For your little GOP toddler who has everything...

[koboshi]

I hate to stick my nose in the blender like this but:

Yeah, you like the guys that "make your skin crawl". Right.  
 

I love the informed politicians. Those who have researched there programs' pros and cons and have made an informed decision whether or not to proceed.  The kind of politicians that can make even staunch detractors say "Hmm, I hadn't thought that."  If I was given the chance to speak with George Bush, Dick Cheney, or some other member of the administration on policy I'm sure it would be an interesting discussion.  Smart well-informed useful discussion is necessary in a democracy.  The only people who make my skin crawl are the people who support bush in the fashion that you, boog, and almost all people who post on this board at one point or another are so fond of.  These penis waving matches do little to nothing in changing my opinion of the candidates.  Do you want an example of what I'm talking about?

Fucktard…Christ all fucking mighty…the ones in office right now are just greedy bastards, plain and simple…FLAWED THINKING…Like most things, it doesn't matter what the fuck you say…You should just kill yourself and save the trouble of understanding how the world works…

Although there is one point which I agree with you wholeheartedly:

Blind hate backed up by facts != logical, rational thinking.

For future debates here are a couple ideas that will help all of us:

if the opposing poster doesn't offer proof of their point, post approval of your point instead of relying on what amounts to the same argument
 

"You said "I don't have to tell you why neighborhood watches are a good idea, do I" and I'm saying you do.”

Never confuse the ideas of opinion and in fact and while we're at it how about no one uses the phrase in my honest opinion because it means absolutely nothing in a political discussion.  We know damn well and good what you're opinion is, probably before you can say it.

If you said it in another post don't say it again.

Troll opinions don't count (I might have shot myself in the foot with that want, but it's still true)

If you're going to significantly derail a conversation make a new post.  Not that I think this stupid children's book post was going to go anywhere, it's just simple courtesy to take it outside so you don't knock over anybody's drinks.

If the opposing poster said it on another forum, argue with it there.  The exception being for ex-girlfriends, girlfriends, wives, and ex-wives, who are allowed to pull something up from a past life, if they can find the quote.

Walking away from a fight is acceptable, only if you actually walk away from it.

Finally and most importantly if your opposing poster is so ignorant that you require curse words to describe their stupidity then why exactly are you arguing with them?  If however you are attempting to have an honest political debate remember the McLaughlin group never had people screaming over the coffee table, "U ignorant fucktard!"

Thank you

PS.  To write this post I used the Dragon dictation program and was incredibly surprised to find the word fucktard is a recognized word.

[Murgos]

All of a sudden they want rules.

[koboshi]

they arent exactly hard and fast rules if i broke two of them just by posting them.

[Dark Vengeance]

I love the informed politicians. Those who have researched there programs' pros and cons and have made an informed decision whether or not to proceed.  The kind of politicians that can make even staunch detractors say "Hmm, I hadn't thought that."  If I was given the chance to speak with George Bush, Dick Cheney, or some other member of the administration on policy I'm sure it would be an interesting discussion.  Smart well-informed useful discussion is necessary in a democracy.

I agree with you 100%. You are right. The problem is...that's you, but not geldon.

The only people who make my skin crawl are the people who support bush in the fashion that you, boog, and almost all people who post on this board at one point or another are so fond of.  These penis waving matches do little to nothing in changing my opinion of the candidates.  Do you want an example of what I'm talking about?

Fucktard…Christ all fucking mighty…the ones in office right now are just greedy bastards, plain and simple…FLAWED THINKING…Like most things, it doesn't matter what the fuck you say…You should just kill yourself and save the trouble of understanding how the world works…

For starters, don't lump me in with Boog just because we are both arguing with geldon. Or even if we happen to both argue for Bush or against Kerry. For the record, SirBruce is a Bush supporter, and I'd rather not be lumped in with him, either.

Secondly, it'd help if you had some history on the matter. He has vehemently attacked Bush, and defended Kerry at every turn...often using uninformed, or blatantly misinformed arguments, and then RE-USING them a few days later, even after conceding them as points in previous discussions.

I don't know how often I have to point out the recession, 9/11, and the accounting scandals to him as reasons for our economic difficulties, the increase in outsourcing, unemployment, etc. Yet he keeps trying to blame it on Bush, and bringing up the point that rich people got bigger tax rebates than poor people (meanwhile, he is collecting unemployment checks). Apparently quite a bit....because every time I diffuse his argument about this, he commends me for bringing valid points to the discussion....yet we go on to have the same argument again and again, because he brings it up as a means to bash Bush and the GOP and proclaim his undying loyalty to Kerry and the Dems at every opportunity. It gets a tad frustrating, and yes....I admit I tee off on geld's political knowledge (or lack thereof) regularly as a result.

Also, what he doesn't realize is that I don't have a party affiliation. I'm an independent, albeit one that doesn't agree with kerry on matters of policy, and hates seeing muckrakers make baseless accusations of corruption and incompetence against the President. I was against it with Clinton too...at least up until I discovered that he committed perjury (and even then, I was only after him for the perjury, not the BJ). I was actually a supporter of moveon.org at the time, until they dropped into pure partisan BS and started doing the exact same things they blasted GOP watchdogs for doing to Clinton.

Although there is one point which I agree with you wholeheartedly:

Blind hate backed up by facts != logical, rational thinking.

