Counterglow Forums  

Go Back   Counterglow Forums > Site Issues > Archive > CounterPoint Archive

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2004, 22:04:08   #151
Chris
really doesn't pay attention
 
Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: With the Monkey Pirates
Quote:
Originally posted by Debaser
Quite a lot of people consider the war unjust & illegal Chris, so there's nothing "lunatic" or "fringe" about it.
I apprecate your opinion on that debaser, but it is not a logical conclusion.

When you say 'unjust,' it would be if the US intended to annex the nation.
Do they intend that?

I already addressed the illeagal aspect of it.
__________________
Her name is aphrodite and she rides a crimson shell
Chris is offline  
Old 05-11-2004, 22:06:17   #152
Koshko
...
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris
I apprecate your opinion on that debaser, but it is not a logical conclusion.

When you say 'unjust,' it would be if the US intended to annex the nation.
Do they intend that?

I already addressed the illeagal aspect of it.
Preception and Logic doesn't always go hand in hand.
Koshko is offline  
Old 05-11-2004, 22:06:42   #153
Chris
really doesn't pay attention
 
Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: With the Monkey Pirates
I'm worn out.

OK, a wrap up.

Kitty, I am with you far more than you realize, I believe in helping the little guy, and in gay rights.

But the left is completely full of shit in the USA, they are all talk and no action, they never do anything to really help. The right isn't much better, but at least they are trying.

I'll take trying over repeated bullshit slogans any day.

Maybe that makes me an evil, so be it.
__________________
Her name is aphrodite and she rides a crimson shell
Chris is offline  
Old 05-11-2004, 23:41:08   #154
Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
Not National Zombie Awareness Month
 
Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Gnawing at your brain
I can't vote, though I wanted to. I would have voted Kerry, mostly because I think Bush, whatever his intentions, however right or wrong his policies may have been, has made some poor decisions. But then, being in California, (as someone wrote on the Net) I'd have the luxury of voting for who I like and knowing full well it wouldn't affect the outcome

Leave aside, for the moment, invading Iraq (ha!) or whether the tax cuts affected the rich more. Most of my beefs with Bush (beyond that irritating smirk and his penchant for making up words and being a terrible public speaker - but keep in mind I equally was annoyed by that pointing thumb thing Kerry and Edwards kept doing...) were procedural rather than ideological.

For example, someone mentioned Halliburton earlier. The deal with that (for me) wasn't that Halliburton gets the lion's share of contracts from the Administration, it's that it didn't have to compete for it. I seem to recall the excuse given was that there weren't any worthwhile competitors, and so Halliburton got the job. I don't care: for the sake of legitimacy, put it out to bid. If the big H really did deserve the contracts, it would have gotten them fair and square. As it is, it does look like cronyism, and favoritism.

Chris, I don't agree with your portrayal of small businesses folding if they weren't given a tax cut, or if Kerry reimplemented the old tax rate for $200k+ incomes. They survived before the tax cut, they can do it again. Anyhow, I'm more interested in what Bush's plans are for tax code reform than a plain old tax cut under the current rules.

(Ironically, when I was back in Australia, I hated the idea of the 10% GST with a vengeance. Now I can sort of see the wisdom of it. It eliminates some of the punitive feel of higher tax rates for higher incomes, and still ensures lower incomes pay the least taxes overall.)

Finally, bringing up the issue of the war and all (though I said I wouldn't ), I don't like how Bush went to war - it was clearly at odds with the UN, whose treaty the U.S. signed and is supposed to uphold. It may have been "justified" under the "kill the terrorist supporters" but it wasn't entered into for that reason. And Bush was on track to do the U.N. thing the legitimate way, but for some reason (arrogance, it took too long, perceived French opposition, whatever) he took matters into his own hands and alienated a large percentage of the world.

I have a printout of the CNN alert on my security cabinet here in the office, it quotes the White House as declaring "The disarming of the Iraqi regime has begun", dated 10th March 2003.

Over time, the reason for the invasion shifted from WMD (when it became increasingly obvious there were none to be found) to routing out the terrorists and stopping the support (where there initially were few/none) to "liberating" the oppressed Iraqi people, to spreading freedom and democracy (I'll leave the argument about 'you can't force democracy on people who haven't learned the wisdom of having it' for another day). If, as Chris posted, Iraq was a supporter of terrorism, that should have been the primary reason for going in from Day 1.

With all that said, and returning to the U.N., I think Bush missed a great opportunity to shake things up at the U.N. Clearly, the U.N. is broken if nothing can ever be resolved and cases like Iraq (which had 12 years of sanctions that were ineffective, and Iraq continually defying) can go on with no measures taken. Bush could have used this as an opportunity to confront Chirac and demand to know (a) why he would veto an invasion, and (b) under what circumstances it would be OK. If Chirac's answer to (b) were conditions, that would have set up the opportunity to fix the problems with the Security Council deciding when force is appropriate (there are no workable guidelines now). If his answer was 'Never!', then Bush would have demonstrated that the system is truly broken, withdrawn from the U.N. citing national defence, and probably had better international support because of it.

But the whole thing was handled very, very badly, however justified it may have been (or not). Which seems to be the hallmark of the Bush reign.

