Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 18, 2017, 05:52:38 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 [2440] 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 ... 2920
60976  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Tobacco company executives on: April 16, 2006, 08:44:19 pm
When did I ever say that cigarettes should be banned? Nice strawman.
60977  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Tobacco company executives on: April 16, 2006, 08:13:30 pm
Of course smokers are also to blame themselves, but so are the people whose job is to get them to start. What you're saying is like saying that con artists and those who commit fraud aren't doing anything wrong, because the people shoudn't be dumb enough to fall for their scams. They shouldn't, but the scammers are still to blame.
60978  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Tobacco company executives on: April 16, 2006, 07:49:11 pm
They're not neccesarily horrible as much as they are the victims too in a way, much like Wal-Mart employees.

Alcohol-related traffic deaths is because of misuse of the product. You can just as easily blame the car manufacturers. And smoking only a few cigarettes a day won't hurt you as much as smoking three packs of course, but it will hurt you still, and eventually down the road your chances of getting lung cancer go way up. Plus no one is going to smoke only a few cigarettes a day before getting addicted and going to a pack or two a day. Alcohol however, when not overdone, can actually be healthy (such as a glass of wine a day has health benefits). The bottom line is there are healthy ways to drink, there is no healthy way to smoke.
60979  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Tobacco company executives on: April 16, 2006, 06:19:44 pm
The only reason those warnings are there is because the law requires it. They sure as hell wouldn't put it there out of their own will. That means they have no problems misleading people. Nor do they have any problems advertising to minors, with the goals of hooking them for life.
60980  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Tobacco company executives on: April 16, 2006, 06:15:04 pm
It says that tobacco use causes cancer on the package in plain English, yet people still smoke anyways. I can hardly blame the tobacco company execs for trying to make money off of something people demand even if that demand defies common sense logic.

I'll blame them. They market their product. They try to hook and addict new customers. Do you really think tobacco execs would not be sad if everyone turned smart and quit smoking? Of course not. They keep making money off death.

By the way, BRTD - are alcohol company execs murderers? Their products can cause liver failure you know.

No more than automobile or gun manufacturers. The difference is that tobaco is the only product that will kill you when used as intended. There is no "safe" way to smoke. You can be safe driving, owning a gun, and drinking if you do it in moderation.
60981  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Hawkeye and the Jewish Conspiracy? on: April 16, 2006, 06:09:35 pm
Hawkeye, how can Jews be BOTH capitalist and communist at the same time? THat doesn't really make much sense. And DIsney was fervently anticommunist, he helped the FBI during the McCarthy era.

Of course his "views" don't make sense. They're not supposed to. He's just a troll who's only puprose is to stir up sh!t. Quit giving him what he wants.
60982  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: If Jimmy Carter was re-elected, II on: April 16, 2006, 04:11:51 pm
Wasn't there some British Conservative politician in the 70s who said the Soviet Union wouldn't survive the entire century and China would turn capitalist? I'll give him credit.
60983  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Did the USA violate the Monroe Doctrine during the Falklands War? on: April 16, 2006, 03:47:43 pm
Even if Argentina had not been a dictatorship, the Falklands had been British for over a century and the US did nothing about it. Argentina's claim is no better than any hypothetical US claim to Cuba, the only thing they had going for them is geographic proximity. It's rather silly to ignore something for 100 years and then do something about it just because someone in the Western Hemisphere opted to seize it in violation of the will of the vast majority of the inhabitants.

After all, wouldn't it have been following the Doctrine to support Canada if they decided to seize the Falklands instead? But there is no logical reason to support Canada in such an instance. And Canada probably has more of a claim to the islands than Argentina does.
60984  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Did the USA violate the Monroe Doctrine during the Falklands War? on: April 16, 2006, 03:32:19 pm
It might've by letting Britain take the Falklands in the first place, but at that point it didn't matter anymore. And Argentina didn't have any better of a claim to them either.

And no, backing Britain was completely right. Argentina was a horrific military dictatorship that fell because of their defeat there. So the support for the UK was completely right.

Of course, that awful b!tch Kirkpatrick wanted to support Argentina.
60985  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: what member would you miss the most? on: April 16, 2006, 03:22:18 pm
I already miss jfern a ton.

MarkDel is a good example of someone I don't ever want back. Most of his posts were just hot air of liberal stereotypes (much like dazzleman), childish name calling, and "insider information" which only turned out to be true when it was easy to guess (like Kerry picking Edwards was such a longshot). He said DeLay would return to the position of Majority Leader.

ag is another one I'd miss. What's funny is I usually skip over his posts at first becuase they are just so informative I can't take in all that information at the time. I usually put them aside to read later. See the Georgia thread. I still haven't read everything in there.

Anyone else remember English? I should add him to the list of peole who are missed.
60986  General Politics / Individual Politics / Opinion of Tobacco company executives on: April 16, 2006, 11:40:19 am
Horrible horrible horrible horrible people.

