Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/9/08 09:59 PM, marchohare wrote: The caption on that picture should be, "Old, fat, sleepy Americans support John McCain."

Recent polls suggest that too.

You really don't need a poll to tell you that. The older generation are usually the most racist so they won't vote for Obama and people tend to vote for who they relate with and the old will relate to the old.

At 10/9/08 08:25 PM, marchohare wrote: LOL! You're dangerously close to parroting another stupid, dysfunctional meme: are you saying I'm "just being negative?"

Have you ever stopped to consider in your crusade to tell everyone of the Bush dicatorship that maybe, just maybe your not completey right? Maybe you are just negative.

It slid into a full-blown dictatorship the moment the words "You're either with us, or with the terrorists," oozed out of George W. Bush's mouth.

Are you old enough to remember those words? Are you smart enough to understand their implications? Were you part of the little tag team here that was saying as recently as last weekend that the stock market was going to bounce back this week?

Oh no you got me. I am young and not 49.
I am old enough to remeber those words but I did grow up in the Bush era so I really don't know what politics was like before those words.

It's funny how many people believe that being in a state of denial is smart.

Who said that?

I'm at a loss to to even answer that statement. There might be a knowledge gap here that's too wide to bridge.

Just who do you think "runs" the political parties, and how do you define "intelligence"? It sounds to me like you define "intelligence" as being synonymous with "low animal cunning." I don't.

Intelligence is not cunning but it does take intelligence to be cunning.

Being a real global player requires intelligence, along with those other things I mentioned. Being a big swingin' dick in one of the two mainstream U.S. political parties only requires being a wealthy sold-out whore.

And running a U.S. political party is not a global player?

What? Well, that, and having rich, well-connected parents. Blowing the doors off the test scores can get you in too, but it's unlikely to get you rushed by the Skull & Bones. Anyway, my point was, most of the leaders of both parties are not Ivy League. Most (especially in the Republican Party) are just wealthy hicks. You wouldn't even let most of them into your house through the front door if their wealth didn't buy them that privilege. Many of them wouldn't even be welcome in your kitchen.

When did I say that the people that run political parties are not rich wealthy hicks? Some leaders did not go to Ivy league schools but....
Obama-Harvard
Bush-Yale
McCain-U.S. naval academy (not ivy-league but still a prestigious college)
Al Gore-Harvard
Howard Dean-Yale
Bill clinton-Oxford and Yale
Hillary Clinton-Yale

Ninjaman, Marchohare, Fuck you both.

The relevance of the voter distribution, the backgrounds of the politicians, whether it be John Old-Bush-Fat-Mccain, or Barrack Hussein Mao Obama, and your desire to focus on the intelligence of the politician doesn't hold a candle to what will matter to the lives of Americans in the next 4 or even 8 years. I'll tell you fuckers what really matters since you seem to forware them for the sake of hiding behind some of the things i mentioned previously.

1) The logic and success of the institutions or organization established through McCain or Obama. Age, Experience, or ties to american hating terrorists matter very little on paper. If a law was written by me, and it was exactly the same as the law written by nancy pelosi, in word and format, then the effects of the law when enacted should, logically, be the same. While the Second part of this [see below] does have some changes and implications to the following statement, it still stands that It is assumed unless suspected otherwise that a politician will attempt to enact the bulk of their policies in reality.

2) There is an exception to the emboldened statement which can be used as debate ammo against a mccain or an obama supporter. The Elite that control and influence the nations that one considers 'judging the good or bad nature of the united states and it's international status' do not care about looks or rhetoric, they are concerned with the effects of US policies on their interests, and their propaganda to their people will reflect their feelings on whether or not the policy is in favor of their interests; naturally. Thus can be said, that policy is for all intensive purposes, the only thing that matters about a president. And even if it isn't, it certainly can't be argued that looks, education, wealth, are involve with policy UNLESS tangible examples are provided. And this is the exception, Political actions of the past are a good indication as to the actions that a leader will take during office once their campaigning is complete and they are no longer held accountable for their words and actions, george bush is a good example; running on a humble foreign policy which was later abandoned. A Politician that openly expressed views in the past dirrectly from their mouth is a partial indication of potential governing style in office, though much more importantly is voting or executive record in previous offices. While it is true that policy is the primary importance of a president, a policy that is promised but never enacted is about as useful to public voting descisions as are the personal lives of the individuals who ran for office. [Adolf hitler was a non smoking vegetarian, and Martin LK had personal problems with his wife.] Therefore, it must be deturmined whether or not the policy promises are hollow or realistic. For example, someone who claims to support abortion, but as a senator has blatantly voted against funding abortion clinics, openly opposed abortion as a senator, [and any other thing that would generally pass as hard line religious conservative with a pro life voting record] and even worked towards overturning roe vs wade, clearly has 0 credibility towards this policy. A good example of this can be found for our 'Barack Husein Obama' and 'John Mcsame-bush'

- Obama promises only to raise taxes on the top 1%, but, despite his odd and often spotty voting record, has voted in favor of taxes on groups as low as 60,000 $ a year. A much larger income bracket. The financial strain on the programs Obama plans to implement also lend a hand to hint that Obama may be forced, even against his will, to keep to his steep progressive tax curve.
- Mccain, on the other hand, has attempted to sound conservative on the issue of illegal immigration, despite his support for amnesty bills and his association to Liberal republicans like Lindsey Grahm who consider secure borders to be a form of bigotry.

In both cases, past action contradicted promised policies, and since during those past years politicians were not under as much scrutiny, it can be assumed that hussein and mcsame were doing what they would do under normal political conditions given the power that they had, and in the case of presidency, more will clearly come for these individuals and their plans.

for those of you who TLDR's those paragraphs, i'll sum it up with this;

1) Policy, not personal life, background, terrorist associations or unfortunate middle names, age, weird marital and religious lives, deturmine what will effect the american people.
2) The only exception is when past action contradicts policy. [See the above billeted examples for... examples]

To finish this, i'll say what i did when i started.

Fuck you.

Being close to a radical 60s person (calling any of those people terrorists is inaccurate), is a good thing.