Someone posted somewhere (here or elsewhere, I don't recall) that if the Republicans field a more moderate, more charismatic and more capable-presenting leader in 4 years, some of those blue states will turn red (providing the Democrats don't do likewise, clean up their platform a little, and present themselves as far less wishy-washy).
__________________
Not annoying anyone with my signature since 2011!
Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 01:12:27   #155
jsorense
Kinked Rockist
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the '60s.
I have a lot to say on this subject, but I'm too lazy.(shrugs)
__________________
"I wonder what became of all the Rockers and the Mods.
I hope they are making it and they've all got stead jobs,
Oh but rock and roll still lives on,
Yeah, rock and roll still lives on. "
jsorense is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 01:15:46   #156
Shining1
Evil Fanboy
 
Shining1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Zealand
Some of the inside details of the Kerry campaign seem to be leaking out now.

I'm not sure I would have voted Kerry faced with some of that. You don't just get a President when you elect one, you get a cabinet and a party machine along with him. The democrats... not a good machine at the moment.
__________________
Welcome to Destiny!
Welcome to War!
Shining1 is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 02:09:47   #157
BigGameHunter
Hunter of Game
 
BigGameHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lost in the jungle
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris
How do you know it was all Republicans?

Oregon isn't a red state, it sin't even close, and such a ban passed.
You're absolutely right, Chris. The percentage with which it passed indicates that most moderates and some "liberals" had to have voted too.
Though the wording was a bit misleading...I doubt enough so to screw up too many votes.

Personally, I think the attack on 9/11 had much more of an effect on the US than I had previously assumed.
When you contextualize it with the reaction to Pearl Harbor and they immediate sleeve-rolling "I'm gonna tear up some Japs" mindset toward a "seen" enemy, I guess a holistic shift to the right across the board kind of makes sense vs. a perceived "unseen" enemy.
Sort of a "if we can't kick their ass outright, we'll all band together and kick ass on a policy level, in all directions".
Well...that's my theory anyhow.
I voted very left in the hope of counterbalance, not division.
__________________
BOOM!
BigGameHunter is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 05:16:27   #158
Koshko
...
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Shining is right. The democrats are like a rusty old tractor right now.
Koshko is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 05:28:39   #159
Shining1
Evil Fanboy
 
Shining1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Zealand
That's one theory BGH. Another is that John "I voted for the war on Iraq before I voted against it" Kerry was just a really shit candidate and the Democrats sucked.

It's not terribly far fetched to suggest that Kerry and his appallingly managed campaign was itself responsible for much of the 3-4% swing against them. Remembering that the democrats this time were virtually unhindered by the Greens and Nader, to go from 50.6 or so of the popular vote to around 48% is more like a loss of 6 points than 2.

Certainly, it's a weird thing when a party can't take advantage of a failing economy, wall to wall state fuck ups (oil prices, flu vaccine, etc), an unresolved terrorist threat, massive overseas ill will and the least popular war since Vietnam. To lose 6 percentage points against a man best known for choking on a pretzel and saying 'They misunderestimated me' is ludicrous.

I'm just wondering if it might be a good idea to stop blaming bible bashing evangelical freaks and start blaming the democrats for the election result... :/
__________________
Welcome to Destiny!
Welcome to War!
Shining1 is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 06:15:51   #160
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
No shit.

They choose a candidate who declared American soldiers in general to be war criminals, and then they are shocked that many Democrats who served vote Republican, for Bush. Go FEEGUR!

They choose a guy who says 'it's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time' but we'll surely be able to get others to send their sons and daughters off to die there to save our own, and they're shocked that the average American sees Kerry as dumber than a sack of Bushes? Go FEEGUR!

And then there's the proclivity to ignore, or denigrate, the sensibilities of the majority of a nation who are by and large religious... The Democrats might as well have put up Bush Cheney signs on all their lawns.

It's not the fault of Democrats, Shiney, it's the fault of whoever they see as being the easiest target that they hate the most. IOW, evangelicals.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 06:42:41   #161
The Mad Monk
The REAL Nick Fury!
 
The Mad Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier
It wasn't just Kerry -- given what normally happens with unpopular presidents, the Republicans should have lost congressional seats, not gained them -- and they certainly should not have been able to shoot down a Senate Minority Leader.
__________________
At least he died doing what he loved. Insulting someone else's mother.

I will crush you. With happy little apples.

I am a happy little sig. virus. Please put me in your happy little sig. so I can continue to happily replicate. A little.

The Mad Monk is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 07:52:31   #162
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
That's a good point.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 10:46:39   #163
Funkodrom
Die Müfzwerge
 
Funkodrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Drowning in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry
Quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
They choose a candidate who declared American soldiers in general to be war criminals, Go FEEGUR!

They choose a guy who says 'it's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time' Go FEEGUR!
That'll teach the stupid democrats to be honest.
__________________
protein: Bryan Adams rocks
Blog - Band Müf Gigs 5th March BerkshireLive Aid
Funkodrom is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 11:02:22   #164
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Honest? Dumber than a sack of hammers maybe.

