Election '06

[Killer Joe]

I like political discussion but I have never been very,....um,.....articluate,.....yeah,..artic-ulate in my opinions on any one issue.

I plan on voting and I am SO VERY biased towards the democrats but I never want to be an ACLU member nor am I in love with terrorists as I heard the other side of the asile say about Dems.

I'm not scared of republican white house (especially now that we know "W" is NOT a religious zealot).

Actually, I'm not sure what I actually belong to but I believe the following:

~I believe in public education but don't agree with educators having the 'sole' role in 'raising' our children. That's what Moms, Dads and Families are for.

~I believe in public assistance but NOT as a life-style but more like a "Can you help me out until I find a job?" kind of thing.

~I believe in life in the here and now and helping the sick get better, not a "what if" future life.

~I believe when our collective backs are against the wall and all other avenues of conflict-resolve have failed that we should use the armed forces.

~I believe the 'enemies' of our country should be dealt with in the name of justice not revenge.

~I believe in "Free market" but not in creating a monopoly so that only the few can get rich.

~I believe the "Haves" should be more considerate of the "Have Nots".

~I believe in "We the People" as it was meant to be, not in "Just Us the People".

~I believe that Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, John Stewart, Anne Coulter, Al Frankin and the likes are wonderful entertainers,....read my lips,..e-n-t-e-r-t-a-i-n-e-rrrrrrrs.

~I believe that Karl Rove & Howard Dean deep down inside are really nice guys.

~I really believe MOST OF US are really "moderate" in our political beliefs but that both sides of the political media pull us us away from each other.

~This one, I've just started to recently believe; there should be a third party of moderatness, a little bit of liberal and a little bit of conservative mixed with a whole lot of love for the American People of all faith, race and socio-econmic status.

Please vote come November,...for whomever you believe in!

"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the comming of the Lord,...."

 

[rokapoke]

~This one, I've just started to recently believe; there should be a third party of moderatness, a little bit of liberal and a little bit of conservative mixed with a whole lot of love for the American People of all faith, race and socio-econmic status.

I too have thought of the wonders of a three-party system. However, if you think a president winning with 48ish percent of the popular vote is bad (as many feel), just imagine what will happen if a candidate wins with 34%...

I do, however, wholeheartedly agree that most voters are not represented by Republicans or Democrats exclusively. I suppose the grass is always greener.

 

[Ransac]

Just stating that I shall NOT be running this year, but in '08 when the Ransac/Monkey ticket runs again!!!


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Limited]

The only information I get about America, not being an American, are clips on the internet and whatever stories (about Iraq, Katrina) trickle into our news. This is kind of a disclaimer I guess, for any misinformed views might be stated below.

I'm not scared of republican white house (especially now that we know "W" is NOT a religious zealot).

This republican white house has scared the oink out of me, mostly for its inability to admit mistakes. You went to war with Iraq based on false intelligence, but Cheney still says he thinks there are weapons of massdestruction in Iraq.

I believe in public education but don't agree with educators having the 'sole' role in 'raising' our children. That's what Moms, Dads and Families are for.

I think raising our children is the families job, but I think its the governments' job to provide people with all the help they need in raising their children. If a single mom has to work two jobs to support herself, how is she going to be raising her kid? How is that kid going to turn out?

I believe in public assistance but NOT as a life-style but more like a "Can you help me out until I find a job?" kind of thing.

I think social welfare is the best sign of civilization. I get the feeling that America still focusses on rewarding the rich, making sure that if you ever reach the 'american dream' its all that and more. But its time to realize that if you want to improve society as a whole, you need to make sure the rift between the rich and the poor isn't getting bigger.

I believe in life in the here and now and helping the sick get better, not a "what if" future life.

I am not religious at all, so I definitely agree here. What are your views on abortion and euthanasia?

I believe when our collective backs are against the wall and all other avenues of conflict-resolve have failed that we should use the armed forces.

I don't think there is anybody who would be against this. I do think 'all other avenues have failed' is debatable (when have negotiations failed? what are all other avenues?).
I do think that a first world country should never start a war unless there is agreement amongst most first world countries. Its true that America was the target of a horrible terrrorist attack, but even after that most of Nato were opposed to going to war.

I believe the "Haves" should be more considerate of the "Have Nots"

I think that, unfortunately, its part of human nature to want what we don't have and to lose interest in the we do have.

I believe that Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, John Stewart, Anne Coulter, Al Frankin and the likes are wonderful entertainers,....read my lips,..e-n-t-e-r-t-a-i-n-e-rrrrrrrs.

Jon Stewart is brilliant, using a lot of comedy but succeeds in getting his point across. Appealling to young voters to 'make his job hard' by getting of their couches and voting on competent people is just a great way of using comedy to get people interested in politics.
Bill O'Reilly scares me, as he seems to take himself so seriously, despite all the things he says about him being 'undecided'. Especially when I saw the footage of him interviewing the son of a 9/11 victim and berating him for not wanting revenge. Anne Coulter says things that are just so outrageous, I can't even begin to take her seriously (and I get the feeling she doesn't take it too serious either).

This one, I've just started to recently believe; there should be a third party of moderatness, a little bit of liberal and a little bit of conservative mixed with a whole lot of love for the American People of all faith, race and socio-econmic status.