That is all.

If you can't see why it's good. If you can't see why that would do nothing but broaden and sharpen a growing perspective.

Well. Then you're a moron.

At 10/10/08 09:12 PM, aninjaman wrote:

You really don't need a poll to tell you that. The older generation are usually the most racist so they won't vote for Obama and people tend to vote for who they relate with and the old will relate to the old.

you basically just said "Vote Obama or you're a racist!"

At 10/10/08 10:41 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Ninjaman, Marchohare, Fuck you both.

Thats starting off on a mature note.

for those of you who TLDR's those paragraphs, i'll sum it up with this;

1) Policy, not personal life, background, terrorist associations or unfortunate middle names, age, weird marital and religious lives, deturmine what will effect the american people.

I never said people shouldnt vote on policy. They should they just don't. Most of the time people vote for who they relate to. Why do you think McCain's backstory of being a P.O.W is brought up every 5 minutes on the campaign trail or how Obama grew up without a father a middle calss.

2) The only exception is when past action contradicts policy. [See the above billeted examples for... examples]

To finish this, i'll say what i did when i started.

Fuck you.

I fucked your mom. See I can be annoying and immature to. =)

At 10/11/08 02:17 AM, Korriken wrote: you basically just said "Vote Obama or you're a racist!"

No I didnt. I said the old tend to be more racist then the young and the racist tend not to vote Obama.

At 10/11/08 02:17 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 10/10/08 09:12 PM, aninjaman wrote:

You really don't need a poll to tell you that. The older generation are usually the most racist so they won't vote for Obama and people tend to vote for who they relate with and the old will relate to the old.

you basically just said "Vote Obama or you're a racist!"

Who do you hate 08

___________

Unless i'm shown otherwise [Here, that is] It's clear that there are no redeeming qualities in Senator Obama that make him worthy of being the president. My assumption is based on the observation that the primary argument made by his supporters is that the only reason people DON'T vote for him is because they are racist. Since there is a clear discomfort in the idea of addressing the flaws or benefits of obama's policy, it can be assumed that people who play the race card against mccain voters know nothing about obama's policy, or are embarrassed to talk about obama's policy in the open.

Here's a better way for you to handle a debate against barack obama than the crackpot style you are implementing. Let's say i'm a mccain supporter and i am attacking people who attack sarah palin.

Smilez: Democrats hate Sarah Palin because the democrats are sexist, they hate the idea of a woman running for office which is why they were so disparate to have Hillary Clinton step down during the primaries.

Ninjaman: Providing several reasons that's a stupid assertion.

- If they felt this way about Hillary Clinton do [or did] any of the democrats support her in the first place.
- When i look around for things that show why people feel the way they do about Palin [the negative side that is] people will say that She's inexperienced, [Mayor of a small town, governor for 2 years], She's too religiously conservative, especially for feminists who would rather have a male in office who espouses their ideals of sexual freedom than a female who opposes them, She's surrounded by sex scandal, bla bla bla. She clearly knows nothing about foreign policy... [bla bla bla]
- I disprove of her policy of simply drilling for more oil... [blablabla]... Because... [bla bla bla].

Bla bla bla just means it is assumed you would be saying more than what i put in there, otherwise you've got an incomplete argument.

Now... Trying to pull off the following:

Smilez: I do not beleive obama would make a good president, His Healthcare policy would--
*interrupt* Ninjaman: Because you're a racist

Is bullshit. Atleast when i attack Obama i'm assuming that Obama is an honest man, i'm assuming he's an honest man because if i thought Obama was dishonest then i wouldn't beleive that the policy he talks about enacting is not the same as what he actually wants to create. To some people, Obama's not a terrorist, a black nationalist, a christian extremist, or a socialist, he's just a man with very bad ideas and no experience; Like Sarah Palin.

I'm not sure where they found Obama as the democratic candidate, but it was a mistake. McCain will be a good president, but wasn't my first choice. Personal I would rather have had the election between Mitt Romney or Clinton but we cant get what we want. From the choices at hand, I have to say McCain should be elected. Obama just isn't ready to lead the free world, and democrats should be happy, McCain is more of a middle man than a true conservative or liberal.

At 10/10/08 10:41 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Ninjaman, Marchohare, Fuck you both. (Remainder of long-winded rant snipped.)

Were you under the impression I'm an Obama supporter? I'm not. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either one of these sold-out whores. Anyone who's read even a small portion of what I've written on the BBS already knows that.

As for your apparent contention that enacted policy matters and the Bully Pulpit does not (if that's what you were saying--your post wasn't entirely coherent), that's bullshit of the purest ray serene.

At 10/11/08 12:18 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Who do you hate 08

___________

Unless i'm shown otherwise [Here, that is] It's clear that there are no rabble rabble rabble

Jesus, that a huge fucking wall of text for such a small answer. I never said if you dont vote Obama you are racist I just said that racists don't vote Obama. I thought I was pointing out a simple fact. Sexists won't vote McCain because of Palin but that does not mean all people who dont vote Palin are sexist.

so calm down.

The President Election is legit corruption:

- It is a big problem with corruption in the United States. The democracy is so steeped in the great cash flow in the options, at an election reform is essential. When Congress and president job are for sale, it's just a question of how much they cost. In the end of the process, it is an option, but we see big money importance to the outcome.

-Race between Barack Obama and John McCain is the fourth presidential election where the center is on track for money to find how much it costs to buy the U.S. president job.

- Now it is more expensive than ever. For the first time in history we see an election that will cost several billion dollars. My "investigation" show that the winner of the last election campaign has been the candidate with the most money behind them. Bill Clinton collected more money than Bob Dole, while George W. Bush had more wealth behind them than Al Gore and John Kerry.

Or is it just a coincidence that the guy with the most money have won the 4th last selections?
Its up to you to answer

At 10/9/08 08:25 PM, marchohare wrote:

If you're still buying into the anti-nuclear propaganda, I refer you to the Yucca Mountain EIS's data on radiation health impacts:

"Short-term radiological health impacts to the public for Yucca Mountain construction, operation and monitoring, and closure would be small. (Impacts from transportation are discussed in Section S.4.2.) More than 99.9 percent of the potential health impact would be from naturally occurring radon-222 and its decay products released in exhaust ventilation air. The highest annual dose would range from 0.73 to 1.3 millirem, less than 1 percent of the annual 200-millirem dose that members of the public in Amargosa Valley would receive from ambient levels of naturally occurring radon-222 and its decay products.

