Who do you want to be President?


Moderators: Freakzilla, ᴶᵛᵀᴬ, Omphalos

Post Reply
User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Post by A Thing of Eternity »

Freakzilla wrote::lol: You don't have to like your national anthem.
Good good, because I don't. :D
Ours in notoriously difficult to sing.

I like that it has rockets and bombs in it though.
I was always jealous of that passage as a kid.
Image
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Post by Freakzilla »

A Thing of Eternity wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
I like that it has rockets and bombs in it though.
I was always jealous of that passage as a kid.
And now?
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
User avatar
TheDukester
Posts: 3808
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 13:44
Location: Operation Enduring Bacon

Post by TheDukester »

A Thing of Eternity wrote:
Freakzilla wrote::lol: You don't have to like your national anthem.
Good good, because I don't. :D
Really?

I always liked it when I heard it at hockey games in my Michigan days.

(for those who are saying, "that makes no sense," NHL games in the U.S. feature both national anthems, since so many of the players are Canadian)
"Anything I write will be remembered and listed in bibliographies on Dune for several hundred years ..." — some delusional halfwit troll.
User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Post by A Thing of Eternity »

Freakzilla wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
I like that it has rockets and bombs in it though.
I was always jealous of that passage as a kid.
And now?
It'd still be cool if it wasn't the theme song for a country.
Image
User avatar
Crysknife
Posts: 593
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 02:15
Location: SLC, punk

Post by Crysknife »

Image
User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Post by A Thing of Eternity »

Crysknife wrote:http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-4.72

About where I thought I'd be.
Hey, right next to me! Woohoo.
Image
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Post by Freakzilla »

A Thing of Eternity wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
I like that it has rockets and bombs in it though.
I was always jealous of that passage as a kid.
And now?
It'd still be cool if it wasn't the theme song for a country.
My high school alma mater (sp?) was the German national anthem. The funy thing was, I didn't know it until I was in the Army on parade detail in Germany, standing at attention thinking, WTF are they playing my high school song for?

:oops:
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
User avatar
GamePlayer
70mm God
Posts: 2993
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 11:26
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Post by GamePlayer »

Freakzilla wrote:I think trying to pigeonhole people or your own ideals into one political alignment is crazy. Each side has it's good points and bad and I don't stick to any party line.
Absolutely. That's the wonderful thing about democracy: it's fluid. If people vote correctly, you can have the most fitting political party in power at the proper time. When it works, people glorify those years. Sadly, most often its a mixed bag.

I think that is why most people hate politics, because they find it confusing. The circumstances are ever changing and you have to keep up with it. To deal with the confusion, some simply pick a side and stick with it. But to be truly politically aware, you have to recognize what your society needs most at any given point in time. That means re-prioritizing for each and every election while staying true to what you think is important.
"They can chew you up, but they gotta spit you out."
Nebiros
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Apr 2008 01:55
Location: Cedon

Post by Nebiros »

The difference between Obama and McCain isn't wether they'd continue diplomacy with scummy countries like Iran. Obama said he'd talk to leaders like Ahmedinejad personally ("presidential diplomacy") while McCain takes the position that contact through secretaries and ambassadors is the way to go, and that personally drinking coffee with them will be perceived as an overt break in policy and a kneefall.
That's not it. McCain has stated that he will not talk to Iran without preconditions meaning that before he will sit down and talk, they must first stop enriching uranium. This is of course ridiculous because that is not how diplomacy works.

Obama has planned the latter of what you said. He will have ambassadors talk to them. He will have his Secretary of State talk to them . He assures voters he will not sit down and have coffee with Ahmadinejad or shake hands with him. This of course keeps voters form being afraid of him, but gets my criticism.

Freak: one great thing about Obama is that he was against the war in Iraq before it started. He spoke at an anti-war protest in late 2002 and said "I am not opposed to all wars, but what I do oppose is a dumb war" This wins him a lot of support. Since you are so pro war does it anger you that he opposed military action in Iraq?
User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Post by A Thing of Eternity »

TheDukester wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:
Freakzilla wrote::lol: You don't have to like your national anthem.
Good good, because I don't. :D
Really?

