h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh, and I don't know a lot about US history, although from what I hear its often embellished somewhat, but the "black vote" is going to go to whoever black people feel is representing them best now, not a couple of hundred years ago.

If your great grandfather had been on the steps of the Kremlin shoulder to shoulder it would not make you a socialist would it Nerd.

Likewise alligences can change over time. Anyhow Democrats dont get the black vote, not in Florida anyway.

The republicans are the party of the better off in America at least in terms of fiscal policy a great proportion of black and latino people in the US live near or below the poverty line. Now if they bother to vote Im sure even you can work out how they will cast their votes.

"If your great grandfather had been on the steps of the Kremlin shoulder to shoulder it would not make you a socialist would it Nerd."
Don't get me wrong here - I did NOT support arnold for governor of cal-i-for-nia - but that his father was a nazi sympathizer was used against him in his campeign, and that wasn't fair. So you're right, as far as that sentence goes.

"Likewise alligences can change over time."
yes I know. I think my question would be better phrased saying HOW instead of WHY. The opposite of the question asked in 1984: "I understand HOW, I do not understand WHY."

"Anyhow Democrats dont get the black vote, not in Florida anyway"
Good.
Nerd42

Typical right winger, only in favour of democracy when it favours your side.

There are far too many personal attacks in politics in general from all sides I feel. Things should be about the merits of arguement. Personal attacks should be saved for personal matters. For instance, if someone was up to be kicked out as leader of the Tories then their personality might be of relevance to the debate. In a discussion on tax rates it wouldn't.

If the Democrats do get the "black vote" then it'll be because they feel the Democrats represent them best, as I said.

"Typical right winger, only in favour of democracy when it favours your side."
how so? I do know personally some people who are like that. crazy they are.

"There are far too many personal attacks in politics in general from all sides I feel. Things should be about the merits of arguement. Personal attacks should be saved for personal matters. For instance, if someone was up to be kicked out as leader of the Tories then their personality might be of relevance to the debate. In a discussion on tax rates it wouldn't."
That paragraph seems to have "Bill Clinton was an innocent victim" written all over it. is that what you're really meaning? I think sometimes a person's character is very relevent to the question, for instance, the charges that arnold groped women probably has some substance, attacks on a person for something they only did indirectly or that somebody else did, like that arnold's father may have been a nazi sympathizer have no place in a debate, for sure. But on my own little pet issue, pro-life/pro-choice, personal attacks seem to reign down from both sides often becoming the only substance the discussion has. Arguments that sound like "Pro-lifers are a bunch of white men who spend all their time abusing women, planning how to bomb abortion clinics and killing doctors" and "Pro-choicers are a bunch of child haters/butchers who only want to make money off abortion anyway" should be equally discarded. Perhaps we should better define "personal attacks".

"If the Democrats do get the "black vote" then it'll be because they feel the Democrats represent them best, as I said."
ok, let me address the stupid putting "black vote" in quotes. saying so-and-so is going to get the black vote or the labor vote or the gay vote or the family vote or the military vote or the women's (read feminist's) vote means that [I'm saying] a majority of people one would put in that category vote that way. for instance, i've heard news reporters (ABC, not FOX by the way) say bush probably had the military vote in 2000, meaning that is a constituancy group that would mostly support/vote for him.
Nerd42

Differance between Arnies wondering hands and Clintons extra marital relations is that one of them is a violation of another person without their consent and the other is something that is a family matter.

Arnie was breaking the law, disregarding peolpes basic human rights. Clinton was being unfaithful to his wife and breaking his marriage vows none of our business. Of course lying or stretching the truth played right in to the hands of his detractors.

I don't care so much about Bill Clinton, he got his 2 terms anyway didn't he? I'm not sure why he was impeached anyway? I mean I know it was cause of his bit on the side but nothing past that.

I was just saying that I think there's far to much of the ad hominem rubbish, you don't have to automatically assume that's because of one particular incident you know. Especially that one seeing as I've amply demonstrated how little my knowledge of USA politics is, although admittedly that's still more than my knowledge of most coutries' politics. I blame the news.

I'll put whatever I like in quotes thank you very much .

[Caller] I like your game that I am apart of.

wow aargain what are you doing here? i thought you didn't like politics!

here's my take on recent presidential politics:
Bill Clinton was elected President of the United Sates fair and square.
So was richard nixon.
So was gw bush.
The reason Bill Clinton should have been thrown out of office not because he was a pimp, but because he was a purjurer. He flat out lied to congress and the american people. I saw him on TV and he said "I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman" If he'd said "I DID have a sexual relationship with that woman" all he deserved was a light repremand (which was all he ultimately got)
The reason Richard Nixon should have been thrown out of office was not becuase his thugs broke into that building, as far as we know without orders from him, but because he flat out lied about it to congress and the american people. I didn't see him on TV.
Thus the only reason Bush should be thrown out of office (impeached, not voted out I mean) would not be because he fought and won an extremely successful war, displaced a cruel dictator, liberated people, and basically conquered iraq for the first time since Alexander the Great, but because (as they say in our President's home state of Texas) y'all come up with concrete evidence that he knowingly flat out lied to congress and the american people in order to do the above.

now what's that about only supporting democracy when it's on my side?
Nerd42

oh and by the way, you really can't blame clinton for his adultary unless you consider if you were married to HILLARY wouldn't you do the same thing?
god, how could you make someone so ugly?
Nerd42

Of course you wouldnt do the same thing, its unchristian.

god, how could you make someone so ugly?

