• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

US Elections Lets vote, for president

mikecash wrote....
I'm just trying to figure out since when a senator is a low-level politician. Low-life politicians, yeah, I can see that. But low-level? No.
Click to expand...

Lower than the president and having much less authority.

Maciamo wrote....
Is everything allowed in the US under the first amendment ? What about slander, diffamation, etc.
Click to expand...

No, those kinds of things are not accepted. Even for things that are "legal", there are strong social pressures against things like racist comments. But I don't think you should be arrested just for being an a@@h*le.

...he also wrote...
I think that many American people give to much importance to the rights their constitution grants them
Click to expand...

The fact that they're so important to us is the reason we still have them. Things like being able to speak your mind and practice your religion in the way you see fit are necessary to have freedom.
 
PaulTB said:
I see Kerry has 84.21% of the poll.

Am I the first to suggest that is a reflection that this is an international forum an non-Americans don't like Bush?

(Not that I intend to imply that all Americans do support Bush)
Click to expand...

I'm going to vote for Bush, thank Michael Moore. Until I started seeing his ugly mug all over the Google News roundup every time I looked, I had pretty much decided to leave the presidential slot on my ballot unpunched, since I don't like Rumsfeld or Ashcroft and disapprove of the way the Guantanamo thing has been handled.

And the poll would have been much more interesting if it had been limited to voting age Americans who will actually vote.
 
Brooker said:
Bush also went into this endeavor half cocked without a solid plan for what they'd do once they got there. What could be more dangerous than sending soldiers into a situation without considering (or underestimating) the dangers they'd face?
Click to expand...


When will people realise that one man doesn't make all of the decisions....he has advisors! And as far as war is concerned, do you really think that he would make the big decisions on his own? There are some people called the Joint Chiefs of Staff who come up with these plans for war. If anyone underestimated the dangers of war, they would be the ones to blame!
 
The president has enough authority to sway things the way he wants them to go and Bush was really pushing for this war. Sure, so were Cheney and Rumsfeld, and I blame them too. I'm an equal opportunity blamer. THEY'RE ALL AT FAULT BUT I PUT A MAJORITY OF THE BLAME FIRMLY ON BUSH'S SHOULDERS. He needs to take responsibility for his actions rather than trying to pass the responsibility off to those below him.
 
Well it is nice for someone on here to finally say it! I have not been arguing that he is blameless, but I have been waiting for someone to acknowledge that he is not the only one at fault!
 
cross-platform said:
Yea, I see your point, and you are totally right. Hell, gun toting christian wackos already have too much power. But, that is supposed to be the beauty of the U.S, everyone is supposed to have their say, wether they are right or wrong. I don't agree with what the KKK has to say, but they have the right to say what they want, and they should, even if they are unbelievably wrong. The bad side is that the wackos can weasel their policies in, or prevent policies they don't like. I dunno, I guess any way is going to have it's bad points, I just think there needs to be a wider array of people represented in our government.

I guess the point I am trying to make is, I am just tired of the same old thing. 4 years from now, people will be complaining about Kerry taking away their rights, and will vote in the next a-hole that will be just as bad as Kerry and Bush.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that everyone should have the right to voice their opinions no matter how insane they are, but thats a bit different from saying that the US should modify its electoral system so as to allow greater access to fringe political parties.

I liked the way Greg Palast described the difference between Bush and Kerry. If having Kerry as president is like getting a slap in the face, then having Bush is like getting a brick in the skull.
 
senseiman said:
I liked the way Greg Palast described the difference between Bush and Kerry. If having Kerry as president is like getting a slap in the face, then having Bush is like getting a brick in the skull.
Click to expand...

But yet we are still being slapped around. It is like saying a man who beats his wife is ok, because he didn't kill her. The woman is certainly better off only being beaten, but what is going is still wrong. She would be much better off finding someone who wouldn't beat her at all. I know it is easier said than done in in the political world, but it is something to work toward.
 
Brooker said:
The teacher scenario is a little silly. Teaching incorrect information has nothing to do with free speech, that's just poor teaching.
Click to expand...

So, do you think that it's alright to teach Creationism in schools? By the way, that does have to do with free speech. Free speech allows you to say whatever you want, and spreading lies is part of that.

