Rock For Bush -- Or Perish
- Thread starter NEW_METAL_ORDER
- Start date
Erik
New Metal Member
Lord SteveO
Hero in a world of demons
Shit what an argument! Well i'll start at the main topic and work through it all.
First, WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT THE MUSIC SCENE IS DURING SOMEONES TIME IN POWER!!! You base your vote on whether you believe the person is going to be good for the country on the whole/your needs. If anyone goes about basing there vote on whether GW is in power when certain music is popular you an a fucking retard and should be banished from the country for being such a retarded twat. That's just wasting your vote.
Musicians are NOT buisinessmen, at least any true musicians shouldn't be. They make the sound they make because they want to and they like it and believe in it, not because they want to get a decent proffit or look good for their shareholders!!!! Whoever it was that said that comment should piss off back to their Britney Spears and other commercial money-making crap.
On the subject of Micheal Moore, well i'm not from the USA and i've never been there so all i know about it is from the news or TV shows. I've not seen F9/11, it comes out today.
I thin it's wrong to try to connect that event with anyone in the US government directly. No politician ever would order such an attack on their own cities just so they could blame someone else and justify a bit of a war, the risk of being found out would be too great. Imagine what would happen if you found out your government wasted 3000 of your civilians and blamed another country to justify a war. That's just sick, and whoever ordered the attack was sick as well.
I'm not sure about all the links made in the film. The trouble is that if people don't want to believe them or strongly support the accused goverenment then they are never gonna act well towards such a film. Yes the film might be seen as propaganda and twisting the truth but i hope to god that those who see it are intelligent enough to read between the lines and make up there own minds. It was bound to be one sided, but it's up to the viewer to decide what THEY believe.
First, WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT THE MUSIC SCENE IS DURING SOMEONES TIME IN POWER!!! You base your vote on whether you believe the person is going to be good for the country on the whole/your needs. If anyone goes about basing there vote on whether GW is in power when certain music is popular you an a fucking retard and should be banished from the country for being such a retarded twat. That's just wasting your vote.
Musicians are NOT buisinessmen, at least any true musicians shouldn't be. They make the sound they make because they want to and they like it and believe in it, not because they want to get a decent proffit or look good for their shareholders!!!! Whoever it was that said that comment should piss off back to their Britney Spears and other commercial money-making crap.
On the subject of Micheal Moore, well i'm not from the USA and i've never been there so all i know about it is from the news or TV shows. I've not seen F9/11, it comes out today.
I thin it's wrong to try to connect that event with anyone in the US government directly. No politician ever would order such an attack on their own cities just so they could blame someone else and justify a bit of a war, the risk of being found out would be too great. Imagine what would happen if you found out your government wasted 3000 of your civilians and blamed another country to justify a war. That's just sick, and whoever ordered the attack was sick as well.
I'm not sure about all the links made in the film. The trouble is that if people don't want to believe them or strongly support the accused goverenment then they are never gonna act well towards such a film. Yes the film might be seen as propaganda and twisting the truth but i hope to god that those who see it are intelligent enough to read between the lines and make up there own minds. It was bound to be one sided, but it's up to the viewer to decide what THEY believe.
Abou
Prog Warrior
First and foremost, 5thSeason you are an assbandit. Many of the things you state yourself is full of shit such as the meeting in the Czech Republic that has not been confirmed and more than likely never happened. Furthermore on this subject, is how stupid you are for actually thinking Micheal Moore hates America... unless you yourself are under the impression that all America is is big business, gun nuts, and the Bush Administration. I would go through the rest of your post but it isn't even worth the time.
Secondly, New Metal Order, that is dumbest shit I have seen in a long time. Aerosmith sucks and so does the fact that you are ignoring that America has a horrible music scene and that most of the greatest bands come from Europe.
Secondly, New Metal Order, that is dumbest shit I have seen in a long time. Aerosmith sucks and so does the fact that you are ignoring that America has a horrible music scene and that most of the greatest bands come from Europe.
TB666
Member
Abou
Prog Warrior
Uhm, lets see...Iridium said:
Needless war: check
Fuck up American economy: check
Destroy National Surplus: check
Giving countless millions to the uber-rich: check
Most of the world hates America: no check
Most of the world hates the Bush Administration: check
stupid, arrogant, imperialistic, and dishonest, the worst president of the 20th century: double check
Nope, Iridium, it looks as though you are the moron.