How would Labour have played saying that all the Tommies who went to the Falklands were war criminals?
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 11:12:11   #165
Funkodrom
Die Müfzwerge
 
Funkodrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Drowning in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry
The Falklanders is a British territory that was invaded. The population wanted us there, and we didn't have pictures of local sheep farmers locked up and beaten to death, we didn't napalm any villages and there were only 3 civillian casualties. Great comparison.

At least compare it with one of the many historical wars where we were generally terrible war criminals. We haven't done that in recent times. Plenty of stories of British attrocities through the ages. Would the opposition condemn them if we were doing stuff like that? I certainly hope so, and the population would support them. It would have been interesting what would have happened if those Mirror pictures of Brits torturing Iraqis hadn't turned out to be fakes.
__________________
protein: Bryan Adams rocks
Blog - Band Müf Gigs 5th March BerkshireLive Aid
Funkodrom is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 11:20:32   #166
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
South Vietnam was not a Communist country invaded by the US. The only govt that existed, that left by the French, wanted the US there, very much.

People often assume that the NV were the 'people' and the Yanks were the evil pig dog invaders.

That was not the case.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 11:21:19   #167
Shining1
Evil Fanboy
 
Shining1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Zealand
Yeah some people in this thread choose the strangest things to rain against sometimes... speaking out against the fucked up disaster that was the Vietnam war (I'm assuming that's where the war criminals thing comes from) was hardly a wrong move. The U.S most assuredly committed atrocities there, even if Mel Gibson doesn't put them in his silly movies.

The whole democrat focus on Bush's vietnam war record was weird in the extreme. So you're widely regarded as the worst president in 40 years, and we've got the numbers to prove it? Cool, let's pick an almost irrelevant detail from 30 years ago that has no bearing on being commander in chief and play that up! That'll fuck 'im... especially when it's the same war our candidate was noted for speaking out again.

The democrats showed an almost complete and total inability to go for the throat where it mattered.
__________________
Welcome to Destiny!
Welcome to War!
Shining1 is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 11:23:30   #168
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
btw, would any British politician equate the British Army in general to the Monguls, under any circumstances?
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 11:26:30   #169
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Quote:
Originally posted by Shining1
Yeah some people in this thread choose the strangest things to rain against sometimes... speaking out against the fucked up disaster that was the Vietnam war (I'm assuming that's where the war criminals thing comes from) was hardly a wrong move. The U.S most assuredly committed atrocities there, even if Mel Gibson doesn't put them in his silly movies.
Did you actually listen to, or read, what Kerry said about American soldiers in general?

This was 30 years ago, admittadely, but then again, he wanted to 'report for duty'.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 11:27:34   #170
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
The moron himself made Vietnam an issue!
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 17:00:29   #171
Funkodrom
Die Müfzwerge
 
Funkodrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Drowning in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry
No-one said Kerry ran a good campaign (I don't think anyway).

It's incredible that anyone could lose to Bush, no matter how good Bush's team was, but he somehow managed it.
__________________
protein: Bryan Adams rocks
Blog - Band Müf Gigs 5th March BerkshireLive Aid
Funkodrom is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 20:59:53   #172
Koshko
...
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
It does show how crappy the Democratic party really is right now. Wiat until 06 when the Reps steal a half-dozen more Senate seats from the Dems.
Koshko is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 00:52:37   #173
Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
Not National Zombie Awareness Month
 
Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Gnawing at your brain
Quote:
Originally posted by Shining1
That's one theory BGH. Another is that John "I voted for the war on Iraq before I voted against it" Kerry was just a really shit candidate and the Democrats sucked.

It's not terribly far fetched to suggest that Kerry and his appallingly managed campaign was itself responsible for much of the 3-4% swing against them. Remembering that the democrats this time were virtually unhindered by the Greens and Nader, to go from 50.6 or so of the popular vote to around 48% is more like a loss of 6 points than 2.

Certainly, it's a weird thing when a party can't take advantage of a failing economy, wall to wall state fuck ups (oil prices, flu vaccine, etc), an unresolved terrorist threat, massive overseas ill will and the least popular war since Vietnam. To lose 6 percentage points against a man best known for choking on a pretzel and saying 'They misunderestimated me' is ludicrous.

I'm just wondering if it might be a good idea to stop blaming bible bashing evangelical freaks and start blaming the democrats for the election result... :/
I vote this the most politically astute post about politics of ALL TIME!

I'm nominating you for a spot on National Public Radio's political commentary segments, Shining
__________________
Not annoying anyone with my signature since 2011!
Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 01:35:13   #174
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Tau Ceti
While that may be true, the really shocking part is the willingness to constitutionally forbid it (whether we are talking about state or federal constitutions). I can live with people not wanting to pass laws allowing it, but a constitutional ban is simply barbaric - especially when it is even extended to civil unions/domestic partnerships and benefits thereof.
That's cause you don't understand how easy it is in the States for us to change a city, county, or state constitution. Heck, we just made a constitutional amendment to the Alabama constitution to authorize the state to subsized advertising for Alabama Gulf Coast Shrimp!

2 more amendments were about specific city/local issues (pay grade of that city's judges matching federal, and a change of retirement planning/finance for city officials (only about that city)).

Many state constitutions are very narrow, but require a simple majority of votes for an amendment to add it to the state consitution.

