Topic: November, 2004 (Read 8116 times)

JimH · « **on:** February 22, 2004, 06:50:18 pm »

Ralph Nader announced today that he will run again for President of the U.S. Here's an article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=578

I'm curious how it will affect voting.

Madcow · « **Reply #1 on:** February 23, 2004, 05:58:24 pm »

I'm in the UK but I find it astonishing that people will vote for Bush. Just a cultural gap, I guess, but the man's a warmongering halfwit. I thought you guys would be glad to have a chance to get rid of him.

KingSparta · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:02:27 pm »

lets not start calling names, and all that.

It's just a simple vote without pissing people off.

we all have our own feelings about things like (bush, French and germans).

This is one of two topics that need to be tempered.

fex · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:07:21 pm »

Quote from: KingSparta on February 23, 2004, 06:02:27 pm

we all have our own feelings about things like (bush, French and germans). This is one of two topics that need to be tempered.

Then don't throw bush together with french and germans. Thats not fair (against french and germans), with all that "found weapons"... Thanks.

KingSparta · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:13:46 pm »

Quote

Thats not fair

well i think that might depend on what side of the Ocean your on and your polictical point of view.

fex · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:15:49 pm »

I remembe your own words before the war. Long time ago. But I don't think you were right. Do you?

LonWar · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:22:42 pm »

I don't really pay to much attention to the politics in my own country (Canada), But I can tell you, I do feel alot safer for what Bush and the American's have acomplished.

I kinda feel sorry for him, this hasn't exactly been an easy term for him...

KingSparta · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:23:49 pm »

Quote

But I don't think you were right. Do you?

I am always right, it is the facts that may be wrong.

if your talking about WMD, Iraq had them, I Seen Them. We however distroyed the ones we captured (about 500 chemical rounds). Is there more? I have no idea at this point.

I think most countries agree it was ok to take Iraq, but the reasons and the facts about why are foggy.

I also said that I do beleave holding his head up for his dad may have somthing to do with it. however bush would never come out and say it was a factor.

fex · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:27:05 pm »

Quote from: KingSparta on February 23, 2004, 06:23:49 pm

I am always right, it is the facts that may be wrong.

March 25, 2003, 04:44:18 PM, KingSparta wrote:

"There will be more that comes out later when Iraq is liberated from this moron."

What came out? Other but lies on US and UK side?

JimH · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:28:51 pm »

Quote from: KingSparta on February 23, 2004, 06:02:27 pm

This is one of two topics that need to be tempered.

Let's talk about religion or sex. Maybe we could find something we have in common besides music.

I was just wondering what would happen if you could put 10 random militant Muslims in the room with 10 random half-wits like me and KingSparta. Do you think we could find something to talk about over tea? I bet KingSparta could. People say he's nicer than I am. You should see the mail I get about this.

Bendra · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:29:18 pm »

I think that:

a) a lesson was learned from 2000. Most will not be caught up in voting for Nader out of fear of repeating history;

b) Nader is trying to keep certain issues at the forefront; hence his move. It's hard to believe that he can get on the ballots of many states;

c) we will have a chance to get a broader perspective of our national situation if he has a chance to be heard (the same with Dean, who should be credited with energizing the Democratic Party, even if he got flimflammed by the ^%&* media).

There are no accidents. Some good will come of this.

fex · « **Reply #11 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:34:30 pm »

Quote from: JimH on February 23, 2004, 06:28:51 pm

Let's talk about religion or sex.

Ok.

Listening to: 'Let's All Make A Bomb' from 'How Live Is' by 'Heaven 17' on Media Center 10

KingSparta · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:40:28 pm »

Quote

People say he's nicer than I am. You should see the mail I get about this.

Do you really get messages about how nice I am?

With my nick name "Lucifer" I hardly believe that.

