Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I just watched the first debate again, as I have it recorded. I'll give my humble opinion of how it went:

Early on, when the focus was on the financial crisis, Obama seemed to be doing better. Neither of them are fiscal experts, but Obama seemed to be much clearer, and didn't state the obvious like McCain did. I think it's crap how McCain supporters, and the McCain camp itself have pointed out that Obama agreed with McCain 10-15 times or so. First off, most of those times McCain was stating the obvious. Regardless, doesn't that prove that Obama is open-minded and willing to listen to other people's opinions, and is not so arrogant as to disagree with them simply for the point of disagreeing with them? Doesn't seem like a bad thing to me...

Then the debate shifted to Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain seemed to recooperate here. Both made interesting points, and both consistently quoted the "experts" (like Petreaus), which is always a good thing, it shows they value that some people know more about the subject then them (at least in my opinion). During this phase, they both indirectly accused the other of lieing and misinterpreting the other's position, on things such as timetables, funding, withdrawl, etc... Obama used his old campaign tactic of comparing McCain to Bush here, and it might have worked, but I personally don't like it.

Next, they focused on foreign policy towards countries such as Iran and Russia. They sparred over whenever we should talk to Iran. I think Obama won here, because while McCain pointed out that talking to Iran might not work, he failed to point out how talking to the Iranians (a word McCain repeatidly misprounced) would have a negative effect, even if it didn't work. McCain also misprounced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Obama corrected the common misconception that Ahmadinejad is the most powerful man in Iran (it is in fact Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei). When the subject was Russia, McCain made another mistake, indentifying Putin as president, when he is in fact prime minister. Also, I found it interesting that McCain criticised Obama for telling both sides (Russia and Georgia) to back down. That was completely the right course of action, as Georgia had also used artillery bombardment of civilian targets in South Ossetia, so they weren't complete immune from blame.

When the debate turned to national security, it was pretty much tied. Nothing really noticeable happened here, both candiates said what they had too. America is the best, yadayadayada, 9/11 was a tragedy yadayadayada, nothing imporant here. Obama was a little bit more critical of the systems in place to protect from attacks than McCain was, but I found this section kinda boring.

As for the moderator, I see no problems here. He gave the candiates pretty much equal time, and didn't interupt either one anymore than the other. Even if one candiate got more time than the other, that shouldn't matter. We should be judging them on what they say, not how much they say. I was kinda annoyed that they spent a third of the debate, that was supposed to be focused on foreing policy and national security, on the economy. The third debate is already supposed to be about domestic and economic policy, so why did they talk about the economy here? I understand that it is the biggest issue on the voters mind, but still...

At 9/26/08 07:23 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 9/26/08 09:45 AM, Saruman200 wrote: I think this is a heap of bull. Evo Morales (the president of Bolivia) is democratically elected, and he's going about the reforms he's promised. He's a lot like Hugo Chavez. But obviously the rich are bitching about it, so there gonna revolt? C'mon... That's like saying if Obama wins the next election, all the Republicans should revolt and take over the government.

I am glad to hear this

Good.

I wonder how other countries will get involved. Obviously Chavez will side with Morales,

indeed, he was the one that put him in office.

Okay

and Brazil will go against him,

No, Brazil will never support a breach in democracy.

Because Brazil is a saintly nation that strives to defend freedom and democracy wherever it goes? C'mon, Brazil will do what is best for Brazil, not what is best for democracy (just like everyone else).

because Moralos has threatened to cut off Brazil's natural gas in the past.

There's more than natural gas in the relationships of both countries. What Latin America is trying to do is to resemble a European Union, and for that they have to share a political system.

I know there is more than natural gas in the relationship, but that's a major part. As for Latin America trying to go EU style, they got a long way to go. A long, long way to go.

The US will probably get involved, this is a great oppurtunity of them to get rid of another Latin American socialist.

I don't think it would be convenient for the US to intervene, but the US always does misappropriate interventions.

Indeed. However, what would be inconvenient for the US. I mean obviously they won't invade or anything, but covert CIA action supporting the rebels would be right up there alley.

Russia could get tangled up in it, try to make friends with Moralos to draw him and a bunch of other Latin American countries into their growing sphere of influence.

No, as I said, Latin America is trying to have an entity of its own; it doesn't want to be in anyone's sphere of influence.

Yah, that's what Latin America wants, but that's not gonna happen. Sorry, but Latin America is gonna put up with being in someone else's sphere of influence for awhile still. By saying "Latin America is trying ot have an entity of its own" I assume you refer to the Union of South American Nations, which has only been around a few months and has yet to accomplish anything major. And must I remind you of the 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis.

But, I haven't heard much about this in the news where I live, so I could be blowing this all out of proportion, forgive me for any factual fallacies/mispellings of names, I don't know enough about the subject.

OMG
A HUMBLE STANCE IN NG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
*dies*

Lolz.

At 9/26/08 08:34 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/26/08 08:25 PM, g0t wrote: I've got it on right now, I'm just waiting for it to start. I can't wait; I'm so giddy.

Yes, it will be so amazing how they will be asked generic questions, give rhetoric-filled answers devoid of evidence, and not be pressed to respond to any claim, point, or position made by the other candidate. FInally an opportunity to see how well these candidates can spin and sidestep their way into repeating hackneyed campaign lines.

