2006 Senate Midterm Elections (or "Who do you want to ruin America this time?") [Archive]

View Full Version : 2006 Senate Midterm Elections (or "Who do you want to ruin America this time?")

mr_pikachu

1st November 2006, 06:56 PM

November 7 is a big day for the U.S. Senate, as Democrats will attempt to wrest control from the Republicans, who have held the Senate Majority since 2002.

33 Senate seats will be contested this year. Of those uncontested, 40 are Republicans and 27 are Democrats. The Republican Party must hold 10 seats in order to preserve a 50-50 tie in the Senate. (They would retain the majority, as Vice President Cheney breaks all ties in the Senate, giving the edge to the Republican Party.)

Due to recent events both foreign and domestic, the Democratic Party has an opportunity to swipe the seats they need to win the Senate. This has Republicans playing defense in order to win several extremely close races.

Below are the states in which Senate seats are up for grabs.

Arizona
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Indiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

According to the current totals (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/senateBalanceofPower.htm) compiled by Rasmussen Reports, eight of the 33 races appear to be safe wins for Republicans, while Democrats look to control 17. Three more races are leaning somewhat toward the Democrats. This leaves the GOP with 48 seats, Democrats with 47, and five races that are too close to call. Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, Virginia, and New Jersey may be the most critical states in deciding what party controls the Senate for the next two years.

So, what are your thoughts on this year's Senate elections? Which party do you think will win the Senate, and who do you want to control it? C'mon, I know you have something to say!

Roy Karrde

1st November 2006, 07:20 PM

FINALLLY A political topic.

Anyway a fairly down the line talk show in the DFW area did the numbers a few days ago and it looked around 50 for Republicans and 48 for Democrats. That is until John Kerry decided to comit political suicide and possibly take his whole party with him. Now the news of what he has said has been circulating around and it has energised alot of people that have friends and loved ones in Iraq. Ever since it has happened people have been calling up saying that they are pissed as hell, and didn't plan to vote on election day, but now will just to get back at John Kerry.

And this radio show is not Rush, this guy: Mark Davis, spent a hour today talking about it and even admitted that we should give Kerry the benifit of a doubt about messing up. Anyway if emotions are this strong in Dallas, which is the second biggest liberal state in Texas next to Austin. Then I can't even imagine what reaction is around the rest of the US and how much the democrats will lose.

As for who I want to win? There was a AP story that came out yesterday saying that several middle eastern countries hope that Democrats win so that Bush will be forced to take less of a hard line against Syria and Iran. I think that right there tells you who shouldn't win and what our enemies are hoping for in the outcome of this election.

Jeff

1st November 2006, 07:56 PM

Maryland has been leaning to the left in our Senate race but Steele (R) and Cardin (D) have been neck and neck a couple of times, so it could be close, you never know.

We also have the governor's seat up for grabs, incumbent Bob Ehrlich (R) vs. Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D). As you can tell by my sig I'm voting for Ehrlich, I've been rooting for him ever since he had the you-know-whats to stand up to the democrat-controlled legislature by vetoing their Wal-Mart bill and their minimum wage hike. Both vetos were overridden, but at least he showed he didn't want business leaving the state. Too bad it's backfiring on him, O'Malley's ads are now attacking him for "siding with the corporations" by vetoing those bills. I hate election year politics, I really do, that's why I'm voting for the guy that didn't put up with that BS back at the beginning of the year. So yes, I am definitely voting!

Edit: oh yeah, and I completely forgot about Kerry, that might be the reason for Steele's latest boost (neck and neck now). And I can't believe Kerry tried to spin around his comment and try and claim he meant Bush and not the troops, when his exact words were "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Those were his exact words, straight from the horse's mouth (sorry couldn't resist that one :P), and it seems alot of other people aren't buying his excuse either. All I can say now is that these races are going to be pretty interesting now.

Edit again, found quote...

mr_pikachu

1st November 2006, 08:35 PM

Yeah, I forgot to mention that. The "joke" could end up being a significant factor, despite Kerry not competing for any seat himself. That's the sort of statement that could really wound his party at a critical time.

I have to say, I liked Cheney's (somewhat predictable) response: "Of course, now Senator Kerry says he was just making a joke, and he botched it up. I guess we didn't get the nuance. He was for the joke before he was against it."

We'll see if and how this shifts the balance in the close races.

Blademaster

1st November 2006, 08:50 PM

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

...

That's it? That's what everyone has been pitching a fit about?

...Hm, gee...

The guys from that 'Is this what you'd expect from your military' topic a few months ago are in Iraq...

...And guys like Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates are hanging around in the U.S. doing something that actually helps people.

Well, no wonder people are so angry. :rolleyes:

Roy Karrde

1st November 2006, 08:56 PM

Ummm Blade that made no sense. Anyway yeah that is why everyone is so mad. Basically he degraded the military, he attacked those that put their lives on the line each and every day. He called them either lazy, stupid, or a combination of such. Either way this is a US Representative that is attacking those that have decided to devote their life to this country. And his three day refusal to apologize makes it even worse. Democrats and such can spin it so much that it makes a tornado, but in the end he said something hurtful to those that are in the army and he should have apologized the first day. Not the second, not the third, not the millionth, but the first day. Instead he spent 72 hours trying to spin it and lie about it, and he deserves what ever fall out he and his party gets from it.

mr_pikachu

1st November 2006, 09:02 PM

Valid point, Roy. It's especially damaging because of the time at which he did this. At the end of campaigns, candidates have to be extremely fast at responding to attacks - it's a matter of hours, not days. Kerry waiting for a full three days while allowing his party to take a bunch of heat could potentially be the turning point.

And Blade, I think the point is that he essentially called our soldiers, who have been dying on a daily basis for the U.S., "stupid" and "undisciplined." Any validity his point may have had is disregarded when he's insulting people who are falling for their nation. It's not the time or the place.

Blademaster

1st November 2006, 09:14 PM

......

Uh...... K.

Good point.

...He waited three days? Damn it... I gotta start watching the news...

No, that's too painful - I'll just avoid topics like this. Sorry. :(

(leaves)

mr_pikachu

1st November 2006, 09:17 PM

Do you think I watch the news? Hell no! I read stuff off the internet to get my information!

The way I see it, all television, newspaper and even radio media is now so heavily biased that it's impossible to get a clear picture of the world. At least with the net, I can roll the dice and pray that what I'm seeing is accurate.

Don't leave, Blademaster. We want you around; after all, even if you're not always right, you can still help to inspire discussion. ^_^

Blademaster

1st November 2006, 09:32 PM

(comes back)

Well, thanks.

And I used to get info from the Comcast homepage, but now that I have my own laptop, I just turn the Internet Explorer on and come right here. Being lazy is a blessing and a curse...

But I will agree on two counts:

1. TV and radio are Hella-biased, not to mention boring as Hell. At least the Internet is easy on the eyes and you can come back later when you get bored.

2. Getting somewhere back on topic, Kerry waiting three days was a pretty stupid decision, but in all honesty, was one bad joke really that big of a screw-up? I mean, Bush, who has probably screwed up more than any President in U.S. history (which I won't say I agree or disagree with), gets re-elected for a second presidential term... And Kerry may lose the Senate election for a joke?

I mean, I don't care if Kerry wins, loses, goes back to the Addams Family manor, whatever, but if he loses primarily because of a joke...

When I first saw this topic, I thought it said 'Who do you want to RUN America this time... But now I see it says 'ruin.'

Hmmmmmmmm...

Roy Karrde

1st November 2006, 09:37 PM

Yeah Blade stick around man, we havn't had a good discussion in like forever.

Anyway Bush always gets blamed for his mistakes, hell we even named it called Bushisms, yet Kerry should get a free pass? He should get ridiculed just as much Bush does, and you know if Bush said something like this. He would be flamed to pieces.

Also one thing I don't get is people always say "Bush is screwed up" or "Bush screws up" I wanna ask how so? We are enjoying the highest economic growth in years, the stock market is doing huge, consumer confidence is high, industries are raking in record growth. And for the first time in a long time America is not seen as a Paper Tiger that can be pushed around. Bush's domestic and economic policies are doing great things for this country, yet people say he is screwed up. My question is what is he screwing up?

mr_pikachu

1st November 2006, 09:41 PM

Also one thing I don't get is people always say "Bush is screwed up" or "Bush screws up" I wanna ask how so? We are enjoying the highest economic growth in years, the stock market is doing huge, consumer confidence is high, industries are raking in record growth. And for the first time in a long time America is not seen as a Paper Tiger that can be pushed around. Bush's domestic and economic policies are doing great things for this country, yet people say he is screwed up. My question is what is he screwing up?

People are upset because war costs lives.

...

...Yeah. That's about it.

I will admit that maybe we could afford to move to the next stage of our plan for Iraq, because it does seem like all we're doing now is spinning our wheels with little effect. I think we might be able to turn over more control to the Iraqis, because it won't get much better than it is now. But then again, I never would've gotten us this far, so who am I to judge?

Blademaster

1st November 2006, 09:50 PM

Yeah Blade stick around man, we havn't had a good discussion in like forever.

Good discussion? I had to give up like halfway through because you were too smart and verbose (whatever the typed version of 'verbose' is) for me! :lookout:

Anyway Bush always gets blamed for his mistakes, hell we even named it called Bushisms, yet Kerry should get a free pass?

Oh, no no no no no, by all means, I agree - all I'm saying is that I don't think that if/when Kerry loses, he shouldn't solely (or primarily) because of a joke. I won't defend what he said as 'freedom of speech' or whatever else, but considering some of the royal screw-ups in the history of the country (not by Bush, eiter, but by folks like Nixon, Clinton, Raegan, etc.), I really think it'd be unfair for Kerry to lose over a joke, as opposed to something more pressing like being un-qualified for the postion he's running for (Not that I think he is - I don't follow politics, so I don't know if he's the man for the job or not.).

We are enjoying the highest economic growth in years

Wait, seriously? I thought the country had like an $8,00,000,000,000 deficit or something...

Or is that something else that I should've researched before saying? :sweat:

EDIT:
But then again, I never would've gotten us this far, so who am I to judge?

Why, because you're the Judge of Everything, of course! :D

Jeff

1st November 2006, 09:55 PM

Budget =/= economy.

Stock market & GDP = ecomomy.

The Dow has recently hit the 12000 milestone and continues to climb, we're doing alright :)

mr_pikachu

1st November 2006, 09:57 PM

Well, Kerry isn't up for re-election; he'll retain his Senate seat. The main thing this has done is to take some of the heat off the Republicans - especially for their connections to Bush, whose popularity is steadily declining - and to create an easy target for the Democratic Party as a whole. Kerry's not hurting himself, per se, but he's damaged the image of his party.

Roy Karrde

1st November 2006, 09:57 PM

The country has a high national debt, that is true, we do that by spending and spending. But you do not try to balance your budget when facing a National Depression as what happened post 9/11. Back in the Great Depression the Presidents thought it would be smart to try and balance the budget instead of spend, in the end we spent ten plus years in a depression. It wasn't until we started spending and spending and growing a debt and such in World War 2 that we came out of the Depression.

But what I mean by saying National Economic Growth is that with the Bush tax cuts, people are getting money back, there by they are spending money, and companies are making more money. In turn they are turning around and spending it and the cycle grows bigger and bigger. In turn lets say we decided to not spend money post 9/11 and grow a large national debt. The plane companies would go under becuase people would not be spending money to fly. People would also be saving money instead of spending it since they wouldn't be getting money from the tax cuts. Thus causing more and more people being laid off, and instead of having a 4.5? Percent unemployment, we would be faced with one in the double digets.

mr_pikachu

1st November 2006, 10:00 PM

Well said, Roy. It's ironic, actually. If you look at economics historically, tax cuts usually boost the economy rather than hurt it. (The few exceptions are usually for powerful reasons such as depressions, wars, etc.)

On the other hand, the economy works in a cyclical manner. If I remember correctly, it tends to go in cycles of about 30 years. It'll rise for awhile, and then it'll fall back. That's just the way it tends to work.

Blademaster

1st November 2006, 10:05 PM

...

Bri, Ryan, Jeff, you all have just taught me more about economics in 2 minutes than I learned in 9 months of high school.

Praise the Lord, it's a miracle! :dance:

Roy Karrde

2nd November 2006, 12:32 AM

I dunno if this goes along with the topic but National Geographic is running a documentary called "Inside Saddam's Reign of Terror" and my god some of the stuff in there. The dead bodies of children, how they look like dolls just laying in the street. How he wiped out 4,000 villages of people. Killing thousands. One thing I noticed that was interesting is that in the early 80s, Saddam was in a drawn out war with Iran. Now people like to say that Saddam is better than Bush and all that.

Well when people disagreed with Saddam on the war, he killed them. One of the videos they showed, they took people that disagreed with the war, straped Gernades to their chest, and blowing them up. Next time some one says Saddam is better than Bush or Bush is worse than Saddam, think about what would have happened if you said something like that against Saddam in the early 80s.

Also another thing is what Saddam said to the killing of hundreds of thousands, when one of his commanders asked about the International Community he reacted violently: "International Community? F*** The International Community! They will do nothing to me" and they never did. I have never seen a better reason for the UN to be gone than for the very reason of them standing around as Hundreds of thousands die!

I hope National Geographic runs this over and over again in the next week, people have gotten too relaxed about why we are in Iraq.

180 Mass Graves: Estimated 300,000 Bodies, and that is just the Mass Graves, not the Bio Weapons he used against towns too.

Heald

2nd November 2006, 05:10 AM

Maybe it's because I'm not Yosemite Sam, but regardless of what Kerry said, only an idiot would get so pissed off by it. Pissed off enough, in fact, to vote Republican 'out of spite'. Ever heard of don't tar everyone with the same brush, ladies and gentlemen? After Ted Stevens made ridiculous comments about the 'series of tubes', no one thought, "LOL REPUBLICANS DONT KNOW JACKSHIT ABOUT 20TH CENTURY TECHNOLOGY THEY CAN'T RUN THE COUNTRY." The fact is, all politicians have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the Intertron, video games, rap music etc. (but it still doesn't stop them from regulating it).

Also, yes Saddam was an evil sonuvva. No one is denying that. However, just because a country is run by an evil sonuvva is no reason to invade it. Or, if it is, why hasn't the US invaded the numerous African nations under military dictatorships that often commit evil acts much like Saddam? Well, obviously it must be because Bush had a napkin with 'WMDs in Iraq' handed to him in red crayon by Rumsfeld. Also, Iraq has oil.

mr_pikachu

2nd November 2006, 05:32 AM

Well, I'm not going to argue that people should vote against the Democrats just because of Kerry's comments. But I will say that I've heard worse reasons. Freudian slip or not, it's happened before, and people have made the same foolish response... at the expense of both parties. This is just another part of the endless lesson of "Politicians should be seen and not heard."

Why did we take greater action against Iraq than many of the African nations, you ask? Two reasons.

One, there was a greater perceived threat from Iraq. All the intelligence we had said that Iraq had nukes. What else does a president have to go on but that? He's certainly not going to use a ouija board to test the conclusions of field agents. In the end, all you can do is make the best possible decision based on the information you have.

Two, we have a finite amount of resources. While many seem to think we have all sorts of power to spare, in reality we've called troops from all over the military to be deployed in the Middle East. I'm not going to get into the argument of how many troops we should have in Iraq. Frankly, I think we could afford to move to the next stage of the plan by turning over a few more degrees of power; I don't see things getting much better than they are now with the current level of troops. But if we assume the presence of this many troops in Iraq, then we'd have to be idiots to try to deploy even more elsewhere. And to be frank, I'm a lot more concerned with North Korea right now than I am with Africa. Sorry, but again we have a greater perceived threat.

But that's an issue for another topic, methinks. For now, with all the attacking already happening throughout the various campaigns across the board, do you think that Kerry's comments will make a significant difference? Or will they merely be a single drop in the tidal wave of remarks?

Heald

2nd November 2006, 06:44 AM

One, there was a greater perceived threat from Iraq. All the intelligence we had said that Iraq had nukes. What else does a president have to go on but that? He's certainly not going to use a ouija board to test the conclusions of field agents. In the end, all you can do is make the best possible decision based on the information you have.I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. What intelligence exactly? Iraq had jackshit in terms of WMDs or in fact anything. The most harmful thing they had was a batty old woman with a pointy stick. I fail to see how any intelligence could have pointed to anything near them possessing WMDs. You can't have evidence for something that just isn't there. What the government SAYS is intelligence is actually in fact spin, guessing topped off with a fine layer of horseshit. All in the build-up to the war, both our governments were like 'OMGZORS IRAQ HAS LIEK 10 MILLION NUKES WE HAVE TO REPOSSESS THEMZORS!' but when we nailed Saddam, they completely forgot about the WMDs and all they could say was 'WE GOT HIM LOL PANCAKE'. Ever since we nailed Saddam, both our governments have completely ignored any allegations that they were ever looking for WMDs.

Also, about the finite resources and the greater perceived threat, then fine, I agree, but I was merely countering the argument that the Iraq war can be justified by saying we ended a regime that kills civilians everyday (and replaced it with another one), but in both aspects war against Iraq was and still is completely unjustified. If you go for the 'ending a tyrannical regime' angle, there are countries out there that make Iraq seem like a haven, whereas if you go for the 'greater perceived threat', there are many more countries out there that are a far greater threat to us. Hell, you only have to change the last letter in Iraq to N and you've got one right there.

