Pld

[Qdeathstar]

Condelesa Rice tesitfied in front of the 9.11 commision... and despite the attacks by democrats pounding questions then trying (but failing) to not allow her to give a full explanation, PLD!!!!.

[IncubusGod]

What?

[Qdeathstar]

have you watched the news lately? Do you know who condalesa rice is?

[Hicks]

Why is it remotely "PLD" ? She gave a polished performance but to be honest all she really said was that it wasn't my fault and I couldn't have stopped it while trying to pass the buck to previous administrations. From her point of view I doubt that memo being brought up was very "PLD" as it just makes it look like they have yet more stuff to hide, just like the fact that no matter how good a performance she gave it would never undo the damage that her refusing to appear originally has done to their credibility. Also it was a bit lame she didn't offer an apology to the families of those killed for failing them as that Clarke guy did but of course that would mean admitting that the Bush administration isn't right 100% of the time.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

have you watched the news lately? Do you know who condalesa rice is?

Yes but your statement made no sence.

what Hicks said

[Androme]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

have you watched the news lately? Do you know who condalesa rice is?

For those of us that don't frequently/not at all watch the news (or listen/read it), how about putting that entire first post into proper syntax, form, and grammar so we can at least understand what you're saying before we dismiss it?

[Qdeathstar]

bah.. too much work.

Clark isnt 100% right on his facts either... btw O.o

[Androme]

you have about as much enthusiam to correct your mistakes as george bush does

[IncubusGod]

Do you have a rival mental personality who we might vote for in an upcoming cognative control election Mr.QDeathstar?

[Hicks]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

bah.. too much work.

Clark isnt 100% right on his facts either... btw O.o

I don't claim that he is but I also doubt that he's 100% wrong on them either, if he was the Bush team would hardly need to resort to character assassination would they ?

[IncubusGod]

It's like when some kid decides to stop playing on a team and they shout after him "Well we didnt want you ANYWAY".

Just in this case its people with graduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.(Somewhat more childish too)

[Zar]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

It's like when some kid decides to stop playing on a team and they shout after him "Well we didnt want you ANYWAY".

Just in this case its people with graduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.(Somewhat more childish too)

princeton is better than both

[Weeks]

Rice is actually an excellent politican.
She even nearly convinced me that the USs foeign policy is just.

[Nodrog]

In related news, Marseille beat Inter 1-0 last night \o/

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

In related news, Marseille beat Inter 1-0 last night \o/

who are you, and what have you done with the real nodrog.

[Qdeathstar]

Character assassination? Dude what are you talking about.

Clark writes a book, feeled with anti-bush propaganda, and inflamatory statements about events that didnt happen? If that it isnt CHARACTER ASSASSINATION i dont know what is. He timed it perfectly for the Election year. If clark is a lier, there is nothing wrong with calling him on it.

I do agree that Bush should fess up to things not going as smooth as the did in Iraq, as thats now obvious. But he wont do it during an election year, so nobody should be supprised... a democrat would fess up to his mistakes either (Bill Clinton anyone), except they are worse because they will outright lie. Bush chages it too "difficult road ahead" he faces the problems unlike others.

If your in America, you really only have two choices. Face up to your responsibilites and vote bush, or retreat back into the pit, vote Kerry, and move to a suburban area fearfull of the next attack. Kerry just doesnt have the "thing" to get what needs to be done, done. Democratics care too much about what the world thinks now, without regard to the future. Spain made a mistake when it elected its officials 2 weeks ago, i can trust that my nation wont make the mistake of backing down, even if it means more dead soldiers. Its unreal to say that we shouldnt have attacked Iraq. Thats rediculous. Although Bush used WMD as purpose it was only because it was all he could use to motivate the UN to do anything. The UN already had sanctions against iraq about WMD, so by bringing it up, they could force iraq to do what ever the US wanted or go down, and boy did they go down. There are soo many reasons why Iraq leadership had to go, its stupid to think that the war was wrong. The justiciation was wrong, but remember, the ends justify the means when your trying to do good-... in this case. Iraq was kiving money to suicide bombers in palestine, and harboring other terrorist. They might not have been al qaeda, but its terrorist none the less. How can you ever realistically get peace in the middle east will people paying for terror? You cant.. You people love peace, but you dont seem to see what it takes to get there. More money isnt going to do it, More training isnt going to do it. IE, In africa, they are producing doctors, (200 in on nation alone) but as soon as they become doctors, they leave for the united states. They need doctors in africa. But they head to the United states. So training will not help because instead they will just come here to practice. more Money wont help either because (again, in africa as example) they have been making payments for schools, and trainning for teachers, yet after 10 years, there sitill are no new teachers, and they are using T.As..its not helping. WHat does help is when someone overthrows a government and puts a strong democratic government in power, which is what will happen in Iraq given time. The united states didnt become a democratic state in one day, it took 200 years to get to where we are now, and we still have a long way to go.

