 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Bush or Kerry |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Who do you want to win the up coming Election?| George W Bush |
26.7%, 28 votes | John Kerry |
53.3%, 56 votes | Other |
20.0%, 21 votes | Multi-voting is disabled.
| |
| User | Post | ||
Grey the Stampede Don't mess with powers you don't understand. And yes. That means donuts. Level: 82  Posts: 1127/3770 EXP: 5192909 For next: 16318 Since: 06-17-04 From: Kingston, RI, USA, Earth Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
Originally posted by Davideo7 Oh, you just released the tiger.... Alright first and foremost, Church and state ARE NOT TO BE MIXED. When most of your "anti-bible" liberals say they want to get rid of religious beliefs, they mean they want them out of the government offices! We live in a world of Democracy, not Theocracy! Every time George W. Bush says God is on our side, my stomach churns in disgust, because he does not know that for sure. Yet despite not knowing that God is on our side, just sorta assuming he is because we're the United States of America, one (of many) nation(s) under God, Bush continues to say God is blessing us, God is with us, and God is against them. God, God, God. What the hell? I don't believe in God, does that mean I can't be an American, because God is against me? Fuck that! And guess what? I'm a pinko, too. Here's the real story on Communism: In 1848, a man named Karl Marx and his friend and colleague Frederick Engels published a book called "The Communist Manifesto" in order to stir up some social controversy and start a revolution. Well, it did. A wave of social controversies, particularly in Germany and Russia, broke out. We're gonna concentrate on Russia. Russia supported Communism, which was indeed a liberal practice. However, it was not liberal in the sense that Davideo appears to be portraying it in, where the government bans everything and hates freedom. Communism is a system of government that places the power in the Proletariat, the working class. Lenin implemented this governmental system and for awhile, it did indeed work out, people weren't suffering and weren't dying in droves. Then Lenin started dying, and his two subordinates, Trotsky (yay!) and Stalin (um.... yay?) began a power struggle to take his former position. Trotsky believed more in Lenin's notions than Stalin did. Eventually, Stalin forced Trotsky to flee Russia, took the top spot, and the middle classes, the non proletariat, began to revolt. To quell the revolt, Stalin killed them all, and forced any survivors to put up and shut up. The proletariat was in power once again. Communism works on paper, people, but it doesn't work if the rulers are going to be greedy bastards about it. Oh, wait, I don't see any censorship or banning or anything like what Davideo described in there.... Damn, man, I coulda sworn that all liberals were extreme freak commies who wanted to ban the universe. Oh well, guess I was wrong. And yeah, I'm a pinko, a sympathizer. Doesn't mean I'm gonna try to get the middle class mass murdered, because not every Communist thinks like Stalin did. So before you accuse someone of being a Communist, why not try looking up the true definition of a Communist and consider the honor and belief in equality that comes with the title? Frickin' Stalinist. |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 182/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Dear America: PLEASE STOP MISUSING THE WORD "LIBERAL". IT DOES NOT MEAN "LEFTIST". hhallahh: Roe vs Wade is weirdly phrased but it seems pretty sensible. Aside from striking down blanket outlawing of abortion by any of the states, it takes a fairly sensible legal stance on the whole issue as far as I can see. The opinion points out that there's two competing and contradictory rights at play - the rights of the mother and the rights of the potential human life inside - that must be weighed against each other, and that at different stages of pregnancy the sensible balance between the two is different... so the states have different degrees of latitude in legislating on abortion at each different stage. Maybe it's not strictly borne from the US Constitution, but then the US Constitution was written a long time ago and there's A LOT of things on which it is silent - hence the call for seasoned and learned judges to interpret things like this. Also: the "right to privacy" precedent was apparently set in 1965 by a case about birth control (somebody versus Connecticut) that said birth control could not be regulated by the states because it was a private matter and protected under the constitution. So they didn't create it with RvW. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Ammendment I read this as "Every right not dealt with by this document should be unfettered" ..meaning if a right is broadly seen to exist, then it does, and is protected. But then this is what I'm talking about - an old vague document inadequate by itself to forsee and cover every possible legal issue 200 years down the track. (edited by Arwon on 10-23-04 11:45 AM) (edited by Arwon on 10-23-04 11:50 AM) |