So a constitutional amendment by Oregan to ban gay marriages (for example) really isn't a big deal... unless it passes like at 90% for. Cause you can just run counter/cancel on that issue in a slow, off year, and get it changed. And, again, Federal law trumps State law, so if Mississippi bans the recognition of gay marriages, the Federal law which requires that all States and Protectorates of the Union must recognize all other States and Protectorates civil contracts (that includes marriages and civil unions) will automatically triumph. Federally speaking, the State can only delay the issue by the amount of time it takes for the issue to be put in front of the Supreme Court, which, regardless of how many conservative whackos Bush manages to blackmail Congress to appoint, will still have to rule that Missippi must recognize Massachussettes gay marriages. We already know this, thanks to the Civil War (it was tried then, as well). That is why we are "one nation" and not a federation of some 57 states and protectorates.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 01:38:12   #175
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
In the naked sense of the d-word, dictatorship by a stupid majority herded by a bunch of rabid freaks qualifies as democracy, so I won't dispute that....
Which is what any democracy is. Tyranny of the largest group over the rest. The trick with a democracy is, sometimes you are in the largest group, and sometimes you aren't.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 01:44:04   #176
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Asher
9/11 was the best thing to ever happen to Bush.
Yes it was. I said at the time after he first got elected, that he'd be a simple one term president, unless something incredible horrible happened and caused the American public to rally around him. Just a few weeks after saying that, such a thing happened.

Now, I believe that he's got a good shot as being remembered as one of America's greatest presidents of all time. So long as... well, I'll just not say. No need to tempt fate...
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 01:46:14   #177
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty
Thats why no photos are allowed!

That one that got out cause enough problems.
You mean, the photos of the dead American Servicemen coming back from Afghanistan? And the photos of the dead Columbia crew? Both of which were ran with the captions of the dead returning from Iraq?

Gee, I cannot imagine why lieing about the source of those pictures would have made anyone upset, HK.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 01:51:33   #178
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Shining1
Erm, WMD? A rushed war based on lies and misinformation with no plan for how to win the peace. And which meanwhile stretchs the resources to extremes, as well as creating a fertile new recruiting ground for the enemy...?

That kind of behaviour is not cause to chill out. Like much of the rest of the world, I'm kinda holding my breath waiting to see 'what happens next'.
That's exactly what was said about WW1 and WW2. What was our plan to win the peace then? Smash the enemy flat, and then rebuild. It didn't work in WW1, but it did seem to work for WW2.

Are you in agreement with that 45 to 49 percent American citizens that thought America should have become Fortress America behind 100 foot cement walls, cut off all communication and business with the outside world, and let the world go to hell, S1?

Being in NZ, aren't you more focused in how the Whackos react to Oz being a best friend of the US? And as most of the world don't know the difference between an Ozzie and a Kiwi, how that would reflect and effect you?
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 01:54:22   #179
Chairman Yang
Registered User
 
Chairman Yang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sweden
Chairman Yang is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 02:06:44   #180
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Has been tried (esp San Francisco mayor, I think), but without success.
Yes, but California has a specific ban against same sex marriage in their State constitution. When SF's mayor's civil disobediance was reviewed by the California State Court, it was found the marriages were illegal, and the issue was dropped, rather then pursued up the legal chain of courts.

With that specific decision by the People of the State of California, they'd have had more room to fight it.

But it will only take someone with enough patience and money to push it up the legal court chain... the US Constitution doesn't allow for sexual discrimination, and banning same sex marriage is certainly that. I believe its just a matter of time, and not too much, at that. What will be interesting is the various polygymy cases that will follow. (They always do...)

Now, if the Polys get in, it won't be long before the Pedoes (backed by the ACLU) will be filing to legal what they do, and what they want... But as no one in the next few generations is going to legalize child abuse, that won't have any possible chance of passing. (The poly arrangements *might* since that's a legally recognized civil contract between consenting adults.)
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 02:12:27   #181
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Tau Ceti
My objection is mainly to making constitutional amendments on the issue, although ultimately, I believe it is an issue of basic rights that should not be subject to the whim of the majority.
So, you don't believe in democracy. That's all a democracy is... tyranny of the majority.

So who do you trust then? Which particular elite group are the ones trusted in deciding and enforcing "The Big Things"?
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 02:17:08   #182
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by protein
I sat on the bus next to some rather loud American students yesterday. I found myself wondering if they were nice Americans or evil Americans.
There Tourists, aren't they? Obviously evil! (Foreign students are just extended tourists, aren't they. )

And what's this noise about nice Americans? All Americans are EVIL! Some are just unproven Evil Americans.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 02:39:11   #183
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Shining1
Certainly, Bush won the election and the popular vote without any lawyers this time. That IS a mandate from the people. Democracy is a scary scary thing like that.

I think a lot of people here have bought too heavily into the whole christian right side of your party though and are fully expecting a horde of bible waving lunatics to sweep across the earth despoiling everything in their path.

More realisitically, there's concern as to whether people like Kitty are going to have some of their options and personal freedoms sacrificed to appease the aforesaid extremists.
Kitty hasn't lost any options or personal freedom. She does, in fact, have many options where her employer would grant all rights to her partner that they'd grant a legally married spouse. Not all, certainly, but a good number of them. Asher has broken that very issue down before.