Of course, there seem to be some discrepancies here. If someone is insane and goes around saying that the moon doesn't exist, then most people will just dismiss him. No damage is really done. I'll grant that if someone wants to say something ridiculous, then they should be able to say it without penalty other than showing their ignorance. However, if someone is using speech to manipulate or harm people, then I believe that it shouldn't be allowed, because it goes against others' rights.

Do you believe that Bush should have been allowed to give everyone half-truths and lies about Iraq's "eminent danger" and connection to Al-Qaida, and using them as justifications for war, without any proof? Do you think that people shouldn't be able to sue him for lying about a nation's ability to attack us, and those lies leading us into a war that we shouldn't have fought? According to the universal right to free speech, he shouldn't be punished for this.
 
I think Kerry would be a better president then W. Bush. So I hope he wins, but the elections are probably going to be a close call.
 
mikecash said:
1. Rush lost weight. Moore is still fat. Though what weight has to do with anything is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Nothing. What's having an ugly mug got to do with anything?

They're both just thrown in as おまけ when the topic turns to someone you have other reasons (valid or not) to be pissed off with.
 
Overly-frequent exposure to his ugly mug got me wondering who the hell he is. The more I read about him, the more I decided that I wouldn't leave the presidential vote untouched on my ballot after all.
 
mikecash said:
Overly-frequent exposure to his ugly mug got me wondering who the hell he is. The more I read about him, the more I decided that I wouldn't leave the presidential vote untouched on my ballot after all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Rush'll do that to you. What a dink, eh?
 
senseiman said:
Yeah, Rush'll do that to you. What a dink, eh?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if that's subtle sarcasm or a complete ヒュー～. :?
 
Glenn wrote....
So, do you think that it's alright to teach Creationism in schools? By the way, that does have to do with free speech. Free speech allows you to say whatever you want, and spreading lies is part of that.
Click to expand...

The school scenario is silly because every school district has it's own rules on what can and can't be taught. If a teacher were to teach something like Creationism they would be stopped because that's not approved by the school district. So I'm not seeing how that scenario applies to the issue of free speech.

...and...
Do you believe that Bush should have been allowed to give everyone half-truths and lies about Iraq's "eminent danger" and connection to Al-Qaida, and using them as justifications for war, without any proof? Do you think that people shouldn't be able to sue him for lying about a nation's ability to attack us, and those lies leading us into a war that we shouldn't have fought? According to the universal right to free speech, he shouldn't be punished for this.
Click to expand...

Although the tought of throwing Bush in jail for what he's done does appeal to me, are you saying you'd like to make lying illegal? Good luck. I don't think any country could pull that off.
 
mikecash said:
In what way? Elaborate if you would, please.
Click to expand...

In what way is Rush a dink? Isn't it self evident? He lies, he insults, he demeans other people, he espouses warped political views, he talks tough like an armchair general while never having actually served his country himself, he champions 'family values' while he is twice divorced, he demands harsh crackdowns on crime and crack dealers while he himself is a drug addict....The man talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. He is nothing but a hypocritical bullshit artist, and not a very good one at that.
 
senseiman said:
In what way is Rush a dink? Isn't it self evident? He lies, he insults, he demeans other people, he espouses warped political views, he talks tough like an armchair general while never having actually served his country himself, he champions 'family values' while he is twice divorced, he demands harsh crackdowns on crime and crack dealers while he himself is a drug addict....The man talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. He is nothing but a hypocritical bullshit artist, and not a very good one at that.
Click to expand...

Thrice divorced. He and Marta just called it quits.

Yes, he does insult and demean. He is far from having a monopoly on that, though. Neither do conservatives in general have a monopoly on it, for what very little that is worth.

Could you tell me the last time you heard him demand a harsh crackdown on crime and crack dealers? He hasn't mentioned it in the last eight years, largely due to awareness of his own lack of room to talk on the matter.

I wasn't aware that prior military service was a prerequisite for having views on the use of the military. Since there are approximately 300 million Americans who don't have experience of being President, I guess we will all have to stop second-guessing Bush, now won't we?

I appreciate your taking the time to reply to my request to elaborate (sincerely, I do). But would you do me the further favor of listing some of the warped political views you alluded to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
mikecash said:
I wasn't aware that prior military service was a prerequisite for having views on the use of the military. Since there are approximately 300 million Americans who don't have experience of being President, I guess we will all have to stop second-guessing Bush, now won't we?
Click to expand...


LOL, Mike I couldn't agree with you more on this point! ROFL :relief:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top