Most of the people captured were not wearing uniforms and were not even apart of a government military. The Geneva Convention doesn't protect you if you are fighting in a non-governmental army out of a uniform. The idea behind this is to make it so that if a guy from France walks into a bar in England, mows down a few police officers, then gets arrested, he doesn't get Geneva Convention rights, but is instead subject to the British legal system. One of the rights that is included is the right be released once hostilities are ended, providing you did not commit war crimes.
The biggest reason why the US doesn't want to call them POWs and give them Geneva Convention rights is because if they did, they would have to let them all go. Think what you want of how the US is treating them, you can be pretty well assured that there are people there you really don't want to let go and run around freely.
This leaves the US in an ugly position. If you call them POWs, then you have to simply let them go. If you try them in an American civilian court, you are going to end up letting them go because the standard for proving guilt is so high, you will not want to make your intelligence and how you got it part of the public record (...I hereby call CIA operative number 3 to the stand...), and they would get off on technicalities of the American legal system.
I am not saying that things are being handled perfectly there, but do realize the problem that the US faces when dealing with these people. The solution isn't as obvious as simply declaring them POWs.
Bah, and the US overthrew Britain. Last time I checked, 'historical precedent' is not world wide law, thankfully so, as the end of the colonial period would have been very messy if each rebellion was responded to with mass crucifixions as per Roman 'historical precedent'.
The simple fact of the matter is that Taiwan was absolutely no desire to be apart of China. Maybe some day when China is something of a free society, but in this day and age, Taiwan wants nothing to do with China. Taiwan is a Democracy. The US should go out of its way to protect Taiwan from the authoritarian state of China. Maybe one day China will clean itself up and become a place that the Taiwanese people would want to join with, but until they day they vote to reunify, the US has an obligation to protect Taiwan. The US spends a lot of time trying to get Taiwan to back down from making the actual vote to independence because the US has absolutely no desire to fight China, but when it comes down to it, the US is willing to defend Taiwan.
I personally find it pretty admirable that the US is willing to defend Taiwan from China. As much as people talk about how bad the Americans are, this is one case where I think it shows them to be on the right side of ideology and freedom. The US is willing to fight one of their largest trading partners and one of the largest (and nuclear armed) militaries in the world. That seems to me to be on the right side of good.
It would also be much poorer, have much weaker bite, and pretty much be relegated to humanity duty. For better or for worse, the US is what the UN brings out when it needs to do some stomping. That isn't to say that Europe can't be an effective military power, but for Europe to pull of an operation like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Serbia, it would be much bloodier and much longer. The Americans have the advantage of being so overwhelming in military power that causalities are always very one sided. Generally, if you make the commitment to fight the US, you know that for ever 1 US soldier you kill, they are going to kill 100 of yours. There are places in the world where people are willing to fight against those kind of odds, but not many.
Now, it can be pointed out that the UN rarely (if ever) attempts operations on the scale of Iraq unless the US is badgering them into doing it. That said, it is hard to determine if the UN has had to fight so few wars simply because it isn't in the nature of the UN to fight wars, or if the US has avoided some of the wars simply by throwing their military card on the table.
If there is a big reason why the UN would never want to lose the US, it is because without the US, the UN's missions are greatly reduced. When the largest super power in the world and ¼ of the worlds economy doesn't recognize your organization, what is left for you to do? Send a nasty letter on occasion and send a few peace keepers to guard refuge camps?
Re:But WoW isn't great - EQ2 is more fun
on
Everquest 2 Launches
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
EQ2 is very similar to EQ.
That is by far the best review I have heard. It cuts the fore play and gets down to the heart of it. Though, you could have made it even easier and simply said GRIND.
MMORPGs have been absolutely disgusting in how they utterly ignore the potential that exists. Every single MMORPG, yes, even WoW, relies on the never ending quest to level up. I personally can't wait for the day when someone makes a serious MMORPG that doesn't subsist off people being obsessive and compulsive. I fucking hate leveling and practicing skills. The day they cut out these things is the day that MMORPGs open up to a massive new market of no OCD gamers.
I think you are missing my point. I don't disagree that everyone has idiots that act like nut jobs. My point was not to say that the GOP was civil. My point was that the Democrats managed to make the election about how cartoonishly evil Bush is. The result is that it turned off a lot of people that might have been unsatisfied with Bush. There were a lot of people that were unsatisfied with Bush this election. The Democrats utterly failed offer up an alternative though. Instead they polarized their base to radical extremes, and used these extremist to do their grass roots work.
Extremist might be very effective in getting out the base, but when you attempt to get people that are not naturally apart of the Democrat's base to come into the fold, sending an extremist is the worst thing you can possibly do. The Republicans were much wiser in that they sent their extremist to make sure other extremist went out and voted. They did not rely on the party zealots that would argue Kerry is a baby eating Stalinist to convince the average voter to vote for Bush.
Again, these are generalizations. I am sure that crazy Republicans tried to convince non-Republicans to vote and ended up scaring them into voting for Kerry. By in large though, the Democrats had a significantly larger grass roots campaign aimed at independents and conservatives with liberal bent. This might not have been a bad thing if their base, the people performing this grass roots work, were not see fanatically polarized against Bush. When most people become fanatical, they lose the ability to talk to someone who does not completely see eye to eye.