These pieces of sh!t are just filthy murderers. All disgusting people. This is one of those jobs where I automatically consider anyone who has to to be a terrible excuse for a human being.
60987  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Day 82: Ireland on: April 16, 2006, 11:33:07 am
Let me just sum up my views by saying this:

I would rather live in Northern Ireland than here in the 70s, and that's saying a lot.
60988  General Politics / International General Discussion / Day 84: Italy on: April 16, 2006, 11:32:23 am
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/it.html

Discuss.
60989  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / What does this quote mean? on: April 16, 2006, 11:28:30 am
Harris is quite strong. Her congressional district isn't super Republican and she hasn't been in the House that long anyway.

Nelson has a fairly severe problem on his hands.
60990  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should China be allowed to host the Olympics? on: April 16, 2006, 11:23:52 am
As I pointed out though, the countries I mentioned would never be considered.

Can imagine the whining from American conservatives if Havana ever got the bid?
60991  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: my gas-guzzler tax (refined) on: April 16, 2006, 11:22:20 am
This is a good idea.

SUVs are another reason I hate suburbs. Why do people in the suburbs need them anyway? They certainly aren't neccesarily to drive on the nicely paved roads they got.

And the dumbest thing ever: people driving Hummers to work. THERE IS NO DAMN REASON FOR ANY CIVILIAN TO OWN A HUMMER. I remember when some idiot car dealer marketed selling hummers by saying driving one would show your support for the troops. Yeah, increasing our dependence on foreign oil is a great way to show your patriotism.
60992  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Bush's vote rise in Massachusetts and Rhode Island? on: April 16, 2006, 11:16:58 am
What is Cynthia McKinney? A centrist? Conservative Democrat?

BRTD,

I am going to link back to this post every time you commit this falacy.

Someone provides an example, such as:

The vast majority of blacks would not be considered "left-wingers".  As a general rule - Ideologically they have more in common with their former southern democratic oppressors.

Note "vast majority."

You reply:

What is Cynthia McKinney? A centrist? Conservative Democrat?

You give an example of one person.

You do not disapprove the larger statement, that the vast majority of blacks are not liberal.

Then who voted for her? Look at the results from the last primary. She won on the first round and was far ahead of all her opponents.
60993  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Which of these parties would you vote for? on: April 15, 2006, 10:06:32 pm
United Revolutionary Front: The URF started out as a Marxist guerilla movement. Ater falling out of favor with many other communist organizations worldwide, it formally renounced Marxism-Leninism and reestablished itself as a radical socialist movement, although still a guerilla movement. A few years later, it agreed to disarm and function only as a democratic political party. Since then it largely has. After it's disarming, it ran well in the areas of the country where it's support largely was, but then was accused of authoritarianism when it began to censor critical media outlets in the areas where it controled the provincial government and manipulate election results. Eventually the federal government began to monitor elections there with the military, and they were largely voted out. While they no longer run any areas, they do maintain a large support base in these areas, and around the country.

Social Democrats: Always the main center-left party, the Social Democrats have been around for almost a century except a brief two year stint where they were banned (explained later). They are comparable to the social democratic parties of most European countries, and the left wing of the US Democratic party. They tend to be to the left on social issues but largely unconcerned with them and have a small but sizable populist wing, as well as a religious left wing. The party has flirted with the far left and communist movements at times, but after these usually is dealt electoral defeats, in which it moves back to the center.

National Progress Union: The NPU's roots are in a military junta that took power 15 years ago. The ruling conservative government was racked by corruption scandals, and the left won the next election, allowing the Social Democrats, at the time under some of their farthest left leadership, to form a controversial coalition with the URF supported by the communists. 3 months later, a military coup deposed the government, and the Social Democrats, URF and Communist Party were all banned. For 2 years the country was ruled as a military regime, until popular protests, the junta agreed to hold new elections, but it announced that it would continue to serve as a collective Head of State, and would appoint the PM and entire government. They did however agree to legalize the Social Democrats and URF (Communists remained banned) and to resign if their political wing received less than 20% of the vote. The National Council for Progress as they were called received 22% of the vote (much of which was believed to be fraudulent). Despite this, they appointed the civilian PM and entire cabinet. After passing much controversial laws without the consent of Parliament, the entire opposition voted for a no-confidence vote, but the collective Head of State nullified it. In protest, they continued to pass no-confidence measures, all of which were nullified. After more popular protest and guerilla attacks by groups connected to the banned Communist Party, the junta allowed one no-confidence measure to pass. In the new elections, they received only 15% of the vote, and then agreed to resign. They then changed their name to the National Progress Union. The new Parliament legalized the Communist Party after they agreed to disarm, and indicted and tried many former junta leaders. Since then the party has tried to move away from its past, although a very good portion of the population are strongly opposed to them, and refuse to support any government supported by them in any way, keeping them out of any ruling coalitions. The ideology is unclear, but vaguely populist, while radically anti-Communist they support a generous welfare state, strong military, interventionist foreign policy and were the only party to vote against ending conscription. They claim to be largely neutral on social issues, but almost all their MPs voted against the liberalization of abortion laws, and legalization of gay civil unions. Research shows that much of the poor working class finds their policies appealing, but refuse to vote for them due to their history.