Yah there are evil demons, looking to deceive us at every turn so they can take over because of personal ambition and take all there money for themselves. Voting is pointless, cause my rebellious anti-authority attitude says everyone is out to get me.

Seriously, I'm looking forward to it. Even if adshepard is right and it is all rhetoric, it's sure to be a close one. Obama is a better orator, so he should be strong in the debates, but the debate is about foreign policy, which McCain is a master at.

At 9/26/08 10:57 AM, Prinzy2 wrote:

At 9/24/08 07:05 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/24/08 06:14 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:
NDP didn't ever work at the provincial level, what makes you think that it will work at a national level?

With the exception of Bob Rae, the NDP has been highly successful in the provincial governments.

From my understanding, the NDP has always implemented social services without raising taxes to compensate; leading to more debt and a worse economy. Maybe this is a common misconception about the NDP, how exactly do they pay for this?

The current NDP government of Manitoba has a reputation for it's balanced budgets, with excellent management of balancing spending increases with tax raises. The NDP governments have similar reputations, with the most recent one being able to turn a $14 million debt left over by the conservatives into a surplus. And of course, under Tommy Douglas they introduced medicare and public health insurance to North America. In BC, there most recent government was sucessful in enacting welfare reform. In the Yukon, the NDP governments created a $60 million dollor surplus. The only occurence I know of that fits with what you describe is the first NDP government of British Columbia in the 70s.

Most big industries don't even want to go into provinces with NDP because they get taxed to hell. Alberta tried to raise royalties on oil so Encana, Talisman, and Connico-Phillips(sp?) went to Saskatchewan where the taxes aren't so high.

Alberta? Alberta has never had an NDP government. I think you mean Manitoba. This is true, but at the same time Manitoba also has the lowest unemployment rate in Canada (or is it Alberta, not sure, regardless, it's still low) and the economy there is doing well, arguably the best in Canada, so I don't think this was such a big deal.

I'm still convinced that NDP isn't what Canada needs. We don't need all of these social programs and we don't need cultural programs. I'd like to see is some kind of solid budget for Canada. Harper just cut $20 million or so dollars from some kind of art grant, they should look at everything that gets government money and decided yes or no, does the government really need to spend money on this? Give Canada a detailed budget of expenses and revenue, and set up a website giving links to where this money goes and why it needs to go there. Basically, review and overhaul Canada's budget.

Well, I probably won't be voting NDP either, but I was just pointing out that they have been pretty successful at the provincial level. I agree with the rest of your post, but even if Harper did make that $20 million cut, but as I mentioned before the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker is gonna cost a lot of money (not sure the exact amount), so Harper wastes money too. Can't say if the NDP or Liberals would be any better though both have a history of balanced budgets. I think I'll vote Green. Normally I vote NDP or Liberal, but I don't like Jack Layton or Stephane Dion and his Green Shift. The Greens have no record of, well, anything, but I don't mind taking a risk. Yah, I'm not listening to you Conservative attack ads.

At 9/25/08 09:37 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: So, from what I've heard, due to the large gap between the poor in the east and the rich population in the west, the government is trying to get social reforms working - basic things like combating starvation, and some sort of basic health care for the poor.
The rich west however, is in open revolt due to this, actually using violence to keep away the government.

Other than that, I've not heard much more, but it seems interesting. Does anyone know where to find more information? I've tried googleing, but I'm not very good googleing news in English, and in Swedish there is just so much to learn.
Does anyone have an opinion?

I'm pretty sure you got the directions messed up (west is poor, rich is east),, and that was kinda oversimplified, but yes, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

I think this is a heap of bull. Evo Morales (the president of Bolivia) is democratically elected, and he's going about the reforms he's promised. He's a lot like Hugo Chavez. But obviously the rich are bitching about it, so there gonna revolt? C'mon... That's like saying if Obama wins the next election, all the Republicans should revolt and take over the government. I wonder how other countries will get involved. Obviously Chavez will side with Morales, and Brazil will go against him, because Moralos has threatened to cut off Brazil's natural gas in the past. The US will probably get involved, this is a great oppurtunity of them to get rid of another Latin American socialist. Russia could get tangled up in it, try to make friends with Moralos to draw him and a bunch of other Latin American countries into their growing sphere of influence. But, I haven't heard much about this in the news where I live, so I could be blowing this all out of proportion, forgive me for any factual fallacies/mispellings of names, I don't know enough about the subject.

Well, good on her. That's the funniest, and most satisifying story of defiance to parents I've ever heard.

At 9/25/08 06:54 PM, Imperator wrote: I went for satire in mine....

What's sad isn't that a ton of users have these posts, it's that it rarely changes the status quo.....

Yah really. But at least the smart people will get it and know that there not the only ones. The others can go on being the way they are, but at least I know that not everyone here is a complete asshole now...

At 9/25/08 04:53 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

I beat ya to it.

1. The Burden of Proof rests on you
If a claim you make needs to be backed up by evidence, it is not your opponent's responsibility to "look it up," it's yours. If you tell your opponent to look it up, you're basically saying that you don't have any evidence. So make sure you do your research before posting!