I'll give an example. I ended up going to NH with some college students that were doing some canvassing for Kerry. They were all rabidly anti-Bush. At one point one girl in your group was talking to an independent voter who was very dissatisfied with Bush. Listening to the guy, it was pretty clear he was deeply dissatisfied with Bush, but did not really believe that Kerry would represent his values any better. At one point the girl starts to lambaste Bush for being a pro-life Nazi. The guy mentions that he too is pro-life. The words went in one ear and out the other. She just kept on lambasting Bush for being pro-life instead of moving on to an issue where she could have found a common ground. I wouldn't be surprised if that man ended up either not voting, or voting Bush, despite the fact that he was probably very close to voting Kerry. Granted, my story is antidotal, but I imagine that this is a pretty common problem that the Democrat's grass roots movement ran into this year. They sent out young fanatics who commonly use the word Nazi and Bush in the same sentence, and told these people to convince people who don't share their zeal.
I doubt there would be fusion power tommorrow even if there was an X prize for it. The thing you need to realize is that the X prize was so succesful because the technology was already there. To beat fusion you just need to pour research money into it. To beat space, you just need to figure out how to use what we already have to do a little more. I am not saying fusion is a waste, but just offering up a couple million to beat the problem is not going to solve it.
I didn't claim that either side was squeaky clean. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was a good example of the other sides whackos. The difference is that the right did a very good job making sure that those guys were not the voice of their party. While the right never came out and lashed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they sure as hell didn't sing their praise either. My point is that right didn't do it, it is that they did it a lot less.
When I am talking about the rabid Democratic zealots, I am talking about the Democrat's grass roots campaign that defined their voice. Their grass roots campaign that they attempted basically gave control of the party's voice to college students who are far more radical and significantly less articulate the party's political candidates. If you want a more clear example, look at the MoveOn.org and other similar sites. These were the center of the Democrat's message. While these were very effective in getting the Democrat's base into a blood rage, they alienated everyone else who wasn't already fanatically anti-Bush.
As for Fahrenheit 9/11, you can defend it all you want, but you need to understand what most non-ardent Democrats see when they see that movie. They see what is likely the most blatant display of propaganda they have ever seen in their entire lives. I am not exaggerating when I say that. For most Americans born in the US, unless they lived through World War II, they likely will never have seen such propaganda before. That movie might very well speak to the core of Democrats because it screams ANYONE BUT BUSH, but to most Americans who are not in anyone but Bush fever, it is utterly revolting to see someone do completely away with any pretenses of trying to display both sides and use every dirty propaganda technique in the book. Any point that movie was trying to make is completely lost because you know that if Moore had found evidence to the contrary of what he wants to believe, he wouldn't show it. How could any sane person trust someone like that as a source of information.
Fahrenheit 9/11 reminds me of an account some American tourists gave the North Korea Korea war museum. They came to a room that depicts American atrocities during the war. The problem is that they can't tell what is real and what is propaganda. They assume that some of what is in there is likely true, but some of the stuff is so far fetched that it couldn't possibly be true. What do you do in such a situation? You probably just go look for a different source because the one you are looking at is so horribly tainted that you could never separate the truth from the propaganda.
I am sorry, is that a reason to vote for a guy who says he 'has a plan'? Just because that trick worked once doesn't mean that everyone is going to believe it again. If anything, that probably should have been a reason more then anything for people to be a little distrustful of a guy who says he 'has a plan'.
You are only partially right when you say that Kerry did not argue 'anyone but Bush'. Kerry himself wisely stayed out of that mess, but what he utterly failed to do was keep his supports from advocating 'anyone but Bush because he is a baby killing fascist'. The Republicans on the other hand did a pretty good job at getting their base out and keeping them from being rabid. Obviously there are exception, but by in large the Republicans managed to stay civil, while the Democrats had a legion of people running across the nation arguing that Bush was the second coming if Hitler.
Look, I am not faulting the Democratic position or agreeing the Republican one, but if you go watch Fahrenheit 9/11 you, you are watching the real Democratic argument against Bush. When that movie came out the masses on the left side of the aisle cheered for the most blatant piece of propaganda that most Americans have ever seen in their entire lives. That movie's argument was 'anyone but Bush, at all costs'. The four minutes that shows Bush aides putting on makeup just to show them looking foolish, or the "Saudi connection" conspiracy was the Democrat's message that ended up resonating, not Kerry's media sound bites or is articulate policies on the web. The problem is that Kerry didn't try and crush the radical polarization of the party. Kerry made no attempt to tell people to cool down and be a little more sane. The Republicans made no attempt to keep their party cool, but by and large they didn't have to.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Kerry didn't have a message. You can hit up his website and find all sorts of policy and position papers. The problem is that when it came to spreading the message, the rabid 'Bush is a baby murdering fascist' message is the one that won over anything interesting Kerry had to say.
Not to speak against the gospel, but perhaps this is a problem with 'open source' politics. The more radical and rabid the politics, the more likely it is to win favor with the 'open source' distributors of it. You need to realize that the grass roots campaign that was largely responsible for Kerry's message were the harden zealots. These people might be perfectly capable of working themselves up into a anit-Bush fever, but when you put these people in contact with your average every day Joe, the extreme message they try and sell is far less appealing. Part of the politician's dance is to steer away from extremism and offer a hopeful message to as many people as possible. When you send a small army of college students out to do your PR work, there shouldn't be any surprise when a 20 year old kid with a picture of Che Guevara on his wall tries to talk to 40 year old engineer working for multinational corporation that things don't work out.
