THE BADGER: Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 the Democans are probably your best bet. Are you trying to make a funny, or is that some new party I have not heard of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Even Lt. Frank Drebin (of Police Squad) looked forward to the day when the Democrats would run a candidate worth voting for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 I do happen to think Bush has not done what he should for this country (I am Republican and conservative, btw) but I have to ask: Would we be better off under the rule of someone who has these kinds of lines: #1 "...and I'm... REPORTING FOR DUTY!" #2 "I have a plan, that will stabilize this economy" "What are the details of this plan?" "The Bush Administration is a failure!" Or, better yet... #3 "And Oregon, and California... HYAHH!" (No real way to spell what Howard Dean said, er yelled) Sorry to say it was the least of 11 evils in 2004, but that's exactly what we got. And btw... I mean, take money from the levees? C'mon! That was the governor's bright idea, not Bush's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 20, 2005 Author Share Posted November 20, 2005 I do happen to think Bush has not done what he should for this country (I am Republican and conservative, btw) but I have to ask: Would we be better off under the rule of someone who has these kinds of lines: We'll never know. But if it were simply a matter of comparing quotes and soundbites, Bush would lose everytime. Favorite Bush quote: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 I said the least of 11 evils, not that he was good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 You know, personally I wouldn't give a jiffy if the Prime Minister of Denmark hooted like an owl if the alternative was W. I'll take an idiot over a fascist idiot any day of the week. Are you trying to make a funny, or is that some new party I have not heard of? I was trying to be funny. I was thinking of the Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 We'll never know. But if it were simply a matter of comparing quotes and soundbites, Bush would lose everytime. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - President George W. Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Okay, you made your point, and well! But seriously, I agree with Frank Drebin. I don't even care what party; just give us someone worth voting for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 But seriously, I agree with Frank Drebin. I don't even care what party; just give us someone worth voting for! Indeed. Though it is just as much the public's fault as it is the parties. The public doesn't want skilled candidates. 90% of all voters vote the same way out of habit anyway.. so its just the last 10% you need to target to win or lose. And the best way to target them is to be as vague as possible, layout very few acutal policies (for the fear you might offend someone) and simply attack the other lot. The parties wouldn't be giving us these kind of candidates/campaigns if they didn't know it was what worked. Dean seemed to me to have refreshing policies, but the policies mattered little, one shout (for the media to grab hold of) and suddenly all those weeks of policies and years of experience mattered for nothing. Kerry seemed to be picked as a candidate merely because he was thought to "look presidential" (whatever that means) and because he had a war record. QUite how either of those make him well qualified to be president I don't know. Bush was picked as a candidate because of his name, and because his name recognition value made him seem more presidential (as a george bush had already been president). Looked at on an anonymous basis the guy would probably get turned down for a management job in a branch of Burger King. --- In the UK we have Tony Blair who is the ultimate "style over substance" leader. A master of spin, and who's favorite phrase seems to be "there is no evidence, but trust me..." And the main opposition is currently trying to choose their new leader, and who is the most popular? The guy who is basically a tory version of Tony Blair. Style, substance and charm over ability all over again. There is a school of thought that says that the US public always likes to elect leaders who are dumber than them (or at the least "average joes") and the european public likes to elect leaders who at least seem smarter than them. But it turns out that either way you still end up with the same bunch of loosers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 "Politics is one of the world's two oldest professions. The other has fewer amateurs and a higher moral standard." - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BADGER: Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Though it is just as much the public's fault as it is the parties. That is the truth. Most people are like cattle. Though it is just as much the public's fault as it is the parties. The public doesn't want skilled candidates. 