Bush won, and what happens next? [Archive] - The Lone Star Command Message Boards

Karmashock

Nov 4, 2004, @ 05:24 AM

You forget. The people who like bush are the ignorant farmers and country bumpkins. All the cities are democratic (for the most part at least) showing that civilization and intelligence favors Democrats

First of all, it's stuff like that lost them the election.

Second, not true. Republicans over all have fewer degrees. However, we're more professionally oriented. That is to say, our careers are more important then our degrees. We lead massively in small business and most of big business. Democrats lead in college professors and people that pretty much waste their lives in college getting just one more liberal arts degree.

Third, Democrats depend very heavily on a lot of poorly educated people as well. I would argue however, that our poorly educated are at least worth something. Your inner city poorly educated are mostly wellfare cases... ours are skilled carpenters, auto body mechanics, farmers, and ranchers.

If you keep treating the people like SHIT in a democratic (political system not the party) system, they will vote against you. Why can't you see this? I thought you were supposed to be the smart ones?

All you are is bitter and ridged...

So, Huzzah!

Here is cali...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Karmashock/Political/cali.jpg
everyone in the red areas is stupid according to you... they voted for Bush...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Karmashock/Political/rad.jpg
look at our republican governor... :)

I love liberals... they destroy themselves...

amen, Karmashock.

tom

Nov 4, 2004, @ 05:47 AM

Third Parties = Pwnt.

Karmashock

Nov 4, 2004, @ 05:58 AM

yeah... they don't seem to get that no one really likes them... they should all either joine the dems or the reps...

00025

Nov 4, 2004, @ 06:02 AM

the only problem with Bush is his Foreign relations and homeland security policies.

Karmashock

Nov 4, 2004, @ 06:21 AM

both of those have polled strong for Bush... how do you mean they're problems... most voters think they're fine.

Forsaken

Nov 4, 2004, @ 07:20 AM

IIRC Michael Moore's next video is on HMO's/Drug Reps. My mom is a doctor and she is eagerly awaiting the film, as they all hate drug reps. She tells me that often (like twice a month often) people will come and host these lavish parties for the doctors and give them gifts and all this, for their support. In order to pay for those parties, they raise the prices of the drugs in America, so people are forced to either get poor/inadequate healthcare or buy drugs illegally from Canada (which is one of my biggest gripes, why the f*ck is it illegal?).

Also, I'm not so much concerned that this country is headed for a republican orientation as that its heading toward a conservative one. Lower taxes, well, you can always donate money through church orginizations. Emphasis on military, well, fine I guess, as long as preemptive strike is not condoned. But seriously, conservatives have a serious stick up their ass, and unfortunately many republicans tend to be conservative.

Karmashock

Nov 4, 2004, @ 08:00 AM

/<yle

Nov 4, 2004, @ 08:17 AM

There will be no draft. GG Bush. California is run by gay liberals in Sanfran. Power to the rest of CALIS!

Quesela

Nov 4, 2004, @ 08:48 AM

What i find hilarious is how kerry was popular for his economical stance, while people feel bush is ruining our economy. Bush is now the first president to ever be critisized (screw the spelling i've been up for like 23 hours now) on his economical plan when he was the incumbant candidate on a rising economy. look back, the failing economy began just BEFORE he took office (actually there were signs and beginnings earlier but that was when the true fall began.). THen look at all the hell that the economy had to go through that was beyond bush's control (IE enron, 9/11) while he was in office and it STILL managed to rebound and go on the rise in his final year in office. It started BEFORE his term, and ended during his term. I'd assume that was a GOOD thing, ya know?

Lama Master

Nov 4, 2004, @ 12:28 PM

Yay! go Bush! :D I personaly think kerry is a dipshit. Anyway, bush is funny :p

Larsson7

Nov 4, 2004, @ 12:45 PM

There is a reason why drug research happens almost exclusively in the US... we respect private property. The companies OWN the drugs... those drugs belong to them... they can do WHATEVER they want with them... they invented them...

Tell them they can't do what they wish with their property and the companies, along with the drugs they're developing right now, will disappear.

You'll get the drugs of today cheaper, but the drugs of tomorrow will be gone.

Choose carefully...

Hopefully this will never happen, however, what if you had a child who needed a certain drug for 5 years and the drug company said that would be $500 a shot per day for 5 years to get your child better.

I would assume that you will happily sell everything you own and accept bankruptcy and a pretty shitty future while the CEO of Beecham buys his second $100 million dollar yacht?

Drug companies make, above most other private companies, profits that border on simply obscene and do force poorer families into much greater hardship.

I have no objection to paying for medicine and always pay for my treatments, however, I would never ever tell a drug company "Please hike the price as much as you want because I will pay whatever it costs"

Thats pretty fucking retarded, Karma

Psy

Nov 4, 2004, @ 03:16 PM

There is a reason why drug research happens almost exclusively in the US... we respect private property. The companies OWN the drugs... those drugs belong to them... they can do WHATEVER they want with them... they invented them...

Tell them they can't do what they wish with their property and the companies, along with the drugs they're developing right now, will disappear.

You'll get the drugs of today cheaper, but the drugs of tomorrow will be gone.

Choose carefully...

I thought its for the benefit of mankind first - pocket book second, you forget without certain drugs you will actually lose customers....it's called dying. And funny a lot of those happen to be the most expensive - nice choice there - pay or die ......

Anyway - reelecting the incoherent ADD aflicted idiot who can't form a sentence or keep on topic for more that 10 seconds = moronic.

btw I'm flameproof so I'll repat for those who missed it. Bush = complete idiot makes me think I can run my gold fish campaing and have it win. Since obviously inteligence is a factor of 0 when considering the next "leader".

GL yanks you gonna need it.

BTW this is 1990's US population density map - I'm too lazy to overlay it but i think you get my point. Just compare the red to the yellows :)

http://members.rogers.com/bradoc4/USpop1990[1].gif

....

LardGibs

Nov 4, 2004, @ 03:37 PM

re: drugs

Canada drug reimportation is only a loophole that will quickly close, fucking Canada in the bargain. It highlights the cowardice and craven nature of the federal politicians in that they jump at this opportunity rather than consider enforcing price controls on the drug manufacturers.

I can't believe that people, meaning "seniors" need all these prescriptions anyway. Just die already, as just payment for your misspent hedonism and dietary ignorance.

Erect&yours,
LG

Quesela

Nov 4, 2004, @ 06:23 PM

i just wanna know, how the hell do we american's get ourselves stuck in situations like the. From my earlier post, you all prolly assume i like bush. i don't -.-. but we fucked ourselves into have a choice of two dipshits to vote for. Bush is the dipshit who we know what he's gonna do, and we know that while our country won't be in the best shape after it WILL still be there. Kerry is the dipshit that we don't know what he'll do, and from some of his stances actually makes me wonder if he'll piss off other countries without using the force to back it.
We've fucked ourselves in Iraq. We are now currently LOSING the war, face it we have a bunch of pissed off militants holing up, making us not want to fight this war, but now we're stuck in Iraq, because we now have a responsibility to protect the civilian's we've "freed". in my opinion, atleast Bush want's to put in the resources to FINISH the damn war. Next time he tries to attack a country tho WRITE A FUCKING LETTER TO YOUR CONGRESSMEN! ding, there's our control to a stupid ass president, but it's up to the lazy and stupid population of our country to get off they're asses and TELL CONGRESS TO DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS and vote the way us, the constituants want them to.

but anyways, how the hell do we stick ourselves into these situations of having to vote for one of two totally shitty candidates?

Karmashock

Nov 4, 2004, @ 06:23 PM

Hopefully this will never happen, however, what if you had a child who needed a certain drug for 5 years and the drug company said that would be $500 a shot per day for 5 years to get your child better.

I would assume that you will happily sell everything you own and accept bankruptcy and a pretty shitty future while the CEO of Beecham buys his second $100 million dollar yacht?

Drug companies make, above most other private companies, profits that border on simply obscene and do force poorer families into much greater hardship.

I have no objection to paying for medicine and always pay for my treatments, however, I would never ever tell a drug company "Please hike the price as much as you want because I will pay whatever it costs"

Thats pretty fucking retarded, Karma
Neither do you tell a car company that it can't charge more then a certain amount for a car.

If they're overcharging you, then competition should do to medicine what it does to burgers and telephone rates.

If it doesn't, then they have something unique, and unique = monopoly. Anyone that creates something unique is allowed to have a temporary monopoly to reward them for their discovery.

Look at it this way, if they hadn't made the effort, you would have died anyway. Also, do you notice that all the wonder drugs come out of OUR companies... not out of Europe or Asia... ours... not even out of Canada... USA. Drugs are made elsewhere of course, but the companies were subjected to people that didn't value how hard it was to make new drugs. So they either stopped making drugs, left the country, or went out of business.

Don't think that you'll kill the drug industry... look at europe... people that think like that already did it.

As to profits and drug companies they give a LOT of drugs away for NOTHING. They give aids drugs to Africa for nothing, they give cancer drugs to poor people at reduced rates... they sell their drugs at greatly reduced prices to other countries...

If you allow people in the US to re-import foreign drugs, in many cases you'll be importing drugs that were discounted out of sympathy to poor nations… yes that includes Canada to a certain extent… Canadians make 10,000 US dollars less a year then we do on average… and have far less disposable income.

They don't have to sell those drugs at a reduced price to anyone... they don't... they could say "fine, if you won't pay, then you get nothing."

The fact that the policies you're proposing have killed the drug industries in every country they have been applied in should wake you up.
=================================
I thought its for the benefit of mankind first - pocket book second, you forget without certain drugs you will actually lose customers....it's called dying. And funny a lot of those happen to be the most expensive - nice choice there - pay or die ......
Why should a drug company spend billions of dollar, as a business, to fund someone that won't pay them? You get old, as you age your body falls apart... you will die... the best the drugs can do is give you few years and make them more pleasant... Why should I personally pay to keep him alive longer? If the cost isn't great, then fine... but if you're eating 100,000 dollars in cutting edge drug technology a year... well, you'd better just cash your own check.

BTW this is 1990's US population density map - I'm too lazy to overlay it but i think you get my point. Just compare the red to the yellows :)

http://members.rogers.com/bradoc4/USpop1990[1].gif
Obviously... otherwise kerry wouldn't have had any chance at all... I mean... he'd be about as relevant as ralph nader if population were distributed evenly among our areas...

Dems dominate urban areas and the rebs dominate everything else...

Psy

Nov 4, 2004, @ 07:00 PM

you miss the point entirely lol

Ummon

Nov 4, 2004, @ 07:06 PM

Besides there' s an explanation why democrats have "more degrees".

