PDA

View Full Version : President Bush is a tard!



Sithray
9th December 03, 02:09 PM
I guess the whole "protect those who wish to be free of communism" goes out the window if lotsa trade money is involved.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/bush.china.ap/index.html

I guess Bush is a commie at heart.

Kela
9th December 03, 02:11 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with the title of this thread.

Kwill
9th December 03, 02:13 PM
Taiwan's independence pales in the threat of nuclear war from North Korea. Bush needs China. Why not support China? I am not a Bush supporter, but it's clear from that article at least he knows which way the wind is blowing.

Ugh edit: I mean to present Bush's point of view.

Sithray
9th December 03, 02:19 PM
I agree with you Kwill, the US makes 100b a year off of trade with China, and the US needs China in case of war with Korea, but standing 100% behind a communist leader instead of trying to show at least SOME support for democracy spreading in Asia, even in the last great hold of communism, CHINA!?

Kwill
9th December 03, 02:27 PM
It did surprise me as well to read that article. But we hate the Muslims now, not the commies I guess. I have always read that China is the enemy no one wants, as they have tremendous technology, resources and manpower to put on the field of battle if they chose to be aggressive.

downinit
9th December 03, 02:31 PM
Why should Taiwan not have the right to hold a referendum? Saying he supports China holding Taiwan hostage is blatantly hypocritical.

Baltin
9th December 03, 02:40 PM
Possible an old net fact... but what the hey

Do a google search on

miserable failure.


kinda revealing


B.

Yiktin Voxbane
9th December 03, 02:48 PM
Heh B, Seems but One name figures promminently doing that search ;)

Boanerges
9th December 03, 03:58 PM
Sith is right! We need to support Taiwanese independence with another land war in Asia!

Oh wait...

Sithray
9th December 03, 04:06 PM
Sith is right! We need to support Taiwanese independence with another land war in Asia!

Oh wait...

I never said anything about land war...but the least Bush could do is say "democracy spreading is a good thing, try and find a peacful resolve that helps Taiwan attain what they want while remaining under Chinese rule...." instead of "I am behind you china...kill those rat bastard democracts if they try to form their own independant nation...a unified china means more money for the US"

Boanerges
9th December 03, 04:20 PM
But that's what it would involve, Sith. China is becomeing more tolerant of democracy but the Communists still have a tight leash on the country. They've warned us several times not to recognize Taiwanese independence and I suspect the Chinese are willing to go to war over it.

Reading other accounts it sounds less like Bush is supporting Communism but more opposing the Taiwan govt forcing the issue. If Taiwan presses the issue now it's gonna wind up very bad for them.

Phrost
9th December 03, 04:28 PM
It's called politics. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions.

For fuck's sake, get off Bush's nuts.

1. China is converting to Capitalism the right way....by guiding their economy into it carefully first, then migrating the rest of the political systems. They learned by Russia's mistakes.

2. If I had to chose between seeing Taiwan opressed, and having a wacked-out dictator nuking portions of the US, well, too fucking bad for Taiwan.

3. The economy is recovering DESPITE the war on terror, the 911 attacks, and the overinflated BS Clinton's "Willy-nilly" policies landed us in.

So please, get off Bush's nuts. Unlike any Democrat who's been president in the last 20 years, he's actually got the testicular fortitude to do what he thinks is right, instead of being a complete pussy.

Donnely McLeod
9th December 03, 04:36 PM
There are 12 million men in my age bracket - in China - that are unable to obtain a wife. This is due to illegal abortions throughout the districts of female fetusus (a boy was more desirable). If China chose to draft all these pent up, aggrevated young men with nothing to do... I'd lock the door.

China is a hybernating bear. Whether or not China realizes it is time to awaken or whether or not they are awoken by someone else they inevitably will come out of their long slumber.

And why shouldn't the US ally with them? In the US the government is in charge, not the people. Free press, free religion and free speech are not freedom; they are window dressing for an empire; just as the world has been throughout all of history. War makes money. What is the president but a 'transient offical who talks bout the nation's quest for peace while acting as a businessman for the military?' Here we have relative freedom; and isn't that all it really is? The line from a republic to facism may be blurred, but its very much closer then you think.

War is the inevitable solution that man gives himself.

Daisuke
9th December 03, 04:42 PM
Me chinese, me play joke, me put peepee in yo' coke.

Shorrtee McHeals
9th December 03, 04:53 PM
Sheesh what books have you been reading Donn? ;)

Sithray
9th December 03, 05:07 PM
Sheesh what books have you been reading Donn? ;)

I recognize a quote from Patton...more than likely WWII history or some such.

Kwill
9th December 03, 05:18 PM
Citing your sources when appropriate is always the prudent thing to do.

imported_Blazer
9th December 03, 05:20 PM
i say let the taiwanese come to amarica! and let china have that small ass island so they dont spaz. But seriously i dont support any "opression" but alot of you have expressed that amarica should come first and it is in our best interest to support china.