Now, in some places, if Kitty's external heart had to go to the hospital, they'd block Kitty from seeing her. Most actually, as I understand it, but I'm not up on that particular issue. But that was how it was before Kerry was running for President. So no difference.

Now, there's some message being communicated that some people may have gained options if Bush wasn't re-elected, but that is simply BS. They aren't gaining under Bush, but the reverse is not true. They wouldn't gain under Kerry either.

And it wasn't the wacko bible thumpers that carried the vote. The Demonsuckers have been playing with the numbers. The break down of why people voted for Bush was grouped in such a fashion to make "Moral Values" look #1. In putting the data together, the #1 concern was War (Terror/Iraq) at 42%, the #2 concern was economy at 34% (They decided to not rock the boat because things were good for THEM), and last at 24% was Moral Values (10 Commandaments on federal grounds, Gay Marriage, etc).

Looking at places with "Moral Values" issues on the vote (like the 11 state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage), they did have a very high turnout. But in Oregan, 25% more people voted for the ban then voted for President! Oreganians didn't want it legal for Venom and Funkodrome to get married to each other there. I don't know why... (And most of those who voted for Prez there, voted for Kerry, remember.)

The Demonsuckers have been doing a lot of spinning. They are spinning, harder and harder. They are trying to figure out how its not their leadership's fault that they didn't win. After all, those in power want to retain it. And they really have to rally their own forces, or face becoming marginalized within their own party, after their current long losing streak.

For America, the extremists are *not* in charge. As I've already said elsewhere, the Christian Shock Troops will not being marching up and down the street, ripping out satellite dishes or burning anyone's porn. Bush has a chance to get something pretty big through, while the Demonsuckers are still reeling, but it won't be long before Congress is planning on getting another term extension on their careers, so they aren't going to let anything to big by themselves for very long.

We might end up with 2% of our Social Security holdings going into a different "savings" bucket because it was Bush that was elected, but that is probably going to be the extent of his "changes" and reformation of our financial code. And that is all he is concerned with, domestically.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 02:41:58   #184
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Lurker
So what. There's a lot of Americans who are upset about the recent vote, but we seem to get along.
Amen Lurker!
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 02:55:30   #185
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty
Unless you believe the bipartisian reports that say that it wasn't.

Iraq certainly is a terrorist state enabler now.

As for your accident death comment, then why should we worry about abortion? Or mass murderers? Why did we get upset about the WTC?

And what portion of that actually helps people who needed tax releif?
First off, the bipartisan reports did say that. You might want to read them occasionally rather then just spit up liberal talking points.

Second, Iraq is not an enabler now. However, it certainly was when Saddam was paying Hamas for every suicide bomber that killed Isreali. Right now, Iraq is an active site of terrorists. Saudi Arabia is a terrorist enabler. But we cannot attack the Islamic equivalent of the Vatican. So, we continue to apply every kind of economic and political pressure that we dare.

We only worry about abortion because some of the citizenry of the US finds it wrong for various reasons. CUrrently, that is a minority view, just as the view that gays should be allowed to have legally recognized marriages is a minority view.

We only worry about mass murderers because the media tends to report on their exploits, raising public outcry. Our elected officials then feel that their chances of being re-elected will lower if they aren't seen to be "doing something", hence the additional attention that they direct towards catching such beings. The police, being in charge of protecting people, find that mass murders make them look bad, hence they pay them more priority.

Why did we get upset about WTC? Well, because the media played the hell out of it. Same reason people thought Kerry had a chance at being elected. The WTC had been bombed before, but that didn't make for as dramatic footage, so we didn't see that played to death. News loves human suffering, and the more of it, the more they play it.

100% of them, Kitty. That's the percent that got the tax break. It might not have been as big as they wanted, but every bit helps.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 03:09:02   #186
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty
You can't include the rotation rate in that. Basic stats.
Now now Kitty. Your stat is "from the beginning" so you can only properly compare it to the number of troops "from the begining". Otherwise, you are trying to pull an Enron on people, and if they look at the numbers or logic, will find that problem.

You do realize that the Armed Services have lost more American Service Men and Women in the US since the start of the Iraqi war. Should we abandon the US territory? Hell, for most months of the Iraqi occupation, we lost more Marines and Army service men in California then in Iraq! Should we pull out of California?

Be careful with numbers. The number of service people that have been, that are being lost, and that will be lost in Iraq are not significant when viewed with the number of people that will be lost in the services regardless of Iraq. That is an unfortunate fact... we will lose more American service people to general human folly (falling asleep in a jacuzzi and drowning, for instance) then due to them being attacked by hostile forces (or through hostile actions) in Iraq. Iraq is not Vietnam. It is not Korea. It is not WW2. Trying to put it in terms of numbers lost or wounded, and it will look like nothing in comparison to other dangers, hostilities, or just human folly (getting drunk and falling down stairs, for instance).
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 03:12:36   #187
Chairman Yang
Registered User
 
Chairman Yang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sweden
someone please create a darkstar forum, ban everyone from it except darkstar, ban darkstar from here, and he can live happily ever after debating himself.
Chairman Yang is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 03:14:27   #188
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty
since we illegally invaded Iraq.
It wasn't illegal, Kitty. The President has the constitutional power to order hostile action if he deems it necessary. But only Congress has the constitutional power to authorize a war. They authorized war on Iraq (twice!). Therefore, by Law, it was legal.