If you're paying attention, this is one of the points I am trying to defend. The kid is stubborn, and insists on bringing up strawman after strawman as to why the GOP is evil incarnate. Every so often, he baits me into trying to knock one of those straw men down, in the hopes that it will get him to see the other side of the fence....at least enough to understand where they are coming from.

Finally and most importantly if your opposing poster is so ignorant that you require curse words to describe their stupidity then why exactly are you arguing with them?

Hey, by doing it this long, we finally got him to Google for information to support his position every so often. He tends to cite some fairly flimsy sources, yet still tries to discredit sources like CNN and the Washington Post....but at least he's doing some research, even if he's not thinking about it critically.

The next step is to get him to look at both sides of an issue....and to get him to look at the issue instead of just the candidate or party affiliation. You break the issue down to the point where you understand both sides....even well enough to argue for or against either position. Then you decide which position you agree with the most....then you align yourself with the candidate that shares your views on the issues.

When he argues with me when I say that the GOP is not evil incarnate, he obviously isn't taking the route of logical, rational thinking.

But why bother? Easy...because we don't need another person going to the polls based on some ignorant hatred for one party or another. The goal is to get him to lose the hatred and look at the matter intelligently, not influence which party gets his vote.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Paelos]

Having gone toe to toe with DV, I can say generally he's somewhat more interesting to argue against. Granted it was about rape and I was taking a pretty off-beat viewpoint for the pure sake of argument, but he still held it together pretty well even though I'm a google-freak.

Geldon on the other hand seems to suddenly become an expert on everything he opens his mouth on, probably because he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[geldonyetich]

It's the towels, really.  Get one of those Holiday Express Inn towels and you know everything.   Pure cotton-based nerdvana.

I'll admit Dark Vengence has his mitts on a great deal more facts than I can come across (or, at the very least, his presentation is better).   Where he's been citing specific examples which may or may not have an influence on the big picture, I've been doing most of my reasoning on a common sense standpoint.    I may not be able to tell you what a political science major would tell you, but I can tell you slightly more than the man on the street.   I (believe it or not) do have a working creative mind which I strive to keep open to new ideas at all times.   However, clearly my expertese is not here (is anyone here a poltical science major?)

Still, in this particular discussion, an expert probably is not required to argue this side.    You'd have to be trying really hard to foster delusion in order to avoid noticing that things have been less than jolly under the Republican regeim.   9/11 just isn't excuse enough - things were going sharply downhill prior to the disaster as well.   I'd go look up some charts for you, but I'm sure you've already seen them.   The Dotcom crash also isn't excuse enough, as it apparently occured half-way through Clinton's second term (depending on what source you cite) and didn't influence the vast majority of businesses that weren't trying to make a living off the internet.   Amazon's still up and running, by the way.  

I would suggest that the Republican fiscal plan just doesn't work to create a healthy country.  It hasn't worked during the application of Reganomics, and it doesn't work in the barely altered version they have now.   Watching them piss away 14 trillion dollars while riding a warhorse to cover their tracks just helped upgrade them from "clueless fossils" to "political equivilent to evil incarnate" in my book.     14 trillion - largest amount of federal debt change during a single presidential term in the history of the United States.   Most of it gone in the form of tax rebates that largely favored the rich, who (feigning sudden financial difficulties regardless) turned right around and sold our jobs overseas.   Dribble-down only works when folks up top give a damn, which is apparently less than common.    Republican equivilents to Boss Tweed, I hope you've enjoyed your stay in the whitehouse.  

Now, in DV's latest post, we're hearing him blame the results in themselves?  "There's a recession because things are in recession.   Outsourcing has been occuring because buisiness felt it would be cheaper to outsource."  Ect.   You might have more facts on your hands there, DV, but that's a very odd line of reasoning.   Usually when confronted with a problem, I like to try to find solutions, not reinforce the problem by suggesting it's neccessary to occur.   Sounds like you've bought into political smokescreen to me.   It's about as flimsy as the "everything wrong with these last four years was the last administration's fault!" pretense.  I sure didn't see Clinton whining in 1996 when his own administration in the previous term set him up for economic success.

[Lum]

Geldon, for the love of God just STOP. This crack:

I'll retract my earlier Hitler related commentary on the grounds that WW-II was a fucked up event for everybody. That, and I didn't really mean to imply racial genocide so much as reasoned extermination of a certain group of disadvantaged individuals.

is utterly offensive to anyone with a brain. Totally apart from the fact that I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here, you're dismissing the most catastrophic genocide in European history, WHICH HAS PERSONALLY AFFECTED PEOPLE YOU ARE TALKING TO, with the offhand comment that "WW2 was fucked up for everybody". Well, no, it wasn't. It was fucked up for THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT WERE ROUNDED UP IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND SLAUGHTERED.

The rest of your ramblings, as best I can tell, basically say "I don't really know what I'm talking about, but you should listen to me because I don't like conservatives after thinking about it really, really hard." That's fine. That's more effort than most people put into it and is coming perilously close to something that can actually almost be discussed. And then we get these left field diversions into Holocaust denial. To quote the philosophers: WTF, man?

