2008 USA Presidential Primaries thread

[Twiddle]

That's what I just said

[Zebra Airforce]

Don't worry, we can always find an enemy (or make another one)

[Fighter17]

Both you and I know that your buddies on the radio are already rooting through their closets for those Lewinski song parody tapes if Clinton wins.

Make it ten times worse if Obama becomes the nominee.

What does piety have to do with discrimination?

How's that discrimination? I have no problem with two men or two women want to live for the rest of their lives together as a friendship, but that to me doesn't quality for a marriage.

Nah, Florida is a swing state.

With a lot more Republicans over the last ten years than Democrats it's not really a swing state anymore.

And I'm also registered to vote in Florida, and will vote against the amendment, thereby cancelling your vote!

Republicans will still be the majority in Florida.

You know, in fifty years you'll be thought of in the same way that Jim Crow supporters are thought of today.

Jim Crow and Same-Sex Marriage are totally two different things. I've already said this one and I'll say it again: America will never have a full support of Same-Sex Marriage. The country is too religious to have something like Same-Sex Marriage in all 50 States. You'll only find Same-Sex Marriage to be accepted in the most liberal areas of the U.S.

You are high.

You'll be surprise. Young People will usually vote for Primaries, but many don't go to the polls in November.

By that logic, you shouldn't be participating in this thread since everyone here has far, far more real life experience than you.

I'm talking about Presidents overhere.

Who the fuck told you this?

For one I'm a Independent. Two tons of Open-Primary States the Independents voted for McCain more than the Democrats. McCain will get the majority of the Independent votes easily (it doesn't matter if it's Hillary or Obama).

Why do you keep bringing that up? Do you still not understand absentee voting?

You still haven't answer my question: Are you voting (doesn't matter how)?

Do you understand how the law works?

Of course. But we want to make the comment "Marriage is a Man/Women only" be official here in Florida.

I know w/ all your years of wisdom you will find this hard to believe, but times do change. I'll bet 20 years ago you'd never think gay people would be allowed to have children.

You just brought up another point why I don't support Same-Sex Marriage: They can't produce children. They must take children from other people and make them their own.

And besides, if we allow Same-Sex marriage then people can pretty much marry anything they want. From dogs, cows, 10 year old children, and etc. Why not, we allow Same-Sex marriage then some people will start to think they can marry anything they choose. I'll bet you this will happen if Same-Sex Marriage becomes wide-spread in America (because we know they are a lot of crazy people here in America).

Besides, many Americans will say WTF when some kid said "I have two Moms who are Married." Oh really!!!!!?????

[Ed Oscuro]

JoshF's link seems to ignore a lot of the major reasons (apparent even from the intro) why policy tends to favor force, and I wanted to address those. First, though, I want to note that Parenti's piece is filled with a lot of predictable hyperbole and general slander which undermines the effectiveness of the piece in its attempt to be taken seriously. It's O.K. to really care about an issue, but it's laughable to confuse the timeline so thoroughly that one starts making comments like this one:

"Yugoslavia's sin was not that it had a media monopoly but that the publicly owned portion of its media deviated from the western media monopoly that blankets most of the world, including Yugoslavia itself."

No, "Yugoslavia's sin" was that people were being murdered. Oh, right, a pretext. Of course, the more serious students argue that the only pretext here was that the issue was being played up by local factions to use the United States as a pawn in their war against the government of Yugoslavia; critics along this line point to allegations that the people we were supposedly allied with had stood by, inactive, while the death squads took their bloody actions.

A casual inspection of the piece indicates to me that Parenti is merely stringing along mostly unrelated bits of economic trivia and attempting to force the conclusion that the United States "...he loves only gold..." by sheer volume of text.

Parenti's ridiculous bullet point line seems drawn straight out of Bizarro World. A more worthwhile introduction to the event would have mentioned that terrorism prompted the hard-line actions by President Slobodan Milosevich.

The great irony of an approach like Parenti's is that it completely ignores the emotional and political needs of the region, and perversely (given its allegations) relegates the needs for regional stability as second to those of regional oligarchs and monopolists of state-run television. Consider this piece, which I don't necessarily agree with, but highlights some of these same issues.


