PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Deadly Hamster on August 22, 2004, 10:55:59 AM
-
If you\'ve been watching the news recnetly you\'ve noticed that from both sides, most the adds are either focused on 1950-1970 or just focused on destroying the other canidates Reputation.
This has just come down to a "You lied!" then "No, you lied about me lying!"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html
As you can see there, one major contraversy as of late are the adds by Swift Boat Veterans group.
But then, this is said to be un-true by:
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?oldflok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040821%2F1734392811.htm&sc=1131&flok=NW_5-L3
Anyways, my point is.... Im starting to get the feeling that the American public is going to let this election be decided by whoever can make events 20 years ago look the worst for either canidate.
This is not how things should be to determine the most powerful man in our country.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
This is not how things should be to determine the most powerful man in our country.
Nor are haircuts and charisma, (alone) but it happens.
-
This election has become a huge joke.
-
meh..it just takes away from talking about the real issues...and kerry shouldn\'t have used bush\'s own remark when he stated "bring it on!" :rolleyes: that was a weak comeback. he should\'ve just made a remark to bush about talkin about current issues & how i (kerry) stand by how i felt about the vietnam war..the same way i feel about iraq...but then again he stated he would\'ve done the same thing regarding iraq..he just would\'ve gotten more support..
whatever.. i really am not big on either bush or kerry..if you listen to both of them closely..they really don\'t differ from one another...
-
Originally posted by Titan
This election has become a huge joke.
What .....Just this one ?
so i take it you where asleep during the last one then :D....
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
Nor are haircuts and charisma, (alone) but it happens.
True. I\'m far from a history buff but I remember one of my professors saying Nixon was clearly the better candidate from a politcal perspective, but the good looks and charisma of JFK got him the win.
*waits for Giga to shoot me down and make me look like an idiot* :eyemouth:
-
Usually this stuff takes a back seat on election day. It\'s just fun crap for the media to cover. The voter is supposed to be able to see through all this crap.
-
Originally posted by THX
True. I\'m far from a history buff but I remember one of my professors saying Nixon was clearly the better candidate from a politcal perspective, but the good looks and charisma of JFK got him the win.
*waits for Giga to shoot me down and make me look like an idiot* :eyemouth:
I remember seeing something about that on the discovery channel..
There was a television debate or something between Nixon and Kennedy.. Nixon did not want to wear makeup because he said it was for "gays".. So while infront of all those TV lights Nixon started to sweat, he got shiny and so on, that’s why Kennedy won.
Something like that according to Disovery. ;)
-
Nope THX I think you are right - Nixon was never media savvy. There are some terrible pictures of him at the UN yawning and doing everything except picking his nose. Kennedy\'s charisma definitely helped him win that election.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Nope THX I think you are right - Nixon was never media savvy. There are some terrible pictures of him at the UN yawning and doing everything except picking his nose. Kennedy\'s charisma definitely helped him win that election.
Easily. This is the best case of it. Its what i was thinking when i said it. I think if i remember correctly, he had coaching on how to look in front of the camera. Being media savvy on television wasnt really an easy task considering tv wasnt even out for that long at that point. But like i said, people, despite their age will vote for stupid reasons. Sad but true.
-
Kerry gets some ammo?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040826/ts_afp/us_economy_poverty_040826172924
-
Not really. There will be no national health care here in the US - we don\'t have a small enough population to experiment with that ;) and as for poverty...
Our poverty is better than most countries middle class. In the US, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to not be able to provide for themselves, apart from their own lifestyle choices.
This is another thing most people including Americans don\'t understand: The economy has nothing to do with who is in office.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
What .....Just this one ?
so i take it you where asleep during the last one then :D....
No, I wasn\'t into politics nor gave a crap.
-
There will be no national health care here in the US - we don\'t have a small enough population to experiment with that ;)
Perhaps its time to split up? ;)
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Our poverty is better than most countries middle class. In the US, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to not be able to provide for themselves, apart from their own lifestyle choices.
I read another study on that several months ago.
It compared the poverty of several countires using the same "guidelines"/"measurement".. the poverty was still quite high?
I havent been able to find it, so I cant back it up right now.
-
Didint want to start a new thread so here.
Bush pulls ahead of Kerry (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=NW_1-T&oldflok=FF-RTO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0002/20040826/0247110853.htm&photoid=/cp/news/top/i/bush200.jpg)
Im sure Giga will be pleased
Not that its anything huge. I just saw it and figured id post it.
-
The republcian party is going with a more conservitive platform this time.
