Topic: Kerry or Bush (Read 44053 times)

avalanche · « **Reply #150 on:** October 27, 2004, 08:09:33 AM »

Let me clear things up by stating that the only government that I like is a gridlocked or bankrupt govt.

The perfect govt:
A Senate that is split 50/50
A House that can't form a super majority
A majority in the house who's party differs from the party of the whitehouse

Elect a 3rd party candidate and we'll have the best 4 years ever because absolutely NOTHING will get done.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #151 on:** October 27, 2004, 08:29:40 AM »

Sounds good to me. An incapable government is a safe government.

Rico · « **Reply #152 on:** October 28, 2004, 05:52:17 AM »

lol I'm not going to say we've had the best administration, but come on! They set us back 30 years in the Civil Rights movement? That's totally ludicrous. It's like Kerry trying to say that Bush spent hundreds of billions of dollars on rebuilding the nuclear program. In fact, he's spent less than $50 billion in the past three years, and I'm just not sure about the first. He's also putting it towards fusion research, and the only fission research, that I know of, has been done on bombs that would penetrate deeply into the earth, allowing us to reach people like North Korea and Iraq. Currently we can only penetrate about 15 feet of solid rock.

To say that Civil Liberties has been so destroyed isn't true. I'll grant you, that some things have trodden on our liberties more than a little, but by 30 years!? No, that's just extremist exagerations. I'm not a huge fan of the Patriot Act as written, but I also don't see it as evil as it's been made out to be. It's basically giving the FBI, and other domestic investigative agencies, the same tools to use on terrorists as it does drug dealers. Warrants are still needed, but only one for the target, rather than several. No longer do you have to get a seperate warrant for each cellphone, pager, ect. Drug dealers and terrorists have one thing in common, they both carry several of each.

There is one thing I still straddle the fence on with that Act. It allows investigation of foreign nationals as if they were not US persons, which I tend to agree with. Why should a suspect be given the rights of a citizen without the responsibility? On the other hand, we've always been a very liberal country and treating everyone as if they were born here has almost become our National Motto. Do we really want to move in the direction of all our allies in Europe and keep closer tabs on who we allow into our country, and restrict them as if they were under suspicion?

On the other hand, I'm not too crazy at how poorly the term terrorist has been defined. Preserving the Patriot Act is okay, but should we do so, we MUST have a clear definition of what exactly a terrorist is. Some one writing viruses out of fustration with M$ is hardly a terrorist, neither is someone who is just a petty murderer. Accuse and convict them of the crimes they commited, there's no need to hang them for an offense they never thought of.

At least, when you say Bush has attacked Civil Liberties, that's what I assume you're refering to. If it's something else, please point it out. You never know when it might be something I hadn't heard of before.

hackess · « **Reply #153 on:** October 28, 2004, 07:12:59 AM »

What are you referring to? I don't believe anyone's mentioned civil liberties in a page or so.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #154 on:** October 28, 2004, 08:01:19 AM »

Quote from: Rico

There is one thing I still straddle the fence on with that Act. It allows investigation of foreign nationals as if they were not US persons, which I tend to agree with. Why should a suspect be given the rights of a citizen without the responsibility?

Because the Constitution says "people". Not "citizens" when it is ennumerating rights.

Law · « **Reply #155 on:** October 28, 2004, 08:41:35 AM »

You lost me at the "we need nukes for Iraq" thing.

avalanche · « **Reply #156 on:** October 28, 2004, 08:45:55 AM »

Quote from: Law

You lost me at the "we need nukes for Iraq" thing.

No! You've got it all wrong! He wants a weapon that we can point at the ground here, and it will penetrate through the earth and, providing we angled it correctly, kill all those bad people in those other countries.

Vote for Nerf Hoffelmeyer and avoid all this. Even Jim Dingle supports him.

Law · « **Reply #157 on:** October 28, 2004, 08:49:45 AM »

How can you not vote for a man named Nerf?

hackess · « **Reply #158 on:** October 28, 2004, 08:58:35 AM »

And with support from a guy named "Dingle," yet!

xolik · « **Reply #159 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:04:44 PM »

More Mild Amusement:

http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6019

avalanche · « **Reply #160 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:23:46 PM »

Quote from: xolik

More Mild Amusement:

http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6019

404

xolik · « **Reply #161 on:** October 28, 2004, 04:28:19 PM »

^^^^
Worked for me. I just clicked it.

Rico · « **Reply #162 on:** October 29, 2004, 05:24:45 AM »

I was replying to Vespertine a few posts up...

No, I didn't say we needed nukes for Iraq. I said we need to develop ways of penetrating buried arms. I take it you'd rather storm caches with Soldiers, Law? How else would you like to do this? Yeah, nukes suck, but if we can detonate them underground, there's much less fallout. Our current weapons just can't do the job. So, I say again, do you have an alternative that doesn't cost hundreds of lives?

The point I was making was that he's not developing fusion bombs, but cleaner ways to use them, when we have to. If we can develop fission bombs, another thing that the money goes to, then it's becomes irrelevant.

Edit to reply to Demo:

You have a good point, Demo. By that logic, though, we shouldn't collect on anyone, and anywhere. It's unlawful as per the Constitution to even collect on foreign enemies of the State. That would be our down fall. How can our leaders make good decisions without knowing what's going on in the world. You're effectively advocating the disbanding of the entire intelligence community because it violates the rights of those we monitor.

On the other hand, they all have the right to life and liberty. The regime in Iraq was taking away those rights, therefor it was our duty, as set down by the Constitution, to deliver them from that opression.