America has a bundle of national nightmares to deal with, and on top of this the decisions are often very personal as the Commander in Chief is a single person: if you've read any Presidential histories you'll see that these wars are often treated as very personal moral issues by Presidents, especially throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Bush recently expressed remorse that FDR hadn't ordered the bombing of death camps in WWII (not sure how many Holocaust survivors it would've pre-empted, but apparently it's a simple moral issue). Johnson endlessly wrestled with the idea of ending the Vietnam War, and Clinton regretted that the failure in Somalia and the political landscape prevented intervention in Rwanda (and the Canadian commander on the ground there attempted suicide at least once afterwards).

Then look at the issue as an expression of national pride and humanity. The Western democracies have entered into a pledge to not tolerate genocides, and it's a continuous pressure that exerts irresistible influence on people throughout a nation. We've seen lately how ethnic cleansing (i.e. removal of people by a stronger group to another area) has been confused with genocide recently, and the idea of preventing horrors throughout the world excites all but the most cynical isolationists or disinterested personalities. It's essentially the modern version of the white man's burden, but framed and understood in more personal terms: Either you are for happy little children, or you will stand by as people are shipped off to the gas chambers. Once again there are compelling arguments for and against it; like the Imperialist period, the debate doesn't seem to have attracted the highest levels of interest or capture the public imagination (for the reasons I've already listed).

Negotiation and press releases are another way in which governments try to deal with the issue, but negotiation doesn't appeal to our ancient vindictive sense of justice in the same way bombing the hell out of somebody does. The current administration has tied itself down in Iraq and Afghanistan, so outside of that its methods have been to mouth ineffective platitudes for public consumption that often have an adverse affect on their target audience while keeping a lid on the balancing intentions of the other Western democracies. To be fair, the current Administration really is trying to work smartly with negotiation, but this is no doubt somewhat compromised as countries feel the U.S. is overextended.

The military industry doesn't need any defense from me. Workers in that industry - often former members of the military - no doubt stay there because it feels like fulfilling work, and would characterize it as a way in which the U.S. can support good things while punishing the bad. I don't think I need to go into depth about the failures of this approach, since some of them should be obvious from what I've mentioned above after you consider that this foreign influence usually lacks subtle understandings and punishes innocent civilians for the transgressions of a power elite. Of course, this is a problem sanctions also share - in other words, external attempts to change the way a country does business are hard-pressed to meet with success.

What are the alternatives?

We could isolate ourselves from the unsettled political landscapes of the world. Who here thinks it's a good idea to ignore areas breeding terrorists (whom we've seen have very local regional goals and yet strike out internationally as a part of that strategy of local destabilization)?

We could cut down on military spending, and not mind when other countries find themselves able to steal crews off their ships (like Iran did to Britain) or even challenge us for dominance on the high seas. Other countries will naturally seek to balance our power and secure assets, and believe it or not the Armed Forces of the United States, particularly the Navy, play a major role (along with other navies) promoting free trade and preventing piracy, both from brigands and from nations who seek illegal advantages. International organizations work only when there are enforcement mechanisms.

Infamous quotations like Eisenhower's "Asians fight Asians" campaign slogan seem to me mostly indicative of attempts to right the balance in an incomplete way (remember that Ike also warned about the "Military-Industrial Complex" in his farewell to politics and public life) during a period where political situations were not understood as they are today. Back then, it was seen that self-respecting nations around the world should be ready to rush out and take one on the chin for Western Democracy, just as we did during the Second World War, and we'd gladly go out and do it ourselves when things got too hot (not realizing it at the same time).

The main problems with the arguments underlying the piece JoshF linked are essentially that it assumes we should be content dealing with the world from a position of weakness, that people won't react emotionally to ethnic cleansing, and that politicians will count economics as being of greater importance than questions of security. The handling of these issues has been inconsistent and messy over the years as various Administrations with various aims and abilities take office and slowly try to change the course of a ponderous bureaucratic machine, a situation which does not lend itself to conspiracy.

Certainly the military industry doesn't go out of its way to play devil's advocate with the direction favored by hawks, but it should be considered that these people generally believe this is necessary for global security. Parenti's piece completely ignores this, and attempts to deal with everything strictly on economic terms. Even if we think that the argument in JoshF's piece is correct, this is a remarkable failure in approaching this topic which most assuredly is turning people away from considering these issues.

Please, PLEASE find more balanced material in the future, or get the fuck out.

