> You are somewhat confused. Under a pure popular vote system there would be no such thing as a "swing state".
No, that was part of my point. The post I was replying to said that if the 2000 election was decided by the popular vote, Gore would have won.
But if the election was decided by popular vote, then there wouldn't be any "swing" and "non-swing" states, and thus the entire election landscape would be different. (And thus you can't say who would have won in 2000 if popular vote mattered.)
So you're suggesting that biased European officials will try to swing the vote in Kerry's favor? Because that seems to be the logical extension of your argument.
If the popular vote was implemented before 2000 we wouldn't be suffering from the insane megalomanical texan from hell(aka as 'w' in the sheep-fucker/slave master circles).
You can't actually say that. If the election was based on popular vote, instead of the Electoral College, then both candidates would have run their campaigns differently -- passing over states they otherwise would have visited, and concentrating on large population centers. Nevermind the fact that more people in non-swing states would have voted. (Why vote in Texas/Massachusetts if you know Bush/Kerry is going to win anyway?)
Oh, and good job on the name-calling. Very mature.
Like I said, the war on Japan was fought until the people in general were beaten. Fortunately this happened earlier than expected because the Emperor told them to surrender and cooperate.
It was a very near thing too, by the way. Japan's top generals plotted and almost succeeded in kidnapping the Emperor before he could make his radio address.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
Would said union be for multiple people, or just a pair? If multiple-unions are okay, then how do you plan to keep the tax relief from being abused?
Can any aged person get married? Many cultures and religions have people married at 12 years old and younger.
Do both parties of the union have to consent? I'm thinking arranged marriages here, which is a big thing in many cultures.
How about brothers and sisters getting married? Dads and daughters? And where do the rights of the theoretical (and potentially genetically crippled) baby come into play?
If you think the government should take a stance on any of the issues I listed, then how is it getting out of the marriage business?
With our proven experience in successfully occupying other countries (Germany, Japan), why did we stumble so badly in Iraq?
That was like, what, 50 years ago? I think we might be somewhat out of practice. But the big thing is that occupied-Iraq is little like occupied Germany or Japan.
With Germany and Japan, the populace largely supported their side of the war. In Iraq, most everyone had hated their government for decades, and wished it gone.
The people of Japan and Germany were completely and totally bombed into submission, their will broken and their outlook irrevocably changed. But in Iraq that wasn't necessary, because of modern technology and because my my point #1.
Thus the pride-based culture in Iraq is largely intact. Having to be saved by outsiders, from a man we eventually dragged from a hole, can make some feel "humiliated."
Iraqis have been exposed to decades of anti-American propoganda -- both from Saddam's dictatorship and from the outside world. The Japanese and Germans were indoctrinated too, but point #2 illustrates that it was beaten out of them.
And finally, in post-war Germany and Japan, there weren't terrorist groups sneaking in to cause trouble, try to tear the country apart, and attempt to install a new fascist regime. I'm looking at you, Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda, and pals.
> like the now famous memo that he received on August 6, 2001 titled Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.
In his defense, the information in said memo hadn't been updated in years. I mean, remember when terrorists used to hijack planes and hold the passengers hostage? Yeah, that kind of stuff.
> Bin Laden is still free, we're stuck in Iraq with the situation getting worse every day
We do have troops in Afghanistan too. Bin Laden is still free because he fled to Pakistan.
Iraq is still going along. The new interim government is still popular, and people are still signing up to be policemen in droves. Some 80%+ of the people said they planned to vote in the upcoming elections slated for January. (And similar polls show that, while religious leaders are viewed favorably, they aren't likely to be elected into government.)
You may have disagreed with the decision to re-invade Iraq, but arguably it was inevitable since the end of the first Gulf War.
> a whole new generation of Islamic extremists has even more reasons to hate us.
I spoke to someone just back from the U.K. today at work. According to him, everyone across the political spectrum- practically without exception- is livid about this election. They believe it will affect their lives in the U.K. almost as much as it will affect Americans. But none of them can cast a vote against Bush.
Cry me a river, why don't you.
The very fact of the matter is that people outside the U.S. have little grasp of what America is like -- its politics or its people. All you see of our people is distorted through the lens of Hollywood, and all you see of our politics is distorted through the lens of biased news outlets (especially the spoiled government-funded ones.)
Your negative views of Bush mostly stem from the excessively negative portrayal he gets.
