Official Off Topic Thread

[Rose Immortal]

Welcome to one of the reasons Bush got re-elected...

You (and several people) also exemplify the same point I'm making, just from the other side. This knee-jerk reaction to make it personal against Bush is just as bad. I'd rather people criticize the POLICY, not the person.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

people criticized clinton the person because he got a blowjob and smoked pot once. Why can't i critisize bush the person because he's done coke, got c average grades and is completely retarded?

 

[proulxski]

i prefered clinton to bush.... for the recorf I hate bush lol!

For the record I got anothe funny movie up on the net....Way bettah quality!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mEyWVHCCWU

ENJOY!!!!

 

[turke]

Actually if not Bush, there is only one more option for the Americans. They gotta pick one of two. It is like two parties are being elected in a row . Well that is a good conspiracy, right ? What if you don't like both of their policies ? What you do then ? Or is it possible that a greater force is feeding these two parts and is in fact controlling the land through all those years ?

And i don't mean we have better options here, don't get me wrong Everywhere is the same.

 

[Matt]

Actually if not Bush, there is only one more option for the Americans. They gotta pick one of two. It is like two parties are being elected in a row . Well that is a good conspiracy, right ? What if you don't like both of their policies ? What you do then ? Or is it possible that a greater force is feeding these two parts and is in fact controlling the land through all those years ?

And i don't mean we have better options here, don't get me wrong Everywhere is the same.

well usually there is a third party running, which takes votes away from us democrats.

 

[War_Blade]

democrats=pussies...
republicans=retards...


there is really no "good" choice...

 

[Tubbs]

democrats=pussies...
republicans=retards...


there is really no "good" choice...

I agree there.

 

[TuoDrable]

democrats=pussies...
republicans=retards...


there is really no "good" choice...

Communism?

 

[Rose Immortal]

people criticized clinton the person because he got a blowjob and smoked pot once. Why can't i critisize bush the person because he's done coke, got c average grades and is completely retarded?

The pot-smoking thing was stupid, but small. I'm not too bothered by that. The only thing that gets me is lying in a deposition. Not about the pot, though...I know that was a different investigation.

And Turke--you've gotten down to the BIG problem with the American political system. You end up only having the extremes represented. As to why you don't see a successful third party, let's say the third party is more like the Republicans. What happens then? The Democrats win the election, pissing off both the Republicans AND those who voted for the third party. That's actually what happened when Clinton was first voted into office. So basicallly, a third party actually causes the exact OPPOSITE of what it would want, which is why people are afraid to waste their votes on them and instead go for one of the two major parties.

As I understand a parliamentary system as in places like England, this would not occur to the same extent because political representation would be proportionate and covering more parts of the political spectrum. While I don't think America would change itself THAT much, I think an important first step would be getting rid of the Electoral College and going to a strictly popular-vote basis. You'd still have the two-party problem, but it would help. (And don't give me "stolen election" crap. That's how the rules have been for over 200 years and they hadn't changed yet. When they change in the future, THEN I'll worry about what happens with the popular vote.)

Oh, and just an FYI: When I was getting my MBA, one of my classmates was a kid who did about a C average in undergraduate. If you talked to him, he'd admit very openly he made some stupid choices in college, which included wild parties, and that he wasn't very mature at the time. He graduated, got into the workforce, matured for a good 7 years, then came back to school to get his MBA, and succeeded in that.

So I'd hold off on the "retard" comments if I were you. "Immature" was probably more like it.

 

[Yngvai X]

I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. If it was Edwards & Kerry, or someone else, they might have gotten my vote. I don't want a political love/hate thread started here, so I'll stop....

J-Dubya (no relation! )

Actually J-D, the fact that Kerry was the one chosen to represent the democrats in that election is what prompted myself to register as a Democrat myself, just so I could feel I have some sort of say in who gets to represent the liberal side of the ticket. Kerry was a horrible, horrible choice, and as I heard Howard Stern say it, "you have to be one hell of a fuck up to lose to Bush."

