38 replies to this topic

[Bad Karma]

It sure as hell worked wonders from keeping the blacks from voting in the south.

Take it from someone who LIVES in the South. The blacks are to busy shoot each other up, getting high, having sex, and blaming their problems on the whites to even think about who's going to be president. It's not that they're stupid (I know plenty of smart ghetto blacks.) It's just that they are to busy in "their" world to join the rest of us. And this stuff was told to me by a black co-worker. And No, I'm not racist, it's fact.

[cxwq]

The blacks are to busy shoot each other up, getting high, having sex, and blaming their problems on the whites to even think about who's going to be president.

[snip]

And No, I'm not racist, it's fact.

You may or may not be racist, but you're definitely stereotyping. Any sentence that starts with "The blacks" and doesn't end with "are black." is gross negligence.

Your 'official' source doesn't in any way change the above.

[GeneralPrimevil]

You are the most horribly quixotic person I've ever met.

You make it seem like such a bad thing, when the founders of this nation could be described as the same. You also must not have met very many people; I know you haven't met me. I think that means that your comment is part lie. Now how does that make you feel? Are you going to turn that statemente into me being racist?

[Viper]

LoL....I guess I can say anything and say that I am not racist. How about blacks kills white babies, its a fact that doesn't have a source, so who's to say it isn't a fact? But wait I can say I am not racist after that, though it is total hypocrisy and its all better. Being black has nothing to do with those people, for the genetics corresponding with skin color and various other chararcteristics of blacks have nothing to do with intelligence or aggresiveness. What you should have stated is "poor-urban class culture" Which is still simply using a glittering generality. How about the white people living in the "ghetto"? Are they somehow anamolies amongt their neighbors? It's a known fact that poorer areas have more violent crime than welthier areas simply because survival is not guaranteed to the extent it is in the wealthier areas. Look at any nation in the past in which its population was impoverished. Bad_Karma, maybe you haven't read the article of organizations in the south denieing blacks the right to vote in isolated regions. Of course only in recent studies has this been reported because those people don't exactly have enough money to file a lawsuit. The chances of you dying in a car accident are far greater than dying in inner-city atlanta, even though it may look more dangerous, its not always the case.

[IronRhino]

Batman-dude: Quixotic has negative connotations, it is a bad thing. The founding fathers had plans and they knew what they were doing. I used the word met. You're going into my word usage to insult me? Ouch, thattaway to win a debate. I suppose you're racist against Ogres, but I can't prove that.

BK: No matter what way you look at it, that's a pretty stereotypical comment. I was referring more to the post-Reconstruction South where blacks had to pay money to vote or take hard tests that they had no chance of passing to vote.

CX: That's an interesting concept, but I see no way that we can get rid of the electoral college, since it benifits a lot of the lesser population states, and they have equal say in the senate, so they'd shoot down anything.

[TimberwolfCY]

It would be applicable to the Senate, it would just work differently. Every state has two Senators, so all you'd have to do is take the two people with the highest percentages, and they'd get the seat. If a party happened to get a massive majority, than they'd get two seats (for instances, 80% Dem, 15 % Rep, 5% Ind; the Democrats would easily have enough votes to out-vote the nearest rival twice over. I'd say that for this to happen, the leading party would have to have double the votes of its nearest competitor, minimum. Bad example, but it illustrates the point).

[taita cakes]

Just a little question, voting is a compulsory action in Australia, with strict fines and such for those who don't vote, but is it compulsory in America? From the amount of "new age celebs" pushing for young adults to vote, guess its voluntary, but how is this a fair vote, and how are the masses trully represented.

Funny statistic:
In Britain, 26 Million people voted in the last general election, 32 million voted in the first season of Pop Idol.

[Oroku Saki]

Yep, voting is voluntrary in the US. Usually about half of the eligible citizens vote in the presidential elections. I don't understand why so many people here don't even vote at all. I mean, millions of people vote in that shitty American Idol show, so why not put that effort into better use? Which is better: Choosing a recording "artist" (I use that term loosely when I refer to that pukebag of a show) that we'll probably forget about in a year or two, or getting the chance to choose our own leadership for the next 4 years, whose actions (good and bad) will be remembered for years to come?

As an aside: Is it just me, or is Simon Cowell just begging to get kicked in the balls? All he does is rip on Idol contestants for their singing, and get paid shitloads of money doing it. What the fuck else is he famous for? I never heard of this spawn of satan before Idol first came out. Then again, I am ranting too much about an entry on my list of celebrities who I think deserve to be banished to the moon.

For those of you who can, get out and vote in this election. You could also help achieve a better turnout by taking a friend with you who wasn't planning to vote. It only takes about 10 minutes, and you get that feeling that you are making a difference for our country.

[AirApache]

Ack! i've been too busy to visit NH recently, but what scraps i had time to read I'll respond to.

Inherent problem in Iraq: How is this like Vietnam? We've had approx. 1k kills, a minute fraction compared to the hundreds of thousands in Vietnam. Iraq is on its way to a democracy.