[Ed Oscuro]

Both you and I know that your buddies on the radio are already rooting through their closets for those Lewinski song parody tapes if Clinton wins.

Make it ten times worse if Obama becomes the nominee.

Oh man, I can just hear Rush Limbaugh:

"Obama has STINKY FEET. We know that because his wife doesn't have any discipline. He doesn't discipline his wife. Impeachment NOW!"

Dogg, that just don't make no goddamn SENSE, now.

I don't think Obama is the lord and savior, and I've voted for Clinton instead, mainly because she tosses back whatever gets dished at her. She's better than Obama because she does it while being comfortable in heels, the kitchen, wearing both pearls and diamonds, AND she'll bite at any exposed flesh. In other words, she brings zeal to the party.

She also has a reputation, which I completely did not intend to allude to above!

Hell, I both respect and don't respect most of the candidates, but on the Democratic side it's mostly "who are the proles going for" and "whom is going to kick ass and make the next four years the most enjoyable." Do you think Clinton would have accepted the 2004 result as easily as Kerry did? Not to be unfair to Obama, who surely has the advantage of hindsight, but he IS being positioned as the heir of Kerry (and also Ted Kennedy - Kerry, three Kennedys - Kennedies? - and the governor of Massachusetts didn't have anything on Clinton's general insanity and gender appeal).

Also, it amuses me that the Clintons have their shit together even despite the fact that Bill and Hillary had their man-sluttiness problems. Again, like Kerry, Obama doesn't even have his own household under control. It's as simple as saying "Please don't make disparaging comments about me or the office I wish to inhabit."

Finally, the test - the best statesman (or stateswoman, or statesperson) is the person you couldn't imagine taking a dump. We already have a stinky mental image of Obama's feet. Just find the person who seems the least human, that'll do.

[GaijinPunch]

You still haven't answer my question: Are you voting (doesn't matter how)?

You never asked the question (until now). I really don't know why you give a shit. I will humor you though.

I'm undecided as to where I will cast my vote, but that's it. Either Hawaii or Texas. I'm currently registered in Hawaii, but I'm technically no longer a resident of that state. The lines aren't exactly clear cut as to someone's voting state when they're in my situation. I have some months before I have to figure it out.

Of course. But we want to make the comment "Marriage is a Man/Women only" be official here in Florida.

Who is we? Florida isn't Iran. There are plenty of gay people there.

They must take children from other people and make them their own.

What about the women who are reproductively challenged? What about the men? They must take children from someone else. They CAN'T reproduce.

Besides, many Americans will say WTF when some kid said "I have two Moms who are Married." Oh really!!!!!?????

The same people that say "WTF" when a kid says my dad is black and mom is white (or vice versa).

No, "Yugoslavia's sin" was that people were being murdered.

Indeed. I couldn't read the essay. The guy was obviously oblivious as to what was going on. I've known more Serb/Croatian/Bosnian people than most Americans see in their lives. My sister is a missionary in Croatia, and my mother is the chairwoman of an organization that gave aid to the region (asylum, food, medical supplies, etc.). It was fucked up. Way more fucked up than Iraq ever was. The sad thing is that Big Bush sat there w/ his cock up his ass and said, "you can't negotiate with terrorists". I think we obviously have more of a right to be in basically any place other than Iraq.

[Fighter17]

Oh man, I can just hear Rush Limbaugh:

"Obama has STINKY FEET. We know that because his wife doesn't have any discipline. He doesn't discipline his wife. Impeachment NOW!"

Dogg, that just don't make no goddamn SENSE, now.

Rush is already starting the attacks against Obama (by keep saying Obama's middle name).

It'll make sense if Obama becomes the nominee of President or Vice President (lesser to a degree). Republicans would love to have Obama as the Democratic nominee. They'll throw so much shit to Obama's face it'll hurt him (Muslim name, no experience, why he went to a Muslim school, etc.).

When to comes to experience McCain will killed Obama because McCain has a hell a lot more experience than Obama.

I don't think Obama is the lord and savior, and I've voted for Clinton instead, mainly because she tosses back whatever gets dished at her. She's better than Obama because she does it while being comfortable in heels, the kitchen, wearing both pearls and diamonds, AND she'll bite at any exposed flesh. In other words, she brings zeal to the party.