You've gotten very sloppy in your leftists spinnings, HK.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 03:20:55   #189
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Shining1
Koshko: Does the U.S have anything like the CPI (Consumer Price Index) in New Zealand?

Chris: Yeah that helps a bit. Iraq is still scary as hell, though, and I over time I've come to think that the decision to go there when the threat was so indirect compared to the direct threat from the terrorists was less than ideal.
Yes, US does. It's gone down recently, as the cost of so many goods has gone down. If I can believe the non-leftists press here.

I agree that Iraq was not the #2 terror threat, with what we know now. But I believe Bush and his administration wanted to open up a second visible front on the "War on Terror". Would it had been better for it to have not happened? Or should he have tried elsewhere with the same risk to whatever coalition (and lets face it, we know the UK and Ozzies would go in wherever the US went... we are all just that good chums, after all) was put together?
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 03:29:55   #190
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Angelhorns
Iraq were no threat, N.Korea however....
It was just a big revenge war based on mistruthifications or whatever Bush likes to call it.
I'm not mourning the loss of hussein, but if there was ever a time to depose him it was back in the 80's when his own people rose up and asked for our help.
You can't force democracy on people...its well...undemocratic.
North Korea, however, would fight a lot harder. And has a few nuclear weapons (thanks to the UN and all those "sanctions" people like to say work) to blow the crap out of our friends in South Korea.

I believe that North Korea was and is more dangerous then Iraq. However, we cannot go in there as easily. Plus, they don't have anything the world wants... except lots of North Koreans. And "the world" doesn't need a democracy in the area to show them the wonders of what capitalism can do for them. South Korea is there to show all in the region.

The 80s was nasty. We encouraged those people to rebel against Saddam. And then we didn't back them. Left them out to hang. Very nasty.

And we have forced democracy on plenty of people. Large and small nations. We do it all the time. What, did you sleep through history? It's a classic of the Super Power of the time... topple a government or invade a country and install your own friendly regime. It has been done since men and women first started forming large social groups like towns and cities. Possibly before that. If it didn't work, we'd have stopped doing it thousands of years agao.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 03:31:54   #191
Chairman Yang
Registered User
 
Chairman Yang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sweden
WILL IT NEVER STOP!??
Chairman Yang is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 03:39:36   #192
Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
Not National Zombie Awareness Month
 
Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Gnawing at your brain
Quote:
Originally posted by Darkstar
That's exactly what was said about WW1 and WW2. What was our plan to win the peace then? Smash the enemy flat, and then rebuild. It didn't work in WW1, but it did seem to work for WW2.

Are you in agreement with that 45 to 49 percent American citizens that thought America should have become Fortress America behind 100 foot cement walls, cut off all communication and business with the outside world, and let the world go to hell, S1?

Being in NZ, aren't you more focused in how the Whackos react to Oz being a best friend of the US? And as most of the world don't know the difference between an Ozzie and a Kiwi, how that would reflect and effect you?
I think that in WWI and WWII, not winning the peace wasn't such a big deal. The biggest deal was just winning the war, since there was actually a real danger of Bad Things happening globally if they didn't. What Bad Things might have happened if Saddam had been left in power? Iraqi citizens would have been oppressed and tortured, and maybe some more $25k payments would have made it into the hands of Palestinian suicide bombers' families. Until Saddam died, of course, after which the future of Iraq was kind of up in the air. While these things would have been bad for those involved, it's not exactly global catastrophe, and I don't think the level or terrorist support Iraq was providing justified the response it got from the U.S.


As to your last paragraph, DS, IIRC Bin Laden threatened to blow up the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in New South Wales during the 2000 Olympics, but AFAIK nothing even remotely came close to happening. I also thinl that "the terrorists" got real lucky in 2001 when they managed to not only hit the WTC, but that they fell down. I don't think ANYone was expecting that kind of result, least of all Bin Laden.

So long as NZ and Aust. maintain their informal rivalry, Kiwis should be fairly safe. Plus there's not much there to actually blow up, beyond a few sheep.
__________________
Not annoying anyone with my signature since 2011!
Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 03:40:04   #193
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty
HOWEVER, it did find numerous DIRECT links between Saddam, Al Qaeda as well as Palestian terror organizations.

By direct links you mean "made phone contact or met in the last 20 years.

Try to worm your way ourt of bad arguements a different way.

Unless you look at how they are distributed. The poor and lower middle class barely had any change, and in fact more people are in poverty now than ever before. But hey, that major tax cut that didn't do anythign for them has to help!
Direct links include face to face meetings, contracts drawn agreed to and signed, etc etc etc. You really need to drop that line forever, Kitty. You are arguing from spin, not fact.

You have been doing terrible. Again, that's due to you arguing from spin, not fact. You use one stat and try to spin it is a different stat then it is to support your claims, telling Chris he cannot use the same stat to put it in perspective.