The maximally exposed individual would have an increase in the probability of incurring a latent cancer fatality ranging from about 0.000016 to 0.000031 (from 16 to 31 chances in 1,000,000) from exposure to radionuclides released from repository facilities over a 70-year lifetime. The total estimated number of latent cancer fatalities in the potentially exposed population would range from 0.46 for the higher-temperature operating mode to 0.97 to 2.0 for the lower-temperature repository operating mode.

For the sake of comparison, statistics published by the Centers for Disease Control indicate that, during 1998, 24 percent of all deaths in the State of Nevada were attributable to cancer of some type and cause. Assuming this mortality rate would remain unchanged for the estimated population in 2035 of about 76,000 within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the Yucca Mountain site, about 18,000 members of this population would be likely to die from cancer-related causes unrelated to the Proposed Action. During the time the project was active (100 to 324 years), the number of cancer deaths unrelated to the project would range from 30,000 to 89,000 in the general population. Estimated project-related impacts (0.46 to 2.0) would be a very small increase (0.007 percent or less) over this baseline"

http://www.ymp.gov/documents/feis_2/summ ary/summain.htm#S.5.1.8

At 10/9/08 07:55 PM, aninjaman wrote: ...and you said that it all goes down from here meant that the country always seems like its sliding closer to a dictatorship. It never becomes one though.

It slid into a full-blown dictatorship the moment the words "You're either with us, or with the terrorists," oozed out of George W. Bush's mouth.

That would explain why we're holding... an election. Where Bush's party is getting completely blown out of the water.

Dictatorship... Right...

What? Well, that, and having rich, well-connected parents.

That's BS. To get into a school (and even more so a top school) you need to have good test scores, good grades, and higher accomplishments for the more competitive colleges.

The statistics show this. Look at the GPA and SAT percentiles for Harvard/Yale/MIT/Caltech. They barely admit anyone who isn't way above the top 5%.

Blowing the doors off the test scores can get you in too, but it's unlikely to get you rushed by the Skull & Bones. Anyway, my point was, most of the leaders of both parties are not Ivy League. Most (especially in the Republican Party) are just wealthy hicks. You wouldn't even let most of them into your house through the front door if their wealth didn't buy them that privilege. Many of them wouldn't even be welcome in your kitchen.

That's because you can get a great education outside of the Ivy League. I mean, let's not forget that Obama went to Occidental college before he transferred to Columbia.

u people can be such idiots. OBAMA doesnt have the BALLS to fight terrorists. He would rather "talk" with them than fight. All of the terrorist groups such as hezbollah and the taliban are cheering for obama because they know he wont fight them. If obama becomes president, then liberals are gonna learn real destruction the hard way. McCain will fight, and destroy the terrorist groups and KEEP our country SAFE.

At 10/11/08 08:13 PM, Al6200 wrote: If you're still buying into the anti-nuclear propaganda, I refer you to the Yucca Mountain EIS's data on radiation health impacts...

I'm not sure where that came from, since my name was at the top but I wasn't quoted. Anyway, I think you might need to google "low level waste daughter products"--not that I feel that strongly about it. I don't.

Dictatorship... Right...

Yes, dictatorship, as in "an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state." That's been blatant under Bush, and I get rather nervous when I consider that one good Reichstag Fire could make it permanent.

That's BS. To get into a school (and even more so a top school) you need to have good test scores, good grades, and higher accomplishments for the more competitive colleges.

That's naive. "My daddy is George H.W. Bush" trumps Joe Sixpack, Jr.'s 2200 on the SAT.

Its nice too see that someone gets it about Obama (referring to smilez). I am not going to bother adding much because he pretty much summed it up.
I personally detest both candidates, but I would not vote for Obama if someone stuck a gun to my head. No, not because hes black. Because his economic policies would be a disaster, despite the fact that most Americans seem to trust him more than McCain when it comes to the economy (which further reinforces in my mind that Americans are stupid).

He can say all he wants about how hes not going to raise taxes except for the top 1% of Americans (which is wrong as well but I will get to that later), he does not have to tell the truth about it at all. He can lie all he wants on the campaign trail because candidates are allowed to. He has a history of raising taxes, not on the top 1%, but on people making as little as $60,000 dollars a year. You look at the history of his voting record (though it is frail and pathetic), not what he says.

He ultimately believes in the redistribution of wealth, otherwise he would not propose raising taxes on people that are the on the top 1% of income. Nevermind that the top 1% pay 39.4% of the nations taxes. The top 10% of Americans pay a staggering 68% of all federal income taxes. And he wants to raise taxes even more. That is plainly wrong in any form, and anyone that disagrees does not understand what the meaning of the word wrong is.

He is intricately connected to ACORN, despite the news media playing the relationship down and Obama extremists denying it. Yet no one cares.

I just a politician by his/hers close associations. Obama is connected closely with ACORN, his former pastor the Reverend Wright, and Rezko. He had some sory of association with Ayers, despite the media and so called fact check websites denying it.

In short, I will not vote for Obama. But then again, I probably won't vote for McCain either. Some people say I will be wasting my vote on a third party candidate, but I reply that I will not be selling my soul every time.

At 10/11/08 10:31 PM, marchohare wrote:

I'm not sure where that came from, since my name was at the top but I wasn't quoted. Anyway, I think you might need to google "low level waste daughter products"--not that I feel that strongly about it. I don't.

You've said that nuclear power is unsafe quite a few times.

Yes, dictatorship, as in "an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state." That's been blatant under Bush, and I get rather nervous when I consider that one good Reichstag Fire could make it permanent.

Dude, but that's nonsense. There are lots of things that Bush would like to do that he can't because of other branches of government. He can't ban abortion because of the supreme court. He can't build Yucca Mountain because the congress already passed NEPA. Bush wanted to detain prisoners at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely but can't because of a supreme court decision.