The Democrat's best choice against McCain is Hilliary. She has experience, and that's going to help her against McCain (but for me her policies are not my taste).

Hell, I both respect and don't respect most of the candidates, but on the Democratic side it's mostly "who are the proles going for" and "whom is going to kick ass and make the next four years the most enjoyable." Do you think Clinton would have accepted the 2004 result as easily as Kerry did? Not to be unfair to Obama, who surely has the advantage of hindsight, but he IS being positioned as the heir of Kerry (and also Ted Kennedy - Kerry, three Kennedys - Kennedies? - and the governor of Massachusetts didn't have anything on Clinton's general insanity and gender appeal).

It was funny when Hilliary won Mass.

Look, Democrats best chance against McCain is Hilliary. Obama doesn't cut it, Democrats knows it, and Republicans knows it.

You never asked the question (until now). I really don't know why you give a shit. I will humor you though.

Gives me a reason to listen to you.

Who is we? Florida isn't Iran. There are plenty of gay people there.

I should say Floridians. Many Floridians are not big fans of Same-Sex Marriage, that's a fact.

What about the women who are reproductively challenged? What about the men? They must take children from someone else. They CAN'T reproduce.

Because it's between a Man and a Woman, and to me that's were it counts (I should had said that sooner). I believe married couples are more suited to raise children than Same-Sex couples.

The same people that say "WTF" when a kid says my dad is black and mom is white (or vice versa).

The South has more interracial babies than the North. Majority don't care anymore in the South.

[GaijinPunch]

Gives me a reason to listen to you.

Guess you can't bail out now.

I should say Floridians. Many Floridians are not big fans of Same-Sex Marriage, that's a fact.

Define many. You could just easily say "many are big fans of same-sex marriage". Didn't you see The Birdcage?

Because it's between a Man and a Woman, and to me that's were it counts (I should had said that sooner). I believe married couples are more suited to raise children than Same-Sex couples.

Yeah, straight people aren't deviants in the least. And they definitely NEVER beat their kids.

The South has more interracial babies than the North. Majority don't care anymore in the South.

anymore -- thanks for proving my point.

[Fighter17]

Define many. You could just easily say "many are big fans of same-sex marriage". Didn't you see The Birdcage?

When the majority of the State are Republicans then you are going to have a problem for the Same-Sex supporters.

Yeah, straight people aren't deviants in the least. And they definitely NEVER beat their kids.

Depending on how you raise your children. Same-Sex couples is not a real family, it's just a friendship.

anymore -- thanks for proving my point.

It's different when it's forbidden by many pious text which many people in the South read (I do). And for the fact that this country is a Judeo-Christian nation will make Same-Sex marriage even harder become mainstream.

Problem with the South is that they use the Bible for reason why they don't like Same-Sex marriage. Me for example I don't believe a friendship between two men and two women is a marriage.

[Ed Oscuro]

Rush is already starting the attacks against Obama (by keep saying Obama's middle name).

It'll make sense if Obama becomes the nominee of President or Vice President (lesser to a degree). Republicans would love to have Obama as the Democratic nominee. They'll throw so much shit to Obama's face it'll hurt him (Muslim name, no experience, why he went to a Muslim school, etc.).

First off, Obama is not going to be the VP. Clinton is not going to be the VP. It won't happen, unless the rules of politics AND THE UNIVERSE with regards to legally enforced make-up sex change.

Secondly, Rush's "attacks" against Obama (and, for that matter, Coulter's support for Clinton against McCain) says more about the baggage he (and she) carries than it does about how your average American or your average Congressman views the candidates. Obama has little record to criticize. The Clintons didn't quite invent the lexicon of scandal - after all, it took Nixon's actions to create the affix -gate that has been slapped onto various events in the Clinton presidency. That said, there's a veritable list of Clinton era happenings that give the Clintons' political enemies a lot of rope.

[Fighter17]

First off, Obama is not going to be the VP. Clinton is not going to be the VP. It won't happen, unless the rules of politics AND THE UNIVERSE with regards to legally enforced make-up sex change.

I say why not? Both of them together they would get the Democratic White Votes, the Black Votes, the Democratic Latinos votes, and etc.

Shit that would unite the Democratic party when it comes to votes.