As For The Sex Talk

Let's Talk About Sex Charted At 02 In 1991

Listening to: 'Let's Talk About Sex' from 'Mtv Party To Go Volume 2' by 'Salt-N-Pepa' on Media Center 10

udeups · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2004, 06:47:44 pm »

Quote from: Bendra on February 23, 2004, 06:29:18 pm

There are no accidents.

This seems to be a really hard position to hold, for a variety of reasons. If one believes in a deity, this position requires that the deity mandates bad things happening to good people. If one doesn't believe in a deity, it requires some sort of universal determinism, whereby no one has a choice in the matter.

Quote

Some good will come of this.

Now, that may be true, but it doesn't imply the former statement.

(there. Did I succeed at bringing religion - or at least philosophy - into it?)

Bendra · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2004, 07:06:20 pm »

Quote

If one believes in a deity, this position requires that the deity mandates bad things happening to good people. If one doesn't believe in a deity, it requires some sort of universal determinism, whereby no one has a choice in the matter.

Yes to both. We are given choices; but we can and do suffer the choices of others who are also given choices. The determinism you mention is dynamic, in my mind, and flows among factions freely.

Quote

Some good will come of this.

Maybe I should have said "can" instead of "will", but the stress of Nader's jumping into the race might contribute discipline and spur the figuring out of how to avoid a repeat of 2000 - i.e., maybe the Democrats will be galvanized into a better showing -maybe they will work harder at differentiating themselves as a viable alternative. That's the good I hope can come of the Nader presence.

Quisp · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2004, 07:06:55 pm »

Quote from: JimH on February 23, 2004, 06:28:51 pm

Quote from: KingSparta on February 23, 2004, 06:02:27 pm
This is one of two topics that need to be tempered.
Let's talk about religion or sex.

Jesus Christ, I've got a headache...

Charlemagne 8 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2004, 07:08:23 pm »

It is a little premature to include Kerry and not Edwards. Remember, it took less than two months to go from "Front Runner" Dean to "I'm going home now" Dean.
I agree that it is highly likely that Kerry will be the nominee but it's not yet final.

On a side note, Nader believes that he won't be getting any Democrats to vote for him (debatable) but will draw disenfranchised Republicans/conservatives --- Come again?

The poll? I'm voting for Edwards until that option is removed.

CVIII

JimH · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2004, 07:11:47 pm »

Quote from: KingSparta on February 23, 2004, 06:40:28 pm

Do you really get messages about how nice I am?

I have a big stack of letters under my desk that I rest my feet on. You don't need to see them. They might make you insufferable. Trust me.

JimH · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2004, 07:16:39 pm »

C8,
I'm sorry. I should have included Edwards. He may have a chance.

Jim

Charlemagne 8 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2004, 07:21:29 pm »

"May" being the operative word.

KingSparta · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2004, 07:39:06 pm »

Edwards Is from My State N.C.

I don't have anything bad to say about him, and if i had to vote Democrat I would vote for him over Kerry and the rest of the lot, I can't stand Kerry, dean was too far left.

Leberman would have been my choice (he was more in the middle), but the guy sounds like he is on a slab of downers all the time. I think the guy needs to take some speed or someting to excite him a bit.

BullishDad · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2004, 08:08:42 pm »

Quote from: Quisp on February 23, 2004, 07:06:55 pm

Quote from: JimH on February 23, 2004, 06:28:51 pm
Quote from: KingSparta on February 23, 2004, 06:02:27 pm
This is one of two topics that need to be tempered.
Let's talk about religion or sex.

Jesus Christ, I've got a headache...

Good one, Quisp.

P.S. Say hello to Quake for me.

Charlemagne 8 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2004, 08:18:29 pm »

Quote

Leberman would have been my choice (he was more in the middle), but the guy sounds like he is on a slab of downers all the time.

Did you ever notice that he sort of resembles and sounds like Willie on the show "Alf"?

BTW Quisp, I was trying to come up with a way to tie in the two but all I could come up with would have never made it to the board and might have gotten me ousted if not summarily executed. Good job.