Bush's power is restricted by law, so he doesn't fit your own definition of a dictator.

That's naive. "My daddy is George H.W. Bush" trumps Joe Sixpack, Jr.'s 2200 on the SAT.

If they were accepting significant numbers of under qualified applicants than the SAT averages and GPA averages wouldn't look the way they do. Harvard isn't accepting anyone in the top quarter of their class. I don't think Harvard publishes detailed SAT percentiles but if you look at MIT's (pretty much on par with Harvard) figures they're not admitting too many people with SAT scores in any section below 700 or with a low GPA.

http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/appl y/admissions_statistics/

Granted, "My daddy is a Bush" is still a big plus, but it's not nearly as big of a boost as you're making it out to be.

At 10/11/08 09:44 PM, Klansmen wrote: u people can be such idiots. OBAMA doesnt have the BALLS to fight terrorists. He would rather "talk" with them than fight. All of the terrorist groups such as hezbollah and the taliban are cheering for obama because they know he wont fight them. If obama becomes president, then liberals are gonna learn real destruction the hard way. McCain will fight, and destroy the terrorist groups and KEEP our country SAFE.

That's exactly what Obama WANTS them to think. It gives new meaning to the phrase: "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they'll be when you kill them."

At 10/11/08 11:31 PM, Al6200 wrote: You've said that nuclear power is unsafe quite a few times.

You'll have to show me the most recent example. Got a link? Anyway, yes, obviously fission is dangerous, but so what? Burning coal is dangerous. Peak oil is dangerous. If I have a problem with nuclear fission it's the way it's being sold like we were in the 'seventies again.

Industry apologists dismiss the tailings from mining (specifically their daughter products) and the waste from enrichment. In fact "dismiss" is too soft a word: they don't talk about it, just as they didn't talk about waste at all back in the 'seventies. Back then, their propa... er, public education was based on refuting the danger of meltdowns. If you asked the industry spokesmen who were sent around to the schools about the waste (I did), it stopped them cold. Obviously they hadn't included that in their talking points.

I believe the dangers of fission can be addressed and managed. I just don't trust companies controlled by bean counters who constantly watch the bottom line to manage them. If you believe corporate executives are wise enough to sacrifice part of their profits in order to prevent meltdowns and ensure their continued survival, look at Wall Street.

I have great faith in science and technology; I have no faith in the way they're currently funded and implemented. That's not the fault of the tool; it's the carpenter's fault.

Dude, but that's nonsense. There are lots of things that Bush would like to do that he can't because of other branches of government...

And there were lots of things he did that were flat-out illegal and unconstitutional. As Henry Kissinger observed, "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer." (I don't find that humorous: Kissinger wasn't joking.) Granted, Bush appears to be a lame duck now (I won't breathe a sigh of relief until he's safely out of office), but that PATRIOT Act is still there, as is the practice of extraordinary rendition (outsourcing torture), the Department of Homeland Security, domestic spying, his record of claiming "the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills," and his orders to subordinates to defy subpoenas.

Between 2001 and 2005 Bush was a de facto dictator. We came too close to the brink for comfort, and the damage he did has yet to be undone. On a happier note, the American People surprised me: they woke up... somewhat. But I'm frankly amazed that about a quarter of us still think Bush did a good job. I can only suppose that his base would be happier in a down-home Christian version of an Islamic Theocracy.

Bush's power is restricted by law, so he doesn't fit your own definition of a dictator.

Bush smashed the law to pieces and called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." He does fit my definition of a dictator. So, he'll be stepping aside in three months (presumably); so what? Hitler stepped aside too, he just (allegedly) did so with a self-inflicted bullet wound to the head. Do you require your dictators' terms of office to be indefinite?

As I said, I won't breathe a sigh of relief until he's out of office. But, Bush isn't the real power anyway. Real power bought his ticket into office, and has already bought the ticket for the next sold-out whore to come.

Granted, "My daddy is a Bush" is still a big plus, but it's not nearly as big of a boost as you're making it out to be.

MIT is not Ivy League.

I think it is, and here's why: the Ivy League is hardly transparent about its admissions standards, although some Ivy League schools are better than others.

I do not have an automatic distrust of authority. I trust the authority of my current boss for example, because he earned it by being transparent, and I've seen the company he and his partner built. They aren't taking out short-term loans to make payroll, I can guarantee you that.

When the officials of any institution act weasely, it pings my radar. It should ping anyone's.

At 10/11/08 10:33 PM, darkfiretime1 wrote:

I personally detest both candidates, but I would not vote for Obama if someone stuck a gun to my head. No, not because hes black. Because his economic policies would be a disaster, despite the fact that most Americans seem to trust him more than McCain when it comes to the economy (which further reinforces in my mind that Americans are stupid).

McCain will be following Bush's economic policies of deregulation that got us here in this mess in the first place.

He can say all he wants about how hes not going to raise taxes except for the top 1% of Americans (which is wrong as well but I will get to that later), he does not have to tell the truth about it at all. He can lie all he wants on the campaign trail because candidates are allowed to. He has a history of raising taxes, not on the top 1%, but on people making as little as $60,000 dollars a year. You look at the history of his voting record (though it is frail and pathetic), not what he says.

Do you have anything at all to prove that your not talking out of your ass? McCain is on record for saying he is scared of poor black people and no that is not true but it is as backed up as what you just said.

He ultimately believes in the redistribution of wealth, otherwise he would not propose raising taxes on people that are the on the top 1% of income. Nevermind that the top 1% pay 39.4% of the nations taxes. The top 10% of Americans pay a staggering 68% of all federal income taxes. And he wants to raise taxes even more. That is plainly wrong in any form, and anyone that disagrees does not understand what the meaning of the word wrong is.

As a lower-middle class American the redistribution of wealth when my parents work two jobs and CEOs responsible for fucking over the banks they run get billlions in bonus sounds fine to me. Also the rich seem to be doing fine under this horrible and crushing tax burden you describe.