Secondly, Rush's "attacks" against Obama (and, for that matter, Coulter's support for Clinton against McCain) says more about the baggage he (and she) carries than it does about how your average American or your average Congressman views the candidates. Obama has little record to criticize. The Clintons didn't quite invent the lexicon of scandal - after all, it took Nixon's actions to create the affix -gate that has been slapped onto various events in the Clinton presidency. That said, there's a veritable list of Clinton era happenings that give the Clintons' political enemies a lot of rope.

Little record = no experience.

And when you have Bob Dole mailing Rush condemning him for his attacks on McCain shows you how much influence Rush has.

And Coulter, Jesus she's speaking again at CPAC again.

[Ed Oscuro]

First off, Obama is not going to be the VP. Clinton is not going to be the VP. It won't happen, unless the rules of politics AND THE UNIVERSE with regards to legally enforced make-up sex change.

I say why not?

Because.

[GaijinPunch]

When the majority of the State are Republicans

Florida is still a swing state. The number is too close to say the majority is one way or the other.

Little record = no experience.

He's using that to his advantage though. He's not been twisted by Washington, to sum it up. Sure, not everyone will agree, but it's hardly the end of him.

It's different when it's forbidden by many pious text which many people in the South read (I do). And for the fact that this country is a Judeo-Christian nation will make Same-Sex marriage even harder become mainstream.

I never said it would be easy, I just said it will happen at some point (my lifetime, definitely). Seriously, there's now a classification of crime with much stiffer penalties if you assault someone b/c they're gay. What about don't ask don't tell? These are things that a generation ago were unheard of.

Problem with the South is that they use the Bible for reason why they don't like Same-Sex marriage.

There is also a North, Midwest, and West. And the main problem about using the bible is that they only use it selectively. Sure, it's great when some gay person moves into town, but when it comes to forgiveness, nobody seem to be up for it. I seriously doubt Jesus would be proud that we pillaged a nation for oil.

[Fighter17]

Because.

If the Democratic party want to win that bad Hilliary and Obama will play nice and work together to get the White House.

It's funny, but its possible.

Florida is still a swing state. The number is too close to say the majority is one way or the other.

Dude, you want to know how many people are coming from the North who are Republican? A lot.

It's losing its swing status. Don't expect Florida to vote Democrat this year.

He's using that to his advantage though. He's not been twisted by Washington, to sum it up. Sure, not everyone will agree, but it's hardly the end of him.

Obama's is getting a free ride right now. It's going to become worse for him the attacks if he's becoming more popular.

I never said it would be easy, I just said it will happen at some point (my lifetime, definitely). Seriously, there's now a classification of crime with much stiffer penalties if you assault someone b/c they're gay. What about don't ask don't tell? These are things that a generation ago were unheard of.

Look, I don't think it will happened because the country has to be really, really liberal to let something like this to happen. They will always be the Bible belt trying to prevent something like this from happening.

So now they are stiffer penalties because you attack an homosexual. Watch when pedophiles (which is a sexual orientation like Homosexuals) will request stiffer penalties to people who attack them in the street. "They attack me because I'm a pedophile." They are many different sexual orientations and these people can always make a similar claim that they want to be protected under the law.

Don't ask don't tell, I don't want to know that you like it up the anus. You're in the military to serve, and I don't want to know your personal business. You don't need to be straight to shoot straight.

[GaijinPunch]

Dude, you want to know how many people are coming from the North who are Republican? A lot.

Oh. Okay. One whole lot. That decides it then. I'll tell Obama & Hillary to not bother campaigning there.

Obama's is getting a free ride right now. It's going to become worse for him the attacks if he's becoming more popular.

Of course it will. It's a Presidential election.

Look, I don't think it will happened because the country has to be really, really liberal to let something like this to happen. They will always be the Bible belt trying to prevent something like this from happening.

The bible belt will always be the bible belt. The rest, will not.

Watch when pedophiles (which is a sexual orientation like Homosexuals) will request stiffer penalties to people who attack them in the street.

Instant fail. I won't even give you a B for balls.

Don't ask don't tell, I don't want to know that you like it up the anus. You're in the military to serve, and I don't want to know your personal business. You don't need to shoot straight to be straight.

You're dodging the point (again). This was something that people with even higher education said would never happen not that long ago, and here we are. Also, anal sex is not a prerequisite to being homosexual.