It's really obvious that you have the same problem my stepson does: you refuse to ever let the fact that you have completely no idea what you're talking about stopping you from commenting. Most of the time this is somewhat amusing and endearing. This time, it's totally, unbeliveably, completely offensive on multiple levels. STOP.

[geldonyetich]

Terribly sorry I offended your sensibilities there, Lum, but World War II was a frigging World War.   What happened to the jewish people in the nazi concentration camps were one of the worst travesties in humanity, I agree.   I've seen footage of the bulldozers pushing around bodies, and it's truly vile.

However, the death toll outside of the holocaust camp wasn't terribly enjoyable either.   Much of Europe was leveled under bombings.   Nearly the entire male population in the USSR was wiped out to support their war effort.   Apparently the only way we could get the killing to stop was to drop NUCLEAR BOMBS.   Do I need to make this any more clearer?

So I stick by my earlier statement, "World War 2 was fucked up for everyone."   Terribly sorry I didn't take the time, just this once, to amend onto that, "particularly if you were jewish an anywhere near Germany."   Deal with it.

[Lum]

Here's a new thing to research in your free time when you're done musing on your adventures in the political system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism">Moral relativism.

Some of us find it offensive.

[geldonyetich]

Yes, we do.

My comment that offended you so had less to do with morals and more to do with dismissing the whole ugly business from this thread.   That, like the rest of this thread, probably should have died by now.  

And yes, reasoned extermination of anyone is offencive to the brain, which is why I was offended enough to mention it where I detected it earlier in Boogs argument.   What you were arguing with was the extreme tail end of an entirely different subject, and taking it in an entirely wrong light by having no idea as to the background in which it was introduced.

And I know how/when to shut up, I just don't particularly enjoy having offhand comments taken for entirely different inflections than I meant to imply.   It's a nasty tendacy I especially notice from the #hate crowd, who have demonstrated a sickening habit of taking everything I say for the worse possible meaning.   I could send you a Hallmark greeting card that said "Get Well Soon" and you'd probably think I was suggesting kidnapping this Well guy.

[Rasputin]

Then you should try to think before you shove your foot in your mouth.

[geldonyetich]

Case in point.  Perhaps there's some strange arguing style I can establish that wouldn't cause mass misinterpretation in what I've been saying.  However, considering certain members of the audience, I suspect what is reading largely is depending on the preconcieved notion of the reader.

[schild]

Still working at Best Buy, I see?

Not for about 18 months. But keep talking.

Trust me, I will. You going to lock this fucking thing yet or do I have to keep pissing on your head?

You have 3 days to make your piss taste like champagne. If it doesn't, expect to hold it in.

Edit: Wait a minute, why bother locking it when I can just roll away the stupid? Re-railed.

[Margalis]

This original statement from Boog was this:

"They aren't broken. That often implies they can be fixed. They just don't work like you, at all. You don't "fix" a dog for being a dog, do you? Much the same. They aren't human."

I agree with Geldon. Replace "they" with "Jews." Or any group you don't like.

Dehumanization is always the first step no? In this case the "they" are clearly human in every sense of the word, other than the "gee, it feels less guilty if I call them something else" sort of way.

Maybe it's not the wisest thing to compare being a Jew to being a sexual predator...deal. That wasn't the point of the analogy.

I compare being black and being gay all the time, and sometimes some black person will say "hey, I resent that." Tough shit. That's why it's called an analogy, not an equivalency.

"We can do whatever we want to these people, because they aren't like us or even human" is a pretty dangerous philosophy to espouse, regardless of who you are referring to. It's a purposeful innacuracy to obscure the issues. Let's just change our terminology around so we can behave like idiots without justification.

It was a poorly chosen analogy, but the basic point was good, and you guys have made it into a huge issue for no reason. (Unless I missed something in some later, rambling posts)
---

The sad part is, there are plenty of good reasons to hate the GOP, but nobody has brought them up. Too much Jew talk.


Edit: To clarify and annoy people further:

Boog said: We can do what we want to people, because they aren't like us and not even really human.

Geldon said: That same sort of logic has been used to justify things like the Holocaust.

A bunch of Jews said: @#$#$!

That's how I read this discussion. I agree with Geldon, I think you guys are reading into his comments what you want to read without thinking about what was, you know, actually written.

This is basically the exact same coversation as the following:

Some guy: We shouldn't allow gays to marry, that destroys families and is bad for society.

Geldon: That same logic was used against interracial marriage.

A bunch of interracial couples said: Hey, fuck you, don't call us gay.

---
Way to miss the point.

[geldonyetich]

Thanks Margalis, I was thinking that perhaps there must have been something fatally wrong with my writing, but looks like what I was wrote was actually readable after all.   (Though a little practice establishing better post structure wouldn't hurt me.)

You're right I could have chosen a less offensive analogy to use.  Though it's a hard subject to find an unoffencive example of due to how harsh the subject was (reasoned extermination of human beings), I probably chose the worst case in human history.

[Margalis]

You owe me $5. :)

[geldonyetich]

Can it wait until after the recession? ;)

[Boogaleeboo]

Wouldn't you have to get a job first?

Replace "they" with "Jews." Or any group you don't like.

But then it wouldn't be my argument. Jews are not an action. Sexual assault IS an action. Sexual predators, by and large [Skippy the linebacker may get drunk and fuck his date and be a sexual predator, but possibly not in the tradition sense of the word], aren't wired the same as you. Oh sure, 2 arms 2 legs. Most external things in the right place. You can breed with them, so I suppose you have to admit it's the same species.