Communist Party - The Communist Party has largely reformed down a more "Eurocommunist" path. Their platform still calls for nationalization of all industry however, but they remain committed to the democratic process, and completely renounced violence at the end of military rule. Splinter factions continue to function as a minor insurgency throughout the country, the largest and most notable being the Revolutionary Red Faction, but the democratic Communist Party condemns them. They have considered merging or an alliance with the URF, but minor issues have prevented this. Despite their reformation, large parts of the country find them abhorrent and they poll miserably here, including some areas strong for the Social Democrats. They do well only in traditionally communist strongholds, which also include some fairly conservative areas. They are larger than the Social Democrats and URF combined in 3 provinces.

Greens - Like the Canadian Greens, they have moved down a more economically liberal path. Their new platform calls for free markets and lax government regulation and low taxes. However they remain the most socially liberal party, and are known for a strong committment to democracy and human rights. They are effectively a liberal party in the European sense. Despite this, they do remain "green" in an environmental sense, and are largely supportive of environmental protection legislation, despite opposing government intervention elsewhere.

League of Christian Families - A party formed as the political wing of a grouping of Christian fundamentalist movements, the LCF are the most radically socially conservative party. They oppose abortion under all circumstances, support criminilizaton of homosexuality, and bans on pornography and prostitution. They tend to be centrist economically, but seem opposed to public education.

Center Union - an unabashedly centrist party, they have announced they are willing to enter into coalition with any parties besides the communists, URF and NPU. They tend to simply take whatever position is the median, leading to be attacked as spineless appeasers. Despite this, they have a strong support base.

National Democrats - The main conservative party, and the largest party in the country. They were once many smaller parties, but all have merged. They are for free markets, low taxes and regulation, and also traditional values, although nowhere near as radical as the LCF. They have entered into coalitions with the LCF in some provincial governments, but only the most socially conservative ones. They support tightening the abortion laws but generally have agreed to allow abortion under some cases, and no longer oppose the civil unions law.

And this country uses a mix of PR and single seats constituencies elected under IRV for the system. So vote PR above, and the IRV vote for the single seat here: http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=HEA
60994  General Politics / Political Debate / Should China be allowed to host the Olympics? on: April 15, 2006, 06:57:24 pm
Hell no.

Would they let North Korea host the Olympics? Iran? Iraq under Saddam? Cuba? Of course not. So why should China be allowed?
60995  General Politics / Individual Politics / Opinion of this guy on: April 15, 2006, 06:46:43 pm
60996  Election Archive / 2006 Gubernatorial Election Polls / Re: SUSA- Gov. Approval Ratings 4/06 on: April 15, 2006, 05:09:46 pm
Note that Bush is sitting around the area Blunt and Kulongoski are. At least more than 40 governors are more popular than him.
60997  Election Archive / 2006 Gubernatorial Election Polls / Re: SUSA- Gov. Approval Ratings 4/06 on: April 15, 2006, 05:06:48 pm
Blagojevich is on the rebound. Good thing.

What's happening to Mitch Daniels?
60998  General Politics / Individual Politics / CT 2006 Senate Race on: April 15, 2006, 05:02:09 pm
Since it doesn't look too likely Weicker will run at this point, who would you vote for in this scenario?

I'd vote for Ferrucci.

Of course, I'd vote for Lamont in the primary, and would definitely support him in the general if he were to win it.
60999  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Bush's vote rise in Massachusetts and Rhode Island? on: April 15, 2006, 03:38:06 pm
What is Cynthia McKinney? A centrist? Conservative Democrat?
61000  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: In local elections... on: April 15, 2006, 03:10:32 pm
Pretty much all Minnesota local elections are non-partisan so that's not an issue.

For state offices where you don't think ideology would matter too much, I still vote partisanly. The reasons being:

1-Those ofices can serve as a launching pad to governorships and Senate seats.
2-Republicans can still be very stupid in such offices.

For example, Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer in 2004 tried to wipe the Minnesota Independence Party off the ballot by digging up an archaic old obscurish law about qualifications and deciding now it was time to enforce it (despite the fact it had been ignored for decades), she later lost in court. And even dumber, she sent out posters to every polling station on the primaries saying (I wish I was making this up) to be on a look out for possible suicide bombers because terrorists might try to disrupt the elections. Remember that this was during the primaries, which had a 7.6% turnout due to no major offices being up for election (I voted in them, but that was only so I could register my new address. Otherwise even I wouldn't have). Some rural precincts had more poll workers than voters. If you're a terrorist suicide bomber, are you going to try to disrupt an almost zero turnout unimportant election in some little farming town in Minnesota as your target? It was so idiotic that many polling stations just threw them away and didn't put them away.

So I can't even handle a Republican Secretary of State.
Pages: 1 ... 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 [2440] 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 ... 2920


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines