TorilMUD Forums

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20622409/

For the people who blame Bush for European sentiment:
"Though more than three-quarters of Europeans polled said they disapproved of Bush’s international policies, only slightly more than a third said they believed that relations would improve with a new president."

For the people who told me that Europeans hate Americans:
"Slightly more than half of Europeans still believed that the European Union should cooperate with the United States in dealing with threats."

Really, I don't give a shit whether or not Europeans like us. We're kind of stuck in the same boat anyway. They'll come around eventually.

teflor the ranger wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20622409/

For the people who blame Bush for European sentiment:
"Though more than three-quarters of Europeans polled said they disapproved of Bush’s international policies, only slightly more than a third said they believed that relations would improve with a new president."

Which only means they expect us to elect someone else on Bush's level, not that he didn't cause such sentiment in the first place.

For the people who told me that Europeans hate Americans:
"Slightly more than half of Europeans still believed that the European Union should cooperate with the United States in dealing with threats."

Yes, because humans are more than willing to use people they hate to attain their own ends. They want to cooperate with us so our military is out doing the dirty work their militaries can't.

Further, if only slightly more than half of all Europeans are willing to put up with us for military support something is very, very wrong.

teflor the ranger wrote:For the people who told me that Europeans hate Americans:
"Slightly more than half of Europeans still believed that the European Union should cooperate with the United States in dealing with threats."

I often wish that people I hate would do things to benefit me. Doesn't make me hate them less, though.

teflor the ranger wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20622409/

For the people who blame Bush for European sentiment:
"Though more than three-quarters of Europeans polled said they disapproved of Bush’s international policies, only slightly more than a third said they believed that relations would improve with a new president."

Translation: Bush fucked it up so bad that not even kicking him to the curb will fix the damage right away.

For the people who told me that Europeans hate Americans:
"Slightly more than half of Europeans still believed that the European Union should cooperate with the United States in dealing with threats."

Translation: Almost half of Europeans believe that the EU should tell the United States to go fuck themselves.

This game is easy.

I'd still vote Bush a third term.

Unfortunately, I'm probably just going to get the opportunity to bitch about democrat screwups for 8 more years.

kiryan wrote:I'd still vote Bush a third term.

Yes, well, there are still people who believe the sun revolves around the earth, too.

Truthfully, no matter which screw up will be in office, Our problems are not because of one man or woman. They might start with Him/Her, but it's the Congress that usually gets the final say and/or the ability to change the way things happen.

So truthfully, we have about 537 or so people to blame.


Grum

Grumdikanikus wrote:Truthfully, no matter which screw up will be in office, Our problems are not because of one man or woman. They might start with Him/Her, but it's the Congress that usually gets the final say and/or the ability to change the way things happen.

Umm... no. The President has the final say. That's actually the point of his job, he has veto power over anything Congress can decide.

(Well, more or less.)

The President also has "signing statements" which means he can change anything that does come through congress to whatever he wants.

Not that congress isn't fucking up, but saying the President doesn't have the final say is just wrong.

(Go ahead Corth, post your sign again. :P )

True in some case but I know in the Law making procedures, Congress can turn over Vetoes. Thus we have Checks and Balances.

Sarvis wrote:(Go ahead Corth, post your sign again. :P )

Your wish is my command!

<img src="http://rathipon.com/pedantic.png">

Even though you don't deserve it this time!

Grumdikanikus wrote:True in some case but I know in the Law making procedures, Congress can turn over Vetoes. Thus we have Checks and Balances.

Hrm... wonder if the President gets signing statements in that case.

Anyway, not really an issue since Bush almost never vetoed anything. :P

Just gonna throw this in here cause I don't want to start an entire thread for it..

Gotta love how Bin Laden characterizes the US system of government as one meant solely to enrich the 'corporations', and then goes on to praise Noam Chomsky. Its like hes getting his talking points straight from Sarvis! :)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... pe-ir.html

Sarvis, the Congress can simply not do anything. Yes, the President can veto, but the Congress can also not send up bills to continue funding the war. No funding equals the end of the war.

I do have to point out that Congress does indeed have the power to 'end' the war right now.

Congress gets the final say in some matters. The Presidency gets the final say in quite a few matters too.

The Supreme Court, however gets the absolute final say (again, only in some matters). And even then, it has to talk until it's blue in the face - with new appointees from the President... approved by Congress.

So... I hope you can see that the final say rests with the people and the second amendment.

Corth wrote:Just gonna throw this in here cause I don't want to start an entire thread for it..

Gotta love how Bin Laden characterizes the US system of government as one meant solely to enrich the 'corporations', and then goes on to praise Noam Chomsky. Its like hes getting his talking points straight from Sarvis! :)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... pe-ir.html

Except I never said anything like that...

<b>Lathander</b>

Unofficially, the President just launches a propaganda campaign making it look like Congress doesn't care about the troops so that their political careers are hurt.

It just happened a few months ago, dude.

<b>Teflor</b>

So... I hope you can see that the final say rests with the people and the second amendment.

Yeah, that's realistic.

Ragorn wrote:

teflor the ranger wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20622409/

For the people who blame Bush for European sentiment:
"Though more than three-quarters of Europeans polled said they disapproved of Bush’s international policies, only slightly more than a third said they believed that relations would improve with a new president."

Translation: Bush fucked it up so bad that not even kicking him to the curb will fix the damage right away.

For the people who told me that Europeans hate Americans:
"Slightly more than half of Europeans still believed that the European Union should cooperate with the United States in dealing with threats."

Translation: Almost half of Europeans believe that the EU should tell the United States to go fuck themselves.

This game is easy.

It is easy if all you're looking to give are weak responses.

Sarvis wrote:

So... I hope you can see that the final say rests with the people and the second amendment.

Yeah, that's realistic.

You don't know much about the modern and ancient history of the relationship between governments and the people do you? The people and their arms have turned the tides of government many times, and not just in history.

To give you an idea of the importance of the people's rights to bear arms, let me give you a quote from a famous gun nut:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Mahatma (Mohandas) Gandhi

teflor the ranger wrote:

Sarvis wrote:

So... I hope you can see that the final say rests with the people and the second amendment.

Yeah, that's realistic.

You don't know much about the modern and ancient history of the relationship between governments and the people do you? The people and their arms have turned the tides of government many times, and not just in history.

To give you an idea of the importance of the people's rights to bear arms, let me give you a quote from a famous gun nut:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Mahatma (Mohandas) Gandhi

In how many cases did the governments of history have the military the US does?

Hell, Iraq is better armed than the American populace and doesn't seem capable of beating our army!

Sarvis wrote:

teflor the ranger wrote:

Sarvis wrote:

So... I hope you can see that the final say rests with the people and the second amendment.

Yeah, that's realistic.

You don't know much about the modern and ancient history of the relationship between governments and the people do you? The people and their arms have turned the tides of government many times, and not just in history.

To give you an idea of the importance of the people's rights to bear arms, let me give you a quote from a famous gun nut:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Mahatma (Mohandas) Gandhi

In how many cases did the governments of history have the military the US does?

Hell, Iraq is better armed than the American populace and doesn't seem capable of beating our army!

Yeah, I'm pretty sure smartbombs + tanks are a bit better than my 1927 .22 pistol...

Sarvis, if the Dems can't defend their withholding funding for the war and thereby ending it, then how can it be the right thing? I guess you're right, their careers are more important than doing what they think is right.

That new Osama video seems rather bogus. Not only is he dressed similar to the 2004 video, but the video actually stops and turns into a still image after a couple minutes, before he makes any current events references.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bba_1189264533

Lathander wrote:Sarvis, if the Dems can't defend their withholding funding for the war and thereby ending it, then how can it be the right thing? I guess you're right, their careers are more important than doing what they think is right.

Oh fucking please. The Democrats DID try this. They couldn't defend it because all people ever fucking listen to are dumbed down soundbites from Fox news. HEll, Kerry lost for the same reason: He couldn't explain complexities in simple enough terms for people to digest on a 30 second soundbite. Bush exploits the shit out of that.

The Democrats: We aren't signing the funding bill until you give us an exit strategy.

The Soundbite: We aren't signing the funding bill...

The President: The Democrats don't want our troops to have adequate body armor and weapons!

So yeah, 5 minutes later the Teflors of the world are reaching for their rifles demanding funding for the war.

Sarvis wrote:In how many cases did the governments of history have the military the US does?

For the times? Quite a few. How many cases in history have the people numbered 300 million?

Sarvis wrote:Hell, Iraq is better armed than the American populace and doesn't seem capable of beating our army!

This is completely reliant upon the grossly ignorant assumption that the pouplace is trying to 'beat' our army. The majority of the populace is making no effort to do any such thing.

Welcome to politics. Regardless, it doesn't matter much. By 2008, the Republican party will be largely routed, holding minority seats in both the House and the Senate, and they won't have the presidency. The Senate will be blue enough that Liberman won't be able to play the swing vote.

It's nice to see Virginia, a historically Republican state with a Republican-held state congress, rapidly making the move to more progressive candidates. We booted Macaca out last year, and Warner has pledged to step down next year, so the Dems will hold both Virginia Senate seats. The House will stay largely con-dominated for a long time to come, and there isn't much we can do about that because of successful redistricting efforts by the Republican government.

Redistricting has ensured that a large proportion of Northern Virginia's wealthy, educated population are all crammed one small district. That leaves a large geographic region sparsely populated by isolated farmers to hold up Republican candidates. Nothing we can do about that. Virginia Tech has a large enough population of young, educated voters that its district is represented by a Democrat, but JMU and UVA are split into two districts, even though they're about 50 miles away from each other. When they split the universities, both schools found themselves unable to put up enough votes to overcome the miles and miles of backwater voters, and both schools now sit in red territory. Obviously, Richmond votes Democrat, as most large cities do.

But anyway, Democratic governor, one Dem Senator soon to be joined by a second, and several blue Congressmen. Such a refreshing change of pace from the way things were a decade ago, when Virginia was counted by Republican presidential candidates months before the election.

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

I make a difference too!

You guys have the right intentions but use the wrong outlets.

teflor the ranger wrote:

Sarvis wrote:In how many cases did the governments of history have the military the US does?

For the times? Quite a few. How many cases in history have the people numbered 300 million?

I'm sorry, but a guy wearing platemail and riding a horse is just not comparable to a tank. You can kill the former with enough peasants and pitchforks, whereas we don't have anything available to us that can actually harm a tank!

Sarvis wrote:Hell, Iraq is better armed than the American populace and doesn't seem capable of beating our army!

This is completely reliant upon the grossly ignorant assumption that the pouplace is trying to 'beat' our army. The majority of the populace is making no effort to do any such thing.

You think there would be a difference here? Look at the strife between Democrats and Republicans, it's becoming almost religious! You'd have half the populace wanting to fight, with about half of those being capable of it, and half of THAT being willing. They'd just be the "evil rebels out to destroy the American way of life!"

Rebellion is no easy thing.

I don't know Rags. Dems have their own troubles. Assuming Hillary is the Dem candidate, she has a huge negative rating in the country and is likely to be the biggest reason the Conservative vote turns out in big numbers. Also, the Dems won a number of traditionally conservative seats in the House two years ago. They are going to have trouble holding on to those.

At this point, Bush really doesn't figure into politics. He's an unpopular, lame duck president. If anything, he has successfully thrown the whole Iraq mess on to the Democrat Congress. Reid and Pelosi have shown an inability to lead by accomplishing very little. That is why Congress' rating is lower than even Bush.

I expect the right kind of Republican to win against Hillary in the general election. That should be enough to either keep the House close or even win it back. I expect the Republicans will lose 2 or 3 seats in the Senate although that might be a little gloom and doom.

Sarvis wrote:I'm sorry, but a guy wearing platemail and riding a horse is just not comparable to a tank.

Paladins and antis are tanks too dammit!

/derail

Lathander wrote:At this point, Bush really doesn't figure into politics. He's an unpopular, lame duck president. If anything, he has successfully thrown the whole Iraq mess on to the Democrat Congress. Reid and Pelosi have shown an inability to lead by accomplishing very little. That is why Congress' rating is lower than even Bush.

Exactly the opposite. Bush's Administration is actively crumbling, and it seems like every Friday at 4pm another high-ranking Bush appointee "resigns" to "spend more time with his family." Bush has done nothing with Iraq except prove he will stubbornly fight the Democrats' every effort to subvert his own personal agenda, and he comes off looking like a petulant child for it. Bush is still very much an active political figure, if for no other reason than the Republican candidates up for election next year need to prove how much distance there is between them and Bush.

Congress's approval rating is historically lower than the President's in almost every instance, because of the diversity of opinions in the group. As left-wing as I am, I can certainly point to Ted Stevens or any number of other pork-barrelling Republicans and say I disapprove of how they handle taxpayer money. We're only really hearing about Congress's approval rating now because Bush's are so low... it's a conservative tactic to divert attention away from the real problems, a tactic we've seen predictably repeated every time there's a crisis in the White House.

Dig around the records and find a time period in American history where the President's approval rating has been low and Congress's has been high. I haven't been able to find an example, maybe you can.

It doesn't much matter... we're all going to be f'ed up the ass so hard once Hillary gets in it isn't even funny.

rylan wrote:It doesn't much matter... we're all going to be f'ed up the ass so hard once Hillary gets in it isn't even funny.

Why?

I think a discussion on that would need its own thread :P

has there ever been an elected leader anywhere that everyone approved of? Who cares what Europe thinks anyway, we don't elect people to please them so they can f%^& off imo. Didn't people bitch when we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait? I find it interesting that the European nations don't speak out about the organ harvesting and sale in China, apparely that's morally ok with them.... Countries are jealous of our wealth and power point blank.

Latreg wrote:has there ever been an elected leader anywhere that everyone approved of? Who cares what Europe thinks anyway, we don't elect people to please them so they can f%^& off imo. Didn't people bitch when we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait? I find it interesting that the European nations don't speak out about the organ harvesting and sale in China, apparely that's morally ok with them.... Countries are jealous of our wealth and power point blank.

I want to say that I'm shocked, but this is pretty much the mentality of the people who still support Bush.

Yeah man, it's totally cool if Europe doesn't like us. They're all like, so totally jealous of our power and money and shit. Other countries should like, shut the fuck up and worry about China and just let us make the world safe without all like, getting up in our faces and shit.

Totally.

rylan wrote:I think a discussion on that would need its own thread :P

You realize I asked the question with the full expectation that you wouldn't produce any actual reasons for being against Hillary, right?

Thanks.

<b>Latreg</b>

Yeah, Diplomacy and International Relations are for teh losars!!1!one!

Sarvis wrote:

rylan wrote:I think a discussion on that would need its own thread :P

You realize I asked the question with the full expectation that you wouldn't produce any actual reasons for being against Hillary, right?

He heard that on TV dumas.

I think we should elect a celebrity to put an exclamation point on our graceful fall from prominence as a country.

I hate to admit it but Hillary is the only viable Democratic presidential candidate who I think can be trusted to hold the office of presidency. Particuarly what sticks in my mind is Obama's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/07/obama.pakistan/index.html?iref=newssearch">comments about Pakistan</a> which were completely irresponsible for a prominent US politician. Hillary is not particular likeable, in fact she and her husband are downright sleezy, but she does seem to have a responsible mentality when it comes to foreign affairs, though her socialist domestic agenda will be horrible for the country in the long term. Since the American people are probably due to elect a democrat, especially after GWB's failed administration, I am actually rooting for her in the primaries. I never thought I would see the day...

The main reason I think we'd be screwed is as Corth mentioned, her extreme socialist domestic agendas. And I'm really not too comfortable with her being in charge of defending this country either, since she is quite anti-military.

I hate to say it too, but Obama scares me more than Hillary after his idiotic comments regarding other countries and his pathetic campaign ad in Spanish. If Obama wasn't black, he would be ignored by the press and have almost zero support.

Corth wrote:I hate to admit it but Hillary is the only viable Democratic presidential candidate who I think can be trusted to hold the office of presidency. Particuarly what sticks in my mind is Obama's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/07/obama.pakistan/index.html?iref=newssearch">comments about Pakistan</a> which were completely irresponsible for a prominent US politician.

To come out and announce your willingness to invade a country might not be the most politically savvy campaign tactic, but the sentiment behind it is what people want to hear. Conservatives in America are out for blood... kick Iraq's ass, go stomp on Iran, keep North Korea on a short leash, don't take any shit from China... so it's surprising to me that these same conservatives are all up in arms about Obama's statement regarding Pakistan. In any case, his statement is certainly less offensive than Condi labelling Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as EVIL. I about lost my mind when our Secretary of State, one of our country's chief diplomats, declared two countries we're at peace with to be Enemies of Democracy. You just don't do that shit.

But anyway, I favor Obama over Clinton, simply because I'm not entirely comfortable with Hillary's take on civil rights. Foreign policy is a touchy subject, but Obama would have voices in his ears helping him establish that policy. Hopefully, he'd pick some intelligent advisors. Hillary is more self-confident and less likely to accept moderation, and I fear she would pick up Bushie's unilateral approach to government.

The Socialism, I can handle that. I support a lot of it. Yes, even as a married white male with a steady job and taxes to pay, I still support universal health care and social programs.

Imo, it will take sweet-talkers like the Clintons to pull us out of our foriegn affairs shithole we're in now. Are they sleezy? Yeah, but what politician isn't? Seriously. Did Bill get some bj's in office? Yeah, but it's better than getting caught trying to seduce underage boys, right? Politicians and the wealthy don't marry for love, they marry for career. I'd put money on it saying him and Hillary have an agreement that he can do what he wants as long as he keeps it hidden...

The biggest thing I'm looking for in a president right now is the ability to handle foreign relations, and take some money away from the military budget and get our guys out safely at the same time. I think she can do it. I also wouldn't mind having Bill back in office either :)

Sarvis wrote:

teflor the ranger wrote:

Sarvis wrote:In how many cases did the governments of history have the military the US does?

For the times? Quite a few. How many cases in history have the people numbered 300 million?

I'm sorry, but a guy wearing platemail and riding a horse is just not comparable to a tank. You can kill the former with enough peasants and pitchforks, whereas we don't have anything available to us that can actually harm a tank!

It's painfully clear that you know absolutely nothing about military science, tactics, or engineering. Your continued input on the matter will simply be labeled ignorance, particulary in light of the fact that you have not even considered the armies of the Soviet Union, Napoleon, or the British Empire.

A hundred militaries in history have wielded as much if not more power over their citizenry. You just don't know what you're talking about.

"Oh but Teflor, what about my stupid point about a tank?"

Have you ever used a shovel before? You can't even think of the most simple solutions and yet you just keep yammering on and on.

teflor the ranger wrote:Have you ever used a shovel before? You can't even think of the most simple solutions and yet you just keep yammering on and on.

You're in the military right? No wonder we can't put the insurgency down in Iraq.

What, do they have too many shovels? :roll:

This thread needs to not turn into a sarvisteflor idiot war please.

You all need to realize, that both parties are corrupt. Both parties, at the top, are controlled and serve the elite, which is the only true political party in the US at the moment. The emerging party, the grass-roots independant party, is our only hope.

Don't believe me? Check out how many candidates in the last election had direct connections to Skull + Bones. Now, for this election, seriously here, check out how many candidates have direct connections to the Council on Foreign Relations. (all of the main players except Ron Paul). See any patterns here? Keep in mind the directives of the CFR. It is decidedly un-american, and very globalization orientated...as in, less sovereignity, more global control. Its called the Elite class, folks. They own Fox, they even own the Washington Post, and as long as you suck down their 'pretend war' between 'democrats' and 'republicans,' they own you.