They just don't act like people act. In some cases, they aren't even biologically similar in thought patterns.

Why pretend otherwise? A Jew and a genteel, basically the same cat at work. A normal man and a sociopath? There's every chance you are talking about a serious mental imbalance that would show up examining the two [every chance, some cases, and all other catch words are used because sometimes people are fucked up with no clear biological or psychological reason to suggest why]. You can pretend it's a "good point" and say "Well, it's like what Hitler did to the Jews" but a lot of things are like what Hitler did to the Jews.

Guess what? That doesn't make it bad. "Like" doesn't mean it's the same thing. If history was "Hitler rounded up the Jews locked them away in camps until the war was over and then deported them" it'd be like what actually happened.

It's that key "Slaughtered in a manner not befitting animals, let alone human beings" that kinda crosses the line. And all the other steps to it. And it wasn't just the Jews. It was Christians and gays and gypsies and so on and so on and so on. It was "Kill everyone we don't like".

Whereas I said sexual predators need to be watched at all times. Unless you are arguing that sexual predators are people too, and deserve to be treated with respect.

Like Hitler?

Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Ironwood]

Whereas I said sexual predators need to be watched at all times.

 

I could be wrong, of course, but I actually thought you said "We can't afford to watch them at all times, so let's just get rid of them."  It could certainly be read that way...

[Boogaleeboo]

You could indeed be wrong. I have no problem with trying to treat them, throwing them in a pit and torturing them, or putting them on a fucking deserted island. I didn't say do any of these things. I said make sure you know where they are, because they have a disturbing tendency to try to rape/murder again. I said treatment is pretty meaningless. I didn't say don't TRY to treat them [even if it seemed I implied that] I just said it's going to be a waste of time in most cases. It's like trying to get someone off heroin. Sure, it may take sometimes but I don't like your odds. There are some crimes that are beyond the pale, there are some people that don't view life like you. You can try to treat them, I just think keeping them under guard should be done first. Between the rights of a criminal and the rights of a potential future victim, I don't even have to think.

I don't lack empathy. I just place common sense above empathy. And I made a point early to stress I wasn't talking about EVERY criminal, but the most extreme cases. I don't think you need to anally insert a tracker into little Jimmy because he took a joyride in his cousin's Firebird.

But hey, lets not actually pay attention to what I said because I'm the big bad yelling man and it's easier to not respond to points if you don't admit they exist.

Oh, and geld:

What lum meant about "moral relativism" is simple. You said "blank was like blank" as if the two things were even semi-related. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation and when that situation involves one of [It not being near the largest] the greatest acts of genocide in the 20th century you are going to piss people off. It's like saying Iraq is like Vietnam. All it means is you don't understand Iraq OR Vietnam and you cheapen the lives of the men who fought in both places.

Ignorance is no excuse for some things. Especially "Die in a Holocaust fire.". That's just callous and petty. Which is fine, I've done things worse, but I do them to be callous and petty.

Did you think you weren't being an asshole with that line?

And here's an idea:

Try responding to exactly what I say rather than reading shit into it like I want to....what was the line?....."to try to pass a bill to have all the kids in orphanages euthanized in the spirit of removing a burden from society".

I like children. Unlike most of you they haven't fucked up yet.

[brellium]

Still working at Best Buy, I see?

Not for about 18 months. But keep talking.

Yes, 18 months. That's about how long you've been standing in the unemployment line, isn't it?

[Hanzii]

Why?

[Paelos]

You know something's gone horribly wrong when even Boog reminds you that what you said was callous. The man who once told a poster he was happy that guy's mother was dead and that he would piss on her grave if he could.

[Dark Vengeance]

Still, in this particular discussion, an expert probably is not required to argue this side.    You'd have to be trying really hard to foster delusion in order to avoid noticing that things have been less than jolly under the Republican regeim.   9/11 just isn't excuse enough - things were going sharply downhill prior to the disaster as well.   I'd go look up some charts for you, but I'm sure you've already seen them.

We were in a recession after one of the largest bull markets in economic history, which was based on the false premise that internet advertising and e-commerce were going to revolutionize commerce. When they didn't, things tended to fall apart....mainly because many of these sites HAD NO VIABLE BUSINESS PLAN OUTSIDE OF AD DOLLARS.

Then we endured the worst terrorist attack this country has ever seen. They destroyed the WORLD TRADE CENTER, and it shut down Wall Street for a WEEK.....do you think that might have had an effect on our economy that would stick around for a little while? People were scared shitless.....stadium events like sports, or various award shows were areas of concern (it occurred to people that U-M home games put 100,000 Americans into a very small area, and such).....we had weeks worth of anthrax scares...oh, and btw, we were going to war in Afghanistan. Yeah, I'd say that it'd have a pretty significant impact.

Months later, we discover that Enron and Worldcom had cooked the books, and more companies followed, including notable pillars of industry like XEROX. That shook people, investors feared they couldn't even trust their research, because that data provided by the company could be completely fabricated....research is just about the only thing that separates Wall Street from the Vegas strip.