I suppose I agree, but you should only use links when there really needed. You don't need to back up everything you say with a link, we're smart people here, we should be able to make are own conclusions without links. Of course, statistics and claims that many people may not believe need links, but nothing else really.

2. Ad Hominem does not make someone else's argument wrong
If you are proven wrong, then called an idiot, you are still proven wrong. Saying someone else's argument is invalid because of "ad hominem" is like letting a baby-murderer go free because his search warrant was signed wrong. It shouldn't happen, but it does.

Yah, but who determines who's been "proven wrong"? If my oppenent says I've been proven wrong, he doesn't have the right to use ad hominem. Besides, everyone knows people who use are ad homenem are dumbfucks, so calling them on that is perfectly fine with me, in fact, if someone is using ad hominem, I encourage people to call them on it. That person made the choice to use ad hominem, then if they get ridiculed because of it, tough shit. If people decide to disregard them after it, it's their own fault.

3. Don't Copy and Paste without contributing anything\
Copying and pasting an article, then commenting on it in your post, is usually ok, provided you really do have something to say. But if I see that fucking "14 characteristics of a fascist country" list again, I will have a stroke.

Agreed.

4. We know you have some great insight into the election, but there are threads for it already
Really, hundreds of them. There are too many "Who would be better, Obama or McCain" topics to count. If a new issue arises, make sure that you're the first one to post about it before you do.

Agreed.

5. Don't be Mr.Money
Please please don't. Every week or so this guy posts a new thread with a new batshit insane conspiracy theory. Despite all my, and many others', best efforts, he just won't go away. Don't be like him.

I don't really have many experiences with this guy, but even if he is horrible, this is a cheap shot against him, and I dislike it.

That's all for now! Keep in mind this list is ever growing.

It certainly is.

At 9/25/08 10:32 AM, kraor024 wrote: I asked in the opening to debate third(Socialist Vs.Libertarian,Vs. Centralist) parties not weither or not to vote for them( A child knows the aurguments (only one) for that).

Huh? Your opening post did not in any way say that. It said if you don't like the two main party candiates, vote third party, that's all. And what do you mean "A child knows the auguments (only one) for that)?

And I never asummed that you would be closer to a third paty I asked if you hated both candidates (I should have said equally) throw the underdog a bone .

Your posts strongly implied this.

While I also don't see a problem with voteing for your party's candadate, many people vote down the line(by which I mean the vote for their party's candidate out of loyalty only),and many people in all honesty just assumme they belong with a party based on a small handful of issues many of which are relatively unimportant. I should also point out that sometimes a party will elect someone who clearly does not represent the majoity of the partys views.

Well, I'm all for letting people vote on whatever issues they want, even if they are "relatively unimportant". This is a democracy (or a democratic republic if you want to get technical).

Finally I really didn't expect people to tell me to do exactly what I shouldn't do, vote for someone I believe is no better than the other just because my only other option is to to vote for someone who will not win(or not win). All I meant was if you don't think either candidate is better vote third party no one has given me a good reason not to except if I do I'll throw my vote away, which considering the two options isn't that bad of an idea,Afterall I won't be responsible for bringing a better president than the worse but the converse is true as well. So if I've got the choice between two equaly matched parties and an underdog I'm going to choose the underdog, I mean is it realy better to vote for one of two people you don't agree with at all isn't that throwing your vote away or even worse using your vote for something that will inevidably bite you in the ass?

Well, that's the point of a debate. What did you expect, us to all come in and say, "Yes, vote third party if you want to, we're close-minded and don't care." People are disagreeing with you. It's a fact of life.

You are right though I should have had the forsight to see this comming.

Or you could of just said this right off the bat, instead of waiting to say what you really ment days later...

At 9/25/08 12:10 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: You know, after all of this bitching n moaning I've heard I've realized something.

Shaggy, realizing something? Impossible!

This whole religious debate is very small compared to many different issues and challenges that bare down on us.

Wow, nice try. Your not changing the topic that easily. Oh, and the entire meaning of life, the creation of the universe, and the foundations of civilization are small?

I don't want to take sides or anything, but there are things that need to be done, and when it comes time for those things, who is going to be doing something?

Yah, because when you do take sides, you get pwned. Now your just trying to save face and make everyone like you again.

I used to think that atheists were the most evil and most dangourous problem that mankind has ever faced, I was wrong.

Wow, you actually believed that? Cause y'know, so many people have been killed in the name of atheism...

So, I won't say much but if saving lives and ensuring the freedom on everyone I can, I will work side by side with an atheist.

Oh, it's so heartfelt?

I don't care what others believe, it is my belief that are most important to me.

Oh, Shaggy, your such a melodramatic little guy arn't ya! Let's cuddle!

So at last, when the shit really does hit the fan, we will see who is doing something about it, for those who don't care what happens to their freedom, to those who believe that things they and others do doesn't matter, we will see.

Because the evil consiparacy that caused 9/11 is now trying to take away our freedom, and Shaggy will heroically lead the people to victory! Everyone, get behind Shaggy! Let's fight for are freedom!