I assume you are referring to the one in Iraq. Valid reasons:
1. For the last ten years, Iraq has been firing at planes that flew over it.
2. Saddam Hussein was a humanitarian disaster - right now, while chaos reigns (somewhat supreme), the death rate of Iraqis is at 1/3 of what it was before.
3. While any sort of intelligence on WMDs was sketchy at best, Saddam had been known to refuse UN inspectors into his country time and again. He had no WMDs now, but the war was fought with pre-emption in mind (in case he decided to, say, exterminate the Kurds).
However, this was a social engineering project - bringing democracy to a Middle Eastern secular state. People like you seem to bitch out Bush about Iraq, but never Clinton about Kosovo - humanitarian reasons were the only ones he went into Kosovo with.
I know that you are backing up your claims with some credible evidence, which is why it's a bit hard to refute this one.
The economy's regression began very early in his term - economic policies take several years to take effect. Needless to say, we were in an economic bubble before the Bush administration, and it happened to pop when he went into office. Factor in the dot com bubble burst, the horribly effects of 9/11 on the economy, and various energy companies overcharging the government, and you see what "fucked up" our economy. By the way, it is back on the rise right now, with unemployment falling.
The President has no power to spend, that's Congress' job. Moreover, quite a bit of our surplus (12 digits) went into medicare/cal programs, so the elderly wouldn't have to cough up 100 bucks per bottle of pills.
I'm not even going to respond to a statement of such idiocy (bah, can't help it). President Bush lowered taxes for the top - the richest of the country in an effort to employ "reaganomics," the "trickle down economics." With the economy on the rise, this is the best plan available. Also, you have made the mistake of allocating "evil" with "rich" - they still pay the majority of the taxes of this country.
Okay.
It certainly would be nice to see some sort of evidence.
His IQ is estimated to be 118, based on his SAT/entrance exam scores for college. He may be arrogant - it's impossible to debate this. Hardly imperialistic - we have given control over to the Afghani and Iraqi people. Dishonest - show me one instance in which he flat out lied. That would be the "worst president of the 21st century," if anything - also, you have no-one to compare him to this century.
Abou
Prog Warrior
Okay, so:Iridium said:
·He was firing at flying over planes that were to him hostile. Would not fire at them as well?
·Humanitarian is a strong word. I am sure you realize that we give billions of dollars annually to Uzbekistan. Oh, and Clinton never lied to us about going to Kosovo and he listened to his Generals - something the Bush administration does not do.
·Pre-emption to save the Kurds. Hunh, funny seeing as I have never seen that mentioned. Bush and Blair were always blathering on about how we, as in members of the "free" world were in danger. Also, it seems rather evident that any such testing of nuclear weapons or delivery devices would be easily tested as they are with North Korea - a country which is throught to possess upwards of six fission bombs and the means to deliver them all across south Asia.
We were in no economic "bubble" before the Bush administration. People had been investing in the internet, which is somehow Clinton's fault according to conservative economists, for years. Suddenly the thought dawned on them that they do not have any "property" other than the very computer the site is written on. They pulled out and the stock market went down, and fast.
Then the huge tax break came which destroyed our surplus and social security which has been absolutely necessary to make our way through the Baby Boomer generation and beyond. He promised he wouldn't go past the 2.5 trillion mark and yet he did in another tax break. Most of which went to the rich. Furthermore, it turns out that 9-11 only accounts to about 5-6% of our economy meaning that its effects are not nearly so great as it may seem.
Oh, before I continue, unemployment is a doozy let me tell you. Unemployment began falling simply because people's unemployment benefits ran out. Then they started getting jobs; but not the same jobs. We see former managers from one store applying for entry level positions at another. People who used to make $45,000+ are lucky if they can work full time at six dollars an hour. Now factor this in with there are needed to be somewhere around 150,000 to 200,000 jobs created every month just to keep up with new job market entries, and we are in deep shit.
Your comment on the President not being able to spend money, while correct on paper is not correct in practice. The Republican majority in Congress means he can do whatever the fuck he wants - including passing bills that were the mainstay of his election campaign and then never fund them. Does No Child Left Behind ring any bells? Also, you mentioned Medicare. Now that, really makes me laugh - side-splitting laugh. They will be paying $100 a bottle. Many already do since Medicare cannot negotiate pricing with drug companies. So what the hell is the point of the bill since it does nothing to actually help the situation.