Ideals are one thing, thought is another. The fact that a president has a strong ideology makes so that he has more appeal to people who like simple (practically oriented) schemes, while more cultured and intelligent people tend to favour complex (and often inconclusive) abstract systems of thought.

IMHO, not many liberal people have the talent to discern the inherent simplicity of the world, and not many republicans have the patience to perceive the inherent multiplicity and complexity of the same world. It's a sketchy description, do not take it as an explanation of your character.

Instead of saying "ignorant fools" or "arrogant bitches", better try to discern the truth in the opponent's stances, there's a speck of truth in every stance, more or less, of course. At least that's what I think.

Ah and one of the next in the list of Michael Moore's movies is on Blair and Berlusconi.

Karmashock

Nov 4, 2004, @ 07:59 PM

you miss the point entirely lol
I've been fighting people in about 5 different forums... so forgive me if you were being subtle or humorous...

What was your point in plane English?
================
It has more to do with the fact that they have the college professors that give you about 6 degrees a piece... and a lot of our people are carpenters, farmers, auto body workers... we hold just as many of most of the skilled professions... and we dominate business... specifically small business... If I admit those people, then the left has to admit the masses of ignorent people that they depend upon in the inner cities.
---------------------------------

It would so rule if Moore would bash Blair or Berlusconi... everyone Moore bashes comes off looking great...

This whole thing is fucking poetic justice, Karmashock. ;)

laserflip

Nov 4, 2004, @ 09:41 PM

There will be no draft. GG Bush. California is run by gay liberals in Sanfran. Power to the rest of CALIS!

and that is EXACTLY why i hate california. full of stuck up liberal movie stars and, most of all, queers, and they all just vote liberal just for the hell of it because they think it is what they think they should do, liek they are some kind of rebels or something. stupid idjits!

Fragman

Nov 4, 2004, @ 09:42 PM

you all shut up here is what happens a party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aagil

Nov 4, 2004, @ 10:34 PM

Plane english, Karma?

You are no longer considered a worthy apponent on these forums. You do not have anything to back you up, you have no arguements, and you make no sense. Your only defense is the fact that you're too ignorant and blind to see you're wrong. It's not that you're right and we're not. It's that you're too stupid to see otherwise. I'm sick of hearing you. At least Ummon, even though I doubt his facts, makes more sense than you... and his facts are more plausible than yours. You just make shit up.

2biT

Nov 4, 2004, @ 10:59 PM

but anyways, how the hell do we stick ourselves into these situations of having to vote for one of two totally shitty candidates?

cause you are
1. american's and stupid

2. your democratic system is shite

3. just give up on the whole inidendance thing and come back to the british empire.. look at canada if you dont believe it would be better...

tom

Nov 4, 2004, @ 11:11 PM

Canada? HAH!

America's problem is too much diversity. Lets all interbreed until we're the same color.

Aagil

Nov 4, 2004, @ 11:23 PM

Color has nothing to do with it. It's this religious backwardness. Other than 3rd world nations in latin america and islamic fundamentalist nations, there are no countries on earth that are as religiously backwards as the USA. Everything HAS to be religiously oriented for it to be passed as a law in this stupid country. And if it's not related to christianity, then they make it seem like it protects christianity to pass it. It's bullshit.

Forsaken

Nov 5, 2004, @ 12:04 AM

Karma my point isn't that the drug companies prices are too high, its that they are far far far higher in America than elsewhere. Why should a company sell drugs cheaper one place than another? If they are an American country, why aren't drugs expensive elsewhere? I know a middle aged woman who is "illegally" buying medicine from Canada. Why? Because her ailment keeps her from working, so she can't afford to buy the perscription here. It is THE EXACT SAME COMPANY she's buying it from, the company just jacks the prices up in America.

Oh, and I find it hillarious that, at least if my geography is right, the county containing Los Alamos, a GOVERNMENT run facility which hosts some of the most brilliant people in the world, was one of the few democrat vote areas in New Mexico.

Karmashock

Nov 5, 2004, @ 12:08 AM

Plane english, Karma?

You are no longer considered a worthy apponent on these forums.
It was a polite and reasonable request. It was not meant in an offensive or hurtful way. I seriously wasn't clear on what was meant. If you lack the tact or integrity to respond like a gentlemen, then the only one losing face is you.

You do not have anything to back you up, you have no arguements, and you make no sense. Your only defense is the fact that you're too ignorant and blind to see you're wrong. It's not that you're right and we're not. It's that you're too stupid to see otherwise. I'm sick of hearing you.
In this thread alone, I've posted several pictures backing up what little I was talking about. I don't really know what you evidence you require though. Make a specific request and I'll try to meet it to the best of my ability.

If you don't want to hear from me, then don't respond. It's really that simple.

At least Ummon, even though I doubt his facts, makes more sense than you... and his facts are more plausible than yours. You just make shit up.
When did I make up anything in this thread Aagil?

I can't help but think that you're still bitter about Kerry's loss. I'm sorry that this has had a negative impact on your day. Perhaps tomorrow will be better.

Your comments about those that voted for Bush were extremely insulting, derogatory, and unfair. I hope that when you get over the emotion of this that you will see this.

Until then...

Love, Karmashock.

Additional: I honestly wanted Ummon to clarify his point. I have nothing but respect for him and have enjoyed most of his posts.

/<yle

Nov 5, 2004, @ 12:09 AM

hey, at least we get 4 more years of bush jokes eh? And in my previous post, i dident mean to deride gays and lesbians, just their forcing of their ideas on me. sorry, im from CA, i like to disagree

Forsaken

Nov 5, 2004, @ 12:14 AM

As he conveniently sidesteps my reply...

Aagil

Nov 5, 2004, @ 12:17 AM

Karma... I am refering to the fact you mislpelt the word PLAIN!!!

Furthermore, it's not about the fact that you wanted Bush to win. It's about the reasons why you wanted Bush to win.

Tell me Karma. Why are you a supporter of Bush? I for one think he makes a better president then Kerry, yes. But I do not think that I should support someone who believes everything is god inspired, fucks with my privacy, and in general screws the populace and say that they're moral.

But that's just me.

As for your "backing up" with pictures... Mostly you've just proven that the farmers and factory workers are supporters of Bush while cities are supporters of Kerry. Somehow I think that the fact that New York city, the one that was HIT during 9-11 that has something to fear from terrorists, decided to vote Kerry. Doesn't that tell you something about your fucked up ideas and standards?

The maps just prove that the centers of United States Civilization, progress, education, and money all support democratic ideas.. Yes, money... If the people who have money think that Bush is bad for the people, then he must be really bad.

Bill Gates even says that he's not being taxed enough.

Bush has a lot of good points, Kerry does not.

Kerry though has democratic ideas, which are better.... Bush is just a backwards hick who has republican backward ideas.

It's not the fact that you agree with his ideas either, it's the fact that most people just agree with Kerry and/or Bush because of their stupid parties. They don't know jackshit about what's going on. People voted in this election to pick a president they thought would outlaw Abortion. That's the only fucking reason he won. Is he going to? Probably not. They were misled. That's your fucking President.

Now shut the fuck up Karma and think for once in your goddamn life

Aagil

Nov 5, 2004, @ 12:29 AM

I feel I should further clarify. Democrats are not much different. Very few people seem to be able to think about anything. Neither side is thinking, and both sides are making horrible descisions.

Screw party lines for once. Screw religious fucking values. Lets pick people to run who are going to fucking help our country. I don't want Kerry or Bush in office. And screw picking because they agree with how you think, or what you want. Lets pick what will benefit this country, because what benefits this country the most benefits us all. Kerry is just for the poor ass slobs who don't work with his socialist ideas... but he's also for protecting the middle class.

Bush is for rich ass mother fuckers... but he's also about security (even if the way he does it is horribly wrong)

Why don't we get people who are able to perform in office and get stuff done. Stuff that actually matters and will help most of this country, not just the rich minority, or the poor.

laserflip

Nov 5, 2004, @ 12:48 AM

the only drug issue i care about is i want to see ALL PRESENTLY ILLEGAL DRUGS LEGALIZED. that included heroin, extacy, cocaine, marijuana, PCP, everything. I believe in complete and total freedom in all but the most basic acts (killing, stealing, rape). everything else should be legal, and dont try and find a loophole. chances are that your outrageous "what about...!?!?!" is also something i believe should be legal, dont ask why, but i think the ideal government to ensure freedom should have around the area of 10 laws.

Aagil

Nov 5, 2004, @ 12:51 AM

See... you're not even a democrat! You're an anarchist, and there is no one representing you so you're forced to choose kerry... *gags*

Karmashock

Nov 5, 2004, @ 01:25 AM

Karma my point isn't that the drug companies prices are too high, its that they are far far far higher in America than elsewhere. Why should a company sell drugs cheaper one place than another?
The cost comes from inventing the drugs not making them. So once they’re invented the price to make them is pretty low. Here is why they are cheaper overseas.

The biggest issue is that the drug research is entirely paid for by American buyers. That is to say, if Canada never bought another one of our drugs, our company’s would be fine. So any money made over seas is gravy. That means the drug companies are less insistent about making the same kinds of profits.

Other reasons:
They don’t have as much money and so we charge them what they can pay.

They have a crisis and so are sold or given away at a charity rate.

They accept lower quality standards (India/Mexico is a good example) and so they can get a further reduced rate.

The bottom line is that, if you push this importation stuff… the companies will just raise their prices overseas. It would be more fair for us, but a lot of people in very poor countries would be completely unable to afford these drugs.

That’s what’s going down… That’s not what either the dems or the reps will tell you… but that’s the truth as I understand it.

tom

Nov 5, 2004, @ 03:02 AM

Justice

Nov 5, 2004, @ 03:33 AM

Me too.

What happened to citizens for a global anti-drug initiative?

cheers, and
-=</|awesome party|\>=-

Karmashock

Nov 5, 2004, @ 03:45 AM

He should move to Montana... very strong libertarian tradition up there...

they want their land, their guns, and their pot... love those guys...

Justice

Nov 5, 2004, @ 03:46 AM

Or.

The Northeast and West should secede to canada.

:)

cheers, and
-=</|awesome party|\>=-

Karmashock

Nov 5, 2004, @ 04:02 AM

just so long as they only take the blue pieces
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Karmashock/Political/2004countymap3.gif

Justice

Nov 5, 2004, @ 04:04 AM

Yeah.

The domination of the country by the GOP is quite frankly, scary.

cheers, and
-=</|awesome party|\>=-

Karmashock

Nov 5, 2004, @ 04:19 AM

The dems have lost the last three elections... clearly you need to do something differently unless you want to lose a fourth...