Look 25 years ahead, thats were the focus needs to be. We wont be in Iraq that long, but thats how long its going to take for you to notice the effects getting rid of Hussain had on the region. Forceing other leaders to give up their WMD, encouraging Iran to let inspectors in, ect, all those things were the effect of Iraq, give it time.

R^^^^^^^Ramblings.

[Leshy]

I'm convinced that Qdeathstar could earn lots of money. His posts have roughly the same effect as smoking pot.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

The united states didnt become a democratic state in one day, it took 200 years to get to where we are now, and we still have a long way to go.

Heh just look what happened in the last election!
Gore got more votes, Thats undisputed - whats disputed is the votes in Florida but as a nation Gore got more. Yet Bush is president with about 25% of the poulation voting for him.
It's a rubbish democratic state as the person with the most money has the best chance.
Preaching democracy to the rest of the world and then practising a very rotten version is one of the many reasons that America is disliked throughout the world.
(I have just read "Why do people hate America?" Read it - it's written for right-wing pro-american people who think the only reason they were attacked is because "people are evul!"

[NEWSBOT3]

theres so much bullshit i qdeathstars last post that it makes me laugh.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Ste

Preaching democracy to the rest of the world and then practising a very rotten version is one of the many reasons that America is disliked throughout the world.

It's not really a rotten system, it's just outdated. The US is not a democracy, it's a republic with a head of state chosen through a system which uses an electoral college.

That means that a president can legally get into office without receiving a majority of the votes - as have several presidents done in the past. Bush is hardly the first. The last elections were just highlighting the problem into the extremity because the Florida electoral college was deciding.

I hardly feel an electoral college is the best solution, but the problem that should be addressed first are the problems at the voting office itself; unclear ballots, people getting refused, that sort of thing. That's where the rotten part of the US voting system really lies, not in the legal grounds on which a president is elected.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Leshy

It's not really a rotten system, it's just outdated. The US is not a democracy, it's a republic with a head of state chosen through a system which uses an electoral college.

I don't consider it outdated. There were some specific reasons why the authors of the Constitution went with an indirect election of President and most of those reasons are still valid, imho.

I would also note that many countries don't elect their national leaders directly, including most Parliamentary systems. I wouldn't consider those systems outdated either--just different.

I hardly feel an electoral college is the best solution, but the problem that should be addressed first are the problems at the voting office itself; unclear ballots, people getting refused, that sort of thing. That's where the rotten part of the US voting system really lies, not in the legal grounds on which a president is elected.

I don't know if the US voting system is substantially worse than others, but it should be certainly be improved when and where it can be. Every voting system has some margin of error, however, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. The problem arises when the margin of victory approaches the margin of error...

[Sandsnake]

or when both candidates work their asses off to derail the legal election process by any means necessary.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Character assassination? Dude what are you talking about.

Clark writes a book, feeled with anti-bush propaganda, and inflamatory statements about events that didnt happen? If that it isnt CHARACTER ASSASSINATION i dont know what is. He timed it perfectly for the Election year. If clark is a lier, there is nothing wrong with calling him on it.

I do agree that Bush should fess up to things not going as smooth as the did in Iraq, as thats now obvious. But he wont do it during an election year, so nobody should be supprised... a democrat would fess up to his mistakes either (Bill Clinton anyone), except they are worse because they will outright lie. Bush chages it too "difficult road ahead" he faces the problems unlike others.

If your in America, you really only have two choices. Face up to your responsibilites and vote bush, or retreat back into the pit, vote Kerry, and move to a suburban area fearfull of the next attack. Kerry just doesnt have the "thing" to get what needs to be done, done. Democratics care too much about what the world thinks now, without regard to the future. Spain made a mistake when it elected its officials 2 weeks ago, i can trust that my nation wont make the mistake of backing down, even if it means more dead soldiers. Its unreal to say that we shouldnt have attacked Iraq. Thats rediculous. Although Bush used WMD as purpose it was only because it was all he could use to motivate the UN to do anything. The UN already had sanctions against iraq about WMD, so by bringing it up, they could force iraq to do what ever the US wanted or go down, and boy did they go down. There are soo many reasons why Iraq leadership had to go, its stupid to think that the war was wrong. The justiciation was wrong, but remember, the ends justify the means when your trying to do good....as in this case. Iraq was kiving money to suicide bombers in palestine, and harboring other terrorist. They might not have been al qaeda, but its terrorist none the less. How can you ever realistically get peace in the middle east will people paying for terror? You cant.. You people love peace, but you dont seem to see what it takes to get there. More money isnt going to do it, More training isnt going to do it. IE, In africa, they are producing doctors, (200 in on nation alone) but as soon as they become doctors, they leave for the united states. They need doctors in africa. But they head to the United states. So training will not help because instead they will just come here to practice. more Money wont help either because (again, in africa as example) they have been making payments for schools, and trainning for teachers, yet after 10 years, there sitill are no new teachers, and they are using T.As..its not helping. WHat does help is when someone overthrows a government and puts a strong democratic government in power, which is what will happen in Iraq given time. The united states didnt become a democratic state in one day, it took 200 years to get to where we are now, and we still have a long way to go.

