A, hopefully, intellectual politics thread.

[Gorath Sodom]

I don't believe I'll be able to add anything other than my misguided input.

I'm fond of the phrase "Democrats suck and Republicans blow."

I'm also fond of the phrase "What we need is a centrist leader, but one who is not a centrist in John Kerry's I don't have a stance on anything way."

We haven't had a decent president in a long time, and we won't have another decent president until we break the two-party system open and other candidates start getting a real chance at winning. Then instead of just presenting us with someone that's slightl prefferable to the opposition, they'll actually have to find someone we would actually want to have as president.

I can honestly say that the only reason I vote is to try and get the lesser of two evils into power. This is not a good thing. I should be voting for who should do the best job, not who will screw things up least.

[Lethal Seraphim]

Originally Posted by Sean

Let's all keep in mind what a wonderful buisness man George W. is. Every company he's had his hand in went broke, quickly. Except this war has bailed out so many of those companies it's unreal.

I was about to say... Georgie W. Bush is the most successful President as far as raising funds goes. Second place would have went to Bill Clinton, I believe. Now, whether that's due to profit from the war or not, I'll not speculate on because I truly don't know for sure.

Originally Posted by Sean

So the man starts an unjust war

I've yet to see a COMPLETELY just war... Although I suppose it could be argued that things like the Revolutionary War, the two World Wars, and maybe the US Civil War were just because they served a more noble cause(independence, stopping the conquest of Europe, etc.). Either way it's a shame that we even have to war at all, but that's sort of an unrealistic perspective in today's world...

Originally Posted by Sean

**** the men and women dying because of a war they don't want to fight

Keep in mind that military service in the United States has been compulsory for many years now. Nobody made those men and women join the military, and if they did so without thinking they'd ever see combat then they're pretty foolish if you ask me. You could say it's in the job description...

I worked a shit job all summer, manual labor busting my ass(although no it doesn't compare to combat in a war, not by a long shot). I hated pretty much every day of it. I needed money though, and there really weren't too many other job opportunities at the time, so I was ****ed, so to speak(a very poor comparison, but a comparison nonetheless). It's a shame that those men and women who joined the military actually have to fight in a war, but that's their job, like it or not. Yeah it's a real hard job and nobody should have to do it, but if you're not willing to accept a responsibility like that you shouldn't sign on the dotted line. It reminds me of the Army Reserves people who bitch about being called into service. They were in the Army Reserves for f*cks sake, it's not like something like that just sneaks up on you. It's not like being a doctor and then getting asked to go put out a four-alarm fire... One of those instances where common sense just isn't all that common.

Sorry if that seems cold, but those people are dieing over there because they signed up for a job that carries a risk of dieing. It's their job to be there, to put their life on the line. The fine print's a real mother f***er.

I realize there are extenuating circumstances because you can't exactly just "quit" the army so easily, and that a lot of times people join the military because there are no other options for them, because it pays for schooling and whatnot, and naturally exceptions to the rule will always exist. It's a truly sad thing. My boss at my aforementioned job served two tours in Vietnam. He served one, came home, and then his younger brother was drafted, so he went back in his place(something that truly blows my mind and fills me with respect). Ok so I don't know why I told that story, I guess I just didn't want to seem totally unsympathetic to military personel. I digress...

I did not vote in the last Presidential election because I was not 18 at the time, but I probably would have voted Bush because well he was the evil I knew as opposed to the evil I didn't. Truthfully I was malcontent with both party platforms, as I think someone else touched on already.

Yeah Kerry was a douche and Bush is sub-par(possibly an understatement) in articulation and diction, but keep in mind they both supported a war in Iraq. If Kerry had been elected we would still have troops there, we'd be doing things differently, but we wouldn't have withdrawn. This brings me to my real opinion on our government in the US- I'm an elite theorist. That's the belief that the government is controlled by a small super-elite upper class that control the means of production and all the major industries and media outlets of the country. Therefore I believe it truly doesn't matter who is president, seeing as how the will of those few will be sought through those figureheads. If you look at the similarities between Kerry and Bush's platforms, such as the presence in Iraq, you might see what I mean. We're given the illusion that we have a choice, but the choice we make doesn't really matter because as I said before, the interests of that super elite will prevail. Our political system rewards and responds to the highly organized, and that elite has the means to be just that.

Elite theory is sometimes perceived as a bit far out, but I think it makes a lot of sense. That's just me though.

Majority rules... my a$$... I'm a bit of a libertarian conspirator though...