I remember Reagonomics too, by the way. I also remember that it didn't work and gipped over the common employee. See, when people such as the upper class get more money, they don't invest it in the common worker as was planned by Reagonomics; they keep it for themselves. So instead of giving more money to the middle and lower class, those who spend money to actually move the economy, they are hired by those who get the tax cuts and those who give bad benefits and low number paychecks to their employees. Sounds familiar - go ahead, scroll up a few lines, I can wait.
Reagonomics does not take into account greedy human nature and that is why it failed in the 80's and that is why it failing now. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In the meantime, the politicians play off fancy words and phrases like "average pay increase" and "thelateral movement is now greater than it was before" and so on.
Hmmm, evidence eh? How about this?It certainly would be nice to see some sort of evidence.
That was taking during Bush's visit to London. You can find doezens more I am sure.
·His IQ is estimated to be 118. And yet he cannot string together a coherent sentence and seems incapable of utilizing the English language.
·He may have given control to the Afghani and Iraqi people but in such a way that we can eagerly and easily intervene if it is found necessary. We will be there fore a decade at least to get things under control and meanwhile bleed it dry - something he was very aware of or had to be if his IQ was really 118.
·Dishones, hmmmm, let us see:
-"By far the majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom."
-Al Qeada and Iraq did not have connections prior to the invasions despite his saying so.
-No WMDs, although that is an easy one.
-He said he would never touch the 2.5 trillion dollars in the Social Security surplus; he did.
There are a few others, but the administration does not like to overtly lie. They enjoy to twist things much more - similar to the pushpolling move they did to McCain throughout the campaign for the Republican nomination.
Well, you got me on that one. It is indeed the 21st Century, but I am sure he will be bad enough that the statement will stand for about fifty years.That would be the "worst president of the 21st century," if anything - also, you have no-one to compare him to this century.
Those planes were patroling the no-fly zone. They were not hostile, as they did not fire on them. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether or not you think it was "right" for him to do so. Firing on American planes who are legally flying in that airspace is justification for military action.
What lies about the War in Iraq has Bush presented?
Furthermore, military action was justifiable for Clinton without UN support where genocide was a mere threat. In Iraq, it was an ongoing effort.Sorry, but you simply don't understand the American Two Party System. You need more than a simple majority to pass a law. And you want to talk about campaign promises? Clinton broke every campaign promise he made except that regarding the Chinese.
He never intended on going into a career where he would need public speaking, thus he never trained for it. Furthermore, most of the world's scientists are incredibly bad public speakers, and yet they're some of the brightest minds of today. Public speaking in no way is a determinent of intelligence.Whoops, wrong again. Please tell me, where did you derive this conclusion from? Because that's in direct contradiction to all facts. Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...
Not one person in any leadership position thought that Saddam didn't have them and/or programs to acquire them. Even Saddam himself thought he had them. Every intelligence agency (including French, Brittish, Israeli, Russian, and Italian) declared he had them. Furthermore, we have found hundreds of weapons against UN Sanction. Oh, and did I mention that we recently airlifted 2 tons of uranium out of Iraq?
Conjecture.
The recession started in 1999. Furthermore, it takes 14 months for a budject to pass, and atleast another year to begin to see effects of it. Fiscal policy doesn't control the economy anymore.
The power to spend rests soley with Congress.
Certainly you can define any tax cut at all for the rich, as Americans are all "rich" compared to much of the world. But doesn't it make sense to give more money back to those who pay the most in? Furthermore, it's much better than the Democratic plan, $500 to the lowest bracket that pay no taxes in.
Got some evidence of this?
Here's 4 legal and legitimate reasons for the war in Iraq:
1. Saddam had never kept a single one of his commitments in the ceasefire agreement, which meant that the 1991 Persian Gulf War was not over.
2. Saddam was waging a genocidal campaign against the Shi'ites in the south -- the so-called "swamp Arabs" -- and was only prevented from slaughtering more Kurds in the north by American planes and Kurdish fighters using American arms. Since the mere threat of genocide was the justification for Clinton's non-U.N.-sanctioned intervention in Kosovo, clearly it would have been justification enough in this case, where the genocide was an ongoing effort.