In the Netherlands, there are a lot of political parties, each of which have their own niche. Most of them have a clear tendency towards the right or the left, but it varies per subject. In the elections, the parties are awarded a number of seats proportional to the number of votes they received, and the biggest parties try to form a ruling coalition. I think the system is far from perfect, but it allows for a lot more choices than D or R.

Next!

 

[turgy22]

~I really believe MOST OF US are really "moderate" in our political beliefs but that both sides of the political media pull us us away from each other.

Couldn't agree more on this one. I think most people in America have feelings on various issues that they feel strongly about, but can't necessarily be categorized as democrat or republican. I think there was a time, before Fox News, when the media honestly tried to deliver information in an unbiased and informative manner. Then, when Fox News began to air, they sort of took on this mantra of blaming the "liberal media" for so many problems in the country and weren't afraid to show that they were clearly biased. After that, the real ultra-liberals started coming out of the woodwork in an attempt to balance out the media. Now, almost everyone in the media seems to be divided and assumes that the country is too. I really have a strong contempt for everyone in the media who takes a stance on the far edges of political debate. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Michael Moore... they all have the same agenda and they accomplish nothing trying to sell their lies.

I have long supported to idea of a third, moderate, party. However, there would be quite a few issues to work out. For one, a lot of people have opinions that support some republican ideals and opinions that support some democrat ideals. Just as an example, ecomonically, democrats have believed in using higher taxes to spend money to improve the welfare of the poor and eliminate the gap in economic classes. Republicans have believed in lower taxes to stimulate the economy and generate more money for everyone. Also, democrats have typically been a pro-choice party, while republicans are pro-life. I'm sure there's a lot of people who believe in the republican idea of lower taxes, but also support abortion rights. There's also people who prefer the democrat's method of spending, but don't support abortion. Both groups of people would be considered moderate, but in fact, have even less in common with each other than they do with either party.

I used to think a solution to this problem would be using a moderate approach to everything. Cut taxes, but don't cut them so low that either you can't pay for the essential government programs or that the deficit balloons. Support abortion, but only in extreme circumstances or very early in pregnancy. Basically, use a moderate compromise to every problem. Take ideas from the right and the left and find a happy medium. Unfortunately, nowadays, I just don't think anyone believes in compromise. People feel strongly about everything because the media tells them it's black and white. If you try to find a solution in the middle, you're labeled as a waffler (or flip-flopper, to use the popular 2004 terminology) who can't make up his mind. There's no easy solution.

For this upcoming election cycle, I'm voting to balance the government. Although no one seems to support compromise, when congress is run by a different party than the white house, the system of checks and balances works out for the best. Things were best when Clinton was held in check by a republican congress. Ditto when Reagan had to deal with a democratic one. That's the only way any compromises are reached. Otherwise, our political leaders are never held accountable for anything.

Tag Guard

 

[DarthFerret]

Ok, I guess I will go ahead and announce some of my opinion, as I too love political debate, and I am open to any new opinions and will consider anything. (I have been known to change my position based on facts or opinions that were unkown to me at the time) First off, I guess I should state that, although I do not beleive in voting a "straight party ticket", I am primarily a republican at heart. This being said, I do not hold with ALL of the republicans ideals. Now, instead of responding to the above topics, I am just gonna state a few of my own views, and some of those may touch on the same topics as above.

First off, I do believe we are "One Nation, Under God!". The Bill of Rights guarantees our country Freedom Of Religion. Not Freedom FROM Religion! If someone wants to pray in a school, that is thier right. If someone else does not want to pray, that is thier right. Stop making people do things they do not want to, or not do things they want to. Stop whining about what "offends" you. IF you are offended, go stick your head in a paper bag with rubber bungs in your ears! (Sorry, but I love quoting Douglas Adams!).

Secondly, people should realize that the media is only ONE source of information about current events (although the easiest one and the most availible). Stop trying to make grand judgement calls based entirely on what you are told in the newspapers. I personally do not know if they found any WMD's in Iraq, but I would hope that if they did, I still would not know about it. It is not my concern, as long as I can still function in my life, with the freedoms that I have, then I am happy.

Third, and this goes along with the whole religion thing, stop trying to tell people that they cannot smoke, drink, chew tobacco or any number of things that do not harm other people. And do not tell me that these things inderectly harm others (or even directly). Life is full of choices and you have options that will remove these influences from you without the "banning" because the minority has decreed that they "don't like" these things. You start controlling where and when people can smoke, then next thing is where and when people can speak, assemble, and write.

Fourth, information should be free! Stop trying to make everything a cost to people. Music, movies, etc should be free. It will not stop people from going to a theater (how can a laptop or home system be comparable to the whole theater experience), buying CD's (Album art and original discs can be a prestigious thing), DVD's (where else will you get those special features and deleted scenes) and the like. Our economy will not crash because I download a song!

Fifth, lets find viable solutions for our problematic issues. Things like illegal immigration. Get some PhD's in cultural relations, history, and the like, to study the problem and propose a good solution, vote on it, then impliment it. Stop bantering back and forth. If it truly is "illegal immigration", put the people in jail. If it is not, then make it legal. One way or the other, make a decision!