John Kerry might very well have had a specific plan for various problems, but for anyone who watched the debates or listened to Kerry in publican for any length of time, it is clear that Kerry was just as much a 5 second sound bite guy as Bush. I think the hallmark of this, and probably the reason why he lost the election was how to explained Iraq. Go back and listen to Kerry in the debates. How did he intend to win in Iraq? "I have a plan!" Most people watched the debates and ended wondering WTF his plan was.
Kerry made a terrible mistake in being elusive in giving a clear plan. I don't doubt that he had one. He has a lot of smart people working for him, and I imagine he is a relativly sharp guy himself. His mistake was avoiding the fight of the details. He stuck to his "I have a plan!" message and lost.
The fate of the environment is in the hands of technology, pure and simple. Humans are simply unwilling to let themselves die. Every year we ensure that more people will live. People that should have died at child birth live on through technology and lead perfectly happy and productive lives. There are only two ways for humanity to keep running. Either human kind accepts that it can't advance fast enough to save itself, starts to let people, and cuts off research into life saving techniques, or humanity barrels on forward hoping to find technology to solve their problems.
Being one of those people that lived only because of the technology we have today, I think it is best to just put collective heads down and shove forward with technology. Everything on this earth is going to end up dead in the end. One day our star will day, and even if every human committed suicide the world would still end. I personally think that our best shot is just to advance as fast as possible and solve the problems as they come. Maybe we will find a way to exterminate ourselves or maybe we will transcend such worries. If the worst happens and we destroy ourselves, it simply means that the earth has suffered just one more cataclysm in a long history of them.
Just realize the statistical fallacies with taking that too far. Namely, correlation does not mean causation. For instance, I would bet that Boston (where I live) has a higher IQ then the middle of nowhere in Texas. You would also see that nowhere Texas votes Republican and Boston votes Democrat. If you assume it is because of IQ, you just made a very large assumption.
Democrats are more concerned with city issues. The city issues often come at the expense more rural areas. If I live in nowhere Texas and a Democrat blathers on about welfare and the environment, he isn't speak to me. Such a person probably has minimal expense and so even if he doesn't have a job has little need for welfare. The issue with the environment is a complete non-issue when you are surrounded by nothing but clean air. A Republican talking about cutting taxes on the other hand does appeal to such a person because it might very well be one of their biggest expenses.
You also need to realize that cities inflate their IQ with college students. College students have decidedly fewer issues they have to worry about and tend to be very liberal. As a college student doing the thing that 'feels right' is far more appealing then a tax break because chances are that college student doesn't pay a significant (or any) income tax.
I am not saying that the above explanations are the correct ones, just giving an example as to why I wouldn't take the analogy too far.
As a result, they will discover that their own freedom of religion is significantly reduced, perhaps eliminated altogether.
For fucks sake, grow up. Bush is not going to take away anyone's freedom of religion. If you have eaten up the "anyone but Bush!" propaganda so badly that you have deluded yourself into thinking Bush not only likes eating small orphans, but also wants to TAKE AWAY FREEDOM OF RELIGOION!!111!!!!, you need take a deep breath and come back to reality.
Bush is not going to affect your freedom of religion. Bush isn't even fucking conservative. Bush is a moderate Republican in every sense of the word. This nation has had far more conservative presidents then Bush. Congratulations on the Democrats for working their base up into a frenzy while managing to convince the other half of the nation that their base is made up of babbling idiots who are convinced that Bush is the second coming of Hitler. If there is any reason why the Democrats lost, it is because the average working stiff say the Democratic base of ravenous college students trying to compare Bush with Hitler and blew them off as the idiots they are.
Look, I wanted Kerry to win. A democrat as the president, Republicans in congress, and the sweet sound of grid lock is music to my ears. I don't want Bush to have a free reign to push through legislation. That said, as much as I really don't like Bush, I don't make myself sound like a fucking idiot by declaring that for his next evil trick he will eat the flesh off a still living child while sending anyone who isn't Christian to a death camp.
The democrats lost because they encourage people to sound like raving idiots, much like yourself. Not that the Republicans don't have their fare share of raving idiots, they at least managed to keep their idiots from marching around decrying Kerry as Stalin.
Cute saying, but largely untrue. Regan was a good speaker, but that is about it. He also let his advisors decide a lot. Love or hate what he did, he did a lot. Personally, it doesn't bother me if the president looks outside his limited sphere of knowledge to decide things. Bush is a prime example. He might not be the smartest tool in the shed, but love or hate him, you can't deny Cheney is a sharp guy.
The real question is how I feel about the people advising president. I just consider it one more flavor to chose from. Do I want a guy who runs everything through his advisors and there for gets a veriety of options, or do I want a guy who is independent and so less likely to waiver?
Not that it matters now that Bush has clinched the race, but both Kerry and Bush were guys who ran off their advisors. Bush did it more then Kerry, but Kerry was no Clinton. Whatever the case, we can ponder the question for four more years before we need to worry about it again.