Latreg wrote:has there ever been an elected leader anywhere that everyone approved of? Who cares what Europe thinks anyway, we don't elect people to please them so they can f%^& off imo. Didn't people bitch when we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait? I find it interesting that the European nations don't speak out about the organ harvesting and sale in China, apparely that's morally ok with them.... Countries are jealous of our wealth and power point blank.

Wow... just... wow. That is so wrong. And sad. And to make a point, the organ harvesting in China is BIG news here, and people are entirely disgusted. My question to you about it is, considering you are so high-and-mighty compared to us folks living here in europe (im American btw), when did you first read about it? I was reading it about three or four years ago, long before I ever saw it in the mainstream media. www.prisonplanet.com www.markswatson.com

teflor the ranger wrote:

Sarvis wrote:

teflor the ranger wrote:

Sarvis wrote:In how many cases did the governments of history have the military the US does?

For the times? Quite a few. How many cases in history have the people numbered 300 million?

I'm sorry, but a guy wearing platemail and riding a horse is just not comparable to a tank. You can kill the former with enough peasants and pitchforks, whereas we don't have anything available to us that can actually harm a tank!

It's painfully clear that you know absolutely nothing about military science, tactics, or engineering. Your continued input on the matter will simply be labeled ignorance, particulary in light of the fact that you have not even considered the armies of the Soviet Union, Napoleon, or the British Empire.

A hundred militaries in history have wielded as much if not more power over their citizenry. You just don't know what you're talking about.

"Oh but Teflor, what about my stupid point about a tank?"

Have you ever used a shovel before? You can't even think of the most simple solutions and yet you just keep yammering on and on.

Heh... you are so damn easy, Teffy. A shovel? Serious? Have you seen videos of the leopard class tanks (not even the top shelf tanks these days) just flying over wide trenches, embankments, and whatever the fuck else you could possible create with a shovel?

The finns showed us the best anti-tank solution ever,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail

the molotov cocktail, but even that is outdated these days and no longer effective. To take out a tank reliably now, you really do need a Warthog.

daggaz wrote:Heh... you are so damn easy, Teffy. A shovel? Serious? Have you seen videos of the leopard class tanks (not even the top shelf tanks these days) just flying over wide trenches, embankments, and whatever the fuck else you could possible create with a shovel?

It's painfully clear that you also know absolutely nothing about military science, tactics, or engineering.

In order for a tank to fly over a ditch, it has to know that there is one there.

Ummm..... No? It just has to be moving forward, and have the proper tracks and horsepower to just, well, keep it moving forward. Ok ok, to FLY over the ditch, yeah, it has to be moving fast. Now keep in mind, moving fast doesnt in anyway mean, that you have to know about holes in the ground in front of you.

Seriously, youtube the videos, tanks these days dont CARE about ditches. Stick your shovel in your ass.

heh heh. Btw,... I love how you deduce, from a point about tanks (a discussion which you are losing), that I know nothing about military science, tactics, or engineering. Now, those are three mighty broad areas, even ignoring the obvious overlap. *cough cough engineering = science cough cough* I mean, damn, they encompas entire encylopedias of knowledge built up over decades ...But to deduce that my knowledge is zero, based on a one paragraph point about the obvious and proven abilities of modern day tanks (do you really want me to post a US military link where they blatantly advertise these abilities?), well F me stupid, Teffy, you are just the modern day Sherlock on steroids, aren't you? Damn you are smart.

teflor the ranger wrote:

daggaz wrote:Heh... you are so damn easy, Teffy. A shovel? Serious? Have you seen videos of the leopard class tanks (not even the top shelf tanks these days) just flying over wide trenches, embankments, and whatever the fuck else you could possible create with a shovel?

It's painfully clear that you also know absolutely nothing about military science, tactics, or engineering.

In order for a tank to fly over a ditch, it has to know that there is one there.

Yeah, because the tank really NEEDS to fly over the ditch when it can shoot you from over a quarter mile away then call in an air strike.

EDIT:

Almost forgot:

<b>Daggaz</b> "he grass-roots independant party"

Independant... party...:?

That's just so wrong...