US Election 2004

[Barth Vader]

GOOD POINT, DANG IT!!!!


I was gonna use that exact point if someone tried (futilely, I might add) to rebutt me.

I guess I should quit trying to bait people into debate.

Heh. I said butt.

 

[Captain_Steel]

"Faith" doesn't necessarily equal "religion." People can have "faith" without espousing a particular set of religious beliefs.

Just my opinion...probably stupid too!

Not stupid at all my friend!

I am a man of "faith" who doesn't espouse ANY religion.

I believe in my interpretation of GOD and whether or not mine is the same as anyone else's...I'm not concerned with. In fact, it seems that religions cause a much negativity as they do positivity. But personal spirituality, like mine is not quite a popular thing yet.

People can't accept it too easily.

oh well

 

[Captain_Steel]

Do you think he sings along with the falsetto vocal parts? That would be awesome. Or maybe Laura fills them in in the background.

Good call on the early Death.

no, I think he just kind of sits there tapping his right foot on the floor and slightly banging his head every once in a while.

Except on the Death song: Open Casket where he just completely fuckin rips out the lead vocals!

 

[FauxPerspicacity]

Does having faith necessarily meaning having faith in 'God.'

I dislike most organized religions. Individuals can be intelligent but if they form a group the tendency towards stupidity increases.

 

[Barth Vader]

Does having faith necessarily meaning having faith in 'God.'

No. There are many people who believe in a spiritual world but do not believe in a higher deity in the form of a god. Take animists for example, they worship nature and the concept of one force that binds us together.

Individuals can be intelligent but if they form a group the tendency towards stupidity increases.

....(jaw drops)............that is quite possibly the coolest thing I've ever read.....

to your razor-like wit!!!

 

[Barth Vader]

no, I think he just kind of sits there tapping his right foot on the floor and slightly banging his head every once in a while.

Except on the Death song: Open Casket where he just completely fuckin rips out the lead vocals!

Suddenly, Laura runs into the scene and does a near-flawless air version of the solo (pinch harmonics included, of course). Vice President Cheney hears the ruckus and runs to see what is going on. Upon hearing the classic Death, he pauses for a moment, bows his head, and whispers "Fuckin RIP, Chuck." He then proceeds to rip off his shirt and begins to headbang uncontrollably.

Unfortunately, the ungodly scream of the pinch harmonics ruptures the sinoatrial node (pacemaker) in his heart, and he collapses to the ground. Dubya, who has mysteriously found a microphone, reaches into Cheney's chest and rips out his still-beating heart. After wringing out the last drop of blood, he belts out a King Diamond-esque high pitched WUA HA HA HA HA!!!


Oh my fucking god. I am such a fucking nerd.

 

[metu]

"Faith" doesn't necessarily equal "religion." People can have "faith" without espousing a particular set of religious beliefs.

I agree. I think that Bush's political strategists chose that term because it's so non-descript.

Our government is based on a good deal of Judeo Christian ideals. You can't totoally remove religion from our government since our leaders have based their laws on their religion.

I agree. Also, our elected representatives at least claim to be religious because most of our citizens are. Religion is big in politics because it's big with the people.

-----------------------

It's not separation of religion and government, it's separation of church and state. It's an institutional separation. They are supposed to be kept separate so that neither institution can corrupt the other.

This money is going towards church programs which are meant to help kids deal with social issues, help recovering drug addicts, and other community based social work. This money is very important to these programs and to the churches which implement them. Surely, many of the people who work in these churches, including the preachers, will be greatful for the President's support and will return that support. Those who disagree with his policies, will be concerned that the money will stop coming if they speak up about it. As they consider how much good they could do for their communities with a new basketball court, they become very tempted to go along with his policies. The preachers are then more likely to praise Bush and all that he's doing on Sundays where people are at their most vulnerable. In this, the church is being corrupted and manipulated by the government.

Also, what's to stop the bulk of this money from being specifically given to radical Evangelical churches with firey pro-Bush sermans and agendas? While they're breaking down confused, frightened, and vulnerable kids and addicts to to accept Christ as their savior, will they be giving pro-Bush rhetoric along side the Gospel? Will they be filling their heads with hatred for Muslims? Will they be preparing them for a holy war?

Even if it's not as bad as all that, and it probably isn't, our tax dollars are funding Christian conversions.

Does anyone believe that this money is going to Synagogs and Mosques?

Meanwhile, there are secular, governmental and non-governmental organizations specifically meant to help these same kids, addicts, and others with the same problems, within the same communitees, which are drastically under-funded and have been for years. That's where our tax dollars should go.