Look 25 years ahead, thats were the focus needs to be. We wont be in Iraq that long, but thats how long its going to take for you to notice the effects getting rid of Hussain had on the region. Forceing other leaders to give up their WMD, encouraging Iran to let inspectors in, ect, all those things were the effect of Iraq, give it time.

R^^^^^^^Ramblings.

There are some fantastic bits in this although I think that the bit about the ends justifying the means if you're trying to do good is probably the best thing I've ever read on the internet, alexander marriot excluded.

[Phang]

How can you ever realistically get peace in the middle east will people paying for terror? You cant.. You people love peace, but you dont seem to see what it takes to get there.

oh dear oh dear oh deary deary me

[Qdeathstar]

Yet Bush is president with about 25%

more like 45%......


My posts make you high leshy? hmm.

[Qdeathstar]

theres so much bullshit i qdeathstars last post that it makes me laugh.

explain...bs isnt really enough... :-/


PPS there are no true democracies... so democratic/republic just switch them if it makes you happier regarding the post... O.o

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

more like 45%......

Actually, Leshy would be correct in the purest sense. What he's not counting is that it would be 25% of the population, or roughly one half of the voters.

The final statistics had Gore ahead in total votes by less than .5% or roughly 543k votes. Where the real debate lies is not in Florida, but in the 3million absentee ballots that were discarded that were traditionally republican/pro-military votes.

We'll never know the real outcome on that one, but it's abundantly clear to anyone not trying to spin things that no one stole anything anymore than anyone else, and Gore's actions (calling for a last minute recount that would caused Florida's entire vote in the election to be discarded) have were just as questionable, if not worse, than Bush's. They all came away dirty, and the situtation would be same if Gore had won, with the popular cry of "cheat" and "election stealer"....

ANYWAY, back on topic: nothing is abundantly clear at this point. Rice is doing an excellent job of defending her position, but it's really boiling down to "hindsight is 20/20".

Did they have any REAL idea of what was going to happen? probably not much more than some vague information.

Even if they'd had an idea, could they have actually done anything to stop it? probably not there either. Airport security is somewhat crap even when they're on high alert.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

Actually, Leshy would be correct in the purest sense.

Me != Leshy
I've been mixed up with Stew before but come on!

Anyway - the turnout was about 50% - very low anyway.
Thats 50% of the registered voters not of the population.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Ste

Me != Leshy

I'm sorry for you :o(

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Ste

Me != Leshy
I've been mixed up with Stew before but come on!

Anyway - the turnout was about 50% - very low anyway.
Thats 50% of the registered voters not of the population.

woops, sorry about that. :P At least it was leshy and not Sunday or something.

Anyway, my point was that roughly 110million votes were cast out of a nation of 240million. GWB garnered roughly 50.5million while Gore garnered almost 51mill even. So he was right, you WERE wrong. the total vote was really closer to 20%, not 25%. :P

[Snurx]

Well, when the people elect their representatives, to act as to their will, is that backing down? Even before the Madrid bombings, spain was a anti-war country (the population) and a pro-war country (The politicians). The fact was, Spain's political landscape was more colored by their domestic affairs, and when their internationall afairs virtually blew up in their faces, and they decide, you call that backing down? That's a very arrogant tone, mister!

Kerry does not have the "thing" to get things "done"? If the things that need to be done are killing thousands of people, making people in the rest of the world hating America even more, if that was possible, and not making the world any safer for anybody? Yeah, vote Bush!
Also, face up your responsibilites? What ****ing responsibilites? For the "troops out there, loving our country"?
Oh, and you always, ALWAYS, have more then the choices the state puts down on you. You just have to live your own life.