Sithray
9th December 03, 05:23 PM
ahhhh, if you are referring to the aborting thing he said about china...it is no secret that after 2 children (and you have to have papers to have a second) it is illegal to have children in china. You are forced to have an abortion. This is why most people will abort their children until they have a son, as it is mor honorable to have a son (to carry on the name) than a daughter. In fact, if you go to china, you will find that most familys have a boy and a girl (if they even have kids) and the son is 90% of the time older...you think that is by chance? No, it is through abortion/family planning.

http://www.iconservatives.org.uk/unfpa_and_forced_abortion_in_chi.htm

few more links:

http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2000/6/13_7.html

Also, live birth abortion (yes, this means after the baby is born) are not illegal in China, but abandoning a newborn baby to die IS illegal.

Most families are unable to obtain legal papers to allow a 2nd child, so there is a HUGE poplulation of young single men in china. I work with a few chinese immigrants, and pretty much all of them have the same answer as to why they moved here...they wanted more kids.

Donnely McLeod
9th December 03, 05:30 PM
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Everything the government does is denied, covered and placed in secret under the excuse 'national security.' There is no government that works 'for the people.' They work to perpetuate their existence. The basis of power and strong economy come from the government's ability to supress unwanted knowledge and to have a military ready for any conflict, anywhere, anytime. I don't remember a national 'vote' to go to war. I DO remember alot of vague assumptions and biased broadcasts intended to dull the masses ability to think. The point is, I don't believe a thing I see. Beneath every war, assassination, coup de ta; there is the element of government vieing for its place in the chain of power.

Sithray
9th December 03, 05:58 PM
I soooo hit the nail on the head with WWII history.


War is the inevitable solution that man gives himself

It may not have initially been said by Patton, but he firmly believed that mans sole purpose was to make war, and that is all he wanted to do, and he uttered those words when he was trying to make a case for war with Russia.

Donnely McLeod
9th December 03, 06:26 PM
I soooo hit the nail on the head with WWII history.



It may not have initially been said by Patton, but he firmly believed that mans sole purpose was to make war, and that is all he wanted to do, and he uttered those words when he was trying to make a case for war with Russia.

My statement was influenced by a few different things Patton had said.

Heh, "We should be rearming these Germans and have them help us! Hell, we're gonna have to do it anyway sooner or later!" He loved his war.

Kiko
9th December 03, 06:33 PM
There's a bear in the woods...

Oh, I like Ike. ;)

joen00b
9th December 03, 06:34 PM
It seems the Taiwanese wanted to be part of China and started the proceedings more than a dozen years ago:




In 1991 Taiwan formulated a plan to restructure the government, and a long-term,
three-phase plan for reunification with mainland China was introduced. In April
1993 representatives from Taiwan and China met in Singapore to discuss the
relationship between China and Taiwan and establish a schedule for subsequent
meetings between the two governments. The Singapore meeting was the first
high-level contact between China and Taiwan since 1949. Relations between Taiwan
and China deteriorated in 1995 and early 1996 as China performed military
exercises near Taiwan. Observers believed the military maneuvers were intended
to intimidate supporters of pro-independence candidates in Taiwan’s presidential
election.

In March 2000 presidential elections, voters in Taiwan elected Democratic
Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Chen Shui-bian president, ending more than 50
years of rule by the KMT. China reacted warily to the election of a member of
the DPP, which was founded as a pro-independence party.

downinit
9th December 03, 07:02 PM
2. If I had to chose between seeing Taiwan opressed, and having a wacked-out dictator nuking portions of the US, well, too fucking bad for Taiwan.

The nuking would be far more exciting in my opinion.

imported_Blazer
9th December 03, 07:13 PM
thought we gave taiwan nukes? or was that japan??

Shorrtee McHeals
9th December 03, 07:38 PM
I like Ike, you like Ike, everybody likes Ike..... FOR PRESIDENT!

Phrost
9th December 03, 10:01 PM
The nuking would be far more exciting in my opinion.

If they had a bomb that could leave physical structures intact while killing off persons who fit certain criteria and with a large blast radius, I'd agree with you.

Only on the condition that I'd be the one who got to set the criteria.

Good question... that should be a thread to itself.

Phleg
10th December 03, 01:07 AM
as they have tremendous technology, resources and manpower to put on the field of battle if they chose to be aggressive.

Yeah, if the battlefield happens to be within five miles of mainland China.

China has no force projection capabilities whatsoever. Period.

Phleg
10th December 03, 01:08 AM
thought we gave taiwan nukes? or was that japan??

Neither. The only nuclear states in the world are the United States, United Kingdom, France, Israel, North Korea, India, and Pakistan.

Phleg
10th December 03, 01:19 AM
So please, get off Bush's nuts. Unlike any Democrat who's been president in the last 20 years, he's actually got the testicular fortitude to do what he thinks is right, instead of being a complete pussy.