Foreign Policy. Sorry guys, but I think we are doing a pretty good job. As of today, I heard that the economic sanctions on N. Korea are working rather well, in fact China is supporting them, and N. Korea takes it as an act of war, but it is being done by almost everyone! (UN, Japan, S. Korea, US, China, etc....) Iraq, well, if you don't like what we have done over there, then quit bitching and find another solution. Did you realize that the same people that complained about us going to war in Iraq, are the ones complaining now that we are not doing enough to stop N. Korea! I think these people just want to complain, no matter what the solution.

Last, make a stand. Stand for something. I don't frankly care what it is, but just do it! Vote, call your congressman, get involved, get off the fence. Yes, it may seem like one person cannot make a difference, but if enought "one" people try, then the overall effect is overwhelming.

As I stated, these are merely my opinions, and I am not forcing them on anyone, just stating them for debate purposes. Please, if you disagree with me, tell me, and we can debate/talk about it. Don't hate me (because I am beautiful ).

God Bless the USA (as long as we do not kick Him outta here!)

Authored by a Smoking, Middle-Class, educated Christian American!

Tag Guard

 

[turgy22]

Oh goody, a heated political debate!

Ok, I guess I will go ahead and announce some of my opinion, as I too love political debate, and I am open to any new opinions and will consider anything. (I have been known to change my position based on facts or opinions that were unkown to me at the time) First off, I guess I should state that, although I do not beleive in voting a "straight party ticket", I am primarily a republican at heart. This being said, I do not hold with ALL of the republicans ideals. Now, instead of responding to the above topics, I am just gonna state a few of my own views, and some of those may touch on the same topics as above.

First of all, it's proper to begin any debate by denouncing your opponent. You are an imbecile. I will destroy you and eat your children.

Moving on...

First off, I do believe we are "One Nation, Under God!". The Bill of Rights guarantees our country Freedom Of Religion. Not Freedom FROM Religion! If someone wants to pray in a school, that is thier right. If someone else does not want to pray, that is thier right. Stop making people do things they do not want to, or not do things they want to. Stop whining about what "offends" you. IF you are offended, go stick your head in a paper bag with rubber bungs in your ears! (Sorry, but I love quoting Douglas Adams!).

Agreed, sort of. I don't like the quote, "freedom OF religion; not freedom FROM religion." That makes it sound like everyone needs to embrace some religion in order to be an American. Being non-religious is a perfectly acceptable choice that should be respected. Conversely, non-religious people should respect others' right to display their preferences without getting offended.

For example, kids should be allowed to pray in school, but not forced to pray in school. Religious icons should be permitted to be displayed in public places (such as goverment buildings, etc) since they don't actually effect the laws - they're just symbols, decorations if you will. They mean nothing in the name of the law. However, religious symbols should not be an active part of government processes. Why do people still swear on bibles in government ceremonies and in courts? Why would a Christian bible have any effect on an atheist's, Hindu's, or Muslim's ability to tell the truth? It's not necessary.

Secondly, people should realize that the media is only ONE source of information about current events (although the easiest one and the most availible). Stop trying to make grand judgement calls based entirely on what you are told in the newspapers. I personally do not know if they found any WMD's in Iraq, but I would hope that if they did, I still would not know about it. It is not my concern, as long as I can still function in my life, with the freedoms that I have, then I am happy.

I don't get what you're saying here, exactly. The media is great in this country because it's not government controlled. Therefore, they can give us all the information available without any filtered results. Regarding the WMD debate, I'm pretty sure the media, government and everyone else (except Cheney) admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq. What other sources are you expecting to get your information from?

Third, and this goes along with the whole religion thing, stop trying to tell people that they cannot smoke, drink, chew tobacco or any number of things that do not harm other people. And do not tell me that these things inderectly harm others (or even directly). Life is full of choices and you have options that will remove these influences from you without the "banning" because the minority has decreed that they "don't like" these things. You start controlling where and when people can smoke, then next thing is where and when people can speak, assemble, and write.

I agree that people have every right to slowly kill themselves through any means possible - whether it's smoking, drinking or doing drugs. But we can't have a system where one vice is allowed and others are banned. If people are allowed to smoke tabacco, why not legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin? Also, although smoking shouldn't be banned, it should definitely be restricted. Allow it in private institutions, such as bars, nightclubs, etc... but to say it should be allowed anywhere and everywhere is very careless. Should teachers be allowed to smoke a pack a day in a school classroom? 2nd hand smoke has proven negative effects, so keep it outside or at least in places where people can expect to deal with it.

Fourth, information should be free! Stop trying to make everything a cost to people. Music, movies, etc should be free. It will not stop people from going to a theater (how can a laptop or home system be comparable to the whole theater experience), buying CD's (Album art and original discs can be a prestigious thing), DVD's (where else will you get those special features and deleted scenes) and the like. Our economy will not crash because I download a song!

I call poppycock on this one. Copyright and patent laws are vitally important to our capitalist economy. Sure, movies are a lot better when seen in the theater. But when we start allowing free information (of this kind) sharing, you're opening a can of worms. Now who's going to stop a rival music company from buying one CD from an artist and selling it with the same album art and everything, but for a lower price (since they don't have to pay the artists)? Who's going to stop a rival publisher from stealing and reprinting a book? Who's going to keep movies, music and art from being reproduced and sold for cheaper? Intellectual property is still property and although I like to download a song here and there myself, I know that most people aren't responsible enough to limit what the steal or just download free music to get a feel for a band before buying a CD.