God didnt make her the way she looks that was genetics and maybe frowning a lot when she had to hear another of Bills lame excuses. Anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder Nerd.

There are two main points about Bush election that stink and require proper investigation (which they will never get).

1. The irregularities in the florida ballot count.

2. Voter registration problems in florida.

Now in a close race they will have made a big difference but even if Dubya had won by a country mile if Jeb had interfered in the process in any way he should be tried and the election held again. Ordinarily even if two people are from the same party its harsh to allege colusion but when they're brothers alarm bells should be ringing.

For his own part Bush like any good crook has kept his own hands clean. All the blatanly cooked up reasons that they gave the world for going to war on Iraq came through the intelligence and security services. So when "surprise surprise" they turn out to be based on nothing but conjecture Dubya can hold his hands up and say it wasnt me I was only following advice.

Dont even say it was a blessing for the US to get rid of Sadam. What would have been a blessing for Iraq is if the US had not helped him to power in the first place supplied him with chemical weapons and then turned a blind eye whils he used them. Still that was not the presidents responsibilies and actions it was the actions and ommissions of the CIA that bought about Sadams evil reign. During which time it was run by amongst others George Bush Senior.

God Bless Fox News...er...I mean...America.

Ermmm, does anyone think there's a parliamentary politician around who hasn't at some point lied to to the people they're supposed to represent?

Well, I don't know whether George Bush really stole the election or not. I mean he can't exactly be blamed for the country not having proportional representation. Hell, the UK doesn't have it either, if we did then we'd probably be ruled by the Lib Dems by now.

I must say I did support the war against Afghanistan, but I think more effort should have been put and into rebuilding the country, especially before embarking on another war.

Now Iraq under Saddam Hussein wasn't a particularly nice play, but at least it was stable. Now displacing Saddam was a good thing, but the cost of war, the loss of stability and the reaction there is and will continue to be against the USA and allies in Iraq may not be worth that cost.

Now I am fairly certain that many of the reasons given for the war were lies. There are no "weapons of mass destruction". The arguement that they were destroyed is moronic - no-one destroys their weapons before they've invaded. There were no Al-Quaida links, because Al-Quaida have sworn to overthrow all Arab Nationalist leaders, which Saddam was, and replace them with Pan-Islamists.

hi there......
the mad flying thru....
mmmmmm... interesting.....

"God didnt make her the way she looks that was genetics and maybe frowning a lot when she had to hear another of Bills lame excuses. Anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder Nerd."
Second best argument I've heard for evolution: that a loving God would not make someone as ugly as hillary clinton.

I've been thinking about your windmill analogy. To say "The windmill is spinning clockwise" is like saying "George W Bush is the President" - he may be president of the United States (or it may be spinning clockwise in the front) but if you go to [pick another country with a president] he is not the president. But if you said "George W Bush is the President of the United States" that would be true no matter where you go, just like saying "The windmill is spinning clockwise in the front." The latter statements are the whole truth - stating only part of it leaves too many variables.

Now, if an elementry school class goes on a field trip to see this windmill, and they all get off the bus and stand in front of the windmill and the teacher says "See which way the blades are spinning? That's clockwise. The other way is counter-clockwise." are they having a narrow-minded minority view imposed on them? Not really, no. Especially if the teacher mentions that from the backside of things that spin clockwise, they spin counter clockwise. They go around to the back to check, and yup, that's the way it is. If they were thinking about it from a FOX news perspective, they would run around the windmill several times to get a "fair and balanced" view of both sides, eventually figure out that no matter which side they stand on, the windmill still spins clockwise in the front and counterclockwise in the back, get back on the bus and go home - having after all discovered that the real truth exists apart from which side they stand on.
Nerd42

Didnt your mother tell you its not nice to call women ugly.

take some advice from an English (semi) Gentleman. All women are good looking, just some are better looking than others.

By the way if you like talking about the ultimate truth checkout this guy, he gets it straight from God.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F91415?showthread=351023

You might want to define it closer. There might be people in the USA that don't accept that George W Bush is their President.

I might take it as my truth that the USA doesn't even exist. Bloody colonials walking around like they own the place .

Now Nerd there is a reason why FOX news has the reputation it does.

to the english gentlemen: it's a little different when someone is famous. normally I am quite chiveralous, or however you spell that. I would, of course, be polite to her face, if I didn't throw up all over it.

oh and by the way, FOX has covered the idiots who say bush is not the president just the same as or better than the other networks, with lots of yelling and namecalling from both sides. the fact is, bush IS the president, elected fairly or not, just like King George the Third was the king of england and the colonies until 1776 wihether he was a good king or the rightful king or not.

taking a look at justin the preacher. i've heard of him, sounds nutty....
Nerd42

i'm leaving a message for justin asking what his positions are - it's best to get it from the man himself rather than what other people think about him.

people probably wouldn't get a fair view of my positions from what other people (you people particularly) think of me.
Nerd42">F92252?thread=355346?thread=
Nerd42

One idea I thought I'd throw out on the evolution debate:

If there were originally just two people: Adam and Eve, but there is no evolution, then how come we get all the wonderful colours and shapes and sizes of people we do?