When you vote for a president, you vote for two types of presidents. You vote for guys who are run on committee, or guys that run on their own power. Bush, without a doubt, relies on heavily on his cabinet. Clinton on the other hand was a guy who liked to do a lot himself. Dumber presidents tend to run more like Bush does. I personally don't think either method is better then the other. Sure, it is nice to know that the president can make decisions on his own, but I also don't mind if the president goes to his economics guy before he makes an economics decision. The more important piece is that YOU as a voter know what type of guy your voting for is. If you are voting for a guy who listens to his cabinet a lot, then I suggest checking into them to make sure that they are the kind of people you want controlling the executive branch of the government.
Last election I watched an exit poller. He had no method of randomly selecting people to poll as far as I could tell. The only pattern I could see is that he seemed to be more inclined to ask pretty young woman.
Conspiracy theories aside, I think it is just bad polling. Democrats are generally younger. Younger people are generally prettier and look more approachable. It might be a small effect, but do it a few thousand times and it adds up. I am not saying that it isn't worth looking into, but my gut guess would be that it is simply poor random selection.
If you care about the election, see that your guy is down based on an exit poll, and don't vote, I am glad, no matter what party you are. I don't want monkies or your pet to vote as their input is worthless. I don't want stupid people to vote either. If you don't vote because of an exit poll, I consider that a victory for democracy, regardless of who wins.
9/11 was an event independent of all others. If 9/11 had been the first thing Al-Qaeda had ever done, the US would have responded in exactly the same way. I am not saying that the US response should have been in line with the crime. On the contrary, I agree that whacking a nation or two a fine response.
Personally, as an American, I like the image the US has when it comes to defending its home territory. The popular belief is that the US response to getting attacked on its home soil is the for the nation to go completely bat shit and beat the living piss out of anyone looks even a little guilty. If nations believe that the consequences of selling a nuke to terrorist that is used to blow up an American city is that the US turns your nation into glass, good. That fact might not mean much to a terrorist, but it certainly means something to the leaders of nations with nukes.
I might poke fun of the US response to 9/11, but at the end of the day it doesn't bother me much. The message is clear. Anything you do on US soil comes back times a thousand. If you are sane, you will keep your WMDs out of terrorist hands, because when the US comes knocking, the technicality that you didn't pull the trigger isn't going to matter. If you assault US soil, the US doesn't come looking for justice, it comes for vengeance.
I should point out that this is very much the policy of all US presidents. Kerry and Gore would just as quickly glass over a nation as Bush would. In this one things, Americans are very much united.
To be honest, it seems like for a nation as large as the US, the irregularities listed so far seem pretty minor and rare. If things keep going like they are with just minor irregularities like the ones listed, I would feel pretty good about the turnout of the election, no matter what it was. So far at least, it seems to have much fewer questionable problems.
I suppose I should hold my optimism for when the polls close and the real shit starts hitting the fan. Let just hope that things continue to run as smooth as they appear to be running right now.
Look, when 9/11 happened the Americans went nuts. They ended up whacking off two nations. Think about it. The American response to two buildings being destroy was to take out two ENTIRE NATIONS. That is like responding to two guys getting shot by taking out two towns. So, you understand the American prepensely to overreact a little.
Now, considering the American psyche, what kind of fucking idiot would you have to be to take out all American TV. You thought they were on a rampage after two buildings fell? Shit, if someone took out American TV, especially during the Superbowl I would go look for the nearest fallout shelter and come out 100,000 years later to open a very profitable glass business. Why glass you ask? Because that kind of nuclear holocaust, that is all that is left.
Blow up the Statue of Liberty, the White House, and Wall Street, but for the sake of the rest of world, leave the American heart and soul intact and leave TV alone.
I wouldn't post such results. Proving that the an overwheliming majority of people dumb enough to give out their cell phone numbers are Dems really is not a horribly encouarging sign. Of course, you have to wonder about the Republicans that willingly gave up their cell phone numbers to a Democrat orginization. Isn't that a sign of greater stupidity?
So... maybe we can take the lesson from this that people are people, and people are stupid.
I think that the 'problem' in America is vastly over stated. I know that when I was growing up I knew exactly one kid that believed in creationism. In the Bible belt areas you have a few vocal people, but the truth is that the vast majority of people in the US believe in Dinosoares.
Let me be the first to say that we here at the Bush camp concede early to Kerry. It seems clear that due to this unfortunate turn of events that Kerry has won the election. As a side note, we should also point out that with the election already all but decided, you shouldn't burden yourself on election day with voting if it is an inconvenient, especially if you happen to be black, gay, poor, a college student, or a woman. So stay home. Nothing to see here.
Who in the hell said anything about lying? Her current boy friend knows and it looks like the two are well on their way to getting hitched. In your opinion she should be prevented from getting married because she can't have kids?
Bah, what a joke. The argument around not letting people get married because of reproductive reasons is stupid. There is no test parents need to take to prove that they are capable parents. A child molester can get married and have kids if he wants. Single men and woman are allowed to keep their kids when they are divorced. 16 year olds are allowed to keep their babies if they don't get them aborted. Half of the US population grows up without having both a mom and a dad, and you act like allowing another small minority to join in the fun is going to bring about the Armageddon.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the people captured were not wearing uniforms and were not even apart of a government military. The Geneva Convention doesn't protect you if you are fighting in a non-governmental army out of a uniform. The idea behind this is to make it so that if a guy from France walks into a bar in England, mows down a few police officers, then gets arrested, he doesn't get Geneva Convention rights, but is instead subject to the British legal system. One of the rights that is included is the right be released once hostilities are ended, providing you did not commit war crimes.
