5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
At 3/27/08 01:49 AM, DawnOfDusk wrote: But the fact is, after talking to a women who teached kids in the ghetto (no lie) I (and my older sis xD) got slammed on all aspects of gun control in about 1/2 an hour except for that last part I stated,...
So was this teacher pro-gun or did she not like them? (Need to know before I can comment further!)
Good topic JoS.
I think an independent, appointed cabinet is one of the advantages of presidentialism over parliamentarianism. One of the things about a parliamentarian "cabinet" is that those positions are typically filled by members of parliament and are subject to party censure. This is problematic when the executive is relying upon ministers (or cabinet secretaries) to give independent advice and management of their respective agencies.
Furthermore, in Latin America they have experimented with "mixed" presidential systems where the cabinet is subject to congressional oversight beyond "advise & consent" and congressional censure. This has been empirically shown to cause a weak and instable government.
I believe that a popularly elected cabinet would present these problems and more. Specifically since that would mean that a cabinet member would have a fixed term. This would prevent any shake-ups in which underperforming cabinet members would have an incentive to stay rather than leave public life for private employment.
Secondly there is the question of the electorate. These are positions that require a technical knowledge, an expertise. Quite frankly I think the requirements necessary for a voter to make an informed decision would be so mind-numbingly complex and dull that there would be little participation. In short I think these races would be so manipulated that we would have worse government and administrations.
At 3/26/08 03:43 AM, originalgangsta1 wrote:
:..., America would crumble under the lack of support from the economies of Europe. You guys are on the verge of another depression, and we're the ones who are gonna have to drag you're arses out of it. Again!
The US economy is more dependent upon the economies of Asia than we are of Europe. If your economies were to disappear tomorrow it would be an economic headache, but the only reason our economy would crumble would be because of the housing/credit crisis right now...and the small part of our economy that comes from Europe may or may not (in the hypothetical) be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
In short, if we (the largest economy in the world) were to go into a depression you would not drag our arses out of it...the European economy would collapse as well. As for "draging our arses" out of the Great Depression; thanks again for WWII.
Finally, as for "falsified" intelligence. MI6 and the Mossad provided much of and concurred with the intelligence that stated Saddam had WMDs.
At 2/26/08 09:44 AM, bobomajo wrote: Yeah I think your right Johnny. American politics is such a load of bullshit. When two people from the same political party sling bullshit at each other, then there is something seriously wrong. Seriously what the fuck is going on when two people from the same political party do smear campaigns against each other. All it does is prove that there is absolutely no policy difference between presidential candidates, its basically a popularity contest. Who will win the female or the minority?
American politics is a presidential system and not a parliamentary one like in Europe. This means that the selection and politics of our executive head of government is done in the public eye...not the smoke filled back rooms of party headquarters.
Also, JFK wasn't really that much of an agent of change...
At 2/26/08 05:34 PM, dySWN wrote:At 2/26/08 08:50 AM, JohnnyWang wrote:People are seriously claiming that Obama and Hillary are "socialist" or "marxist".PROTIP: American Democrats are democratic socialists too afraid to say that that's what they are.
Not really, no. If you travel to Europe or Canada you'll see that Clinton and Obama are on the right of the political spectrum.
At 3/25/08 07:34 PM, Bolo wrote: Bush has a built in audience that'll support him (dyed-in-the-wool conservatives), even if he goes fucking insane with the partisan stuff. Congress is constantly dichotomized between two opposing outside agendas, meaning, if one party is happy, the case is almost universally the opposite for the opposing party.
1) True, however that is not 32% of the population. That hard core only accounts for 10-12% of the population. That is approval rating is 20% higher than this is not explained by the dyed-in-the-wool conservatives.
2) That's kindof my point about party in power versus the opposition party. Are their agendas different beyond gaining control? Afterall when a party gains control and then appeal to their base they end up loosing power. Therefore, will a change in party really lead to a change in policy if the party is going to continue a moderate status quo?
I agree that superdelegates are a bit of a fiasco for the democrats, but now that Clinton is predicted by some pundits to have a mere 5-10% probability of victory, I'm fairly certain that the issue is decided, and that Barack Obama, barring political catastrophe, is now the democratic nominee for president.
There is a problem with the statement: "predicted by some pundits". The 2008 election is not going according to script. I agree with you in that I think Obama is going to win the Democratic nod. However, I would not be surprised if the Clintons will be able to pull off a "May Surprise" and clinch the nomination.