Roy Karrde

2nd November 2006, 08:45 AM

Remember Heald that the WMD Intelligence was verified by intel agencies all over the world. Not only that but as of a few years ago British Intel released a report about Iraq attempting to buy Nigerian Yellow Cake uranium. The report says and I quote:

"We also have intelligence that Iraq has sought large amounts of uranium and uranium oxide, known as yellowcake, from Africa. Yellowcake is an essential ingredient in the process to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Buying Yellow Cake Uranium or trying to buy it is against the UN Resolution placed on Iraq and can be used as a delcaration of war against the country. Also the whole declaration of war against Iraq was nine parts, WMD's were only one of those parts. Besides it doesn't matter if he had them or not, he was trying to get them, his own records have stated that they had the knowledge and was only waiting for the western world to leave them alone. And deciding to play hide and go seak with the Weapons inspectors for ten years was more then enough to take his ass down.

Musourenka

2nd November 2006, 10:45 AM

Personally, I don't really care who gets elected; the situation will not improve either way, so I simply refuse to vote.

Heald

2nd November 2006, 04:24 PM

Remember Heald that the WMD Intelligence was verified by intel agencies all over the world.If everyone says 2 plus 2 is 5, it still doesn't make it any more true.
Not only that but as of a few years ago British Intel released a report about Iraq attempting to buy Nigerian Yellow Cake uranium. The report says and I quote:

Buying Yellow Cake Uranium or trying to buy it is against the UN Resolution placed on Iraq and can be used as a delcaration of war against the country. Also the whole declaration of war against Iraq was nine parts, WMD's were only one of those parts. Besides it doesn't matter if he had them or not, he was trying to get them, his own records have stated that they had the knowledge and was only waiting for the western world to leave them alone. And deciding to play hide and go seak with the Weapons inspectors for ten years was more then enough to take his ass down.British Intelligence also said Saddam could kill us all within 45 minutes. Call me pessimistic, but that leaves me somewhat skeptical of British Intel.

Roy Karrde

2nd November 2006, 04:34 PM

Then again Heald we are talking about something much, much more deadlier than 2 plus 2.

Anyway Heald and I have agreed to get back on topic. One thing that I have noticed and is really bugging me, is the news coverage in the past few days on the net. I can't stand Rush not do I believe his paranoid view that everyone in the media is out to get the Republicans. With that in mind the only news that I have seen the last few days either on Yahoo or MSN is how the Republicans are going to lose. It is almost as if they have decided that the election has ended and the Republicans have already lost. Yahoo is running a story on how the Kerry story has not affected polls, which in turn they cannot be sure of since it has only been a few days since the story broke. And MSN has a three page article about a landslide democrat victory. On the last page, with about a paragraph of space, they have devoted coverage to the least possible scenaro, a Republican Victory.

Off year elections are always the hardest to judge, becuase if you do not poll one neighborhood it can throw off the whole poll. But the whole way these articles seem to be pimping the Democrats I wonder if they already have Democrat Victory articles drawn up for Tuesday.

Heald

2nd November 2006, 04:52 PM

Me? I love the stupids ads floating around Youtube. Like these gems:

Anti-Ron Kind - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLWbS5dkotQ

Someone compares video games to pedophilia - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVeUwnjhZU8

The WRONG KIND - RON KIND!

EDIT: I realise that the last one was a Governor one, I don't care, eat shit etc.
EDIT 2: I also realise Ron Kind is a Congressman, stop electing so many assholes, you pricks.

Roy Karrde

2nd November 2006, 05:59 PM

The second ad it says "Outlaw Violent or Pornographic Video Games" anyway I actually support the second ad even though it goes against the industry I am working so hard to get into. NO not Pedophillia, Video Games. The reason I support the Ad is becuase I wouldn't mind seeing the death penilty used for Child Molesters.

Child Molesters and Rapists, those are the two sickning things in society that you cannot rehabilitate through treatment, thus since they become no use to society and a danger to those around them. Why should we let them out of jail?

mr_pikachu

2nd November 2006, 06:28 PM

The problem with that argument is that of course we know better now. Hindsight is 20/20. But when any decision is made, all you can do is use what information is available at the time. You can't go back later and argue that something was a stupid decision based on information we didn't have then.

Now, if he'd gone against intel that said there was no threat, then there'd be a legitimate argument. But when every intel source you can find says there are WMDs, can you honestly say that you'd distrust every single one of them despite the lack of any counter-argument?

Roy Karrde

2nd November 2006, 08:28 PM

I found a interesting news article on Yahoo. Basically a Senator is raising concerns about Military voting becuase of the possibility that hackers could hack the service and use it to make frad votes. Then again Frad votes are nothing new in American Politics, there was a story just a month ago about a Democrat group having over three thousand fradulant ballots registered with names of pets and dead people. All ready to be turned in. Anyway so should Military Troop ballots be allowed if there is a possibility for hackers? And here is a better question, the party affiliation of the person bringing up the question, and the time it is being brought up, brings up the possibility that this could be a way to stop Military Vote retaliation against Kerry's comments.

So what do you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_el_ge/voting_military

DarkTemplarZero

2nd November 2006, 08:56 PM

I missed the cutoff here, I turned 18 just a bit too late to register >.<

And anyway, I don't see what the fuss about Kerry's comments are, everyone knows that it's true. Only people who have dirt low IQ's in the 80's and below (i.e. the entire fourth world country of Texas) or people who are overly religious, too stupid to understand "thou shalt not kill", and want to hold a gun and blow people to smithereens in God's mercy would voluntarily sign up for a profession where their job is to kill.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/08/us-army-creating-iq-test-for-iraqi.html

But where I stand is both sides are idiot conservatives who care about nothing but themselves and are screwing the world, but the Democrats seem to support human rights a bit more ("seems" because quite a few of them including both the dispicable excuses for toxic waste that we call New Jersey senators voted for the Military Commissions Act >.< ) and so if I could, I'd vote Democratic. But whatever, Jon Stewart for President in 2008!

Roy Karrde

2nd November 2006, 09:02 PM

You know DarkTemplarZero I'm a conservative, from the as you call it fourth world country of Texas, religous, and have several friends in the army and even considered inlisting when I got out of High School after 9/11 happened. I find your comments sick, very very bigoted toward people that give their lives in the service of their country.

You may say you turned 18, but your comments make you look like as if you had just turned eight. Also if you want to say it is the military's job to kill, tell those to the military that police the streets of Iraq to keep the citizens safe. That take part in rebuilding missions of schools and homes.

Also your comments about conservatives prove that you have no idea what conservatism is about. I would suggest shuting up before you make yourself look even more like a idiot.

Jeff

2nd November 2006, 09:16 PM

From my point of view, it's not that the republicans care "only about themselves" it's that the democrats seem more interested in individual interests while the republicans are looking out for the greater good. For example, the democrats here in Maryland, like I said before, pushed through bills that raised minimum wage, and forced health care requirements on Wal-Mart. Our republican governor, vetoed the bills knowing good and well that they would likely cause businesses to stop doing business here, thus causing the state to lose jobs. But the democrats don't care, as long as they can say "look, we raised minimum wage, that's more money for the little guy, were on your side!". It's really disgusting.

DarkTemplarZero

2nd November 2006, 09:27 PM

"It is a sweet and seemly thing to die for one's country" - Horace.

What a load of crap.

Let me tell you what Conservativism is about; Conservativism is about harming others to help yourself. Conservativism is saying that "every sentient being is sacred" while advocating the death penalty and invading Iraq to the tune of, by some estimates, 300,000 civilian deaths. Conservativism is believing that whoever doesn't think and act exactly as you do, if they don't follow the same religion, or are of the same sexual orientation then that is cause to discriminate against them. Conservativism is about believing that stem cell research is wrong, even if those embryos wouldn't exist if it wasn't for extensive embryonic research. Conservativism is saying that evolution is "just a theory" without understanding what a scientific theory actually is (There's also the General Theory of Relativity, although I don't see you saying that curvature in space-time is simply an illusion created by God). Conservativism is the belief that you can end conflict by killing everyone opposing you. Conservativism, quite frankly, is evil.

Hahah come on, let's debate.

SuperSonicMewtwo

2nd November 2006, 09:35 PM

DarkTemplarZero, can you really be serious? To define conservatism in that way is to say liberalism is the idea of letting people run rampent in the streets, get high off of everything and everything, have no rules and tax the hell out of those who are successful. Which is not true, neither my previous statement, nor yours, are true about liberals or conservatives.

What you have done is taken such an extremist view that it can't be even understood as a view but purely as uninformed and a refusual to be educated. Am I saying that what I think to myself is right? No. I say that you are judging people hypocritically-"is believing that whoever doesn't think and act exactly as you do...is evil." your statement is so solid, that really, you've just said that you hate conservatives by them being so different from you. you just called yourself evil.

Roy Karrde

2nd November 2006, 09:37 PM

Wrong sadly, Conservatism at it's ideal is about less Government, it is about less Government spending and more focus on smaller Government and local Government. Which is why Bush has never been a Conservative when it comes down to him expanding the size of Government and his spending.

But it seems you would rather AIM hack. I would suggest spending your time on better things like maybe cracking open a Government book.

DarkTemplarZero

2nd November 2006, 09:46 PM

There's a difference, I judge people based on how they treat others. Social conservativism and religious fanaticism have caused so much pain and suffering it's hard not to have an extremist view against them. When I see people who say that it is alright to hold people without charge and torture them, I, as a human being, have a hard time not reacting extremely. When I see people who oppose stem cell research, kill innocent civilians in Iraq, and support the death penalty, I have a hard time not reacting extremely to murder. I don't know about you, but when people suffer and die I don't accept that as "necessary" or "inevitable".

rofl AIM hack? What? Just because I imed you and you wouldn't respond? Right. And anyway, that is conservativism in theory, but unfortunately theory is not practice. You might want to read the news once in a while to see what your government is actually doing, not what it should be doing.

Blademaster

2nd November 2006, 09:50 PM

conservatism (kuhn-SERV-uh-TIZZ-uhm)
–noun
1. the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

liberalism (LIH-buhr-uhl-IZZ-uhm
–noun
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

~Dictionary.com

There. Those are the simplest-but-still-thorough definitions I could find.

Roy: You're right and you're also wrong.
Zero: You're right and you're also wrong.

Everyone happy? Good.

So let's get back to the topic at hand, OK? This thread is about the Senate elections, not about whether conservatism is bad or not.

-Blade

Roy Karrde

2nd November 2006, 09:51 PM

I know what my Government is actually doing, and I support some of it while not others. But I do find it interesting that the minute, the very minute you start AIMing me, some one tries to AIM hack me. Very very suspicious if you ask me.

Back on topic, please do not attempt to say that one party is better than the other or saying one is evil. There are valid reasons for the support of the Death Penalty as I hold, and for the opposition to stem cell research. Believing that anyone is okay with the death of innocent civilians anywhere in the world, shows just how small of a view you have of the world and even others in the United States. If you want I can spout off things Liberals have done, and the views they hold that hurt the world. But unlike you I will hold myself to a higher standard.

Also try and get some better AIM hacks man.

DarkTemplarZero

2nd November 2006, 10:01 PM

One, if I tried to hack you, you wouldn't know it and I wouldn't have failed, trust me.

Two, I do not see any valid reason for the opposition of stem cell research, especially if you support the death penalty and the war in Iraq (at least one that doesn't involve hypocrisy).

Three, the Texas conservative who supports war says I have a small world view. The one who thinks that you can win the war on terror just by killing a few hundred thousand militants and civilians. I think that speaks for itself.

Four, I think you really need to get laid.

Five, Bulbasaur4 has really nice cleavage. If I was single I'd hit it
http://www.pokemasters.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=34208.0;attach=836 9;image
Rawr.

Roy Karrde

2nd November 2006, 10:07 PM

If you tried to hack me or not, it doesn't matter becuase who ever it was failed, but your timing is very suspicious.

As for your pissy responce, I think I will let your sorry comments speak for itself at how sad of a person you are. Anyway lets try and get back on topic as Blade suggested.

DarkTemplarZero

2nd November 2006, 10:10 PM

Clark

2nd November 2006, 10:10 PM

Five, Bulbasaur4 has really nice cleavage. If I was single I'd hit it
http://www.pokemasters.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=34208.0;attach=836 9;image
Rawr.

holy shit batman...
one, rawr is an understatement.
two, aim hacks? what are you 12? lol just because a couple people messaged you, doesnt mean you got hacked, no one wants your name LOL
three, so obviously you must be against abortion, but allowing our families to die in the desert for something that won't put more food on our tables.
four, is homeofmew in pikachu suit a worthy reason to support war?
five, keep posting, this is entertainment at its finest.

SuperSonicMewtwo

2nd November 2006, 10:17 PM

LOUD NOISES!!!!

all politics aside, posting a link to a picture and a comment like that about ANYONE is incredibly rude.

and picking a random line from ACE135CC's list, no, war doesn't put more food on our tables. It keeps other people from coming over here and shooting you in the face. You still get the chance to eat.

actually, i take that back, the military pays well, so it DOES help food get on the table.

DarkTemplarZero

2nd November 2006, 10:21 PM

First of all, don't think quoting 40 Year Old Virgin will stop me, although that was a great movie. Hahah calling somebody hot is rude? It's a complement! Damn.

Actually, war does put oil on Bush's table. He makes quite the bitchload of money from all those oil refineries he made sure the army secured the instant they *ahem* "liberated" Iraq.

Clark

2nd November 2006, 10:24 PM

No one is going to shoot me in the face, thanks. Whats the point of the military paying well if those people will never see it! All those poor innocent boys/men/women dead because our president wants to take things that aren't his. Would you mind if your local government came to your house, killed everyone in your family just because they wanted your toaster or something? There is no point to this war other than to put us(US) in a larger national debt that we will never recover from.

SuperSonicMewtwo

2nd November 2006, 10:32 PM

to darktemplarzero: compliments involve words like 'pretty.'

I'll take the higher quality of living + the knowledge that I may not come home from work that day over having a dictator who executes entire villages and forces everyone he's not buds with to live in poverty, any day.

you get that view when, your entire life, you have the knowledge that your family members may die that day due to homicide bombers, and have to worry every day about it.

to ace135cc: well they already crashed 4 of our airplanes because we weren't paying as much attention. i think something like pointing a gun to someone's face is a little easier to pull off than crashing airplanes.

you join the military knowing the risk. whether or not a country is in peace time, it is a MILITARY and therefore, fighting shall be involved. if one dies protecting the country, i thank them, that they were working hard and even gave up their oppurtunity for life so that mine may go on, as well as Iraqis, Afganis, and everyone who otherwise would have been hurt by the militants that this soldier helped fight to bring down.

i can't make sense of your analogy. it actually sounds more like terrorism than what our military is doing- someone coming on your property and way of life, killing people to scare you and take what is yours.

Clark

2nd November 2006, 10:37 PM

Well, last time I checked, Iraq wasn't a state or a colony of the United States. So, why are we there? If they wish to kill each other, I see no problem. Less of them, less we have to lose. I say let nature run its course and then we can go implant McDonald's and Starbucks. Until then I don't see a point.

DarkTemplarZero

2nd November 2006, 10:41 PM

"Pretty"? That's so lame. I can understand "beautiful" or something like that, but pretty is just something you say when you have no guts to say anything else.

Second of all, don't think I don't know that my family members may die tomorrow in a terrorist attack. My dad and sister work in New York City. My internship is just across the Hudson. My dad was in the first tower that got hit on September 11. Don't lecture me about worrying about my family.

Next, I was born in the Soviet Union, raised to hearing stories about how my two of my ancestors were sent to Siberian labor camps in the middle of the night, one of them under Stalin. Don't lecture me about dictators.

The only way to prevent dictatorships is to give people peace and freedom, not take them away. There, I win.

SuperSonicMewtwo

2nd November 2006, 10:51 PM

why are we in iraq? let's see off the top of my head... i can't quote directly, so i'll have to paraphrase, "those who harbor terrorists ARE terrorists." i think that's a good enough reason.

gasp! he won! how? because his logic says he did! Bob Barker shall give you a prize, because you say you won.

explain to me though... let's say we have a country. with a dictator like Stalin. and he's doing his dictator thing. how exactly do you go about giving the people peace and freedom? do you just ask Stalin, hey dude, how about we let the people choose what they want? i'm getting the feeling it's NOT quite that easy to bring about democracy.

DarkTemplarZero

2nd November 2006, 11:06 PM

Prevent dictatorships, not fix those in place. I see the United States headed towards a dictatorship because people are so willing to throw away their rights and the rights of others for a little safety, and most of those people live in freaking Texas where no right minded person would waste their time attacking.

And while granted there is no real quick way to bring about democracy from dictatorship, these things take time, but the way to democracy is definitely not invading, destroying infrastructure, and taking their oil.

And next you'll quote Bill O'Reilly (may he break a leg, literally) and say that groups like Amnesty International and the ACLU are terrorists. What a douchebag. Not only do you look like Michael Bolton from office space, but you're an idiot too.

Roy Karrde

3rd November 2006, 09:19 AM

Well back on topic after some of the most disgusting off topic discussion.