He is intricately connected to ACORN, despite the news media playing the relationship down and Obama extremists denying it. Yet no one cares.

Once again you are talking out of your ass. The reason the media plays it down and no one cares is because its not true.

I just a politician by his/hers close associations. Obama is connected closely with ACORN, his former pastor the Reverend Wright, and Rezko. He had some sory of association with Ayers, despite the media and so called fact check websites denying it.

Palin is intricately connected to anti-american Alaskan secessionits under your logic.

In short, I will not vote for Obama. But then again, I probably won't vote for McCain either. Some people say I will be wasting my vote on a third party candidate, but I reply that I will not be selling my soul every time.

Im glad your not voting.

At 10/12/08 10:39 AM, marchohare wrote:

You'll have to show me the most recent example. Got a link? Anyway, yes, obviously fission is dangerous, but so what? Burning coal is dangerous. Peak oil is dangerous. If I have a problem with nuclear fission it's the way it's being sold like we were in the 'seventies again.

Hmmm... Yes, looking back at it I was more responding to Animajan and not you. Apologies.

Industry apologists dismiss the tailings from mining (specifically their daughter products) and the waste from enrichment. In fact "dismiss" is too soft a word: they don't talk about it, just as they didn't talk about waste at all back in the 'seventies. Back then, their propa... er, public education was based on refuting the danger of meltdowns. If you asked the industry spokesmen who were sent around to the schools about the waste (I did), it stopped them cold. Obviously they hadn't included that in their talking points.

Uranium mining is no more dangerous than the mining of any hard metal, except that you don't need very much uranium to generate a lot of power. You need a lot of coal to generate a good deal of coal power.

If you think that uranium mining is dangerous, show me a uranium mining site EIS that predicts significant casualties from the mining. Or show an accident that directly resulted in casualties.

I believe the dangers of fission can be addressed and managed. I just don't trust companies controlled by bean counters who constantly watch the bottom line to manage them. If you believe corporate executives are wise enough to sacrifice part of their profits in order to prevent meltdowns and ensure their continued survival, look at Wall Street.

That explains why there have been so many nuclear meltdowns in France, where they get nearly 80% of their electricity from nuclear power plants. And that explains why there have been accidents in the US that have taken countless lives, like Three Mile Island. (That's obviously sarcasm, neither nuclear power in France nor in the US has led to fatal accidents. Even the most dramatic and publicized nuclear accident in the Western World (Three Mile Island) didn't claim a single life.

In fact, your comment is intensely ironic because the only significant accident involving nuclear power occurred in a communist country, where it was a collapsing government - not private companies - that deliberately fucked over safety procedures at Cherynobyl.

I have great faith in science and technology; I have no faith in the way they're currently funded and implemented. That's not the fault of the tool; it's the carpenter's fault.

How would you fund and implement science and technology differently?

And there were lots of things he did that were flat-out illegal and unconstitutional. As Henry Kissinger observed, "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer." (I don't find that humorous: Kissinger wasn't joking.) Granted, Bush appears to be a lame duck now (I won't breathe a sigh of relief until he's safely out of office), but that PATRIOT Act is still there, as is the practice of extraordinary rendition (outsourcing torture), the Department of Homeland Security, domestic spying, his record of claiming "the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills," and his orders to subordinates to defy subpoenas.

Do you know why he's a lame duck? Because the congress opposes him. If he were a dictator as you so claim, he couldn't be a lame duck, because there wouldn't be another part of the government to offer real opposition.

And besides, why don't you think he, as the president, can bypass statutes from other bills? I mean, we write new bills all the time that supersede old bills. How is that illegal, if the bill came from the congress, the highest legislative authority in the land?

Between 2001 and 2005 Bush was a de facto dictator. We came too close to the brink for comfort, and the damage he did has yet to be undone. On a happier note, the American People surprised me: they woke up... somewhat. But I'm frankly amazed that about a quarter of us still think Bush did a good job. I can only suppose that his base would be happier in a down-home Christian version of an Islamic Theocracy.

You call him a de facto dictator, but if that were the case why did he lose so much power and become a lame duck when the people gave the democrats control of congress?

Bush smashed the law to pieces and called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." He does fit my definition of a dictator. So, he'll be stepping aside in three months (presumably); so what? Hitler stepped aside too, he just (allegedly) did so with a self-inflicted bullet wound to the head. Do you require your dictators' terms of office to be indefinite?

Dude, you're insane. Hitler didn't voluntarily step down, the Soviet Union invaded and he killed himself to avoid capture. That's quite a bit different than the constitution saying that Bush has to step down, and Bush stepping down.

Try to equate them is just nonsense.

MIT is not Ivy League.

MIT admissions are on par with top Ivy League schools, and quite a bit tougher than the minor Ivy League schools like Columbia or Cornell.

I think it is, and here's why: the Ivy League is hardly transparent about its admissions standards, although some Ivy League schools are better than others.

That's quite true. But I suspect that it's largely because a more mysterious application process encourages under qualified people to apply, which allows them boost their rejection numbers and improve their ranking/prestige.

It's sort of a dick move, but that's life.

I do not have an automatic distrust of authority. I trust the authority of my current boss for example, because he earned it by being transparent, and I've seen the company he and his partner built. They aren't taking out short-term loans to make payroll, I can guarantee you that.

When the officials of any institution act weasely, it pings my radar. It should ping anyone's.

Oh yeah, I don't trust the US government very much at all. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that the US is a dictatorship.

At 10/12/08 12:59 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 10/11/08 10:33 PM, darkfiretime1 wrote:

McCain will be following Bush's economic policies of deregulation that got us here in this mess in the first place.

I will point to both parties rather than this bullshit about it being all Bush's fault. Certainly he has alot to blame, and he is a horrible president, but guess who allowed him to do all of this? The entire congress. They repeatedly passed his budgets without even a whimper, so the blame lies in both parties.

Do you have anything at all to prove that your not talking out of your ass? McCain is on record for saying he is scared of poor black people and no that is not true but it is as backed up as what you just said.

My proof is his voting record on taxes.