The republicans are predicting that they'll get another 6 senate seats in 2 years.

I suggest you make your changes fast...

Aagil

Nov 5, 2004, @ 04:20 AM

Justice

Nov 5, 2004, @ 04:33 AM

I'm hoping for a democratic ticket in 08.

If not...

cheers, and
-=</|awesome party|\>=-

/<yle

Nov 5, 2004, @ 04:40 AM

2008, hillary vs McCain, you betcha. :kelet:

Justice

Nov 5, 2004, @ 04:45 AM

nah.

not necessarily mccain, because giuliani might run too.

cheers, and
-=</|awesome party|\>=-

tom

Nov 5, 2004, @ 04:45 AM

McCain will be 72 in 2008. Considering the way he looks now... don't think so.

Karmashock

Nov 5, 2004, @ 05:41 AM

What three are you talking about? Can't you count? Bill...Democrats won.

Bush Republicans Won

Bush Republicans Won

that's the last three... You're making shit up again.

Besides, you're not a republican. Are you a member of their party? Are you on their payroll? Why are you so fucked in the head that you think you're a republican. You're a person, just like us. Think, for once damnit. Stop acting like you're in their party. You're not.

(1)-There was 2000 where we won the presidency and some seats in congress, the senate, and got some governors too.

(2)-There was 2002 where we won some more seats in congress, the senate, and some governors.

(3)-Then there was 2004 where we won the presidency again, some seats in congress, the senate, and I didn't check to see if we won any more governors.

That's three national elections in a row that went to our net favor.

The next one is in 2006... Republicans project that they will gain another 6 seats in the senate, which would put republicans OVER the filibuster limit. Laws generally require a majority to pass; however the rival faction can filibuster. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If the republicans get their 6 senate seats in 2 years, then the democrats won't even be able to stall republican actions…. At that point it will just be straight up domination.

Then of course there is the election in 2008, which is a really really long time off. So most people haven't even begun to theorize on that one. Most are pretty sure that hillary will run, beyond that they don't know.

Chill out dude, why the hate? I'm just talking about some politics here...

*hands Aagil some sedatives*
======================
As to 2008, I'd personally predict rudy v hillary... but who knows... that's a long time.

I'm more interested in 2006... if the reps can pull another 5 seats, if they get 6 then even better, then they'll actually be total control of the US senate.

that would be something to see...

Peace, Karmashock.

Quesela

Nov 5, 2004, @ 08:51 AM

cause you are
1. american's and stupid

2. your democratic system is shite

3. just give up on the whole inidendance thing and come back to the british empire.. look at canada if you dont believe it would be better...

oh? every canadian i've ever met feels just about the same freaking way about your prime minister as we do about bush. but then again, every canadian i know is Quebecer.

And guiliani (yah i know i mispelled it) for prez? no freaking way. his history in NY was actually horrible, he just got all that positive fame because of the twin towers, and for doing exactly what ANY mayor with half a brain would do. If he winds up as one of the two choices, i'm finally going to give up on this country, and get my job to transfer me to japan. or montreal. not sure which yet.

Ummon

Nov 5, 2004, @ 01:22 PM

I think my statement was rather imprecise too, after I posted it I felt it was incomplete and sketchy myself, but time is not always a friend of mine.

I also think that given the non-scientific nature of the remark, I cannot make it substantially better by writing more. Take it as a provocation, in a sense.

It's just that I think that there are two equally validated stances about reality, both of which are not complete and perfect, but nonetheless necessary, and any healthy right/left division in a sense mirrors the existence of those reciprocally alternative but equally indispensible systems. It's what Jung was saying in his "Personality Types", and of course it doesn't imply a better/worse relationship.

Psy

Nov 5, 2004, @ 07:04 PM

The cost comes from inventing the drugs not making them. So once they’re invented the price to make them is pretty low. Here is why they are cheaper overseas.

The biggest issue is that the drug research is entirely paid for by American buyers. That is to say, if Canada never bought another one of our drugs, our company’s would be fine. So any money made over seas is gravy. That means the drug companies are less insistent about making the same kinds of profits.

Other reasons:
They don’t have as much money and so we charge them what they can pay.

They have a crisis and so are sold or given away at a charity rate.

They accept lower quality standards (India/Mexico is a good example) and so they can get a further reduced rate.

The bottom line is that, if you push this importation stuff… the companies will just raise their prices overseas. It would be more fair for us, but a lot of people in very poor countries would be completely unable to afford these drugs.

That’s what’s going down… That’s not what either the dems or the reps will tell you… but that’s the truth as I understand it.

LMFAO just LMFAO

It is a circular argument at best and completely retarded in actual....

And Que - I had no beef with Chretien infact I absolutely love what he has done as well as his "stfu we don't need to go "how high" on US going "Jump""

So there you go - one canadian that has no beef with (former) PM.

2biT

Nov 5, 2004, @ 07:49 PM

oh? every canadian i've ever met feels just about the same freaking way about your prime minister as we do about bush. but then again, every canadian i know is Quebecer.

yes dirty french.

Tony is the best, since maggie left.

joke:
How many gears has a french tank got?
1 for forward and 5 for reverse?
No there is no such thing as a french tank or air force or army for that matter..

Ummon

Nov 5, 2004, @ 08:10 PM

But the French have a nuclear carrier... only it never leaves harbour... :wtf:

Btw, I love many things french, but I don't think Psycho is french, anyway.

Karmashock

Nov 5, 2004, @ 09:45 PM

I like the french... anyone that hasn't been to France should go... great food, great people, good times.

I disagree with just about all of their politics... but it's a great country to get drunk in... :kelet:

Justice

Nov 5, 2004, @ 10:14 PM

Go to Google.

Type in

french military victories

press "I'm Feeling Lucky"

Get ready to laugh your ass off.

MVB

Nov 5, 2004, @ 10:23 PM

It's not as fun a country to get drunk in as Germany or America.

Karmashock

Nov 5, 2004, @ 10:54 PM

eh... I had a better time in france... the germans are weird...

Justice

Nov 5, 2004, @ 10:54 PM

No.

The Netherlands is the best country to get drunk in.

:)

Ummon

Nov 5, 2004, @ 10:57 PM

Seems you've never been to Italy, although I remember a nice beer overdose in Strasbourg... Which is in France, but almost Germany.

Justice

Nov 5, 2004, @ 11:03 PM

No.

I'm talking about Amsterdam and legality.

:)

Karmashock

Nov 6, 2004, @ 12:24 AM

Seems you've never been to Italy, although I remember a nice beer overdose in Strasbourg... Which is in France, but almost Germany.
I've been to italy too... it was just too touristy... I'm sure I would have had a better time if I had stayed away from the big tourist draws...

2biT

Nov 6, 2004, @ 01:04 AM

The Dark Messenger

Nov 6, 2004, @ 02:06 AM

Wait... The Republicans are gonna go over the filibuster?

I don't follow American politics too well, but do you mean that they're going to have a majority in the senate?

That's fucked up man... Basically, they could do anything they wanted with no opposition? Hello oligarchy!

MVB

Nov 6, 2004, @ 02:29 AM

I've been to Italy, and gotten myself drunk there, as well as drunk and lost somewhere in the heavily ghettofied back alleys of Venice with my girl at the time.

Fun times all around.

/<yle

Nov 6, 2004, @ 03:55 AM

France is a nice place to visite, the people are nice (when you speek french), the food is great (you dont know what it is), and the wine and beer, well, they flow

Karmashock

Nov 6, 2004, @ 11:31 AM

Pmsl @ french victories.

Did you know french history says that they liberated Paris in ww2 and that the allies took a seccondary role.

The only 'victory' france had was they manage to do better at cassino than the british commanwealth frorces, and the americans (that wasnt hard).

Technically that's true...

American and British troops crushed the Germans around Paris, then stopped and waited for some French troops to be the first to 'enter' the city.

We did this for them because they were being difficult in England... their mouths were writing a whole bunch of checks that their ass just couldn't cash... We gave them this as a political tribute… something meaningless and shiny that would hopefully get them to stfu.

Eisenhower did however forbid Charles de Gaulle from leading that force into Paris. Gaulle caused problems and Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander… so he told Gaulle to take a seat and someone else lead them in…
=============================
Wait... The Republicans are gonna go over the filibuster?

I don't follow American politics too well, but do you mean that they're going to have a majority in the senate?
We already have a majority in the senate. You need 60 votes to break a filibuster. We have like 55 now or somthing like that...

We're expected to gain 6 seats in 2 years. If/when we get those we'll be able to dominate the senate.

Another thing we could do is use our majority to just change the rules... we could change the number of votes needed to break a filibuster with a simple majority.

either might happen...

That's fucked up man... Basically, they could do anything they wanted with no opposition? Hello oligarchy!
uh... no... over a 100 million people voted in the last election... deal with it.

laserflip

Nov 6, 2004, @ 04:30 PM

he has a point though, i dont like the way the US govt is set up. these people co ntrol the country, and just because ppl votefd for em doesnt mean they think that is best for the country. they effectively choose between TWO candidates for everything. R or D. so you dont choose your govt in america, you pick one of two. that isnt a very good choice, if you hate both like me.

tom

Nov 6, 2004, @ 04:42 PM

Yes that is a downside, but God help us if a Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist, Socialist, Communist, etc ever took office.

Perhaps its a two party system because the Dems and Reps are the least idiotic of the political parties (which says alot, since politics in and of itself promotes idiocy).

vacio

Nov 6, 2004, @ 07:33 PM

http://poststuff2.entensity.net/110504/image.php?pic=kerrywins.jpg

2biT

Nov 6, 2004, @ 08:17 PM

Chase me with a shitty stick and call me betty you be right. But De gaulle was in the city with 'elemnets of 2nd armoured (french)' [ S. Ambrose], i was always under the impression that 4th armoured (american) liberated the city, turns out de gaulle was worried about commies so he asked for 4th to parade through, hence 'liberating'.

One thing i did find highly amusing was the french version of Waterloo. ' a great french victory that all went wrong at the last minute' when the nosy was humbuged he did what every good british general does, retreats to the nearest hill and gives the enemy a dam good thrashing!

Karmashock

Nov 6, 2004, @ 08:50 PM

http://poststuff2.entensity.net/110504/image.php?pic=kerrywins.jpg

nope... that just says which people would prefer kerry to run AMERICA... Kerry is fine for other people... I'd for for kerry over bush for just about any nation...