I always liked it when I heard it at hockey games in my Michigan days.

(for those who are saying, "that makes no sense," NHL games in the U.S. feature both national anthems, since so many of the players are Canadian)
Do you guys play both anthems at USA vs USA games or just USA vs Canada? We only play the American anthem up here when we're playing a team from the US, otherwise they skip it (last I checked anyways, it has been a while).

It's a nice enough anthem musically, I don't like its content: "god keep our land, glorious and free" is one line I personally could do without. I think me and my fellow citizens of the free world will "keep my land glorious and free" thank you very much. No magic spells required. :wink:

There's another line I don't like but I think they may have actually edited the anthem somehow recently to fix it (so I've heard). "in all our sons command". I have no idea what they supposedly changed it too though without getting of my proverbial ass and looking it up... aha, the alternative is below in my Wiki quote.

Here's some other people's gripes from Wiki:

Proposed changes to lyrics
Weir's original 1908 lyrics, consisting of three verses, did not contain the word "sons", instead using the somewhat archaic "thou dost in us command", and contained no religious reference.[1][13] Weir changed the lyrics to "in all thy sons command" in 1914,[14] and in 1926 added a fourth verse of a religious nature.[15]

In June 1990, the city council of Toronto voted 12-7 to recommend to the Government of Canada that the phrase "our home and native land" be changed to "our home and cherished land", and "true patriot love in all thy sons command" be changed to "true patriot love in all of us command." Councillor Howard Moscoe said that the words "native land" were not appropriate for the many Canadians who were not native-born, and that the word "sons" implied "that women can't feel true patriotism or love for Canada."[16]

Feminists such as Senator Vivienne Poy have criticized the English lyrics of the anthem as being sexist.[17] In 2002, Poy introduced a bill to change the phrase "in all thy sons command" to "in all of us command". In 2006, the anthem's religious references (to God in English, and to the Christian cross in French) were criticized by secularists.[18][19]
Image
User avatar
TheDukester
Posts: 3808
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 13:44
Location: Operation Enduring Bacon

Post by TheDukester »

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Do you guys play both anthems at USA vs USA games or just USA vs Canada? We only play the American anthem up here when we're playing a team?
Good question. I'm not sure how universal it is. They did both anthems at Red Wings games, regardless of the opponent. But that was Detroit, which is not only north of some of Canada, but completely hockey-crazed.
"Anything I write will be remembered and listed in bibliographies on Dune for several hundred years ..." — some delusional halfwit troll.
User avatar
GamePlayer
70mm God
Posts: 2993
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 11:26
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Post by GamePlayer »

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Playa - I agree, Ralph did a really good job fiscally, and even though I often disagreed with him I did appreciate his honesty.
I was graduating from business at the time, so I was ardently opposed to lax fiscal policy. I don't regret voting for him; I believe lasting, positive change came about from his tenure. But I will say that Alberta also got lucky and they can't continue to blindly place their fortunes in one political spectrum. It's going to bite them in the ass, just as it has in the past.
"They can chew you up, but they gotta spit you out."
User avatar
GamePlayer
70mm God
Posts: 2993
Joined: 09 Feb 2008 11:26
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Post by GamePlayer »

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95


I'm a little more center economically than I have been, but I am still right minded. Always have been, always will be. I think the only thing that keeps me in check economically is I'm not a very extreme, ambitious person. If I were, I might end up like Gordon Gekko :)

I have to say I'm amazed how libertarian I am. That must be the strong secular side of me that came out in the questions.
"They can chew you up, but they gotta spit you out."
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Post by Freakzilla »

Nebiros wrote:
The difference between Obama and McCain isn't wether they'd continue diplomacy with scummy countries like Iran. Obama said he'd talk to leaders like Ahmedinejad personally ("presidential diplomacy") while McCain takes the position that contact through secretaries and ambassadors is the way to go, and that personally drinking coffee with them will be perceived as an overt break in policy and a kneefall.
That's not it. McCain has stated that he will not talk to Iran without preconditions meaning that before he will sit down and talk, they must first stop enriching uranium. This is of course ridiculous because that is not how diplomacy works.