You (and several people) also exemplify the same point I'm making, just from the other side. This knee-jerk reaction to make it personal against Bush is just as bad. I'd rather people criticize the POLICY, not the person.

I do have a problem with his policy, a huge fucking problem. I could give two fucks if he snorted coke or not.

edit: Also, even though Bush is caught doing/saying a lot of moronic things behind the podium, that show him as being illiterate, if his policy was in the right place, I could forgive the illiteracy (although I'd still laugh at it). As if the catastrophes that are Iraq and Katrina weren't a bad enough mark on his record for me, this anti gay marriage and anti stem cell research bullshit definitely crosses the line. This country was founded on the separation of church and state, and the minute you let your personal religious moral beliefs affect the passing of laws and vetoing of bills that affect the happiness and well being of some of our country's citizens (the gay community and those suffering from debilitations that could benefit from research into stem cells) you have become a piss poor president in my eyes.

democrats=pussies...

This is true if you're talking about "mainstream" democrats. Check out someone like Henry Rollins if you want someone from the left wing who is most certainly NOT a pussy.

edit: yeah I know Henry Rollins isn't a politician, that wasn't my point. I'm just speaking someone who holds very liberal views who isn't a pussy. Not to mention he is extremely smart. Also I don't know if he is exactly a "democrat" or not, just that he is liberal.

 

[theVikingR]

This country was founded on the separation of church and state, and the minute you let your personal religious moral beliefs affect the passing of laws and vetoing of bills that affect the happiness and well being of some of our country's citizens (the gay community and those suffering from debilitations that could benefit from research into stem cells) you have become a piss poor president in my eyes.

Just to play devil's advocate, surely you yourself are exercising some kind of moral decision by placing the lives of those suffering from these diseases above the (potential?) lives of the foetuses that are used to obtain stem cells. In addition since what constitutes human life and how that weighs up against people's happiness are morally debatable topics, it's unavoidable that there is no black and white answer and a moral choice made.
Homosexuality used to be illegal - certainly when the US was founded - perhaps at the cost of the happiness of gays at the time yet the principle of separation of church and state was the same as today. This indicates that the morals of those making the decisions back then are different from those now which means the separation of church and state doesn't imply a consistent answer.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are some issues which inherently rely on a moral decision. For the record, I'm pro stem cell research and indifferent to gay marriage.

 

[Matt]

edit: Also, even though Bush is caught doing/saying a lot of moronic things behind the podium, that show him as being illiterate, if his policy was in the right place, I could forgive the illiteracy (although I'd still laugh at it). As if the catastrophes that are Iraq and Katrina weren't a bad enough mark on his record for me, this anti gay marriage and anti stem cell research bullshit definitely crosses the line. This country was founded on the separation of church and state, and the minute you let your personal religious moral beliefs affect the passing of laws and vetoing of bills that affect the happiness and well being of some of our country's citizens (the gay community and those suffering from debilitations that could benefit from research into stem cells) you have become a piss poor president in my eyes.

You may consider running for office. You'd get my vote..

 

[Yngvai X]

Just to play devil's advocate, surely you yourself are exercising some kind of moral decision by placing the lives of those suffering from these diseases above the (potential?) lives of the foetuses that are used to obtain stem cells. In addition since what constitutes human life and how that weighs up against people's happiness are morally debatable topics, it's unavoidable that there is no black and white answer and a moral choice made.
Homosexuality used to be illegal - certainly when the US was founded - perhaps at the cost of the happiness of gays at the time yet the principle of separation of church and state was the same as today. This indicates that the morals of those making the decisions back then are different from those now which means the separation of church and state doesn't imply a consistent answer.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are some issues which inherently rely on a moral decision. For the record, I'm pro stem cell research and indifferent to gay marriage.

Well, to me, stem cells aren't humans. Until that baby is pulled out of a mother's womb after 9 months, it is the mother's descision to do whatever she wants with it (if you can't tell I'm pro abortion rights as well). If she wants to donate her egg to stem cell research, she has every right to do so. Not to mention coming from a president that is so adamant on "saving the lives" of unborn not-quite-yet humans, while troops and innocent civilians, you know, actual humans, are dying on a daily basis over in Iraq...it boggles my mind.