The biggest reason why the US doesn't want to call them POWs and give them Geneva Convention rights is because if they did, they would have to let them all go. Think what you want of how the US is treating them, you can be pretty well assured that there are people there you really don't want to let go and run around freely.
This leaves the US in an ugly position. If you call them POWs, then you have to simply let them go. If you try them in an American civilian court, you are going to end up letting them go because the standard for proving guilt is so high, you will not want to make your intelligence and how you got it part of the public record (...I hereby call CIA operative number 3 to the stand...), and they would get off on technicalities of the American legal system.
I am not saying that things are being handled perfectly there, but do realize the problem that the US faces when dealing with these people. The solution isn't as obvious as simply declaring them POWs.
Bah, and the US overthrew Britain. Last time I checked, 'historical precedent' is not world wide law, thankfully so, as the end of the colonial period would have been very messy if each rebellion was responded to with mass crucifixions as per Roman 'historical precedent'.
The simple fact of the matter is that Taiwan was absolutely no desire to be apart of China. Maybe some day when China is something of a free society, but in this day and age, Taiwan wants nothing to do with China. Taiwan is a Democracy. The US should go out of its way to protect Taiwan from the authoritarian state of China. Maybe one day China will clean itself up and become a place that the Taiwanese people would want to join with, but until they day they vote to reunify, the US has an obligation to protect Taiwan. The US spends a lot of time trying to get Taiwan to back down from making the actual vote to independence because the US has absolutely no desire to fight China, but when it comes down to it, the US is willing to defend Taiwan.
I personally find it pretty admirable that the US is willing to defend Taiwan from China. As much as people talk about how bad the Americans are, this is one case where I think it shows them to be on the right side of ideology and freedom. The US is willing to fight one of their largest trading partners and one of the largest (and nuclear armed) militaries in the world. That seems to me to be on the right side of good.
It would also be much poorer, have much weaker bite, and pretty much be relegated to humanity duty. For better or for worse, the US is what the UN brings out when it needs to do some stomping. That isn't to say that Europe can't be an effective military power, but for Europe to pull of an operation like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Serbia, it would be much bloodier and much longer. The Americans have the advantage of being so overwhelming in military power that causalities are always very one sided. Generally, if you make the commitment to fight the US, you know that for ever 1 US soldier you kill, they are going to kill 100 of yours. There are places in the world where people are willing to fight against those kind of odds, but not many.
Now, it can be pointed out that the UN rarely (if ever) attempts operations on the scale of Iraq unless the US is badgering them into doing it. That said, it is hard to determine if the UN has had to fight so few wars simply because it isn't in the nature of the UN to fight wars, or if the US has avoided some of the wars simply by throwing their military card on the table.
If there is a big reason why the UN would never want to lose the US, it is because without the US, the UN's missions are greatly reduced. When the largest super power in the world and ¼ of the worlds economy doesn't recognize your organization, what is left for you to do? Send a nasty letter on occasion and send a few peace keepers to guard refuge camps?
EQ2 is very similar to EQ.
That is by far the best review I have heard. It cuts the fore play and gets down to the heart of it. Though, you could have made it even easier and simply said GRIND.
MMORPGs have been absolutely disgusting in how they utterly ignore the potential that exists. Every single MMORPG, yes, even WoW, relies on the never ending quest to level up. I personally can't wait for the day when someone makes a serious MMORPG that doesn't subsist off people being obsessive and compulsive. I fucking hate leveling and practicing skills. The day they cut out these things is the day that MMORPGs open up to a massive new market of no OCD gamers.
I think you are missing my point. I don't disagree that everyone has idiots that act like nut jobs. My point was not to say that the GOP was civil. My point was that the Democrats managed to make the election about how cartoonishly evil Bush is. The result is that it turned off a lot of people that might have been unsatisfied with Bush. There were a lot of people that were unsatisfied with Bush this election. The Democrats utterly failed offer up an alternative though. Instead they polarized their base to radical extremes, and used these extremist to do their grass roots work.
Extremist might be very effective in getting out the base, but when you attempt to get people that are not naturally apart of the Democrat's base to come into the fold, sending an extremist is the worst thing you can possibly do. The Republicans were much wiser in that they sent their extremist to make sure other extremist went out and voted. They did not rely on the party zealots that would argue Kerry is a baby eating Stalinist to convince the average voter to vote for Bush.
Again, these are generalizations. I am sure that crazy Republicans tried to convince non-Republicans to vote and ended up scaring them into voting for Kerry. By in large though, the Democrats had a significantly larger grass roots campaign aimed at independents and conservatives with liberal bent. This might not have been a bad thing if their base, the people performing this grass roots work, were not see fanatically polarized against Bush. When most people become fanatical, they lose the ability to talk to someone who does not completely see eye to eye.