CVIII

JimH · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2004, 08:31:20 pm »

Quote from: BullishDad on February 23, 2004, 08:08:42 pm

Quote from: Quisp on February 23, 2004, 07:06:55 pm
Quote from: JimH on February 23, 2004, 06:28:51 pm
Quote from: KingSparta on February 23, 2004, 06:02:27 pm
This is one of two topics that need to be tempered.
Let's talk about religion or sex.

Jesus Christ, I've got a headache...

Good one, Quisp.

A stunner. And I completely missed it.

modelmaker · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2004, 09:13:32 pm »

I think we should amend the constitution so after having sat out a term or two, Bill Clinton could run again, then we could talk about politics, religion and sex all in one go.

hit_ny · « **Reply #25 on:** February 24, 2004, 02:50:38 am »

Quote

Bill Clinton could run again

Hear hear....he was one of the coolest "american" presidents since JFK.

He also came from the poorest of backgrounds of any of the presidents to date. No old money here, his father was a carpet salesman. Yet he managed to get into the highest office in the country (for 2 terms).

Too bad history will remember him as impeached.

KingSparta · « **Reply #26 on:** February 24, 2004, 05:55:35 am »

Quote

he was one of the coolest "american" presidents since JFK

I did not have a problem with Bill about 70% of men cheat on there wives at one point or another (acording to jonhson and johnson).

I just wish there was video of it, would have made a good porno movie.

Hillary was really running the show so i say let bill run again she already had her two terms.

JimH · « **Reply #27 on:** February 24, 2004, 07:17:26 am »

Quote from: hit_ny on February 24, 2004, 02:50:38 am

Too bad history will remember him as impeached.

History _may_ remember it better as Congress impeaching him.

skidoo · « **Reply #28 on:** February 24, 2004, 01:10:53 pm »

Quote from: Bendra on February 23, 2004, 07:06:20 pm

We are given choices; but we can and do suffer the choices of others who are also given choices.

How can you say, a priori, that "we are given choices?"

Quote

The determinism you mention is dynamic, in my mind, and flows among factions freely.

That sounds like "soft determinism," after the likes of David Hume. In my opinion, bending determinism to make it "dynamic" seems silly. "Dynamic determinism" is an oxymoron.

KingSparta · « **Reply #29 on:** February 24, 2004, 01:39:03 pm »

Quote

Dynamic determinism

whats this college? where is my dictionary.

Bendra · « **Reply #30 on:** February 24, 2004, 02:32:20 pm »

Quote

How can you say, a priori, that "we are given choices?"

We choose because we can; we can because it (being rational) comes with the human package, if it's healthy.

Quote

In my opinion, bending determinism to make it "dynamic" seems silly. "Dynamic determinism" is an oxymoron.

I mean that we are unwittingly affected by the actions of others. Who they are and how they got the power to change our lives by their philosophies can be quite out of our control.

xen-uno · « **Reply #31 on:** February 24, 2004, 02:36:11 pm »

When it comes to politics, I'm always in favor of throwing the rascals out (at all levels). I'll vote for the challenger every time (unless they're real dispicable)...regardless of their party affiliation. Politicians getting too comfortable in their jobs is NOT good for you and me. Back in the old days when I was a wee lad (late 1700's - early 1800's), it was not meant to be a career. You did your stint then went back to private life. No greased palms and other forms of corruption then (well...at least not of the magnitude we see today).

Can you say term limits?

10^-27

Bendra · « **Reply #32 on:** February 24, 2004, 02:43:53 pm »

Indeed, xen-uno

ender13 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 24, 2004, 02:44:26 pm »

Perhaps I am just a stickler, but how does this relate to media center (it is under it as a topic)?

xen-uno · « **Reply #34 on:** February 24, 2004, 03:23:25 pm »

It relates in this way mainly...

Democrat: Tax the nation heavier to hold down national debt. Results in less individual take home pay to buy Meda Center.