[Fighter17]

Oh. Okay. One whole lot. That decides it then. I'll tell Obama & Hillary to not bother campaigning there.

It's not one lot, it's a bunch of people.

The bible belt will always be the bible belt. The rest, is not.

Then why except for some very liberal cities Same-Sex Marriage is not being pushed forward? I don't see the liberal states trying to make Same-Sex Marriage in the ballot (so it can be allowed in State constitution).

Instant fail. I won't even give you a B for balls.

It will happen. Count on it.

You're dodging the point (again). This was something that people with even higher education said would never happen not that long ago, and here we are. Also, anal sex is not a prerequisite to being homosexual.

But I still don't want to know you like it up the ass with other men. Proving my point once again.

[GaijinPunch]

It's not one lot, it's a bunch of people.

"A lot" <-- your words, not mine.

Then why except for some very liberal cities Same-Sex Marriage is not being pushed forward? I don't see the liberal states trying to make Same-Sex Marriage in the ballot (so it can be allowed in State constitution).

The issue isn't if it will happen tomorrow. We all know it won't. You keep dancing away from the topic.

It will happen. Count on it.

Smoke it up.

But I still don't want to know you like it up the ass with other men. Proving my point once again.

What point? Proving what? Huh? I realize that if you get stuck on a tangent and can't make sense out of something it is quite easy to start spouting nonsensical shit that has nothing to do w/ the topic at hand, but come on. You want people to take you seriously, right?

[JoshF]

a lot of predictable hyperbole and general slander

The point of the article was not that Milosevic deserved the Nobel Prize but to say he wasn't the sole cause and perpetrator of genocide in Yugoslavia as it is portrayed by western governments and corporate media. Tons of bad shit was happening on all sides. Over here of course, you'd never hear about the Islamic fundamentalists in Bosnia beheading Serbs (they're only the bad guys when it happens in Iraq right?) or the Neo-Nazi Ustasha sympathizers in Croatia who would love nothing more than another Jasenovac.

Third party examinations of the so called massacre sites have shown that they either never happened or were the result of clashes between Serbian police and seperatists, many of whom were US supported and funded . A unified Yugoslavia would undermine the US and NATO's imperial interests which explains why they went the extra step and supplanted privatization after bombing them to the stone age and heroically thwarted genocide. And if you want to know who was fostering the nationalist sentiment and ethnic tensions, look no further, or better yet find me a sample of the text of any Milosevic speech where he supported nationalist or ethnic segregation. The US supported Croatian nationalism since WWII when they helped the Vatican rescue the fascist Ustasha regime and relocate them to Argentina (back then western powers viewed fascism as "the neccessary antidote to the deadly poison" of mass participatory democracy, to paraphrase Winston Churchill.)

With this in mind and using your definition of genocide, since 2003 military intervention in Iraq has taken at least 80,000 (reported) civilian deaths, not counting coalition deaths, which is exponentially more than the made up number of casualties used by NATO.

So when is Bush heading to The Hague for his trial? Like you said, the western "democracies" would never stand for this kind of genocidal aggression.

To say that there was no pretext is complete ignorance (although I would never fault it for being "imbalanced," we all have our biases whether it's Parenti or the former member of a right-wing think tank that you linked to.) when both NATO and the US had always expressed their interests in a destabilized Yugoslavia long before any whispers of genocide.

http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm
(I hope straight from the horse's mouth isn't too imbalanced for you.)

[Neon]

No, I've already seen you say you liked Hillary, so that uneducated response is about what I would expect from you, and I'm really not going to get into it with you, because, well, everything I stated came from people that were working in the government/military at the time, my best friend who is in the NSA now, and a basic understanding of economics. I know you're going to stick by what you say and I'm going to know what I just said, so there's nothing else for me to say. I'm not going to sit here and start a 10 page argument with you, because its going to be a waste of time in the end. Socialist hippie.