As a lower-middle class American the redistribution of wealth when my parents work two jobs and CEOs responsible for fucking over the banks they run get billlions in bonus sounds fine to me. Also the rich seem to be doing fine under this horrible and crushing tax burden you describe.

Fuck your parents. They got into the place they got by the choices they made in life. I am lower middle class and you don't see me running around screaming about getting free money. Hell, I am probably not even lower middle class. And its not an issue of the rich "seeming to do fine". Its about greed and envy. The greedy and the envious want to divide everything among everyone. And furthermore, simply because your rich it does not make you one of those "CEOs responsible for fucking over the banks". If you think all rich people screwed people over to get where they are at, then your a lost cause and this discussion is pointless because your little brain won't comprehend anything I say anyways.

He is intricately connected to ACORN, despite the news media playing the relationship down and Obama extremists denying it. Yet no one cares.

Yeah its out my ass. Ok sure. Is this you listening to just the media and your little circle of friends? Have you done any research of your own, or do you blindly listen to what everyone else says?

Palin is intricately connected to anti-american Alaskan secessionits under your logic.

No not really. Sure, she married a former man that was one, and she spoke at a little convention thing of theirs. She was never a member however. And besides, I detest her anyways so you can attack her all you want. I simply look at the close associations of his.

Im glad your not voting.

Didn't say I wasn't voting you stupid moron. But then again, me not voting for a political monopoly (mainstream party to clear your confused mind) is probably not voting in your eyes, sheep. Continue living in ignorant bliss as you ask for the government to spend more money and provide people with things it should not be providing.

At 10/12/08 01:57 PM, darkfiretime1 wrote: I will point to both parties rather than this bullshit about it being all Bush's fault. Certainly he has alot to blame, and he is a horrible president, but guess who allowed him to do all of this? The entire congress. They repeatedly passed his budgets without even a whimper, so the blame lies in both parties.

Still my point stands.

My proof is his voting record on taxes.

Are you acually going to give an example or a link or anything? Its your job to back up what you said.

Fuck your parents. They got into the place they got by the choices they made in life. I am lower middle class and you don't see me running around screaming about getting free money.

You dont even know my parents. My mom teaches inner city school children and kids with disabilities and my dad is a scientist that studies cancer so how dare they make the choices they made to get wher they are. And besides redistributin of wealth would be taking money away from the rich and giving ot the poor but Obama supports raising taxes for the upper class and lowering taxes for the middle class. Thats not redistribution of wealth.

Hell, I am probably not even lower middle class. And its not an issue of the rich "seeming to do fine". Its about greed and envy. The greedy and the envious want to divide everything among everyone.

Damn those greedy bastards and their desire for equality.

And furthermore, simply because your rich it does not make you one of those "CEOs responsible for fucking over the banks". If you think all rich people screwed people over to get where they are at, then your a lost cause and this discussion is pointless because your little brain won't comprehend anything I say anyways.

I didnt say all rich people are that way but the rich of the rich like the billionaires that pay the most taxes did.

Yeah its out my ass. Ok sure. Is this you listening to just the media and your little circle of friends? Have you done any research of your own, or do you blindly listen to what everyone else says?

And where do you get your news and dont say online blogs? Im pretty sure TV news is a pretty good source. I watch fox news and even they now Obama's connection to Aires is bullshit.
Also give me proof that Obama is connected to them any proof at all.

No not really. Sure, she married a former man that was one, and she spoke at a little convention thing of theirs. She was never a member however. And besides, I detest her anyways so you can attack her all you want. I simply look at the close associations of his.

Palin is as closey connected to the seccionists as Obama was connected to Aires is what im trying ot say. And speaking at the convention is a pretty close connection.

Didn't say I wasn't voting you stupid moron. But then again, me not voting for a political monopoly (mainstream party to clear your confused mind) is probably not voting in your eyes, sheep. Continue living in ignorant bliss as you ask for the government to spend more money and provide people with things it should not be providing.

Oh you just feel so special and important calling us all sheep dont you? While you spout bullshit that isnt based on facts.

At 10/12/08 01:10 PM, Al6200 wrote: Uranium mining is no more dangerous than the mining of any hard metal...

Except for that little radon problem.

If you think that uranium mining is dangerous, show me a uranium mining site EIS that predicts significant casualties from the mining. Or show an accident that directly resulted in casualties.

Okay:
"During the 1950s, many Navajos in the U.S. became uranium miners, as many uranium deposits were discovered on Navajo reservations. A statistically significant subset of these early miners later developed small cell carcinoma after exposure to uranium ore. Radon-222, a natural decay product of uranium, has been shown to be the cancer-causing agent. Some American survivors and their descendants received compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990.

"In January 2008 Areva was nominated for an Anti Oscar Award. The French state-owned company mines uranium in northern Niger where mine workers are not informed about health risks, and analysis shows radioactive contamination of air, water and soil.The local organization that represents the mine workers, spoke of 'suspicious deaths among the workers, caused by radioactive dust and contaminated groundwater.'"

It's always those little dark people, isn't it?

...Even the most dramatic and publicized nuclear accident in the Western World (Three Mile Island) didn't claim a single life.

I don't believe that consensus is without dissent, and you can't deny incentives to explain away the high incidence of lung cancer in the region. But, it might be due to wholesome, natural radon gas. I'll give you that.

...the only significant accident involving nuclear power occurred in a communist country, where it was a collapsing government - not private companies - that deliberately fucked over safety procedures at Cherynobyl.

What do you call "significant"? Do a few Navajos and Nigerians not count? As may be, what makes you think it couldn't happen here? The U.S. isn't in such great shape itself.

Bear in mind, I'm not really arguing against nuclear fission, but warning against its bad implementation. Tremendous incentives to cut corners and rush through construction of new plants now exist. A word to the wise: don't.

How would you fund and implement science and technology differently?

As far as public funding goes, I would demand increased transparency. Somebody needs to be watching the watchmen. The Mainstream Media is no longer any good at it, so it has to be Weeduhpeepull.

I want to see possible agendas and conflicts of interest out on the table. Thank God for the internet! It's not always reliable, but you can get some information here that's accurate, and not readily available from any other source.