I'll give an example. I ended up going to NH with some college students that were doing some canvassing for Kerry. They were all rabidly anti-Bush. At one point one girl in your group was talking to an independent voter who was very dissatisfied with Bush. Listening to the guy, it was pretty clear he was deeply dissatisfied with Bush, but did not really believe that Kerry would represent his values any better. At one point the girl starts to lambaste Bush for being a pro-life Nazi. The guy mentions that he too is pro-life. The words went in one ear and out the other. She just kept on lambasting Bush for being pro-life instead of moving on to an issue where she could have found a common ground. I wouldn't be surprised if that man ended up either not voting, or voting Bush, despite the fact that he was probably very close to voting Kerry. Granted, my story is antidotal, but I imagine that this is a pretty common problem that the Democrat's grass roots movement ran into this year. They sent out young fanatics who commonly use the word Nazi and Bush in the same sentence, and told these people to convince people who don't share their zeal.
I doubt there would be fusion power tommorrow even if there was an X prize for it. The thing you need to realize is that the X prize was so succesful because the technology was already there. To beat fusion you just need to pour research money into it. To beat space, you just need to figure out how to use what we already have to do a little more. I am not saying fusion is a waste, but just offering up a couple million to beat the problem is not going to solve it.
I didn't claim that either side was squeaky clean. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was a good example of the other sides whackos. The difference is that the right did a very good job making sure that those guys were not the voice of their party. While the right never came out and lashed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they sure as hell didn't sing their praise either. My point is that right didn't do it, it is that they did it a lot less.
When I am talking about the rabid Democratic zealots, I am talking about the Democrat's grass roots campaign that defined their voice. Their grass roots campaign that they attempted basically gave control of the party's voice to college students who are far more radical and significantly less articulate the party's political candidates. If you want a more clear example, look at the MoveOn.org and other similar sites. These were the center of the Democrat's message. While these were very effective in getting the Democrat's base into a blood rage, they alienated everyone else who wasn't already fanatically anti-Bush.
As for Fahrenheit 9/11, you can defend it all you want, but you need to understand what most non-ardent Democrats see when they see that movie. They see what is likely the most blatant display of propaganda they have ever seen in their entire lives. I am not exaggerating when I say that. For most Americans born in the US, unless they lived through World War II, they likely will never have seen such propaganda before. That movie might very well speak to the core of Democrats because it screams ANYONE BUT BUSH, but to most Americans who are not in anyone but Bush fever, it is utterly revolting to see someone do completely away with any pretenses of trying to display both sides and use every dirty propaganda technique in the book. Any point that movie was trying to make is completely lost because you know that if Moore had found evidence to the contrary of what he wants to believe, he wouldn't show it. How could any sane person trust someone like that as a source of information.
Fahrenheit 9/11 reminds me of an account some American tourists gave the North Korea Korea war museum. They came to a room that depicts American atrocities during the war. The problem is that they can't tell what is real and what is propaganda. They assume that some of what is in there is likely true, but some of the stuff is so far fetched that it couldn't possibly be true. What do you do in such a situation? You probably just go look for a different source because the one you are looking at is so horribly tainted that you could never separate the truth from the propaganda.
I am sorry, is that a reason to vote for a guy who says he 'has a plan'? Just because that trick worked once doesn't mean that everyone is going to believe it again. If anything, that probably should have been a reason more then anything for people to be a little distrustful of a guy who says he 'has a plan'.
You are only partially right when you say that Kerry did not argue 'anyone but Bush'. Kerry himself wisely stayed out of that mess, but what he utterly failed to do was keep his supports from advocating 'anyone but Bush because he is a baby killing fascist'. The Republicans on the other hand did a pretty good job at getting their base out and keeping them from being rabid. Obviously there are exception, but by in large the Republicans managed to stay civil, while the Democrats had a legion of people running across the nation arguing that Bush was the second coming if Hitler.
Look, I am not faulting the Democratic position or agreeing the Republican one, but if you go watch Fahrenheit 9/11 you, you are watching the real Democratic argument against Bush. When that movie came out the masses on the left side of the aisle cheered for the most blatant piece of propaganda that most Americans have ever seen in their entire lives. That movie's argument was 'anyone but Bush, at all costs'. The four minutes that shows Bush aides putting on makeup just to show them looking foolish, or the "Saudi connection" conspiracy was the Democrat's message that ended up resonating, not Kerry's media sound bites or is articulate policies on the web. The problem is that Kerry didn't try and crush the radical polarization of the party. Kerry made no attempt to tell people to cool down and be a little more sane. The Republicans made no attempt to keep their party cool, but by and large they didn't have to.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Kerry didn't have a message. You can hit up his website and find all sorts of policy and position papers. The problem is that when it came to spreading the message, the rabid 'Bush is a baby murdering fascist' message is the one that won over anything interesting Kerry had to say.
Not to speak against the gospel, but perhaps this is a problem with 'open source' politics. The more radical and rabid the politics, the more likely it is to win favor with the 'open source' distributors of it. You need to realize that the grass roots campaign that was largely responsible for Kerry's message were the harden zealots. These people might be perfectly capable of working themselves up into a anit-Bush fever, but when you put these people in contact with your average every day Joe, the extreme message they try and sell is far less appealing. Part of the politician's dance is to steer away from extremism and offer a hopeful message to as many people as possible. When you send a small army of college students out to do your PR work, there shouldn't be any surprise when a 20 year old kid with a picture of Che Guevara on his wall tries to talk to 40 year old engineer working for multinational corporation that things don't work out.