If they win, im going to go crazy.
More consertivie then this is unbearable.
-
What\'s so bad about conservativism?
Bush has been more liberal fiscally.. hasn\'t he? We spent a lot on that war. You complain about him..
-
What does spending on the war have anything to do with conservatism vs liberalism?
And who might he complain about other than "him"? Certainly not himself i hope. Im not saying that everybody should complain about bush but hes one in a whole lot of people that do.
-
Go and take a tour of a 3rd world country and then talk to me about poverty.
-
Well this might sound like a stupid question, but what are you talking about giga?
-
Originally posted by fastson
Kerry gets some ammo?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040826/ts_afp/us_economy_poverty_040826172924
That is what I am talking about.
-
Giga, Im against his stances on Gay Marriage, homeland security, and the enviorment.
But besides that, i hate everything else all politicans believe in.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Go and take a tour of a 3rd world country and then talk to me about poverty.
Well i know what you mean but then many argue - Who cares? I mean do you think of others before your family? It can be interpreted the same way with the war etc. I mean those numbers arent incredibly huge but its definately an issue. I mean for the US to be reduced to 3rd world status would be pretty crazy and most of the people wouldnt know how to handle it.
Its like saying that our poverty rate rising doesnt have any priority over 3rd world contries because we are so rich and dont suffer one bit. Well thus far, there havent been a whole lot of presidents to focus so heavily on the status of third world contries vs our own.
Im just curious but have you been to a 3rd world country? Im not trying to put this back upon you but im just curious. Perhaps im missing something but i havent taken my time to think it through fully.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Go and take a tour of a 3rd world country and then talk to me about poverty.
Yes, no doubt your and our "poor" have it better then for example the poor in africa.
The study I read, did use a fixed measurement for all countries.. Though the figure for poor was not as high as in this American study (the measurements for the poverty line were lower), it still was quite high and if I remember correctly placed America among the ex. communistic east-block European countries (perhaps about living conditions for the poor)?
Like I said I have not been able to find it. Google finds a lot of shit, Im sure its there, but I have not had the time to check it all.
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
Well i know what you mean but then many argue - Who cares? I mean do you think of others before your family? It can be interpreted the same way with the war etc. I mean those numbers arent incredibly huge but its definately an issue. I mean for the US to be reduced to 3rd world status would be pretty crazy and most of the people wouldnt know how to handle it.
Its like saying that our poverty rate rising doesnt have any priority over 3rd world contries because we are so rich and dont suffer one bit. Well thus far, there havent been a whole lot of presidents to focus so heavily on the status of third world contries vs our own.
Im just curious but have you been to a 3rd world country? Im not trying to put this back upon you but im just curious. Perhaps im missing something but i havent taken my time to think it through fully.
India - and yes for the most part it is a 3rd world country. The poverty there makes our poor look rich.
Secondly, as I have said before - this really isn\'t about "poverty", but rather poverty figures here in the US and connecting them to our current president - which I find absurd. As much as all politicians would want you to believe that they can single handedly create jobs and boost the economy, nothing could be further from the truth.
As I said earlier - In the US, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to not be able to provide for themselves, apart from their own lifestyle choices. If you choose to be a bum then you will be one and that has nothing to with who is or who isn\'t in office.
-
Originally posted by fastson
Yes, no doubt your and our "poor" have it better then for example the poor in africa.
The study I read, did use a fixed measurement for all countries.. Though the figure for poor was not as high as in this American study (the measurements for the poverty line were lower), it still was quite high and if I remember correctly placed America among the ex. communistic east-block European countries (perhaps about living conditions for the poor)?
Like I said I have not been able to find it. Google finds a lot of shit, Im sure its there, but I have not had the time to check it all.
Never heard of this "study". Anyway, Kerry help the poor? That is rich. Kerry doesn\'t even know the meaning of the word. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and married one of the richest women in the country (who IMO shouldn\'t have the fortune she does - her husband Sen. Heinz died in a helicopter crash and she happened to inherit it). Not that Bush is much better, but for Kerry to claim he has answers for the poor and Bush doesn\'t is pure hypocracy.
-
Since this topic is really about the Swift Boat veterans...
I find it rather disgusting that ex Senator Max Cleland would go to Crawford Texas to confront Bush to get him to tell the Swift Boat group to stop their ads while Kerry has yet to even acknowledge what groups like "Please" Moveon.org do for his own campaign.