For my own though?... that's a different story.

vacio

Nov 6, 2004, @ 11:01 PM

i'm not pushing either person for president, the map was suppose to be funny, haha, oh right. . no sense of humor. . got it. . .

Ummon

Nov 6, 2004, @ 11:33 PM

2biT

Nov 7, 2004, @ 01:07 AM

Actually Napoleon could have won Waterloo, but Augerau and Jerome decided otherwise.

Especially Augerau, who sat dining with his 35000 strong army while he should have been marching to help his boss.

Sadly enough Napy had lost his touch too, but he could still have won if things had been done following his plan.

Well if the prussian cheif of staff or something, hadnt given wrong martching orders (because he was defeatest, and didnt like the english or some such) that delayed the prussians for the day it would have ment bonny would have got owned. + the fact that nap sent the famous french columns all day against bristish musket lines (fastest reloaders in the world -they didnt stand a chance) + the fact that bonny didnt have RIFLES, and dispite beening out numbered and out gunned we pwned him even with the prince of orrange on out team. Hes was a bit of a :newbie: tbh, nosy was by far a much better general. Agreed that the prussians where needed to actually beat bonny 9them beening the hammer), it was the british that did most if not all of the fighting (ignoring the whippping the prussians got the day before by bonny cause im bias)

Karmashock

Nov 7, 2004, @ 07:11 AM

i'm not pushing either person for president, the map was suppose to be funny, haha, oh right. . no sense of humor. . got it. . .
But it's not funny if it's your guy... that thing has a point... and I disagree with it... so it loses it's humor.

perspective...
============================
Actually Napoleon could have won Waterloo, but Augerau and Jerome decided otherwise.

Especially Augerau, who sat dining with his 35000 strong army while he should have been marching to help his boss.

Sadly enough Napy had lost his touch too, but he could still have won if things had been done following his plan.
Wellington was the pwnage. That guy was pure general... Napy was a better king then he was a general... specialization.

Love, Karmashock.

vacio

Nov 7, 2004, @ 09:17 AM

But it's not funny if it's your guy... that thing has a point... and I disagree with it... so it loses it's humor.

I apoligies, nice avatar btw

Karmashock

Nov 7, 2004, @ 10:27 AM

"nice avatar btw"
the wonders of google... :P

Ummon

Nov 7, 2004, @ 12:01 PM

Karmashock

Nov 7, 2004, @ 12:19 PM

Hmm... I had always read that Wellington was superior if on equal footing...

However, Wellington never had the kind of digression that Napoleon had... he was merely a general and therefore subject to the often misguided whims of greater powers... while Napoleon was free to plan everything himself.

I think most of Napoleon’s value in discussions like this comes not from his prowess on the battlefield as it does from the political power he derived from him.

How many incredible generals will be forgotten because they never lusted after power and recognition?

Furthermore, that wasn't the first time that Napoleon was beaten by Wellington... it was at least the second decisive loss. Napoleon, who I agree is one of the greater generals in history, will always be more significant for his charisma and rule over France.

Ummon

Nov 7, 2004, @ 01:00 PM

Actually, that was the first and only time Napoleon lost to Wellington directly.

No other general in history has ever done what Napoleon did during the Austerlitz campaign.

Two months before Napoleon had given his secretary the very exact description of the campaign, with all movements, supply lines, etc. including the surrender of Mack at Ulm.

After taking Vienna, he met the allied armies at Austerlitz. The evening before the battle he announced his battleplan to the troops, and everything went EXACTLY as he had said, a numerically superior army was defeated by a clever, preformulated battleplan.

Furthermore Napoleon was not always a head of state. His most brilliant achievement is surely the first Italian campaign, where he defeated a number of Austrian and Savoyard soldiers which was overall SEVEN times his own. And we're talking conscripts vs professional soldiers, the Austrian army being professional, and Savoyard military being half professional and half composed by the best territorial militia of Europe at the time. During that campaign he was merely a republican general, and not very important too.

2biT

Nov 7, 2004, @ 05:06 PM

Actually, no. Napoleon is considered one of the best 5 generals of all time, but: his approach had become outdated for technological reasons, he was ill, his subordinates were old and dumb (the good ones having succumbed during years of campaigns), and finally he was outnumbered 1.7 to 1 on the strategic level.

He out numbered the british at waterloo, only by the prussians joining at the end of the battle would we outnumber him.

[/quote=ummon]If you read military manuals of the 19th century, and history books about that century, they all refer to two strategic/tactical pillars:

1) Napoleon
2) The American Civil War

Wellington doesn't even figure, unless it's an english book of course. But all nations are prone to self-aggrandizement.[/quote]

Is that a insult or are you talking about the civil war?

[/quote]The prussians didn't march in time because they were reorganizing after the defeat they had suffered in Ligny.[/quote]

They where organised and would ahve been there by miday if not for one of the chief of staff who but the furthest unit to lead the martch so, i took ages untill they had organised themselfs again.

You are forgetting the Pinsualar war in which wellington constantly out forought france with less troops, less quality troops, bad policitical interventions etc.. which lead to the invasion of france..

IMO he was the best general at the time, due to the fact that he had significatly more problems on his side, whcih he overcame to still win.

+ as you said bonny was 'out teched' due to english inventishness (is that a word?) and is complete refusal to change tactics, when the evidence was over welming .. french columns dont break english lines...This is why he is a bad general.

Karmashock

Nov 7, 2004, @ 07:02 PM

Actually, that was the first and only time Napoleon lost to Wellington directly.

Not for wellington's lack of trying... Napoleon was largely in Russia while Wellington was attacking north through Spain.

Napoleon got wiped out rather pathetically in Russia and got back in time to watch the french defenses collapse.

1814
In March, after the battle of Laon, Wellington captures Bordeaux and the allies enter Paris. On 11 April, Napoleon abdicates and is exiled on the island of Elba, off the Tuscan coast in Italy.

The first loss to wellington was allowing the british force, lead by wellington, to drive up from the south and force him into exile.

The error in my wording was in that, to me, Napoleon and france were the same thing at that time... as he was the Emperior. France was defeated by Wellington and so was it's emperior... who was Napoleon.

1815
On 1 March, Napoleon returns from exile for the 'Hundred Days' campaign. On 18 June, Wellington and the Prussian general Gebhard Blücher defeat Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo, in what is now modern Belgium. War between France and Britain finally ends, and Napoleon is exiled to St Helena in the Atlantic. At the Congress of Vienna, Britain keeps its colonial gains from the wars.

Second loss...
--------------------------------------
A great general and a greater king. But ultimately an arrogant and tactless statesmen that while very good at getting the support of his own people was unable to rally allies or understand the limitations of his forces.

You see the same kind of intellegence in Hitler... and the same kind of stupidity. If both of them had accepted moderate gains, neither of them would have lost.
Love and peace, Karmashock.

Ummon

Nov 7, 2004, @ 07:16 PM

During the Spanish campaign, Wellington fought Napy's subordinates, not Napy himself, who was in an entirely different region all the time.

Karma, Napoleon didn't lose any other field battle against Wellington, point. After both Waterloo and Leipzig (where Napoleon lost to Blucher), the French military machine imploded, and it was just a round up. Before Waterloo, they had faced in Quatre-Bras, but Wellington was not present most of the battle, and the british lost. We're considering battles where Napoleon commanded his army, not general French vs. Brits battles.

All nations are prone to self-aggrandizement: do you know who Garibaldi is? Garibaldi was a gifted Italian general who greatly helped unify the country, and he also fought in South America. But in Italian history books he is dubbed "The Hero of the Two Worlds". Seems a bit excessive, no? Same goes for Wellington, good general, but hardly a genius. But the British will of course overrate him.

The British should be happy with Marlborough (a genius) and Henry IV (edit: sorry I meant Henry V)(another genius). But there's absolutely no paragon, Napoleon was light years ahead of Wellington, to whom he lost. The same goes for Hannibal and Scipio Africanus. But in Italian history books Scipio, just because he was Roman, gets the carpet treatment. Nontheless, Hannibal was far a better general than Scipio, despite having lost to him.

Furthermore, when he "refused to change tactics" he was an old man, ill from an old wound, misinformed about the battlefield's layout (he didn't know of the road below ground level on the left flank which broke the first cavalry charge).

Finally, Waterloo was mostly decided by weather. Yes weather. According to experiments, ground chemical analysis and the report of a great shower right before the battle, mud completely hampered the French artillery which got dug in the slippery ground after a few shots, forcing a charge attack.

2biT

Nov 7, 2004, @ 08:49 PM

Karmashock

Nov 7, 2004, @ 09:23 PM

Nap was in charge of all French forces... he had imperial power... wellington didn't... wellington probably couldn't have handled it, even if he were given it. The point is that wellington broke france's defenses and those defenses were designed if not overseen by nap. If he had decided to over see them, the could have... he chose not to... his command was the entire country a defeat for france, when you are the emperior, is a defeat for you.

Was wellington as good as nap?... no... but in some specific things I think he was at least his equal... Nap was an amazing man... his true significance comes through in that was so good at some many different things... wellington was a specialist... couldn't do half of the things that nap did easily... he was a soldier... a general... a leader of men in arms... no more, no less... Was he better or worse at it then nap?... I don't think there would be a historical example of that that would prove it to either of us.

Ummon

Nov 7, 2004, @ 09:56 PM

I actually think Wellington was better at commanding a tactical defence, or at laying ambushes, than Napoleon, this doesn't mean that he was a better general. Infact I intended general on the broadest sense, strategic, logistic, and tactical.

The French defenses had been set up by Napoleon for sure, but after the Russian Campaign, (Napoleon's true "big mistake") La Grande Armée was not the same anymore. Too many dead, few good commanders, all different and lower morale. Napoleon had survived his greatness. Many great men (both good and evil) end that way.

JADezimar

Nov 10, 2004, @ 12:07 PM

Ya id rather have a republican or Demo than a socialists. Allthough I wouldnt mind seeing us move to certain socilaists ways for instance Certain nations that pay for all of college, or pay for large amounts of medical. etc etc. Ya we may be taxed more. But living would have to go down and logically it would cuase if no one can afford to pay rent, apartment owners etc instead of just making no money would lower rent no. The major problem I c for our futures nation and having higher lower poorer people is that Employers are growing ever increasingly picky about who they hire. I.E. College is almost a must these days. There will be less economically successful in the future. If somehow this isnt taken care of. Cuase If Dad is poor cant send his kid to college goes on the cycle. But if WE can take care of the college anyone can take the initiative to go and then get a job o0 and the feild for employment would be lvled a bit.

shutupandshave

Nov 21, 2004, @ 02:15 AM

Just addressing the original topic question.
I was chatting to a friend this evening. He's a bit right wing I guess (he was criticising the breach of freedom that the new UK fox hunting law could lead too), and we got onto the topic of these forums (and some of the arguments/discussions some people have made/make here)... which then led on to the topic of America.
He was planning on moving to the US to work for a while. He's one of the leading digital imaging experts in the world (apparently - and not according to him as he's very mild mannered and has his feet firmly planted on the ground), but he told me he is not going to go to the US anymore because of the right wing extremism that appears to him to have become prevalent in the last couple of years.