Fifth, lets find viable solutions for our problematic issues. Things like illegal immigration. Get some PhD's in cultural relations, history, and the like, to study the problem and propose a good solution, vote on it, then impliment it. Stop bantering back and forth. If it truly is "illegal immigration", put the people in jail. If it is not, then make it legal. One way or the other, make a decision!

Completely agree. We should definitely find solutions to problems! Now, we just have to all agree on what the problems are and what the best solutions are. Even PhDs and experts in different areas don't agree on the best way to handle most situations.

Foreign Policy. Sorry guys, but I think we are doing a pretty good job. As of today, I heard that the economic sanctions on N. Korea are working rather well, in fact China is supporting them, and N. Korea takes it as an act of war, but it is being done by almost everyone! (UN, Japan, S. Korea, US, China, etc....) Iraq, well, if you don't like what we have done over there, then quit bitching and find another solution. Did you realize that the same people that complained about us going to war in Iraq, are the ones complaining now that we are not doing enough to stop N. Korea! I think these people just want to complain, no matter what the solution.

Count me among those who think our foreign policy is crap. In 2003, I was opposed to using force in Iraq. Economic sanctions were working there and we actually had dismantled Iraq's WMD programs. Weapons inspectors were keeping the country clean and we still had unfinished business in Afghanistan. Now, we have a big mess with no easy solutions. We also have two countries (Iran and N. Korea) that are much more dangerous than Iraq and we can't do anything. I don't think force would be a good idea with either of those countries, but with our military spread thin, we don't even have the option of the threat of force. We're stuck, so now we have to let the rest of the world deal with it, which we apparently couldn't do with Iraq.

Last, make a stand. Stand for something. I don't frankly care what it is, but just do it! Vote, call your congressman, get involved, get off the fence. Yes, it may seem like one person cannot make a difference, but if enought "one" people try, then the overall effect is overwhelming.

Completely agree with that one. If you don't at least vote, you have no right to complain about anything. Although I've found writing your congressman has very little noticeable effects. Most of them have their minds made up on certain issues heading in to office and can't change them because they'd lose the support of big donors. The whole system revolves around campaign contributions right now. It's kind of sad.

As I stated, these are merely my opinions, and I am not forcing them on anyone, just stating them for debate purposes. Please, if you disagree with me, tell me, and we can debate/talk about it. Don't hate me (because I am beautiful ).

You're ugly and I hate you. Let the debate begin.

Tag Guard

 

[DarthFerret]

First of all, it's proper to begin any debate by denouncing your opponent. You are an imbecile. I will destroy you and eat your children.

**Chunks Ransac and his lead rabbit at you!**

Agreed, sort of. I don't like the quote, "freedom OF religion; not freedom FROM religion." That makes it sound like everyone needs to embrace some religion in order to be an American. Being non-religious is a perfectly acceptable choice that should be respected. Conversely, non-religious people should respect others' right to display their preferences without getting offended.

For example, kids should be allowed to pray in school, but not forced to pray in school. Religious icons should be permitted to be displayed in public places (such as goverment buildings, etc) since they don't actually effect the laws - they're just symbols, decorations if you will. They mean nothing in the name of the law. However, religious symbols should not be an active part of government processes. Why do people still swear on bibles in government ceremonies and in courts? Why would a Christian bible have any effect on an atheist's, Hindu's, or Muslim's ability to tell the truth? It's not necessary.

I actually agree with you totally, and will not argue any points here.

I don't get what you're saying here, exactly. The media is great in this country because it's not government controlled. Therefore, they can give us all the information available without any filtered results. Regarding the WMD debate, I'm pretty sure the media, government and everyone else (except Cheney) admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq. What other sources are you expecting to get your information from?

I guess, what I was trying to say, is that in military operations and other such ventures, I would like to know that ONLY the people that need to know actually know what is going on. If there is something that should be kept quiet, it needs to be so. The media has become a very forceful entity, and should be restricted on how they gain thier information. I suppose you could just put it as "Stopping the trash journalism, and make sure that they are held in check in some areas". I do not agree with the whole "we have the right to report anything we want to" thing, there are times when for the greater good, the media should be shut out.

I agree that people have every right to slowly kill themselves through any means possible - whether it's smoking, drinking or doing drugs. But we can't have a system where one vice is allowed and others are banned. If people are allowed to smoke tabacco, why not legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin? Also, although smoking shouldn't be banned, it should definitely be restricted. Allow it in private institutions, such as bars, nightclubs, etc... but to say it should be allowed anywhere and everywhere is very careless. Should teachers be allowed to smoke a pack a day in a school classroom? 2nd hand smoke has proven negative effects, so keep it outside or at least in places where people can expect to deal with it.

Actually, I agree with you for the most part. I do not think that restaurants should be forced into a non-smoking policy, nor do I agree with it in workplaces either. However, in an institution where people are forced to congregate together (such as a classroom, or other such areas), there should be an external point where smoking is allowed, and not introduced into that atmsophere.