Religion is not an issue, it never was and we will see why, when your freedom and life are being threatened, you will see.

Yah, because y'know, who gives a fuck about the meaning of life and all that shit, because if we debate religion on the internet, it's totally gonna retract away from are ability to defend our freedom and lives.

Be kind to one another, don't put eachother down just because they don't believe in Alah or Zeus or no God at all, those beliefs are for your personal reasons and quite possibly your future, it has nothing to do with other people.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! See my sig: Ignorance is the root of all evil. I'd rather be open-minded and listen to everyone's beliefs, then just follow my own without paying attention to the rest of the world.

Nice dramatic speech, but sorry buddy, I see through the sham.

At 9/25/08 08:22 AM, kraor024 wrote: FOR ANYT ONE WHO POSTED ON THIS THRED ALREADY for the last time

If you think one candidate is better then vote for them I am not triing to tell you not to.
What I was saying was vote for a third partie if you don't think either is better.

Again, you come back to your ignorant assumption that if you don't like the two main parties, your automatically closer to a third party.

And I only say this becouse I know peoploe who in this situationg either don't vote or vote (on what they think) is thier parties candidate even though they do not believe they are any better.

Well, I don't see a problem with voting for your parties candiate.

I did bnot want this to become a disscusion on the falts of voting on third parties but that is what happend so.

What did you want it to become? You said to vote for third parties if you hate both candiates, what did you expect everyone to agree with you? The politics forum is ment for debate, people are trying to refute your argument and your defending it. I see no problem here. This isn't the place if you want everyone to just agree with you.

At 9/24/08 11:18 PM, DrDickHead wrote:

At 9/24/08 07:08 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Lol, notice the ":P" it was a joke smart pants *rolls eyes*. Your sig says: "The average BBS user couldn't detect sarcasm if it was shoved up his ass." I guess you fall under the category of the average BBS user.

AHAHAH what a dumbfuck! This stupid asshole should leave and never return. If I was him I'd suicide out of shame.

You must be new here. Please read this before posting. Also, we here on the politics forum have a sort unofficial rule about civility, because this is the politics forum, stuff here is ment to be serious. Don't worry, we'll set you strait in no time. Cheers!

At 9/24/08 08:38 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 9/18/08 08:19 PM, Brick-top wrote: And we should ignore the fact that christianity is a religion just like the eiffel tower is basically steel right?

Look, you can't just take Christianity and say, "Aha, that is religion" and assume that all religion is Christianity.

Okay, but pretty much everyone argument against Christianity works against the other Abrahamic religions (Judaism and Islam) aswell. Plus, Christianity is not only the biggest religion in the world, it is also an absolute majority of the Western world, were most of us live. Christianity is the only religion that really effects are lives on a daily basis, so what's wrong with focusing on Christianity?

At 9/24/08 06:53 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:

At 9/24/08 06:49 PM, Saruman200 wrote: But I thought the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" :P.

Hey there, do you get all of your information spoonfed to you?

"You know that there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall St. And it is -- people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times.


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/09/mccain_this_morning_the_
fundam.php

Lol, notice the ":P" it was a joke smart pants *rolls eyes*. Your sig says: "The average BBS user couldn't detect sarcasm if it was shoved up his ass." I guess you fall under the category of the average BBS user.

At 9/24/08 06:14 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:
NDP didn't ever work at the provincial level, what makes you think that it will work at a national level?

With the exception of Bob Rae, the NDP has been highly successful in the provincial governments.

But I thought the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" :P.

Hypocracy on both sides here. McCain stands up for the economy, then decides to try to suspend a debate that he would most likely have been pwned in so he can help it? Obama crys havoc about some unrivaled economic crisis, then decides that the debate is more important than they economy. We all know this is a move to win voters, and if Obama pushes for a debate he'll look like an ass. I'm pissed, I wanted to see the debate, and let's think about this logically: suspending your campaign isn't going to help anyone. Sure, go vote on the bill, but don't be a stupidass. You can do a lot more for the country when your president then you can now, so suck it up and get a campaigin.

To the OP: That's a interesting take on it, and I agree. It's all rhetoric though, people are dumb and wouldn't understand what you do, so if they said party before country they would be pissed...

To morefngdbs and any other person with similar views: Wow... really. Stop bullshiting yourself with your anti-authority conspiracy theory. Most politicians could be living a lot better right now if they hadn't become a politician. Obama would be a lawyer, which pays a lot better than being a senator, Cheney would be heading Haliburton and rolling in the dough, and the Bushes would be ruling an oil empire. But they all chose to leave those jobs to help their country. You can say what you want about any politician, but to say they hate there country is pure, uniformed bullshit.

At 9/24/08 12:18 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/23/08 11:25 PM, fli wrote: Democratic approach: "Let's try to socialize some aspects of health care in a way that everyone can pay, and everyone can receieve."

That, and...

- approving minors to have abortions without parental consent,

No problem here.

- lowering the drinking age and repealing the drug laws regardless to fit European standards while ignoring the rampant substance abuse problems in this country

Again, all good here.

- helping out in every humanitarian crisis no matter how piddly when we're considered "sticking our nose in somebody else's" business when it doesn't fit their viewpoint

So your saying we shouldn't respond to humanitarian crisis? What?