More people live in "American" poverty then ever before. That is a fact. But, more Americans don't live in poverty then ever before. Just as more Americans voted Demonsucker ever before... but the majority still voted Repukington. Try using a real comparison. When viewing a history of "American Poverty" (which is not the same thing as poverty anywhere else in the world), how has the percentage changed? Last I heard, the percentage had dropped, but that's not a stat the Lefties want said out loud. Or even looked up. It doesn't support their arguments, after all.

Again, Kitty, be careful with numbers. You are spinning something that doesn't support your claims when viewed in the context it was taken from.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 03:53:05   #194
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty
Apparently the "right time" is when you can make up things that will scare the hell out of the public after a major terrorist attack so they won't question you.

Iraq hadn't been a threat to anyone since the gulf war.

Now they are the centerpiece of proof about the goals of the US.
If it wasn't for 9/11, we'd still be overflying his country, wondering if the Kurds are going to succede this year (and cause all hell to break lose), and bitching cause Daddy Bush didn't support the rebellion when he had a chance.

Iraq was a growing threat Kitty. It probably wouldn't have ever been a *direct* threat to US (other then Saddam sending over the occasional Iraqi agents to play terrorists here.. something that was also documented in those bi-partisan findings you like to claim doesn't have anything about Saddam being nasty terrorist enabler). But taking a direct hand to knock over Saddam does fit into the "get the terrorists and there supporters whenever we can without much risks to ourselves or our allies".

Iraq is a centerpiece of the US and its current goals. Get rid of anyone we think helps terrorists... where we can.

We can't go in and just kill the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia... the #1 terrorists enabler. That would be seen as a *real* call to war by the conservative Islamist. They are the guardians of Mecca, after all. We cannot go after #2... North Korea. They'd nuke South Korea. #3 and #4... India and Pakistan, are now our best buds.

Hell, we cannot go after #5... Iran. Why? because the majority of people in Iran are on the verge of revolution. So we are playing a waiting game while trying to figure out how to keep them from getting the bomb.

#6... Lybia. They said they want to be nice people now. Please don't kick out ass.

We are fast running out of choices...

Note: The war on Al-Quada has been proceeding, and doing well. How do we know its well? The leadership of Al-Q has began to beg for some form of truce that allows it to retain its face. A strong enemy does not offer you a mutual "leave us the hell alone" agreement if they are doing well.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 03:58:25   #195
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris
Without the tax break, Billy's company folds, billy is thrown out of work, and since the cost of operating is so high, Billy is added to the unemployment rolls, as remains unable to find work, as the economy continues to implode under a severe tax burden (which doesn't hurt the super rich, BTW, ask Tereza, she paid 17% in taxes on her billions). Billy's unemploement runs out, and Billy is homeless.

Desponded, Billy slits his wrists and dies.
12%. Tereza paid 12% taxes on her earned income. Chaneys paid 17%. The Bushes paid 34% (they, apparently, do not have the wiz bang accountants that the Chaneys, Clintons (18%), and the Heinz-Kerry had.)
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 04:05:14   #196
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris
AFTER NORTH KOREA HAD STARTED ENRICHING URANIUM, in violation of the traety.

I knew this before we began Kitty, Bush didn't break the treaty, Kim Ill Jung did, but you are too partisan to see it.
Kim broke the treaty just a couple of years into it. Back with Clinton and the IAEA. So Clinton cut another deal. And Kim broke that one. And they did that for a third time.

Kim was never serious about not having nukes. Why? because he was a paranoid mother fucker that wanted nukes to keep other nations from invading. And guess what? He was right to do so. I think N Korea having the bomb is the reason N Korea was never a real option for a "second front".

Kitty, the IAEA, you know, the UN's specific agency to monitor and prevent nuclear proliferation, admits Kim broke it under Clinton, repeatily. The US had negotiated for Kim to "come back" to the agreement, but Kim never did. That's according to the IAEA. You might want to start using facts, not spin, in your arguments.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 04:11:38   #197
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Koshko
Well when you do tax cuts across the board, the weathiest will benefit the most because they are being taxed more money per each 1% in the first place. You lower a middle class families taxes by 1% and they can save a few hundred. You lower richer families taxes by 1% and they can save a few thousand.
Give the man a cigar. He's caught on.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 04:30:45   #198
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Shining1
Uhhhh....

Not to be a nut but that sounds really fucked up, Chris. The U.S is by definition NOT an illegal occupying army? :/

I can kinda get what you're saying but putting it like that won't work for more than a few people here I think.
The US isn't illegal by US terms... our Congress authorized us to go there.

And we aren't illegal in internation terms because the UN authorized it. So, where is the illegality?

Oh... if you are an Iraqi Bathist! That's where?

I find it valid for an Iraqi resister to call us illegal. But I do not find it valid for Kitty to do so. She's an American citizen, and by her own consent (via her elected Congressional representatives), she authorized it. All Americans authorized it.

If your country is participating in the Coalition, it is difficult for you to make the claim its illegal. Especially if you are say, German. Not French though... they had forces in Iraq helping to resist the Coalition's invasion. Small force... just military advisors.

To those opposed to all wars, you I have no trouble with calling it illegal.

Now, whether it was "moral" or not depends on how you fell about police forces... that is, how you feel about a group of people deciding to use force on other people to stop them from doing something.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 04:56:58   #199
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Funkodrom
No-one said Kerry ran a good campaign (I don't think anyway).