3. Saddam was firing on American planes several times a week and had been for many years, ample cause and legal justification for invasion at any time.
4. Saddam was a known financer, harborer, trainer, rewarder, and protector of terrorists, including terrorist groups that had declared war against all Americans, as well as terrorist groups that were actively murdering civilians in Israel and Jews in other countries.
1. Saddam had never kept a single one of his commitments in the ceasefire agreement, which meant that the 1991 Persian Gulf War was not over.
2. Saddam was waging a genocidal campaign against the Shi'ites in the south -- the so-called "swamp Arabs" -- and was only prevented from slaughtering more Kurds in the north by American planes and Kurdish fighters using American arms. Since the mere threat of genocide was the justification for Clinton's non-U.N.-sanctioned intervention in Kosovo, clearly it would have been justification enough in this case, where the genocide was an ongoing effort.
3. Saddam was firing on American planes several times a week and had been for many years, ample cause and legal justification for invasion at any time.
4. Saddam was a known financer, harborer, trainer, rewarder, and protector of terrorists, including terrorist groups that had declared war against all Americans, as well as terrorist groups that were actively murdering civilians in Israel and Jews in other countries.
Great fucking points bchornet. Although I'm sure you'll find, as I did in the Moore thread, that your opposition in this debate is less interested in facts as they are in receiving approving nods from their Bush-hating, bandwagon jumping peers.
Hey Erik, let me tell you something. If you find rabid anti-Americanism gratifying, great, but please understand that you still aren't shit. We do what we want because our guns are bigger than yours. In fact you're lucky we don't invade your weak little country and steal your meatballs. There's some American arrogance for you, you Euro-trash cocksucker.
Hey Erik, let me tell you something. If you find rabid anti-Americanism gratifying, great, but please understand that you still aren't shit. We do what we want because our guns are bigger than yours. In fact you're lucky we don't invade your weak little country and steal your meatballs. There's some American arrogance for you, you Euro-trash cocksucker.
Right now I have no intent on looking at the other threads. I was directly linked to this thread from WouldYouHitThis.com by Iridium(this is Anni, right?).
Carbonized
Hermit
- Oct 30, 2001
- 2,251
- 7
- 38
- 48
Yes indeed. But this is low enriched uranium, not enough to create any WMDs by itself but with further processing, all that it would amount to is about enough for one warhead. Low enriched uranium of this grade is typically used for medicinal application.bchornet said:
Theredintheskyisours
It is ours you know.
Thank you.abrasiverock said:
Now that we have settled that: Limbonic Art is so troo!
Back on topic: 2000 seen the rise of Emo and gay Pop-punk bands. But not the rise of metal. Yes, underground metal is gaining ground, but it is no means more popular than those Pop-Punk bands or rap artists.
Heliologue
neologist
If I could, I would quote the entirety of Eric Alterman's "The Book on Bush." Not only is it fairly invective, but well researched and documented as well.
Needless to say, I can't do so, so just a few thoughts:
1. Bchornet, your little rant about Iraq-Al Qaeda connections is all well and good, except for the fact that a government panel officially concluded that such ties are either nonexistent or insignificant. Are you attempting to convince us that you are smarter than an investigative panel? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911/index.html
2. The recession started in 1999? Not even Bush claims it started that early.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001872816_downturn06.html
The quickness of fiscal policy effect is arguable. You'll find just as many people arguing for as against.
3. Whether or not Bush expected to have to speak in public is a moot point. He's the president of the strongest nation in the world, for god's sake. If he can't represent us without stumbling over his tongue, we're in trouble.
4.
Perhaps I will write more later.
Needless to say, I can't do so, so just a few thoughts:
1. Bchornet, your little rant about Iraq-Al Qaeda connections is all well and good, except for the fact that a government panel officially concluded that such ties are either nonexistent or insignificant. Are you attempting to convince us that you are smarter than an investigative panel? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911/index.html
2. The recession started in 1999? Not even Bush claims it started that early.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001872816_downturn06.html
More on this: http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/Seattle Times said:
The quickness of fiscal policy effect is arguable. You'll find just as many people arguing for as against.