So Decision 2008 is all about the Presidency, right? Well what about Congress? It has been over a year since the Dems won control of both Houses from the Republicans. Has it been the panacea that we were promised?21% of Americans approve of their job while 70% disapprove. On the other hand, Bush's approval ratings seem to be on the up-swing: 32% approve and 63% disapprove. If Bush can get an additional 3% he'll leave with higher approval than Nixon and Carter.
But I'm digressing...this isn't about Bush (directly). What are your opinions on Congress? With the Superdelegate fiasco (yes the Republicans have them too, but they are not a decisive factor) and the failure to extricate the US from Iraq...are they loosing their mandate as agents of change? Are things really that different under their watch?
And before I get alot of president-centric replies: the Dems have shown they have significant power. Afterall, they did hand Bush his first veto override.
At 3/25/08 02:38 AM, n64kid wrote: You wait here, I'll inform the masses.
Now that's funny!
At 3/25/08 01:22 AM, dySWN wrote: Umm...
0/10
Concur.
At 3/24/08 11:09 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: You answered your own question i think.
Nope! Just the way the second argument was written lent itself towards a statement rather than a question. I just presented both arguments as a stimulus to discussion.
At 3/24/08 11:11 PM, Imperator wrote: Zimmy's Stanford Prison is good, Milgram's shock treatment is better.
There you go, trying to one-up me! The reason I choose the Stanford experiments over your beloved Michigan are that they are the ones most used in reference to Abu Ghraib.
At 3/24/08 10:57 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: You get sued?
I've never heard of such a thing. From what I heard shooting someone who breaks into your house is perfectly legal. Do you have any sources?
You're referring to what is commonly called the Castle Doctrine and it varies state by state. Over the years I've heard on the news and various print journalistic sources where a robber breaks in and gets non-fatally shot or otherwise injured by the homeowner, and the homeowner is sued and losses.
See the problem is that civil and criminal law are two different things. While you may be protected against criminal charges under your state's Castle Doctrine, you may not be protected against a jury in a lawsuit.
So what I've read and from what cops have told me; you are simply better off all around shooting to kill rather than shooting to wound.
As for sources, it is an accumulation of knowledge that would require too much combing of the internets.
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
One could argue that since the vast majority of the Democratic party's Superdelegates are elected officials and since they will likely be the deciders of the Democrat's nominee, do their existence violate the letter of the Constitution? What about the spirit?
Conversely, one could argue that the Democratic party is essentially a private institution and therefore their nomination proceedures are not governed by this clause of the Constitution. Besides, the clause is only referring to the Electoral College so it does not apply.
At 3/24/08 10:18 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: A guy breaks into my house, I can shoot him in the leg arm or hand. Hitting any of these places will cause the criminal immense pain and will probably make him collapse or at least render him unable to shoot back.
Or of course I could just shoot him dead, a guarantee that he won't shoot back.
Also, you tend to get sued if you only injure someone breaking into your house.
At 3/24/08 07:16 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 3/24/08 02:20 PM, TheMason wrote:Stuff
One thing, these guys were doing a job they were not trained in: prison guards. Now add to this the stress of being in a combat zone. Ever hear about the Stanford Prison Experiment?
Here's the Wiki page about it.
These were normal and mentally healthy college students who became abusive and gave a foreshadowing of Abu Ghraib. So in some ways their actions, while immoral and dispicable (sp?)...may have a predictable basis in human psychology. That while they are guilty of their actions, individuals within the Army chain of command may be more to blame than the individual soldiers. This structuralist argument/defense would mean that anyone plugged into that situation would have been prone to the same behavior...
At 3/24/08 01:24 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I see no problem with denying access to guns to people who are mentally unstable... When i encourage people to own a firearm, it's in the hope that they have the competence to use it, in capacity, both physically and mentally.
This is a tough one for me. Not everyone who has struggled with depression are at risk. There are studies that show that if you have a breakdown but then have about five years of stability...you are perfectly competent and have no greater prediliction to violence than the mentally "healthy" population. So I don't think that this constitutional right should be permanently denied.
At 3/24/08 02:28 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 3/24/08 12:38 AM, TheMason wrote: 1) It is considered poor form to cut and paste an article of this length in its entirity.He linked.