So what happens next? A reasonable and very very talented person that was considering working in the US has now decided not too.

My mum's husband who did his university final thesis on American politics, and also worked in the US as a campaign director for one of the Kennedy's running for governor (I think)... said (completely independtly of any prompting from me - he was actually talking to someone else) that the US is displaying fascist tendancies and it's incredibly worrying. Now this guy almost certainly knows more about the nitty and gritty of the way American politics REALLY work than any of us... He doesn't dislike America, but is convinced that the whole election system is a complete farce now - with propaganda white-washing accounting for the majority (not all) of the way people are voting.

Of course I am just relaying other people's views, and not my own (although I dont expect Karma to be able to tell the difference - and will attack me for saying I think the US election system is corrupt...or something equally as wrong).

The UK on the whole is more right wing than the majority of Europe (Holland being the notable example) and it seems that a lot of the UK feel the US is FAR right of us. How right wing does that make the US in the eyes of the many regular Europeans?

I think the US has gotten itself a particularly bad name in the last few years, and I think (every nation who has been top of the heep comes under lots of criticism, I am fully away) it has gone beyond the usual Jealousy thing (which does exist). Whether or not the fears of people are going to be justified is completely open...however if the US decides to attack any/many more countries for regime change I know the US people will be in support.

JADezimar

Nov 21, 2004, @ 02:45 AM

He was planning on moving to the US to work for a while. He's one of the leading digital imaging experts in the world (apparently - and not according to him as he's very mild mannered and has his feet firmly planted on the ground), but he told me he is not going to go to the US anymore because of the right wing extremism that appears to him to have become prevalent in the last couple of years.

Dont c why He would let that change him. The far right is less outspoken, Than the left In most cases, The right is predominantly made of christians. That usually dont partake in marches, strikes picketing etc. And usually Do not get violent etc etc. If theres someone to fear its the far left, which in most cases will go as far to say that all of america is ignorrant and stupid for being towards the right. They are generally the more outspoken. Usually control more of the media, And Are more forceful on there subjects.

My mum's husband who did his university final thesis on American politics, and also worked in the US as a campaign director for one of the Kennedy's running for governor (I think)... said (completely independtly of any prompting from me - he was actually talking to someone else) that the US is displaying fascist tendancies and it's incredibly worrying. Now this guy almost certainly knows more about the nitty and gritty of the way American politics REALLY work than any of us... He doesn't dislike America, but is convinced that the whole election system is a complete farce now - with propaganda white-washing accounting for the majority (not all) of the way people are voting.

Those same tendancies Have been displayed by Several European tendancies. What he and someone else views as fascists can be something totally different. Any intelligent man can anicdote somethign like that. Elections have alwayz been about who is better and who is worse Since the beginning of the political system. You should know the dirt and the advantageous. If 1 side did better about Defacing its opponent then it should win (just as long as the the statements they make are not false) I saw a site the other nite that had valid points about things, but it had some false information in it. I think its funny how If you are a rightie or for Bush How lefties and people will label you as fascists, or like hitler or for hitler etc. Now thats SLANDER and Attack of a person and type of people. THEY ARE the ones being the fascists and ones straight out attacking the persons in more cases than not its the lefties which are xtremists. Or you wouldnt find sites like that, go as far as saying I support hitler for being somewhat on the right. I dont claim that of lefties, I dont try to force my views opinions on them. But whenever a freind starts saying this is why I vote kerry, Cuase bush raised the debt etc etc. Most lefties are just ill informed and dont even know true politics etc etc. Instead the slamn and deface the other side.

The UK on the whole is more right wing than the majority of Europe (Holland being the notable example) and it seems that a lot of the UK feel the US is FAR right of us. How right wing does that make the US in the eyes of the many regular Europeans?

That again is in the eye of the beholder and like youve said its purely objective for the time. I remember once upon a time a man would be burned at the stake for herasy. (Now the right is against things like abortion) And that makes them fanatical righties. How Unmoral would a country have to become to be considered not far right? In that perspective one day a leftie might come up and say im horny may I borrow your wife, If I hit him ill be considered a violent righty.

I think the US has gotten itself a particularly bad name in the last few years, and I think (every nation who has been top of the heep comes under lots of criticism, I am fully away) it has gone beyond the usual Jealousy thing (which does exist). Whether or not the fears of people are going to be justified is completely open...however if the US decides to attack any/many more countries for regime change I know the US people will be in support.

I think thats the general case, But in your defense also fueled by a few actions, that the world disagrees with. But mostly I do think this really comes right down to oil for the rest of the world. And Iraq is right at the center of it.

JADezimar

Nov 21, 2004, @ 03:02 AM

Well I think many corporations to a point should be Controlled, Car insurance, Medical things like that should be controlled Its like the bust they did on microsoft for a monopoly, things like this should be controlled to make things fair. But Angel point out where Bush has hurt the economy. All i remember is Clintons budget balancing hurting our econmy a shitload and then it going up after Bush being re-elected.

Anyway - reelecting the incoherent ADD aflicted idiot who can't form a sentence or keep on topic for more that 10 seconds = moronic.

btw I'm flameproof so I'll repat for those who missed it. Bush = complete idiot makes me think I can run my gold fish campaing and have it win. Since obviously inteligence is a factor of 0 when considering the next "leader".

I cant stand people that judge by looks or speech patterns etc. Its completely fucked up. In class you aint gonna say that retarded kid cant get a better grade than me he just looks stupider than I am. My wifes recruiter had part of his speech patterns fried in his brain, This area being seperate from thought process and most other parts of the brain. He is still highly intelligent but has a huge stuterr ITS LEFTY asshole comments like that psy that makes me to beleive its the lefty that is fascists etc. You dont here righties making fun of kerry's looks, or anything of that matter. Atleast when they make a point it is actual material rather than a flame.

Larsson7

Nov 21, 2004, @ 03:46 AM

Well I think many corporations to a point should be Controlled, Car insurance, Medical things like that should be controlled Its like the bust they did on microsoft for a monopoly, things like this should be controlled to make things fair. But Angel point out where Bush has hurt the economy. All i remember is Clintons budget balancing hurting our econmy a shitload and then it going up after Bush being re-elected.

I cant stand people that judge by looks or speech patterns etc. Its completely fucked up. In class you aint gonna say that retarded kid cant get a better grade than me he just looks stupider than I am. My wifes recruiter had part of his speech patterns fried in his brain, This area being seperate from thought process and most other parts of the brain. He is still highly intelligent but has a huge stuterr ITS LEFTY asshole comments like that psy that makes me to beleive its the lefty that is fascists etc. You dont here righties making fun of kerry's looks, or anything of that matter. Atleast when they make a point it is actual material rather than a flame.

This is a FACT, JAD - when Bush took the White House the US Treasury had a surplus of over $200 Billion and now has a deficit of - oh wtf - How much?

This President is going to make you, your children and as far as your Great, Great Grandchildren pay for his spending errors.

http://www.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Bush%20discretionary%20spending.jpg

This graph shows the Bush Administration in terms of Discretionary Spending which is way beyond their means!

Your Government is rapidly heading towards bankruptcy and stays afloat by selling its debt to others!

If the rest of the world choose to stop buying this debt then the rammifications will hit you - The American Public!

You voted this asshole in so you can live with his exorbitant spending.

Karmashock

Nov 21, 2004, @ 03:50 AM

but he told me he is not going to go to the US anymore because of the right wing extremism that appears to him to have become prevalent in the last couple of years.
Why?… What threat is the anti abortion movement to your friend?… This just sounds like nonsense.
Now this guy almost certainly knows more about the nitty and gritty of the way American politics REALLY work than any of us
As far as I know, this person might not even exist…
So I put puff the magic dragon against him… Puff thinks this is silly.

He doesn't dislike America, but is convinced that the whole election system is a complete farce now - with propaganda white-washing accounting for the majority (not all) of the way people are voting.
Farce because of the media or farce because of fraud? If it’s the media, there was a very lively debate in this country and if it’s fraud… well… they would have found it if it were there… they deployed lawyers all over the country…

Of course I am just relaying other people's views, and not my own (although I dont expect Karma to be able to tell the difference - and will attack me for saying I think the US election system is corrupt...or something equally as wrong).
I object to you maintaining that this person is reasonable in the face of contrary evidence. :lol:

The UK on the whole is more right wing than the majority of Europe (Holland being the notable example) and it seems that a lot of the UK feel the US is FAR right of us. How right wing does that make the US in the eyes of the many regular Europeans?
How left wing does that make Europe in the eyes of many regular Americans?

I think the US has gotten itself a particularly bad name in the last few years, and I think (every nation who has been top of the heep comes under lots of criticism, I am fully away) it has gone beyond the usual Jealousy thing (which does exist). Whether or not the fears of people are going to be justified is completely open...however if the US decides to attack any/many more countries for regime change I know the US people will be in support.
We wouldn’t attack unless the support were likely… Anyway, we’ll likely chew on iraq for at least another 2 years… after that we’ll maintain a reduced profile…

It all depends, if Iran wants to tango they’ll find a waiting partner… That whole region has to be stabilized… if that takes 20 or thirty years, then it’s certainly a job worth doing.
====================================
This is a FACT, JAD - when Bush took the White House the US Treasury had a surplus of over $200 Billion and now has a deficit of - oh wtf - How much?
Via the Republican congress with good economic conditions we were able to reduce our debt. However, we were NEVER out of debt. Only by using the social security fund, which is dishonest economics, were we able to claim that figure.

This President is going to make you, your children and as far as your Great, Great Grandchildren pay for his spending errors.
Just prior to the end of the Clinton administration the bottom fell out of the US stock market, which erased much of our theoretical economic gains. Many of the balance sheets that said that we couldn’t spend the money fast enough suddenly said we were WAAAY into the red. The state governments were hit especially hard by this and are easier to analysis as they’re smaller and less articulated. We went from having more money then we knew what to do with in California to being 35 billion dollars in debt.