- taxing the SHIT out of anyone who manages to make something of themselves financially because it's not fair to everyone else

Well, not every rich person is self-made. And they have the most money, so they should be taxed the most. There quality of life will still be higher than the average Americans, so don't bitch about it.

- repealing gun ownership laws because guns somehow magically sprout legs and start firing at random people on their own

Well, this is obviously a strawman arguement, but I'm against gun control, so I won't bother.

- absolving people of all personal responsibility for any action that might be remotely influenced by society or their upbringing

Another strawman. Prove liberals want to do this any more than conservatives.

- refusing to discipline their kids in a manner appropriate for their behavior IF they discipline at all

Huh? How is how you discipline your kids any how related to liberalism? Unless your refering to spanking, how to discipline your kids isn't a political issue. If you are refering to spanking, then wow, just wow. Spanking only suceeds in making kids more rebellious, not to mention the abusive nature of it.

.... did I miss anything?

A few things: logic, facts, evidence, common sense, and anything that isn't a strawman arguement.

At 9/24/08 12:22 AM, kraor024 wrote:
WRONG most people vote for the candidate of the two major parties that shares the majority of their views; there is a great difference between choosing the one you agree with most and voting for the one you disagree with the least.

What, and somehow you have a magic sixth sense that tells you that the two party system is evil and that most people don't like either of the two parties, and also that if you don't like the Reps and Dems you therefore must fit perfectly with a third party ideology? Stop pretending you know so much about what "most people" think. If anything, "most people" like the two party system, because "most people" vote for one of the two main parties. You have nothing to back up your arguement but your own personal opinions and assumptions.

Also I was not of voting age in 04 so that does not mean that I don't care & Nader was not trying to win the election he was trying to win federal funding & finaly to this it is not if we realy cared it is if you really cared we would not have the same choice between two choices noone actually agrees with.

Okay, so none of those third party candiates are trying to win an election either, thus why should we vote for them. Same logic buddy. And how do you know "noone actually agrees with" the two major party candiates. 99% of America disagrees buddy.

Since No one wants to discuss third parties at all and just want to tell me to give up on the idea Like I am an idiot for not wanting a horrible president . Yea you think they will be slightly better than the alternative. I don't think that either would be better in this election so I am voteing for another party.

Again, you argue one your personal opinion that the Reps and Dems are "horrible presidents". That's your personal opinion, so now we should all vote for a third party, because you don't like the two party system.

I guess I fear failure to achieve a victory more than I fear defeat.

Huh? Defeat is failure to achieve victory...

So Just one last question Why should I choose between 2 people who I hate I know will not (have not) keep to their word and I wouldn't believe if they told me the sky was blue(dramatization)
Just because you are all afraid to have someone mildly worse than the candidate you want, When I could vote for someone better??

Because that someone who you believe personally is better (which does not automatically make it true) will never win.

Let's think about it like this:
You live in the battleground state of Ohio (this is a scenario, not real). Three candiates are one your ballot (again dramatization).

Generic Republican, who is polling at 49%.
Generic Democrat, who is polling at 49%.
Third Party, who is polling at 2%.

Your views are closer to Generic Democrat that they are to Generic Republican, even though you hate them both. But, Third Party is right on for you. Thus, you could do one of two things:

Option 1:
Vote for Generic Democrat. He actually has a chance of winning, and is closer to you then Generic Republican. Because this is a close election, and you live in a battleground state, your vote helps Generic Democrat win. You're not happy, but at least Generic Republican didn't win.

Option 2:
Vote for Third Party. He has no chance of winning, but is close to you politically. However, as I said before, your a perfect fit for Third Party, but are closer to Generic Democrat then Generic Republican. Thus, Generic Democrat and Third Party are closer politically then Third Party and Generic Republican. So, Third Party is stealing votes away from Generic Democrat when you and others vote for him. Because of this, Generic Republican wins, and your stuck with the worst choice of the three as president.

ONE final statement the ONLY reason we have a 2 party system is because everyone keeps buying into the fear that their candidate will lose to some one who is in all fairness is not any better or worse.

Bull. We have a two party system because there are way more conservatives and liberals than there are enviormentalists, libertarians, fundamentalists, socialists, communists, anarchists, facists, and Neo-Nazis.

Oh well have fun holding our country back.

Am the one holding the country back, or are you?

When I clicked on this thread, I rolled my eyes, thinking it would be some retarded den of consiparacy theories and theorists. I was delighted when I was proved wrong. But then I clicked on the second and third pages, and realized that instead of being full of consiparacy theories, it turned out to be a massive pissing contest between the US and Canada, will plenty of stereotypes, generalizations, hypocracy, strawman arguements, and much more! So far, I've learned that Americans are dumb ignorant fatasses, and Canadians are arrogant commie pricks. Since I'm a dual citizen, I guess I'm a dumb, arrogant, commie, ignorant, fatass prick. Yah me! W00t w00t! Go U-S-A! Go C-A-N-A-D-A! Go G-E-N-E-R-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N-S! I guess bashing the other country with a wonderful dosage of hypocracy makes you feel better about yourselves. Inferiority complex anyone?