Take that Bird Flu scare. Remember that? According to the latest figures I can find (2006) it had only killed 113 people worldwide; nevertheless, the MSM whipped the sheeple into a minor hysteria. The drug Tamiflu was widely touted as the only effective treatment. It flew off the shelves. Its creator, Gilead Sciences, had to license new production facilities to meet the demand.

It was a con. Google the words "Rumsfeld Gilead." Follow the money. Follow the power.

Big Pharma is one of the worst offenders, a veritable cornucopia of junk science and hysterical advertising disguised as "Health News." If you see the name of a big pharmaceutical company attached to a study, be suspicious. Big Pharma's studies are no more reliable than Big Tobacco's, and probably less.

Pick up a Physicians' Desk Reference and thumb through it, giving special attention to the words "precise mechanism unknown"; they don't even know how most of the drugs on the market work. That's not science, it's voodoo.

But to answer your question, I don't see a quick fix for the problem. The solution won't come from corporatocracy. Screw the government alphabet soup agencies: they're obviously corrupt. The people will get unbiased watchdogs when the people demand them. I am not optimistic about our chances.

Do you know why he's a lame duck? Because the congress opposes him....

Not always, even now. Did you happen to notice how fast Congress signed 850 billion dollars of the taxpayers' money over to Big Banking? Notice how fast Bush signed it into law? When it comes down to the nut cuttin' those sold-out whores are all on the same side: corporate elite = 2; American taxpayer = 0.

You call him a de facto dictator, but if that were the case why did he lose so much power and become a lame duck when the people gave the democrats control of congress?

I ask again: since when was an indefinite term of office a prerequisite for being a dictator? I didn't see "unlimited term of office" anywhere in my definition. Did you?

...Hitler didn't voluntarily step down, the Soviet Union invaded and he killed himself to avoid capture...

I would call suicide about as voluntary as it gets. He could've faced the music, or he could have faked his death and headed for the hills (which some believe he did, but I am not among them). Anyway, you misinterpreted my point: I was not comparing the sins of Bush to the sins of Hitler (although plenty of comparisons exist if you care to look them up); I was pointing out that Hitler was no less a dictator because he was removed from power.

Bear in mind, the Bush administration isn't out of power yet. If we get another Reichstag Fire, remember, you heard it here first.

That's quite a bit different than the constitution saying that Bush has to step down, and Bush stepping down.

As I said, I'll relax when he actually does. A lot can happen in three months, and I don't put anything past this criminal administration... anything, no matter how unthinkable. In fact, doing the unthinkable would be his best defense: plausible deniability, and all that.

MIT admissions are on par with top Ivy League schools, and quite a bit tougher than the minor Ivy League schools like Columbia or Cornell.

Yes? So? We seem to be in agreement: MIT is an excellent school, where smarts are the order of the day. The Ivy League has somewhat different criteria.

...I don't trust the US government very much at all. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that the US is a dictatorship.

I said was, not is, which is remarkable in itself. The American people deserve a mild pat on the back, although we elected the son of a bitch in the first place... twice!

I wouldn't breathe a sigh of relief until after January 20, 2009. This fat lady hasn't sung yet.

However, I expect the Bush administration to pass into the dustbin of history with nary a whimper too. Call it a 70% probability. I just won't be terribly surprised if the "unthinkable" 30% probability comes to pass.

Don't be afraid. Be suspicious. You have excellent reasons for it.

At 10/12/08 05:27 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 10/12/08 01:10 PM, Al6200 wrote: Uranium mining is no more dangerous than the mining of any hard metal...

Except for that little radon problem.

"During the 1950s, many Navajos in the U.S. became uranium miners, as many uranium deposits were discovered on Navajo reservations. A statistically significant subset of these early miners later developed small cell carcinoma after exposure to uranium ore. Radon-222, a natural decay product of uranium, has been shown to be the cancer-causing agent. Some American survivors and their descendants received compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990.

I quote your same article:

"Cancer rates in populations of highly exposed uranium industry workers have been examined. The rate of lung and skin cancer in these highly exposed populations was investigated in a follow-up study of mortality. Among 18,869 white males employed between 1943 and 1947 at a uranium conversion and enrichment plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, no excess cancers were observed through 1974 (Poldenak, 1981). This study, carried out at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, continues. Several other published epidemiological studies of uranium mills and metal processing plant workers have either found no excess cancer or documented that excess lung cancer was attributable to other known carcinogens (radon and its progeny and cigarette smoke) rather than uranium (Poldenak, 1981, 1982; Cragle, 1988; Reyes, 1984; Saccomanno, 1982; Hadjimichael, 1983; Carpenter, 1988). Although not statistically significant, a dose-response relationship between lung cancer and cumulative gamma radiation in a nuclear materials fabrication plant was noted by Checkoway (1998). (See Appendix E for a discussion of risks associated with radon exposure.) "

So apparently being a uranium miner doesn't increase risk of cancer.

"In January 2008 Areva was nominated for an Anti Oscar Award. The French state-owned company mines uranium in northern Niger where mine workers are not informed about health risks, and analysis shows radioactive contamination of air, water and soil.The local organization that represents the mine workers, spoke of 'suspicious deaths among the workers, caused by radioactive dust and contaminated groundwater.'"

Because we all know that mines run in Niger are of the same quality as mines run in the US.

I don't believe that consensus is without dissent, and you can't deny incentives to explain away the high incidence of lung cancer in the region. But, it might be due to wholesome, natural radon gas. I'll give you that.

Do you have any evidence that people die due to Three Mile Island, or are you just making up a conspiracy theory?

What do you call "significant"? Do a few Navajos and Nigerians not count? As may be, what makes you think it couldn't happen here? The U.S. isn't in such great shape itself.

I never said that uranium mining was completely without risks, I just pointed out that it's not riskier than mining of any other heavy metal.

And secondly, I said in a developed country. Nigeria is not a developed country. And it's a little bit ridiculous to cite something from the 1940s, isn't it? If uranium mining is really so dangerous you should be able to get something recent.

But in any case, it doesn't even come close to the casualties caused by coal mining every year (never mind the pollution from the stuff).