Oh and I met Michael Moore once. Well, not met him, but stood a good 5 feet from him. I was on a National Youth Leadership Conference trip to D.C. and I was walking around capitol hill with some friends when one said "Holy sh*t that's Michael Moore" and proceeded to go shake his hand. I didn't know who he was at the time, and I hadn't seen Bowling For Columbine(still haven't either, just never got around to it), as this was a couple years ago. If I had known then what I knew now though, I doubt I would have been impressed. Still I respect his right to exercise his rights and make his films. I've not seen any of them in their entirety, so I can't necessarily pass judgement on them.

[Sasquatch]

Not more of this... First off, let me point out that a "intellectual" thread is called for, yet the creator of the thread can't rise above the level of immaturity (and ignorance, might I add) required to say things like "Bush is a ****ing idiot," "unjust war," and "tax breaks for the rich". Since this thread already was degraded far below any level of "intellectual" after the first post, my first request is for most of you to pull your head out of your ass. Because reading through this thread, the ignorance and stupidity are just plain amazing.

Originally Posted by Sean

For one thing let me say I'm a democrat, I've seen and read many stories of former repulicans who served in our war to come back democrat after the bullshit republicans forced them to go through, I've heard and seen letters from soldiers who say they have no respect for the man who sent them over to kill for the reasons they're killing for, and I've seen and heard many interviews with soldiers formerly stationed in Iraq, a few of whom say they'd face jail time over being redeployed to fight for a war they dont' beleive in.

Have you heard any of the stories about how the majority of the United States military has always been, and still is, conservative? While you have stupid people everywhere, even in the military, most of us know who's looking out for us. And who's not. (Which is why Gore tried his hardest to get Florida's overseas ballots thrown out in the 2000 election.)

So why are we in this war if even the men and women fighting it don't believe in it's justifications?

A.) Because the peons don't matter. I'm sure Mike knows too, the eschelon doesn't give a damn what the lower enlisted thinks.
B.) Because most of the men and women fighting it believe in the cause, even though they might not want to be in it.
C.) Because the reasons behind the war aren't contingent on who feels like carrying out the combat.

I'm not going to get into it hardcore right now, but perhaps I could get an intelligent insight from a Republican about why they like George W. Bush as president, why they wanted/voted for him to be in office.

Personally I don't think Bush is a good President. I just realize that he's not a bad President, and certainly not as bad as some people try to make him out to be. I voted Bush because I realized that a country and a war under Kerry would be completely FUBAR, to say the least. He was a good candidate in 2000, but the only thing that got him re-elected in '04 was America's fear of putting Kerry in power.

Let's all keep in mind what a wonderful buisness man George W. is. Every company he's had his hand in went broke, quickly. Except this war has bailed out so many of those companies it's unreal.

Actually, he's been a reasonably successful businessman, prettymuch starting with his partial ownership of the Houston Astros. And I doubt even you know what the hell you're talking about with "bailing out", but Bush and Cheney knew how certain companies worked and how qualified and equipped they were, so it makes sense for them to be chosen. Halliburton was prettymuch the only company that could pull off everything they're doing in Iraq, which is why they were chosen -- it was praised as a great idea when Clinton awarded them no-bid contracts for operations that weren't exclusive, but they turn around and jump all over Bush when he does it with better reason.

So the man starts an unjust war and he's automatically fit to be reelected because the war is conveniently still going on during elections?

First off, "unjust war" my hairy white ass. This war has every justification. Second, it wasn't "conveniently" still going on, everybody with half a brain realized that it would still be going on for a while -- don't try to make out to sound like it was drawn out to gather more support.

But the tax breaks for the rich, which my cousin and her husband fall under, is a pretty good way to bribe people, don't you think? Yeah, money blinds everyone.

Please, please don't start that complete bullshit. If you don't understand how the people that make the most money pay the most taxes, and thus will (and should) get the largest cuts, then you obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to Capitalism. And if you didn't notice, the largest vote-buying programs out there are things like Welfare and Social Security, both relied on by the lower incomes. You want to talk about how money blinds people, look at the millions of people who voted for Kerry over Bush because Democrats continually promise to let the poor become lazier and lazier.

**** the thousands of civilians who died in Iraq, **** the men and women dying because of a war they don't want to fight

First off, the vast majority of those thousands of civilians are being killed not by Coalition Forces, but by their own people -- the terrorists and insurgents that know that targetting Iraqi civilians is effective as well because idiots in the States and elsewhere will raise more of a fuss against the war if more civilians die. I spent a year finding and disabling the roadside bombs those SOBs put out, I know they'd usually be just as happy taking out a civilian family as they would be murdering one soldier. Secondly, it doesn't matter if soldiers "want to fight" or not, hell most of us don't, but most of us are also smart enough to realize the necessity of it, and ALL of us have VOLUNTEERED to join the military, knowing fullwell the possibilities of being sent to a combat zone.