90% of all voters vote the same way out of habit anyway.. so its just the last 10% you need to target to win or lose. And the best way to target them is to be as vague as possible, layout very few acutal policies (for the fear you might offend someone) and simply attack the other lot. The parties wouldn't be giving us these kind of candidates/campaigns if they didn't know it was what worked. Dean seemed to me to have refreshing policies, but the policies mattered little, one shout (for the media to grab hold of) and suddenly all those weeks of policies and years of experience mattered for nothing. Kerry seemed to be picked as a candidate merely because he was thought to "look presidential" (whatever that means) and because he had a war record. QUite how either of those make him well qualified to be president I don't know. Bush was picked as a candidate because of his name, and because his name recognition value made him seem more presidential (as a george bush had already been president). Looked at on an anonymous basis the guy would probably get turned down for a management job in a branch of Burger King. In the UK we have Tony Blair who is the ultimate "style over substance" leader. A master of spin, and who's favorite phrase seems to be "there is no evidence, but trust me..." And the main opposition is currently trying to choose their new leader, and who is the most popular? The guy who is basically a tory version of Tony Blair. Style, substance and charm over ability all over again There is a school of thought that says that the US public always likes to elect leaders who are dumber than them (or at the least "average joes") and the european public likes to elect leaders who at least seem smarter than them. But it turns out that either way you still end up with the same bunch of loosers.... Well put, I agree 100%. In the begining I was a Bush supporter, but the more I look at it, he is just as bad as the rest of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Agreed with above post. I was a Bush supporter, because the Democratic candidates were "all hat and no cattle" as Abe Lincoln would say. Just... talk. But now, look at this country. Our borders are being worked on, but they are still obscenely open to Mexico and Canada. A treasure trove of escape opportunities for fugitives on both sides of the border. Next, not very many immigrants are required to speak/learn English on the job. So... the rest of us have to learn Spanish to accommodate the immigrants, legal or not. I say we need to make a concerted effort in driving out illegals, and properly educate the legals. Finally, can we cave a culture better than the rap culture? I can't stand the music, and I'm a teen! Can you define accurately what our culture is without mentioning rap or other music of some kind? The ancients are called ancient cultures because art, real music, and entertainment thrived. We can do the same, but the country is being as stubborn as ever. So it boils down to three major improvements that would drastically improve the USA: Borders, language, and culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 The President is not in charge of regulating culture. And I'm very thankful for that. Just because YOU don't like a kind of music doesn't mean it's bad or should be stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I never supported the banning of rap. I want more choices, is all. True, the president cannot singlehandedly change culture. We aren't talking about ancient Egypt, here. But, if the government creates a public national system where culture is allowed to thrive... who knows, might be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 You want more choices? Like....not listening to rap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 The problem I have is that some of the lyrics have the most terrible messages. Look up the lyrics to "My Gift to You" by Korn. The lyrics should freeze your blood. For a while, that song hit the top 10, even #1, IIRC. What are they trying to brainwash us with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 ...I don't think anyone is trying to brainwash anyone...I also don't think the music is a government conspiracy... If you don't agree with the music, don't listen to it. Just because people listen to it, doesn't mean they're brainwashed. It means they like the song. I like plenty of songs that I don't necessarily agree with the lyrics of. Of course, none of this has ANYTHING to do with government..unless you want government regulation of all of our media :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 No, it is not a govt. conspiracy. However, the government can instill programs that encourage all types of music, not simply one kind. This is a good thing because it exposes kids to more music. A rap song can be fun to listen to, I suppose, but it doesn't do much if you are doing homework. Our school, for example, allows portable CD players on tests, but they cannot contain offensive content. (Offensive is defined in our student contract). 99% of rap CD's fail misewrably, on the grounds that They are racist They contain swear words or They are degrading to women, calling them b*****, f***dolls, etc. Also, those CD's were confiscated (returned after the test) from 80% of the students! Tell me there is nothing wrong with that. A great example of having more (popular) choices available is our locas FFA program. Not Free For All; Future Farmers of America. These people promote all kinds of jobs, not just in farming, but any field. If this were employed on a nationwide scale and directed at our culture, it would help the country significantly. The govt. need not play a huge role. But they can fund this organization. It would help us considerably. Plus, if the Republican Party had the <guts, edited> to suggest such an action, it would redeem them from the disasters we've been through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I think FFA is pretty much limited to the midwest / places where agriculture is a big role. I've plenty to say on this debate on culture, but this isn't the thread for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 So it boils down to three major improvements that would drastically improve the USA: Borders, language, and culture. Borders and language have nothing to do with it. And culture is up to you, the people, to