Obama has planned the latter of what you said. He will have ambassadors talk to them. He will have his Secretary of State talk to them . He assures voters he will not sit down and have coffee with Ahmadinejad or shake hands with him. This of course keeps voters form being afraid of him, but gets my criticism.
It has long been US policy not to deal with terrorist states.

As we can see from the company Obama keeps, like Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, he has no such problem sitting down with terrorist and anti-americans.
Freak: one great thing about Obama is that he was against the war in Iraq before it started. He spoke at an anti-war protest in late 2002 and said "I am not opposed to all wars, but what I do oppose is a dumb war" This wins him a lot of support. Since you are so pro war does it anger you that he opposed military action in Iraq?
I am not pro-war. Whether the Iraq war was stupid or not is water under the bridge. Now is the time to do whatever it takes to finish the job and bring our troops home. As a veteran I feel we should always support our armed forces whether we believe in the cause or not. The soldiers fighting it don't have a choice. They have sworn their lives to doing whatever they are ordered to do. What angers me is it was done half-assed. What angers me even more is that we weren't allowed to finish the job in Desert Storm when we had a coalition behind us and half a million troops there.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
User avatar
SimonH
Posts: 179
Joined: 10 Feb 2008 18:28

Post by SimonH »

Freakzilla wrote:
... What angers me even more is that we weren't allowed to finish the job in Desert Storm when we had a coalition behind us and half a million troops there.
I'm too young to have been interested in what was going on then. What do you mean by this? Was this a decision of the US? or UN?
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Post by Freakzilla »

SimonH wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
... What angers me even more is that we weren't allowed to finish the job in Desert Storm when we had a coalition behind us and half a million troops there.
I'm too young to have been interested in what was going on then. What do you mean by this? Was this a decision of the US? or UN?
I was in the Army then. When the Iraqi armed forces began retreating from Kuwait, it was along the only road back to Bagdad. They stole personal vehicles, anything they could find. Rather than let them escape, the US began bombing them from the air and it became bottlenecked and quite a massacre, known as "The Highway of Death".

The US didn't want to look like bullies and loose the support of the coalition so they stopped the war.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
User avatar
SimonH
Posts: 179
Joined: 10 Feb 2008 18:28

Post by SimonH »

Ok. My next question is: what was the purpose of Desert Storm? to move Iraq out of Kuwait? Or to bring down Iraq?
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Post by Freakzilla »

SimonH wrote:Ok. My next question is: what was the purpose of Desert Storm? to move Iraq out of Kuwait? Or to bring down Iraq?
To liberate Kuwait, that was another reason for ending it. But why let his army escape so they could do it again?
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
User avatar
SimonH
Posts: 179
Joined: 10 Feb 2008 18:28

Post by SimonH »

Freakzilla wrote:
SimonH wrote:Ok. My next question is: what was the purpose of Desert Storm? to move Iraq out of Kuwait? Or to bring down Iraq?
To liberate Kuwait, that was another reason for ending it. But why let his army escape so they could do it again?
What do you mean by escape? Do you mean that the US should have killed them all? I'm just not sure what you mean by finishing the job.
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Post by Freakzilla »

SimonH wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
SimonH wrote:Ok. My next question is: what was the purpose of Desert Storm? to move Iraq out of Kuwait? Or to bring down Iraq?
To liberate Kuwait, that was another reason for ending it. But why let his army escape so they could do it again?
What do you mean by escape? Do you mean that the US should have killed them all? I'm just not sure what you mean by finishing the job.
I mean we should have eliminated Saddam and his ability to threaten his neighbors. A large portion of his army was still intact, at the time it was the fourth largest in the world.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
Nebiros
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Apr 2008 01:55
Location: Cedon

Post by Nebiros »

In my opinion you are. You would rather take military action against Iran and NOT try to talk with them first.