The Dotcom crash also isn't excuse enough, as it apparently occured half-way through Clinton's second term (depending on what source you cite) and didn't influence the vast majority of businesses that weren't trying to make a living off the internet.   Amazon's still up and running, by the way.

First of all, Amazon had been dumping millions into advertising their site through conventional media. Additionally, word of mouth on the internet helped establish them into one of the most recognizable names on the net. Plus they actually had a business plan....to hock books, movies, etc. Many other sites didn't have such a strong plan.

I also think you're naive to think that the dotcom implosion had no impact on businesses in different sectors. When the bubble burst, many investors ran for cover, wisely seeing that the bull market of the 90's was over.

People like ones on this forum lost money on their 401(k), particularly if they were in any sort of aggressive growth fund.....because at the time, diversification had been ignored by many folks in favor of trying to get in on the ground floor of this new online economy.

But go ahead and keep believeing it had no effect.

I would suggest that the Republican fiscal plan just doesn't work to create a healthy country.  It hasn't worked during the application of Reganomics, and it doesn't work in the barely altered version they have now.

Reagan inherited a weak economy from Carter and made it substantially stronger. He also had some other concerns on his mind.....namely, the Cold War. International relations, and defense were a much bigger concern than the economy...and the economy recovered under Reagan. It didn't fall into a recession until after George Bush had completed the first Gulf War.

Watching them piss away 14 trillion dollars while riding a warhorse to cover their tracks just helped upgrade them from "clueless fossils" to "political equivilent to evil incarnate" in my book.

Cover their tracks for WHAT??? An economy devastated by coporate scandal, a bear market, and unprecedented terrorist attacks on our country? Time to open your eyes....the president is not God, some things are beyond his control.

14 trillion - largest amount of federal debt change during a single presidential term in the history of the United States.

Winning wars, rebuilding countries, and strengthening homeland defense are expensive, moron. Or would you prefer we do nothing to bolster our national security?

Most of it gone in the form of tax rebates that largely favored the rich, who (feigning sudden financial difficulties regardless) turned right around and sold our jobs overseas.   Dribble-down only works when folks up top give a damn, which is apparently less than common.    Republican equivilents to Boss Tweed, I hope you've enjoyed your stay in the whitehouse.

BACK IT UP. You're trying to tell me that US companies are FAKING economic difficulties??? Are you fucking serious??

By the way, take an economics course.....soon. Please.  

Now, in DV's latest post, we're hearing him blame the results in themselves?  "There's a recession because things are in recession.   Outsourcing has been occuring because buisiness felt it would be cheaper to outsource."

There was a recession because the dotcom's had shitty optimistic business plans that ignored the reality of financial risk. It was all based on a premise that advertising would be more effective than what it was, and that consumers would embrace e-commerce to a much greater degree than they actually did.

Outsourcing occurs because companies have to cut costs to stay afloat, you fuckwit. It's been going on for years. My employer has done domestic outsourcing for their clients for OVER A DECADE. When the economy went to shit, we had a mini-boom on our hands, because companies that had already trimmed themselves ultra-lean still had to cut more costs.....and believe me that the cost of employees is one of the few places where most companies could trim substantial overhead without losing much productivity.....so the question then becomes, do you want to dump it on the remaining employees, or would you prefer to outsource some of these unskilled or semi-skilled jobs so your remaining employees can focus on their core business, and maintain or improve overall company productivity????

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL YOU FUCKTARD!!

Ect.   You might have more facts on your hands there, DV, but that's a very odd line of reasoning.   Usually when confronted with a problem, I like to try to find solutions, not reinforce the problem by suggesting it's neccessary to occur.   Sounds like you've bought into political smokescreen to me.

Yeah, must be....that's why your boy, and all of his supporters are pointing to the past, and second guessing what Bush did, instead of talking about what they are GOING TO DO FOR THE FUTURE. Saying that you're going to stay the course in Iraq with more international involvement doesn't get people excited....mainly because that's what Bush has insisted he would do all along. Saying that you're going to create more jobs isn't doing it...because Bush wants the same thing (and their plans aren't all that different).

OTOH, pointing at Bush and saying that you oppose the war, you hate the deficits he ran, and that you blame him for the state of the economy....all without exploring WHY these things happened....tends to get Democrats and their target demographics excited and fired up to denounce Bush.

You've still not realized it....you can attack Bush all day, but you can't provide me with any better reason to elect John Kerry than the "ABB" bullshit.

Kerry and Edwards haven't been hyping the goals they described at the DNC in the swing states, and they haven't been promoted in the national media. Do you know why? Because it was too liberal for most independent voters, but went over beautifully in front of a Dem audience.

Try telling me more about WHY YOU WANT KERRY, and less about WHY YOU DON'T WANT BUSH.

It's about as flimsy as the "everything wrong with these last four years was the last administration's fault!" pretense.  I sure didn't see Clinton whining in 1996 when his own administration in the previous term set him up for economic success.

My god are you ignorant. The dotcom bubble burst prior to January 2001....this means that Bush inherited a recession already in progress. Then some assholes decided to fly planes into the Pentagon and the WORLD TRADE CENTER.....a military target and an ECONOMIC TARGET. Then we find out that some massive companies had been cooking the books for YEARS (i.e. even dating back into the Clinton administration). Everything since has been aftermath.