This graph shows the Bush Administration in terms of Discretionary Spending which is way beyond their means!
Recession and war will do that…

Your Government is rapidly heading towards bankruptcy and stays afloat by selling its debt to others!
To people that want to buy it… no one has to… Anyway, we’re out of the recession and Iraq is winding down… so we just need to keep our bond market intact and we should be fine.

If the rest of the world choose to stop buying this debt then the rammifications will hit you - The American Public!
Bro… we worked this shit out years ago… you underestimate us.

You voted this asshole in so you can live with his exorbitant spending.
Don’t pretend that you care about spending, if we were spending this much money on free drugs for seniors you’d be calling us brave or something… You’re pissed because we’re doing things with the money that you don’t approve of…

It just amuses me when liberals talk about economics…

Our national growth rate is fully one percent higher then yours… which if you knew anything about the size of our economy the power of one percent you’d be impressed.

JADezimar

Nov 21, 2004, @ 04:03 AM

This is a FACT, JAD - when Bush took the White House the US Treasury had a surplus of over $200 Billion and now has a deficit of - oh wtf - How much?

This President is going to make you, your children and as far as your Great, Great Grandchildren pay for his spending errors.

This graph shows the Bush Administration in terms of Discretionary Spending which is way beyond their means!

Your Government is rapidly heading towards bankruptcy and stays afloat by selling its debt to others!

If the rest of the world choose to stop buying this debt then the rammifications will hit you - The American Public!

You voted this asshole in so you can live with his exorbitant spending.

AGAIN ANGEL YOUR A MORON. youve been told the answer to this too. YOU KNOW what it is? THE GOVERNMENT DEBT. Is not the Economy of the american people. The un-employment rate is down since bush has become president. The economics true numbers are up. You know how clinton kept from the deficit rising at such a high rate. HE CUT SEVERAL PROGRAMS, Cut MILITARY SPENDING, AND RAISED TAXES. But we had a huge failure of our economy and had some bad aftermaths of clintons economical choices. ANGEL DO some research stop talking about shit you know nothing about. OR RE-READ every posts in every thread so you can have some answers. OR DO YOU HAVE really,really poor memory. Clinton also cut educational programs.

On the affect of military spending. These people are here for our nation, whether it be defending or serving these people deserve to be payed more money and the best equipment there is. People LIke clinton cutting military spending, Kerry voting to cut military spending DOES THE military harm. People that do not need this. ANGEL I THINK you need to go back to where KARMA EXPLAINS how alot of our debt is sold to nations, CUASE THEY WANT TO INVEST in the united states DOLLAR. Dont be stupid. I remember you saying you figure no one wuold want to invest in pos us dollar I think thats utterly funny. ANYHOW Ya our Debt is not really a problem Its a figure that never has to be utterly payed off as long as Payments are made on time o0. But IT HAS NOTHIGN to do with the economy. WHEN THE democrats took care of trying to keep the deficit from going up they only hurt our economy and put us through a recession.

ANGEL another 1 some of our MAJOR DEBT COMES FROM WARS from helping other nations LIKE HELPING YOUR ASS OUT with the germans. #2 OF THAT SURPLUS that came from A tabacco industry suit or special tax CLINTON USED A HUGE CHUNK to lower the NATIONAL DEBT. THATS HOW IT LOOKED SO good under his rule. AND bush gave some to the states. MY HOME STATE used the money for SCHOLARSHIPS for education. IT JUST goes to show who's priorities are really for our people.

Larsson7

Nov 21, 2004, @ 04:13 AM

This is a FACT, JAD - when Bush took the White House the US Treasury had a surplus of over $200 Billion and now has a deficit of - oh wtf - How much?

AGAIN ANGEL YOUR A MORON. youve been told the answer to this too. YOU KNOW what it is? THE GOVERNMENT DEBT. Is not the Economy of the american people. The un-employment rate is down since bush has become president. The economics true numbers are up. You know how clinton kept from the deficit rising at such a high rate. HE CUT SEVERAL PROGRAMS, Cut MILITARY SPENDING, AND RAISED TAXES. But we had a huge failure of our economy and had some bad aftermaths of clintons economical choices. ANGEL DO some research stop talking about shit you know nothing about. OR RE-READ every posts in every thread so you can have some answers. OR DO YOU HAVE really,really poor memory. Clinton also cut educational programs.

On the affect of military spending. These people are here for our nation, whether it be defending or serving these people deserve to be payed more money and the best equipment there is. People LIke clinton cutting military spending, Kerry voting to cut military spending DOES THE military harm. People that do not need this. ANGEL I THINK you need to go back to where KARMA EXPLAINS how alot of our debt is sold to nations, CUASE THEY WANT TO INVEST in the united states DOLLAR. Dont be stupid. I remember you saying you figure no one wuold want to invest in pos us dollar I think thats utterly funny. ANYHOW Ya our Debt is not really a problem Its a figure that never has to be utterly payed off as long as Payments are made on time o0. But IT HAS NOTHIGN to do with the economy. WHEN THE democrats took care of trying to keep the deficit from going up they only hurt our economy and put us through a recession.

So the US Government is NOT in a recission at present? Did i not read on friday that Bush had to increase the Government borrowing by another $800 Billion? You seem to think that because your economy is OK now (DUE TO MAMMOTH GOVERNMENT BORROWING!!!!!!!) that this money does need not be paid back! Thats right - its a gift for you guys to spend on Disneyland and Eminem CDs.

This money is being taken out of pension funds with the promise that it will be "paid back"!!

Serioulsy JAD - Bush could come and rape your wife and you would still give him a blow job.

This guy is better than God Almighty and could smite all of Europe with one of his pubic hairs.

You really do not have a clue what you are talking about in terms of US Government spending. You could not even conceed that, given your current war, that you are spending beyond your means.

I know there is a huge orchard in Orange County where money just grows on trees and the US Government just go out and pick what they need.

Take your head out of GWB ass and think for yourself.

JADezimar

Nov 21, 2004, @ 04:27 AM

So the US Government is NOT in a recission at present? Did i not read on friday that Bush had to increase the Government borrowing by another $800 Billion? You seem to think that because your economy is OK now (DUE TO MAMMOTH GOVERNMENT BORROWING!!!!!!!) that this money does need not be paid back! Thats right - its a gift for you guys to spend on Disneyland and Eminem CDs.

Again Ill repeat to you. Debt is something that has payments The U.S makes, its being payed. Just cuase its not payed all back at one time doesnt mean the U.S isnt doing its part. In FACT WHEN THE US doesnt pay back all the money at once the lending nation EARNS MORE MONEY they actually like this. WHAT ARE YOU STUPID. IF I lent out 100 bucks and got an xtra 5 bucks a month in interest if He took over a year to pay it off. ID BE WAY HAPPIER.

AGAIN THE DEBT going up does not detirmine a weak economy. Number 2 some of the debt is to our own citizens in the form of Bonds. Yep our people are making money off our Government Debt. How does that say it hurts our economy? Get a grip you retardation, From the leftest side of the IRA.

DONT YOU GET the us debt maybe 7 trillion dollars. But (if I remember the quote properly thats only 1.9% of an entire years budget o0.) THATS like Me owing out 3-4 bucks to a freind of my monthly income. GET A GRIP the debt if affects your country nation at all is positive so quite whining. You are arguing against something and about something you no nothing about. And has nothing to do with you. #2 If our DEBT IS so bad to the world why the hell do they keep lending it to us ?

shutupandshave

Nov 21, 2004, @ 04:46 AM

Karma, you're stupid - ANTI abortion? Why the hell would you say that he had a problem with anti-abortion. I never said that. You're making up replies to points that never existed. I assumed he was talking about the aggressive foreign policy which may put the US at more risk than it already was (I never checked to ask)... you assume he's talking about anti-abortion. You have no grip on reality.

As far as I know, this person might not even exist…
So I put puff the magic dragon against him… Puff thinks this is silly.
As far as I know - you may not be at university, the professor you said claimed the UK was a republic might not exist...you may not be any older than 14 (it would explain a few things). I assume you are at university because you say you are. I am not going to ask you to prove it - and nor am I going to try and prove you are not... I expect that level of honesty from the people I talk too. That level of honesty is obviously not taken for granted by you... and so I think it best that you don't speak to me anymore. Bye.

JAD: The head of the US central bank said the debt is out of control in a press interview I listened too on Friday (or Thursday).

Get a grip you retardation, From the leftest side of the IRA.
That's completely - COMPLETELY out of order.

Larsson7

Nov 21, 2004, @ 04:50 AM

JAD - you really are a fucking retard.

I have never defended the IRA and, as a matter of principle, I will say that I do NOT support the IRA - even though I do not have to justify myself to you.

That being said - I can understand WHY the IRA will take up arms against the British, however, I do not agree that their ends justify the means in any circumstances.

Lets hope, for the last time, that we are fucking crystal clear on this issue.

shutupandshave

Nov 21, 2004, @ 04:57 AM

Larsson7

Nov 21, 2004, @ 05:03 AM

I'm British and I can understand why the IRA took up arms against us.

However, I think - like all these things - the true cause gets lost after a while, and you end up with a large proportoin of people that are just nasty...doing nasty things to all kinds of people.

Agreed 10,000%. These people do not, in anyway shape or form, represent me.

I am actually of the opinion that the British have made Northern Ireland quite a prosperous and pleasant place to be - most of the time.

If I lived in England, Scotland or Wales I might be pissed off that the UK Government spens £Billions on Northern Ireland when they could be spending it on the Home Countries.

I am pretty sure, though I will conceed if proven wrong, that most of the people in England, Scotland or Wales could not give a flying fuck if the UK gave Northern Ireland back to the Republic of Ireland.

I would actually be more convinced tha the Republic of Ireland would not want us :lol:

shutupandshave

Nov 21, 2004, @ 05:46 AM

Personally - as long as the N.Ireland is part of the UK it should get the same level of support that any other parts of the UK should be entitled too. If it needs more money then it should get it (and I have never seen anything that says it's getting more) - if somewhere else needs more then N.Ireland should tighten the belts a bit while the other part of the country gets sorted out.

England has always enjoyed a love/hate relationship with the rest of the UK though.

Karmashock

Nov 21, 2004, @ 06:38 AM

Karma, you're stupid - ANTI abortion? Why the hell would you say that he had a problem with anti-abortion.
I don't know... I'm trying to figure out why your friend would have a problem in my country... is it the abortion debate?... If he's coming here on business, he'll likely be in the north east or the west coast for media stuff... and they're generally left wing.

him not coming for poilitical reasons MAKES ZERO SENSE! You didn't explain it, so that left me to guess.