 

[Barth Vader]

Meanwhile, there are secular, governmental and non-governmental organizations specifically meant to help these same kids, addicts, and others with the same problems, within the same communitees, which are drastically under-funded and have been for years. That's where our tax dollars should go.

And who is to say that these non-govermental organizations will not corrupt and misuse the money that is given to them?

While I don't really agree that the faith-based initiative or whatever it's called will give rise to that much corruption, you make some valid points. But I don't think that the goal of the faith-based thing is to single out churches that don't support Bush. To purposely give less money to churches/religions/faiths that don't fit a particular political mold goes against the idea of the faith-based initiative in the first place. You may think that Bush will do ANYTHING to get re-elected, but I don't think he'd go against the principles that are driving the whole initiative. If it's between re-election and God, I think he'll go with God.

But that's just my opinion. I don't presume to know the man. If I did, though, that would be pretty cool, cause, you know, he likes Death.

 

[metu]

Not the most rational of arguments, was it? I broke my own rules. ;}

There is a problem with corruption and waste in these governmental as well as non-governmental organizations. That's a fair point, but I think they're less likely to use conversion as their primary goal. Also, in Texas, where he began a similar plan as Governor, these faith based social work centers have been free from the scrutiny which their secular counterparts have had to endure. Rather than the level playing field proposed, the faith based centers are being given priority.

I agree that Bush is probably doing this for the right reasons. He's an ex-coke-head born again Christian. In his experience, religion works. I think that this is why he's so determined to implement the program. I don't think that he would use it as an way to manipulate people into voting for him or to insight religious hatred. I agree that he wouldn't go against the principles of the initiative. The people in charge of distributing the grant money may be less scrupulous.

Since President Bush is campaigning on this issue, I don't consider it to be off topic.

 

[Barth Vader]

He's an ex-coke-head born again Christian.

Oh, posh. You've been watching too much of the Democratic National Convention.

 

[metu]

I'd like to make it clear that I am NOT a Democrat.

In context, I think that was a fair statement. Please don't resort to soundbyte politics. It's how the media is robbing us of our democracy.

 

[Arch]

I'm voting for Nader.

 

[metu]

Why?

 

[metu]

I didn't want to get too off topic on the convention thread, so I decided to post this here. Barth brought up a couple of very good points on that thread and I would like to address them. I usually just post my drunken ramblings, but I worked on this for the last couple of days. They were very good points and very difficult to answer. I hope you don't mind me paraphrasing you, Barth.

Why do the opinions of other countries matter so much?

You may remember that on September 11, 2001, Vladimir Putin offered us humanitarian assistance within a few hours of the terrorist attacks. When the US pummeled and invaded Afghanistan, Putin, against the will of the military elite, the Russian press, and many of his people, gave the US his full support. He wanted Russia to be the primary ally with the US in the war on terror. Putin saw this as a golden opportunity to improve economic and political relations with the West while tackling a very serious threat to both of our countries, the rise of militant Islam in Central Asia.

Many Russians argued that the US was only using terrorism as a smokescreen and that the real reasons for invading Afghanistan were based on gaining economic and political influence over Central Asian oil and natural gas reserves. They openly and frequently accused Putin of being soft on the US and NATO. As Putin was ignoring the criticism and charging full speed ahead, Bush condemned the Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya.

With the invasion and occupation of Iraq, these voices of disapproval of Putin’s policies gained influence as did the more extreme rhetoric of the American quest for World domination. They pointed towards NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe as well as their presence in Afghanistan. They point to radar stations and Air Force bases in Uzbekistan* and Kyrgyzstan* as a direct threat to Russian national security.

Putin has been pushing for a Central Asian alliance to counter the influence of the US and NATO. China, Russia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan*, Uzbekistan*, and Turkmenistan are working together to improve trade and collective security on paper, but in reality, it’s an alliance meant to counter US involvement in the region. Putin has also been supporting Iran’s right to produce nuclear power for energy purposes. In fact, the major power plant in question is being built by a Russian company. As the US protests and insists that the nuclear program be completely dismantled, Putin argues that Iran has the right to build it and the US doesn’t have the right to insist otherwise. His defiance of the US is met with roaring applause by the Russian people.

One thing that communist and radical Islamic propaganda have in common is the constant warning of American imperialism. The propaganda of fear is at the heart of terrorism. Perception is reality.

Rather than like or respect, I’ve found the word trust to be at the core of the issue. People don’t trust our motives. We don’t stand for democracy anymore. We haven’t for a long time. There’s more at stake here than Afghanistan, Iraq, and the war on terror. What will be the primary role of the USA in the post-soviet era?

