Chilly
-
Posts
12,485 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Chilly
-
-
Bush and the neo-con outlook is loathed generally outside the US, but not the GOP. Rudolph Guilliani, Powell, McCain are all figures that people would be happy with, it is Bush, specifically, that people (including the Grauniad) have a problem with. But being pragmatists they will just B word about it and get on with their lives more or less as normal.
I agree with that a lot. I know that hile I voted for Kerry, if someone that wasn't a neo-con but a republican such as McCain I would have voted for him in a heart beat.
-
Let's see, Chef Jim.
He's been asked many times on many interviews if he would do it all the same again, Mission Accomplished sign and everything, and he's said yes.
I think Iraq is going to get more violent, and Iraq needed to declare this a while ago, as well as attacking fallujah. However, Bush wouldn't and couldn't have this happen during the reelection campaign as it would give ammo to Kerry.
-
I think he should get a Darwin award just for removing his genes from the gene pool.
-
Sure, I can explain.
Actually I was very surprised about Kerry when he talked about his abortion views in the debate. I believe they are similar to mine.
I think abortion is immoral. I feel that the only legitimate argument against abortion is that it is the same thing as murder. When someone is murdered, why is it immoral? Because you took that person's future experiences away - whether he was going to be killed in 1 second or 100 years from now its still immoral. You are doing the same thing to a fetus that you are doing when you murder someone - taking away someone's future experiences. (Gore Vidal wrote an essay with this theory in the 1970s I believe for the New York Times if anyone is interested)
However, while I believe this, there are some legitimate philosophical arguments that are for abortion. Its a long standing debate between contemporary moral philosophers during our time. I recognize that it is a very divided issue.
There is no clear right or wrong on this issue - just two conflicting schools of thought. As such, I don't think that we should have laws on this to decide for us what to do. Our country was founded on the idea of freedoms and liberties, and it should be each person's right to decide this moral issue for themselves, and I don't mean by voting - that is society's overall collective view. I think it should be each individual peson's morality choice and not a legal choice. There is a big difference.
I also am concerned about the emergence of underground, nonsafe abortion clinics with a ban on abortion, endangering many more mothers lives then necessary (if people feel like abortion is their only option, they are going to get an abortion no matter what the laws).
This is why I am pro-choice, but anti-abortion.
BTW, in response to anyone saying its the woman's choice to get pregnant so they should not be able to have an abortion: I know one thing that I've learned in my life time. People are going to have sex. To take a slogan from ten - Sex happens. Every human gets horny and quite often I must say, and humans have a natural (whether it be from mother nature or god) to have sex. Irresponsible people are going to ahve sex, and so are reponsible people with ineffective contraceptives. Its not just reality to think its not going to happen and expect everyone to choose to stay abstinent if they don't want a child.
-
Get McGee out of there, he sucks really bad right now.
-
I like what I see from McGahee so far in this game.
He's better then Henry in two key areas:
- He sees the field faster and better then Henry
- He can pick up a block better then Henry
These two things are big difference between the two, and I think you have to go with McGahee due to it.
-
No, the reason why I can ppick up Halo and play likes it's the first time is becasue it's a damn good game. I can't think of another FPS that I can do that with. I just started Attack on the Control center for the upteenth time. Great level.
I know I'm in the minority here, but Half-Life did not do much for me. I didn't like the graphics at the time, and the story was very slow to develop. I'm not sure if I even finished it.
Hehe, I did that with HL back in the day, and I couldn't do that with Halo.
I thought Half-life's story was probably one of the best ever that I've played, and I felt it developed quickly. Back in 1998 the graphics were revolutionary when it first came out, changing the genre completely.
-
I can't believe there is even discussion about this.
The only reason why some of you can pickup Halo and play it like its the first time is because it hasn't been out since 1998.
Half-life is the best FPS of all time, and everything points to Half-life 2 being even better (reviews, interviews, previews, betas, and cs: source showing off the engine). I don't thinkt here is even any competition.
As to what game I'll be buying first over the next month? World of Warcraft for sure.
-
I like living in Florida but going to college in Texas.
I get to vote in a swing state without the advertisements.
-
Its a presidential election between primarily two people. You have to go with the candidate who better matches your concerns on the issues. You don't have to agree with everything, and it should be evaulated within a comparative context, as no candidate is going to be the perfect candidate. Saying he's not George Bush is valid if you hardly agree at all with George Bush.
In any event, to me the biggest issue with the Presidential election this year is foreign policy, and Kerry represents my feelings on the war on terrorism better then President Bush does.
Bush sees the war on terror as a primarily military effort, with minimal "police" type work needed. Kerry is just the opposite, viewing the war on terror as primarily a police effort with some military effort.