Two toss up states have been decided, Tenn is going Republican. New Jersey is staying Democrat. Three toss ups remain Clair (D) has a one point lead in one state. Tester (D) in Montana has a one point lead with Burns (R) bringing new ads out about how Tester will raise taxes. In Virginia, George Alan (R) is tied with Jim Webb (D) for the first time in weeks, which is a Red state.

So that is the toss up states just a weekend before the election. The Democrats need six seats and it really looks like it will not happen.

Heald

3rd November 2006, 09:26 AM

The second ad it says "Outlaw Violent or Pornographic Video Games" anyway I actually support the second ad even though it goes against the industry I am working so hard to get into. NO not Pedophillia, Video Games.lolz

But seriously it actually says 'Outlaw the SALE of violent or pornographic video games to minors', which is worthless, since the ESRB already has measures in place and there are penalties to those who try to circumvent the age restrictions. Making an entirely new system for just one state would be a complete waste of time and money.

The reason I support the Ad is becuase I wouldn't mind seeing the death penilty used for Child Molesters.

Child Molesters and Rapists, those are the two sickning things in society that you cannot rehabilitate through treatment, thus since they become no use to society and a danger to those around them. Why should we let them out of jail?Death penalty would be a great deterrant, but only for repeat offenders. I would argue that it is possible to rehabilitate one-time offenders, but if they do reoffend, then frankly the death penalty is too good for them.

Anyway, that isn't what this topic is about.

Then again, neither have the last 20 or so posts.

Last time I checked people, this topic was about something no one really cared about, not controversial topics such as abortion, Iraq and boobs.

Jeff

3rd November 2006, 12:47 PM

Hey, 2004 called, they want their thread back.

Anyway to at least try and keep this on topic, I heard on the radio this morning that according to a Baltimore Sun poll both the Senate race and the gubunetorial race here in Maryland are now too close to call, this is pretty interesting considering we have been a pretty hardcore blue state for so long, and that the democratic canidates have mostly been in the lead so far. I guess the same can be said for Virginia only the other way around.

Asilynne

3rd November 2006, 03:50 PM

Woot Virginia is an important state for once! :D
I am of course going to vote, its my civic duty after all ^v^
As for who to vote for well lolz
I was going to say some stuff about what was going on in this thread but damn, after the last page and a half I feel my iq has gone down significantly, where do you people get these things? I think its funny how people who hate republicans/christians/insert popular thing to hate here are all like Have an open mind your so close minded whinge whinge whinge and yet they have a closed mind and an extreme opinion. Thats one thing.

Another thing is I know if someone started talking about my cleavage (which they probably wouldnt since I dont take pics showing it anyway lol) I would be severely embarrassed even if itwas a complement. Im sure saying "damn shes got a fine ass" is considered a complement but it would be grounds for a smacking lol. And Im sure she didnt post that pic so people could drool and jack off to her cleavage :P so yeah thats not only off subject but rude. Anyway thats just my two cents about those off subject things so back onto subject for me *drags self back to subject at hand*

I really hope this election goes to George alan, I dont like webb :P and I was severly disappointed in my fellow Virginians when Tim Kaine took Gov, a catholic that supports abortion? Please no catholic in their right mind would do that. They dont even believe in birth control for heavens sake. I think the reason it seems like democrats are more human rights is because they are good at telling people what they want to hear. Oftentimes people dont want the truth, they like the lies that make them feel safe and happy. When reality isnt always safe and happy. John Kerry wont lose for telling a joke, he will lose because he IS a joke, where he stands is what is popular at the moment. He wants to please everyone all the time and you just cant do that. And God forbid if I was a democrat Id hate him because of the person he is too, I dont like weak minded wishy washy people that dont have their own opinions lol To me as a person he seems very insecure and I just cant respect that, whether its respecting him as a man or as a president. So reguardless of peoples feelings about Bush you have to admit that at least hes firm about something, you can see where he stands.

Ok at great risk I stepped into this topic because from experience Ive seen these topics get really mean and personal ^-^() So disagree with me, please, if you must, but lets not get hostle and rude. I dont like arguing with people in a hostle and personal environment, sorry if you guys do lol ^-^()

Mewtwo-D2

3rd November 2006, 04:21 PM

Another voting Virginian here. I vote in every election.

I would like to keep the thread on topic, but DarkTemplarZero, perhaps you could tell my father, who holds two Masters Degrees and was a colonel in the Air Force by his retirement, that he is lazy and ignorant. After all, he only starting working at age 6, in 1947, for about 25 cents a day. He only won academic scholarships that gave him the opportunity to go to college- though he worked all through college too. He only went to war to protect his country- twice. But, he was military. The bum. Working from 1947-1994. Real lay-about he is.

I just want to ask who in the blue hell do you think you are to disparage the men and women who give you your freedom of speech? Without the United States military, you wouldn't be able to sit in front of your nice computer and type grammatically incorrect rants against them. If we ran our military the way the Democrats keep trying to get us to, we would've been destroyed long ago.

Not that I think Republicans are much better than Democrats. The party for small government should actually work to be small government, and stop pandering. Have you noticed that if a Democrat calls a Republican a filthy, lying son of a whore, the Republican spends days publically praising said Democrat's record before meekly suggesting that his mother was more of a slut than a whore? All the pork and pandering in the government makes me sick.

Actually, I think most people would be in favor of my idea for Congress. Instead of simply releasing scathing press reports, I think there should be a system of Congressional dueling. American Gladiators-style. I'd watch C-SPAN if we could see politicians beating each other with foam staffs.

Master Rudy

3rd November 2006, 04:26 PM

Ok......this whole WMD's thing is the one thing that always gets me about Bush haters. For one it's not just the US. As others have said British intel was also one of many groups involved. Even if Saddam didn't have the damn things keep in mind that trying to get yellowcake shows he was wanting them. And also my arguement is this.......Iraq is very big desert with a whole shitload of sand. Chose a random point in the country and bury something there. Granted WMD's aren't exactly that small but when you consider how large the country is does the term "needle in a haystack" mean anything? You guys watch. They keep finding mass graves with his victims. One day someone's gonna go digging for something and hit paydirt. May not happen for many years but it will. Mark my words.

As for Kerry all I can do is point and laugh. That ass is the guy many people wanted over Bush? Please......he'd have no idea what to do and would be jumping the fence so many times over that no one would know what's happening anymore. And don't get me started on the mess I believe we'd be in right now if Gore won in 2000. Clinton showed how wonderfully inactive he was while getting his dick sucked. His robot helper that claims he invented the internet wouldn't have been much better in my eyes.

The way I see it, all television, newspaper and even radio media is now so heavily biased that it's impossible to get a clear picture of the world. At least with the net, I can roll the dice and pray that what I'm seeing is accurate.

Too true Pika. I remember a few years back when we first got to Iraq that one local news program back when I was still in Cincy was interviewing a recently returned Marine. All the questions pointed towards Bush basing yet the Marine kept his cool and said he agreed with the President and managed to shoot down everything that was trying to make him look like the enemy. Eventually it got to the point where the reporter was trying to steamroll over everything this guy was saying and before it was all over actually cut off the interview by claiming "technical difficulites" in the middle of what he was saying. Despite saying they were working to fix the problem they never went back to him.

Stuff like that makes me sad that I've got a degree in broadcasting sometimes......

Blademaster

3rd November 2006, 04:27 PM

Actually, I think most people would be in favor of my idea for Congress. Instead of simply releasing scathing press reports, I think there should be a system of Congressional dueling. American Gladiators-style. I'd watch C-SPAN if we could see politicians beating each other with foam staffs.

Seconded. ;)

DarkTemplarZero

3rd November 2006, 05:44 PM

Roy Karrde

3rd November 2006, 05:57 PM

Heald

3rd November 2006, 06:21 PM

First the documents about Uranium for Iraq were not forged and the British stand by them to this day.I still argue that British Intelligence is amongst the worst in the world. All our national newspapers report daily the blunders made by our secret services across the globe. James Bond? More like...James Oops, just been caught visiting a suspicious-looking rock in Russia. Yeah, take that, you assholes.

Mewtwo-D2

3rd November 2006, 06:31 PM

Mewtwo-D2: Please, my father also served in the military, both my grandparents and my dad were Red Army officers, although my father left as soon as he could to get his doctorate and teach at the University. And second of all, I'm discussing soldiers in modern times, because as John Kerry said in something he wrote in the late 70's, volunteer armies are full of idiots.

Being in the Red Army isn't really much to brag about. But if we're having a pissing contest, one grandfather was an officer during WWII, the other was unfortunately unable to enlist during WWI and was too old by the time WWII rolled around. Two great-grandfathers served in the American military (out of the other two- one was in Norway, and the other died young). I have quite a few friends in the military, have plans to join the military, or are recently out of the military.

And if volunteer armies are full of idiots, you'd prefer a draft be in place? I thought it was a triumph that the military is currently completely staffed by people who signed up to be there. If thinking that that's just dandy makes me a sickening human being, then so be it.

Third, I'm honoring the sacrifices of all the people who fought by voicing my utter disgust of Conservatives. They fought for an America that is at the forefront of human rights, that refuses to torture or hold people without charge, where the people were free to do what they please, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not the land of the fear-mongers and home to those who think wearing a turban is cause to torture. You disgust me. You claim that I am un-American when you're destroying the very PRINCIPLES the United States was founded on. Honestly, you are a sickening human being and I sincerely hope that you actually find a rational thought in your brain at some point in the near future.

Without charge? Torture? What, specifically, are you referring to? Captured fighters from al Quaeda training camps who are sometimes humiliated? I don't think torture is right, and I don't think what has been classified as torture in this conflict is right- but I also fail to see how it is torture. To me torture is... oh, raping and beating a woman to death in front of her husband and children to get the husband to confess to a crime he never commited. You know, the sort of thing Saddam used to do all the time. Being photographed wearing a burqa and standing on a box doesn't even register compared to that.

I never called you un-American, but how is it destroying American principles to think that we should engage in all-out war with people who want to kill us? Bin Laden is not going to play nicely, whether Republicans or Democrats are in office. What, you think if we get a Democrat as president and send Bin Laden some bribes, he'll come over for a tea party at Camp David and we'll kiss and make up? Muslim extremists hate Americans and they want us all dead. Hell, Muslim extremists hate other Muslims and want everyone who does not follow their narrow idealogy dead. What I believe we should do is engage in all-out war against these lunatics.

I know perfectly well most Muslims are peaceful, before you try to twist my words around. But the ones who gang-rape women for being uncovered, the ones who dance in the streets when Americans are slaughtered, the ones who say that Jews are a race of swine and should be exterminated, the ones who riot and murder and rape at the drop of a hat- we should stamp them out just like we did the Nazis. They also want world domination- and they aren't simply going to stop trying to put the entire planet under Sharia law because we let them get away with murdering some Americans. The only way to deal with these people is to crush their leadership without mercy. They are spreading an idealogy of evil.

If you think it's irrational for me not to take the 'If we're nice to them, maybe they'll go away' stance, then you're insane. They've shown quite clearly that they have no desire to get along with us. And if it's America or radical Islam, then my lot is firmly with America.

Oh, and on a minor point, if you've read the report on the Niger-Iraqi forgeries, the forgery stated that Iraq had not approached Niger to purchase uranium. Considering that Niger's one major export is uranium, what do you think the Iraqis were there to trade for? Fishing lures? Embargoed American breakfast cereal perhaps?

Democrats and Republicans both told us Saddam was trying to develop nuclear weapons (including both Clintons and Al Gore). The British told us. The Germans, the French, the Italians, the Russians, and the Polish told us. The Spanish and the Saudis told us. Our own Intelligence told us. Iran told us, for Christ's sakes. Our satellites showed us a lot of suspicious activity. The UN was suspicious and they told us Saddam was trying to develop stronger WMD's too. Every weapons inspector that went into Iraq came out suspicious of Saddam. Saddam had threatened us. He had had an active program in the past. He had used WMD's in the past. Do you really think he threw his program out because an impotent debating society like the UN told him to knock it off?
So, if it was "faulty intelligence" that led to the war in Iraq, then Saddam must've been putting up one hell of a charade for the benefit of us and half of Europe. And for what reason? Answer me that.

Gavin Luper

4th November 2006, 12:33 AM

OK, so - being an Aussie we don't know or care much about US politics, so this stuff is getting only a tiny bit of coverage in the media and as such I don't really understand how the Mid-Term elections work as opposed to the main elections; but I've always wanted to understand what's going on here. Is it simply a case of whoever gets the most states wins control of the senate or is there something more involved than that? If someone could explain it that would be cool, I'm sure it's been elucidated somewhere through the many posts in this topic but I still don't really grasp the whole five-state race thingy. From your post before, Roy, does this mean that if the democrats don't get six more seats, the entire senate is effectively controlled by Republicans still? (... I really don't have a mind for those aspects of politics. ^_^)

Incidentally, I don't think anyone expected a political thread like this NOT to be derailed by subsequent loosely-related topics, but DTZ you've succeeded spectacularly. If you could just produce one shred of rationality in your arguments, that would be most appreciated by all. It appears that you've developed a blanket theory about Conservatism and are sticking to your extremist opinions, most of which are entirely mistaken - or to be more accurate (as we are dealing with opinions, not fact), mass-generalised and poorly-formed - without concession to the very valid points of those who you are debating with. More to the point, it's overwhelmingly futile debating the merits of a war that already began three and a half years ago; it's 2006, almost all political leaders of note agree that pulling out of Iraq right now would be to the further detriment of that country, regardless of those leaders' opinions on whether we should have gone to war in the first place. For the sake of a decent political debate, try to back up some of your rather bigoted arguments (eg. one of my favourites, "Conservativism, quite frankly, is evil.") with some facts, otherwise your argument is so disjointed and reactionary that you don't really have a leg to stand on; and if you can't any facts to back up your somewhat baseless opinions, perhaps you need to reexamine some of them.

Some people join these debates to stir up some heated or controversial discussion, which, in my opinion, is a little irritating but ultimately all in the spirit of things. If you're gonna do it, though, at least do it properly. That entails not using insults and unnecessary personal attacks to further your argument, so please refrain.

And lastly, I've gotta say to Mewtwo-D2, well said in regards to the War on Terror/Iraq.

Cheers!

DarkTemplarZero

4th November 2006, 01:19 AM

First the documents about Uranium for Iraq were not forged and the British stand by them to this day. Second I laugh at you telling anybody to get out. You are the biggest most bigoted Partican hack that this board has seen for a while. Third you want to talk about human rights? Where was the UN and Liberals when Saddam was gassing his own people? C'mon Democrats are the party that is supposed to stand up for those things right?

What about Robert Byrd? Democrats are about human rights right? Why do they have a ex KKK member in their party? I don't see Republicans making racist remarks like "The only reason you would see this many blacks in a room at a Republican Convention would be if the clean up staff was in here"

As for destroying the principles America was founded on? America was founded on the idea that any man or woman can work hard, make a living for himself, and pull himself up. That is why so many immigrants come over here, becuase America is the land of Opertunity. But that isn't what you hear from Hillary Clinton and her ilk. They would rather cuddle those that do not work, want to see Democrat and Socialist ideals at work? Look at France, double digit unemployment! That is socialism at work, that is the democrat party at work.

Now do all Democrats believe in socialist ideals? No, look at Joe Liberman, he didn't believe in the insane crap that you have been spewing DTZ and he was kicked out of the party. So yeah DTZ you keep talking the way you are right now, you sound like the Democrat party of Robert Byrd. Or should I say the KKK Democrat Party of Robert Byrd.

Wow dude, typical Texan, doesn't know anything. Even the Daily Show discussed the report which said that those documents were forged. Here's a CNN article for ya: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html. I win. Shut up n00bs. Go cry in the corner. And actually, democrats don't support human rights unless they feel like it, they're politicians, remember. I'm embarrassed to say that Lautenberg and Menendez here in New Jersey voted for the Military Commisions Act, the most degrading piece of legislature in the history of the United States.

Now, when the Soviet Union was around wasn't everyone in the U.S. all human rights and international cooperation while the Soviet Union tortured and refused to cooperate with anyone who didn't have similar beliefs? Didn't Reagan call the Soviet Union "evil"? So what are we now? We're becoming the Soviet Union, what we most despised not 20 years ago. USSR invaded Afghanistan with little to no provocation with disasterous results, similar with us and Iraq. USSR never cooperated with the Western nations, USA refuses to sign on to the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol, hell even the Convention on the Rights of Women whose name I can't remember at the moment. What do you have to say to that?

and as for Mewtwo-D2;

I'm referring to the military commissions act. For further explanations, I'll redirect you to Jon Stewart;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDs4E_fJUes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN6mpP_uoUU
The Military Commissions Act basically gives the government the right to hold people without charge and torture them however they please without giving them the right to a fair trial because they refuse to give these people any rights under the Geneva Conventions. If you think I'm exaggerating (well I am, slightly);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

"Muslim extremists hate Americans and they want us all dead." Indeed, I'm not disputing this. However, you think you can just kill a lot of them and they'll go away? According to a white house report, the invasion of Iraq has already created the next generation of terrorists. People in the middle east are being told we're evil, if we go around killing everyone we see then we're removing all doubt. How about being the bigger man and saying "We will defend ourselves on the home front and legally prosecute those who we do capture, but we will treat them humanely and we will not harm civilians". If we can show the less extreme majority of the middle east that we're not the Great Satan, then we can do far more damage to terrorist organizations than we could ever do with bombs and missiles. Your average middle eastern citizen would probably be willing to blow themselves up if American soldiers "accidently" killed their families, but if no American had ever harmed them in any way then they won't particularly care and what you'll be left with is the terrorist organizations themselves, who you can track through covert means and prevent attacks. But whatever, if you consider that "be nice and they'll go away" then go ahead and think that way and leave generations of terrorists as your legacy to your children and your grandchildren.