Bear in mind, I'm not really arguing against nuclear fission, but warning against its bad implementation. Tremendous incentives to cut corners and rush through construction of new plants now exist. A word to the wise: don't.

The risks are so trivially small compared to the thousands that die of respiratory diseases and in the mines because of coal that we need to rush nuclear power.

Take that Bird Flu scare. Remember that? According to the latest figures I can find (2006) it had only killed 113 people worldwide; nevertheless, the MSM whipped the sheeple into a minor hysteria. The drug Tamiflu was widely touted as the only effective treatment. It flew off the shelves. Its creator, Gilead Sciences, had to license new production facilities to meet the demand.

Bird Flu wasn't made up. In fact just a few months ago, Dr. Ho, who worked on the HAART HIV treatment therapy was at my school, and talked about how we had gotten very lucky with the bird flu.

The reason why it only killed 113 people was because it didn't mutate into a form that was contagious in humans. And that was luck. Just luck.

Big Pharma is one of the worst offenders, a veritable cornucopia of junk science and hysterical advertising disguised as "Health News." If you see the name of a big pharmaceutical company attached to a study, be suspicious. Big Pharma's studies are no more reliable than Big Tobacco's, and probably less.

Medicine has saved the lives of billions, and there's well documented proof of that. They use the scientific method, and it works. That's why you take a drug when something is wrong with you, before you go to a junk practitioner.

Medicine has probably saved my life a few times over (pneumonia, mostly), and I'd be willing to bet it's saved yours.

Pick up a Physicians' Desk Reference and thumb through it, giving special attention to the words "precise mechanism unknown"; they don't even know how most of the drugs on the market work. That's not science, it's voodoo.

You can understand something well enough to apply it without knowing the precise mechanism. We've been building spaceships for years, even though we still don't understand the precise mechanism of gravity. Look up MOND.

And if medicine is voodoo, it's the best damn voodoo in the world, because it works and you know it. When you get sick, you go to a doctor first.

But to answer your question, I don't see a quick fix for the problem. The solution won't come from corporatocracy. Screw the government alphabet soup agencies: they're obviously corrupt. The people will get unbiased watchdogs when the people demand them. I am not optimistic about our chances.

The government agencies aren't corrupt. You're nannars.

Not always, even now. Did you happen to notice how fast Congress signed 850 billion dollars of the taxpayers' money over to Big Banking? Notice how fast Bush signed it into law? When it comes down to the nut cuttin' those sold-out whores are all on the same side: corporate elite = 2; American taxpayer = 0.

The banking crisis is way more complicated then you're making it out to be. I oppose the bailout, but there are good arguments for it.

I ask again: since when was an indefinite term of office a prerequisite for being a dictator? I didn't see "unlimited term of office" anywhere in my definition. Did you?

I didn't say it was because he had a limited term of office, I said that he was a dictator because he accepted that there was a congress at one point opposing him, and he let his power be limited by that congress.

In a dictatorship, that wouldn't happen.

I would call suicide about as voluntary as it gets. He could've faced the music, or he could have faked his death and headed for the hills (which some believe he did, but I am not among them). Anyway, you misinterpreted my point: I was not comparing the sins of Bush to the sins of Hitler (although plenty of comparisons exist if you care to look them up); I was pointing out that Hitler was no less a dictator because he was removed from power.

WTF? The Soviets surrounded the city of Berlin. "Heading for the hills" wasn't a viable option.

And I'll say it again, there's a huge difference between stepping down from power when an enemy army takes over your bunker and threatened to kill you, and stepping down when someone else wins an election.

Bush gave up a lot of his power when his party lost the congressional elections.

At 10/11/08 02:20 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 10/10/08 10:41 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Ninjaman, Marchohare, Fuck you both. (Remainder of long-winded rant snipped.)

Were you under the impression I'm an Obama supporter? I'm not. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either one of these sold-out whores. Anyone who's read even a small portion of what I've written on the BBS already knows that.

As for your apparent contention that enacted policy matters and the Bully Pulpit does not (if that's what you were saying--your post wasn't entirely coherent), that's bullshit of the purest ray serene.

I'm not saying that bully pulpit has no INFLUENCE in the election. I'm saying that as far as the future of the country is concerned, what a politician does in the bully pulpit is about as irrelevant as george bushes promises in the 2000 and 2004 election, with very few exception.

Hence, arguing on the points spewed from the bully pulpit does nothing but play into the hands of politicians. it also reinforces certain stereotypes about the dumb american etc.

I assume most people here are either arguing here to learn something about politics [however foolish an endeavor that would be here], prove to the world that they are right and the rest of them are wrong, or express their opinions. none of those goals can be achieved if the talking points are what they are right now.

And yes ninjaman, saying FU was very immature. But I'm entitled to be.

At 10/12/08 09:22 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm not saying that bully pulpit has no INFLUENCE in the election...

It has an influence on the culture that goes far beyond the results of an election. Anyone who remembers the U.S. before Ronald Reagan knows what I'm talking about.

I think Barack Obama is best suited to lead America back to... whatever it was before George Bush.

i am very strongly for obama i belive that he will help turn this country around whille macain might still help this contry but if somthing happens to him and hes president the we would have pailin i wouldnt stay in america if that happened so that is one of the main reasons that im for obama but im not saying that macain would be bad in office though its just that i dont want palin anywhere near the office i also like obamas policies

At 10/23/08 03:14 PM, dogbreath625 wrote: i am very strongly for obama i belive that he will help turn this country around whille macain might still help this contry but if somthing happens to him and hes president the we would have pailin i wouldnt stay in america if that happened so that is one of the main reasons that im for obama but im not saying that macain would be bad in office though its just that i dont want palin anywhere near the office i also like obamas policies

Palin's an idiot, but the shouldn't be the ONLY reason. Obama and McCain are very different poeple with very different Views. A mcCain Administration would be the complete opposite of An Obama Administration (that is, if the congress doesnt get overrun by the democrats). Look at the issues, their stances and then make your choice.

Shit like ayers and the keating five, IMO make no sense. Their policies are what matters.