Re:The debates could be very good for Kerry
on
Presidential Debates Set
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> I don't quite agree with you here. Sure, Bush is well-known for mis-speaking and mis-pronouncing things on a regular basis. However, the masses, for whatever reason seem to have given him a pass on this [non]issue.
Actually, Bush often references and makes fun of his previous verbal gaffes.
As a matter of fact, my guess is, if it weren't for the United States, Osama bin Laden would turn on Saddam Hussein. Why? Because Saddam Hussein is the head of a Ba'athist party -- a secular, socialist party. He is anathema to the kind of world that Osama bin Laden wants to reinstall So he's part of the problem; he's not part of the solution. That doesn't mean they can't cooperate, and might not cooperate. But what I'm saying is we need to get our priorities straight, and we've got them straight right now. We're going after number one target.
Indeed, Saddam was pretty much a seperate threat, though he wasn't above using non-Osama Islamic fundamentalists to further his cause (mainly to boost his image in the Arab world. There's a reason the Palestinians (et al) were cheering him on in the recent war.
Perhaps Saddam was a less pressing issue than intelligence led us to believe, but our confrontation with him was quite inevitable -- ever since the terms of his cease-fire were laid out in 1991. It was quite obvious to all observers that he was never going to fully comply with the terms, so at what point do we put our foot down?
Heck, there has already been ample evidence found that Saddam's Iraq tried to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction. Thankfully they didn't get far, but the intent alone was a violation.
For further reading, it seems that a portion of UNSCAM money may have gone to Osama after all. (Thanks U.N., you're doing a bang-up job!)
> I think this reply is disingenuous since you changed from teachers' pay to cost per pupil which are two significantly different things.
It's not disingenuous at all. It puts the focus where it's really needed: reform.
> When people point to cost per pupil they include the bloated administrative costs, programs that have no educational content, massive programs to bus children to distant schools and so on.
So we need to chop the administrative costs and other wasteful programs. Adding more money without reform will only add to the bloat and corruption. Nevermind that our teaching methods may need overall improvement too.
Excuse me, I should have mentioned that a few socialist-leaning western European countries might be ahead of the U.S.. But if you look at the graphs, you'll see we're #4 and #3 in spending, respectively. (As of 1998, anyway.) Not bad at all.
Though, what the hell does spending as a percentage of GDP have to do with anything? Whose idea is it that one should spend a certain % of the GDP on anything? I'd rather they spend what is necessary, and leave the rest of the money in the economy where it belongs.
But all this is beside the point, which you missed. If we're spending so much money on public education, why is our educational system so terrible? (It's not 4th and 3rd in the world, to say the least.) We could probably double our spending and still not see better results. Lord knows spending increases havn't helped in the past.
Heck, there are nice, well-run private primary and secondary schools that cost less than what we're spending per student for public education. The U.S. should just shut down it's public school systems and send everyone to private schools. We'd get better education and probably save money too.
use all that money to hire LOTS of front-line workers. E.g., teachers, firemen, policemen, social workers, forest rangers, etc.
Teachers? The U.S. spends more per student than anywhere else in the world. Nevermind that most of the professions you listed are locally -- not federally -- funded.
And no, I don't think having more forest rangers will significantly impact the economy.
but there were 2 wars afterwards which gave the defense contractors a huge amount of government money. Just look at the stock for Lockeed Martin... it's been rising ever since 1999. If a war doesn't boost an economy, I don't know what can (see WWII)
I'm not so sure that the government can spend it's way out of economic recession. There are some economist/historians who think FDR's "New Deal" kept us in the Great Depression longer, for instance.
Did WWII help the U.S. out of the Great Depression? Very possibly. But that war affected the nation in a much greater way than this recent continuation of the Gulf War.
I mean, we all know about the Dot-Com bubble bursting, but why hadn't the economy recovered by November 2001? Did some kind of event negatively affect the economy a month or two before that?
Yes, I do have some "Right" opinions, and I do enjoy posting on Slashdot. I put varying levels of effort into my posts, but I believe I am mostly correct.
You seem to misunderstand the Slashdot Friend/Foe system. Marking someone as a Friend or Foe is done purely for one's own benefit -- not to indicate an actual friendship/enmity. Rather, it is to highlight people whose opinions you've come to repect or disdain, and also see who those people consider Friends and Foes.