Agreed. If anything, Bush has frequently stood for what he believes is correct. Unlike Mr. "Opinion Poll" Clinton, Bush actually tries to drum up support for things he wants to do, and usually gets it (war with Iraq, tax cuts, etc.).

Oh, and for the fools who're going to try and point this comment towards the original post ("Then what's he doing backing Communists?"), notice I said "frequently". We have a serious potential of needing China's assistance in the future, especially in the case of North Korea. It's called weighing your fucking options.

And finally, to Sithray's original post, I fail to see how money motivated Bush's decision for this. China can get as offended as it wants with us, but it's government isn't stupid enough to commit economic suicide by breaking off or straining trade relations with the United States. Our former president vomited on a Chinese diplomat, and we bombed a Chinese embassy in Bosnia--cheering Taiwan on from the sidelines isn't going to suddenly make them withhold trade from us, in any degree. However, it might strain diplomatic relations to the point that China would be less likely to jump on a United States bandwagon for foreign policy in Asia.

Phleg
10th December 03, 01:24 AM
But that's what it would involve, Sith. China is becomeing more tolerant of democracy but the Communists still have a tight leash on the country. They've warned us several times not to recognize Taiwanese independence and I suspect the Chinese are willing to go to war over it.

The Chinese know better than to go to war with us. They have no way of getting their 14,180,224,973 troops across the Pacific Ocean, they're using far inferior military equipment, their pilots have far fewer training hours (which directly translates to air superiority), and their forces are far less trained than hours. The only possible method China has to militarily hurt is is their nuclear weapons. However, they're not suicidal enough to attempt to use them. While I would fear for anyone fool enough to attack China, they have no effective offensive capabilities outside of the Asian region.

Bush's real motivation is maintaining cordial diplomatic ties, pure and simple.

imported_Solaris Flare
10th December 03, 01:41 AM
Neither. The only nuclear states in the world are the United States, United Kingdom, France, Israel, North Korea, India, and Pakistan.

Russia and some eastern europe nations too

imported_Solaris Flare
10th December 03, 01:51 AM
Yeah, if the battlefield happens to be within five miles of mainland China.

China has no force projection capabilities whatsoever. Period.

True, but Taiwan is very small. It wouldn't take much to blow them over. I know you ment they can't attack the US and such; but, I think this needs to be pointed out.

I am sure Bush had a reason for saying what he did. We don't know why yet; but, remember China is keeping thier dollar SUPER low, 1 US dollar is 8 China yen. Also, the US has major trade deficit with China, partely because of the low yen. And as you guys have said above me, US needs China on side for NK. For a change Bush is giving a little to get a little. Give him props for that.

Infuego
10th December 03, 02:00 AM
Bush maybe making the right decision in this instance, but that far from exempts him from much else going on in the world right now.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&u=/nm/20031209/wl_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_3&printer=1

Please don't vote for Bush 2004. Please!

Morley
10th December 03, 03:53 AM
If they had a bomb that could leave physical structures intact while killing off persons

Most of the way there, we DO have a weapon that does this.

Phleg
10th December 03, 03:56 AM
Russia and some eastern europe nations too

I can't believe I borked the nuclear nine. I'll blame it on lack of sleep and overwork.

Anyways, there's Russia and China. With the U.S., U.K., France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, that's all of them. No eastern European nations officially have nuclear weapons, and I don't believe there's current suspicion that any of them have any secretly, either.

Phleg
10th December 03, 04:00 AM
Bush maybe making the right decision in this instance, but that far from exempts him from much else going on in the world right now.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&u=/nm/20031209/wl_nm/iraq_contracts_dc_3&printer=1

Please don't vote for Bush 2004. Please!

I don't see how the article is an entirely bad thing. If France and Germany didn't want to enter the war, then don't allow them to take what benefits there are. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Ouden
10th December 03, 01:42 PM
So please, get off Bush's nuts. Unlike any Democrat who's been president in the last 20 years, he's actually got the testicular fortitude to do what he thinks is right, instead of being a complete pussy.

Yeah, like invade nations that pose a threat to only one nation in the Middle East, and keep open borders. Can't let that one nation in the Middle East be harmed. Nope.

joen00b
10th December 03, 02:06 PM
I can believe I borked the nuclear nine. I'll blame it on lack of sleep and overwork.

Anyways, there's Russia and China. With the U.S., U.K., France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, that's all of them. No eastern European nations officially have nuclear weapons, and I don't believe there's current suspicion that any of them have any secretly, either.

You are a dirty, filthy liar! According to Bush and his cronies, Iraq and Iran BOTH have Nuclear Weapons!

Or was that just a line they used to trick us into believing we wanted to invade them?

Sithray
10th December 03, 02:22 PM
You are a dirty, filthy liar! According to Bush and his cronies, Iraq and Iran BOTH have Nuclear Weapons!

Or was that just a line they used to trick us into believing we wanted to invade them?

It was that Iraq may have BOUGHT nukes, and that Iran was trying to make them...never flat out said they definately had them though. But even the though of them possibly having nukes was enough for the sheep.

imported_Blazer
10th December 03, 03:33 PM
Please don't vote for Bush 2004. Please!