I call poppycock on this one. Copyright and patent laws are vitally important to our capitalist economy. Sure, movies are a lot better when seen in the theater. But when we start allowing free information (of this kind) sharing, you're opening a can of worms. Now who's going to stop a rival music company from buying one CD from an artist and selling it with the same album art and everything, but for a lower price (since they don't have to pay the artists)? Who's going to stop a rival publisher from stealing and reprinting a book? Who's going to keep movies, music and art from being reproduced and sold for cheaper? Intellectual property is still property and although I like to download a song here and there myself, I know that most people aren't responsible enough to limit what the steal or just download free music to get a feel for a band before buying a CD.

Well, I feel that there is WAY too much influence given to the entertainment industry. I am not saying that I have a problem with them making more off of one album than I will ever see in a life-time, yet would it really hurt them if they took a 25% or so paycut (the estimated amount of revenue lost by free downloading)? The same can be said of the sports industry (and yes, I am an avid football fan, GO PACKERS!). I personally would be very comfortable with a 6 figure salery. It might also help decrease a lot of the scandals in Hollywood if they had a little less. I am not sure what the solution should be, however, I am sure there is something to be done here.

Completely agree. We should definitely find solutions to problems! Now, we just have to all agree on what the problems are and what the best solutions are. Even PhDs and experts in different areas don't agree on the best way to handle most situations.

I do realize that not everyone will agree. But, if you have the "experts" in that field do the R&D and the voting both, then I think it would be a great start, and better than the status quo.

Count me among those who think our foreign policy is crap. In 2003, I was opposed to using force in Iraq. Economic sanctions were working there and we actually had dismantled Iraq's WMD programs. Weapons inspectors were keeping the country clean and we still had unfinished business in Afghanistan. Now, we have a big mess with no easy solutions. We also have two countries (Iran and N. Korea) that are much more dangerous than Iraq and we can't do anything. I don't think force would be a good idea with either of those countries, but with our military spread thin, we don't even have the option of the threat of force. We're stuck, so now we have to let the rest of the world deal with it, which we apparently couldn't do with Iraq.

I do not know what would have happened if we had not gone into Iraq. I personally don't care one way or the other. As I had stated before, as long as I can still walk around in this country enjoying my freedoms, then I say we are doing a good job. When those freedoms are gone, then we are doing a bad job. I do not feel qualified myself, to make any type of decision one way or the other on any type of foreign policy. I guess the gist of what I am saying is, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. So far, we are still free, and until they start to mess that up, I will not be complaining.

Completely agree with that one. If you don't at least vote, you have no right to complain about anything. Although I've found writing your congressman has very little noticeable effects. Most of them have their minds made up on certain issues heading in to office and can't change them because they'd lose the support of big donors. The whole system revolves around campaign contributions right now. It's kind of sad.

Agreed, however, most people, if they take the initiative to write thier congressman (or other elected official) and do not see any results, will go another way come election time (and may even pay more attention to the policies of the guy they elect), and in this way will make a difference in the long term.

You're ugly and I hate you. Let the debate begin.

And your mama dresses you funny!

Tag Guard

 

[turgy22]

**Chunks Ransac and his lead rabbit at you!**

**Catches Ransac's lead rabbit (letting Ransac fall to his death) and bites its ears off.**
My teeth hurt.

I actually agree with you totally, and will not argue any points here.

Ha! I win.

I guess, what I was trying to say, is that in military operations and other such ventures, I would like to know that ONLY the people that need to know actually know what is going on. If there is something that should be kept quiet, it needs to be so. The media has become a very forceful entity, and should be restricted on how they gain thier information. I suppose you could just put it as "Stopping the trash journalism, and make sure that they are held in check in some areas". I do not agree with the whole "we have the right to report anything we want to" thing, there are times when for the greater good, the media should be shut out.

Okay, I gotcha. Loose lips sink ships, etc. Agreed. Journalists shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere they want and every little piece of vital information should not be shared with the masses. Absolutely.

Actually, I agree with you for the most part. I do not think that restaurants should be forced into a non-smoking policy, nor do I agree with it in workplaces either. However, in an institution where people are forced to congregate together (such as a classroom, or other such areas), there should be an external point where smoking is allowed, and not introduced into that atmsophere.

Hmmm... this debate is starting to suck. Why do we both have to be so rational? Not that I'm starting to miss HOUTS or anything...

Well, I feel that there is WAY too much influence given to the entertainment industry. I am not saying that I have a problem with them making more off of one album than I will ever see in a life-time, yet would it really hurt them if they took a 25% or so paycut (the estimated amount of revenue lost by free downloading)? The same can be said of the sports industry (and yes, I am an avid football fan, GO PACKERS!). I personally would be very comfortable with a 6 figure salery. It might also help decrease a lot of the scandals in Hollywood if they had a little less. I am not sure what the solution should be, however, I am sure there is something to be done here.