Republican: Initiate tax breaks for all without government spending reductions. Results in more individual take home pay but an ever increasing national debt. Net effect is a weaker dollar. Media Center becomes more expensive.

Libertarian: If successful at self rule, then they will succeed at getting government off our backs. Media Center will never be cheaper. The crux is that with no money allotted for the EPA to enforce enviromental laws, the pollution will make you too sick to get much enjoyment out of it.

10^-27

skidoo · « **Reply #35 on:** February 24, 2004, 04:46:52 pm »

Quote from: Bendra on February 24, 2004, 02:32:20 pm

Quote
How can you say, a priori, that "we are given choices?"

We choose because we can; we can because it (being rational) comes with the human package, if it's healthy.

And you know this how? You understand this is a "belief," right? A belief like everything else. So far no one has demonstrated that sentient beings indeed possess the capability to enlist any motivators that could be defined as "free will."

There are really only three perspectives on this particular question of life:

1. There is an omniscient, omnipotent G-d, Supreme Being, Spirit Master, whatever. This necessarily cancels out any possiblity of "free will."

2. The universe and all the beings in it run according to some predetermined plan, i.e. determinism. No room for free will. The universe is a giant clock, a la Newton.

3. There is no G-d and no predetermined plan. It's all a cold, crazy mess, accidental or otherwise.

Quote

Quote
In my opinion, bending determinism to make it "dynamic" seems silly. "Dynamic determinism" is an oxymoron.

I mean that we are unwittingly affected by the actions of others. Who they are and how they got the power to change our lives by their philosophies can be quite out of our control.

That's number three. Not determinism.

Next let's talk about the afterlife. Do you just cease to exist? Do you sprout wings and a halo and acquire a new harp? Does your "spirit" fall back into some formless consciousness, a la the "bowl of life" the Hindus speak of? Can a place such as the mythological "hell" exist contemporaneously with an omniscient, omnipotent G-d? And what are the implications (or influences) of the afterlife on life itself?

Existential despair, that seems to be the end of the line. At least so far.

Quisp · « **Reply #36 on:** February 24, 2004, 04:47:58 pm »

Quote from: BullishDad on February 23, 2004, 08:08:42 pm

Quote from: Quisp on February 23, 2004, 07:06:55 pm
Quote from: JimH on February 23, 2004, 06:28:51 pm
Quote from: KingSparta on February 23, 2004, 06:02:27 pm
This is one of two topics that need to be tempered.
Let's talk about religion or sex.

Jesus Christ, I've got a headache...

Good one, Quisp.
P.S. Say hello to Quake for me.

Thanks! BTW: Quake says you still owe him 30 bucks!

Matt · « **Reply #37 on:** February 24, 2004, 05:14:41 pm »

Quote

Existential despair, that seems to be the end of the line. At least so far.

Why the despair -- even if it is a big mathetmatically dictated mess devoid of deeper meaning it can still be great to be a part of that mess.

My dog is the happiest guy I know.

Bendra · « **Reply #38 on:** February 24, 2004, 05:20:18 pm »

Quote

And you know this how? You understand this is a "belief," right? A belief like everything else. So far no one has demonstrated that sentient beings indeed possess the capability to enlist any motivators that could be defined as "free will."

I understand that if I want to turn right or left, it's my (perceived) choice. If nobody else is in the car, whose choice is it? God's? Maybe. I assume that God guided my ultimate choice of right or left - hence, no accident. I may be saying that someone(thing) may "assist" that choice, but I don't know it.

Going back to the original issue (can you remember it?) Ralph has decided to run for a (deterministic) reason. When he made his choice, maybe it was free will or not, but he's here and the interesting thing is to see how his presence is reacted to.

Quisp · « **Reply #39 on:** February 24, 2004, 05:25:34 pm »

Quote from: Matt on February 24, 2004, 05:14:41 pm

Why the despair -- even if it is a big mathetmatically dictated mess devoid of deeper meaning it can still be great to be a part of that mess.