|||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 398/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Griswold v. Conneticut Roe vs. Wade is based upon the non-Constitutional "right to privacy"... the right to privacy, as you admit, is a mere judicial creation that can be uncreated at any time and was not justifiably created to begin with (whether or not it's a good thing is an entirely different issue.) I haven't read the actual Roe decision, but I don't believe the decision was simply about weighing "rights of child" vs. "rights of mother"... even though the decision ultimately allowed different regulations to be put on abortion based on trimester, this division seems... contrived. These divisions are also not mandatory ones, but are merely left up to the state. Roe, by itself, allows abortion at any stage in pregnancy, and leaves any weighing to be done to the states... this quite rightfully seems somewhat fucked to me, when the definition of "life" is defined on a state-by-state basis. But even so, the decision was ultimately grounded into the whimsical right to privacy, and wouldn't stand without it. And I don't think the 9th amendment was created in order for the majority to make up "rights" further down the road - the "right" to be given a job, the "right" to be given health care, etc. But I'm not a Constitutional expert, so I'll do some research on the issue. (Edit) Hey, I guess you're right. While I still think it's sketchy to make up rights - especially for the judiciary to do so - it seems like it's not entirely impermissible... technically. And someone fix the damn HTML. (edited by hhallahh on 10-23-04 12:06 PM) (edited by hhallahh on 10-23-04 12:13 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 183/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Copied from the Roe vs Wade decision, I think: "State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165." Hmm, so actually it seems like the "right to privacy" is taken from both, some wierd nexus between the 9th and the 14th. |
|||
Danielle Local Moderator  Level: 76  Posts: 21/3359 EXP: 3958078 For next: 47982 Since: 09-15-04 From: RATE Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by GreyOriginally posted by Davideo7 That was the most intelligent thing I have read all day. I'm serious, thank you for that. I wanted to shorten the quote, but there was nothing I wanted to leave out. |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 1526/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Oh, today I was doing some genealogy work. Turns out that if you look back far enough, not only are Bush and Kerry related, descended from the British crown, but can also be traced to Vlad the Impaler, and even before that, claimaints as Jewish royals to the temples of Israel. Heh, interesting shit. And who said that Lieberman would ever be the only Jewish candidate. You have two right now! |
|||
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67  Posts: 695/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
| Uh, right... I've met people like you before. They're generally crazy. In any case, who cares? | |||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 1528/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins Well, the rules of this forum include no personal attacks, please follow them or I will insure that you will not be welcome in this segment of the board. And I just posted a little fact that I found interesting. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 185/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Ziff, I think it was one of your dictionary links that broke the tables. | |||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 1530/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon "I don't know if people realize it, but Liberals are always so willing to ban the beliefs of the bible, if the left wingers had their way, the Holy Bible would be banned. " Hi, my name is Zach. I support the NDP, the most left-winged major party in Canada. I also happen to be Catholic. Last I checked this Liberal Document doesn't talk about banning the bible in anyway. In fact, as a Catholic and a Socialist, I see that what you're saying is a censorship and an act of hate on the left. Karl Marx happened to a very pious Jew. And remember, Communism and religious fundamentalism have a lot in common. Learn about the left. Arwon: Every nation has its own interpretation of Liberal. Canada = Centre Europe = Right America = OMG PINKO COMMIE (edited by Ziffski on 10-24-04 12:37 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 186/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Yes, but in every country except the US it's associated in some way with classical liberalism - free markets, individual liberties, etc etc etc. The exact interpretation, and the faction in ascendence, varies (our Liberals are quite hardline at the moment, social conservatives and economic rationalists) but it's only in America where people can say "socialist liberals" without their heads imploding from the contradiction. | |||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 1537/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Canadian Liberals are quite the interesting party. They're centrist as centre can be in left-winged Canada. They range on social justice and economic principles from far-right to far-left. I've never really understood how a ruling party can be so divided...But liberals and liberalism is just a geographic term. I've heard that in Asian countries liberal means communist, and in other Asian countries you might as well say NAZI.  