And who am I suposed to vote for? Democrats not fucking likly. I'd not vote before I'd vote for one of them.

Infuego
10th December 03, 03:41 PM
Phleg

<--Crover

I should have been more clear, that was to illustrate Don's point of how they label everything under "national security".

---"It is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, coalition partners and force contributing nations," Wolfowitz said in a notice published on the web site www.rebuilding-iraq.net. ---

----Procurement specialist Prof. Steven Schooner from George Washington University said it was "disingenuous" to use national security as an excuse and predicted an angry reaction from those nations excluded.---

Bush's administration twists and distorts everything they do. Pretty essential when you are corrupt. Why couldn't they just come out and say, "those pussies didn't support us, and so we are going to give them a wink and shove this 12inch dildo up there ass."

I mean come on, if you are so fucking moral, and so fucking right about "Operation Iraqi Freedom" then give us the fucking unfiltered truth. I'm tired of having to read American news, then Isreali news, then European news, etc, then trying to find some wierd middle ground that could be called pure information.

Isn't it interesting that Clark, a former GENERAL, who served for 30+ years is suddenly afraid of Bush? Why the sudden change of heart? He's not a guy who hates war, or thinks that war is unecessary, and by all means should be the type of guy that (still) supports Bush 100%, right? He was a leader in Bosnia, and yet he still calls Iraq a "side show".

Sometimes I wonder if they didn't confide in him some information that made him step back and say to himself, "fucking A, these are some scary guys, with some scary plans."

I watched a local interview the other day in which an Iraqi-American discussed how easy it was for him to get into Iraq right now. He said there was 1 Iraqi police officer, armed with a rifle, in his Pajamas, sitting at a booth. There were a few American soldiers milling about, and all they did was make a quick glance. He and his co-workers walked right into Iraq, no questions asked.

Doc - is this standard or perhaps a freak incident of incompetence?

Infuego
10th December 03, 03:56 PM
And who am I suposed to vote for? Democrats not fucking likly. I'd not vote before I'd vote for one of them.

How did you come to the decision that all the democratic nominees are incompetant enough not to be voted for? The media perhaps? I know that I have personally seen all 3 major news networks at one point or the other announce that "these democrats have no chance!"

Why?

General Clark is a smart guy with war experience, certainly not a 'gutless liberal'.

John Edwards is a long shot but seems level headed.

Dean I still can't read very well.

Gephardt/Kerry are professional politicians I'll admit, and I would also be skeptical and have a hard time voting for them.

Mosley Brown and Lieberman are null and void.

Sharpton should quit the race and become a comedian.

And then there is Kisinich, who appears to be the only politican in the race right now who is not playing politics. I've heard the media call him radical, but if you ever listen to one of his speaches he is a sharp guy with good ideas.

At the debates he commonly tries to stop petty bickering, and tries to call on the democrats to address the issues that pertain directly to Americans right now. He argues for tuition free college (I know you would be taxed for this, but it would be a good investment to send EVERY AMERICAN TO COLLEGE so we don't have so many dumbass useful idiots running around), a more socialized health care, so on and so forth. It's too bad that everybody immediately writes him off in my opinion.

December
10th December 03, 04:23 PM
a more socialized health care, so on and so forth.

The next time you want a socialized anything, imagine said entity looking like the DMV.

imported_Blazer
10th December 03, 04:25 PM
How did you come to the decision that all the democratic nominees are incompetant enough not to be voted for? The media perhaps? I know that I have personally seen all 3 major news networks at one point or the other announce that "these democrats have no chance!"

Why?

General Clark is a smart guy with war experience, certainly not a 'gutless liberal'.

John Edwards is a long shot but seems level headed.

Dean I still can't read very well.

Gephardt/Kerry are professional politicians I'll admit, and I would also be skeptical and have a hard time voting for them.

Mosley Brown and Lieberman are null and void.

Sharpton should quit the race and become a comedian.

And then there is Kisinich, who appears to be the only politican in the race right now who is not playing politics. I've heard the media call him radical, but if you ever listen to one of his speaches he is a sharp guy with good ideas.

At the debates he commonly tries to stop petty bickering, and tries to call on the democrats to address the issues that pertain directly to Americans right now. He argues for tuition free college (I know you would be taxed for this, but it would be a good investment to send EVERY AMERICAN TO COLLEGE so we don't have so many dumbass useful idiots running around), a more socialized health care, so on and so forth. It's too bad that everybody immediately writes him off in my opinion.

Its also a good idea to cut back the military finace all these wellfareish programs ect ect. Oh and raise taxes and even with the raised taxes add even more to the national debt then republicans usually do. Your also very disillusioned if you put that much stock in "one person" you have to take the party he represents and the people he hangs around with and would likly ask to be part of his cabinate. I never said that there was no chance for the democrats to get other peoples votes, I just said they would never get my vote. Of course I live in california so its not like a vote for the republican party even counts here lol.