And Gavin Luper, really, just kiss my ass. I have made more than my share of good points, I have cited specific examples and given sources, and you call THAT not having a shred of rationality? Wow man, you need a fucking brain, you're turning into Sean Hannity here. Thank Buddha that you live in somewhere in western Australia where your stupidity can't really harm anyone.

mr_pikachu

4th November 2006, 01:52 AM

O-kay. Since Gavin clearly knows way lot more about American politics than I do about Australian politics, I think he's entitled to an explanation.

You've pretty much got the idea, Gavin. See, aside from the President, Vice President, and such, we have two major groups of people in the "ruling" branch of government. (I don't remember the official name of the branch offhand and I can't be bothered to look it up.) Those two groups are the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Each of the 50 states has a certain number of members in both the House and the Senate. In the House, the number of members you are allowed to have is determined by the number of citizens living in the state. (Consequently, the number of Representatives for different states can change from time to time.) In the Senate, each state gets exactly two Senators.

Now, for a new bill to be passed into law, it must be passed by a certain number of members in both the House and the Senate (again, I forget the exact numbers, but I don't think it's just a majority vote in both). Then it must be signed into law by the President. (If it is "vetoed," or not signed, then there are measures to override the veto. But let's not get into that.)

So whoever controls the House and Senate has a significant impact on the laws of our nation, as that control is a major factor is determining what bills will even reach the President's desk.

In this case, we're looking at what are called the midterm elections for the Senate. See, we have a new election for the President every four years. However, Senators have elections every six years. (The elections for the 100 Senate seats are also spaced out in periods of two years, so not all of the seats in the Senate have elections at any given time.) Since we will sometimes have Senate elections between the years with Presidential elections, those in-between years are called the midterm elections - since they are in the middle of the President's term.

*gasps for air*

I think I covered everything. Just give a shout if there's anything I didn't explain well or that I forgot to mention, Gav!

Roy Karrde

4th November 2006, 10:14 AM

Hey look Grand Dragon Dark Templar Zero posted! Typical Texan? It's sad that you go around and spout things like the Kyoto. Anyway just as was said before Joe Wilson has said that he did not actually spend time looking around Niger, that is why the documents are a forgery. Joe Wilson said that there wasn't any there when he was wrong. And then in 2004, a year after your link was dated, British Intel came out backing there claim that Iraq went to Niger. Looks like another loss for Grand Dragon Dark Templar Zero.

The British government has said repeatedly it stands by intelligence it gathered and used in its controversial September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. It still claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

But the US intelligence community, officials and politicians, are publicly sceptical, and the public differences between the two allies on the issue have obscured the evidence that lies behind the UK claim.

...The FT has now learnt that three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq.

This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop their undeclared nuclear programmes. Niger officials were also discussing sales to North Korea and China of uranium ore or the "yellow cake" refined from it: the raw materials that can be progressively enriched to make nuclear bombs.

The raw intelligence on the negotiations included indications that Libya was investing in Niger's uranium industry to prop it up at a time when demand had fallen, and that sales to Iraq were just a part of the clandestine export plan. These secret exports would allow countries with undeclared nuclear programmes to build up uranium stockpiles.

...Information gathered in 1999-2001 suggested that the uranium sold illicitly would be extracted from mines in Niger that had been abandoned as uneconomic by the two French-owned mining companies - Cominak and Somair, both of which are owned by the mining giant Cogema - operating in Niger.

"Mines can be abandoned by Cogema when they become unproductive. This doesn't mean that people near the mines can't keep on extracting," a senior European counter-proliferation official said.

And I find it funny you are comparing us to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan. We had ten years of Iraq avoiding sanctions, and shooting down US aircraft, supporting terrorism, plotting a assassination of a former President, and killing his own people. Each one of those can be used as a delcaration of war. But I am pretty sure you never considered it Grand Dragon.

As for going against the Geniva Convention. If you are so hip on the Geniva Convention, you should know that the Geniva Convention does not apply to those with out a Military Uniform. Thus they do not apply to Terrorist. But in your bigotry you probably forgot about that.

Anyway I will allow Mewtwo D2 to continue, I do have one question, when is your next Rally Grand Dragon? You know the one where you group all Texans, Americans, and Conservatives together.

Mewtwo-D2

4th November 2006, 11:25 AM

Wow dude, typical Texan, doesn't know anything. Even the Daily Show discussed the report which said that those documents were forged. Here's a CNN article for ya: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html. I win. Shut up n00bs. Go cry in the corner. And actually, democrats don't support human rights unless they feel like it, they're politicians, remember. I'm embarrassed to say that Lautenberg and Menendez here in New Jersey voted for the Military Commisions Act, the most degrading piece of legislature in the history of the United States.

First off, genius, I'm from Virginia. I say so quite clearly in my first both in this thread. I could say typical narrow-minded, bigotted New York liberal, who has his head so far up his ass he can't think of people from Texas as anything but the stereotypes he hears in jokes. Way to be open-minded, kid!

Second- the Daily Show? You send me a ]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?ex=1320210000&en=ba99ceafb0f67900&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss[/url]

Since you seem to have trouble reading- check out paragraph 13 of the article:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

2002? Isn't that... *gasp* when we invaded? Wowee! If the New York Times admits it, it must be true! Much better than a link to a liberal comedy-news program.

Now, when the Soviet Union was around wasn't everyone in the U.S. all human rights and international cooperation while the Soviet Union tortured and refused to cooperate with anyone who didn't have similar beliefs? Didn't Reagan call the Soviet Union "evil"? So what are we now? We're becoming the Soviet Union, what we most despised not 20 years ago. USSR invaded Afghanistan with little to no provocation with disasterous results, similar with us and Iraq. USSR never cooperated with the Western nations, USA refuses to sign on to the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol, hell even the Convention on the Rights of Women whose name I can't remember at the moment. What do you have to say to that?

So... 48 countries is no longer considered "international cooperation"?
For Kyoto- A, it's useless, and B, even the liberal demigod, Bill Clinton wouldn't sign it. That's supposed to convince me that we're becoming the Soviet Union?
For the ICCt- why should the US have to to an international community that's often against us to prosecute our worst criminals? One-world government only works in science fiction.
For the last, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Mostly I've just heard you complain about how the US refuses to hand their sovereignty over to a toothless, impotent debating society.

For the no provocation- Saddam paid dividends to the families of suicide bombers. His country was described as a rat's nest of terrorist activity. Terrorist groups from all over the world had outposts in Iraq. Even if Saddam didn't wine and dine them all individually, you can bet your boots he knew they were there. And the fact that his government shelled out dividends for the families of suicide bombers- well, I find it hard to believe he was ignorant of that too. See, under regimes like Saddam's, where your wife and daughters are under constant threat of rape, your entire family is in danger of being tried for treason, tortured, and executed, and you have no food and no money, and being told that if you blow yourself up the rest of your family will have money, it suddenly seems a more attractive position.

Are you saying we should cooperate with brutal dictators, and maybe they'll play nicely? Maybe we should send them whopping great gobs of cash, like Clinton did with Kim Jong Il. After all, dear old Kim has been a darling and a fine citizen of the international community ever since. And the fact that North Korea is always in darkness just shows his commitment to Kyoto.

and as for Mewtwo-D2;

I'm referring to the military commissions act. For further explanations, I'll redirect you to Jon Stewart;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDs4E_fJUes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN6mpP_uoUU
The Military Commissions Act basically gives the government the right to hold people without charge and torture them however they please without giving them the right to a fair trial because they refuse to give these people any rights under the Geneva Conventions. If you think I'm exaggerating (well I am, slightly);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

You're going to have to do better than Jon Stewart and Wikipedia. Neither one is what a person would call reliable.

"Muslim extremists hate Americans and they want us all dead." Indeed, I'm not disputing this. However, you think you can just kill a lot of them and they'll go away? According to a white house report, the invasion of Iraq has already created the next generation of terrorists. People in the middle east are being told we're evil, if we go around killing everyone we see then we're removing all doubt. How about being the bigger man and saying "We will defend ourselves on the home front and legally prosecute those who we do capture, but we will treat them humanely and we will not harm civilians". If we can show the less extreme majority of the middle east that we're not the Great Satan, then we can do far more damage to terrorist organizations than we could ever do with bombs and missiles. Your average middle eastern citizen would probably be willing to blow themselves up if American soldiers "accidently" killed their families, but if no American had ever harmed them in any way then they won't particularly care and what you'll be left with is the terrorist organizations themselves, who you can track through covert means and prevent attacks. But whatever, if you consider that "be nice and they'll go away" then go ahead and think that way and leave generations of terrorists as your legacy to your children and your grandchildren.

Okay- how about you talk to someone who was actually in Iraq. Like one of those dim-witted soldiers. You know the Iraqis killing us? They're Sunnis. All Sunnis. And they're killing us because they used to have power and now they don't. They're mad at us, and when Muslim extremists get mad, they riot and kill things. You know the other terrorists in the country? They're from Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey... pretty much whatever country harbors Muslim extremists.

And you think they'll love us if we just leave them alone? We tried that for quite some time, but considering how many terrorist organizations are in charge of governments over there, they aren't going to stop hating us until they have freedom and democracy. Once their children are no longer reading text books that claim that Jews eat the blood of Muslim children in Purim cakes and that Americans are the Great Satan is when they'll stop hating us. But personally, I think we should have public executions of convicted terrorists where their bodies are covered in pig's blood. I think there should be a bag of pig fat hanging from the roof of every bus that would concievably be blown up. I also think our soldiers should carry sides of bacon with them and throw a slice on every terrorist they kill.

My only problem with the war in Iraq is that we keep on refusing to let the soldiers fight this war, which is the problem we had in Vietnam. If there's any sure way to lose a war, it's to let the politicians muddle it up and refuse to let the military prosecute it. Although with every incoherent rant by Cindy Sheehan, the terrorists are listening, and they're gaining morale. Vietnam has admitted that they were often on the verge of surrendering, but the "peace movement" back home gave them encouragement to hang on. That's what the Muslim extremists are hoping for. They're hoping for America to prove itself a paper tiger once again and go scurrying away, so they can multiply unabated. They're like a cancer, and their school of thought must be obliterated from this world.

DarkTemplarZero

4th November 2006, 02:47 PM

Wikipedia is not reliable? True for computer science this idiot professor from UC-Irvine makes retarded articles which I'm currently trying to fix, but for current events Wikipedia is pretty damn reliable. Hell, every claim it makes is backed up by official sources, so if Wikipedia's not reliable I don't know what is. And the Daily Show I grant you, it's comedy, but that is an actual picture from Guantanamo Bay and that is Bush's actual speech about the Geneva Conventions.

And second of all, great article, the Bush administration not only makes how to make a nuclear bomb public information, but also puts it on the internet. Brilliant. Just brilliant. That really makes me feel so safe.

"European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms."
Omg, this article is hysterical. More Bush idiocy.

Now, let's see, in law they call this habeas corpus: if Saddam has a nuclear weapons program, where are the actual weapons? No weapons inspectors could find anything, the United States military hasn't found anything, so where are they? In the foundation of the Opera Garnier?

I don't call a global war international cooperation. Now let us take a look at the countries that are allies to the United States in the "War on Terror". Ukraine, who's massive stockpile of Soviet arms is fueling the Genocide in Sudan. Slovakia, where people with mental disabilities in psychiatric hospitals are placed in cages. Bulgaria, where people in social care homes are often thrown in prison for no reason. Russia, who still manages to torture more people than the United States. What great allies. Oh wait, all of them have ratified the entire UN Women's Convention, while the United States refuses to ratify part of it.

Next, the Kyoto Protocol was useless? Let me guess, you refuse to accept global warming? The protocol asked all nations to reduce their emissions by 5.2% under what they were in 1990 by 2012. It doesn't seem like much, but it's a step in the right direction to keep us from destroying the Earth. Hell, even China signed on to it.
International Criminal Court. Oh sure, the United States was all for the idea during Nuremberg, but now that actual Americans might be tried for raping Iraqi women it's a bad thing? Hell if I remember correctly the United States was even supporting Spain for trying General Pinochet for crimes against humanity. International Law is good, unless it will try one of our own. In math we call that a proof by contradiction. You fail.
And the last thing is the UN Women's Convention, of which the United States has not ratified part of.

"But personally, I think we should have public executions of convicted terrorists where their bodies are covered in pig's blood. I think there should be a bag of pig fat hanging from the roof of every bus that would concievably be blown up. I also think our soldiers should carry sides of bacon with them and throw a slice on every terrorist they kill."
Wow man, isn't that just what you were saying they believed about us? They believe that we do things like that, so we have to go out and confirm it? I see your logic, very much.

Mewtwo-D2, honestly, I really hope that you stay a virgin, because people like you don't belong in humanity's gene pool.

Roy Karrde

4th November 2006, 03:04 PM

Wikipedia is not reliable? True for computer science this idiot professor from UC-Irvine makes retarded articles which I'm currently trying to fix, but for current events Wikipedia is pretty damn reliable. Hell, every claim it makes is backed up by official sources, so if Wikipedia's not reliable I don't know what is. And the Daily Show I grant you, it's comedy, but that is an actual picture from Guantanamo Bay and that is Bush's actual speech about the Geneva Conventions.

Wikipedia can be heavily edited, especially political articles. That is why they had to shut down things like editing the George W Bush page, becuase idiots like you did things to that page.

And second of all, great article, the Bush administration not only makes how to make a nuclear bomb public information, but also puts it on the internet. Brilliant. Just brilliant. That really makes me feel so safe.

The documents were not US documents or US Science Research, they were Iraqi Documents. Funny how the New York times is suddenly worried about releasing state secrets. Oh Noes! BTW If they were Iraqi Documents does that not prove Iraq was trying to reach nukes?

Now, let's see, in law they call this habeas corpus: if Saddam has a nuclear weapons program, where are the actual weapons? No weapons inspectors could find anything, the United States military hasn't found anything, so where are they? In the foundation of the Opera Garnier?

Iraq was seeking to build nuclear weapons as what was happening in Niger, which has been proven true. Seeking to build nuclear weapons is against the Gulf War treaty and is justifyable for war.

I don't call a global war international cooperation. Now let us take a look at the countries that are allies to the United States in the "War on Terror". Ukraine, who's massive stockpile of Soviet arms is fueling the Genocide in Sudan. Slovakia, where people with mental disabilities in psychiatric hospitals are placed in cages. Bulgaria, where people in social care homes are often thrown in prison for no reason. Russia, who still manages to torture more people than the United States. What great allies. Oh wait, all of them have ratified the entire UN Women's Convention, while the United States refuses to ratify part of it.

Funny how you pick off each of those countries while forgetting to add others like Japan, Italy, and others. Then again that isn't surprising coming from the Grand Dragon who likes to pick and choose information.

Next, the Kyoto Protocol was useless? Let me guess, you refuse to accept global warming? The protocol asked all nations to reduce their emissions by 5.2% under what they were in 1990 by 2012. It doesn't seem like much, but it's a step in the right direction to keep us from destroying the Earth. Hell, even China signed on to it.

You should also know that not a single country has been able to reach those emision standards. Also the Kyoto treaty does not punish or go after China and other developing countries in Eastern Asia in which emisions are at their worst and provide for most of the world's polution. The Kyoto treaty is useless, Clinton knew it, Bush knows it, and it will never be ratified.

Wow man, isn't that just what you were saying they believed about us? They believe that we do things like that, so we have to go out and confirm it? I see your logic, very much.

Do we use Children as Suicide Bombs? Do we call Women pieces of meat and that they deserve to be raped? Do we say that you have to follow a certain religion or you deserve death? Do we force Young Girls to stay in burning schools becuase they havn't worn the correct hood ornimant to go outside? Tell me how the two points are connected. Becuase one seems to be about spreading freedom and choices, like what we have done in Iraq, and another view point seems to be about slavery and hatred. Then again I could see how you could support the slavery and hatred idea. Grand Dragon.

Mewtwo-D2, honestly, I really hope that you stay a virgin, because people like you don't belong in humanity's gene pool.

What does a person's sex life have to deal with a debate? Unless you just want to take a cheap shot and you have no real points. It's really quite pathetic.

Mewtwo-D2

4th November 2006, 04:13 PM

Hey, kid, I'm a girl. Just so you stop referring to me as 'dude' and 'man' all the time.

For the nuclear weapons- even if he didn't make a single bomb, the fact that he was trying his damndest was reason enough to depose him. You think he was going to use his nuclear bombs to toast a really, really big slice of bread? I think the minute he figured out how to make a nuclear bomb, he was going to try to take the world hostage by threatening all-out nuclear war. But my guess, all the weapons he did make are either buried in the desert or in Syria.