Weather the war in Iraq was stupid or not is VERY relevant. You should not have invaded in the first place, so why are you there ESPECIALLY when you have no real plan on how to leave? Also because if you ignore the lesson that it was wrong to go into Iraq, you will commit the same mistake again this time in Iran.

I do not support my countrie's military at all times weather their cause is right or wrong as I would not always blindly support my president. If military action is unjust, oppose your leaders. Do not blame troops for following orders, but do not cheer them on. Support them by forcing the politicians to change course.

If it was one of my countries that went to war for the wrong reasons, I would support neither my government or the military

If I were American, I would not cheer on the military after what happened at Abu Graib. If there was a military coup in my country, I would not support my military. And back in 1999, the Indonesian army comitted genocide in East Timor when a referendum for independence turned out overwhelmingly for independence.

My point is this: I hate nationalism. I support my military or government only when they are doing what I believe is the right thing.

Joining the armed forces willingly shows loyalty and love for your country. You are willing to die for your country and defend it therefore you are to be respected for that. But It is also honorable to REFUSE to join the military. I refuse to join the military because it shows my commitment to non violence and so I do not have to submit to people who deserve no respect like warmongering generals and generals who are willing to overthrow their government and also stupid and evil political leaders.
Last edited by Nebiros on 22 Oct 2008 23:11, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
SimonH
Posts: 179
Joined: 10 Feb 2008 18:28

Post by SimonH »

Freakzilla wrote:
SimonH wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
SimonH wrote:Ok. My next question is: what was the purpose of Desert Storm? to move Iraq out of Kuwait? Or to bring down Iraq?
To liberate Kuwait, that was another reason for ending it. But why let his army escape so they could do it again?
What do you mean by escape? Do you mean that the US should have killed them all? I'm just not sure what you mean by finishing the job.
I mean we should have eliminated Saddam and his ability to threaten his neighbors.
Ok, cool. Now I understand.

I disagree. This is all about point of view. One could look at the US invasion of Iraq and make an argument that the US is unfit to govern its own country because they invade other countries (personal profit being a clear motive from an external viewer in the case of Iraq). The US threatens a lot of other countries. I'm a bit sick of this paternal attitude. I think the US should fix itself before it tries to fix other countries.

This was all seems to be about oil, not sovereignty or human rights anyway. For instance, no-one cares about what Mugabe is doing to his people because no-one wants Zimbabwe.
Freakzilla wrote:A large portion of his army was still intact, at the time it was the fourth largest in the world.
I'll submit that he was nuts and this is a scary fact. However I don't believe he was a threat to anyone except for the countries close by.
User avatar
Rakis
Posts: 1583
Joined: 16 Feb 2008 00:00

Post by Rakis »

Image
User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Post by A Thing of Eternity »

Freakzilla wrote:
SimonH wrote:Ok. My next question is: what was the purpose of Desert Storm? to move Iraq out of Kuwait? Or to bring down Iraq?
To liberate Kuwait, that was another reason for ending it. But why let his army escape so they could do it again?
I won't press this, but in school we were taught that helping Kuwait was the excuse and the US went in their to jumpstart it's economy and distract from other things the US gov had been doing that might have lost it votes (nothin makes people believe in their country, and therefor their leaders, quite like war). This isn't my opinion, I don't know enough to have one, this is the curriculum.

Like SimonH says too, if liberating countries was really the reason the US (or many other western nations) went out to fight they'd spend all their time in Africa where they could actually do some good and take down much more evil regimes. But that would serve no political purpose so it won't happen.
Image
User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18449
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Post by Freakzilla »

Hey, I don't make policy. I'm telling you what happened from a soldier's point of view.

If Saddam had kept control of Kuwait he would have had control of something like 40% of the world's oil reserves.

That would not have been good for anyone but Saddam. In fact it promissed to be very, very bad.

We can't fight everyone at once. I'd love to see us liberate every country. How about some help?
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman
Post Reply