I see, so you just get excited every time someone calls you out on something you say that's total bullshit, it doesn't matter whether they're hostile to you or not. Really, if it upsets you so much to have your preconceptions challenged, why even participate in a political discussion? But you're right, why try discussing it? I'm sure a few random 'experts' in Alabama have it all figured out. I have an Aunt who worked in the Clinton administration, so my expert beats yours, poopypants

[JoshF]

boo hillarycare

[shoe-sama]

shit i totally forgot to vote

[chempop]

on gayness: I'm no historian but hasn't homosexuality been normal and excepted throughout most of the history of mankind? heck, even rats and monkeys do it for fun with the same sex... <okay, horrible argument i know> I live in a very gay town and as a hedro male it does piss me off quite often, lots of man hating dykes around these parts, but some of my good friends are gay too. Sometimes I wonder how these ethnic adopted kids will end up after growing up with obese lesbian mothers. Oh well it won't stop me from being a good role model and positive influence on their life (as a teacher and performing artist).

on war: seems like a part of mankind that won't ever go away, yes its sad, but having been in Israel I can honestly say that holy-war just isnt understood by the rest of the world and won't end by some US president fucking shit up even more or by telling them to just get along... as long as I see some mech warfare some day I'm satisfied <sarcasm>

on economy: just waiting for China to demand what the US owes them, i hears its roughly $6000 per citizen, all 2 billion of em... and when we can't pay up maybe they'll demand the midwest or something along those lines.... yeah I know its not believable but it would make a good book. i seriously think any president in the 90's would have been popular, but the economy's boom was mostly due to the dotcom revolution...

on election: haven't the last two "elections" shone you that its a rigged and broken system? I'll be shocked if a democrat wins. I expect that if Obama somehow gets in, he'll be promptly assassinated by the FBI or KKK. I really only relate to Kucinich and RonPaul because they are all about revolution, I don't care if they aren't qualified.

[djvinc]

Oh. Okay. One whole lot. That decides it then. I'll tell Obama & Hillary to not bother campaigning there.

It's not one lot, it's a bunch of people.

Funny how you pose as some spokesperson of a silent majority. Is there a conspiracy/revolution going on in Florida ?

Anyway, there is no logic in what you say about Gay marriage, or any political issue. Only feelings.
I don't want to convince you of anything but the fact that you only express feelings here, hidden behind logical arguments (which are backed up by this silent majority of yours)

Instead of this rhetoric pattern : "XX is true because YY, and trust me, you don't realize/don't wanna know how many people ZZZZZ think the same", try this one, more accurate :
"Let me share my feelings : I believe XX is true. (Sorry.)"



PS.: This is personal, but I have so much fun writing in english in this thread. Thanks guys, and thank you Fighter17, GaijinPunch and JoshF in particular .

[GaijinPunch]

on economy: just waiting for China to demand what the US owes them,

China has much bigger issues to worry about. All this lead-tainted shit should be grounds of writing off any bad debts. Do you have any idea how fucking hard it is to find toys not made in China?

[JoshF]

I'd imagine you'd have to go to China, and play with an anthropomorphised sludge sculpture.

[Turrican]

Yeah... Destroying Tito's dream of an unified Yugoslavia was one of the most painful post-1991 moments. Especially since Yugoslavia, with the non-alignment movement, really looked like socialism's brightest future to us. It represented an hope similar to that of an unified Europe these days. In a sense, Yugoslavia's crumble was more painful to witness than even the USSR.

But... To be honest, no matter how much the US governments enjoyed its fall, no matter how much they did financially to make it happen, funding nationalists, crypto-fascists, separatists and so on...

In the end they destroyed that dream for themselves. People were unable to stop thinking of themselves as Serbians, Croats, Bosnians... Yugoslavia put a cap on all that, but it steamed from the inside.

With that said, I disapproved the bombing back then (when people are being killed it's not an excuse to rush things and, well, kill even more in the process), but that's another story.

[Ed Oscuro]

a lot of predictable hyperbole and general slander

The point of the article was not that Milosevic deserved the Nobel Prize but to say he wasn't the sole cause and perpetrator of genocide in Yugoslavia as it is portrayed by western governments and corporate media.

If you had decided to read through what I wrote, you'd see that I called the people who prompted Milosevich to promote radical action all those years ago terrorists. In fact I'm pretty sure the whole section was about as long as your response here.

When you post something as emotionally unbalanced and generally lousy as you did, it's a good idea to counter it with a good dose of what the many other more important motivators of US policy are.