Signing the Kyoto Protocol is useless. It's a piece of paper. And no, I don't believe in global warming beyond simple shifts in Earth's temperature, like we've been experiencing for the last 140 million years. All these "scientists" who are wailing about how we're causing global warming were wailing about how we were causing another Ice Age 30 years ago. They're scientists in the same way Rachel Carson was. Or have you refused to accept that Silent Spring was a load of crap?

And my sex life has absolutely nothing to do with a snot-nosed, closed-minded, head-in-the-sand little punk. Try to think up some better insults, junior. And no, Wikipedia is not reliable. Try to cite it on a college term paper, and see how fast you flunk.

Blademaster

4th November 2006, 05:15 PM

ENOUGH!

Grand Dragon Dark Templar Zero.

Wow dude, typical Texan, doesn't know anything.

snot-nosed, closed-minded, head-in-the-sand little punk

What is this?! See who can come up with the best insult? This thread is SUPPOSED to be to discuss the Senate elections, NOT target practice for whoever wants to squabble about the War in Iraq! You guys are supposed to be DEBATING, not slinging falmes and insults at each other left and right!

The troops are in Iraq - I may not like it, you may not like it - or maybe you do like it - and someone else agrees or disagrees with you, whatever. Get over it and get back on the right track for God's sake.

Thank you.

-Blademaster

Mewtwo-D2

4th November 2006, 06:57 PM

I'm sorry for my insult-slinging. I was getting quite frustrated, but I shouldn't have crossed into his territory.

(It's been a long week- my stepmother is going through menopause :what:)

pokemaniacbill

4th November 2006, 08:04 PM

This topic is so painful and pointless it hurts. Two different approaches to politics, let alone differing views, colliding and there's a flamewar and egostroking machine. Remarkable. I truly hope you're proud of yourselves because this garbage is ridiculous. If you can't enter this kind of topic without getting angry, don't enter this kind of topic. Ever. *goes back to lurking*

Musourenka

4th November 2006, 10:32 PM

I see the United States headed towards a dictatorship because people are so willing to throw away their rights and the rights of others for a little safety, and most of those people live in freaking Texas where no right minded person would waste their time attacking.

The US has been headed towards dictatorship since Woodrow Wilson's term, if not before. Federal Reserve Act? Federal Income Tax? Federal Trade Commission? The 63rd Congress is arguably the worst one in the history of the US. Anyways, this thing is not recent whatsoever.

Whatever American principles still exist today certainly don't resonate within any politician, and certainly not at the voting booth. Voting won't change a thing at all; everything will continue down the path to hell as normal no matter who gets voted in. The only solution I see is a complete rejection of any legitimacy the government supposedly has. That is why I refuse to vote in this election, and every election thereafter (despite voting in '02 and '04).

And yes, I chose Pancakes.

Gavin Luper

4th November 2006, 11:54 PM

Cheers Brian, that's all I was looking for really, just some kind of basic background on it. Makes much more sense now.

Master Rudy

5th November 2006, 01:03 AM

You know Zero it's funny how you say I've actually got to know something about the subject at hand before I show I'm an idiot. From the looks of things you seem to be picking and choosing the info. And if Jon Steward's little ragtag bunch of biased comedians and Wiki is the best you can come up with then it's a vrey weak arguement you make. I assure you I've done my research. Plus while I don't know too many I do know people that have been over there. One of the guys I used to know was a former Marine medic that was injuried over there and have to be sent back. There were a few cases where him and his group found enough weapons to supply a small group of terriorists in the hand of people that they originally didn't suspect.

My point is this: the people that would like to see America and the new Iraq fail have much to hide. Your everyday terrorist is going to praise America during the day but come nightfall him and his buddies are going to dig their AK's out of the sand and snipe our troops. In the case of Saddam it's going to be a little more than an assault rifle. Once again I'll say Iraq is this giant hot sandy place we call a desert. Once again I'll say that WMD is to desert as needle is to haystack. In both cases good luck finding them. I refuse to sink to your level and call you names as you've done with Roy and some of my friends. However I will say that if you cannot acknowledge the fact that Saddam had something to hide then you've got a serious problem with your view of the world. If Saddam seriously did not have a weapons program of some kind be it nuclear or viral and was not afraid of us uncovering something he shouldn't have then why the fuck did he spend so long playing cat and mouse with the inspectors? Those do not seem like the actions of an innocent man. Regardless of if the weapons exist or not (and for the record I'll once again say that I believe they do) if he so much had only the research then those were grounds enough for us to declare war. When you do reply Zero please don't go saying I'm biased or that I've got a narrow view or that I don't know what I'm talking about. Do not point me towards biased reports that'll support your view and ignore the real questions. Stay away from that. Instead I seriously want to hear your take on why Saddam would deny the UN inspectors for so long if there was nothing to hide.

On another note that's actually more towards the original topic I direct my next comments towards Musourenka. We're heading towards a dictatorship? Shit.....no one told me. Now I feel left out because I didn't get my swastika armband. You wanna see a real dictatorship look no futher than Nazi Germany during the Second World War. It's funny that you say in your sig that if you vote you can't complain. From my experience sometimes a person will vote and the person that they voted for doesn't get elected. Sounds like they've got a legitimate reason to complain then. If you say voting does not change a thing again then be sure to remind me to look for that list of all the times one vote did make a difference. I can't think of any prime examples but there were some good ones on it. In the meantime be sure you change your sig to read "If you don't vote you can't complain." Forgive me if I seem to be like an ass but while I do feel people are allowed to have their own opinions I cannot respect the opinions and rants of people who do not go out and vote. If something in this country pisses you off then do something about it. Your vote could be the one that makes a difference ^_~

DarkTemplarZero

5th November 2006, 01:40 PM

Oh my ****ing god. I really think that you need to have your head examined, because that was the most idiotic rant I have ever seen. I can't believe I'm bringing myself down to the level where I'm debating with a guy who has an anime kiss in his sig, but this is just too damn easy. People like you are the reason why I own at Model UN, your arguments are pitiful, lack substance, and are just begging to get owned.

First of all, current events on Wikipedia are thoroughly editted and cite sources. There's nothing like having thousands of people editting the article to make sure that it's correct and neutral, unlike whatever news you read or watch. I grant you, Jon Stewart is a comedian and has a very rational point of view, but he gives the insane antics of politicians a comedic spin while telling the news. And while sometimes he may exaggerate for comedy, the segment on torture was actually very good if you watch it with an open mind.

Saddam may have had something to hide and yes Iraq is a desert, but again, habeas corpus. If he did have "large hidden stockpiles" as many said before the invasion, don't you think we would have found a little bit more than a single shell of inert mustard gas in 2004? Yes Iraq is a desert, but what is Saddam going to do, bury all the missiles he has in random places in the sand? Leave them lying around somewhere in the middle of the desert? Right. True he refused to let the inspectors in until late 2002 and it is suspicious, but perhaps he saw UN Weapons Inspectors as a prelude to American invasion, it wouldn't be the first time, just in 1998, even when the UN weapons inspectors said that 90-95% of Iraq's unconventional weapons had been destroyed, the US said nope and initiated Operation Desert Fox, bombing the crap out of Iraq. And also, that's another good point. Just four years ago much of Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed in Desert Fox, and just 7 years before that in Desert Storm, in-between which the UN said most of Iraq's stockpiles were gone. Do you honestly believe that in under four years Iraq could rebuild it's entire weapons program from scratch?

And yes, we are headed toward a dictatorship. Premier Bush. Look at the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act. The government can watch you for no reason, they can hold you without charge, they can torture you, they can deny you the right to a fair trial, legally they can do whatever the hell they want under those two pieces of legislature. If that trend continues, there will be a totalitarian dictatorship here in the United States not too long from now.

Oh and as for Mewtwo-D2, thanks, coming from you that's a complement. Two words: Darwin Award :)

Roy Karrde

5th November 2006, 02:07 PM

DTZ, this argument has ended, all you are doing is flaming now. So lets stay on topic which is the Senate Midterm Elections.

I got drawn into this argument again becuase of your sad behavior and I will not again. Continue to flame others and I will ask for this topic to be closed by a Misc mod.

Asilynne

5th November 2006, 02:33 PM

Probably what he wants Roy. might give him some sick feeling of power and satisfaction.
This topic isnt about iraq, but if you do want a topic about Iraq Zero then make one, dont clutter up a topic about US congress elections. While the two are arguably connected, it has gone way beyond reality and into a weird twisted fantasy world of paranoia and overhype. If America was a dictatorship or even remotely close to one, Zero and all his friends and family would have been rounded up and killed or tortured by now for speaking out against the government. Enjoy the fact that we live in a great country in which we get to argue about who to vote for or badmouth our leader without repercussions, because Iraq you couldnt do that. Put things into perspective, want to know what the iraqis think about their country and leader? Im not going to make you read dont worry, its movie time: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7556061655072561114&q=Saddam+people&hl=en

Many interviews were filmed shortly after Saddam was apprehended by the US. This is a dictatorship. The US is certainly nowhere remotely close to this, this vid almost made me cry.

But anyway enough. Rudy, I will ask you to keep on topic because you should know by now arguing with an idiot you will never win. The idiot will never learn and resort to cheap personal tactics to feel they have a sense of the "upper hand". An example that has already been said is his attack of your sig, which is laughable as your sig has nothing to do with the merit of your words. All your sig means is youre willing to have a banner that your girlfriend (me) made for you in your sig, and thats nothing to be ashamed of ^-^ One day when someone accidently falls in love with him he ll understand. So for me Rudy, dont argue with him anymore, its pointless, either he ll get it one day or he wont, but in the meantime theres no reasoning with him. So lets get this topic back ON topic and just ignore any offtopic things from now on.

Theres 2 more days until election day. I know that polls arent exactly accurate but anyone heard any word of what the polls are showing for all the states? Like the forecasted count of Repub and Demo's?

DarkTemplarZero

5th November 2006, 03:03 PM

"DTZ, this argument has ended, all you are doing is flaming now. So lets stay on topic which is the Senate Midterm Elections."

True I have made fun of people for being idiots, but you failed to read my points as always. Or the more likely explanation is that you have no response.

And Asilynne is right, you can never win because you don't know how to debate properly. You talk a lot and only bring up a couple of half-decent points. However Asilynne, you forget. I was born in the Soviet Union. I was raised being told about people being rounded up and killed, about family and friends disappearing in the middle of the night. I know what it is like. And while I do appreciate the fact that I have free speech, I can't sit around idly while Cheney and O'Reilly go around telling people to think like them or they're terrorists and the government passes legislature which takes the first steps to totalitarianism (see above Military Commissions Act and Patriot Act). Now you may not care about your freedom, but I'd like my children to read 1984 and say "right, like that'll ever happen" instead of seeing it on a banned books list. That is why I'm a hardcore human rights activist and go around lobbying congressmen, because I could not stand to have such a thing happen. You say the video almost made you cry? Then go do something about it. Join Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, something along those lines, don't just sit there and say "oh that sucks" and go back to drawing or whatever the hell you do with your time.

And as for my love life, let's just say that you don't have to worry about it.

Anyway, as for the results, most independent analysts predict at least 15-20 House seats will go to the Democrats, and with that control of the house. As for the Senate, the most conservative estimates outside of the White House say about +3 for Democrats, although Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, and Montana are too close to call and probably will swing things one way or another. Personally, I would love to see Tom DeLay's old seat fall to a Democrat.

Musourenka

5th November 2006, 10:45 PM

On another note that's actually more towards the original topic I direct my next comments towards Musourenka. We're heading towards a dictatorship? Shit.....no one told me. Now I feel left out because I didn't get my swastika armband. You wanna see a real dictatorship look no futher than Nazi Germany during the Second World War.

Sorry, dictatorship wasn't the right word -- Totalitarianism is, though, and the US has been heading down that path since the 20th century.

If you say voting does not change a thing again then be sure to remind me to look for that list of all the times one vote did make a difference.

I'm not talking about one vote. I am talking about the act of voting. Voting has not pushed us towards freedom at all, and I can think of many times where it has done the opposite.

Forgive me if I seem to be like an ass but while I do feel people are allowed to have their own opinions I cannot respect the opinions and rants of people who do not go out and vote. If something in this country pisses you off then do something about it. Your vote could be the one that makes a difference ^_~

Let me tell you why I have my sig as such; to vote means you accept and legitimize the system. I don't accept the system, nor do I consider it legitimate, so I don't vote.

Listen -- there is no way to vote ourselves out of this mess whatsoever.

And, Zero, Bush is not the problem, so don't think the US has magically descended into hell in the last few years; the descent started long ago.

Roy Karrde

6th November 2006, 09:59 AM

Trying to get back on topic...

You know that things have to be turning when the New York Times decides to report it, polls for people in favor of Democrats dropped from 50 in favor, 39 in favor of Republicans. Down to 47 in favor of Democrats, 43 in favor of Republicans!

Two lock in states for Democrats are now back in play for the Republicans: Rhode Island and Maryland

Democrats have been stated in saying things like “This is making me nervous.” after seeing the new polls.

So that is your Pre Election Day news ^^

Musourenka

6th November 2006, 10:21 AM

Up in Florida news:

Katherine Harris is getting squashed by encumbant Bill Nelson in the Senate race.
Charlie Christ (R) has a solid lead over Jim Davis (D) in the race for Governor.

Florida's an oddball state; it swings from left to right and back again in anything and everything. On the whole, it does look like the Democrats are going to pick up a lot of Republican seats, though, and they may very well grab control of the House, and possibly the Senate, too.

Roy Karrde

6th November 2006, 10:25 AM

Jeff

6th November 2006, 02:35 PM

OK, here's the most recent news from Maryland:

Governor: Bob Ehrlich (R, incumbent) and Martin O'Malley (D) are practically dead even, with O'Malley leading Ehrlich by 1 point, within the undecided margin.

Senate (filling vacated seat of retiree Paul Sarbanes): Ben Cardin (D) is leading Michael Steele (R) by 6 points, again within the undecided margin. Steele has recently gotten endorsements from some black groups since those poll numbers came out, including at least one group in Prince George's County, one of the state's most liberal counties. (Steele is black BTW)

Also, those poll numbers came from the Baltimore Sun, which has endorsed O'Malley, not sure if the endorsement came before or after the poll though. Depending on how you look at this, both elections could easily go either way. Interestingly, like I think I have said before, Maryland usually goes Democrat.

Musourenka

6th November 2006, 06:01 PM

You know I can understand how people can believe that the democrats are going to pick up enough seats to gain control. But the numbers just are not there, they never have been. If anything it could be a split which means the Vice President will decide control and the Republicans win. There is no big blue wave like Democrats thought and hoped. The votes are just not there.

I could be very well reading the polls wrong, but at RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/battle_for_the_house_of_representatives-51.html), they've listed a number of Republican seats currently leaning towards Democrats.

mr_pikachu

6th November 2006, 06:04 PM

I could be very well reading the polls wrong, but at RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/battle_for_the_house_of_representatives-51.html), they've listed as a number of Republican seats currently leaning towards Democrats.

Two things.

1. It's still pretty close. Not counting the "toss-ups," the Democrats only lead by one, I believe. And there are a lot of toss-ups.

2. That's the House, not the Senate.

Musourenka

6th November 2006, 06:56 PM

Two things.

1. It's still pretty close. Not counting the "toss-ups," the Democrats only lead by one, I believe. And there are a lot of toss-ups.

2. That's the House, not the Senate.

1) The seats up for grabs are forty-eight Republican and six Democrat seats. The Democrats merely have to grab fifteen of the Republican and maintain their Democrat seats to gain majority in the House.

2) Correct, and the Senate (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/senate.html) race looks a lot closer. After looking through those, I'm thinking the Democrats will edge out in the House, but the Republicans will (barely) keep control of the Senate.

mr_pikachu

6th November 2006, 07:03 PM

Ah, you're right on point 1. Looks like I was reading (that part of) it incorrectly. Thanks for pointing it out.

Roy Karrde

7th November 2006, 11:02 AM

Well I had a chance to go see President Bush last night, but I had to stay home due to a test in C++ this morning. I almost wish I went now that I hear that there were some real nuts protesting outside. Some were holding flags upside down and other anti american shows of protest. It just makes you wonder how some one can live with such sick hate in their heads.

Jeff

7th November 2006, 11:29 AM

It seems like wherever Bush goes, the protestors follow, right along with all their anti-American symbolism like upside-down flags and whatnot, and then they whine when people call them unamerican :rolleyes:.

Anyway, from what I've seen/heard it seems that the Republicans are pretty safe in the Senate, but the House looks iffy, may very well go to the Democrats. Also, while the democrats have been leading in alot of areas, the Republicans have gained some momentum, so it all depends on if that momentum is enough to color the undecided margins red, since alot of races have gotten to the too-close-to-call point. It's still anyone's game.

Well, I almost forgot to say, I voted! It was a 6-page ballot, full of plenty of various obscure offices I didn't even know existed :P. And no, I didn't just push random buttons on the screen, I'm more responsible than that, I basically voted with my party unless I knew otherwise about the candidate. I'm just glad I live in an unincorporated area or else I'd probably also have to vote for mayor, city/town council, head dogcatcher, village idiot, etc., etc., etc...

Roy Karrde

7th November 2006, 12:45 PM

I so wish I could vote, but I am registered in North Richland Hills, and live in Waco which is 120 Miles from North Richland Hills. Anyway rumors of voting frad is already starting. Supposily people are hearing phone calls that say "This is from the Republican National Comittiee, if you vote tomorrow you will be arrested". Along with as I mentioned before over 1,000 frad ballots were found in the offices of ACORN.