My dog is the happiest guy I know.

So is mine.

Jaguu · « **Reply #40 on:** February 24, 2004, 05:45:16 pm »

Before you can make real choices, you should learn over there how to count votes properly.

Maybe J River could develop some nice vote counting software that is able to count votes flawlessly and sell it to Florida and other states that seem to have difficulties with that.

I like xen-uno's attitude of never allow any government to rule for too much time. The problem is that if one is a good guy, 8 years might not be enough, if one is bad guy, 4 years is far too long.

As we always distrust power here in Switzerland, it was decided some 150 years ago that our president only rules for one year, then the next member of the government takes over. Of course, some power-mongers don't like it to resign at the end of just 12 months. But it's quite a safe heaven! In latin they say: "Primus inter parem", 7 guys rule better than a single one. So we used to have so much trust in them that we hardly knew their names!

KingSparta · « **Reply #41 on:** February 24, 2004, 08:01:41 pm »

Quote

"Same Sex Marriages"

Not sure how i feel about it, but i don't see what the big problem is with it, if they wish to call it a marriage so be it, I don't see the harm.

Now with that all the effects of that should be the same just as it is with a conventinal man\woman marriage, like divorce and the out come of law in a divorce.

Charlemagne 8 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 24, 2004, 08:28:53 pm »

Quote

...pushing to block "Same Sex Marriages" with an ammendment to the constitution was a pure political move.

Bingo. The beauty of it is that he knows that it won't and/or can't happen but he still gets credit for it.

Ironically, it's unconstitutional to amend the Constitution in this way ... the whole "separation of church and state" thing.

aussie1 · « **Reply #43 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:42:54 pm »

Irrespective of who wins the election, I think the long term health of the US is tenuous at best.

This country has incredible wealth and power. The citizens' optimism and innovation can overcome many things. The balance of power set forth in the Constitution has a way of correcting course when the country goes down the wrong path.

However, its time to refresh our memories about the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, or the Greek city states, or the British Empire, or the Habsburg Dynasty, or Ming China, or the Moghul Empire in India, ... The real question is, will the US decline slowly and steadily over 500 years such as happened with the Romans or will there be a dramatic crash?

The current trends (which can be corrected) point toward a crash. The country's finances are in a scary position - much worse than either party wants you to believe. Our free spending lifestyle is funded by Japanese and Chinese governments who are willing to purchase our debt. What happens when they start dumping these assets? What are we doing to pay for the looming cost of medicare and social security? We are outsourcing lower paying white-collar jobs overseas, but we do not have a monopoly on innvoation and ideas. All those intelligent engineers overseas are going to move up the food chain, especially since other countries do a better job of educating their children. Quality education is critical in a competitive knowledge economy. Our military is overextended and the situation in Iraq is much worse than the administration would have us believe. Everywhere I look, I can't find any positive long term trends. Help me out, I'd love to see it differently.

As it stands now, the era of the Clinton and Bush administrations is set to be viewed by history as the pinnical of American power. The Aristocracy in this country will do fine. In a way the whole war and homeland defense initiatives have been a massive wealth transfer from taxpaying middle class citizens to owners of defense, construction, and energy companies. I worry about the members of the upper-middle class who are outsiders, the entire middle class, and of course, the poor. They are going to get squeezed and luxuries we've come to expect are going to disappear.

That said, lets keep a little perspective. I've backpacked to poor remote villages in Asia, Africa, and South America. Most Americans at all levels of the socio-economic spectrum have it so much better. Most people in the US are not worrying about putting food on the table or basic health issues. And dispite all the (I would say misplaced) fear since 9/11, the US is mostly a safe place to live with lots of freedoms that are not available in many countries. I just wish we could teach people to save a little more. Our spending habits are morgaging our future. Our government's habbits mirror those of the citizens. It is not sustainable.