I assumed he was talking about the aggressive foreign policy which may put the US at more risk than it already was (I never checked to ask)... you assume he's talking about anti-abortion.
Wait wait... you think it might be because he's afraid of being killed by our enemies? I thought you said it was the 'right wing' thing? If he were afraid then he would have said "because it's dangerious". I'm sure your friend either doesn't exist or is just being silly... either way, you comments make no sense.

That level of honesty is obviously not taken for granted by you... and so I think it best that you don't speak to me anymore. Bye.
Promises promises.

JAD: The head of the US central bank said the debt is out of control in a press interview I listened too on Friday (or Thursday).

That's completely - COMPLETELY out of order.
Link?... I'd like that in context.
England has always enjoyed a love/hate relationship with the rest of the UK though.
heavy is the head...

JADezimar

Nov 21, 2004, @ 07:15 AM

have never defended the IRA and, as a matter of principle, I will say that I do NOT support the IRA - even though I do not have to justify myself to you.

That being said - I can understand WHY the IRA will take up arms against the British, however, I do not agree that their ends justify the means in any circumstances.

Lets hope, for the last time, that we are fucking crystal clear on this issue.

So you realize your country has problems and isnt absolutely correct either. Shouldnt you be worried about your own problems and not ours? But you understand why, The Ira Takes up arms against the british is it? Can I say fascists=Taking the country by force lolz

shutupandshave

Nov 22, 2004, @ 03:15 PM

The IRA is no longer active in terrorism.

There are problems all over the world. I think the point would be that the Irish realise there were problems, and are working on those, instead of invading countries, and telling them they must live the same way.

Karmashock

Nov 22, 2004, @ 03:50 PM

The Irish didn't declare holy war on your ass... If they had and you were getting bombed like the Israelis, you would have bombed the Irish into the stone age.

shutupandshave

Nov 22, 2004, @ 03:55 PM

Please stop talking to me.

Larsson7

Nov 22, 2004, @ 04:48 PM

Please stop talking to me.

QFT.

Karma,

If you knew anything about the atrocities that happened to many families in the UK at the hands of the IRA you would not even spout that drivel.

Even the UK government were bombed on more than one occasion and members of the government and Royal Family assassinated.

The IRA war on the UK included indiscriminate murder of men, women and children on an all too regular basis.

Do you think if the UK had bombed Northern Ireland to the stone age (bearing in mind they would have been bombing THEIR OWN CITIZENS) that they would not have created a host of martyrs to follow in their footsteps.

Seriously - you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Having experience of a country that is occupied by another country (and I am meaning no offence to you, suas, or any other people in the UK who post here) I think I can speak with a little bit of authority on a subject you have yet to experience.

Larsson7

Nov 22, 2004, @ 04:50 PM

So you realize your country has problems and isnt absolutely correct either. Shouldnt you be worried about your own problems and not ours? But you understand why, The Ira Takes up arms against the british is it? Can I say fascists=Taking the country by force lolz

Can you say "Occupied country fighting for its own freedom and independence"?

You are aware that the UK invaded Ireland and planted its own people there? You are, or should be, aware that any occupied country is going to fight for its own freedom?

Explain to me how Irishmen and women taking up arms to fight for freedom from an invading force is fascism?

shutupandshave

Nov 22, 2004, @ 04:56 PM

Larsson7

Nov 22, 2004, @ 04:58 PM

MVB

Nov 22, 2004, @ 05:01 PM

I sympathize with the Irish on this one; most probably b/c a lot of my relatives were Irish, and left Ireland for America to avoid the fuckin' Brits.

shutupandshave

Nov 22, 2004, @ 05:17 PM

Sympathise with the terrorists - because they got invaded and fought against the invading force? Lordy Lordy.

MVB

Nov 22, 2004, @ 05:21 PM

No, because I'm Irish. WTF, you mean actually have a good reason to sympathize with terrorists?

BTW, you need to start spelling that word with an 'ize and not an 'ise; refer to pinned post at top of forum for explanation of why.

shutupandshave

Nov 22, 2004, @ 05:24 PM

Maybe so, but only one of us has lived in Ireland for over a year MVB, and it's not you ;p

But seriously. I was trying to point out that although the Iraqi's are doing some pretty awful things - so does anyone when they're trying to save their country from occupation.

MVB

Nov 22, 2004, @ 05:28 PM

Americans didn't slaughter British civillians or blow themselves up suicidally during the Revolution. Nor did we during the War of 1812 (at least in neither war as a matter of course, despite being basically an occupied nation in some ways both times).

Anyway, none of it makes it ok. It wasn't ok for IRA folks to terror bomb civillians. They were fucked up and evil, those that did so. Any and all Iraqis carrying out terrorist attacks are evil people that should be dead or deported to Siberia. They have no good intentions. Also, those Iraqis fighting against the US right now are fighting FOR an occupied Iraq -- one occupied by one dictatorship or another. Those Iraqis fighting alongside the Americans are fighting to end the war as soon as possible, so that the American and British soldiers CAN leave. Until they finish their jobs, the US can't leave the country. If the insurgents REALLY wanted an unoccupied and free Iraq, they'd just stop shooting, and US Soldiers would be going home within a month.

shutupandshave

Nov 22, 2004, @ 05:33 PM

I was referring to the Irish, not the Americans.

I think you assume that a US chosen government type is free. What if they consider that forcing a new government on them a breach of their freedom...

Which of the US president was it that said something like "If you ever need to take away freedom in the interests of freedom, you're not fighting for freedom".

MVB

Nov 22, 2004, @ 05:39 PM

IF they consider forcing a type of government on them a breach of their freedom, then it was already breached, b/c Saddam forced his government on them, so at worst we maintained the status quo, but you know that not to be true, and are making that argument "for the sake of it" rather than for actually believing it.

We took away no freedom in the interest of freedom. They had no freedom to take away in the first place, when we got there.

shutupandshave

Nov 22, 2004, @ 05:57 PM

I see what you're saying, but I'm really not arguing for the sake of it. There were lots of people that were quite content with Saddam's reign (mostly ba'thists/people from his region, as he was very nice to them), and they have had their lives turned upside down. They have had another way of life imposed on them.

"so at worst we maintained the status quo"
Doing the thing you're attacking someone for doing isn't acceptable.

Karmashock

Nov 22, 2004, @ 07:56 PM

Apparently anyone that ever fought against the English occupation are murderers, and terrorists, not freedom fighters. The Irish will all be happy that the English showed them the way to run their lives eventually.
Again, you're distorting and lying... I said that the Irish never declared holy war on the British... which is true... you're trying to say that I said the Irish were justified... which I have never said or even hinted at anywhere...
=====================
As to the war, our justification was in what it might do for America... The justification to the Iraqis is what it does for their country. The justification for the world is largely irrelevant, however the final opinion of the Iraqis will like impact that heavily.

Therefore, wait... if Iraq becomes our friend and ally, then the war will have been worth it to America.
If the Iraqis are happy productive members in the world community, then the "world" (ir France and Russia) will just have to accept it that the Iraqis think it was worth it and shut the fuck up.

If Iraq fails in either of these two categories, then Suas will be right on one point or another.

This is the bet... put your money on the table and watch the game. ;)
Peace, karmashock.

MVB

Nov 22, 2004, @ 08:01 PM

Suas, this argument annoys me, for the fact that it does seem like arguing for the sake of it.

Answer me this, with YOUR opinion; do NOT answer it with some beat around the bush argument like "oh well what if this happened, using the same logic?"

Will Iraq be better off in the long run for what the United States, Britain, and their allies have done there, in establishing a free democracy run by the people as a whole, and not by one evil dictator and a tiny minority of his supporters?

The answer is not "well what if China took over the US and it became better?" Even your response regarding the Ba'athists is my point exactly -- some were favored over others, leaving an unfair and awful situation.

Currently, those Ba'athists are NOT having their lives turned upside down; that's another thing, life in Iraq is not topsy turvy everywhere. I've already given you evidence of a lot of support for what is going on, I could give you a veritable album of photos of Iraqi adults and children working with American soldiers, playing with American soldiers, and holding up flags and support signs in rallies for America. Things aren't fun there right now, but they're not the terrible mess and forced way of life that the press would have us believe.

Also, NO "way of life" is being forced on people; they are being given the right -- each one of them -- to CHOOSE their own way of life. The terrorists even have the right to choose terror, but like everything IN life, all of their actions have consequences, for better or worse.

JADezimar

Nov 22, 2004, @ 08:15 PM

Im Glad Saus And Angel completely missed my point. On Ireland. And if you read through all the threads and there posts. They started to contradict themselves on the whole IRA terrorists group thing. At one point going as far as saying there ok with them and at another saying there not.

Either way your last final statements disagreed with the way they were doing it. Well thats how the Iraqi people are doing it. Thats my point exactly. Thats what makes em terrorists. And Makes them evil. You 2 will argue anything at the sake of arguing it would seem And go off topic several times. Even evading a direct question in the form of an answer that veers off topic if its about to shoot down an argument of yours. Its truly sickening.

MVB

Nov 22, 2004, @ 08:19 PM

Keep arguing with Dez; it's slightly improving his grammar and sentence structure.

JADezimar

Nov 22, 2004, @ 08:20 PM

hahh very funny mvb :p

shutupandshave

Nov 23, 2004, @ 11:14 AM

I'll be happy to discuss things with JAD if he stops talking out of his arse. JAD...exactly when did "I" change the subject when I was about to lose an argument? What did I say that was contradictory in the IRA discussion?

Again, you're distorting and lying... I said that the Irish never declared holy war on the British... which is true... you're trying to say that I said the Irish were justified... which I have never said or even hinted at anywhere... I wasn't saying you said that at all Karma, I was referring to MVB and his thread which stated that EVERY single person in Iraq that was fighting the Allies was a terrorist. Please keep your ego out of this, and if you want to discuss the Iraq/terrorist issue, do so in the correct thread.

MVB: I HAVE said previously, and will say again, that I believe that the Iraqi people will be happier in the long run. I dont think that gives you the right to go and force them to do something. There is a chance that they will begin to rebel as a country. If you do it to one country, you now have to go and do it to all other countries. It also gives others the right to go in and change countries regimes because 1) they feel threatened by them, and 2) They know they will be happier in the long run.

North Korea next?

MVB

Nov 23, 2004, @ 12:23 PM

I don't think it's feasible to invade North Korea, due to their nuclear capabilities. In an ideal world, yes, we'd get rid of their fucked up leader, and start letting their people receive some food, etc. Iraq was basically helpless against us; a lot of statistics say even their terrorists are mostly not Iraqis. So, it was easy to go in and start working to fix things up. Going into North Korea could very well be walking into the gun-barrel of a nuclear missile. Great promise in an idealistic world; not very feasible in our world.