Heald

7th November 2006, 12:57 PM

I don't normally endorse YTMNDs, but here is one that applies so well to the topic.

http://insertcandidatesnamehere.ytmnd.com/

...couple of black kids...

Jeff

7th November 2006, 02:47 PM

I so wish I could vote, but I am registered in North Richland Hills, and live in Waco which is 120 Miles from North Richland Hills.

My sister is in kind of the same situation, she's registered in Queen Anne's County, and lives at her college in Emmitsburg, a few hours away. Don't know if she filed an absentee ballot or not though.

Heald

7th November 2006, 06:31 PM

Roy Karrde

7th November 2006, 06:43 PM

I lived in North Richland Hills all my life and voted there last year for City Elections, and two years ago for Presidential Elections. About three months ago I moved to Waco to go to a College in which I can complete a two year program in Video Game Design. I was planning to go home yesterday morning and come back tonight. That way I could see Bush and vote, but my evil teacher decied to hold the C++ test today, so I had no choice but to stay here.

Edit: To stay on topic, here is some election results:

Office: U.S. Senate

Precincts Reporting: 296 of 2443 (12.12%)
Registered Voters: 4,555,850 Total Voting: 227,308 Voter Turnout: 4.99 %
G F Allen Republican 113,125 49.77%
J H Webb Jr Democratic 111,427 49.02%
G G Parker Independent Green 2,565 1.13%
Write Ins 191 0.08%
View Results by District Locality Total: 227,308

DarkTemplarZero

7th November 2006, 07:11 PM

The YTMND is pretty good, but Jon Stewart still wins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHBcdIfzXns . That's good stuff.

Hahah C++, great language. I program in it on occasion for messing around with DirectX, although I find Java more intuitive and use it most of the time. Still for games C++'s the way to go unless you want to manually compile Assembly code.

And contrary to popular belief, protesting is not a sign of hatred. If you think that's bad, you should've been at the Amnesty International Annual General Meeting's Denounce Torture Rally in Portland last year. One of the speakers was from a South American country where several of her family members had been abducted and tortured by the government, she went as far as to say any nation that practices torture (or as we say in the states to make ourselves not seem like the KGB, "alternative interrogation") a "terrorist" nation, referring specifically to the United States' torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and secret prisons in Eastern Europe. It's not hatred, call it concern about where the nation is headed.

Roy Karrde

7th November 2006, 07:15 PM

Regular protesting is fine, stomping on the American Flag, holding it upside down, and shouting Anti American Slogans at a crowd that is coming out from a Wedding Party/Campeign Rally is just sick. Which is what that party was, a celebration of the 20th Anniversary of our Governor's wedding, he wanted to hold a event for it and invited the President to come and speak. Not to mention that it was a free event, and the tickets were given out in family packs. So there were plenty of families there that brought their children. So why should those children who did not vote, and only came to see the President, be subject to such a rude and sickening display?

There is a time for Freedom of Speech, and there is a time to shut up, usually that line is crossed when you start hurling accusations at families coming out of a campeign event.

Blademaster

7th November 2006, 07:29 PM

Jesus, I know I'm gonna regret this, but...

Regular protesting is fine, stomping on the American Flag, holding it upside down, and shouting Anti American Slogans at a crowd that is coming out from a Wedding Party/Campeign Rally is just sick.

OK, the last one I'll agree with. The first one... eh, I'll agree with that too. But the second one?

Will someone please explain to me why it's such a tragedy to hold a flag upside down? It's a piece of colored cloths that have been sewn together, and nothing more. What's the big deal?

And 'Because it's un-American.' doesn't count as an answer.

...OK, bring on the barrage of flames and posts that are too long for me to absorb.

Roy Karrde

7th November 2006, 07:32 PM

Holding the flag upside down symbolizes that America is completely wrong and needs to be changed. It's basically become a symbol that the country is heading in the wrong direction. I'm sure you can find more about it if you want to Google it, I'm just going off what they discussed on Mark Davis this morning.

DarkTemplarZero

7th November 2006, 08:04 PM

I'll agree that hurling insults at a family is wrong, but what the hell kind of a person throws a wedding party/campaign rally? Really, those are two things that shouldn't mix, it's about the sacred institution of marriage, god damn it >.< Marriage only mixes with politics in George Orwell's 1984 or in the case of Bill O'Reilly, in which case everything is political. Euler's Identity is too liberal! Euler was a terrorist ally, just like the ACLU!

Oh and I really got a kick out of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BxOfmH9wlA .

Roy Karrde

7th November 2006, 08:08 PM

It wasn't a wedding party persay, the guy got married on Nov 6th, about twenty years ago. He wanted to renew his vowls with his wife, and since it was the day before the election, he had a chance to invite the President, as well as bring in one last campeign push for his governership. From the way he talked on the radio, some times his wedding has fallen on Election Day and thus he usually doesn't get a chance to be with his wife, becuase he is the Governor of Texas. So he had a chance of throwing a free event for his wife, and combine it with one last campeign push for himself and the President.

Jeff

7th November 2006, 09:01 PM

Well, according to Fox News, Paul Sarbanes' seat will remain held by the Democrats, Maryland will have a new Governor, and I'm moving to Virginia :P j/k. Well people were predicting that maybe Maryland would put a Republican in the Senate and Virginia would give a seat to the Democrats, but it seems we're both sticking to our respective colors.

Edit: OK, the gubernatorial projection was based on exit polls, and we know what they did in '04... (also I didn't take part in any exit poll) so, I know I sound like a broken record saying this, but it's still anyone's game. I'm watching the official figures and the two gubernatorial candidates are neck and neck, in fact I just saw Ehrlich pull a couple thousand in front. So putting this back into a national perspective, while the projections can give us an idea, it doesn't look they really mean much, especially for the really tight races.

mr_pikachu

8th November 2006, 12:42 AM

According to the projections on CNN, the Democrats have taken the House (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/house/). They currently have 221 seats with 33 elections undecided. (The GOP has 181, and 218 seats are needed for control.)

The Senate is still interesting, with the GOP in the lead, 49-46 (the two Independent seats are being called Democratic on some sites, but even if you consider it 49-48 the Republicans have a slight lead with three races left). However, since the Republican Party only needs a tie to retain Senate control thanks to the tiebreaker of the Vice President, it seems that the Democrats will only win the House this election.

Still up for grabs:

Senate
Missouri
Montana
Virginia

House
California 04
California 11
California 36
California 39
California 43
California 47
California 50
Colorado 04
Connecticut 02
Connecticut 04
Georgia 08
Georgia 12
Idaho 01
Iowa 02
Louisiana 02
Michigan 07
Michigan 08
Michigan 09
Michigan 11
Nebraska 02
Nebraska 03
Nevada 02
Nevada 03
New Mexico 01
North Carolina 08
Ohio 02
Ohio 15
Pennsylvania 06
Pennsylvania 08
Texas 23
Washington 05
Washington 08
Wyoming 01

Roy Karrde

8th November 2006, 12:44 AM

I really don't trust CNN right now, the Senate seems locked becuase they are easier to track. As for the house at one time they had the dems up at 239, and then it has been a downward spiral. Not only that but if you check some of the races, alot of them are only 30% or 40% reporting and they have called the winner. We really wont know who wins till tomorrow...and then the legal trials start.

mr_pikachu

8th November 2006, 12:57 AM

Admittedly, I don't trust any of the major news networks, but they're the only ones who'll have the info quickly in this case. And as a counter-example that I hate to give (since, although I'm unhappy with both parties, I'm still slightly pulling for the Republicans), FOX News has Democrats taking control of the House (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227961,00.html) as well, though by a smaller margin.

RedStarWarrior

8th November 2006, 12:59 AM

Let the Democrats win. When stuff is still fucked up in 2008, they'll just elect a Republican president again.

mr_pikachu

8th November 2006, 01:31 AM

Too many House seats to post about them all... let's talk some more about the Senate! XD

With 89% of the vote in, McCaskill has a 2% edge over Talent in Missouri. Both sides have projected McCaskill as the winner.

In Virginia, all precincts have reported, and Webb has apparently won another one for the Democrats... by less than one percent. A recount's pretty much inevitable.

The remaining race is Montana. Tester has a 4% edge over Burns, but with only 65% of the precincts reported, that one's too close to call. (And did you ever notice that Montana is totally empty? They'll be lucky to get 300K votes.)

Razola

8th November 2006, 04:39 AM

This is a good thing, though I'm hoping the GOP maintains the Senate just a bit. Though, I shed no tears if they lose it. The party has lost its way for a good while now.

mr_pikachu

8th November 2006, 04:50 AM

Well, I don't think they can lose it at this point (providing that the projections so far are accurate), at least from a technical standpoint. The two Independents have said they will side with the Democrats in terms of voting, but I don't think either has officially switched party affiliations. Therefore, the best that the Democrats can manage is a 49-49 tie by winning both Montana and Virginia. The Senate would still be in Republican control in that case due to the Vice President's tiebreak.

This could change, however, if one of the Independents (or Republicans) switches parties, or if one or more projections proves incorrect (although the ones right now seem pretty spot-on; they've held back premature judgment fairly well this time around).

EDIT: The two Independent wins were in Connecticut and Vermont, just for reference.

Jeff

8th November 2006, 07:28 AM

Let the Democrats win. When stuff is still fucked up in 2008, they'll just elect a Republican president again.

My thoughts exactly.

Roy Karrde

8th November 2006, 09:04 AM

Let the Democrats win. When stuff is still fucked up in 2008, they'll just elect a Republican president again.

Exactly, what can they do? Repeal the Bush tax cuts? Lets watch the Economy go down the crapper again. Pull the troops out of Iraq? Bush will veto it immediatly. Cut troop funding in Iraq? They will be perseved even more as Anti Military. File Inpeachment Hearings for Bush like their base wants? That will gridlock Congress for two years with nothing coming from it.

So yeah let them have the House, in two years they will be kicked out again.

Well 24 hours after the Elections, and the dow is plumeting, and Middle East terror Countries like Iran and Syria are Celebrating. The Democrats better get their act together, or they will prove everything that the Republicans have been saying, in that they will hurt this country greatly.

Jeff

8th November 2006, 12:38 PM

Some big news out of Maryland, don't know if anyone's heard about this, but the two major Republican candidates have not conceded even though there opponents have both declared victory. The reason is that they are waiting on the absentee ballots. They both told there supporters to use them, and now we got a record number of them this year. Personally, I'll call the Senate race for Cardin (D), but the gubernatorial race still seems up in the air.

The Blue Avenger

8th November 2006, 02:01 PM

Well 24 hours after the Elections, and the dow is plumeting

If you call 'going up' 'plummeting'. Stop being so alarmist. Honestly, Democrats in power != apocalypse, so stop acting like it.

RedStarWarrior

8th November 2006, 02:05 PM

The Democratic base remains rigidly liberal, but many of the Democrats elected yesterday were actually moderate to right-leaning Democrats. The only way they will get anything done is to work with the President, which they have already stated that they will do. All the liberals that are celebrating are going to be severely disappointed in the coming monthes.

Heald

8th November 2006, 03:45 PM

Let the Democrats win. When stuff is still fucked up in 2008, they'll just elect a Republican president again.Two years until the next Presidential election. People don't realise how slowly everything happens in Congress, especially in the House. The only way to get something through quickly is if a landmark is attacked by a terrorist or if there is a school shooting, although there have been so many of the latter lately that it is starting to lose its effect.

Exactly, what can they do? Repeal the Bush tax cuts? Lets watch the Economy go down the crapper again. Pull the troops out of Iraq? Bush will veto it immediatly. Cut troop funding in Iraq? They will be perseved even more as Anti Military. File Inpeachment Hearings for Bush like their base wants? That will gridlock Congress for two years with nothing coming from it.There's the great American democracy - people from all different backgrounds vote in Representatives of their views, only to have their views then shat on by which redneck spoiled daddy's boy asshole the party controlling the executive has chosen to be the President. Chances of a veto being overturned? Very little, especially since Republicans like to put their President before common sense and the common good. And don't use that whole 'well 51% of the country voted him in so he has the right!' bullshit. The choice was between him and some other asshole. Neither are fit to run a country so it just became a partisan mud-slinging contest.

Also, Republicans have no room to complain about fears that a Democrat house will slow things down with impeachment over Iraq. Republicans did the same thing during Clinton's Presidency, except there is a vital difference between now and then : now, we are dealing with lying about Saddam, Saddam's involvement with terrorists and al-Qaeda, and Iraq's weapons, plus sending thousands of poorly-equipped of both his own and other country's soldiers into a badly organised war, many of which died, plus bombing and shooting hundreds innocent Iraqi citizens, plus the kidnapping and subsequent beheading of innocent journalists, engineers etc., all in the while pissing off the entire Muslim world and generally making the situation worse for the Western world, the only victors of this war being those who were being persecuted under Saddam; then, we were dealing with a blow-job. For the Republicans to complain about the danger of impeachment bogging down Congress would just be hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Well 24 hours after the Elections, and the dow is plumeting, and Middle East terror Countries like Iran and Syria are Celebrating. The Democrats better get their act together, or they will prove everything that the Republicans have been saying, in that they will hurt this country greatly.Just like how everyone predicted how Bush would blow Clinton's surplus (not unlike Monica Lewinsky), make thousands unemployed, drive the poorest and most vulnerable citizens further into the poorhouse, all for a few tax-cuts that only serve to make the rich richer. But you rich white boys will probably contend this. Just realise that while you (or more likely your parents) might be benefitting from Bush's policies and are privileged enough to be allowed to praise Bush on a Pokemon message board, bear in mind those whose lives have been ruined, which Bush's policies contributed significantly towards, are too poor, too busy slaving their asses off to scrape enough money together to keep a roof over their heads, or too 'my house in New Orleans underwater and I have nothing left'-ed to be able to argue their point of view.

Roy Karrde

8th November 2006, 04:07 PM

There's the great American democracy - people from all different backgrounds vote in Representatives of their views, only to have their views then shat on by which redneck spoiled daddy's boy asshole the party controlling the executive has chosen to be the President. Chances of a veto being overturned? Very little, especially since Republicans like to put their President before common sense and the common good. And don't use that whole 'well 51% of the country voted him in so he has the right!' bullshit. The choice was between him and some other asshole. Neither are fit to run a country so it just became a partisan mud-slinging contest.

I sense some anger from you?

Also, Republicans have no room to complain about fears that a Democrat house will slow things down with impeachment over Iraq. Republicans did the same thing during Clinton's Presidency, except there is a vital difference between now and then : now, we are dealing with lying about Saddam,

Lying is saying a known falsehood, the President did not know there were not Weapons of Mass Destructions in the country, infact everything pointed that there was.

Saddam's involvement with terrorists and al-Qaeda,

Saddam allowed a Al-Qaeda terrorist to remain in his country in a safe house, he allowed Al Qaeda training camps in his country, and allowed Al Qaeda to prepare for the coming invasion. Saddam also paid money to those that became Suicide Bombers. Yes your right, Saddam had no contacts with Terrorism!

and Iraq's weapons, plus sending thousands of poorly-equipped of both his own and other country's soldiers into a badly organised war, many of which died,

And who's fault is it that the Soldiers were badly equipped, lets look at how much Clinton and the Democrats cut funding in the 90s for the military, I believe some one brought up Kerry's voting record for the Military a few pages back, this is where that record becomes very relivant.

plus bombing and shooting hundreds innocent Iraqi citizens, plus the kidnapping and subsequent beheading of innocent journalists, engineers etc.

I don't remember the U.S. Troops capturing and beheading Journalists, or shooting and trying to kill hundreds of innocent Iraqis, infact I remember just the opposite that during the invasion the US led effort had the lowest Civilian Casulty rate. It wasn't until afterwards with the IEDs made by the terrorists that the casulty rate went up.

all in the while pissing off the entire Muslim world and generally making the situation worse for the Western world, the only victors of this war being those who were being persecuted under Saddam;

If going in and taking down the Nazis caused more people in Europe to be pissed at us, and those oppressed by the Nazis being the only ones that were the victors of that war, does it make the cuase any less just? Does pissing off millions, to save the lives of millions make the cause any less just? When has the court of Public Opinion dictated when we should save people?

then, we were dealing with a blow-job. For the Republicans to complain about the danger of impeachment bogging down Congress would just be hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Beep Wrong! Having a Blow Job in the office is not a impeachable offense, all it does is degrade the highest office of the land. LYING about it, to a grand jury. And remember lying, which is telling a known falsehood, in a attempt to persuade people. That is a impeachable offense.

Just like how everyone predicted how Bush would blow Clinton's surplus (not unlike Monica Lewinsky), make thousands unemployed, drive the poorest and most vulnerable citizens further into the poorhouse, all for a few tax-cuts that only serve to make the rich richer.