I can understand that the nomenclature can be confusing. Perhaps instead of "Friend" and "Foe", it should have been called "High Quality" and "Low Quality", or somesuch.
So no, I am not your mortal enemy, as you put it. Nothing so dramatic. But at some point you must have said something particularly egregious -- enough that I thought your basic logic facilities were suspect (at least on certain subjects.)
Slashdot Mirror
> You are somewhat confused. Under a pure popular vote system there would be no such thing as a "swing state".
No, that was part of my point. The post I was replying to said that if the 2000 election was decided by the popular vote, Gore would have won.
But if the election was decided by popular vote, then there wouldn't be any "swing" and "non-swing" states, and thus the entire election landscape would be different. (And thus you can't say who would have won in 2000 if popular vote mattered.)
So you're suggesting that biased European officials will try to swing the vote in Kerry's favor? Because that seems to be the logical extension of your argument.
You can't actually say that. If the election was based on popular vote, instead of the Electoral College, then both candidates would have run their campaigns differently -- passing over states they otherwise would have visited, and concentrating on large population centers. Nevermind the fact that more people in non-swing states would have voted. (Why vote in Texas/Massachusetts if you know Bush/Kerry is going to win anyway?)
Oh, and good job on the name-calling. Very mature.
Like I said, the war on Japan was fought until the people in general were beaten. Fortunately this happened earlier than expected because the Emperor told them to surrender and cooperate.
It was a very near thing too, by the way. Japan's top generals plotted and almost succeeded in kidnapping the Emperor before he could make his radio address.
Would said union be for multiple people, or just a pair? If multiple-unions are okay, then how do you plan to keep the tax relief from being abused?
Can any aged person get married? Many cultures and religions have people married at 12 years old and younger.
Do both parties of the union have to consent? I'm thinking arranged marriages here, which is a big thing in many cultures.
How about brothers and sisters getting married? Dads and daughters? And where do the rights of the theoretical (and potentially genetically crippled) baby come into play?
If you think the government should take a stance on any of the issues I listed, then how is it getting out of the marriage business?
That was like, what, 50 years ago? I think we might be somewhat out of practice. But the big thing is that occupied-Iraq is little like occupied Germany or Japan.
What Liberal Media?
;-)
Oh, That Liberal Media!
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
> I'm sure the Diebold people do understand security, very well.
Funny that most of your theory rests on this erroneous assumption. Haven't you heard stories of their ATM work?
> In a country where no-bid contracts and the VP's corporate relationships aren't questioned
They certainly are questioned, but said questions never get far because:
1) No actual evidence has ever turned up.
2) Halliburton was awarded it's long-term LOGCAP contract back in 1999 -- before Bush took office.
> like the now famous memo that he received on August 6, 2001 titled Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.
In his defense, the information in said memo hadn't been updated in years. I mean, remember when terrorists used to hijack planes and hold the passengers hostage? Yeah, that kind of stuff.
> Bin Laden is still free, we're stuck in Iraq with the situation getting worse every day
We do have troops in Afghanistan too. Bin Laden is still free because he fled to Pakistan.
Iraq is still going along. The new interim government is still popular, and people are still signing up to be policemen in droves. Some 80%+ of the people said they planned to vote in the upcoming elections slated for January. (And similar polls show that, while religious leaders are viewed favorably, they aren't likely to be elected into government.)
You may have disagreed with the decision to re-invade Iraq, but arguably it was inevitable since the end of the first Gulf War.
> a whole new generation of Islamic extremists has even more reasons to hate us.
So we should try to avoid angering Al-Qaeda?
Wow, there are people in New Zealand who like America? Who'da thunk it? ;-)
Cry me a river, why don't you.
The very fact of the matter is that people outside the U.S. have little grasp of what America is like -- its politics or its people. All you see of our people is distorted through the lens of Hollywood, and all you see of our politics is distorted through the lens of biased news outlets (especially the spoiled government-funded ones.)
Your negative views of Bush mostly stem from the excessively negative portrayal he gets.
> I don't quite agree with you here. Sure, Bush is well-known for mis-speaking and mis-pronouncing things on a regular basis. However, the masses, for whatever reason seem to have given him a pass on this [non]issue.
Actually, Bush often references and makes fun of his previous verbal gaffes.
Indeed, Saddam was pretty much a seperate threat, though he wasn't above using non-Osama Islamic fundamentalists to further his cause (mainly to boost his image in the Arab world. There's a reason the Palestinians (et al) were cheering him on in the recent war.