Infuego
10th December 03, 04:45 PM
The next time you want a socialized anything, imagine said entity looking like the DMV.

As in you have to wait longer but are assured to be helped?

Infuego
10th December 03, 04:54 PM
Your also very disillusioned if you put that much stock in "one person" you have to take the party he represents and the people he hangs around with and would likly ask to be part of his cabinate.

You make a good point, but that's why I like Kisinich - he doesn't seem to try and kiss up to his fellow dems and his party. He seems to be his own person.

In regards to the economy and deficits - from my observation when the economy is good, the President claims it is his brilliance, when the economy sucks, it's not his fault. (This can applied to probably any president)

I do know that it's hard as hell to find a job in Austin, Texas right now.

imported_Solaris Flare
10th December 03, 06:49 PM
The next time you want a socialized anything, imagine said entity looking like the DMV.

Public power in Canada doesnt look like the DMV. = p

downinit
10th December 03, 07:43 PM
The US seriously needs a couple more mainstream parties. A system that is virtually two parties for a country so large is simply ridiculous. The difference between the campaigns is always "GO EXTREME CAPITALISM! BOMB THE MIDDLE EAST!" VS. "SUBSIDIZED HEALTH AND EDUCATION FOR EVERYONE! LETS ALL HOLD HANDS AND DANCE AROUND IN A BIG CIRCLE!" If I were living in the US right now, I don't think I'd want to vote for either party, because they both represent such frightening extremes.

Phleg
10th December 03, 09:53 PM
You are a dirty, filthy liar! According to Bush and his cronies, Iraq and Iran BOTH have Nuclear Weapons!

Actually, neither have nuclear weapons yet. Iran is widely realized to be on the verge of nuclear capabilities, and so was Iraq. We went in there to *prevent* Iraq from obtaining those capabilities. There's no way in hell we'd have invaded if they already had one.

And that list is of states who're confirmed to have nuclear weapons. Not ones on the verge.

Phleg
10th December 03, 09:59 PM
<--Crover

Mornin'.


I should have been more clear, that was to illustrate Don's point of how they label everything under "national security".

This I can agree with. It's 'tarded that we go for it under the guise of "national security", but on the other hand, it probably wouldn't be salient to refer Germany, France, and Russia to the story of the Little Red Hen.


Bush's administration twists and distorts everything they do. Pretty essential when you are corrupt. Why couldn't they just come out and say, "those pussies didn't support us, and so we are going to give them a wink and shove this 12inch dildo up there ass."

As much as I would have enjoyed that, it's not going to happen. There's pretty much no way we could have stated the truth diplomatically. I can understand where you're coming from, though.


I mean come on, if you are so fucking moral, and so fucking right about "Operation Iraqi Freedom" then give us the fucking unfiltered truth. I'm tired of having to read American news, then Isreali news, then European news, etc, then trying to find some wierd middle ground that could be called pure information.

Sorry, but that's always going to be the case, irregardless of the political situation in a country. Media outlets are always going to spin stories in a way that gets them watchers/listeners/readers, and that usually involves making your country look like the good guy and the winner, or having been slighted. I don't care if it's fucking Mother Theresa in political power--it's going to happen.


Isn't it interesting that Clark, a former GENERAL, who served for 30+ years is suddenly afraid of Bush? Why the sudden change of heart? He's not a guy who hates war, or thinks that war is unecessary, and by all means should be the type of guy that (still) supports Bush 100%, right? He was a leader in Bosnia, and yet he still calls Iraq a "side show".

Perhaps it's because he has Presidential aspirations? If he shows support for Bush, then people aren't going to vote for him. Nobody ever got in office by saying the incumbent Joe is doing a good job.

Phleg
10th December 03, 10:06 PM
General Clark is a smart guy with war experience, certainly not a 'gutless liberal'.

He also has no experience in politics, obviously came up with political stances overnight, and has flip-flopped at least twice that I know of.


John Edwards is a long shot but seems level headed.

Which also means he won't win the nomination.


Dean I still can't read very well.

He reads like Chomsky. He's a great candidate for the primaries, but he's probably too liberal to be voted for by the general public.


Gephardt/Kerry are professional politicians I'll admit, and I would also be skeptical and have a hard time voting for them.

They're too moderate to win the primaries.


And then there is Kisinich, who appears to be the only politican in the race right now who is not playing politics. I've heard the media call him radical, but if you ever listen to one of his speaches he is a sharp guy with good ideas.

And he has zero chance of winning the primaries.


He argues for tuition free college (I know you would be taxed for this, but it would be a good investment to send EVERY AMERICAN TO COLLEGE so we don't have so many dumbass useful idiots running around),

This is retarded. We founded the HOPE scholarship in Georgia, to send anyone with a 3.0 GPA to college for free. Now, we have massive dropout rates, huge grade inflation, and a high school system that passes anyone with enough intelligence to drool. The only good thing about the program is that it's funded on the lottery. Essentially, we're taxing idiots of their own volition.