That is a defense of plagerism...not ettiquete. There is a subtle difference.
3) You border upon plagarism. You provide a link (which partially saves you), but you do not tell us what it is you're linking to or who wrote it or published it.Yes, it's plagerism... except that he specifically stated he didn't write it
...
Now, you may be doing that while I write this...if so then my apologies. But in the future please do this.Actually, he did it all long before you wrote this, when he included a link, and therefor nullified your reason for posting.
Actually Cuppa, he did not "specifically state" that he didn't write it. By linking this was implied, but not stated. That is a problem and a habit he needs to get out of. It could cost him in the future. With the rise of e-education...some profs could consider this plagerism. Furthermore, I would not count this as participation...which could effect grades. Now I know and acknowledge NG is not a college classroom. But why not point out bad academic habits to help fellow posters avoid furture obstacles?
Also, I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm merely pointing out that while his selection of topic was good...it was poorly executed. If anything I was trying to be helpful.
At 3/24/08 06:07 PM, SolInvictus wrote:At 3/24/08 05:21 PM, TheMason wrote: I am not an expert in photo analysis. So in short I don't know.well i meant more with regards to setting, uniform and equipement.
Okay, understood. Yes, that does look as advertised. I have been around Marines several times in Korea at while stationed in the US. Although it is USMC uniform not USAF so, as a caveat, there may be a few subtlies that I would miss.
I usually try to avoid this topic because the feelings are so raw and personal.
On one hand I will be the first to condem those in uniform who abuse their position in uniform. It is counterproductive to the mission. In the case of Abu Ghraib I also feel that it cost the US some blood that need not be shed by sowing animocity and hatred among the people we needed to bring stable, civil society to. In short; it gave the enemy something to point to and fuel the flames of insurgency as well as undercutting the building blocks which are necessary for true communal (not communism) democracy.
On the other hand; I grow weary quickly of people who use youtube videos to spew hate towards those of us in uniform. These people are not robotic machines or anything special, but average people who are like anyone else. In the end all someone serving overseas wants is to come home to kith and kin. I have yet to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. With luck I may be going for 45-60 days this summer. However I spent 27 months in Korea seperated from my daughter with an ocean between us. While I was over there she became ill and it appeared that she needed a kidney transplant...a cause I was ready to literally give of myself for. I spent two anxious days waiting to begin the 24 hour journey back to the States. I did not need to suffer alone, I had kith who were so much more...they were also kin...who helped me get through. So while I may not have had someone trying to kill me every day; I still know how it feels to to feel impotent and powerless that you cannot be home when things go to shit. I also know the happines and excitment about getting off the plane and being surrounded your loved ones. And yet, you are lonely and even guilty because of those still in Korea sacrificing their time with their families...
Furthermore, these average joes and janes have to deal with kids lobbing grenades at them. Also you're not in a normal situation. You have insurgents which more often than not are foreigners with their own designs on Iraq trying to kill American troops. I am a veteran, and I do not understand their stresses. Mistakes are made and often times they (and their families) bear the emotional scars for the rest of their lives. To add insult to injury; our emotionally wounded are stereotyped as psychopaths. A stereotype that is all too often seen as a legitimate discriminator. So I ask, how can anyone who has never served even begin to comprehend fully these images? You have the right to speak your mind, but really...honestly...from what basis do you speak?
However, you also have some snipers out there who fail to kill or seriously injure their targets. In this last video I believe the soldier is actually a medic who was able to return fire killing the sniper and seriously wounding the cameraman. What is particularly noteworthy is the medic who had just been shot by these guys ran over and provided life-saving first aid to the man he had wounded.
All too often we hear about the bad things our military does. It is truly an Army of One: one servicemember or one unit can ruin all of our reputation abroad...and at home. It is the latter that cuts us to the core. We are lucky when humanitarian efforts such as the Center for Citizen Leadership and former USAID director Andrew Natsios. The former being a civic service organization started by a Navy SEAL who saved his Iraq hazard duty pay to open a center for returning disabled vets to contribute to their communities. The latter was a 23 yr Army vet who has traveled to the Sudan and N. Korea to provide humanitarian food assistance and has argued against political and national security concerns having a disproportionate share of the calculus when making the decision to ease human suffering. When I was in Korea there were many opportunities to volunteer and serve our host nation. I myself volunteered my Saturday mornings teaching verbal English to a small, rural elementary school. I had other friends who routinely visited orphanages or got involved in off base spiritual activities to promote and celbrate both our common humanity and cultural differences. And yet one asshole throwing a puppy from a cliff means we are all monsters and evil.
Then there comes the ultimate sacrifice. I have been a USAF Honor Guardsmen. It has been a most bittersweet honor to bear the flag draped coffin of a fallen comrade. I have gone on bended knee and, fighting back my own tears and emotion, handed a flag to many a widow and in one case a child. I quake in anger when I hear about these people (true monsters) protesting and making a political statement at a funeral. (See it's not all against the left!) I am also angered when the image of flag draped coffins is used as a political statement, it cheapens my comrade's sacrifice. And yet I feel like I must hold my tongue because I wear the uniform that protects that right, and while I want to see their voices muzzled...I understand that to act upon that emotional impulse would be to dishonor myself but more importantly every American who has died in war.
(That is why I love NG...I get to speak out...but anonymously.)
At 3/24/08 02:47 PM, SolInvictus wrote: in your opinion Mason, do you think the video is real (as in actual soldiers in Iraq)?
At 3/24/08 03:11 PM, Al6200 wrote: @Mason: Do you think the puppy is alive?
I am not an expert in photo analysis. So in short I don't know. The only thing that raises my suspicions about anything like this is a few months ago I was helping a friend (and fellow USAF NCO) prepare a training course on PsyOps. Specifically we were talking about propaganda.
In doing research I came across a warning to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep personal electronic media devices secured. There was this one case where a soldier's hard drive was stolen with all his home movies on it. These movies were then altered with a voice over by an American in which the soldier is depicted as going through this transformation from Imperial Grunt to dissatisfied with the war. Then at the end the viewer is told this guy was killed. The funny thing about it: the soldier was alive and well and had been rotated back home.
So yeah I think there is the possibility that this has been faked...although I don't personally think so. As for if the puppy is alive or dead, I think it all goes back to whether it was faked. Afterall the one time that I was able to watch it, it really sounded like the puppy yipping as it was flung. In the end it would not surprise me either way.
Furthermore, it would be arrogant for me to say one way or another. Snopes.com has a page dedicated to this topic where they interview a real expert on these types of questions. I'm referring to the very bottom where they have the article where Colin MacDonald, a communications prof at U of Hawaii, says he would have a hard time determining the video's authenticity.
Speaking of fakes, I wonder if these reactions were real or scripted. All I've got to say is I'm going to have to watch the video backwards now...
At 3/24/08 12:26 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:At 3/24/08 11:06 AM, ABsoldier17 wrote: wait.... there's no identification on the soldiers uniforms.... Aren't they supposed to have names patches on their shoulders? In fact there are no patches anywhere to even tell us what unite they're apart of.Hey, that's actually a good point.
Not really.
You can tell he's in the USMC because of his uniform's camo pattern.
However, his nametapes are covered by his body armor which is common operating proceedure.
At 3/24/08 01:05 PM, Victory wrote:At 3/23/08 01:53 PM, TheMason wrote: Did you ever stop to think and analyze the video you were watching? Did you ever stop to ask yourself: "who made this video"? It appears to be a Islamic anti-war site. Therefore, they have an agenda. You are being led by the nose.Yes, and I'm sure they have a lot of Americans hanging around who are willing to dress up as soldiers and humiliate their country. My, I am being led by the nose.
Hmmm...you're right. I'm glad none of that goes on in your country.
Furthermore, one thing that is becoming common in Iraq are TCNs (Third Country Nationals) contracted to work on military installations are stealing things such as unsecured, personal hard drives and voicing over their home movies to produce propaganda. And if you don't think there are Americans who would help these people you are truly naive. We have a very vocal and active radical anti-war movement in our country that would do these things. Just like you have in the UK...
At 3/24/08 03:16 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 3/23/08 01:53 PM, TheMason wrote:I mean, U.S soldiers slaughter entire cities of innocents, kill and rape families for fun, all sorts of evil stuff that goes against the message of good the U.S Army strives to send across... and the higher ups just ignore it.
When in this conflict?
Considering that fact that no one was punished for Abu Ghraib even close to as severely as they should have been, and considering that many people guilty of the homocides, assaults, rapes, and humiliations that went on, and all that was AFTER a media firestorm, one can only guess the level of whitewashing that would have happened if there wasn't the aforementioned firestorm.