Yeah, you're right. The recording industry sucks. They underpay the artists and overprice the products. They make a whole bunch of money for doing next to nothing, but it's all supply and demand, so they can get away with it. I feel with modern technology that new bands should now be able to privately fund their projects. When you're starting out, you'd want people to download your music, just to hear it. Then, if enough people like it, you could even privately fund and distribute it. Cut out the middle man. Collecting underpants leads directly to PROFIT! Writers could do the same with books (sell and distribute online). But the movie industry is unlikely to see any change any time soon. The big name stars demand top dollar and sell the movies. Not much to do there.

*Additional debate point: Should Brett Favre retire?
Go Niners! We're probably slightly better than the Packers.

I do realize that not everyone will agree. But, if you have the "experts" in that field do the R&D and the voting both, then I think it would be a great start, and better than the status quo.

Yeah, probably, but whatcha gonna do?

I do not know what would have happened if we had not gone into Iraq. I personally don't care one way or the other. As I had stated before, as long as I can still walk around in this country enjoying my freedoms, then I say we are doing a good job. When those freedoms are gone, then we are doing a bad job. I do not feel qualified myself, to make any type of decision one way or the other on any type of foreign policy. I guess the gist of what I am saying is, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. So far, we are still free, and until they start to mess that up, I will not be complaining.

Iraq's a touchier situation than most. I don't feel qualified to complain about any number of things, since I'm maintaining my freedoms. But the situation in Iraq, I think could easily have been avoided and I considered it a lose-lose situation from the start. I figured if they did have WMDs, they'd use them on our soldiers when we attacked and a lot of Americans would end up dying even though we weren't in any imminent danger. If they didn't have WMDs, we'd look like fools and the world would turn against us. As it turns out, both things ended up happening. If Americans weren't dying, I'd have no problem, but they are and I find that unjust. I believe in defending the country, but this was not a case of it. Can you imagine being a soldier who patrioticly signed up for military service after 9-11, thinking you would have a chance to bring those perpetrators to justice, only to find yourself in a war that had nothing to do with it? Personally, I'd be pissed off. So while I'm over here enjoying my freedom, my fellow Americans are dying. I just don't like that.

Agreed, however, most people, if they take the initiative to write thier congressman (or other elected official) and do not see any results, will go another way come election time (and may even pay more attention to the policies of the guy they elect), and in this way will make a difference in the long term.

I hope so. Unfortunately, most people are complacent. Political campaigns misfeed information, so change is slow to come about. Unless something goes drastically wrong, most people won't bother to vote, thinking it's all the same no matter who's in office.

And your mama dresses you funny!

Actually, my wife dresses me now, but she says I look good in a bright pink tutu.

Tag Guard

Agreed.
Tag Guard

 

[Mooseman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFerret
I do not know what would have happened if we had not gone into Iraq. I personally don't care one way or the other. As I had stated before, as long as I can still walk around in this country enjoying my freedoms, then I say we are doing a good job. When those freedoms are gone, then we are doing a bad job. I do not feel qualified myself, to make any type of decision one way or the other on any type of foreign policy. I guess the gist of what I am saying is, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. So far, we are still free, and until they start to mess that up, I will not be complaining.

Iraq's a touchier situation than most. I don't feel qualified to complain about any number of things, since I'm maintaining my freedoms. But the situation in Iraq, I think could easily have been avoided and I considered it a lose-lose situation from the start. I figured if they did have WMDs, they'd use them on our soldiers when we attacked and a lot of Americans would end up dying even though we weren't in any imminent danger. If they didn't have WMDs, we'd look like fools and the world would turn against us. As it turns out, both things ended up happening. If Americans weren't dying, I'd have no problem, but they are and I find that unjust. I believe in defending the country, but this was not a case of it. Can you imagine being a soldier who patrioticly signed up for military service after 9-11, thinking you would have a chance to bring those perpetrators to justice, only to find yourself in a war that had nothing to do with it? Personally, I'd be pissed off. So while I'm over here enjoying my freedom, my fellow Americans are dying. I just don't like that.

Iraq was a cluster F**K, there was no long range plan and it was started and run by the politicians. There was no good reason to invade Iraq. If the intel was wrong then who's the idiots that didn't double check the facts before risking other peoples lives. Maybe if our great leader was at the front of the armed forces, instead of sitting safe on his ranch, I might feel that he believed in this war...... but, alas.....
this poorly planned, researched and executed war can only be blamed on the ones who demanded it...... hmmmmmmm.

Our foriegn policy sux, we do all the work and pay all the bills.... insane.....
The Iraqi war has cost each and every American over $200..... WTF......

I for one grew up in the watergate and irangate eras and distrust our government, I do not want to give that government my liberties to do with as they please. They hide enough crap, (see all the inditements on local and national politicians), they don't need our help hiding more.
Yes, I believe that the news media have been irresponsible, but that is better then having them muzzled. I just wish they had some integrity....

 

[Oversoul]

I would say some stuff, but Turgy has already covered it and said it better than I would have.

Just wanted to point one out this one thing...

I call poppycock on this one. Copyright and patent laws are vitally important to our capitalist economy. Sure, movies are a lot better when seen in the theater. But when we start allowing free information (of this kind) sharing, you're opening a can of worms. Now who's going to stop a rival music company from buying one CD from an artist and selling it with the same album art and everything, but for a lower price (since they don't have to pay the artists)? Who's going to stop a rival publisher from stealing and reprinting a book? Who's going to keep movies, music and art from being reproduced and sold for cheaper? Intellectual property is still property and although I like to download a song here and there myself, I know that most people aren't responsible enough to limit what the steal or just download free music to get a feel for a band before buying a CD.