To start off, in the middle of Clinton's 2000 term, his Economic polices caused the economy to start taking a nose dive, this was a result of not having any security for the post .com bubble burst. Combined with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this country was heading for a Depression not seen since the 1930s. Now what do you do when heading into a Depression? Do you try to balance the budget like Republicans tried to do during the 1930s and thus drive the depression further, or do you spend, spend, spend, and get money circulating. You spend, spend, spend. It wouldn't help to have a balance budget with double digit unemployment now would it? As for the tax cuts, I guess my middle class family is rich becuase we recieved money from them, as did everyone else. It also helped spur off new jobs and continues to make new jobs. That is why several prominant democrats including Hillary Clinton, have said they do not want to erase the Bush Tax Cuts!

bear in mind those whose lives have been ruined, which Bush's policies contributed significantly towards, are too poor, too busy slaving their asses off to scrape enough money together to keep a roof over their heads, or too 'my house in New Orleans underwater and I have nothing left'-ed to be able to argue their point of view.

First, we have unemployment the lowest it has been in years, and we have the economy roaring for the time being, so I doubt there are many that have had their lives ruined by Bush. For New Orleans the line of blame starts first at the Mayor, yes that Democrat Black Mayor who said that New York had a Hole in the Ground, that Mayor who said that all those School Busses that could be used to ship out people before the Hurricane hit, couldn't be used, becuase they were "Under Water" of course he was commenting that they were under water AFTER the Hurricane. Then the blame goes up to the Governor, Yes the Democrat Governor, who could not see the stupidity of the mayor of New Orleans and decided to leave it in his incapable hands. Finally the blame comes to the President, who should have ordered more Natioanal Guard troops faster.

It's a trickle up effect. The Mayor deserves the most amount of blame for being a complete idiot, then the Governor for her complete neglegence, and then the President for not forseeing the utter stupidity of those people, and ordering more troops to cover such a large area.

Jesus F'ing H Christ, is it easier to just blame Bush than to actually look into these things?

Blademaster

8th November 2006, 04:46 PM

Jesus F'ing H Christ, is it easier to just blame Bush than to actually look into these things?

Well, in the most technical sense, yes it is. :/

firepokemon

8th November 2006, 05:23 PM

Roy Karrde You are a fucking moron. Shut the fuck up.

And americans are stupid. The rest of the world opposed the Iraq years ago, but you people thought you knew better. Well guess what you're slowly getting disappointed and scared cause soldiers are dying.

What the fuck do you expect??? You can not get rid of terrorists etc unless you use huge bombs that will kill a lot of people including innocent iraqis. And you can't fucking quit now, that would only create havoc. You all supported the war and supported Bush with approval ratings in the 70s and 80s. Now deal with it.

Democrats = stupid
Republicans = fucking stupid.

Roy Karrde

8th November 2006, 05:27 PM

You know that is border line flaming FirePokemon. Anyway I wont respond to it, so that this doesn't become a full out flame war when the last one was just dieing down. And everyone else, try not to take the Flame Bait, we're better than that.

Edit: I also would like to appologise to DTZ in that I accused him of being the AIM hacker. After several cival discussions with him I know for sure he isn't the AIM hacker. I know who it is, and I know who is contacting Jay to do it, or is using accounts simular to Jay. But I did want to say I am sorry to DTZ.

firepokemon

8th November 2006, 05:37 PM

borderline flaming. Everything is borderline flaming. Yes I could have posted a better argued, more concise argument but that would require work.

I told this board three years ago the war was a mistake and it was based on lies and obvious mistruths. Lets face it, america fucked up. The world was your oyster on September 11 yet somehow you completely blew it, that the rest of world pretty much hates you or puts up with you cause you're so bloody rich.

History continues to repeat itself really. Vietnam was a war with support but then went to anger and this war went the same way. The United States need to stop being so religious and stop being so conservative. I just find it pathetic that the mid-term election was based on stupid issues such as stem cell research, same-sex marriages, abortion etc. The iraqi war and the war on terrorism as well as a few stupid scandals. I would have thought the campaign would be on proper issues. Such as better healthcare, getting more people out of poverty, security, global warming, economic transformation. But you don't see much of any of this.

Roy Karrde

8th November 2006, 05:48 PM

You know I fail the believe that the world was our oyster just post 9/11, just like I fail to believe that there was true Bi-Partisanship post 9/11. Of course there was the first few months in which everyone loved us and we loved everyone and we had a whole feeling of Unison, everyone had flags on their cars or in their front yard, and America, as well as the world was one.

And then a few months later, before we even went into Afghanistan, the flags began to come down. Some Democrats and World Officials were saying we should spend time talking with Terrorists instead of invasion, and it all went down from there. The post 9/11 weeks was full of sympathy, but after a while that sympathy went away. And it is very easy to confuse sympathy with unity.

Also if the World hates us so much, why do they not deicde to turn away the billions upon billions we ship to Countries each year, from Third World countries to France we give away billions to them. So if they hate us so much, why not say no to the money?

As for this war, it differs alot from Vietnam, in Nam we had a war on all fronts, while the fighting remains strickly in Baghdad now days. In Nam we did not actually win the war against the North Vietnamese, as we did with Saddam's forces. There were not Elections held in North Vietnam like there are in Iraq, nor was there North Vietnamese government toppled. We also continue to make headway in Iraq, while we do not in Vietnam.

Now while the Iraq war did play a huge part in the election. Other parts were the strong economy that is roaring right now as I said above, along with the Border situation. As for security, I believe you can lump the Mexican Border as well as the War on Terror as a Security Issue. The reason though you saw so much on the Iraq war and scandles is becuase those were issues Dems knew they could make head way on. They kept away from the Economy that is helping Small and Large Businesses alike, they kept away from the Bush Tax Cuts that help all classes of people, and they kept away from the border. All becuase these were issues Republicans could win on.

Edit: Border line Flaming? You called me a F***ing Moron. and to Shut the F*** up. If that is not flaming then I don't know what is.

mr_pikachu

8th November 2006, 05:54 PM

Blademaster

8th November 2006, 06:11 PM

...

Jeez...

Let's get serious. Right now, I'm having a hard time finding posts that aren't flames in some manner or another. Would it kill everyone to just debate issues rather than scream at each other?

Furthermore, this seems pretty divergent from the topic I initially posted. Combine the off-topicness with the flame war and toss in the near-completion of the midterm elections (which, if you recall, was the point of this topic), and I'm about to close this thread myself.

Make your own topic if you want to yell at each other about Iraq.

See, now that's funny...

I'm not the brightest guy around, but I'm thinking... wait, was it? Yes...? No...?

Yes! This post looks very similar to one of my own from about 50 posts back! Gee, ain't that interesting?

Just close it, Bri - I've looked in the Archives; no one ever shuts up about these debates until the topic is closed, so just do it now and get it over with.

-Blade

Heald

8th November 2006, 06:48 PM

I sense some anger from you?Damned straight. Your political system is a piece of crap geared to help rich conservatives, but anyone who tries to oppose it is labelled as Anti-Americans by the knee-jerk right.

Lying is saying a known falsehood, the President did not know there were not Weapons of Mass Destructions in the country, infact everything pointed that there was.How can something point to something that doesn't exist? All he had was a bunch of Intel that was mainly based on severals shades of shit, including horse, bull and camel, plus Saddam not letting weapons inspectors into his country. Believe it or not, Saddam was and still is a paranoid nutcase - would you want some podgy German lumbering around your military if you were a paranoid and crazy leader of a country? Of course not.

Saddam allowed a Al-Qaeda terrorist to remain in his country in a safe house, he allowed Al Qaeda training camps in his country, and allowed Al Qaeda to prepare for the coming invasion. Saddam also paid money to those that became Suicide Bombers. Yes your right, Saddam had no contacts with Terrorism!He did those things mainly to piss off America. He never had any actual say in what they did. After all, the USA allowed Cuban rebels to return to Cuba only to get massacred, plus the less said about the Contra affair the better. You got terrorists to do your dirty work, so either lead by example or don't whine about it.

And who's fault is it that the Soldiers were badly equipped, lets look at how much Clinton and the Democrats cut funding in the 90s for the military, I believe some one brought up Kerry's voting record for the Military a few pages back, this is where that record becomes very relivant.So what? Bush had over 2 years to reverse that and he didn't. You didn't need that military equipment because Clinton and Kerry did not think that any president after them would be stupid enough to go into a needless war that has only ruined the lives of thousands, and probably more, and the only people that have had any sense of victory from this war are those that were going to be killed by Saddam but now they are not - now they only have to worry about getting shot or bombed by the insurgency - caused by the invasion - or the invaders themselves. It just goes from one personal hell to another, right?

I don't remember the U.S. Troops capturing and beheading Journalists, or shooting and trying to kill hundreds of innocent Iraqis, infact I remember just the opposite that during the invasion the US led effort had the lowest Civilian Casulty rate. It wasn't until afterwards with the IEDs made by the terrorists that the casulty rate went up.If the Coalition hadn't invaded, there would've been no backlash against any non-Iraqi engineers or journalists etc. by the insurgency. By invading we (since we're a coalition) put thousands of innocent people in danger. Besides those tortured, maimed or otherwise humilated in the US concentration camps-I mean, Abu Grahib, I suppose the figures didn't care to count the bodies they couldn't be bothered to find, like when they were bombing Baghdad and other cities in a vain hope to hit Saddam and his regime, even though they were probably in bunkers or, more likely, hiding in holes near their hometowns.

If going in and taking down the Nazis caused more people in Europe to be pissed at us, and those oppressed by the Nazis being the only ones that were the victors of that war, does it make the cuase any less just? Does pissing off millions, to save the lives of millions make the cause any less just? When has the court of Public Opinion dictated when we should save people?First off, Godwin's Law has been invoked. Secondly, stop pretending America did all the work in the defeat of Germany.

This analogy doesn't work, mainly because the Nazis were taking over Europe through war and had actually declared war on the UK, US and the other allies, whereas Iraq was persecuting its own citizens. I'm not saying that's any better or worse, but if you compare the victory over Germany to the victory over Iraq, the victory over Germany was great one, whereas the victory over Iraq was a Pyrrhic victory at best. Not only had we stopped the German persecution of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies etc., we had saved many countries and people who would've otherwise been killed due to German occupation. In invading Iraq, we may have saved thousands who would've otherwise been killed by Saddam, but in the process thousands have been killed, both Iraqi and non-Iraqi, plus our interference in the Middle East has caused enough fear and hate of the West to encourage more attacks on Western targets, endangering even more lives. Let us not forget that the CIA are to blame for Saddam's rise to power.

Europe is not pissed off at America for saving them during the World War (Europe consisting of France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, others who weren't taken over by the Soviets etc.). More or less everyone benefitted from the defeat of Germany, even Germany itself, in the end. Many died, but peace has been brought about. In the case of Iraq, many have died, and the situation has worsened.

Beep Wrong! Having a Blow Job in the office is not a impeachable offense, all it does is degrade the highest office of the land. LYING about it, to a grand jury. And remember lying, which is telling a known falsehood, in a attempt to persuade people. That is a impeachable offense.Beep Wrong! Blow job doesn't count as a sexual relation under the bizarre law at the time. I really don't care otherwise, the guy only lied about getting a blow job, either way. If you still argue 'WELL LYING IS STILL LYING' then you're an idiot, because, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether or not some guy got a blow job, or whether he lied about it, Hell, he's only human. If you get so anal about some guy lying about a blow job, yet you don't bat an eyelid when your President practically sentences thousands to their deaths with an expensive and fruitless war, then you have serious morality issues.

To start off, in the middle of Clinton's 2000 term, his Economic polices caused the economy to start taking a nose dive, this was a result of not having any security for the post .com bubble burst. Combined with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this country was heading for a Depression not seen since the 1930s. Now what do you do when heading into a Depression? Do you try to balance the budget like Republicans tried to do during the 1930s and thus drive the depression further, or do you spend, spend, spend, and get money circulating. You spend, spend, spend. It wouldn't help to have a balance budget with double digit unemployment now would it? As for the tax cuts, I guess my middle class family is rich becuase we recieved money from them, as did everyone else. It also helped spur off new jobs and continues to make new jobs. That is why several prominant democrats including Hillary Clinton, have said they do not want to erase the Bush Tax Cuts!By 'taking a nose dive', do you mean 'longest sustained economic expansion in history' and 'highest level of job creation ever recorded'? I'd figure the signals of a depression were, you know, people losing jobs and a very much distinct lack of economic expansion, plus a budget deficit, all exactly the opposite of what happened during Clinton's presidency. So, now we've ruled out that there was, in fact, no depression and no double-digit unemployment at the beginning of Bush Jr's Presidency, we can throw the bullshit out the window. It wasn't until Bush Jr. made the tax cuts and followed supply-side economics 'just like Daddy taught him to', despite the fact that they failed horribly for his father, like they would for him, that there was a depression. Many Republicans, despite having little or no knowledge of economics, or in fact anything, whatsoever, blamed this on the cyclical slump that must've obviously been caused by Clinton, despite real economists figuring differently and projecting that, had Clinton's policies remained in place, the US would've had a 5.6 trillion surplus, enough to invade Iraq over and over, if you wanted to.
First, we have unemployment the lowest it has been in years, and we have the economy roaring for the time being, so I doubt there are many that have had their lives ruined by Bush. For New Orleans the line of blame starts first at the Mayor, yes that Democrat Black Mayor who said that New York had a Hole in the Ground, that Mayor who said that all those School Busses that could be used to ship out people before the Hurricane hit, couldn't be used, becuase they were "Under Water" of course he was commenting that they were under water AFTER the Hurricane. Then the blame goes up to the Governor, Yes the Democrat Governor, who could not see the stupidity of the mayor of New Orleans and decided to leave it in his incapable hands. Finally the blame comes to the President, who should have ordered more Natioanal Guard troops faster.

It's a trickle up effect. The Mayor deserves the most amount of blame for being a complete idiot, then the Governor for her complete neglegence, and then the President for not forseeing the utter stupidity of those people, and ordering more troops to cover such a large area.No, no lives at all ruined, except those who have to pay for expensive social security thanks to Bush depleting the 'social security lockbox' desperating needed by America's poorest people. Bush could've saved money by not approving stupid shit like sending rockets to Mars, but he likes his toys better when they are out of the toybox, so go figure.

As for the Katrina victims, yes, failure can be blamed at all levels, but as President, he had the power to take the initiative and help the victims of the hurricane. Instead he only turned up when a camera was there, shook a couple of hands, then jetted away.

Since March 2004, 63 000 jobs have been lost per month, despite the fact that at the very least 150 000 need to be created per month in order to keep up with population growth.

Jesus F'ing H Christ, is it easier to just blame Bush than to actually look into these things?I never blame anyone unless they are at fault. And, believe or not, George W. Bush is at great fault. He isn't fit to run a hot dog stand, let alone a superpower. I come from the country of shitty politicians, but I'd say that Bush beats them all hands-down in terms of pure shittiness.

Roy Karrde

8th November 2006, 10:50 PM

Heald before we continue on, and I really want to continue on, I suggest we move this to another topic or private chat such as what DTZ and I have done. Mr. Pikachu has asked us several times to stay on topic, so I suggest we respect his wishes.

DarkTemplarZero

8th November 2006, 11:01 PM

Today is a happy day for America, no more Rumsfeld, and maybe now we'll get stem cell research and the drinking age lowered to 18 like in most civilized nations.

I'm really upset that Chaffee lost the Rhode Island Senate election though, I was really pulling for him. It really means that people weren't voting on issues in Rhode Island, just voting for a democrat because he was a democrat. Chaffee supports legal abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, and the environment and is against the death penalty, the war, and the Bush tax cuts, he's more liberal than the majority of democrats. Whitehouse's only platform was that the White House (major pun intended) sucks and Bush is an idiot and that Chaffee was a Republican. Very sad.

"I believe some one brought up Kerry's voting record for the Military a few pages back, this is where that record becomes very relivant."
Again you mispelled relevant. Seriously, you should watch Voyager more, they love saying irrelevant. Also, Kerry is a decorated war hero, I think he knows a little something about what he's talking about. You shouldn't assume that he's stupid just because he doesn't agree with you.

"Having a Blow Job in the office is not a impeachable offense, all it does is degrade the highest office of the land"
Ah come on man, don't insult blow jobs. You, like every male on the face of the planet, love them. If the president is guilty of being a man, then so be it.

Musourenka

9th November 2006, 12:21 AM

Other than the resignation of Rumsfield, I really don't see how this is a happy day for America. I don't see the downward trend being reversed anytime soon.

Roy Karrde

9th November 2006, 01:02 AM

Just going to mention a few things, DTZ yeah I was busy while typing. Anyway Kerry has been wanting to shove a stick in the Military's eye since Nam. He voted against every spending raise for the military and every military development in the 90s. The Dems wanting to cut Military Spending even though the threat of Terrorism continued to grow, is why we are having problems now. And Clinton having no spine to use the Military to go after Terrorism, isn't a excuse to cut Military Funding.

Anyway now that I got that out of my system. I wanted to share a few quotes from today's Russ Martin Show

"Give them a few years of this chick * Nancy Pelosi * and a House run by Democrats, and people will be wanting to Tongue kiss Republicans" - Russ

"And after listening to this chick * Nancy Pelosi again * for two years, people will start rethinking Hilary for President in two years" - Clo
"Why wouldn't Hilary make people rethink Hilary for President" - Russ

Both of these came after a speach Nancy Pelosi gave a very very negative speach on Iraq, just a day after the election.