What sucks, though, is that so many kids are going to college now (and failing out their first semester), that now the system is going to have to be modified. My prediction? We're going to modify it so you need to be in a certain low income category to receive benefits. Too bad that this category, statistically, are the ones that waste the money and drop in droves out before their first year is completed. And good luck trying to tack on a clause saying you need to pay the funds back if you get canned--if you're the kind of person who truly believes something like that would be tacked on, there's no hope for intelligence any time in your future.

So the end result is probably going to be this: we'll drop funding for anyone in a family who makes more than $75,000/yr (or some similiar cap). These people will continue to drop out in droves, and will put pressure on politicians to do something about it. Politicians will threaten to revoke grants to universities unless these people are given "special attention". The same grade inflation that happened in our high schools will happen in our colleges--professors will only be allowed to assign a limited number of F's and D's, and will be "encouraged" to pass "slow learners". These people will then be just as stupid as they were, only now they'll have a free college diploma.

Don't believe me? Check back in ten years.


more socialized health care,

Great, like we haven't learned anything from Canada.

Basically, the media is right. The Democrats don't stand a chance this round in the elections. Dean, unless he has a stroke, is going to win the primaries. He's far ahead of anyone else, and for anyone to overtake him at this point would be unprecedented. However, he's far too liberal to be accepted by the masses. Also, people are hesitant to change Presidents during times of conflict. Even though a lot of people dislike Bush, they're hesistant to put someone else in the White House in the middle of a military engagement. Not to mention, expect sabotage from the Clintons. Hillary wants to run in 2008, and if Dean looks like he might be able to take on Bush, she's going to do something to stop it. A Democrat in 2004 is not going to happen. We're just going to have to sit through another four years of Bush, like it or not.

Phleg
10th December 03, 10:09 PM
As in you have to wait longer but are assured to be helped?

Think about this in the case of medicine:

Right now, if you need an MRI in America, you can get one the very same day. In Canada, the waiting list is 17 weeks. Not only that, but Canada only recently obtained MRI technology--I believe in early 1999. How long have we had it for?

Need more proof? Name a Canadian pharmaceutical company.

Phleg
10th December 03, 10:11 PM
The US seriously needs a couple more mainstream parties. A system that is virtually two parties for a country so large is simply ridiculous. The difference between the campaigns is always "GO EXTREME CAPITALISM! BOMB THE MIDDLE EAST!" VS. "SUBSIDIZED HEALTH AND EDUCATION FOR EVERYONE! LETS ALL HOLD HANDS AND DANCE AROUND IN A BIG CIRCLE!" If I were living in the US right now, I don't think I'd want to vote for either party, because they both represent such frightening extremes.

I agree with you mostly, except the Republicans don't seem to be for capitalism any more. Didja see the recent Medicare bill? Or the massive increases in spending by Republicans?

Same party, two different names if you ask me.

Nikalos_2
10th December 03, 10:33 PM
John McCain should be president, Even God can't kill that fucker.

Infuego
10th December 03, 11:22 PM
Phleg - here is where I'm coming from.

I am a smart guy, but only a decent student. I took AP class's in High School and while I had motivational problems, gutted it out and received my diploma. I applied to college.

I was accepted locally in Austin, and accepted out of state at UNC-Greensboro. Now, I love Austin but I needed to get away, be on my own, and have some space. Greensboro was also a good fit for me.

Unfortunately, my parents fit into that nifty bracket where I couldn't qualify for enough loans and grants because we make too much money. Ironically, my parents couldn't send me to Greensboro because they don't make enough money. I ended up going to Santa Barbara City College which was a terrible fit for me. Now I'm back in Austin going to our community college basically to be certified in 3d animation and transfer to UT, because it's affordable - but rapidly heading towards unaffordable. =(

The University of Texas is too big for me, I would get lost there, and I would have trouble in forum-based classes. That's just the truth, and it may just be tough luck for me.

I don't think intelligence is lost on me because I wasn't aware of a Georgia Hope bill. I also don't think that a more socialist educational system is impossible because the Hope scholarship failed. I also don't think the blame for drop out rates could be unanimously blamed on one scholarship, if that is what you are getting at.


And good luck trying to tack on a clause saying you need to pay the funds back if you get canned--if you're the kind of person who truly believes something like that would be tacked on, there's no hope for intelligence any time in your future.


Ok, I read that again. I never said that, so that's neither here nor there.

I know you are a smart guy Phleg, and I know you are probably a good student. I'd also be interested to know where you are going to college, how much it costs, and how you or your parents are paying for it. I'm not trying to be condescending here but I want to know where you are coming from. It sounds like everything is hunky dory for you, and usually when the system works for somebody they can find little reason to complain. Of course I could be wrong, you could be working 2 jobs and pimping at night to pay for college.

I'm not so arrogant to think something I believe could work could be flawed from the get go, but I am also hopeful and a glass half-full type of guy, so if you can clearly prove me wrong here great! I learned something new today.