When we use the WTO to support our corporations at the expense of third world countries, we stand for greed. When we flood markets with our pop-culture and products, we stand for materialism. When we abandon our allies, we stand for indifference. When we support dictatorships, we stand for oppression. When we invade and occupy two countries in 2 years, we stand for imperialism.

When we get the UN far more involved with election monitoring on a global scale, we stand for democracy. When we support international security and cooperation, we stand for peace. When we promote fair trade, we stand for upward mobility. When we support international pollution laws, we stand for hope in a brighter tomorrow.

The troops need stability.

When we change presidents, there is a massive list of presidential appointments which require congressional approval. You may have noticed that Congress is not the most decisive of political institutions. Many of these are military appointments and they go deeper than the Joint Chiefs. I can’t argue that this change won’t cause some inconsistencies among the high command. I can’t argue that no short-term instability through the ranks will result. I do think that the brief and limited instability is easily sustainable, though.

In the short-term, I think that our troops are in very good shape. I will freely admit that, so far, Iraq has not worked out as badly as I feared. Our troops are in very well defended positions. The insurgents know that they would be ineffective if they storm those defenses. They look for soft targets and our troops, now that they’re not going on so many patrols, are the hardest targets around. The real crazy shit is going on in Afghanistan and we don’t even know about it. The Special Forces are out there in the mountains and I’m more concerned with them.

Operational command should remain fluid, though. The Captains and Brigadier Generals should be able to make the transition smoothly as they keep on doing what they’ve been doing until they get further orders.

I would really like to get some input from an American soldier on this issue. Regardless of policy shifts, is the Army well prepared to deal with a change in presidency given that our troops are spread so thinly?

I think that it’s more important to give them long-term stability than worry about a brief transitional period.

Long-term stability is exactly what democracy is meant to achieve. Long-term stability comes from the people being able to change their government without bloodshed. The task before us in Afghanistan and Iraq is tremendous. A democratic government is extremely difficult to stabilize. We won’t make it work in the next six months. We’ll make it work in the next decade.

 

[Barth Vader]

I'm still new at this whole chatboard lingo, but I believe my current status is "owned."

 

[metu]

Not at all. Just do some research and get back to me. :]

 

[TwilightSymphony]

There are a number of reasons that I can think of to not vote for Bush:

• The War on Terror. There was no reason to invade Iraq, other than to set up the "Haliburton Republic" and have a source of oil free of OPEC control. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, as has been proved. Even Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are on videotape stating this as early as February 2001. Think back to the first Gulf War of 1991. Hussein's forces could not withstand the onslaught of the firepower against them that drove them out of Kuwait, and the weapon that they had that could actually make it out of their borders was the SCUD missle. Those missles that actually made it out of the country had to have all or most of their explosives removed to make the trip, so they were essentially throwing rocks at their neighbors. Afghanistan, we had a reason to invade. The Taliban refused to hand over someone who was responsible for the mass murder of almost 3,000 American lives. This same person that has stated that every American - military or civilian - is an open target in his "holy war." Iraq has also not been a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States or its interests since 1993 after a failed assassination attempt on former President George H.W. Bush. Also, by invading Iraq and not securing its borders, terrorist groups sympathetic to or in affiliation with al Qaeda have gained entry into that nation.
• There have been no new jobs created since he's come into office. To the best of my knowledge, we've actually lost more jobs than have been gained thanks to his tax cuts for the upper class.
• He's spent more time on vacation than any President in recent history. How would you feel if you were one of our fighting military men and women in Iraq or Afghanistan and you knew that your Commander in Chief was spending every weekend at Camp David and most of the summer at his ranch in Crawford, Texas while you risked life and limb for a war against a nation that was entered into under false pretenses? Believe me, it was the reason why I voted against his father when I was a young enlisted man.
• He has proposed - or made - cuts to the miltary budget, including imminent danger (combat) pay and family seperation allowances for the previously mentioned military members overseas. He's also cut training funds to the US armed forces in order to keep the tax cuts to the rich in place. Reports continue to come out in the news that our troops don't have enough body armor to be ignored.
• He's cut taxes during war time. No leader in HISTORY has EVER cut or not raised taxes during a war. So, how are we paying for this war? Wild deficit spending.
• He's against stem cell research supposedly because he's adamantly against abortion. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.
• The "No Child Left Behind" Act. Great idea. Of course, like the majority of his ideas, he's never funded them. The majority of Repulicans always seem to be "Pro Life" until such time as the baby is actually born. Then, they don't want to know anything about you until you reach military age. Remember, they need live babies to make dead soldiers.
• Gay marriage. Why should he care what consenting adults do sexually in the privacy of their own home?
• He has no real military experience. Air National Guard "Champagne Unit," is about it and he can't even account for 3 months of the time that he was in. Is it just a mere coincidence that those records could not be found? I don't think so.