Also, I don't care if homosexuality used to be illegal...if it did, then it was wrong then, and its wrong now. People don't choose what gender they're attracted to, and no one has any right to restrict a loving couple in any way shape or form regardless of sexual orientation.

 

[theVikingR]

Well, to me, stem cells aren't humans. Until that baby is pulled out of a mother's womb after 9 months, it is the mother's descision to do whatever she wants with it (if you can't tell I'm pro abortion rights as well). If she wants to donate her egg to stem cell research, she has every right to do so. Not to mention coming from a president that is so adamant on "saving the lives" of unborn not-quite-yet humans, while troops and innocent civilians, you know, actual humans, are dying on a daily basis over in Iraq...it boggles my mind.

I don't want to get into the pro-life/choice debate, but I'd reiterate that although you don't think they're humans, that's a distinction you have made that can't be proven as fact and so it comes down to a moral choice. I happen to agree with you however.
I don't want to get into the war debate either , although I will say I think there have been many bad decisions made throughout the whole affair.

Also, I don't care if homosexuality used to be illegal...if it did, then it was wrong then, and its wrong now. People don't choose what gender they're attracted to, and no one has any right to restrict a loving couple in any way shape or form regardless of sexual orientation.

The point still stands though - that laws are made based on people's moral persuasions, and whether you agree with him or not, Bush can veto bills based solely on his moral ideas where there is no clear cut, right or wrong answer. Apparently most of the US trust him enough to do this

 

[J-Dubya 777]

Just to play devil's advocate,

Not a reply to your post, but thanks for fixing your sig....


J-Dubya

 

[theVikingR]

Not a reply to your post, but thanks for fixing your sig....

I haven't changed it. Is that a hint to change it? I thought it was within the size limit.

 

[J-Dubya 777]

My mistake sorry.... See what happens when you try to do work stuff and mod here at the same time.....I need another set of eyes......


J-Dubya

 

[Yngvai X]

The point still stands though - that laws are made based on people's moral persuasions, and whether you agree with him or not, Bush can veto bills based solely on his moral ideas where there is no clear cut, right or wrong answer. Apparently most of the US trust him enough to do this

This is true, but I have a problem with laws created on the basis of a religious doctrine, which both the anti gay rights and anti stem cell laws stem from. Much of the US agrees because much of the US are christian conservatives. I honestly think its frightening that percentages as high as 90% + voted to ban gay marriage in certain states. To me, gay rights is actually way more of a problem than the stem cell issue, because even though there is the moral grey area on what "life" is, anything trying to control the love between two gay or lesbian people stems from homophobia and has no basis in anything else. If a church itself wants to outlaw gay marriage within its sect, then fine, they have the right to do so, but I don't believe a state or federal law should have the right to deny homosexual lovers the legal privlages of marriage simply because they're same sex. Whats next? Banning inter-racial marriages?

 

[Yngvai X]

You may consider running for office. You'd get my vote..

Nah, I'd be a horrible politician. I wouldn't be able to lie to the public the way they usually do with as straight a face as they do.

 

[theVikingR]

This is true, but I have a problem with laws created on the basis of a religious doctrine, which both the anti gay rights and anti stem cell laws stem from. Much of the US agrees because much of the US are christian conservatives. I honestly think its frightening that percentages as high as 90% + voted to ban gay marriage in certain states.

I certainly agree here. It is my personal opinion that no religious text that I have come across is fit to serve as a basis for government, if for no other reason than that most of them were composed with an entirely different society and culture in mind than most modern countries have today. As for establishing law without the guide of a religion, I rather like the idea of certain truths being self-evident from your Declaration of Independence.

To me, gay rights is actually way more of a problem than the stem cell issue, because even though there is the moral grey area on what "life" is, anything trying to control the love between two gay or lesbian people stems from homophobia and has no basis in anything else.

What about the fact that for millions of years all species (not including asexual ones) have survived through heterosexual relationships, and humanity has developed with nuclear families as a basis? Sorry, devil's advocate again