Oh, so it's okay to decive the whole world (Or at least, trying to decive the rest of the world, I don't really belive many bit on), so that you can free Iraq, bomb their cities and stop them from selling their oil in Euro's? About those Palestinian "terrorists", as you so bluntly call them, how many of your allies are paying for those same "terrorists"? And do you know what they do, those "terrorists", when theyre not busy blowing up innocent Israellis? Unlike everybody else who has promised to help the Palestinian population, they are building schools, getting peopel food, arranging medical treatment and so on. I don't support their goals, nor their means, but i can see why they use such extreme measures, and I also think it shows a complete lack of information and a very, very arrogant tone, to just label them as "terrorists" and showe on.
Oh, and those nice reasons for going to war, what are they? Come on, get something more then financing Hamas, or being un-nice to their own people, beacause people that you're country are allied to do that shit every day, and i don't see your bombers in their skies!
Plus, it's always a nice touch to call the people who are against a thing for "stupid", beacause, as american politics have taught us, character assasination works!!!!!11111111111

Yikes! I don't know how to get peace! Well, the first thing that poops up my mind, is not to bomb, kill and main people, but hey, that's just my retarded hippie head again. Or, maybe trying to solve the sickness instead of the symptoms? Beacause every time a potential suicide bomber is killed, ten more pop's up. Those crazy arabs!
"Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity"


Im tired, and im ranting too. I might just be as stupid as you are, but hey, at least i ****ing admit it. OH, and learn to spell! When I, a un-english-first-launguage-dude is irritated, then something is deadly wrong!


PS you're correct, there are no true democracies. Does that make it okay? And why not focus on creating a true democracy, instead of complaing about others and bombing them?

[Qdeathstar]

your wrong...really, it was 50 percent of the total population, and 70 percent of the registered voters...and could you got that 3 million absentee ballots not counted, ive searched, and the biggest number i can find is 2000 :-/

[Qdeathstar]

Originally Posted by snurx

]Kerry does not have the "thing" to get things "done"? If the things that need to be done are killing thousands of people, making people in the rest of the world hating America even more, if that was possible, and not making the world any safer for anybody? Yeah, vote Bush!

A. Your look way too much in the short run. Once we set up our style of government, im sure things will smooth over there, eventually. The rest of the world doesn’t ::hate:: America. They might disagree with it, but they dont hate it. People do need to die to make the world a better place.. People die everyday, and it makes the world a better place. If people didnt die, the earth would be vastly over populated... I thought that was obvious. But, really. Yes, sacrifices always need to be made to achieve greatness and perfection.

Originally Posted by snurx

Also, face up your responsibilities? What ****ing responsibilities?

The responsibity to bring peace to a region filled with are, and ofc to prevent and end terrorism.

Originally Posted by snurx

Oh, so it's okay to deceive the whole world (Or at least, trying to deceive the rest of the world, I don't really believe many bit on), so that you can free Iraq, bomb their cities and stop them from selling their oil in Euros

First, I disagree that the main reason we attacked Iraq was for the oil. That may have been one of the reasons, but I say "Hurray for that" Make no mistake about it, we are interested in preserving our power. SO if that means taking some of the power out of the OPEC cartel by opening the Iraqi market ::hurray:: for that. There are more, serious reasons why we should have gone into Iraq. Do you not remember that the guy tried to assassinate one of our presidents? hello? .

Originally Posted by snurx

About those Palestinian "terrorists", as you so bluntly call them, how many of your allies are paying for those same "terrorists"? And do you know what they do, those "terrorists", when they’re not busy blowing up innocent Israelis? Unlike everybody else who has promised to help the Palestinian population, they are building schools, getting people food, arranging medical treatment and so on. I don't support their goals, nor their means, but I can see why they use such extreme measures, and I also think it shows a complete lack of information and a very, very arrogant tone, to just label them as "terrorists" and showe on.

See, first, I did not say that Israelis were innocent, nor did I say that the US policy toward the situation is right. I said that the Palestinians who strap bombs to their chest, to kill women and children, and their fathers who realistically have no say on what the government does or does not do, is terrorism. Theres no other way to look at it. What your sayings is that if someone does community service, and mentors children, then at night he is a serial killer, its ok because he has done ""good"" for the community, or since an priest does good things for a community, we should charge him with child molestation. That is really bullshit is not it.

Originally Posted by snurx

Oh, and those nice reasons for going to war, what are they? Come on, get something more then financing Hamas, or being un-nice to their own people, because people that you're country are allied to do that shit every day, and I don't see your bombers in their skies!

Funding terrorist organizations
Has the effect off:
Destabilizing the area
Causing unnecessary death

A Dictatorship
Has the effect of:
Oppression
Slow economic growth
Abuse of the states people.
Disinformation and false news.
Shaky environment for growing up
Easy places for terrorists to hide.