Clinton did his fair share of whining in 1992, citing the economy as Bush's greatest failing. Then he rode the tide of optimism about the internet and the bear market that went along with it....and proceeded to take all the credit for something he had very little to do with.

Meanwhile his foreign policy was a joke, and his approach to our military and our intelligence community are at least a contributing factor to what happened a mere 9 months after he left office. To top it off, the great economy he supposedly created fell apart before his term was over, and he left Bush holding the bag.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Margalis]

Why is Boog talking?

Anyone worth listening to want to voice their objections? "Blank is like blank" is fine, if you don't fill in the wrong blanks. (That's pretty much all I read of his response, so don't expect any more analysis)

You guys are filling in:

"Sexual predators" are like "Jews."

Whereas the correct answer is:

"Your attitude" [that human's aren't humans and therefore don't need to be treated as such] is like "Hitler's."
---

Missed the point agian. Yay for reading comprehension. It wasn't a point about sexual predators or Jews. It was a point about attitudes.

Maybe you guys should consider that you don't have to reach for your guns the second you see Jews used in a sentence other than "I love Jews." The point had nothing to do with Jews at all, get over it already.

What Boog said was far stupider. Geldon used a dumb analogy that was sure to cause trouble, but if you can read and interpret english what he was getting at was clear, and was a valid point. What Boog said can't be interpreted in any way that makes it not completely retarded. (Almost as retarded as that sentence structure...)


Edit: I'm not very interested in the uninformed political debating aspect of this thread, but I will say that Clinton's foreign policy was not a joke, and was not partially responsible for 9/11 other than in a generic "hey, he was president for a while" sort of way. If you want to look at what is motivating Bin Laden, the single biggest factor is probably the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia during and after the first Gulf War.

Although Bush 2 has handled 9/11 very poorly and with dishonorable intent, I don't think you can say it is his fault either. It really is mostly Bush 1. Bush 2 just loses points for reacting like a retard and exploiting it to advance loosely related agendas. We immediately pissed away the sympathy of most of the world without accomplishing anything on a global or national scale, other than "support America, buy more stuff." We had a moment to get out a message that everyone in the world would hear, and that was it: go shopping.

[Dark Vengeance]

Maybe you guys should consider that you don't have to reach for your guns the second you see Jews used in a sentence other than "I love Jews." The point had nothing to do with Jews at all, get over it already.

I had an issue with it because he was implying that the Holocaust was about destroying Jews for their choice of religion, when it was actually about wiping them out because of his belief in "blood purity" and the notion that they had corrupted Aryan race.

Wholesale slaughter based on ethnicity is a far cry from saying "hey we should probably keep tabs on these sexual predators, as they have an alarming rate of repeat offense".

I can appreciate that Boog has an indifference to the lives of rapists, murderers, and child molestors. I don't particularly blame him. But I think that it is naive to take the opposite extreme position and say that they should simply do their time, see a shrink a few times, and be labelled "normal". We have state registries for sex offenders RIGHT NOW, and there is debate over whether or not it should be made public knowledge when a sex offender moves into a community.

Even our current government acknowledges that rehabilitation in this instance has marginal results, at best.....so I don't see where Boog is entirely off base. I'm quite certain he didn't invent the concept of "an eye for an eye"...and I know he isn't the only guy even on this site that thinks rapists, murderers, and child molestors are the scum of the earth....and doesn't particularly give a fuck what happens to them, just so long as they aren't simply released back into our society.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Boogaleeboo]

Dark, do you know what the hell Margalis said?

I want to respond to it, I just....don't know what the hell point he put forth. Other than I'm a stupidiot.

You've been trying to be slightly more fair and evenhanded with your replies than me, so I'm willing to take your word about whatever the hell he meant to say.

There is one thing that I can respond to:

It wasn't a point about sexual predators or Jews. It was a point about attitudes.

To which I said that it's meaningless the generalities that we have in common [that you can say my treatment of sexual predators is like Hitlers views on the Jews] because I was never talking about a general situation. I was talking about specific things and specific solutions, to which generalities are meaningless.

I never talked about concentration camps, or rounding up the criminals and taking out their gold fillings, or filling up trains with their corpses, or anything else that could put me from "Vaguely like Hitler, kinda, in this funny light" to "Boog's criminal holocaust of vengence".

You can say "Like Hitler' all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Hitler was "kill those in our way" Hitler was about the purity of the blood, Hitler was about this and that.

I said more cameras, more attention paid to people we KNOW are a risk.

That's it. I never went beyond that.

You took that idea and ran way the fuck beyond Thunderdome to a bunch of shit I never even thought of, let alone wrote.

For instance I can't think of one person that jumped on geldon for mentioning the Jews. The holocaust had a lot to do with them, sure, but it wasn't an entirely Jewish event. Millions and millions of non-Jews were killed in concentration camps.

If anyone is obsessed with the Jewish angle, it's you.

Keep talking shit, I have head cold and a better grasp of the English language than you.

[Murgos]

Edit: I'm not very interested in the uninformed political debating aspect of this thread, but I will say that Clinton's foreign policy was not a joke, and was not partially responsible for 9/11 other than in a generic "hey, he was president for a while" sort of way. If you want to look at what is motivating Bin Laden, the single biggest factor is probably the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia during and after the first Gulf War.