On the subject of pretext, your guy was pretty worked-up about telecommunications monopolies. I'll just point at the farce of attempts by Americans trying to grab pieces of the Iraqi telecommunications business, but that's not a conspiracy by the government - rather, it was an attempt by a few people (including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif) to profit off the situation which was against the original U.S. policy in the country, was reported on, and was denied. That's not the merest fraction of the lucrative contracts that remain whose money is funneled directly to large corporations, of course, but at this point you either put money into rebuilding the infrastructure or you wash your hands of the matter and let people suffer even further. Contracts are a necessary (conveniently so) evil to provide for whoever's still left in their homes.

While the Bush doctrine in Iraq likely deserves a place in a history of infamously ambiguous immoral actions "in the service of democracy" due to the general death and chaos in Iraq over the years (not as bad as carpet bombing or Vietnam, last I checked, but getting there), there's still a marked difference between that and simply killing innocents you don't like.

Sure, let's haul Bush off to court for all that's happened - or at least the highest person who seemed to be aware what was going on, which couldn't possibly have happened before, could it? - but that's obscuring the fact that you posted a piece of crap whose tone demolishes any credibility to the arguments whatsoever.

I suppose you're trying to get a rise out of me, but I'm not really interested. It's just tired. At this point, the best we will see is the death of the Bush political dynasty and ongoing attempts to settle the situation in Iraq so people can live in relative peace sometime within our lifetimes.

With this in mind and using your definition of genocide, since 2003 military intervention in Iraq has taken at least 80,000 (reported) civilian deaths, not counting coalition deaths, which is exponentially more than the made up number of casualties used by NATO.

You're mistaken. I did not define genocide; I contrasted it with ethnic cleansing. Nothing can possess me to tie the definition of genocide to numbers; it's a matter of conduct (some would say intent, but poop on them).

we all have our biases whether it's Parenti or the former member of a right-wing think tank that you linked to.

Former member? Once a think tank member, always...It's true that guy isn't my favorite source, and I couldn't find the one I wanted to link to.

The difference is that one of these guys is a wingjob who is intent on filtering mostly readily-available information through shit-colored goggles for me, and the other with making specific arguments about the reconciliation process - slanted ones to be sure. You wouldn't expect that given one actually visited the country, but it happens. In any case, it was pretty peripheral to my main point, anyhow.

Nice snazzy URL at the end of your bit, as well. It looks fun, but I didn't bother clicking it.

Goddamn, JoshF, why you gotta be a stranger? Why ya doin' this to me?

Despite all the difficulty, I'll say that your arguments are pretty intellectually honest (assuming you just misread my post, which wouldn't have been too hard given that the part where I declined to define genocide was exceptionally to the point given the rest of that post). Yeah, politicians are often retards, and that doesn't stop them from occasionally sticking their heads in their hinies when they become Prez. What I don't understand is the apparent insinuation that we should give up most of our force capability - granted, I'm just hallucinating you said that, because I didn't see it, and naturally not invading sovereign countries like Iraq doesn't harm our defense capability in the immediate term. It does seem to be the sort of thing you'd promote, though.

[Ex-Cyber]

I never said it would be easy, I just said it will happen at some point (my lifetime, definitely). Seriously, there's now a classification of crime with much stiffer penalties if you assault someone b/c they're gay. What about don't ask don't tell? These are things that a generation ago were unheard of.

Look, I don't think it will happened because the country has to be really, really liberal to let something like this to happen. They will always be the Bible belt trying to prevent something like this from happening.

So now they are stiffer penalties because you attack an homosexual. Watch when pedophiles (which is a sexual orientation like Homosexuals) will request stiffer penalties to people who attack them in the street. "They attack me because I'm a pedophile." They are many different sexual orientations and these people can always make a similar claim that they want to be protected under the law.

I suggest that you read up on so-called "hate crimes" (which is a misleading term, but is nonetheless the commonly accepted one) laws. Generally they're not written for specific groups, but to cover all groups in protected categories such as race, sexual orientation, religion, gender, ethnicity, and so on. Many such laws exist at the state level and are supported across much of the political spectrum by those who actually understand them; most of the opposition is based on discredited (see Wisconsin v. Mitchell) notions that these laws punish beliefs or speech.

[The n00b]

Homosexuality, as we know it, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in the day, most people just banged whatever they felt like at the time.

Nobody was caught up in these made up categories. All they knew was that they were horny.

[GaijinPunch]

All they knew was that they were horny.

I'll drink to that.