While I agree that patents and copyrights benefit the economy (and reward good ideas), I still have some big problems with the current system.

Originally (in this country), a copyright or patent lasted for fourteen years and the author could renew it for another fourteen years. The idea behind this, if I understand it correctly (and I think I do), was to both reward good ideas and encourage artists and inventors to continue producing new works.

When further extensions were applied (starting in the 1830's I think, but it's been a while since I read up on any of this), the same ideals were kept in mind. It was just that apparently congress thought 28 years wasn't quite as good of an incentive as 40+ years (not sure exactly what it was lengthened to).

This is a slightly different concept from "THE STEAMBOAT WILLIE CARTOON AND EVERYTHING AFTER IT ARE PERPETUALLY PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT FOREVER AND EVER PERPETUALLY AS LONG AS THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT! HAHAHAHAHAHA!"

Of course, some of this has to do with treaties we have with other countries because we apparently have to respect their copyright laws, but still...

Author's life plus 70 years? Author's life plus 95 years? I'm cool with intellectual property, but this seems a bit extreme...

Tag Guard

 

[EricBess]

I don't have a lot to add, but I probably will anyway

Iraq may be a mess and there may or may not have been a reason to invade. There was information we don't have and there was misinformation that the decision makers had perhaps. Who really knows. But regardless of whether or not you agree with what is going on, don't turn this into a Viet Nam. We should support the troops and believe in them and what they feel they are doing is right. Most people I've talked to who have been over there are supportive of what's going on.

I see some of both sides. There's a lot of anger about getting involved, but there were certainly signs that Sadam Hussain posed a threat long term. There may have been some revenge involved, but there may have also been a desire to avoid another 9/11. Reactionary? Maybe so. As for me, I haven't made up my mind, but I won't talk down about it, either.

The entertainment industry is indeed huge, but as turgy points out, it's supply and demand. If we, as a nation, want the money to be better distributed, we need to get off our lazy behinds and start doing something other than just being entertained all of our lives. If we as a nation wanted perpetual education, teachers would start getting paid what they deserve, but as a whole, we don't. We want entertainment.

As for making media free, ever hear of "freeware", or "open source"? The idea that if you share your programming code freely, it will make for better software for everyone. The end result, however, tends to be a lot of junky software that doesn't work properly. People put value into what they can get something out. The ideas behind it are very noble, but unfortunately, it just doesn't work in practice.

Applying the same idea to music or movies would likely end the same way...some good, well intended content with a lot of cheap crap.

There are some labels and/or artists that believe in the power of Internet marketing and are doing some of the things that have been suggested. Allow a song to be streamed from the Internet, for example. I'm sure there is software to capture and save the stream, but for the most part, people can just listen while they are connected online. If you want to listen anytime, buy the CD. But stuff like that should be decided and controlled by the artist. If an artist chooses not to make songs available steamed online, they might not get people interested. If they choose to, they might get people who figure they already have access. If you want more artist to put their songs online, start buying from artists who already do.

 

[Zigathon]

Partial (not all dialogue is shown, but points remain intact) response sent to a friend on Myspace (Adspace?) doing missionary work in Germany:

I stand firm in my belief that freedom, as well as truth, are subjective. As soon as one thinks they are free or accepts the truth they are told, without looking just a tad deeper, they will never be free. They will never see the truth. I guess its like the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." However, when one concedes to closing their eyes, what beauty is there to behold?

This is true in almost anything one does. Why is it denial is always the first step? Too many sheeple get stuck there. Let us all move to acceptance and then attempt to change the way things are. We can recover from oppression, regardless of the form it may take this year, or the next, or the year after that.

However, the crux of your argument seems to be about Saddam, who you think needed to be stopped. Let's try to see this in perspective:

1. George Bush Sr. fought a war when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

2. George W. Bush "discoverd" weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.

3. No WMD's were found. Not one!

4. Ummmm, well, Saddam has links to Al-Queda (sp?).

5. No, he didn't.

6. Okay, but he did treat his people like crap. This needs to be stopped!

7. *currently awaiting yet another debunk*

So, what happens when this is proven false? Will the public relations commandos come to the rescue? Damn right they will! As long as they can find a reason, regardless of the war and whichever "leader" is fighting it, truth and freedom remain subjective.

This is exactly why I call humans "sheeple" (regardless of a certain South Park episode, I've been using the word for quite awhile). They have simply stopped looking for the beauty of existence. They have closed their eyes in the quest for easy answers. Remember in school, when one had to work out math problems and show one's work? I was never good at math, but I'll be damned if I don't see beauty...

By the way, Limited, you did a wonderful job.

EDIT: You too Turgy! Okay, I didn't even read the thread when I'd posted the above. Hey, its my birthday and I'm drunk...

 

[Ransac]

*Ransac does not appreciate being chucked or falling to his death. Hence, he blames the Green Party for this outrage.*



Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Killer Joe]

Why is it denial is always the first step? Too many sheeple get stuck there. Let us all move to acceptance and then attempt to change the way things are.