John Kerry might very well have had a specific plan for various problems, but for anyone who watched the debates or listened to Kerry in publican for any length of time, it is clear that Kerry was just as much a 5 second sound bite guy as Bush. I think the hallmark of this, and probably the reason why he lost the election was how to explained Iraq. Go back and listen to Kerry in the debates. How did he intend to win in Iraq? "I have a plan!" Most people watched the debates and ended wondering WTF his plan was.
Kerry made a terrible mistake in being elusive in giving a clear plan. I don't doubt that he had one. He has a lot of smart people working for him, and I imagine he is a relativly sharp guy himself. His mistake was avoiding the fight of the details. He stuck to his "I have a plan!" message and lost.
The fate of the environment is in the hands of technology, pure and simple. Humans are simply unwilling to let themselves die. Every year we ensure that more people will live. People that should have died at child birth live on through technology and lead perfectly happy and productive lives. There are only two ways for humanity to keep running. Either human kind accepts that it can't advance fast enough to save itself, starts to let people, and cuts off research into life saving techniques, or humanity barrels on forward hoping to find technology to solve their problems.
Being one of those people that lived only because of the technology we have today, I think it is best to just put collective heads down and shove forward with technology. Everything on this earth is going to end up dead in the end. One day our star will day, and even if every human committed suicide the world would still end. I personally think that our best shot is just to advance as fast as possible and solve the problems as they come. Maybe we will find a way to exterminate ourselves or maybe we will transcend such worries. If the worst happens and we destroy ourselves, it simply means that the earth has suffered just one more cataclysm in a long history of them.
Seeing as how they are remote controlled, I imagine they would reconize a civilian the same way the military does it today... a human soldier decides.
Just realize the statistical fallacies with taking that too far. Namely, correlation does not mean causation. For instance, I would bet that Boston (where I live) has a higher IQ then the middle of nowhere in Texas. You would also see that nowhere Texas votes Republican and Boston votes Democrat. If you assume it is because of IQ, you just made a very large assumption.
Democrats are more concerned with city issues. The city issues often come at the expense more rural areas. If I live in nowhere Texas and a Democrat blathers on about welfare and the environment, he isn't speak to me. Such a person probably has minimal expense and so even if he doesn't have a job has little need for welfare. The issue with the environment is a complete non-issue when you are surrounded by nothing but clean air. A Republican talking about cutting taxes on the other hand does appeal to such a person because it might very well be one of their biggest expenses.
You also need to realize that cities inflate their IQ with college students. College students have decidedly fewer issues they have to worry about and tend to be very liberal. As a college student doing the thing that 'feels right' is far more appealing then a tax break because chances are that college student doesn't pay a significant (or any) income tax.
I am not saying that the above explanations are the correct ones, just giving an example as to why I wouldn't take the analogy too far.
As a result, they will discover that their own freedom of religion is significantly reduced, perhaps eliminated altogether.
For fucks sake, grow up. Bush is not going to take away anyone's freedom of religion. If you have eaten up the "anyone but Bush!" propaganda so badly that you have deluded yourself into thinking Bush not only likes eating small orphans, but also wants to TAKE AWAY FREEDOM OF RELIGOION!!111!!!!, you need take a deep breath and come back to reality.
Bush is not going to affect your freedom of religion. Bush isn't even fucking conservative. Bush is a moderate Republican in every sense of the word. This nation has had far more conservative presidents then Bush. Congratulations on the Democrats for working their base up into a frenzy while managing to convince the other half of the nation that their base is made up of babbling idiots who are convinced that Bush is the second coming of Hitler. If there is any reason why the Democrats lost, it is because the average working stiff say the Democratic base of ravenous college students trying to compare Bush with Hitler and blew them off as the idiots they are.
Look, I wanted Kerry to win. A democrat as the president, Republicans in congress, and the sweet sound of grid lock is music to my ears. I don't want Bush to have a free reign to push through legislation. That said, as much as I really don't like Bush, I don't make myself sound like a fucking idiot by declaring that for his next evil trick he will eat the flesh off a still living child while sending anyone who isn't Christian to a death camp.
The democrats lost because they encourage people to sound like raving idiots, much like yourself. Not that the Republicans don't have their fare share of raving idiots, they at least managed to keep their idiots from marching around decrying Kerry as Stalin.
Cute saying, but largely untrue. Regan was a good speaker, but that is about it. He also let his advisors decide a lot. Love or hate what he did, he did a lot. Personally, it doesn't bother me if the president looks outside his limited sphere of knowledge to decide things. Bush is a prime example. He might not be the smartest tool in the shed, but love or hate him, you can't deny Cheney is a sharp guy.
The real question is how I feel about the people advising president. I just consider it one more flavor to chose from. Do I want a guy who runs everything through his advisors and there for gets a veriety of options, or do I want a guy who is independent and so less likely to waiver?
Not that it matters now that Bush has clinched the race, but both Kerry and Bush were guys who ran off their advisors. Bush did it more then Kerry, but Kerry was no Clinton. Whatever the case, we can ponder the question for four more years before we need to worry about it again.