Neither party is offering any real solutions to these problems. Ralph Nader isn't either. But then the citizenry isn't really helping either. We complain about taxes. But we also complain when services we use are taken away. We keep asking for more pork.

I don't necessarily agree with the political slant of moveon.org. But the "Child's Pay" ad which won their competition is brilliant.

scott_r · « **Reply #44 on:** February 25, 2004, 01:12:32 am »

Quote

I understand that if I want to turn right or left, it's my (perceived) choice. If nobody else is in the car, whose choice is it? God's? Maybe. I assume that God guided my ultimate choice of right or left - hence, no accident. I may be saying that someone(thing) may "assist" that choice, but I don't know it.

I don't usually talk about religion much because I'm not religious and it confuses me too much

However, whenever I find myself in conversation with a religious person, I sometimes will ask (as many do) "If there is a God, then why is there so much bad in the world? Why do people kill, etc...". This is always answered with "Because He gave us free-will."
Now, if we, as humans posess "free-will" (yes, that is an ambiguous term, but I'll let people use their common sense on that one... probably not a good idea

), then the whole Eve eating the apple thing holds, and all seems fair enough.
However, you argue that humans don't actually posess free-will at all.. we are "guided" in our ultimate choices of left or right. Where does that leave poor Eve? And doesn't that make life pretty darn pointless?

I dunno... just rambling really. It's all too confusing for me...

Scott.

TimB · « **Reply #45 on:** February 25, 2004, 08:05:11 am »

Quote from: Charlemagne 8 on February 24, 2004, 08:28:53 pm

Quote
...pushing to block "Same Sex Marriages" with an ammendment to the constitution was a pure political move.

Bingo. The beauty of it is that he knows that it won't and/or can't happen but he still gets credit for it.

Ironically, it's unconstitutional to amend the Constitution in this way ... the whole "separation of church and state" thing.

First let me state that I'm fine with same-sex marriages. There's no harm, and leave me alone and I'll leave you alone too.

However surely its not unconstitutional to amend to Constitution in any way thinkable? We could have an amendment (and/or adjustments to allow this) prohibiting software developers from voting and it'd be legal, no?

I'm a recent US citizen so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

-=Tim=-

Bendra · « **Reply #46 on:** February 25, 2004, 09:02:20 am »

We last tried the amendment thing with Prohibition(according to The Daily Show, which is more educational than the networks). That went well.

salsbst1 · « **Reply #47 on:** February 25, 2004, 03:29:08 pm »

"...if i had to vote Democrat I would vote for [Edwards] over Kerry and the rest of the lot..."

I do not understand why Democrats who supposedly want to beat Bush are siding with Kerry. Kerry doesn't have nearly the appeal that Edwards has among swing voters. Oh well, 4 more years

salsbst1 · « **Reply #48 on:** February 25, 2004, 03:34:53 pm »

Why can't we just remove the word marriage from all legal documents and substitute it with "civil union"? Let marriage be a non-public thing? And why are some people determined to control other people's behavior even when it has no bearing on them?

Charlemagne 8 · « **Reply #49 on:** February 25, 2004, 07:28:37 pm »

TimB,
It's really more of a conundrum than an irony. But what word would that be? Conundrumity?
But I suppose that in theory you are right. If somehow you could suspend that part of the Constitution that prohibits Congress from making a "law respecting the establishment of a religion" long enough to make one then it would be part of the Constitution.

We could also rescind the Bill of Rights and declare that all men are not created equal. We could declare any number of prejudicial and biased things as being "great truths" and they would then have the force of law.

Tinkering with the Constitution would be a great travesty and would most likely precipitate the fall that was mentioned earlier in this thread. That is a can of worms that does not need to be opened. Most certainly not for a statement of narrow-minded, religious bias.

CVIII

INTERACT FORUM

Poll

If you're a US citizen, who would you vote for?

Author Topic: November, 2004 (Read 8116 times)

fex

fex

fex

fex