But, oh the arrogance that would subject foreign peoples to our code of laws. If we're to use those laws to protect them, then those laws that restrict them should also apply. You can't pick and choose. As for me, I say it's not our right to govern another people without their consent, and I also believe it's not our job to protect them either, but to protect ourselves. Our laws are for us, because htat's how we choose to live. If they would like to move here, and with due process, become a citizen so that those laws and freedoms apply to them, then they certainly may do so.

Law · « **Reply #163 on:** October 29, 2004, 08:39:04 AM »

Quote from: rico

...allowing us to reach people like North Korea and Iraq.

You're right, I misread that.

And no, I don't prefer soldiers storming dangerous places, but I ma by no means deranged enought to suggest that a nuclear weapon is a valid solution. Less fallout? So, less innocent civilians die downwind? That's super!

And I think the over all point is WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS OF ANY KIND!

But, I imagine I'm wrong on that point too.

Rico · « **Reply #164 on:** October 30, 2004, 07:39:24 AM »

No, I think you're right. No one needs nukes. What's the alternative though? We have to advance and develop, or we'll fall behind. We SURE don't want to be too far behind, concidering the enemies we've made. Personally, I think wars in the future will be mostly waged by Special Ops.

A nuke's greatest power is as a deterant. That's exactly why Iraq was going out of their way to wave what they had, and what they didn't have, in front of Iran's face. North Korea has most of their stuff underground, and they KNOW we can't hit very much of it. That gives them all sorts of confidence at the table. If we could demonstrate that we have the ability to take out anything they have within a few minutes, they're much less likely to do something to provoke us. I'm not advocating the use of WMD, but I don't want to see us become easy pickings for a slowly reforming Communist Russia, either.

Remember the phrase, "Walk softly and carry a big stick?" We need to relearn how to walk softly, and we need to maintain our big stick. I know that many around here disagree with that, and I can understand the reasons. I just believe that the little peace we have enjoyed over the years has been because the US has carried the threat of nukes. I also believe that the only reason others haven't used theirs is because they know what our response would be. Also, the fact that we have stated loudly that only an attack by WMD would result in our returning in kind has allowed us to still develop relations with countries that otherwise might have been too afraid of us.

avalanche · « **Reply #165 on:** October 30, 2004, 07:47:40 AM »

The whole concept is just MAD! MAD I tell ya... MAD!

Law · « **Reply #166 on:** October 30, 2004, 11:01:05 AM »

Yes, but why waste money on more? We already have enough nuclear warheads to destroy all life on earth several times over. And you think we should keep making more as a deterant? A deterant to what? It is simply ridiculous to even suggest that we need more nuclear weapons to add to our stockpile. You think federal funding of stem cell research is wrong, I think continued federal funding of nuclear weapons research is ignorant.

Nate · « **Reply #167 on:** October 30, 2004, 11:25:13 AM »

Quote from: Law

We already have enough nuclear warheads to destroy all life on earth several times over.

Not all life... cockroaches would still live.

Law · « **Reply #168 on:** October 30, 2004, 01:21:43 PM »

Quote from: Nate

Quote from: Law
We already have enough nuclear warheads to destroy all life on earth several times over.

Not all life... cockroaches would still live.

No, cockroaches can survive massive amounts of radiation, but a nuclear blast will still kill them. Nothing that can be killed by a shoe is explosion-proof.

Nate · « **Reply #169 on:** October 30, 2004, 02:41:17 PM »

Darn....

Well then...

Quote from: law

We already have enough nuclear warheads to destroy all life on earth several times over.

hackess · « **Reply #170 on:** October 31, 2004, 09:22:21 PM »

Well, the Redskins lost, so, if tradition holds, Bush is out.

http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp

pbsaurus · « **Reply #171 on:** October 31, 2004, 09:51:14 PM »

Which means I get to win!

Rico · « **Reply #172 on:** November 02, 2004, 09:55:13 AM »

We don't need MORE nukes, we just need better ways to use the ones we have. Why radiate an entire region when you can hit the objective and only radiate a few miles? I'm not advocating using them, just that we need to find better ways of doing it. TNT wasn't very safe until some one figured out how to do it better, or gunpowder. We can't bury our head in the sand and hope it'll all go away.

Besides, I'm all for research on nuclear fussion. If they want to fund it as a weapon, that's fine. The research will still investigate a new source of power.

Anonymous · « **Reply #173 on:** November 02, 2004, 10:11:29 AM »

The simple concept of building a weapon that will target masses, no matter how controlled it is, is idiotic. Besides, I want the US to disarm. They have weapons of mass destruction that can be launched overseas. They have way more capability than Iraq ever had. Is it just me or is there actual irony here?

I guess my point is that such weapons do not offer protection, they offer desctruction. Sure, you can use them to intimidate others, but wouldn't we all be better off to invest in actual ways to protect civilians rather than investing in instruments that may very well lead to our doom? It only takes one person, or a small group, to change the face of this planet for ever. Can you imagine what the world would be like if an atomic bomb exploded in New York?

I think a new approach to the problem is required. What if we took the whole nuclear weapon threat away? Obviously, disarming the entire world is unlikely to succeed, but what if there was some way to make the threat of "nucular" weapons obsolete? What if there was a way to counter a nucular weapon? What if there was a way to contain an atomic explosion in mid air? Shouldn't we invest in that kind of research instead? Then, atomic weapons would no longer be a threat, thus would be rendered obsolete. That's what I would like to put my money on.

xolik · « **Reply #174 on:** November 02, 2004, 10:22:23 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Besides, I want the US to disarm. They have weapons of mass destruction that can be launched overseas. They have way more capability than Iraq ever had. Is it just me or is there actual irony here?

Oh, come on Judge. You and I both know that a nation armed to the teeth run by Chiristian nuts is much safer to the world than a nation armed to the teeth run my Islamic nuts.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Poll

Kerry or Bush?

Author Topic: Kerry or Bush (Read 44053 times)

Anonymous