As to some of the mis-statements on this thread:

• To register to vote, you simply need to contact your local Registrar of Voters. All American citizens are allowed to vote if they are (1) 18 or over at the time of the next election; or, (2) do not have any felony convictions that will bar them from voting. You do not need to register for Selective Service in order to vote - my sister's boyfriend didn't register for Selective Service until he was in his 20's and he had already voted in the previous election.
• Our military is not in the shape that it needs to be. The Pentagon has stated several divisions need to be brought back up to specifications in order to return those troops who've returned from Iraq back into fighting. The forces in Iraq aren't well prepared for the type of fighting (guerilla urban combat) that is going on. Most of the training is based on jungle training. Some things work; others don't translate very well.

The military continues to function regardless of who is in charge. There was no change in the day to day schedule when I was enlisted in the US Navy and I served through 3 different presidents (Reagan, Bush and Clinton).

I'll continue this when I get some sleep.

 

[Pessimism]

so then, who would be an ideal commander in chief in your opinion and why?
frankly, i dont know much about about either candidate other than they have their own agendas and are more than likely lying to the public to get their way. i realize this view is harsh, but just look at everything and you will see an obvious reason to why i think this simple on such a manner for the current moment.

i hate politicans, they have no right to be in office - the term politician to me has become nothing more than a derogatory term (when referring to the older gentlemen in public power)

i still respect everyones opinions, so can anyone give me good places to get information (mostly unbiased if possible) so i can make a better, more educated desicion?

 

[TwilightSymphony]

so then, who would be an ideal commander in chief in your opinion and why?

i still respect everyones opinions, so can anyone give me good places to get information (mostly unbiased if possible) so i can make a better, more educated desicion?

The ideal Commander-in-Chief would already have had military experience. Those of us who have actually served in military units know the kind of stress that occurs when you know that there's a possibilty that the situation of the world can lead to you being one of the first people killed. Kerry volunteered to join the US Navy (a military branch that does not draft its members) during Vietnam and came back with the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Heart medals. Bush can't make that claim and to try to call into question how he got the medals he was issued is insulting to many veterans (many of whom are also insulted that Bush continues to try to cut veterans benefits).

Politicians lie? Who would have thought it possible? Politicians are simply following the whims of whoever is making the most campaign contributions and kickbacks...usually corporations. How else would the United Fruit Company have been able to have leaders in South America overthrown and have their own puppet dictators put in?

For unbiased information, check your news sources. Be especially wary of any news group that is endorsed or approved of by any political party (which is exactly what the Republican Party has done for Fox News). While most try to deride the small, independent news magazines (i.e. Mother Jones and others) as being unreputable, "liberal" news sources, they do end up providing more factual reporting then any of the newspapers, news magazines and news shows that are being produced by those corporations that control the majority of the news that is distributed in this country. Most of the corporations are controlled by conservative corporate CEOs who will accuse their competition of being "liberal" because they're not as conservative as they are. They're called "the Big 5," and they are Viacom (owners of CBS television and its affiliated news departments); Disney (owners of ABC television and its affiliated news departments); Bertelsmann (the largest printer of books in the United States); Time Warner (owners of Time Magazine and others); and News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch's FOX News Channel and FOX Network and owner of several magazines). You can also add to this General Electric - owners of NBC and one of the largest contractors to the military for equipment. For a written account of all the hidden scene stuff going on in the major media in this country, read Ben H. Bagdikian's, The New Media Monopoly, now available at your local bookstore.

 

[Pessimism]

i will read that book, im always looking for new ones (i dont have many to begin with though - no $)

i know that finding an unbiased source is impossible really, but still knowing the major parties that give, well, lets just say "partial information" is very helpful. some things like fox and viacom, i find it very easy to see which party they keep on good terms with; i also tend to stay away from there news broadcasts. are their any online news sites that are good to check out news information?

but i have heard from random people that kerry got all those medals in ~4 months, to me and my family (which is full of military history) they said that is a lot of medals for such a short amount of time, and that he wasnt even in vietnam for (i believe they said the letter half of his term, not sure "he left vietnam and returned to it with 4 medals, how the fuck did that happen?" it was along the lines of that, i cant remember the complete context so forgive me).

i for one am really just hearing a bunch of slander from the republicans and the democrats. which makes me wonder why people would even vote for a man whose teams are acting so childlishly to get a title that only the strongest, bravest, and most intelligent of men should recieve