DarkTemplarZero

9th November 2006, 01:52 AM

What does the military have to do with protecting the nation against terrorism? Apparently the invasion of Iraq has actually hurt the war on terror according to an intelligence report: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/27092006/3/world-iraq-cause-celebre-jihadists-u-s-report.html, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/27/report_sees_war_fueling_jihadists_1159343079/
And also the Daily Show made some good jokes about it, look it up on Youtube. So naturally, cutting military spending makes sense and instead focusing on less inflamatory ways of fighting terrorism, i.e. intelligence and security forces in the United States. Besides, notice that Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States way back when in 1998, after which the Clinton administration tried to hunt him down covertly for two years and Clinton claims he "got closer to killing him than anyone since". Notice that bin Laden was completely unsuccessful in harming the United States until Clinton's administration was long gone?

and while Pelosi isn't the greatest speaker of the house (She voted for the Patriot Act and the No Child Left Behind Act >.< ) but nevertheless I think that generally she'll send the country in the right direction. Besides, at least she's better than Dennis Hastert.

And a few quotes from the Daily Show that I enjoy:

"If the events of September 11, 2001, have proven anything, it's that the terrorists can attack us, but they can't take away what makes us American -- our freedom, our liberty, our civil rights. No, only Attorney General John Ashcroft can do that."

"President Bush recently challenged Iraqi soldiers still fighting U.S. troops like so: 'My answer is bring 'em on.' For those of you who may be criticizing Bush for acting like a movie cowboy, let me remind you: he's actually acting more like a movie cheerleader."

(referring to this picture taken in Abu Ghraib : http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gallery1.5/albums/Abu_Ghraib_prison_abuses/AA208186_D89B_4A41_B5C3_7681074F3E8B_pobj_MINI_1.j pg ) "Some people think that's torture. To me, that looks like cheerleading practice."

Blademaster

9th November 2006, 01:57 AM

ENOUGH WITH THE QUOTES ALREADY!!! :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

And w00t for Rumsfeld getting the boot.

Roy Karrde

9th November 2006, 09:27 AM

Alright really this is the last time I am posting a off topic post and then we should split the topic.

First of course the war in Iraq will boost Jihadism among the most radical, they were just looking for a excuse. As for cutting spending, Osama had planned and orchestrated several terrorists attacks during the Clinton administration, thousands died, it was only a matter of time that we had to go after him with our military, but the democrats continued to make cuts in it. Weakening it and weakening it until when we had to go to war, we had a shadow of what we once had.

And yeah your right, Clinton did get closer to Osama than anyone else, such as the time that he had a chance to bomb Osama's terrorist camp but wanted two varifications instead of one, which is near impossible. Or the time that he was practically given Osama Bin Laden but choose to allow him to be exported back to Afghanistan. Abd Osama was harmless during the Clinton Administration? Tell that to those that died in the 93 World Trade Center explosion, a event that Clinton didn't even go and visit! Tell that to those that died in our Embassys in Africa, where Osama conducted two bomb attacks that kill hundreds. Tell that to the brave men and women of the USS Cole who were killed in 2000 by Osama Bin Laden.

We have been in a War on Terror since the early 90s, only one side has been fighting it. The other side spent eight years cutting the military while we were in this war, they spent eight years allowing the enemy to build his force, to attack us at home and abroad, and they spent eight years blowing oppertunity after oppertunity to capture the leader of Al Qaeda, even when he was gift wrapped with a bow on top of his head.

DarkTemplarZero

9th November 2006, 12:47 PM

Well I'm sorry if Clinton wanted to be sure that he wasn't bombing a large group of civilians, because if he did there would've been mass outrage and anti-American sentiment flying all over the place. It's a consideration that Bush apparently never thought of.

And as for the war in Iraq boosting Jihadism, it's not just the most radical. By most estimates 50,000 civilians were killed. If Americans killed your completely innocent son, wouldn't you be just a bit more inclined to join the Jihadist movement?

What have we done to bin Laden by going after him with the military? We searched for him for a while, let the "Northern Alliance" i.e. a bunch of Afghan warlords who sells completely innocent people to the United States as prisoners to be sent to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (Read up on the Tipton Three and watch the Road to Guantanamo if you don't believe that there are innocent people at those "prisons", if you could call them that.), take over the hunt for him, and five years later we've found nothing.

The Cole incident happened three months before Clinton left office, he didn't exactly have a chance to go and find whoever did it. Bin Laden didn't plan the attack on the Cole, however, that was Ali Qaed Sinan al-Harthi, who was killed by a Predator Drone in 2002. Next, the claim that Sudan offered to extradite bin Laden to the United States, there's no evidence of that and the Clinton administration has always denied that this ever happened. Clinton did, however, authorize the assassination of bin Laden and put a 5 million dollar bounty on his head. And as for the 1993 WTC explosion, that was not even al Qaeda, but a group lead by Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman that was supposidly linked to al Qaeda. However, thanks for bringing up the 1993 WTC attack, because that was an example of how a response to a terrorist attack should be conducted. Within two years everyone involved was captured, despite the fact that one of them managed to flee to Pakistan, and they were all given fair trials and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, unlike the horrific mess we've gotten ourselves into in Afghanistan and Iraq without even capturing the man responsible.

Roy Karrde

9th November 2006, 01:08 PM

First I want to say that we are going off topic again, we need to get back on it or DTZ you need to make your own topic.

Now with that out of the way, the only Civilians that he would have killed would be Osama's wife and Children, everyone else there were training camps in the multitude of times that Clinton had to bomb him. Also the event I am talking about is the event that happened in Sudan. Sudan was getting sick of Osama using their country to stage terror attacks, so they gave Clinton three options: They will go in and arrest him, handing him over to the United States so that he can stand trial in New York for the 93 WTC Bombing, or they will go in and kill him and everyone else in there, or they will kick Osama Bin Ladin out of the country and force him to flee to Afghanistan.

3 Guesses on which one Clinton decided on.

50,000? Most estimates are that the INSUGRENTS have killed over 100,000. Check that number again and who did it, not the US, not the British, the Insurgents. Meaning Bathist, Iranians, and Al Qaeda. Also remember that this war had the least amount of civilian casulties going in, the main amount of civilian casulties have been from Insurgents.

Now what have we done to Bin Ladin? We have shut down his control over his entire network, we have made him nothing more than a hermit. Also while you try to attack the Northern Alliance, remember that the Northern Alliance did more to try to kill Bin Laden than the Clinton Administration ever did. They sat up bombs to try and kill Bin Ladin when his car passed by, along with other attempts. The problem is we never supported their cause. As for Guantanamo Bay, have you been there? Have you gone to visit? No I didn't think so, then again neither have I, but I have talked to people that have. Mainly people that went down there when the Media was invited to go down to Guantanamo Bay. Down there are some of the scariest, most deadly people this world has ever seen.

As for the Cole Incident. Osama Bin Ladin announced he did it just hours after the event happened, the CIA task force sent to monitor Bin Ladin said it was him. We had a Submarine sitting just a few hundred miles away from his training camp ready to launch cruise missles. But again Clinton did not have the spine to do it. As for claiming there is no evidence about Sudan? I refer you to the 2001 Vanity Fair Article for my first piece of evidence

NEW YORK --VANITY FAIR HAS OBTAINED LETTERS and memorandums that document approaches made by Sudanese intelligence officials and other emissaries to members of the Clinton administration to share information about many of the 22 terrorists on the government's most-wanted list, including: Osama bin Laden.

And here is one of the quotes from one of the Negotiators of the deal

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

Or if you need further proof, how about the Last US Ambassador to Sudan, who served during the Clinton Administration.

ACCORDING TO TIM CARNEY, THE LAST U.S. AMBASSADOR to Sudan, whose posting ended in 1997, “The fact is, they were opening the doors, and we weren’t taking them up on it. The U.S. failed to reciprocate Sudan’s willingness to engage us on some serious questions of terrorism. We can speculate that this failure had serious implications—at least for what happened at the U.S. Embassies in 1998. In any case, the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization.” He tells Rose, “It was worse than a crime. It was a fuckup.”

What do you have to say about that now?

As for the first WTC Attack, I refer you to the USA Today Article.

WASHINGTON — U.S. counterterrorism officials are focusing on a Kuwaiti lieutenant of Osama bin Laden with links to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a key architect of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

Osama helped the WTC attack, his men were apart of it, and we never caught the main people that sat it up, we caught the expendables, we caught those that Osama was willing to give up. And you call that a way to fight terrorism? Through the court system? That is beyond laughable. Why don't you tell those that have died from the second WTC attack, or those that died from the USS Cole, or those that died from the Embassy Bombings, or those that died from any of Al Qaeda's attacks from 1993 on about how well the US effort with the Court System fought terrorism.

I have said it before and I will say it again, we were at war, get it? WAR since 1993. You cannot fight a war with the courts. But apparently Democrats never realized that.

mr_pikachu

9th November 2006, 04:30 PM

TO GET THIS BACK ON TOPIC...

Allen has conceded (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_el_se/virginia_senate) to Webb in Virginia. This means that, with the two Independents siding with Democrats, the Republicans have lost control of both the House and the Senate (as well as the majority of governors).

Heald

9th November 2006, 04:42 PM

So instead of having a lame President, you just have a lame duck President...

Sorry, that was terrible.

All seriousness aside, Bush has paid the price of terrible policies and poorly-organised warmongering, and throwing Rumsfeld out like a bone to the hungry dogs will do little to appease the masses. Still, as I said before, only 2 years left of his term, then you'll have to face the prospect of having Hillary as a Presidential candidate. Have fun with that. Take it from a country who experimented with a female leader - they're bad news. Well, unless you like having the poorest 40% of your country facing huge job losses, tax cuts that only benefit the rich and the loss of welfare while the richest 5% benefit in terms of millions of dollars from the tax cuts...so it won't be much more different than Bush, I guess.

Master Rudy

9th November 2006, 08:38 PM

Oh sweet Virginia why? ;.; Do you know how many votes Allen lost to?

Roy Karrde

9th November 2006, 08:43 PM

I believe around 5,000 or less. More than enough to call for a recount, especially if you count the possible Election Fraud that the Dems were saying would happen before the election.

DarkTemplarZero

9th November 2006, 11:25 PM

Well I'm not a big fan of Webb, but with him having consistently opposed the Iraq War and Allen being such a hypocritical douchebag I'm not surprised Webb pulled out a victory. Webb isn't even against the death penalty >.< and I was hoping that this might be a sign that Virginia would stop executing people left and right, oh well. At least things are better here in Jersey, where even the Republicans either oppose or are neutral on capital punishment.

And Heald, sexist remark much?

Roy Karrde

9th November 2006, 11:35 PM

Allen had alot going for him and was being looked as the next front runner of the Republican Party. With such a close result there is a chance that the counts were wrong, or that there was vote tampering. Not saying there was, but for the last two major Presidential Elections, Republicans have had to deal with Democrats wanting recounts, so why can't we not ask for recounts of our own?

And Heald, there is one good Female Leader I know! Laura Roslin from Battlestar Galactica, I don't care if her views before the Colonies were nuked, were Liberal. I would vote for her over any other representative we have today.

The Blue Avenger

9th November 2006, 11:45 PM

Not saying there was, but for the last two major Presidential Elections, Republicans have had to deal with Democrats wanting recounts, so why can't we not ask for recounts of our own?

Nobody's stopping you. Just be prepared for the backlash - like the Republicans gave the Democrats the first time around. ;)

mr_pikachu

9th November 2006, 11:53 PM

I think that's the main reason Allen's not asking for one. Besides, it's been a bad enough campaign for him, anyway. (Remember the "macaca" incident that turned everything around?) I'm sure this is something he wants to put behind him. Better for him and the GOP not to drag it out.

RedStarWarrior

10th November 2006, 02:26 PM

Impeachment will not be occuring, regardless what those in other countries might be thinking, hoping.

Also, it's pretty easy to sit on the outside and make judgements without fulling understanding the intricacies of our government.

In conclusion, watch the flaming, no matter how amusing it is to make yourself look like an idiot, and let's actually discuss the issues.

Jeff

10th November 2006, 03:07 PM

Absolutely, there's no way Bush is going to be impeached. Just because the Democrats now control both houses, does not mean every seat is now filled with a ravenous Bush-basher who can't wait to kick him out. In fact, most of the "Democrats" that were just elected are merely nominal Democrats. From what I'm seeing it looks like everyone is more interested in trying to play nice together. Sure I give that about a snowball's chance, but still, at least they're going to make an effort, and if they are going to make that effort I don't think impeachment will be on the agenda.

RedStarWarrior

13th November 2006, 06:20 AM

The Democrat leaders in the Senate and House have already stated that it will not be a possibility.

Roy Karrde

14th December 2006, 08:59 AM

While not under the best of circumstances, the Republicans have just gained back control of the Senate. Senator Tim Johnson is in Critical Condition right now with bleeding in his brain, he has just gotten out of surgery and the doctors are saying it is too early to determine what will happen.

What this may mean?
Well Tim Johnson comes from a Republican state, meaning that it is up to the Governor to appoint who takes his place. If the Governor, appoints a Republican from his own party, the Senate swings back to 50-50 and the Vice President has control over deadlock votes.

Anyway no matter what religion you are, I suggest you pray for the Senator and his family tonight, for the ordeal they are going through today and in the future days.

mr_pikachu

14th December 2006, 10:30 AM

When I first saw this topic at the top of the forum, I thought to myself, "Didn't we let this thread die? What idiot revived the flame war?"

Then I read your post.

Dang... that's awful. Hopefully there won't be any further complications. I feel badly for him; not only is he clearly in grave danger with such a problem, but there must be enormous pressure on him from all sides as to whether to return to work. It's not a good situation.

Out of curiosity, if he is unable to return to the Senate immediately on Jan. 4 for the new session of Congress, would he then be forced to relinquish his seat? (I doubt it, since many Senators have skipped many meetings in a row before...) Or is there a more complicated process for deciding when someone has to give up his or her position?

Heald

14th December 2006, 12:30 PM

What this may mean?
Well Tim Johnson comes from a Republican state, meaning that it is up to the Governor to appoint who takes his place. If the Governor, appoints a Republican from his own party, the Senate swings back to 50-50 and the Vice President has control over deadlock votes.How likely is it that the Governor will choose a Republican? Because if he does, that's bullshit. It's virtually partisan nepotism.

kainashi

14th December 2006, 01:03 PM

How likely is it that the Governor will choose a Republican? Because if he does, that's bullshit. It's virtually partisan nepotism.very likely. that's america's government for you. :waycool:

Roy Karrde

14th December 2006, 01:31 PM

Heald

14th December 2006, 04:38 PM

Well the Governor is Republican, and the state is VERY heavily Republican, so much that Bush won by 22 points there back in 04. The race with this guy was supposedly very tight also. Besides the voters voted for this guy, if he isnt able to serve then it is the Governor's choice and he will be going by the will of the state which is Republican. Hell the only reason this guy got elected was becuase he was very middle and down the line Democrat.Wikipedia says South Dakota is generally Republican, not VERY heavily, but since some members of the board have a paranormal fear of anything said on Wikipedia and instead rely heavily on obviously biased media sources, we'll ignore that conveniently.

It isn't a matter of partisanship - since, as you said, it is a Republican state, the only reason he won was because he was a Conservative Democrat and he beat an obviously incompetent opponent. The voters didn't vote for him because of his party, they voted for him because of his views. Putting in someone who has differently views to him would be going against what the state wants.

Also, just because a state votes for a Republican for Governor or President is different to a Senate or Congress election. The Executive and the Legislative are two separate wings of Government and deal with different things.

If the Governor puts in a Republican, he is obviously doing it to serve his party and not his state and would be completely disrespectful of the incapacitated Senator, using his illness to their benefit, especially since putting in a Republican Senator would cause a drastic shift of power in the Senate.

If the situation was the other way round and it was the Democrats who had the oppotunity to seize a free seat from the Republicans and take control, no doubt you'd be seething at the thought of that.

Roy Karrde

14th December 2006, 04:48 PM

I would be seething yes, but this isn't my choice, not only is this guy doing this to save his political career, but becuase it is what anyone else would do in his place in the Political World. And Wikipedia can say what ever they want about Generally or Heavily, a state doesn't vote for a Republican President by a overwhelming 22 points over his opponent and is considered Generally. Not to mention that the race between the two was very very close between the two.

Anyway it all comes down to him saving his own Political ass and making sure he gets re-elected by his base. The voters voted for Tim, statistics say that the people of the state voted for him and not the part. With him gone, its up to the Governor to choose what the will of the people would want, and the will of the people is obviously conservative in that state. Find another Conservative Democrat and the Governor may elect him. Then again Conservative Democrats are a rare breed.

mr_pikachu

14th December 2006, 05:47 PM

Also, just because a state votes for a Republican for Governor or President is different to a Senate or Congress election. The Executive and the Legislative are two separate wings of Government and deal with different things.

True. On the other hand, how many voters do you think realize this?

As much as the system sucks, it's designed so that one person decides the fate of that Senate seat (and in this case, the Senate as a whole). Like it or not, we have no choice but to accept it until such time that the rules change. Until then, it is how it is.

I do see the merits of the system, by the way. It helps to guard against massive delays in scheduling a statewide vote whenever someone is unable to serve adequately. If you had a few of those in a row, the Senate could potentially be shut down for months. Giving one person the ability to decide saves a lot of time, money, and effort.

Let's just wish our best for Johnson and hope for his sake that he gets well quickly, regardless of what we may think about the Senate.