But America is the only one that really, really, really, really misuses the term to account for left-wingers and hippies. |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67 Posts: 702/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by ZiffskiOriginally posted by MathOnNapkins Maybe it was a bit of an adhominem attack, but look at what you posted. Granted it is interesting, but is it true? You didnt' mention where you did the research, and such it looks like crazy talk to me. All I was pointing out is that the way you wrote that - i.e. making a seemingly outlandish claim with no support, tends to cause me to view you with less credibility. The comment was also only vaguely on topic. Were you implying that just because candidates are distantly related that they are on the same agenda? Or that we are unknowingly voting for Jewish candidates who aren't religiously Jewish? (And thus why would I even be worried, were I to be paranoid about such things.) |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 1540/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Bush and Kerry are both from the same landing family, I can't remember the name. This family is German-Englsih and is quite closely linked to the current Windsor house of the British royals, i.e blood. This makes them of the lineage of Vlad the Impaler as the Windsor House is of that line. I made no implications of sharing a similar agenda. As for the Jewish comment, I remember back in the 60s a politician lost in Canada when it was proven that he had Jewish heritage, and for some reason a lot of people a Judeophobic. |
|||
Reshaper256 Bee Level: 19  Posts: 64/143 EXP: 34776 For next: 1001 Since: 09-14-04 From: United States Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 9 hours |
| ||
| In the 2000 election, Bush went into election day neck-and-neck with Gore. Even though the polls were that close, Gore won the popular vote by a fairly large chunk in the end. As we all know, Bush just barely won the electoral vote, and won the election. This year the polls are also a dead heat -- one candidate will probably not be more than 1 or 2 percentage points ahead going into election day. Although the electoral college can greatly distort the outcome that the polls predict, the popular vote trend from 2000 seems to be a hopeful sign for Kerry, and a bad sign for Bush. Also, the polls only take into account those who are considered "likely" voters, and among all young voters Kerry currently leads by 20%. Judging only from this, if the young vote comes out for Kerry, I would expect Bush to lose. If not, it may very well go the other way. Considering what young people in the U.S. have at stake this time around, (war, possible draft, all that good stuff...) Could I imagine that the polls might be just a little bit off again this year? Maybe?   (edited by Reshaper256 on 10-25-04 10:02 PM) |
|||
DahrkDaiz Red Super Koopa  Acmlm's Mosts 2005 Best ROM Hacker Level: 45  Posts: 369/885 EXP: 643520 For next: 16644 Since: 03-15-04 From: K-Town Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| I had already planned to vote for Kerry before seeing Farenheit 9/11. But man, after seeing this, my HATE for Bush is beyond what I've ever seen before. It's NOT proganda, it's NOT hype, Bush is a VERY bad man. Moore doesn't say so, the fucking footage from Iraq, the recruiters that trick people into joining, the business records, the people being affected by the Patriot Act proves it. This country is being ran off of fear, capitalism and a very conceited man. Seeing Iraqi children with arms blown open. Watching Bush feed this bullshit to us, it horribly irritates me. It's not right. IT'S WRONG. Iraq had no threat to us. They didn't kill one American citizen, EVER. They made no threats on us. They never made an attack on us. I hope Bush rots in hell... </mindless ranting> |
|||
Ran-chan Moldorm eek, when are they going to stop growing... Level: 143  Posts: 4683/12781 EXP: 35293588 For next: 538220 Since: 03-15-04 From: Nerima District, Tokyo - Japan Since last post: 12 hours Last activity: 12 hours |
| ||
| We talked about the election in school today and it | |||
Dracoon Zelda The temp ban/forum ban bypasser! Level: 84  Posts: 1665/3727 EXP: 5514391 For next: 147561 Since: 03-25-04 From: At home Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
| Sadly, yes. No one can really win an election unless they are rich and this really takes away America's "freedom" that we claim we have so much. In reality, no one cares who you are, just if you have money or not. | |||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101  Posts: 2741/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
| Um, how exactly does that take away from freedom? Do you even know what freedom is? EDIT: God damn it, forgot I had this layout. (edited by Legion on 11-01-04 05:11 PM) |
|||
Thomas Buzz Blob Level: 26  Posts: 9/298 EXP: 98852 For next: 3423 Since: 10-29-04 From: United States Since last post: 88 days Last activity: 83 days |
| ||
| Well, I am only 16 so I cannot vote yet. But if I were two years older, I would vote for Bush. I think he is doing a great job in Iraq right now and he wants to get rid of abortion. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Bush or Kerry |
| | |