While the details of Kerrys action 35 years ago will never be clear, I do agree with one thing the Swift Boat group and other veterans have attacked Kerry on. His actions after returning from Vietnam. His testimony before the Senate that claimed troops in Vietnam were guilty of war crimes - including troops under his command is fine, but at the same time he wants to be remembered as a war hero. He can\'t have it both ways. Either he himself is a war criminal along with everyone else or he is a war hero and betrayed his fellow veterans by testifying before the Senate with false accusations.
This is where I have a major problem with Kerry. I personally believe he did perform admirably in Vietnam, but testified before the Senate to bring some attention to the start of his political career. It was a publicity stunt that has come back to haunt him. To sum it up, I think Kerry is a manipulator who took advantage of a war and popular opinion to further his own political future at the expense of his fellow veterans who fought in Vietnam.
-
Eh, i honestly think Kerry was just very liberal during the vietnam war.
I think you got it backwords. I think he really was against the war, and just now he says "Hey i was in that war, thats good for a political campaign!"
-
I disagree - he is a John F. Kennedy wannabe - look at his initials John Forbes Kerry (that is a coincidence), but the rest isn\'t - John F. Kennedy commanded a PT boat in WW2 - John F. Kerry piloted a Swift boat in Vietnam. Both supposedly saved members of their crew.
Coincidence - I don\'t think so. Kerry was being groomed for politics and even hung out with the Kennedy\'s when he was younger. His best buddy is Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Not that Bush is much better, but for Kerry to claim he has answers for the poor and Bush doesn\'t is pure hypocracy.
Status doesnt always determine what you know and dont know about something you havent experienced so you cant really call it hypocrisy, but i know what you are saying.
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
Status doesnt always determine what you know and dont know about something you havent experienced so you cant really call it hypocrisy, but i know what you are saying.
Kerry saying he has answers to help the poor and Bush doesn\'t? Sorry, but that is hypocritical. Kerry has no more of a solution on how to help the poor than Bush does. Kerry\'s idea is to raise taxes to help the poor. That has been tried over and over again and it doesn\'t work.
What I find so ironic in Kerry\'s "blue collar" rants is that he is wealthier than Bush and he is from old money in the Northeast. If you know anything about this country - that kind of old money doesn\'t give a $hite about the working class, let alone have an answer to help them.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
His testimony before the Senate that claimed troops in Vietnam were guilty of war crimes - including troops under his command is fine, but at the same time he wants to be remembered as a war hero. He can\'t have it both ways. Either he himself is a war criminal along with everyone else or he is a war hero and betrayed his fellow veterans by testifying before the Senate with false accusations.
You can\'t have it both ways?
So if you save some of your comrades\' lives during the war you can\'t be considered a hero after the war because you talked about atrocities? That doesn\'t even make sense. It fits in with the GOP "You\'re either with us or against us", black-and-white, no shades of gray type of politics though.
-
Kerry has said that he committed crimes with "his own hands". To portray yourself as a hero and then attack others for the same things you are guilty of is hypocritical is it not?
-
It would be hypocritical if he were doing them both at the same time. He didn\'t portray himself as a hero in the 60\'s and he is not attacking anyone today.
Still one doesn\'t cancel out the other. Performing a heroic act does not strike the crimes off the record and vice versa.
[EDIT] Check That. It would be MORE hypocritical.
-
Actually he is doing both - he said he does not regret his actions after the war just last week!
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Kerry saying he has answers to help the poor and Bush doesn\'t? Sorry, but that is hypocritical. Kerry has no more of a solution on how to help the poor than Bush does. Kerry\'s idea is to raise taxes to help the poor. That has been tried over and over again and it doesn\'t work.
I havent read into anything but all he said was that he\'d raise taxes to help the poor and thats it?
Originally posted by GigaShadow
What I find so ironic in Kerry\'s "blue collar" rants is that he is wealthier than Bush and he is from old money in the Northeast. If you know anything about this country - that kind of old money doesn\'t give a $hite about the working class, let alone have an answer to help them.
Again with the wealthier than bush bit. Perhaps you are right but if a child born to racist parents can have black friends etc. then a richly raised man, such as Kerry could possibly know a little bit more than our buddy bush. Im not saying that this is true and of course anybody could or would say that the chances are slim for kerry to know any more than bush does on the subject.
A lot of times, rich "old money" stiffs are republican. Of course thats debateable and partially a stereotype, but like many stereotypes, there are small truths in the statement. So to say that this semi liberalistic democrat is worse than bush just because of his background and wealth, is kinda silly (though i cant deny that there might be truths in saying so).