Now, this post won't be entirely without content. On the surface a North American Union would be a good idea, but let's get past all the obvious nationalistic concerns and dig deeper. If Canada and the US joined in one nation, it would would be the largest nation on earth (I think, pretty sure it's bigger than Russia, but that country is one bigass piece of shit). That would be a lot of resources, a good thing, but very hard to manage. How would the merge go through? Which government system would we use, parliamentary, or republican? Which law system? How would the politics change, would America shift to the left, or would Canada shift to the right? How could this really be a true union, rather than just an annexation of Canada by the US? How would this work with international relations? Would the new country be part of the British Commonwealth, like Canada is today? How would Russia and China react? Who's foreign policy would the new country take on? Would the Iraq war continue, afterall, Canada doesn't particpate in it? To many "ifs" for me, the resulting chaos after the merger would be enough to turn me off, not to mention the various problems of managing such a large nation (both geographically and population-wise).

At 9/23/08 10:08 PM, mrhardrock wrote: because liberals always want to change everything even if it is good

Uh, where'd you come to this conclusion. Show me an example of how liberals want to change "everything".

and want to raise taxes and stuff like that which is wat i say because i am strongly conservative as u can tell problly but a lot of people associate liberals with hippies which smoke pot, hate the government, and stuff like that that society doesnt like which is y both conservatives and general people hate liberals

Bull, there are more liberal Democrats in the United States then there are conservative Republicans. "People in general" don't hate liberals any more than they hate conservatives. So basically your justifying your hatred with the idea that you are believe liberals are hippies who smoke pot and hate the government, an obviously untrue stereotype and generalization? Logic fail...

You people don't seem to understand the point of this post. The Democratic Party of the United States is not really "liberal", it is "progressive", if we are using the actual definitions of those words. A more "liberal" political party would be the Libertarian Party of the United States. Liberal is just a term that's entered popular usage to refer to people on the left of the political spectrum. While I refer to those on the left as "liberals" in reality that is incorrect. But I hate getting tied up in linguistic, hence why I don't really care if I call people on the left "liberals".

At 9/23/08 08:38 PM, kraor024 wrote:

At 9/23/08 07:49 PM, Saruman200 wrote: .................
Well, the thing I hate about this is you assume that if you don't like the two major party candiates, you fit with one of the third parties.

You see, I don't fit with ANY of those political parties. Basically there are facists, libertarians, neo-nazis, fundamentalists, socialists, communists, and enviormentalists. All of those are radical, often insane political ideologies (besides maybe Libertarianism). Even if I was dissatisfied with the two major party canidates, I wouldn't be caught dead voting for any of those parties.

DO you fit the Republican or Democratic party better? I don't assume you fit one of these parties perfectly but you might fit one better than the one you currently affiliate yourself with.(If you believe that the best choice or even a good choice is a Rep. or Dem. by all means vote for them if you don't, then don't)

Well, okay then, but I dislike that you assume that just because someone isn't a Rep. or Dem. they MUST be ideology close to one of the various third parties, all of which, or almost all of which, are quite radical.

....................Secondly, it is throwing away your vote. I'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils, because if I don't the greater of two evils may win, than waste my vote. None of those third parties will ever be able to get a major percentage of the vote. Why? Because, 10% of the population doesn't belong to any of those political ideologies. I generally vote Democrat (though I'm not a member of that party), but Republicans are way more sensible, even though many of them have opposite political views than me, than most third party people. I might consider a "Centrist Party" because I'm quite moderate on certain issues, but there is no "Centrist Party". No, only some wacko enviormentalists, delusional fundamentalists, naive socialists/communists, and racist Neo-Nazis/facists.......................

..........................

OK well first that is not a complete list, there is a Centrist Party I don't know of any candidates of theirs but you could at least join the party.

That link doesn't work, and I was kinda refering to a party that you can actually, y'know, vote for.

Second
I doubt 10% of the country actually believes (Fully) in one of the two main parties ideologies.

Of course they don't. But a good 95% of the population is probably closer to the Republicans or the Democrats than they are all those third parties.

And finally
If on one side of the scale you have someone who is 95% evil and the other side 96% evil how is it logical to vote for the lesser of the two when you could pick someone who is 50% evil (even if they don't win how can you justify chosing the greater evil than them).

Because the person who is 50% evil could steal votes from the person who is 95% evil, and then we end up with the person that is 96% evil as president. Instead, you could of voted for the person that was 95% evil and helped them win. Not to mention how exaggerated your making it. My least favorite politician ever is probably Mike Huckabee or some other Christian Conservative, but I don't think there 96% evil (or even evil at all, afterall, what is "evil").

I am only suggesting that if you don't want either of these candidates near the oval office don't vote for them, vote for someone your closer to ideologically.

So if I don't like Barack Obama, and I hate John McCain, I'm automatically closer to the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Consitution Party, the Socialist Party, the Neo-Nazi Party, or one of those other third parties? Please explain the logic behind this? Instead of voting for some wackjob third party that will never win, shouldn't I just vote for Barack Obama, just because I dislike him less than John McCain?