When you vote for a president, you vote for two types of presidents. You vote for guys who are run on committee, or guys that run on their own power. Bush, without a doubt, relies on heavily on his cabinet. Clinton on the other hand was a guy who liked to do a lot himself. Dumber presidents tend to run more like Bush does. I personally don't think either method is better then the other. Sure, it is nice to know that the president can make decisions on his own, but I also don't mind if the president goes to his economics guy before he makes an economics decision. The more important piece is that YOU as a voter know what type of guy your voting for is. If you are voting for a guy who listens to his cabinet a lot, then I suggest checking into them to make sure that they are the kind of people you want controlling the executive branch of the government.
Last election I watched an exit poller. He had no method of randomly selecting people to poll as far as I could tell. The only pattern I could see is that he seemed to be more inclined to ask pretty young woman.
Conspiracy theories aside, I think it is just bad polling. Democrats are generally younger. Younger people are generally prettier and look more approachable. It might be a small effect, but do it a few thousand times and it adds up. I am not saying that it isn't worth looking into, but my gut guess would be that it is simply poor random selection.
If you care about the election, see that your guy is down based on an exit poll, and don't vote, I am glad, no matter what party you are. I don't want monkies or your pet to vote as their input is worthless. I don't want stupid people to vote either. If you don't vote because of an exit poll, I consider that a victory for democracy, regardless of who wins.
9/11 was an event independent of all others. If 9/11 had been the first thing Al-Qaeda had ever done, the US would have responded in exactly the same way. I am not saying that the US response should have been in line with the crime. On the contrary, I agree that whacking a nation or two a fine response.
Personally, as an American, I like the image the US has when it comes to defending its home territory. The popular belief is that the US response to getting attacked on its home soil is the for the nation to go completely bat shit and beat the living piss out of anyone looks even a little guilty. If nations believe that the consequences of selling a nuke to terrorist that is used to blow up an American city is that the US turns your nation into glass, good. That fact might not mean much to a terrorist, but it certainly means something to the leaders of nations with nukes.
I might poke fun of the US response to 9/11, but at the end of the day it doesn't bother me much. The message is clear. Anything you do on US soil comes back times a thousand. If you are sane, you will keep your WMDs out of terrorist hands, because when the US comes knocking, the technicality that you didn't pull the trigger isn't going to matter. If you assault US soil, the US doesn't come looking for justice, it comes for vengeance.
I should point out that this is very much the policy of all US presidents. Kerry and Gore would just as quickly glass over a nation as Bush would. In this one things, Americans are very much united.
To be honest, it seems like for a nation as large as the US, the irregularities listed so far seem pretty minor and rare. If things keep going like they are with just minor irregularities like the ones listed, I would feel pretty good about the turnout of the election, no matter what it was. So far at least, it seems to have much fewer questionable problems.
I suppose I should hold my optimism for when the polls close and the real shit starts hitting the fan. Let just hope that things continue to run as smooth as they appear to be running right now.
Look, when 9/11 happened the Americans went nuts. They ended up whacking off two nations. Think about it. The American response to two buildings being destroy was to take out two ENTIRE NATIONS. That is like responding to two guys getting shot by taking out two towns. So, you understand the American prepensely to overreact a little.
Now, considering the American psyche, what kind of fucking idiot would you have to be to take out all American TV. You thought they were on a rampage after two buildings fell? Shit, if someone took out American TV, especially during the Superbowl I would go look for the nearest fallout shelter and come out 100,000 years later to open a very profitable glass business. Why glass you ask? Because that kind of nuclear holocaust, that is all that is left.
Blow up the Statue of Liberty, the White House, and Wall Street, but for the sake of the rest of world, leave the American heart and soul intact and leave TV alone.
I wouldn't post such results. Proving that the an overwheliming majority of people dumb enough to give out their cell phone numbers are Dems really is not a horribly encouarging sign. Of course, you have to wonder about the Republicans that willingly gave up their cell phone numbers to a Democrat orginization. Isn't that a sign of greater stupidity?
So... maybe we can take the lesson from this that people are people, and people are stupid.
I think that the 'problem' in America is vastly over stated. I know that when I was growing up I knew exactly one kid that believed in creationism. In the Bible belt areas you have a few vocal people, but the truth is that the vast majority of people in the US believe in Dinosoares.
Let me be the first to say that we here at the Bush camp concede early to Kerry. It seems clear that due to this unfortunate turn of events that Kerry has won the election. As a side note, we should also point out that with the election already all but decided, you shouldn't burden yourself on election day with voting if it is an inconvenient, especially if you happen to be black, gay, poor, a college student, or a woman. So stay home. Nothing to see here.
Who in the hell said anything about lying? Her current boy friend knows and it looks like the two are well on their way to getting hitched. In your opinion she should be prevented from getting married because she can't have kids?
Bah, what a joke. The argument around not letting people get married because of reproductive reasons is stupid. There is no test parents need to take to prove that they are capable parents. A child molester can get married and have kids if he wants. Single men and woman are allowed to keep their kids when they are divorced. 16 year olds are allowed to keep their babies if they don't get them aborted. Half of the US population grows up without having both a mom and a dad, and you act like allowing another small minority to join in the fun is going to bring about the Armageddon.