My parents are splitting up right now and I've really learned how to look at other people's needs and feelings. It pisses me off how ego-centric this country is. The problem is it's not really anyone's fault these days that they look to themselves before others. That's how this country works. That's how you get ahead. I also think that's what tears us apart.

Rich people vote for Republicans because they take less of their money away. Poor people vote for Democrats because they want more free stuff.
ETC. We are so damned divided.

That's why I'm so disillusioned with America right now. Our system seems to have reached a point where much needs to be changed, and few are willing to change things.


John McCain should be president, Even God can't kill that fucker.

Word. McCain rules.

Infuego
10th December 03, 11:30 PM
Great, like we haven't learned anything from Canada.

Our system isn't that great man. Insurance companies should do little to promote hope in our system.

For instance - I tore my ACL, and I require surgery. The insurance my parents can afford will not cover me unless I am a full time student, therefore, I cannot receive my surgery until I am engaged in a full class load. Being bed ridden(hard to get to class), dealing with rehab, and then being fairly immobile for 2 months + isn't exactly going to help that GPA. I should be able to just fucking get the surgery while I took a semester off, so would be recooperated for school.

Not to mention those slimy fucks hardly want to pay for any of the fucking surgery.

God forbid someone CAN'T afford insurance and hurts themselves. Oh well I guess, tough luck for THEM, no skin off MY back.

Kalric
10th December 03, 11:53 PM
UT Kicks ass! It has gotten pretty big since the 40 acre days id have to say.

Phleg
10th December 03, 11:54 PM
Phleg - here is where I'm coming from.

I am a smart guy, but only a decent student. I took AP class's in High School and while I had motivational problems, gutted it out and received my diploma. I applied to college.

I was accepted locally in Austin, and accepted out of state at UNC-Greensboro. Now, I love Austin but I needed to get away, be on my own, and have some space. Greensboro was also a good fit for me.

Unfortunately, my parents fit into that nifty bracket where I couldn't qualify for enough loans and grants because we make too much money. Ironically, my parents couldn't send me to Greensboro because they don't make enough money. I ended up going to Santa Barbara City College which was a terrible fit for me. Now I'm back in Austin going to our community college basically to be certified in 3d animation and transfer to UT, because it's affordable - but rapidly heading towards unaffordable. =(

The University of Texas is too big for me, I would get lost there, and I would have trouble in forum-based classes. That's just the truth, and it may just be tough luck for me.

I know everyone can't do everything, but there are a LOT of scholarships available at any given time. I'm certain you could have gotten some. And were those the ONLY two colleges that accepted you? How many did you apply for?


I don't think intelligence is lost on me because I wasn't aware of a Georgia Hope bill.

Sorry if this was implied. I was only referring to that small clause with that comment--i.e., if you couldn't see that such a clause being added onto the bill was an impossibility.


I also don't think that a more socialist educational system is impossible because the Hope scholarship failed. I also don't think the blame for drop out rates could be unanimously blamed on one scholarship, if that is what you are getting at.

It's not the scholarship's fault. It the fact that the scholarship is giving money to people who have no business being in college--they either lack the knowledge, ability, or drive.


Ok, I read that again. I never said that, so that's neither here nor there.

No ye didn't. I was talking about how the HOPE scholarship has been going steadily downhill, and I was predicting it's future, as well as the future of the educational system in Georgia.


I know you are a smart guy Phleg, and I know you are probably a good student. I'd also be interested to know where you are going to college, how much it costs, and how you or your parents are paying for it. I'm not trying to be condescending here but I want to know where you are coming from. It sounds like everything is hunky dory for you, and usually when the system works for somebody they can find little reason to complain. Of course I could be wrong, you could be working 2 jobs and pimping at night to pay for college.

Actually, I'm speaking as a recipient of the HOPE scholarship, from a family who probably wouldn't have been able to send me to college without it. Well, they would have insisted on me going, but with the way our household finances are right now, I'd have turned them down.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad we have the HOPE scholarship, and I know that it's giving some kids a chance they never would have gotten. However, I see that it's probably causing more harm than good. Now, many kids from Georgia don't even bother applying for other scholarships, because it's so easy to get a B average here. Hell, I was one of them. To be honest, I slacked off a lot in high school simply by the fact that I was basically guaranteed to go to college without trying.


My parents are splitting up right now and I've really learned how to look at other people's needs and feelings. It pisses me off how ego-centric this country is. The problem is it's not really anyone's fault these days that they look to themselves before others. That's how this country works. That's how you get ahead. I also think that's what tears us apart.

It's also what keeps us clothed, fed, and in nice houses.


Rich people vote for Republicans because they take less of their money away. Poor people vote for Democrats because they want more free stuff.

And I vote Libertarian because I just want to be left alone.

Phleg
10th December 03, 11:56 PM
Our system isn't that great man. Insurance companies should do little to promote hope in our system.