Why do I agree more with Kerry? I don't think that by primarily spreading democracy we are going to be able to eliminate and wage an effective war on terrorism. Neither does Kerry, he feels that no matter where we spread democracy, it will still be possible to hide in some country, so just spreading democracy isn't enough. Plus, are we really going to be able to spread democracy everywhere?
We have to do our part to make sure countries are eliminating terrorism, and that does involve war and invading them at times. I don't think this is even close to all of what we need to do, and I think Kerry realizes this better then Bush does.
-
Maybe you should go back to college, seeing as you are having a hard time comprehending his point:
Just because someone is younger then you and/or is in college doesn't mean their voice shouldn't be heard.
-
Oh right, because since I'm in college, means I haven't worked during High School or College? I don't understand the value of money?
Get your head out of your ass. Gee, I'm sure everyone who is closed minded and only thinks that their opinion matters are proud of you. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:
-
-
Me and all my friends I knew from High School who are off at college all turned in our absentee ballot a couple weeks ago for Kerry.
The state? Florida.
An interesting note on this from electoral-college.com (a very unbiased site who si run by an admitted Kerry supporter, but uses only polls and discusses polls for the actual information of the site):
As I have discussed repeatedly, normally people with a cell phone but no landline are not polled. Most of these are in the 18-29 year old group. Up until now, no one has known how their absence from the polling data might affect the results. Zogby has now conducted a very large (N = 6039) poll exclusively on cell phones using SMS messaging to get a feeling of how they will vote. The results are that they go strongly for Kerry, 55% to 40%, with a margin of error of only 1.2%. If they all vote tomorrow, the pollsters are going to spend the rest of the week wiping egg from their faces. But historically, younger voters have a miserable turnout record, so the pollsters need not yet stock up on paper towels.It looks like this election could come down to Florida (again) according to the latest poll data as he discussed there, and with the quote above, it looks like it might come down to first time voters in Florida. With the election being so heated, I'm hoping that Kerry's turnout numbers for young voters will be increased dramatically, and that he'll win the election.
-
Yeah...let's sit here and wait for them again. Let them have their way in the Middle East. Let them buy what they want, train as they want, recruit as they want, plan and plot and attack as they want. Great strategy. This is the one Kerry plan I completely understand, and I can only hope it never comes down to that.
Obviously you don't.
-
the 'anybody but drew' crowd reminds me of john kerry supporters. most can't give me one reason to vote for kerry and go off on what's wrong with bush. and most of the 'anybody but drew' crowd can't give one reason to start matthews other than what's wrong with bledsoe (and losman is neither healed nor ready)
*note* not meant as an endorsement of either bush or bledsoe, just an observation on prevailing attitudes
Not everyone is an idiot like the people you've spoken too.
Reminds me of the Bush crowd who go "I'm voting for Bush because he's more of a Christian then Kerry."
Stupidity on both sides. If you would like to chat about that lemme know in a pm or something
-
Bono deserves to have his neck sliced open, then sowed back up and the other side sliced open.
-
Oh hell yeah, it mocked the craziness from Bush and Kerry alike. From Hollywood and Washington.
Oh, and it was the first time I had given it to my new girlfriend.
Was a great movie, and a fun night.
-
Rich, I wonder if Bush will apologize for the stevestojan lies he's said about Kerry.
Fact is, they both are pieces of stevestojan deceptive politicians, and you have to be to get hired. Sad, but true.
-
Inaccurate. It's a common misconception and over-generalization about the Saudis, actually...they in part created the rabid Islamic fundamentalist movement out of the Afghan Mujahadeen, yes, but they've been under immense pressure from the very same terrorist forces that most people assume they back. The Saudis are literally fighting for their lives against Islamic extremist terrorists - if the extremists manage a coup, the House of Saud is executed en masse, guaranteed. The problem with the Saudis isn't that they support terrorism so much as they're so internally divided over their fundamentalist Islamic principles and the need to provide for their very survival that they very rarely achieve any sort of effectiveness against terrorism. But just beacuse bin Laden and a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi-born doesn't make Saudi Arabia culpable...the Saudis actually saught the extradition of bin Laden from the Taliban for quite a few years, and ultimately broke of relations with the Taliban over the issue.
And what amazes me in the whole argument is that no one ever complains about Pakistan's role in the whole mess. I would say the Pakistanis and the ISI are far more responsible for spreading Islamic extremism through central Asia than the Saudis. In a very real sense it is far more accurate to speak of the Taliban as a Pakistani-backed organization than a Saudi-backed one. And there again, Musharraf is fighting for his government and his life against the very internal and external extremist Islamic elements that Pakistan created.