3. Whether or not Bush expected to have to speak in public is a moot point. He's the president of the strongest nation in the world, for god's sake. If he can't represent us without stumbling over his tongue, we're in trouble.
4.
Nonsense. A simple majority will allow a president to push bills through. Power in numbers. As to your campaign promise claim, how about some facts, hmm?bchornet said:
Perhaps I will write more later.
Well, I'm assuming you're talking about the 9/11 Commission. Too bad you didn't actually read their findings, rather than spout pure bullshit. They found that no connection existed between 9/11 and Iraq, not between Al Qaeda and Iraq. So while you try to make a point, it's with incorrect information.
"States economists revenue projections shows that inflation-adjusted per-capita General Fund revenues will not return to the pre-recession 1999 levels."
www.ocpp.org/2004/issue040615.pdf
"Grey bar denotes recession: 1999"
www.house.gov/jec/press/2004/02-04-04.pdf
"Cuyahoga Countys new claims for unemployment have remained well
above their pre-recession 1999 levels during all weeks of 2003."
www.ceogc.org/research/CURRSUMY.pdf
"Recession 1999"
www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/Budgt03-04/ BudgetSum03/07_Econ_Outlook.pdf
I'm sure I could find more, these are just the first four I found through a google.
Sorry, but no. It's not arguable. It's a fact that it takes 14 months for a budget to pass. It's a fact that you cannot begin to see results for another year at least. Fiscal policy is inneffective. Monetary policy is what largely effects our economy, which is why Alan Greenspan is the most powerful person in the US. Hell, that's been known since the 80's.
Apparently you cannot distiguish one's points. The point was that public speaking is no determinant of intelligence. You can't judge one's intelligence on how well they speak in public, it's as simple as that. Look at Scientists vs. Actors. Most scientists are poor public speakers, but quite brilliant. Most actors are great public speakers, but don't know their left from their right.Sorry, but no. 51% of Congress is not going to get your laws passed for you.
How about the middle-class tax cut? Health care reform? Bbalancing the budget? Ending welfare as we know it? Lifting Ban on Homosexuals in the military "all together"?
Speedkill
Holy Handkerchief!
bchornet said:
Bullshit. Here's the quote:
Plus this:
Except the Taliban, which they say after I cut the quote off.
That's an Oregon state report. Also, a quote from it:
So, it began in 2001.
Both of the pictures have grey bars in 2001.
That one says it begins in 2000. 1999 was pre-recession. You could have read the sentence after that.
If you look at the picture in there, it has the recession in 2001.
National Bureau of Economic Research says 2001.
That's endorsed by Greg Mankiw, a Bush economic advisor, by the way.
This is not making any sense. If you're a President trying to get legislation passed, you have to have a simple majority in both houses, seeing as you're the president and you're not going to veto it. What are you getting at, that it could be overturned in the courts?
Sorry, I'm going back a little bit for this quote:
I don't really care about debating the Iraq war anymore, but I'm still looking for someone to find me the UN resolution that mentions the no-fly zones or approves an agreement (or just the agreement, even) in which they are contained. I haven't found it. They're illegal as far as I can tell (Kofi Annan agrees as well) and can't be used as a justification.
An odd way to start a thread, but at least it got people arguing. :]
It's good to see that so many of you are passionate about this stuff. I see quite a few errors in intelligence, but that seems to be our national pastime. Just keep reading and arguing folks. I think that our country is getting better because more people are taking political issues to heart.
As for metal and rock and roll being helped by one party or another, they're both the same. Both parties feed off the fears of parents who don't know why their children are so angry. Video games seem to have replaced rock and roll as the prime target, but it's all the same teamwork of the media and politicians feeding off the fear of middle aged middle American parents for ratings and votes.
"Long live rock be it dead or alive."
It's good to see that so many of you are passionate about this stuff. I see quite a few errors in intelligence, but that seems to be our national pastime. Just keep reading and arguing folks. I think that our country is getting better because more people are taking political issues to heart.
As for metal and rock and roll being helped by one party or another, they're both the same. Both parties feed off the fears of parents who don't know why their children are so angry. Video games seem to have replaced rock and roll as the prime target, but it's all the same teamwork of the media and politicians feeding off the fear of middle aged middle American parents for ratings and votes.
"Long live rock be it dead or alive."
Similar threads