At 9/23/08 08:32 AM, kraor024 wrote: Here is the solution vote 3rd party
I started this thread because some idiot started one telling people to vote other(like thats an option)

Uh, it is. You can write in people.

Don't tell me your throwing your vote away, like voting for someone you don't want in office is better. I know a third party candidate is not going to win but if 10% voted other than republican or democrat it would scare the shit out of the main parties forceing them to do there damn job instead of just competing with one other person every 4 years

Well, the thing I hate about this is you assume that if you don't like the two major party candiates, you fit with one of the third parties.

Here is a list of political parties for those of you who don't know any (or sadly that there were any)

You see, I don't fit with ANY of those political parties. Basically there are facists, libertarians, neo-nazis, fundamentalists, socialists, communists, and enviormentalists. All of those are radical, often insane political ideologies (besides maybe Libertarianism). Even if I was dissatisfied with the two major party canidates, I wouldn't be caught dead voting for any of those parties.

I am a Libertarian mainly because I am
Anti-gun control
Pro choice
Pro drug legalization

Okay, I agree with you on all those issues (well, maybe not the first one, my views on that topic are...complicated), but I won't waste time talking to you about them, that isn't really what this thread is about.

I disagree with you. As I've already pointed out, this thread is based on a false assumption. Secondly, it is throwing away your vote. I'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils, because if I don't the greater of two evils may win, than waste my vote. None of those third parties will ever be able to get a major percentage of the vote. Why? Because, 10% of the population doesn't belong to any of those political ideologies. I generally vote Democrat (though I'm not a member of that party), but Republicans are way more sensible, even though many of them have opposite political views than me, than most third party people. I might consider a "Centrist Party" because I'm quite moderate on certain issues, but there is no "Centrist Party". No, only some wacko enviormentalists, delusional fundamentalists, naive socialists/communists, and racist Neo-Nazis/facists. I'll give you this: I like the Libertarian Party better than the rest of those third parties, and it's the only one I'd even consider voting for, but many elements of the party are quite radical, and let's face it, Bob Barr is just a conservative wearing a Libertarians suit. As Barack Obama put it: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

At 9/23/08 07:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: You heard some rumor, and here you aren't going to get anything more than more rumors, speculation, and accusations.

True, true, if you have a question, Newgrounds isn't a go place.

What do you care, anyway? Haven't you got anything better to do than worry about the foreign policies of another country that won't affect you at all (unless you're Iranian)? Or is the US so much more important than your nation's apparently petty affairs?

I agree with this too. I love it how people complain about the US messing in other people's foreign affairs, but arn't they messing in our foreign affairs too? Iron is a beautiful thing, isn't it.

Now, I'm against an invasion of Iran, but I'm not sure McCain is really for it. Is he for a tougher stance on Iran (and Venezuela, and Russia, and China, and a shit load of other countries)? Hell yes he is, but I don't think he is so stupid that he would invade Iran with US troops already so spread out. I'm not a McCain supporter, but this looks likes bull to me.

Well for some reason I can't read that essay because when I click the link it takes me a page requesting a username and password, and I don't feel like registering at this site to read one article, so I'll just argue with the general point of this thread (is morality universial) instead of replying to the specific stuff adressed in the article. When it comes to philosophy I'm a moral relativist/value pluralist. And to any dumbass who would cry havoc when ever moral relativism is mentioned, grow up. I have yet to see some explain why moral relativism is any worse than other philosophical viewpoints.I'm no philosopher, but I'll explain my views on the subject as best I can.

No, there is absolutely no "universial morality". Every different country, culture, religion, and even individual have different views on what is right and what is wrong. And I think it's complete bullshit that people are so naive and arrogant to suggest that their viewpoint is superiour to others. I'll use my favorite example in this case: cannabalism. Western culture views cannabalism as a evil, disgusting thing. But other cultures view it as respect for the dead. So who are we to say that cannabalism is this evil, terrible thing?

The one thing I do think is "universial" is that you shouldn't force your morality on others. To got back to the cannablism example, if you kill some for the sole purpose of cannabalizing them, then you would be going against my only universial moral: your forcing your views on someone else (the person you killed). Thus, I'm fine with you doing whatever the hell you want with yourself, and with people who share your views, but that doesn't give you the right to go out and force that view on others (which is what makes me different from most moral relativists I suppose). As I said before, I'm no philosopher, so have mercy on my short, frank reply.

Well, you got to admire Harper's smoothness here. He could have waited for an election the set date he put into law, but that would have allowed the Liberals to gain speed. At the same time, Dion should have forced a summer election, so he kinda brought this on himself. Now Harper has his election at the oppurtune moment: people are feeling good, and thus feel good about the current government, people already have election fever because of the American election.

But, I don't like Steven Harper. What has he accomplished, besides wasting a lot of money on a really big boat. I mean, while Canadians are taught from a young age that the Northwest Passage belongs to us, but the rest of the world recognizes it as international strait. So why are dicking around up there with big expensive boats? Why do we have any more claim to it than anyone else? We weren't the first ones to discover it, are only real claim to it is that it's closest to us...