No, it was not AFTER the media firestorm. You see in the US and in a democracy we believe in something called due process. This has filtered down to our military. While the acts of those soldiers were vile...they still had the right to investigation and trial under the law. This takes time and the attitude that had the 60 Minutes episode not aired these people would not be punished sickens me for two reasons:
1) Ignorance of how the military operates (although everyone seems to think they know).
2) This is somehow standard operating proceedure.
As for their sentences:
1) Everyone received federal prison sentences. Although I will conceed that only one received an adequate sentence of 10 years.
2) They were dishonorably discharged which screws their chances of ever doing anything outside of their little shithole town.
3) To further compound the screw job to their future: they are also now considered convicted federal felons.
So yeah, their prison sentences may have been relatively light BUT the effects of their convictions are far reaching. In many ways their lives are over.
He received the JFK Profile in Courage Award. However, he and his wife has to stay in the witness protection program because if he goes home he will most likely be killed by a family member of his fellow guardsmen who he helped put in federal prison.Why? Considering that no one at Abu Ghraib had to actually pay for what they did, there shouldn't be to much vengeance abound.
1) See above.
2) Imagine this:
You are in a tight unit where your fellow soldiers are more like family than co-workers. Furthermore, you're a guardsman which means that these are people you grew-up with; that you had your first beer with and talked about popping your first cherry with. You are in a place where you depend upon these people for watching your ass in a situation where people are out to kill you. Then you find that someone is doing something illegal, immoral and quite possibly hurting the mission and helping al-Qaida in Iraq recruit (thereby helping kill Americans and Iraqis). So you do the right thing and turn them in.
Then, before the American public knows about this; the guilty are reassigned. Rumors abound. Then these people with whom you have so long felt a strong family tie with, start talking about how they are going to kill the person who turned these guys in. You are in a war zone and have no idea who to trust.
Then when you go home...you cannot. You have to totally re-boot your life because there are people in your home town who will kill you quite brutally.
Quite simply Cuppa...you are wrong. If Joe Darby (and his wife who had her life turned upside down by this as well) does not deserve to be recognizied for his courage...there is no one who does.
"War" is completely irrelevent to Abu Ghraib, where the commander of said prison estimated 90% of the inhabitants where innocent.
Hey you know what? I totally agree with you. Abu Ghraib probably cost more American lives than its apologists claim they save. Frontline has a great special on this. If you look at the comments section you'll notice that there are several servicemembers condeming this act.
And yes, in the old days, "honor" was the last thing you could call war; it was the accepted Norm for armies to kill civilians, execute P.O.W's and rape entire cities. The difference, however, is that after the Romans got done slaughtering an entire city of innocents, they didn't act shocked when the enemy did the same to them.
Sorry Cuppa...pillaging and raping is not the norm for how the US military operates.
And, I am not saying that the U.S makes a habit of War Crimes; attrocities such as the Mei Lei Massacre are COMPLETELY unrelated to the actual actions of the U.S military. But when the Army makes a habit of whitewashing and underplaying said attrocities (and they certainly do), then everyone guilty of not seeing the criminals put in jail is just as guilty.
Dude, there have been so many soldiers and marines who have been investigated for murder than any other war. In many ways I don't think you have a clue beyond the anti-war hype, how the US military operates. We are walking a tightrope here, and in some ways the rabid search for American atrocities is probably helping cause more slips on this tightrope by causing more stress on the soldiers.
Dude a little friendly advice:
1) It is considered poor form to cut and paste an article of this length in its entirity.
2) It's also good for you to add your own argument here.
3) You border upon plagarism. You provide a link (which partially saves you), but you do not tell us what it is you're linking to or who wrote it or published it.
Now, you may be doing that while I write this...if so then my apologies. But in the future please do this.
At 3/23/08 12:48 PM, mitosblog wrote: I put my bet on Obama. What about you guys?
I think, with only 66% certainty, that it will be Obama.
However, there is about eight months to go for the election. So much can happen between here and then. And I don't think he is going to have an easy time. I don't think Hillary is going to go quietly into the night and so the primary is going to severely handicap him going into the general race against McCain.
So while I think Obama will win...I wouldn't be surprised if either Clinton or McCain made it.