Just kinda stirring things up.
-
damn i kinda agree with giga on this one..only on the aspect of kerry sayin that he would raise taxes to balance the budget..now he didn\'t say that directly of course but if you listened to him carefully..that is what he\'s sayin..and i said all along that we don\'t need that s**t..*thinks of the jim florio years:rolleyes: *
i said it before,..i consider myself a dem..but kerry just isn\'t a stronger leader in my book,.. just because he\'s democratic does not automatically imply that he gets my vote,..just listen to kerry carefully..he feeds off whatever events are happening currently...if something bad happens..he\'ll say "well if i was president i would have done this or that" or i would have done it differently..but when asked about certain issues he would have basically done the same thing the current prez is doin now...
i\'m sorry but i can see clear through the bulls**t,..the war on iraq imo bush was wrong all the way around...but as far as his plans for the country are concerned, i\'m with him all the way..even tho cats (like me ;)) are criticizing him for iraq..he\'s stands firm on his judgement and is very decisive when it comes to decisions..what i mean by that is that he\'ll make a decision and stand by it,..
kerry is just not the stronger leader here folks plain and simple..oh and those tax cuts bush gave us also helps,..yea he wants to balance the budget,..but he also knows that the american people needed money in their pocket immediately..kerry wants to raise taxes to balance it...hey maybe bush is doin it too but i don\'t see it..raisin taxes is never a good thing...as much as i hate to say it,...or until another bill clinton comes along, there\'s nobody in the democratic party as of this moment strong enough to take bush..
after all the bulls**t that\'s goin down in iraq...kerry\'s numbers are still neck and neck with bushes,..any other candidate would have taken full advantage of that yet he squandered it...by not distingushing himself from his rival candidate..i swear when i first heard kerry spoke, he said nothing that would make me vote for him,..he actually sounded just like bush...
-
Clips - I have to commend you on your post - I know you don\'t like Bush, but you at least aren\'t clouded by the "anyone, but Bush" propaganda. Kerry will not make this country any better and I really can\'t see him committing to a firm decision.
Believe me, if I had another viable option other than Bush I would take it.
-
Like uh, Chuck Hagel? :)
That man\'s goona beat out Hillary in 2008. I\'m callin\' it right now.
See Yuz.
-
Wow clips didn\'t know you had it in you, lol.
-
Originally posted by clips
damn i kinda agree with giga on this one..only on the aspect of kerry sayin that he would raise taxes to balance the budget..now he didn\'t say that directly of course but if you listened to him carefully..that is what he\'s sayin..and i said all along that we don\'t need that s**t..*thinks of the jim florio years:rolleyes: *
i said it before,..i consider myself a dem..but kerry just isn\'t a stronger leader in my book,.. just because he\'s democratic does not automatically imply that he gets my vote,..just listen to kerry carefully..he feeds off whatever events are happening currently...if something bad happens..he\'ll say "well if i was president i would have done this or that" or i would have done it differently..but when asked about certain issues he would have basically done the same thing the current prez is doin now...
Not to mention his stances on certain issues change with the latest polls. I can\'t have a leader that is that loose that he changes his mind when the latest polls are against him or a bit different that what he wanted. What I admire about Bush is that he stands very firm on his beliefs and policies and doesn\'t reverse it simply because the latest poll was against him. That and I agree with Bush on everything except stem cell research and gay marriage. The ban on gay marriage will never pass so I\'m not worried but stem cell research I agree with and should get some funding from the government. Other than those, I agree with him. Its such a shame I cna\'t vote until December this year. I really was looking forward to it.
-
I do not believe Kerry acted on his own if he commited said atrocities.
They were military policiy, and that is what he protested against.
So let\'s just say he was pushed to do things by military policie, and then went on to protest against said policy.
Kerry\'s senate testimonys were not to bring down individual men, rather the entire policy in viet nam.
So it actually isn\'t hypocritical at all.
-
Just reading through this stuff...it\'s interesting.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
What I find so ironic in Kerry\'s "blue collar" rants is that he is wealthier than Bush and he is from old money in the Northeast. If you know anything about this country - that kind of old money doesn\'t give a $hite about the working class, let alone have an answer to help them.
I\'ve seen a tv show that was comparing the two, Bush and Kerry, and it said that Kerry himself is only worth approx. 4 million. His wife however is worth over a billion.
Bush on the other hand is from old money and is reportedly worth approx 20 million.
Irrelevant but I thought I\'d throw it out there...