I think Un-Nice like calling a 2-ton crane a feather :-/ Chemical attacks on civilians is a bit more that un-nice. Killing your own brother is a bit more that un-nice. Practicing genocide is a bit more than un-nice. Killing 100k a year of people who ::may:: be political opponents is a bit more that un nice. Its fking cruel. We dont use chemical weapons on our own people, we dont have mass graves, and we dont assassinate our political opponents. A bit different wouldn’t you say.

Originally Posted by snurx

Plus, it's always a nice touch to call the people who are against a thing for "stupid", because, as American politics have taught us, character assassination works

Well snurx, I think I might have been talking about what you were saying. When you say that what Hussein did was simply "un-nice" and people who kill women and child are terrorists because they do good things, and when your pre-occupation with the short term, it does cause one to wonder. Other people have good arguments ... i.e. leshy.. I never accused him of being stupid... although he vehemently disagrees with pretty much everything I say.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

woops, sorry about that. :P At least it was leshy and not Sunday or something.

Yeh I don't mind really...

Anyway, my point was that roughly 110million votes were cast out of a nation of 240million. GWB garnered roughly 50.5million while Gore garnered almost 51mill even. So he was right, you WERE wrong. the total vote was really closer to 20%, not 25%. :P

Who was right?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

more like 45%......

i said 25%... he said 45%... I was nearer :P
Anyways... I gave them a little benefit of the doubt

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

your wrong...really, it was 50 percent of the total population, and 70 percent of the registered voters...and could you got that 3 million absentee ballots not counted, ive searched, and the biggest number i can find is 2000 :-/

Umm, no - it was 50% of the registered voters - a terrible turnout, says something abot american politics!
maybe your 2000 is just in one area...

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

But, really. Yes, sacrifices always need to be made to achieve greatness and perfection.

I'm sure there's a Vienna art painter agreeing with you somewhere.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Ste

Who was right?

i said 25%... he said 45%... I was nearer :P

negative. Total vote for bush was %47, which was approximately 21% of the total population. He wins by 1% and the fact that your premise is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Ste

Umm, no - it was 50% of the registered voters - a terrible turnout, says something abot american politics!

oh? 110 million votes * 2 = 220 million people. You're telling me that there are only 20 million children in this country?

Voter turn out was 86% according to the US census bureau

As for the 3mill, that number might have been a slight exaggeration..1.5 million alone weren't counted in California and roughly 40% of the Florida absentee ballots weren't counted.

Coupled with the recount committees in florida taking votes with NO PRESIDENT SELECTED and crediting them to Gore, it's abundantly obvious that people believe what they want.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

negative. Total vote for bush was %47, which was approximately 21% of the total population. He wins by 1% and the fact that your premise is incorrect.

i said:

Bush is president with about 25% of the population voting for him.

and qdeathstar said

more like 45%......

Sorry to be a pedant but i don't want you to say he's right and i'm wrong.

EDIT - http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/...414842,00.html

[Sandsnake]

ah that explains why I was confused...you were abusing statistics to try and validate something. :P

Anyway, that article is biased in the extreme.. They neglect to state that "undervotes" are votes not counted because NO ONE WAS SELECTED. This was the key to the Gore camp's strategy. Get every ballot that didn't choose a president to count for him, and it takes the stance that counting specific counties in a statewide close election is ok, even though it was only counties that were traditionally Gore, nor does it hold anyone accountable for the news agencies declaring Gore the winner by a landslide an hour or two before the polls closed.

The only reason Gore walked away looking pretty is because he lost.

[Ste]

I only used that link for the statistics at the beginning - I realise it is very biased.
anyway - abusing statistics? moi?

There were so many problems with the Florida vote, I think everyone, even the Bush family, acknowledge that. And the points raised in Stupid White Men are also valid - about people being struck off the voting register and the like.

A two-party system, especially when the two parties are as bad as each other, makes everything even worse.

[Qdeathstar]

ste technically is right... i guess, if you realize that 50% of the population voted
http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm
(although, i was right about the 70 perecent voting who were registered..

25% of the population voting would be a tie, as gore would get the other 25%.. which it was actualy

48% for bush, 48% for Gore, and 4% to ::Other:: for total votes.

[Qdeathstar]

but that does mean that 75% didnt want him electec... it was prolby 50/50. like this election will be methinks

[Qdeathstar]

Originally Posted by leshy

I'm sure there's a Vienna art painter agreeing with you somewhere.

along with 56% of the united states population and certain percentages in the rest of the world :-) YAY.