The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabi after the first gulf war would be an extension of Clintons forgien policy wouldn't it?

I'm not advocating we should have pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia because it was pissing off the nutters.  I'm just pointing out that your attempts to exhonerate the holy Clinton are vague, transparent and causing you to contradict yourself.  If your stance is naturally that unbalanced you may want to consider why.

Clinton is responsible in many ways for the WTC/Pentagon attacks.  IMO the main factors of why the attacks occured was because of his entirely pathetic attempts at curtailing terrorism while he was in office.  He single handedly made America look like a paper tiger that would let the mullahs pull on its tail all they wanted and the worsst they would get would be a half hearted swat.  When you add in the gutting of military and intelligence budgets under Clintons watch you get a recipie for disaster.

I don't care for the way Bush handled many things but he came down with both feet on Afghanistan and the Taliban and I think he should get more credit for that.   It's not neccessarily a given that another different president would have done the same thing or commited to it as strongly as bush did or that the whole situation would have turned out as well.  In all the hoopla over Iraq most people are missing that Afghanistan is picking itself up and dusting itself off and turning into a reasonably responsible member of the world.

[Margalis]

I had an issue with it because he was implying that the Holocaust was about destroying Jews for their choice of religion, when it was actually about wiping them out because of his belief in "blood purity" and the notion that they had corrupted Aryan race.

That's only half true, and it is a minor point.

Although Hitler was generally against non-Aryan's and a variety of other non-perfect beings (handicapped, for example) he put particular emphasis on Jews, in part because of their historical reputation. It's fair to say Hitler hated those who were not perfect Aryans, but it's also fair to say he hated some more than others.

Wholesale slaughter based on ethnicity is a far cry from saying "hey we should probably keep tabs on these sexual predators, as they have an alarming rate of repeat offense".

That's true but that wasn't the point. The point was that "they aren't human" is a weak justification that has been thrown out at various points in history with mostly disastrous consequences. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that wholesale slaughter and keeping tabs on people is the same thing. That's not what I got out of the discussion though.

[Margalis]

The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabi after the first gulf war would be an extension of Clintons forgien policy wouldn't it?

No, that was Bush 1's policy. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Clinton didn't pull out those troops and neither did Bush 2, which is why I placed the blame on Bush 1. It was his decision. Clinton and Bush 2 are just guiltly of not actively reversing that decision, which is a far lesser offense.

[Murgos]

You don't get to have it both ways.  Either Clinton was in office and acting as Commander in Chief or he wasn't.  Since he was the the person who kept US troops in Saudi Arabia for 8 years of his watch and didn't do anything effective to curtail the actions or plans of Osama Bin Ladin then he bears the vast weight of the burden of responsiblity.

[Dark Vengeance]

For instance I can't think of one person that jumped on geldon for mentioning the Jews. The holocaust had a lot to do with them, sure, but it wasn't an entirely Jewish event. Millions and millions of non-Jews were killed in concentration camps.

I'll admit that I jumped in geldon's shit for his assertion that the Holocaust was about Jews and "a choice of religion", when it was largely about ethnic cleansing....and many uninformed people are unaware that there are ethnic Jews as well as gentiles who believe in Judaism.

The "die in a Holocaust fire" line took it a tad deeper, as I am of german descent. I had extended family that died in the Holocaust, as well as faimly members on both sides that fought as part of the US forces. My great uncle on my dad's side fought in Europe, my grandfather on my mom's side fought in the Pacific.

As to what Margie was saying, I think he was trying to dress some of us down for what he considers an emotional reaction to use of Hitler in an analogy. Additionally, he is trying to say that the attitude of indifference and view of rapists, murderers, and child molestors and inhuman or subhuman is similar to the attitude Hitler exhibited toward the Jews and the others that opposed him. Which was geldon's point all along....and IMO is still one hell of a stretch.

There is a long way between keeping tabs on people, and actively rounding them up to be executed.

But it was a "slippery slope for teh win" argument, one which comes up quite frequently in geldon's debating tactics. It's like a golfer who tries to use his 5 iron on every single shot......in some cases, it can be an effective tool, but if you use it all the time you'll look ike an incompetent jackass. Meanwhile, here I am yet again saying "TRY THE SAND WEDGE, GELDON".

Bring the noise.
Cheers...........

[naum]

We were in a recession after one of the largest bull markets in economic history, which was based on the false premise that internet advertising and e-commerce were going to revolutionize commerce.

Actually, e-commerce and the internet has indeed revolutionized commerce. Because a great number of startups failed or were based on faulty utopian economic dreaming, doesn't change the fact that there were successes (google, yahoo, neopets, ebay, ISPs, etc.) along with mainstream "brick and mortar" enterprises that went full tilt into the fray.

People like ones on this forum lost money on their 401(k), particularly if they were in any sort of aggressive growth fund.....because at the time, diversification had been ignored by many folks in favor of trying to get in on the ground floor of this new online economy.

401K have displaced traditional pension plans and the net effect is not a good one for American workers. The coming days will illustrate further this truth.

Reagan inherited a weak economy from Carter and made it substantially stronger. He also had some other concerns on his mind.....namely, the Cold War. International relations, and defense were a much bigger concern than the economy...and the economy recovered under Reagan. It didn't fall into a recession until after George Bush had completed the first Gulf War.