**** the people in New Orleans who died or just lost everything because of the lack of funding to repair the levies

You might want to check this one again. The Federal system provided New Orleans and Louisiana with more than enough money every year to repair and improve their levee system, but the State and Local governments dropped the ball -- in other words, they spent the money on other things (like more vote-buying programs, and Mardi Gras), instead of the levees they had known for years needed to be improved. You want to lay blame, you look to the Democrat-run New Orleans and Louisiana governments for that. And get your facts straight before you go spouting off.

I've lost all hope for this country for reelecting a dipshit like George W. Bush. For a good insight on the workings of our country, and on Mr. Bush, I'd suggest you all watch Fahrenheit 9/11, and see a wonderful insight to the inner workings of our government.

I'd suggest you stay away from Moore's propaganda. Yes, I've seen a few of his movies. No, there's not much credit to any of 'em.

Originally Posted by Sundance

...Rumsfeld saying how "we know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", "England knows Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", "every nation with a working intelligence units knows Iraq has weapons of mass destruction".... and **** said something like "it's 100% certain that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"...

Well, they didn't have. Neither did Saddam have connections with terrorists.
I wonder when will all the liars get what they deserve. Answer probably is never.

Unfortunately, you're probably right, that liars usually won't get what they deserve. Unfortunately for you, you're also wrong. Iraq did have WMDs, and Saddam did have connections with terrorists. Anybody who hasn't been intentionally ignorant of the world's ongoings for the past ten or fifteen years would know this. Basically, every country that had a legitimate intelligence system all said the same thing -- Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction. And he did. Ever hear of the Gulf War Syndrome? Do some research on it. Or maybe the thousands upon thousands of tons of Sarin, VX, Anthrax, and blistering agent he had? And let's not forget the Uranium he was getting. Or discount the dozens of Iraqi scientists escaping and telling us about their research on Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. As for ties to terrorism -- you must not have heard about the terrorist training camps all over Iraq, or about the $25000 Saddam would send to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Hell, I personally picked up an artillery round full of nerve agent.

Also, an ex-cia employee (can't remember if he was the boss or not) told how the CIA uses the term "backlash" to describe things which happen as a result of what they (CIA, USA etc.) have done, and what the public has no idea about... resulting in the questions "why did they do this to us?" after something bad happens (like 9/11)

Yes and no. Yes, there are things that cause terrorists to "retort". No, they are not logical or reasonable.

For example how USA saw the potential in Saddam Hussein back in the early days and started supporting him, supported him through the mass murders of Kurds, through the Iraq-Iran war, gave weapons of mass destruction to him...

Wrong again. We didn't "give him" WMDs, we helped him develop them, and abandoned it before he even started using them, because he was at war with an enemy of ours. And we did not support him through his slaughter of the Kurds.

Ultimately this lead to Iraq invading Kuwait...

What led to Iraq invading Kuwait was the idea that Saddam wouldn't have to pay Kuwait back all the money he owed them if he took over the country. I don't know where you get your ideas about Saudi Arabia, and it's just plain ignorant to try to make this thing about oil, so don't try it.

To take the thread very much off-topic I found it kinda funny (even though the issue shouldn't be funny at all) how the weapon systems used by USA have been praised, all the precision weaponry and strikes which can be used to take out single targets without damage to innocents. Yet according to the documentary, out of the 55 attemps to kill iraqi leaders, 0 succeeded and 42 ended up killing innocents.

If those are true -- which I highly doubt, but not having seen it or their sources, can't be sure -- it would have to take into account the intel. It doesn't matter where you put the bomb, if nobody's there. And if you didn't know, or don't believe it for whatever reason, yes, the U.S. has the most accurate weapons systems in the world at this point.

What comes to Moore... ...so I am just kinda annoyed at the fact that people say he doesn't tell the truth and is a douche and whatever and then refuse to even watch the film to see with their own eyes what the truth about Moore and his movie is.

I've watched Moore films, and I still realize how much bullshit they all are. He's incredibly dishonest and manipulating, and it's sad how many people are gullible enough to buy into anything he says.

I haven't checked the latest info concerning Fahrenheit, but shortly after its release, nobody had been able to prove anything in it false.

