sure, this election, a vote for Nader (or someone else) is basically a vote wasted. But a few elections here and there is less important than building the *atmosphere* in which a third party stands a real chance. As long as people think they have only two choices, the Dems and Reps will be able to get away with anything. All they need to do is tell their supporters "we may not be perfect, but its either us or THEM, so vote for us". Its a two party monopoly...

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, er, sort of...

I think of the two party system as the biggest problem with modern American politics.

No such thing as a two party system. It is not imposed on us. We, as voters impse upon our selves. Aside from that, I am voting for the libertarian canidate mainly because I don't like Kerry either.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Su-tehp
(You know what that means? If there isn't life on other planets, then this rally qualifies as the largest protest march in the history of the Universe!)

Er... sorry...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1889102.stm

(all I could find in 2 min...)

:EDIT:
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=54365

[Goober5000]

Er... why is the abortion argument always phrased in terms of women's lives?  Is the right to get an abortion really a life-or-death issue?

Well, it is, but not for the woman.

[Rictor]

No one can miss their life if they are not aware they have it in the first place. A fetus is not conscious, hence it does not know it is alive. It comes down to "I think therefore I am". Until it is born, its just a bunch of tissue and bone. That definition may not sit well with many of you, but it is. Its interesting to note that most people opposed to abortion believe in God. This however, should not affect a woman's right to choose what happens to her baby. In my mind, a fetus or embryo is not sacred, it just an organic "bunch of stuff". What if the pregnancy is unwanted, or a result of rape? A child should not be born as a result of an accident or a leaky condom. It should be a deliberate decision by the parents.

[Turambar]

its an organic "bunch of stuff" that is invaluable to scientific research in the curing of so many diseases and healing so many individuals!!

[an0n]

Bah. They should outlaw all abortion. If you're ****ing stupid enough to get knocked up, being forced to have a kid is a very suitable punishment.

And even after the ****er is born, you can still put it up for adoption.

There is absolutely no need for abortions.

And before you start *****in' about rape pregnancies, I'll remind you of a little thing called the "morning after pill".

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Er... why is the abortion argument always phrased in terms of women's lives?  Is the right to get an abortion really a life-or-death issue?

Well, it is, but not for the woman.

It sometimes can be. There are a large number of medical conditions where trying to carry a baby to term could easily be fatal for the mother. Many pro-lifers would have her carry the child regardless.

Originally posted by an0n
Bah. They should outlaw all abortion. If you're ****ing stupid enough to get knocked up, being forced to have a kid is a very suitable punishment.

And even after the ****er is born, you can still put it up for adoption.

There is absolutely no need for abortions.

And before you start *****in' about rape pregnancies, I'll remind you of a little thing called the "morning after pill".

With the exception of the condom and the pill all the other forms of contraception are about 80-90% effective. You want to limit peoples choice to them?

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Rictor
No one can miss their life if they are not aware they have it in the first place. A fetus is not conscious, hence it does not know it is alive. It comes down to "I think therefore I am".

Actually, by your definition of living, fetuses are alive. They're brains are active after a few months. Hence, they're alive by your definition.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by karajorma
It sometimes can be. There are a large number of medical conditions where trying to carry a baby to term could easily be fatal for the mother. Many pro-lifers would have her carry the child regardless.

So if you feel that way, provide an exception for if the mother if her life is clearly in danger.*  Compared to the total number of abortions that take place, though, this is a very small percentage.  People shouldn't have carte blanche to have an abortion.

Incidentally, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortions wouldn't become illegal overnight.  Regulation would simply shift back to the states.  If your state happens to outlaw abortion, have it in another state.


* I'm throwing that out for argument's sake; I'm in favor of abortion being illegal in all circumstances.  The mother at this point has lived a significant part of her life already, whereas the infant's life is just beginning.  A century ago, people accepted death during childbirth as a tragic but normal occurrence.  But there's still Ceasarean sections and all the advances of modern medicine to improve the odds.

[Corsair]

A friend of mine went to the march. She said she saw a woman holding a sign that read, "I shaved my pussy to protest ****."

[Bobboau]

here's an idea I had on a compromise between the two sides. how's this, a constitutional amendment that absolutely gratns a womans right to an abortion during the first three months (or in cases of medical neseity for the remaining 6), but bans them (with medical exeption) in the last 3. the remaining 3 in the middle would be up to states/local governments.

[Rictor]

So you believe that a baby is any more alive in the third trimester than in the first? On almost every definition of "alive" (from both sides), the stage of the pregnancy is irrelevant. If you believe that babies are God's creatures or whatever, that starts with a single cell. Or if you believe that babies are not alive until they're born, possibly later, the stage is also irrelevant.

Aren't conservatives supporters of limited government? I fail to see how this is an example of limited government interference. Actually, its the exact opposite. I don't see how the government could be interefering any more than it is. Abortion is a private decision, not a public one.

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Actually, by your definition of living, fetuses are alive. They're brains are active after a few months. Hence, they're alive by your definition.

I never said "active brains", I said conscious. As in aware that they are alive.

[Turambar]

All Politics: Say one thing, do another.  That's why an idealist like me needs to take over the world and fix the system so that good nice honest moral nonreligious people can rise in society.  Like that will ever happen...

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Incidentally, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortions wouldn't become illegal overnight.  Regulation would simply shift back to the states.  If your state happens to outlaw abortion, have it in another state.

Have an abortion in another state? That  situation already exists. 87% of all US counties DON'T have an abortion provider. For the poor women who need an abortion the most, they can't afford to make the trip to another state to get the abortion. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, the situation would be made even worse, as many states would immediately move to make state-run abortion illegal in all cases. That's why abortions need to stay legal in every state.

Sorry, Goob. That dog won't hunt.

Originally posted by Rictor
Aren't conservatives supporters of limited government? I fail to see how this is an example of limited government interference. Actually, its the exact opposite. I don't see how the government could be interefering any more than it is. Abortion is a private decision, not a public one.

Now this is exactly why I say conservatives are hypocrites. They're all for getting the government out of people's lives, unless, of course, the people want to do something that would go against "christian values." Then the conservatives are all for government regulation.

As for Rictor saying that abortion is a private decision, not a public one, he hit the nail on the head here. I'm not "pro-abortion," I'm pro-choice. If you don't like abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.