Carter inherited a battered economy, one that was sunk by an orgy of Vietnam expenditures and the jolt in energy prices. Yes, inflation was at a ridiculous rate, and came into check under Reagan but standard of living fell for the average American and tax burden increased for the lower 80% of the economic ladder (FICA & state tax increases more than offset the reduction in federal taxes which were bumped up for many in subsequent tax code modifications…).

Winning wars, rebuilding countries, and strengthening homeland defense are expensive, moron. Or would you prefer we do nothing to bolster our national security?

Yes, and it should be paid for by the current generation, not defrayed at the cost to our children and our national sovereigntry.

Outsourcing occurs because companies have to cut costs to stay afloat, you fuckwit.

Outsourcing occurs because it increases profits. For most all firms entering into the offshoring model, profit margins in existence were already double digit percentages - moving work to offshore vendors has more to do with branding, "be like Jack", etc. than it does with "staying afloat".

Yeah, must be....that's why your boy, and all of his supporters are pointing to the past, and second guessing what Bush did, instead of talking about what they are GOING TO DO FOR THE FUTURE. Saying that you're going to stay the course in Iraq with more international involvement doesn't get people excited....mainly because that's what Bush has insisted he would do all along. Saying that you're going to create more jobs isn't doing it...because Bush wants the same thing (and their plans aren't all that different).

The fundamental nature of work is changing. Even without outsourcing, the trend has been a reduction in jobs - look at employment figures for top 1000 companies - they have been in decline since the 80s. Automation, computing technology have enabled all to do more with less. Throw in migration to offshore locales where a worker in the states (or W. Europe) cannot possibly compete on price or where slave labor can be utilized, and there is a structural problem that needs to be addressed at some point, hopefully sooner than later.

One side refuses to acknowledge a problem even exists, instead keep humming the "Happy days are here again" melody, while the other side has at least begun a dialogue on the issue.

Kerry and Edwards haven't been hyping the goals they described at the DNC in the swing states, and they haven't been promoted in the national media. Do you know why? Because it was too liberal for most independent voters, but went over beautifully in front of a Dem audience.

Because they're staying just a little to the left of GWB, and letting him cook his own self.

My god are you ignorant. The dotcom bubble burst prior to January 2001....this means that Bush inherited a recession already in progress.

Incorrect. The recent recession started in March 2001, according to a consensus of economists, particulary the ones in government now. Bush took office in January 2001.

Meanwhile his foreign policy was a joke, and his approach to our military and our intelligence community are at least a contributing factor to what happened a mere 9 months after he left office. To top it off, the great economy he supposedly created fell apart before his term was over, and he left Bush holding the bag.

Many disagree with that assertion, including prominent voices in the intelligence community, the former FBI deputy director of counter-terrorism and many other influential voices, including many "on the right".

[Dark Vengeance]

That's only half true, and it is a minor point.

Although Hitler was generally against non-Aryan's and a variety of other non-perfect beings (handicapped, for example) he put particular emphasis on Jews, in part because of their historical reputation. It's fair to say Hitler hated those who were not perfect Aryans, but it's also fair to say he hated some more than others.

His belief was that the Jews were to blame for the state of Germany after WW1, and that they were te reason that they had lost at all. He blamed it on the entirety of the race based on traits that he felt were inherent in the Jewish ethnicity, and ingrained in their culture. Thus, he wanted them destroyed moreso than any other non-Aryans.

You'll have a much harder time making a case that Hitler persecuted Jews for their religious beliefs, as geldon implied. But it's a minor off-topic point, so I'd just as soon leave it as it is.

That's true but that wasn't the point. The point was that "they aren't human" is a weak justification that has been thrown out at various points in history with mostly disastrous consequences. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that wholesale slaughter and keeping tabs on people is the same thing. That's not what I got out of the discussion though.

The point Boog was making is that he personally doesn't give a flying fuck what happens to murderers, rapists, and child molestors. He doesn't believe that rehabilitation is effective, because these folks don't work quite the same way most of us do.

Boog is essentially making the argument that pedophiles cannot help but be sexually attracted to children....it's the same argument that people use regarding homosexuality. They are born that way and cannot be changed. Same with folks who get off on raping people, or the folks who are violent by nature.

***I*** don't consider child molestors human. I think they are sub-human compost heaps that prey on children, and would love nothing more than to pull a Frank Castle and go Punisher on their asses if it meant that I could prevent even one kid from being raped and murdered, just as Carlie Brucia was. But that's me....I don't advocate that anyone actually DO that, or that we make that a national policy, but I think that it's pretty fucking common that people feel the sick fucks who rape children should be made to suffer.

In contrast, keeping state registries (which is already being done), announcing their presence to the community (which is already being done in some cases), and keeping close tabs on these folks (which Boog suggests) isn't so unreasonable. Matter of fact, I think that compared to what we'd like to do, this suggestion is a sterling example of self-restraint.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[personman]

You don't get to have it both ways.  Either Clinton was in office and acting as Commander in Chief or he wasn't.  Since he was the the person who kept US troops in Saudi Arabia for 8 years of his watch and didn't do anything effective to curtail the actions or plans of Osama Bin Ladin then he bears the vast weight of the burden of responsiblity.

So basically every time a terrorist group claims it kills because of US policy we should change the policy?