It's incredible that anyone could lose to Bush, no matter how good Bush's team was, but he somehow managed it.
If we had all the stories and coverage that you got over there, we might think that. But we didn't. And it isn't a "Fox News" thing. Our mainstream media focused dutifully on whatever Kerry's people told it (very often, as continues to leake out of the former Kerry campaign, CBS, and ABC)... They picked their own disasters.

Bush isn't viewed badly here. In fact, he's viewed very positively by the majority of Americans. We simply have a different perspective. When we see a nasty international rag running yet another nasty story (like yet another piece about Abu-G), we know it's those are exceptions and extremes, and not how it really is. That's not arrogance. That's your human nature at work. When the story is about British mistreating humans, we'd probably cluck with dark glee (and go, I never want the British to detain me!)... but again, that's perception. As Americans, we know that the Abu-G thing was an extreme odditity, not general policy. American policy isn't dead set against it at the moment (which turns into encouragement to the truly sick and fanatical), but we know that isn't how its getting done in most places. It's just "un-American". That's why we just go "such a shame", and "hey, stop this! Its making us look bad!". But we are not blaming Bush... or even Rummie over it. (Despite what your and our press like to claim.)

Demonsuckers like to say that a turnip running against Bush would win. But the truth is that both Hilary and Bill Clinton both said that Bush was unbeatable and that even holding an election was a waste of time and money that would be better spent for 08. Why is that? Because Bush is liked by the majority.

Why? There's a few simple reasons...

#1) No large, splashy terrorist attack on American soil.
#2) The economy is booming. Most americans are better off today then 4 years ago. (The facts are showing that.)
#3) Bush is an optimist. (The optimist offers hope.)

#2 and #3 are enough to have guaranteed his re-election in a 9/10 world. Add in #1 in a 9/11 world, and it should have been a larger avalanche.

As Kosh has been saying... its perception. We see things are doing pretty well, through most of this nation (Things suck pretty bad in a lot of those Kerry counties and cities, but are doing pretty well in all those Bush counties and cities). Remember, if the God and Goddess of the Demonsuckers, the Clintons, thought their was zero chance for Bush to be defeated (short of him being killed during campaigning), the rest of the world shouldn't be surprised.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403
Darkstar is offline  
Old 09-11-2004, 05:25:09   #200
Darkstar
will bitch for beer
 
Darkstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rocket City
Quote:
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
I think that in WWI and WWII, not winning the peace wasn't such a big deal. The biggest deal was just winning the war, since there was actually a real danger of Bad Things happening globally if they didn't. What Bad Things might have happened if Saddam had been left in power? Iraqi citizens would have been oppressed and tortured, and maybe some more $25k payments would have made it into the hands of Palestinian suicide bombers' families. Until Saddam died, of course, after which the future of Iraq was kind of up in the air. While these things would have been bad for those involved, it's not exactly global catastrophe, and I don't think the level or terrorist support Iraq was providing justified the response it got from the U.S.

As to your last paragraph, DS, IIRC Bin Laden threatened to blow up the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in New South Wales during the 2000 Olympics, but AFAIK nothing even remotely came close to happening. I also thinl that "the terrorists" got real lucky in 2001 when they managed to not only hit the WTC, but that they fell down. I don't think ANYone was expecting that kind of result, least of all Bin Laden.

So long as NZ and Aust. maintain their informal rivalry, Kiwis should be fairly safe. Plus there's not much there to actually blow up, beyond a few sheep.
Qaj, the trick is that extremists don't tend to notice the subtle distinctions. Like, for instance, being an innocent child just going to school. They do these splashy things to get on the news so people understand that they aren't safe, no matter what, until the terrorist get whatever it is they want. Otherwise, terrorism doesn't work. It's just psychos hurting and killing without any moral justification then. And they don't want to be seen as psychos, they want to be seen as heroes of their people!

It has been noted that terror bombings by Hamas have dropped against the Israeli since Saddam has stopped paying them. I wonder if the Israeli feel that Saddam paying Hamas was a big deal?

Humm... So, your position is to allow the evil you know is hurting and killing people and let time sort it out? What if it wasn't countries... what if it was people? If Saddam was your neighbor, beating his wife, kids and elderly mom, selling questionable goods, and paying the local gang to make sure that no one else competed with him? Do you do nothing, cause eventually he's going to die? After all, no domestic abuse is ever a global consequence. And that is exactly what you are arguing...

As for no plan for piece... you are again claiming it doesn't matter cause it wasn't you. How is what is going in Iraq now affecting you? Other then all the whining and moaning you hear about it? What with you being in California.

The difference between post-WW2 and now is more of presentation. Back in 47 ot 48, the news wouldn't run such things in such large focus. Just a nasty comment or two in an otherwise "everything is sugary now that peace has been won" report. Of course, if they had 500 channels of medium to fill 24/7, it would have been a different story. I don't believe its a matter of censorship... just chasing their audience. The Man Show doesn't put on "Deep Blues best chess matches", after all.
__________________
> clue++;
> display clue;
-878923403

Last edited by Darkstar; 09-11-2004 at 05:29:15.
Darkstar is offline  
 
Forum Jump

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:27:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Counterglow 2001-2012. All rights reserved.