Neither country has exactly been a saint on the international stage...but the monster they created ultimately turned around and bit them on the ass a good while before 9/11 happened. They may have created the mess, but they're sure not doing a whole lot as a matter of policy to perpetrate it now, not when their very survival depends on it.
Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden have had a major falling out, that is for sure a documented fact. But they still have a huge number of ties to heavily financing Terrorism, ties that make them, to me, a lot more of a problem then other countries.
The Saudi's chairtible organizations have been consistently and recently meeting with the leaders of Hamas, and the leaders of Hamas have publically thanked them for helping them. The Israeli national assessment is that Saudi Arabia today funds more than 50 percent of the needs of Hamas, and the Saudi percentage in the total foreign aid to Hamas is actually growing. U.S. law enforcement officials agree. (This was published in a New York Times article a year ago).
-
I agree that he needed to go. The problem though is that we didn't focus on the more immediate problems. I firmly believe that Bush's ties to the Saudi's will prevent anything from being done about them, and thats just sad. The Saudis are much more important to the War on Terror then Iraq was, and they remain a deterimental source of terrorism.
The problem is I don't believe Kerry will do anything about them either, but I'd rather give him a shot. I know what I get with Bush.
Hey bluefire, welcome to the bigs pal.Hey I did not put any words in kerrys mouth here. There are his own words and the reason I posted them here is because this clearly shows (in his own words) what many others have claimed about him. I happen to think that it is perhaps one of the most dangerous sides of kerry. This type of thinking IMO is noy healthy in a post 9-11 world, and you will not hear this information on the evening news. Basically because the talking heads agree with kerry on these points.
By the way, the purpose of this forum is to have opposing viewpoints and to discuss them on some level of civility. Of course people on both sides are passionate.
Hey Rich, thanks for the kind words.
Last time I tried to start posting here some people just posted the same partisan stevestojan and dismissed what I was saying, rather then reading and actually responding.I know you didn't put any words in Kerry's mouth. However, I'd like you to take a look at when those comments were made. The date is 1994, not 2004. This is a pre-9/11 comment, not a post-9/11 comment. From what I've understood and read about Kerry, his view of preemption and unilateralism changed after 9/11. He realized that there are times when we need to go it alone, and that is what he was referring to in the debates when he talked about not giving anyone veto power when it comes to the US security.
It was very interesting reading a couple of the biographical pieces on his political philosophy and how he views the world. While this is definitely biased in Kerry's favor, I'd like to point you to the New York Times article in which they did a big report on Kerry. This is the one where the "nusiance" comment was made. That article does describe how Kerry's views changed due to 9/11, and I think it shows that people are taking his quotes out of the time context that they were made in.
-
I think what both candidates are doing is absolutely ridiculous.
Cheney keeps implying that Kerry will seduce another terror attack on the US. You have to be freaking kidding me. Just because Kerry is elected means that the US will be attacked again? If they are planning an attack, and are successful, they will be able to attack within the next 4 years no matter who the president is. The Bush doctrine isn't going to win the war on terror within 4 years, and neither is Kerry's.
Or how about Kerry implying that Bush is going to bring back the draft? Come on Kerry, get your head out of your ass. I think he's a better candidate then Bush, but all he's doing by saying stuff like this is perpetuating the belief that he'll say anything to get elected.
I think the Bush/Cheney tactic is much more effectively personally, because it scares people of all ages. The draft just scares some moms and younger voters. However, they are both idiotic and I think the American public is stupid for listening to both of them and making a vote based off of scare tactics and not each candidate's policies.
-
I hate posting politics on this board. Everyone is so partisan its ridiculous.
But I just had to post in response to this. Rich, your claims here are ridiculous. I am a Kerry supporter over Bush, I will not lie. However, come on man, are you going to completely throw out everything Kerry said at the debates?
Bush's campaign is being awful when taking the "global test" thing out of purportion. Yes, he mentioned a global test, but it was about whether we were whether we are being honest with the rest of the world.
Kerry would take preemptive action against anyone that was an immediate threat to the US. He's stated this, and every president thats commander in chief would.
To think otherwise would be like believing Kerry that Bush would reinstate the draft.
JoeSixPack, how do you justify going into Iraq over Saudy Arabia, in which the large majority of 9/11 highjackers come from and who has the highest links to terrorism out of any country? How do you justify going to Iraq over Iran, who now has nuclear weapons programs running again? Thats why it wasn't in America's best interest to invade Iraq.
-
Ya know, he's right. If you can't think of one other place you'd rather live, somethings wrong.
T. Mcgee Again
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Thats just one play, McGee's been burned in coverage a few times and has pulled a travis henry a couple times as well.