As for the other people, I'm not really sure who I'm going to vote for. Stephane Dion has been completely misrepersented by the conservative attack ads. When he was in Quebec, he was well known for being a federalist champion with desicive leadership and a fighter attitude. How the Conservatives have suceeded in changing his image to one of an indesicive academic is beyond me... but Green Shift is an outdated idea. The balance for this new carbon tax was supposed to be a cut on the income tax, but that possibility is drifting away.

Now, I like the NDP. But I don't like Jack Layton. While I think he has a lot of personal popularity because of his charisma, I don't trust NDP guys in thousand dollor suits. However, I might just vote NDP, because I like them better than the Liberals (or at least the candiates in my riding), and they pretty much have the same chance of beating the Conservative (none). If NDP gets official opposition (which it might) I'll be a happy man.

I live in Ontario, so I don't get to vote Bloc (and I wouldn't either), that leaves the Greens. I like the Greens. They seem a lot like the NDP, but with a focus on the enviorment instead of the economy. I don't dislike Elizabeth May as much as I dislike Jack Layton, but I don't know her very well. This is a big election for the Greens, since this is the first time they even have a chance to win seats. I might vote Green, but I just don't know them very well, so I'm not sure.

I'll probably end up voting Green or NDP this election. I think the Bloc and Liberals are gonna loose seats to the Conservatives, NDP, and Greens. The Bloc is at it's end. It party platform has become so similar to those of other parties, other parties that actually have a chance, that it's no longer really nessicary. I hope that the Bloc voters go to the NDP or Greens (or Liberals), instead of the Conservatives though. I can live with another Conservative minority, but I'll do anything to stop a Conservative majority. Which is why I might just vote Liberal, because they have the best chance of winning my riding, as opposed to the Conservatives. But I dislike voting strategically, so maybe not. I have three weeks to decide...

So, John McCain shouldn't be president because he's old? Then I guess Barack Obama shouldn't be president because he's black, and Sarah Palin shouldn't be president because she's a woman? It's the same mentality here buddy. John McCain is old, I get it, but that doesn't automatically disqualify him from being a good president. Vote with your head, not with your eyes.

At 9/19/08 08:34 PM, polska322 wrote:

At 9/19/08 08:28 PM, TR00PER wrote: So what is normal for a man who works in an office whos everyday life theres battles between civs, cops and criminals with guns.

ok first of all work on your grammar, and there is no such thing as a battle between civs cops and criminals, if the civilian is shooting he is a criminal even if it is in self defense,

OH FUCK, did you just tell him to work on his grammar? Newsflash stupidass, your grammar is 10 TIMES worse than this. Your grammar is absolutely terrible. I know 10 year olds with better grammar than you. That's hypocracy in the extreme.

At 9/20/08 02:40 AM, joe9320 wrote: OK, I want your opinions. Which country do you think is better? USA, Australia, both or neither?

That's a silly question. What is the criteria for "better"? Stronger economy? More important in the world? Better quality of life? I totally reject the notion that one country is "better" than another. But if I had to choose, I'd pick the US, just because I'm a citizen.

And two: would Australia continue its relations with the US or will it die out?

Of course it will maintain relations. Australie and the US are close allies. Maybe the relations are a bit strained right now (hell, relations between the US and pretty much every other country are strained right now) but that doesn't mean There going to break off. Australia depends on the US. IF there was a break, it wouldn't be Australia making the terms.

At 9/19/08 08:32 PM, polska322 wrote:
that isnt even close to the fuking point wat the hell are u talking about?

He's using the same logic as you did.

ok well the chance off getting away with it decreases everytime, u could get caught with the fake id, then again trying to sell it then again buying some

Yah, you can get caught with a fake ID, but a hell of a lot of people get away with buying alchohol using fake IDs, so why should this be any different.

i never said i wanted to extend WHO could buy it i said i wanted to make it EASIER for people to buy it, i never mentioned anything about passed records, age or mental health

But that's the same logic you used. The consitution doesn't say you have to get a permit, so you believe we shouldn't have to get permits. Thus, the Consitution doesn't say that the people he listed can't have guns, so they should be able to have guns, right? Same logic.

no permits doesnt mean its not traceable, it is still registered to your name, o and didnt you mention a fake id earlier? y would u need that if it wasnt registered to you? OH SHIT LOGIC FLAW

Huh? You would need an ID to buy a gun, even if they didn't register it to you.

yes, they do

Actually they don't. Another remark you just pulled out of your ass with no proof whatsoever.

yes they do liberals put anything onto those reports

"Liberals" don't make those reports dumbass, the police force, government, and organizations like the UN do.

ur retarded, self defense still is a crime, and i put that under the LEGAL gun category didnt i?

What? No it isn't... And legal and illegal guns are completely different than legal and illegal crimes/actions.

again u wer the one that pointed out the i.d.

What does that have to do with the ID>

i said a fukin illegal gun i didnt say i wanted to change the standards for wat guns are legal and arent, and i just said that too

Huh? I don't follow?

they violate the right to bear arms as i said in the beginning

Don't bans on pyschos and ex-cons havin guns go against the right to bear arms too? Don't bans on assault weapons go against the right to bear arms too?

Okay, I guess I should of let Cuppa-LettuceNog be the one to reply to this, but I just couldn't let the dumbfuckery go unrefuted. So, sorry.