Just remember, the lovely HMO arose due to government involvement in our healthcare. Until we started meddling in healthcare, we had about 90% coverage. Now it's somewhere around the 70%'s I believe.

Infuego
11th December 03, 12:15 AM
I am libertarian at heart as well. =)

I just sometimes feel that my vote is wasted in that slot.

And if you don't mind could ya explain the HMO comment or point me towards an article?

Boanerges
11th December 03, 10:46 AM
While I don't think government involvement in healthcare has helped it I think the reason healthcare system is suffering is due far more to the fact that we live in a litigious society who files a lawsuit at the drop of a hat and often times win. Our healthcare system is suffering from fear of lawsuits. Help a person and get sued. Person dies under your care? Get ready to cough up even if you did nothing wrong (juries often lack the knowledge to make correct rulings and thus they feed on their mistrust of doctors and award obscene amounts to the Plaintiff). Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed (assuming you can even get it anymore) and many doctors have been forced to close their doors because they can't afford a potential lawsuit.

joen00b
11th December 03, 11:21 AM
Hey, Phleg, Post Count != Right.

Kwill
11th December 03, 11:29 AM
This reminded me of a thread I am following on another board, where this woman is mad at her horse shoer .... so she's going to sue her just for fun:


And I actually kinda like small claims court. I like to know about the process in case I need it later on for something more serious. I'm new in this area and so I'd like to educate myself on this process as well.

But I'll only sue for the cost of those front shoes (well, maybe for two trims since she charged me for them but actually SAID they didn't need trimming!). I don't care if I lose (although I suspect that if she doesn't get her arse back and put the shoe on or take the other off, I wOULD win--I have and/or will take pretty pictures and collect all kinds of literature on the issues involves, of course!).

Talk about sue happy!!

imported_Solaris Flare
11th December 03, 02:27 PM
Just remember, the lovely HMO arose due to government involvement in our healthcare. Until we started meddling in healthcare, we had about 90% coverage. Now it's somewhere around the 70%'s I believe.

We got 100% coverage in Canada. Although health care is getting more expensive now and its not because of lawsuit, I mean for Canada. It's because the new technology is a shit load more expensive. No one wants to die and because of this fact we spend 90% of our health cost in the last year of our lifes.

So, if cost in Canada are raising then cost in the US must be raising too.

downinit
11th December 03, 03:51 PM
I live in Canada and I can say first-hand that our healthcare system is very shitty. It's fine for regular care such as doctor's appointments etc. but when you need any sort of surgical care or other specialized procedcures, you're basically fucked unless it's considered an emergency, cause they'll just throw you on a waiting list for a several months, and if something comes up that prevents your surgery from being performed on the scheduled day they'll put you back at the END of the waiting list, so you have to wait several more months.

imported_Solaris Flare
11th December 03, 05:05 PM
To start with, no matter where you live if you miss your appointment you'll be pushed to the back of the line, its call the world doesn't rotate around you. Next, where the fuck in the world can you get non-emergency surgery WITHOUT paying large sums of money?

As for making the waiting list shorting, money is already being marked for that OFF CANADA'S SURPLUS. = )

Sithray
11th December 03, 05:13 PM
My friend moved to Canada just because of their healthcare system. He even married a Canadian so he would be eligable for it.

Phleg
11th December 03, 05:24 PM
Boy is he gonna be disappointed.

Kwill
11th December 03, 05:46 PM
Seems to me getting married to get better health care is not making good choices.

downinit
11th December 03, 07:44 PM
To start with, no matter where you live if you miss your appointment you'll be pushed to the back of the line, its call the world doesn't rotate around you. Next, where the fuck in the world can you get non-emergency surgery WITHOUT paying large sums of money?

As for making the waiting list shorting, money is already being marked for that OFF CANADA'S SURPLUS. = )

No, I'm NOT talking about a missed appointment, If you miss your appointment then you deserve to be sent to the back of the list. I had a surgical appointment for open fracture reduction scheduled for the 15th of August. However, there was that massive power failure on the evening of the 14th, so they cancelled all of the appointments for the next day. When I was finally able to get hold of the people in charge of the scheduling at the hospital a few days later, they said I'd have to be pushed back and would perhaps be able to get it rescheduled for LATE NOVEMBER. Needless to say, I was extremely pissed off because I had already waited several months and was originally scheduled for the beginning of spring but was continuously pushed back because of the SARS crisis. In the end, my parents ended up deciding to pay about $1700 in surgical facility fees so that the doctor could perform the procedure INSIDE his private office, because I couldn't put up with government waiting lists any longer. After they paid, he was able to perform the procedure within about a week, and to think I had been waiting since the end of 2002 because of the ridiculous waiting lists.

Sithray
11th December 03, 08:13 PM
Seems to me getting married to get better health care is not making good choices.

Well, I said that wrong, he moved there and apped for duel cit, then met her and got married, now is duel cit.

Phleg
12th December 03, 04:49 AM
And if you don't mind could ya explain the HMO comment or point me towards an article?

Haven't forgotten you.