BTW, I think in theory it gives other countries the right to do what we did, but I don't think it gives other countries that right in practice. I'll even venture out on a limb and say I guarantee no country will get away with it unless they're backed by a reasonable number of democratic nations (including the US most likely as a requirement) and have a genuinely good intention, such as removing a horrible tyrant and granting freedom and democracy to a nation's people.

A good counter argument to the invasion in theory, but not in practice.

shutupandshave

Nov 23, 2004, @ 12:46 PM

I dont think Korea will be invaded either... it just looks a bit like bullying to some people. Only picking on the weak countries.

Iran and/or Syria?

Personally I think it will be political suicide to attack another country for a while. There could be a big sign saying "nukes this way" and the international community will still be dubious as to whether or not they really exist.

Someone anti Israeli gets into office in Palistine...Isreal invades, to curb this new threat to it's homeland security..."why cant we - the US did"...That's the kind of thing that bothers me.

Karmashock

Nov 23, 2004, @ 02:03 PM

I wasn't saying you said that at all Karma, I was referring to MVB and his thread which stated that EVERY single person in Iraq that was fighting the Allies was a terrorist. Please keep your ego out of this, and if you want to discuss the Iraq/terrorist issue, do so in the correct thread.
I was refering to this post made in response to mine...
Apparently anyone that ever fought against the English occupation are murderers, and terrorists, not freedom fighters. The Irish will all be happy that the English showed them the way to run their lives eventually.
So... yes you did.

North Korea next?
A different tool for a different problem... NK will have to be taken down from within... or via sanctions... their nukes make them impossible to invade.

Also Iran is on our list... but not one american soldier will enter that country without the approval of the people. So we'll likely funnel money and supplies to the opposition.

We'll be able to use Iraq as our launching point in the middle east... physically Israel would have been just fine for this... but we can't appear to close to them for political reasons.

shutupandshave

Nov 23, 2004, @ 03:15 PM

Apparently anyone that ever fought against the English occupation are murderers, and terrorists, not freedom fighters. The Irish will all be happy that the English showed them the way to run their lives eventually.
I was referring to one of MVB's posts - as I already said and the post was actually in reply to Angel... please read Angel's post which is just above my original post. Please dont tell me what I am thinking - you have been wrong EVERY time.

Larsson7

Nov 23, 2004, @ 03:28 PM

So... yes you did.

Are you insinuating that, because England invaded Ireland and showed it how to "Live properly" that they did us a favour?

Karmashock

Nov 23, 2004, @ 03:28 PM

I was referring to one of MVB's posts - as I already said and the post was actually in reply to Angel... please read Angel's post which is just above my original post.
Angel's was a reponse to mine so you were reinforcing him. :)
=================================
Are you insinuating that, because England invaded Ireland and showed it how to "Live properly" that they did us a favour?
Nope... I was talking about Suas' comments... we're talking more about forum conduct then anything else at this point.

Larsson7

Nov 23, 2004, @ 03:32 PM

Angel's was a reponse to mine so you were reinforcing him. :)
=================================

Nope... I was talking about Suas' comments... we're talking more about forum conduct then anything else at this point.

Thats ok :D

shutupandshave

Nov 23, 2004, @ 03:41 PM

Angel's was a reponse to mine so you were reinforcing him.
So what? I was replying to Angel, not you.
It was something HE said, and he said only that I was commenting on, and the fact he was replying to you has nothing to do with anything.

You said "I was refering to this post made in response to mine...", which is not true. Angel's post was made in response to yours - mine was made in response to Angels.
Your argument of "So... yes you did." is only valid if I responded directly to you.

How on earth does my reply to Angel (which was replying to you) mean that I was "distorting and lying" and that "you're trying to say that I said the Irish were justified"...

Karmashock

Nov 23, 2004, @ 03:52 PM

So what? I was replying to Angel, not you.
It was something HE said, and he said only that I was commenting on, and the fact he was replying to you has nothing to do with anything.
you were supporting someone I was argueing against... if you don't want me to respond to you, then that's a mistake. :rolleyes:

shutupandshave

Nov 23, 2004, @ 03:58 PM

That still doesn't mean I replied to you, which is what you said I did.

It also does't mean that I distorted or lied does it? If it does, please prove how.

Karmashock

Nov 23, 2004, @ 04:12 PM

You're pressing a very specious argument here... The point is that you provoked me and I responded as you KNEW I would.

shutupandshave

Nov 23, 2004, @ 04:21 PM

I didn't even read your post Karma. I wasn't provoking YOU at all. I was in fact making fun of MVB.

There is nothing "specious" about my argument, and now you're talking about provoking to try and shift the emphasis.

The point is - you called me a liar based on something you THOUGHT I was doing, but wasn't. It's only a small point, but this is how long it is taking me to make you realise that the comments you made were unjustified.

Karmashock

Nov 23, 2004, @ 04:45 PM

I'm not shifting anything, I'm keeping it on point.
===================
Back to something interesting....

Russians are exporting weapons like crazy and upgrading their weapons all the time more for sale then for personal use...

Thoughts, comments, ideas as they relate to the US's continuing war on the terror network.

shutupandshave

Nov 23, 2004, @ 04:50 PM

I think you just changed the subject again.

Karmashock

Nov 23, 2004, @ 05:12 PM

Actually, this is the topic we were discussing before it flew off into flame war feudland again...
I don't think it's feasible to invade North Korea, due to their nuclear capabilities. In an ideal world, yes, we'd get rid of their fucked up leader, and start letting their people receive some food, etc. Iraq was basically helpless against us; a lot of statistics say even their terrorists are mostly not Iraqis. So, it was easy to go in and start working to fix things up. Going into North Korea could very well be walking into the gun-barrel of a nuclear missile. Great promise in an idealistic world; not very feasible in our world.

BTW, I think in theory it gives other countries the right to do what we did, but I don't think it gives other countries that right in practice. I'll even venture out on a limb and say I guarantee no country will get away with it unless they're backed by a reasonable number of democratic nations (including the US most likely as a requirement) and have a genuinely good intention, such as removing a horrible tyrant and granting freedom and democracy to a nation's people.

A good counter argument to the invasion in theory, but not in practice.

shutupandshave

Nov 23, 2004, @ 05:24 PM

Yes, but for the last page of posts we haven't been.

You called me a liar... because either you made a mistake or out of spite.
and I am just seeing how it is going to take for you to apologise..

Again, you're distorting and lying... I said that the Irish never declared holy war on the British... which is true... you're trying to say that I said the Irish were justified... which I have never said or even hinted at anywhere...
I didn't lie or distort anything. I never said in any way that YOU said the Irish were justified. A simple "sorry" will suffice... There's no need to change the subject or insult me again... I will then be happy to move on.

Karmashock

Nov 23, 2004, @ 07:21 PM

yo kay...
Back to something interesting....

Russians are exporting weapons like crazy and upgrading their weapons all the time more for sale then for personal use...

Thoughts, comments, ideas as they relate to the US's continuing war on the terror network.

JADezimar

Nov 23, 2004, @ 09:05 PM

I didn't even read your post Karma.

Thats a fatal mistake in a Topic such as this in forums. You could be jumping into something that you have no idea what your talking about. I think angel does it time and time again.

Eadig

Nov 24, 2004, @ 12:41 AM

HE IS GONNA BRING ABOUT THE APOCALYPS

SKulls with bat wings flying around...
they scream razor blades that shear off your flesh...
cause he wants to be... THE LAST PRESIDENT!!

Soylent Green, Road Warrior, End of the World!!

JADezimar

Nov 24, 2004, @ 12:42 AM

lol

Karmashock

Nov 24, 2004, @ 12:47 AM

Eadig

Nov 24, 2004, @ 01:14 AM

Yeah, cause then we would all be up in heaven... and everyone is like "man, how did you die?"

"I got hit by a car"
"...Fire Ants"

and then we could be like

"WHOOOOOOO!!! I DIED IN THE F*KIN APOCALYPS!! IT WAS AWESOME!!!"

JADezimar

Nov 24, 2004, @ 01:18 AM

LoL That would be kick ass story. Man this zombie all came at me I beat it with a club.. but when it bit me. I all zombified.... yet im here... w t effe mate ? look im still walking around down there ;p

shutupandshave

Nov 24, 2004, @ 10:44 AM

I didn't lie or distort anything. I never said in any way that YOU said the Irish were justified. A simple "sorry" will suffice...
Still waiting.

Karmashock

Nov 24, 2004, @ 11:01 AM

hold your breath.

shutupandshave

Nov 24, 2004, @ 11:03 AM

Ah okay, I thought you said somewhere that you are only rude when people deserve it... as I have proven that you were wrong to be rude to me (as you were - in fact, incorrect, not me) then I suppose we can agree that you are rude for no reason completely unjustifiably (at least sometimes)?

MVB

Nov 24, 2004, @ 02:41 PM

I reck'n he'd say that you were rude in some other thread, and so have started or at least continued the rudeness elsewhere in this forum, and that he doesn't limit himself to a "one thread mind"

Now I'm not saying I agree; I'm saying that might be how he feels/what he'd say or something, since he's not answering himself.

A better idea might be relegating the personal conflicts to PM, so people will stop PM'ing me to clean up the political forums.

shutupandshave

Nov 24, 2004, @ 02:48 PM

I tried calling a truce, in the first post after he agreed he was insulting me again...
I tried asking him not to talk to me here, and not only does he refuse, but he seems to take it as some kind of personal victory, or a sign of weakness - whatever.

It is not the personal conflict that's the problem...it's the agressive way he replies to perfectly legitimate conversation. Even when he is flat wrong, he wont apologise and he wont back down. He just throws more insults. If he is going to continue to reply to people in that matter, he is going to continue to cause conflict.

You know MVB, as well as I do, that arguing in PM wont change anything, because it's not any one thing that's the problem. It's the fact that he responds to almost EVERYTHING he doesn't agree on, with insults and abuse.

I dont buy the "persecuted" in another thread as a reason for his actions, because he made it quite clear that his bad responses are purely reactionary to the thread...(he once said he doesn't carry grudges over between threads whilst on the old boards, and on these boars that all his comments were reactionary).

He's supposed to be a grown up, and he's supposed to have some kind of authority. He is acting like a 15 yr old boy who's convinced he is the only one going through puberty. We all know where he stands, we all know why he stands there - and hopefully in a couple of years (whilst retaking his economics degree) HE'LL think he was stupid too. I think I might find Ahab. He'll like Karma... he loves little kids with big mouths and no brains.