A true problem is that he reacted to quickly and started the war too quickly. He did not, contrary to popular belief, go off only with his own support. He had several big-time leaders on his side, that followed through, and we have several thousands of troops from several other countries. Although I don't agree with his decision to start, Iraq IS getting better.

Hey, slightly off-topic, please try to split your ideas into separate paragraphs, I just find it easier to read. Maybe I'm like dyslexic or whatever...but still...

DIdya guys watch the 3rd debate? Bush was too lax I thought..being too sarcastic and not being serious enough.

[Oroku Saki]

The reason why people think of Iraq as Vietnam is not because of the number of troops killed, but the fact that the administration chose a bad time to invade without widespread UN support, not to mention the reasons to invade.

I remember reading that France was actually planning to send troops to Iraq, but they were only going to do so if diplomacy was not going to work. If we would have waited at least a month or so to invade, I think that Bush would have been able to create a more powerful "Coalition of the Willing", instead of one consisting of the US, the UK, Spain, and a crapload of nations that did not have any significant military to begin with. So looking at that, Bush did have a few big leaders on his side, but he could have done better.

If you look at the numbers of coalition troops in Iraq, about 90% of them are American, but the other 10% are from the UK. I don't see that much in terms of variety for this coalition, so I find it hard to believe people's arguments that we have thousands of troops from several other countries fighting in Iraq.

[TimberwolfCY]

Very true, Oroku. I think anothe major reason why Iraq resembles Vietnam to many people (including myself) is that people are getting killed over there one...by one...by one. Its not a question of how "few" we are losing, its the way in which it happens. Same thing happened in Vietnam: we killed a shibuttload of the enemy, and lost relatively few; the problem was that the cause was either corrupt or misinformed (both easily avoidable...or not) and that the killing just didn't stop. The gradual killing added up in Vietnam to a horrendous number, and I think most people are afraid of that happening again, and if we stay there as long, it most certainly will.

Our "coalition" isn't worth shit. We went in with marginal foreign support, mostly Brits (a smattering of Turks, Spanish, and what, I think Poles?), which made up few if any combat troops. After we obviously smash the Iraqi military, countries like France run and want our/the Iraqi's shit we just fought and died for. But hey, we've got foreigners working the proverbial baggage train! I mean seriously, no one but Bush and a few hotheads wanted us there, so that's why we went. People can bitch all they want about how they wanted Saddam out of power, but the truth is that those that didn't have ties to him (many, such as Chac Charac, or however the hell you spell it) didn't feel like wasting effort on him, because they knew it would end up like this.

Yeah, Iraq may be getting "better" but I'm still hearing that "partial election" shit floating around: so, we'll cancel our elections in places that won't go well. Why does that sound like the US cancelling elections in South Vietnam because they knew Diem would lose...

[taita cakes]

Timberwolf: Nice post.

Australia was one of the "Coalition of the willing" that, again, saw the people against their involvement. I've felt first hand the hate and contempt for our leaders, i was in the middle of the several million in Melbourne protesting against the war, although i was actually trying to get to a dentist appointment, it doesn't change a thing. World wide in that week we saw how many million protest and march against war?

Iraq is the new Vietnam. Iraq was a shit choice in both timing and decision making skills. Sure, today alone we found a mass grave of 3000 kurd, and sure, Saddams a bad man, but the UN's there for a fucking reason. The League of Nations failed for various reasons, one of which being its orders being ignored, but just because America and co. formed the UN and got VETO power, theres no reason why they should still have it. In this day and age, there should be know poltical supremes. Otherwise, every single decision becomes biased.

I said it merely a couple of weeks ago [if not days], the best decision of the miserable Vietnam campaign was to get the flying fuck out of there. Learn from our mistakes?


EDIT:

Inherent problem in Iraq: How is this like Vietnam? We've had approx. 1k kills, a minute fraction compared to the hundreds of thousands in Vietnam. Iraq is on its way to a democracy.

Oh, c'mon, thats just friggin' stupid. You cannot compare body counts. Ever. Every war is fought differently, in different areas, and for different reasons. Warfare and weapons differ as well. Even still, it should not be about the deaths, it should be about the decisions and the people.

Edited by taita_cakes, 14 October 2004 - 04:48 AM.

[merlinski]

Did anyone else see Rumsfeld the other day?
"So what if we can only hold elections in 3/4 of the country because the fighting is too intense. Nothing's perfect, Iraq isn't perfect."

I think Jon Stewart put it best:
"Republican leaders quickly dispatched the troops to cover up and obscure Rumsfeld's flip-flop... I mean... 'nuanced position'"

Anyways, Timberwolf put it quite well. The similarity to Vietnam isn't in the body count, its in the fact that we lose soldiers every day and we lose more every month. That's not an exit strategy, that's a fucking quagmire.

[Viper]

Ya in Vietnam we lost 55,000 men over the coarse of around 10 years. How long have we been in Iraq? Deaths doesn't inlcude the disfigured,paralyzed, or without limbs, which is at a far higher ratio in Iraq( to death) than it has been in the past wars.