define. It'd be nice if you stopped exporting certain aspects of your culture, but hey, people over here want to buy it, so I guess the rest of us are stuck with it. The real problems facing many western countries are the increasing gaps between rich and poor, the incredible power of multinational corporations, and the fact that the third world countries (with their huge populations) are starting to want what we have. Its not going to work for much longer for us to have the cheap, disposable products that fuel our lives based on the cheap labour of the third world... and thats going to mean major culture shifts and economic problems over the next decade or two. But i guess that when things look bleak and people feel disadvantaged its always easier to blame illegal immigrants or other groups... just look at the last US depression. In the global market when its just as easy for big companies to outsource all their work to underpayed workers abroad as to give it to underpayed workers in this country its gotta be doubtfull whether immigrants will even NEED or WANT to come to the US in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BADGER: Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 However, the government can instill programs that encourage all types of music, not simply one kind. I think the government has more problem to worry about, like...um...I don't know.... war, economy, foreign policies, homeland security, the list goes on.... It is not the job or right of the government to censor anything. If they do than we might as well start burning books like in Nazi Germany. I don't want the government in anything I do or like except running the country. Just look at the video game industry. It's just plain censorship and it is wrong and unconstitutional. If we let the government start with the small things than they will take more and more rights from us. Finally, can we cave a culture better than the rap culture? I can't stand the music, and I'm a teen! Can you define accurately what our culture is without mentioning rap or other music of some kind? That's the problem with this country. One person does not like say GTA:SA so he/she campaigns to take it off the shelves because he/she does not like the content. If you don't like something don't listen, watch it. That is not freedom. Why must people, even though I am a Christian, mostly religious people, try to make everyone conform to what "they" think is right. That is not the way this country was formed to be. That is not Democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 No, it is not a govt. conspiracy. However, the government can instill programs that encourage all types of music, not simply one kind. This is a good thing because it exposes kids to more music. A rap song can be fun to listen to, I suppose, but it doesn't do much if you are doing homework. Our school, for example, allows portable CD players on tests, but they cannot contain offensive content. (Offensive is defined in our student contract). 99% of rap CD's fail misewrably, on the grounds that They are racist They contain swear words or They are degrading to women, calling them b*****, f***dolls, etc. Also, those CD's were confiscated (returned after the test) from 80% of the students! Tell me there is nothing wrong with that. Want a quick fix to that? DON'T ALLOW THE CD PLAYERS. Then nobody feels singled out. The problem I have is that some of the lyrics have the most terrible messages. Look up the lyrics to "My Gift to You" by Korn. The lyrics should freeze your blood. For a while, that song hit the top 10, even #1, IIRC. What are they trying to brainwash us with? Yea, because Korn has been blamed by EVERYONE about EVERYTHING recently. The only people who think that My Gift to You is a terrible song are people who don't understand where Jonathan Davis gets his motivation. And if you don't know, you don't NEED to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceplant Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I think it's probably safe to say that the problem is that we are ruled not by the intelligent, who might actually be some good at ruling, but by the popular, who know how to get into office but don't seem to know what to do once they get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Case of point: The "Terminator" winning the guvernous position because he's a famous movie star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 The govt. need not play a huge role. But they can fund this organization. It would help us considerably. Plus, if the Republican Party had the <guts, edited> to suggest such an action, it would redeem them from the disasters we've been through. I doubt that. On both counts. What America needs is a high-quality, full coverage, independent and hardhitting, and FFS make it government funded. What you want to do is break Murdoch's de facto monopoly on electronic media, and the best way to do that is making an institution like the BBC. But that would only be the first step towards solving the problems the US faces. The next couple of steps would be fixing the trade imbalance, convincing the EU that we're not going to be fighting a colonial war over the Middel East within the next half-century, reduce pollution pr. captia drastically, and make a quantum* giant leap in the quality of your education. Then, maybe, we can talk about setting things right on minor issues like border security and what kind of music kids listen to. *Quantum leap is a silly expression since quantum leaps are actually the smallest possible leaps... BTW, BADGER, you'll want to watch your language, lest someone invokes Godwin's Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.