Perhaps Saddam was a less pressing issue than intelligence led us to believe, but our confrontation with him was quite inevitable -- ever since the terms of his cease-fire were laid out in 1991. It was quite obvious to all observers that he was never going to fully comply with the terms, so at what point do we put our foot down?
Heck, there has already been ample evidence found that Saddam's Iraq tried to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction. Thankfully they didn't get far, but the intent alone was a violation.
For further reading, it seems that a portion of UNSCAM money may have gone to Osama after all. (Thanks U.N., you're doing a bang-up job!)
> and ending the war in Iraq.
That's because they don't really want to "end" the war in Iraq -- not any faster than President Bush does anyway.
In fact, John Kerry said that he would have started it himself had he been in office. He just claims that he would have run the war better somehow.
So, you see, both major parties are essentially on the same side of this issue. But since it's the correct side, I'm willing to cut them some slack.
Check it out. Bush leading 50% to 41% amoung registered (not even "likely") voters.
Now, are you also going to argue that CBS and the New York Times are biased towards Republicans?
> Quite simply, they think Bush is a reckless cowboy
They probably think Bush is a reckless cowboy for doing things John Kerry agrees with.
> its really disturbing to see how many ranchers out here have Cell phones, laptops, wireless access, etc..
Huh? Why is that disturbing?
> The same way the PS/2 can do photo realistic graphics using the patented Sony Distortion Field (TM).
Really? Damn. I knew I shouldn't have thrown out that old IBM PS/2.
> I think this reply is disingenuous since you changed from teachers' pay to cost per pupil which are two significantly different things.
It's not disingenuous at all. It puts the focus where it's really needed: reform.
> When people point to cost per pupil they include the bloated administrative costs, programs that have no educational content, massive programs to bus children to distant schools and so on.
So we need to chop the administrative costs and other wasteful programs. Adding more money without reform will only add to the bloat and corruption. Nevermind that our teaching methods may need overall improvement too.
Excuse me, I should have mentioned that a few socialist-leaning western European countries might be ahead of the U.S.. But if you look at the graphs, you'll see we're #4 and #3 in spending, respectively. (As of 1998, anyway.) Not bad at all.
Though, what the hell does spending as a percentage of GDP have to do with anything? Whose idea is it that one should spend a certain % of the GDP on anything? I'd rather they spend what is necessary, and leave the rest of the money in the economy where it belongs.
But all this is beside the point, which you missed. If we're spending so much money on public education, why is our educational system so terrible? (It's not 4th and 3rd in the world, to say the least.) We could probably double our spending and still not see better results. Lord knows spending increases havn't helped in the past.
Heck, there are nice, well-run private primary and secondary schools that cost less than what we're spending per student for public education. The U.S. should just shut down it's public school systems and send everyone to private schools. We'd get better education and probably save money too.
Teachers? The U.S. spends more per student than anywhere else in the world. Nevermind that most of the professions you listed are locally -- not federally -- funded.
And no, I don't think having more forest rangers will significantly impact the economy.
I'm not so sure that the government can spend it's way out of economic recession. There are some economist/historians who think FDR's "New Deal" kept us in the Great Depression longer, for instance.
Did WWII help the U.S. out of the Great Depression? Very possibly. But that war affected the nation in a much greater way than this recent continuation of the Gulf War.
I mean, we all know about the Dot-Com bubble bursting, but why hadn't the economy recovered by November 2001? Did some kind of event negatively affect the economy a month or two before that?
Can't figure it out...
Yes, I do have some "Right" opinions, and I do enjoy posting on Slashdot. I put varying levels of effort into my posts, but I believe I am mostly correct.
You seem to misunderstand the Slashdot Friend/Foe system. Marking someone as a Friend or Foe is done purely for one's own benefit -- not to indicate an actual friendship/enmity. Rather, it is to highlight people whose opinions you've come to repect or disdain, and also see who those people consider Friends and Foes.
I can understand that the nomenclature can be confusing. Perhaps instead of "Friend" and "Foe", it should have been called "High Quality" and "Low Quality", or somesuch.
So no, I am not your mortal enemy, as you put it. Nothing so dramatic. But at some point you must have said something particularly egregious -- enough that I thought your basic logic facilities were suspect (at least on certain subjects.)