At 3/23/08 01:33 AM, therealsylvos wrote: That said he did get things done, and no matter who led reconstruction, it would've had to have been painful.
Usually I'm pretty much a structuralist and don't think that in a stable political situation the person elected to the White House will make any difference. However the political situation was far from stable. Therefore in this case I think Reconstruction would have been different had Lincoln not been shot or had his VP been a Republican from the North.
But you had a total change in the White House, it was like FDR's VP had been a NAZI from Germany. All of a sudden the president is no longer an abolitionist, civil rights Republican...but a Democrat from the South. And once in office his attitudes towards the South changed and he issued pardons to the vast majority of Confederates.
Lincoln may have done the same...but he had the political capital to do it...Johnson did not. If for no other reason, we wouldn't have had an impeachment that took the politician's time and efforts away from reconstruction.
Who knows, perhaps the Radical Republicans would've had their own way and Reconstruction would've been an outright atrocity. Perhaps Lincoln being shot is what saved his reputation.
At 3/23/08 10:08 AM, phrozonfire wrote: If you dont believe me watch this
Did you ever stop to think and analyze the video you were watching? Did you ever stop to ask yourself: "who made this video"? It appears to be a Islamic anti-war site. Therefore, they have an agenda. You are being led by the nose.
Now about the content, the behavior that these soldiers are showing is sickening. But guess what? When higher-ups catch wind of this behavior there is punishment. Look up Sgt Joe Darby. Abu Gharib was NOT brought to light because of some crusading journalist. The abuses were brought to light when a US soldier asked for pics to e-mail home from a buddy working the night shift and saw what was going on. He turned the evidence over to the proper authorities in January.
He received the JFK Profile in Courage Award. However, he and his wife has to stay in the witness protection program because if he goes home he will most likely be killed by a family member of his fellow guardsmen who he helped put in federal prison.
War is not all honor and glory and all those other things the ancient poets used to describe it. However, it is not all misery and suffering. The problem with civilians is you have no concept of what it is you speak.
At 3/22/08 09:33 PM, RobSoko315 wrote: If I remember correctly, Jackson the 17th president, tried to carry out Licoln's plans, but Congress was the one to stop it. Therefore, it probably would've turned out about the same, because Congress was for punishing the south.
I don't know, remember Johnson was a Southern Democrat while Lincoln was the first Republican president. While he was VP Johnson took a hardline towards punishing Confederates...however once Lincoln was assasinated he changed his stance and pardon the vast majority of Confederates. Jefferson Davis spent two years in jail and the only person to be executed for war crimes was the commandant of the Andersonville prison camp.
In short; Jefferson went weak when he wasn't in a position to be (nevermind that he was making the correct decisions). He was a member of the President's and Congress' opposition party and his (Johnson's) party was essentially powerless. Therefore there was no way that he could exercise political control over the Republicans in the Congress who wanted to push a Civil Rights agenda that the South, at the time, was in no position to accept.
So yeah reconstruction could have been vastly different had Lincoln survived since the political scene shifted so much after he died. He may have been a moderating force when there was no way in hell that Johnson could.
At 3/22/08 03:35 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Assuming McCain won the presidency, would he also be a single termer?
My gut says: yes.
I agree that the economy will right itself at some point, but regardless of who's in office, people may see whoever's President as having something to do with it.
This is the crux of the problem. What will the economy do over the next four years? Will it stagnate or stabilize? Will it get better or worse? Also will the president appear as competent in November 2011 as they do in November 2008?
At 3/22/08 02:50 PM, stafffighter wrote:At 3/22/08 02:40 PM, TheMason wrote:Well by all means add some. We can be communal in way that dosen't involve waiting in line for things.At 3/22/08 02:32 PM, stafffighter wrote:
My favorite are the 9/11 Truthers, as several others have pointed to, who are here to bring the Gospel of Alex Jones to the fine folks of NG. When you present them with facts you get naivety and vitriol.
I also like the kids who argue gun control...both sides. Their arguments are often taken off of bumperstickers and movies. On this point though it's not just 15 yr olds...I've seen people in their twenties arguing the same false arguments.
It's just that they all think they've cracked upon the one truth none of the other people who dress like them have.
I don't mind the kiddies expressing their opinions...its just when the claim to know what the fuck they're talking about...
Or even those of us who were once 15-20 and had the same revelations from Mt. Olympus...