How shortly? Because by now, a whole hellovalot of it has been proven false. Hell, they even made a movie (Fahrenhype 9/11) where they went around to a lot of the people he interviewed, and they talked about how he took everything out of context and manipulated their quotes to suit his purpose. Haven't seen it, but I'd like to.

Things of course were often shown from one viewpoint only, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Unless it's Moore's viewpoint, which is untrue.

Originally Posted by Samurai Kenji I

If things like nuclear weapons ARE produced, it doesnt really go unnoticed.

This is just comical. Do you not realize that it's usually "noticed" because most countries announce that they're a nuclear power? And that a country that knows it'd get immediately disarmed and torn a new ass if it was found with nuclear weapons, do you think they'd just go shout it off a mountain, or what? Most of Saddam's weapons programs were very secretive -- he had to be smooth to slip under the world's radar, but it was all still possible because the UN hadn't, and still hasn't, pulled their head out of their ass.

Originally Posted by Chez Daja

...hence why you guys are sending my men out to Iraq to help clear up the mess.

"Your men"??? Tell me, how many British troops are there in Iraq? And how many American troops? Don't know what the hell you're talking about, do you? Didn't think so.

And while I disagree with a section of Lethal Seraphim's post, he generally is right on with this one. I'd just like to add that military service is much more than just a "job" -- yes, it is a job, but it's also much more a source of pride and honor for most.

[Lethal Seraphim]

Originally Posted by Chez Daja

why you guys are sending my men out to Iraq to help clear up the mess.

Us guys(the United States government) are not the ones sending "your" men to Iraq. If I'm not mistaken there's no draft in Britain and military service is compulsory, same as here. If anyone's sending the British Armed Forces into Iraq it would be your government.

I've always found it interesting how people who do not live in the US say things like, "I'd have liked to see Kerry win you're elections" because it's not really their place to say it. If Kerry would have won our elections it would have affected the US citizens moreso than anyone, simply and inherently because he would have been OUR president. Anyway, stuff like that just amuses me.


Sasquatch, you wrote the rebuttal that I(for the most part) wanted to write but didn't have the patience or thought process at the time to do so.

[postalblowfish7]

Originally Posted by LocoColt04

I almostI won't watch Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore is a douche, and is the worst excuse for a documentarian ever. He doesn't tell the truth. He tells HIS version of the truth, which is really only a half-truth at best.

you know this because you refuse to watch the movie?

and btw, just for the record - there's no such thing as an objective documentary. thinking that a documentary is some sort of document of truth is believing in a pathetic fairy tale. the first thing they taught us in film school was how the juxtaposition of images conveys an artist's vision of truth, and how even with documentaries these images are selected and placed next to each other for a specific reason, to argue the dirrector's point of view.

yeah, michael moore is a bit of a douche - but i'll throw props to anyone willing to strip away the pathetic filter our news and information goes through to stir up the masses a bit. i'm not going to get into the war or bush because honestly, what more can be said about any of it? my bottom line is bush lied to bring us to war - period. that trumps lying about a blow job anyday...

[Sasquatch]

A documentary isn't a political statement, especially one so extreme as Moore's movies are. Here you go -- Documentary: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. Moore does a hell of a lot of editorializing, and inserts an extreme amount of fictional matter (like the entire movie). A documentary is supposed to be a "document of truth", but Moore's are equivalent to a pathetic fairy tail.

Another "bottom line" is that you have no reason to say Bush lied to bring us to war. What did he lie about? WMDs? To our knowledge, and to everybody else's knowledge, Saddam had WMDs, and we had reason to believe he was searching for more instead of getting rid of them. Terrorist connections? We knew he had some, and we found more. So please, point out some of these "lies".

Lethan Seraphim -- I don't remember the exact situation, but along the lines of other people wanting Kerry to win. There were international polls and surveys out before the elections, and they found that most countries would like to see the United States, basically, taken down a notch -- not be so influential with military, economics, everything. The same countries that wanted the U.S. to have less power, in all aspects, are the same countries that would have rather seen Kerry win. Which is enough of a reason for me to vote Bush alone, really -- the rest of the world realizes Kerry would ruin America, why didn't nearly half of America realize that?

EDIT: By the way. It wasn't just lying about a blow job that got Clinton in trouble. First off, he purjured -- that's a criminal offense, and he became only the second President to ever be impeached for it. But there was a lot more that he wasn't put to trial for -- things like arranged murders, espionage, sexual assault and rape, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom -- all sorts of things. Do yourself a favor, take a minute or two and look up Vince Foster.