Unfortunately the human race is still, well, um, human. Think about it, how hard is it for the "average" person to admit they made a mistake. Pretty darn hard I'd say from my experiences with this matter. Let's say for a moment that every politician could immediately and vehemently admit their mistakes, that would be wonderful? No. Though noble, you lose credability quickly. They made that mistake, why, they could make another and a another and a another and we don't want our leaders to make mistakes because then WE'VE made a mistake by voting for them.

The democratic party politicians are WEAK as a direct result of being honest and Republican politicians know it. WAIT! Democrats lie, too. It's just that lately the spotlight is on the GOP right now.

Note: This post only addressed a tiny nuance of the conversation and is not a reflection of any part of the topics that have been well described and debated, whew!

 

[DarthFerret]

Just to make an observational response to the above post, I have noticed that BOTH parties lie, cheat, steal, email pages, sleep with interns, etc....

The ones in the limelight are the ones in political power at the time. When Clinton is in office, all you heard/saw was Democrat bashing. When George (take your pick) Bush was/is in office, all you will hear is Republican bashing. While I am not neccessarily in full support of a 3 or 4 party system (don't we have that already?...hmm...Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian....), I do think that any voting should be done on a person by person basis due to thier individual merits. I also do not support a bi-partisan system, because we all know that it just wont work.

Examples of spotlight political figure bashing:

George W. Bush and the Iraq War.
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski (Paula too!)
Al Gore invents the internet.
Dan Quail cannot spell potatoe


And I could go on and on with any and every Pres/Vice Pres.

And for anyone who said "Clinton did what everyone else did, but he just got caught", guess what...you can say the same for Richard Nixon....so...

Cest' le Vie

Tag Guard

 

[Killer Joe]

Just to make an observational response to the above post, I have noticed that BOTH parties lie, cheat, steal, email pages, sleep with interns, etc....

The ones in the limelight are the ones in political power at the time. When Clinton is in office, all you heard/saw was Democrat bashing. When George (take your pick) Bush was/is in office, all you will hear is Republican bashing. While I am not neccessarily in full support of a 3 or 4 party system (don't we have that already?...hmm...Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian....), I do think that any voting should be done on a person by person basis due to thier individual merits. I also do not support a bi-partisan system, because we all know that it just wont work.

Examples of spotlight political figure bashing:

George W. Bush and the Iraq War.
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski (Paula too!)
Al Gore invents the internet.
Dan Quail cannot spell potatoe


And I could go on and on with any and every Pres/Vice Pres.

And for anyone who said "Clinton did what everyone else did, but he just got caught", guess what...you can say the same for Richard Nixon....so...

Cest' le Vie

Tag Guard

True DAT!

Allow me to isolate two of the above mentioned "Shame on you" statements:

~Bush for the Iraq War

vs.

~Clinton's Horny-ness

Which is worse for the country? Why, sarcastically I'd say Clinton's horny-ness. First of all both of those women were ugly and what kind of message do want to send to foreign governments? That we endorse boning ugly women? NO!!!!

Okay, okay, so the Bush-War aka "Iraq" is really worse but this is for sure: Bush did NOT have sexual relations with Iraq!!!!!!!!

 

[rokapoke]

George W. Bush and the Iraq War.
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski (Paula too!)

To be fair, though, let's all take a minute and remember that while the President may, at times, be the driving force in a declaration of war (I'm not going to deny that he had a strong hand in this one), only Congress can actually make that declaration. So people can run around saying Bush did this and Bush did that, but really, Congress did this and Congress did that.

Of course, Bill Clinton did both of those "ladies." By himself, too, I would imagine. Although I'm sure either or both would've been more than happy to be done by Congress. One at a time, I hope. They're not just passing around cigars for births anymore...

 

[Oversoul]

Unfortunately the human race is still, well, um, human. Think about it, how hard is it for the "average" person to admit they made a mistake. Pretty darn hard I'd say from my experiences with this matter.

Most people I know will admit to some of the mistakes they make...

But most of those mistakes are not important in their minds. Something important is avoided or wasn't their fault or isn't really a mistake at all.

 

[Limited]

George W. Bush and the Iraq War.
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski (Paula too!)
Al Gore invents the internet.
Dan Quail cannot spell potatoe

I understand these are just examples, but you have to admit that being having an affair or making a spelling error in public are mistakes of a different kind than getting into the Iraq war based on false information (killing thousands and spending billions).

"Al Gore invents the internet"? I haven't heard that one. Somebody please share!

To be fair, though, let's all take a minute and remember that while the President may, at times, be the driving force in a declaration of war (I'm not going to deny that he had a strong hand in this one), only Congress can actually make that declaration. So people can run around saying Bush did this and Bush did that, but really, Congress did this and Congress did that.

But he still insists that it was a good idea. Even after the documents were shown to be incorrect. Even now when generals and intelligence experts say the army needs to pull out. Even when research shows that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism.

But in all fairness, I don't put all the blame on Bush. I put it on his administration. Bill Clinton's mistake is of a much more personal nature and even though it was damaging to his personal reputation, it didn't diminish the trust in the political capabilities of his administration. Especially now, when you can see that Bill Clinton's time in the Oval Office was good for America's economy and international relations.