[Sasquatch]

I just posted an article in the other political thread concerning more proof of ties between Saddam and Osama. But since it was brought up here, I figured this should be the place to post this, an Oliver North article that talks about what military men and women really think about the War on Terror and the current administration. Also, how liberals feel not only about the current conflict, but about the military in general. It's an interesting article, though I'm sure most liberals here won't read the entire thing -- hell, I'd almost be surprised if liberals here started reading it.

(I tried to just "edit" my last post so it wouldn't be a double-post, but an edit wouldn't count as a recent post. So I had to edit it again, take out what I added, and put it in a new post, so it would count as recent and get a little more attention.)

[postalblowfish7]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

A documentary isn't a political statement, especially one so extreme as Moore's movies are. Here you go -- Documentary: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. Moore does a hell of a lot of editorializing, and inserts an extreme amount of fictional matter (like the entire movie). A documentary is supposed to be a "document of truth", but Moore's are equivalent to a pathetic fairy tail.

i'm sorry if the concept that film is an aesthetic in any form, and the impossibility of a true representation of reality eludes you. michael moore slants the truth no worse than, say, fox news or the weekly standard. and no, a quick search on dictionary.com doesn't trump actually going to film school.

Another "bottom line" is that you have no reason to say Bush lied to bring us to war. What did he lie about? WMDs? To our knowledge, and to everybody else's knowledge, Saddam had WMDs, and we had reason to believe he was searching for more instead of getting rid of them.

fabricated intelligence to get the war they wanted. there was no clear and present danger to the us, and my bet is they knew that. but why? why would they want war???, i'll just quote you here, "He was a good candidate in 2000, but the only thing that got him re-elected in '04 was America's fear of putting Kerry in power."

Terrorist connections? We knew he had some, and we found more. So please, point out some of these "lies".

i'm sorry - the whole war on terror is not too dissimilar from Oceania's war with Eurasia and Eastasia. war on terror? just think about the wording - really think about what they are proposing. forcing ourselves on the middle east, molding little democracies, piss off thousands of said countries' citizens creating more terrorists, continue to fuel the image of america that they are born hating... how will this "stop" terrorism - like it's something you could ever stop anyway. it's like declaring war on murder - or a war on sex (or war on drugs ), you can declare war on whatever the hell you want, but it's not going to stop those things from happening. for example, i could strap myself with explosives, walk downtown and blow myself up at a bus stop. i have no "connections to terrorists" or whatever, as terrorism is as un-policeable as any unpredictable act. i bet there's as many domestic terrorist attacks on american soil as there are foreign.

really -- the rest of the world realizes Kerry would ruin America, why didn't nearly half of America realize that?

ruin america?? alternative energy sources? getting out of the hopeless situation in iraq? actually restricting the destruction of our environment?? clearing the white house of ex-oil men??? free healthcare for american citizens???? yeah, that would've sent us spiraling downward to the 3rd world...

EDIT: By the way. It wasn't just lying about a blow job that got Clinton in trouble.

when clinton was president the economy was booming, we had enjoyed years of peace, america was forward thinking, and respected by the rest of the world. period. don't try to give me any bullshit about reganomics or how great bush senior was - it was 8 years of accelerated growth for the US. clinton was an amazing president that the right wing was after from day one - and they tried to oust him for the one moronic mistake that he just had to make. they would've thrown the country into turmoil over a blowjob, end of story.

but hey - it's obvious that you're a republican - that's cool, right on. you do your thing, i'll do mine cause - frankly it's not worth arguing with you. you walk into the debate assuming that

a)democracy is the end all be all of everything and probably have trouble seeing how the over-commercialism of our society is rotting it from the inside out

b)democracy is the definition of freedom, and it's our duty to deliver it to the entire world (or at least where our international fiscal interests lie)

and (this is the most important one)

c)you probably believe in god. this automatically makes your world view completely skewed from mine, as you'd have to be god fearing to think that all of W's christian drooling is good for the country.

i'm making some pretty broad generalizations here - and all or none of these might be true. but the point is nothing i say is going to change your view of the world, which is clearly completely different from mine. i'm not saying i'm right and you're wrong - in fact i'm almost 100% sure that we're both wrong (except the film thing - that i know i'm right about so stfu ur pwnd), but nothing you say to me is going to make me any less pissed that people actually buy into bush's complete package of bullshit - any more than anything i say will change your mind about the justifications for the war in iraq. it's all good, i've said my spiel and i'm out.