TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The only one?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

I don't think either Hillary or Obama are generating so much excitement because of their color or sex. I think they are such exciting candidates because both are genuinely much better than the Democrats have had to choose from in 2000 and 2004.

I disagree.

quote:

our budget is deep in the red, the trade deficit shows no signs of retreating, which is causing the dollar to slide.

So.. it was before he was president too, but I think this has more to do with spending too much time on a power struggle between two separate parties.

quote:

we are fighting a war noone wants, which was justified under suspect information and then supported by a cause noone really cares about (democracy in iraq)

My friend just come back from 6 tours in the middle east will disagree with that, he is a Sgt. Mjr. in the Army Rangers. He belives in what we are doing he says 80% of the people there want us there and that the only people making a fuss are people that don't want things to change. The highest education 90% of them have is around a 3rd grade level and their religion only hinders and blinds them more. Since we have been there, we have begun training an army, building schools, houses, police and fire stations, and more.

quote:

we have lost international credibility

I don't thinks so, I think bush gained us credibility, and the media ruined it by showing extremists and terrorists opposing the war and calling them the general population of the middle east. We bought into and jumped right on with becuase we are Americans and the media always tells the truth.

quote:

apparently the US is now a state that willingly practices torture, and

We'll I suppose your right but I guarantee this would have happened under any other president and it worked, not that im condoning it. I don't know weather it has stopped or not I really don't know too much on the subject.

quote:

our government never attempted to curb rampant predatory lending during the previous 5 or 6 years that is the primary cause of our current credit and economic troubles.

Apparently your getting mad becuase a bunch of loan companies went around to low income neighbor hoods and lent out money to people who needed it for a reasonable interest right that was no set. The people had all the opportunities in the world to read their contract before they signed it, and so far the loan companies haven breached it. The people who got the loan on the other hand have, they missed payments or didn't feel like paying at all. This causes everyones interest rates to go up and thus putting strain on people trying to pay it. Kind of reminds me of a when I was a kid in school and one kid did something everyone was punished, "not fair" I said they told me to deal with it. If people weren't stupid then this would have all been fine and people would have paid their loans or borrowed money they know they couldn't pay back. Why should loan companies be punished by trying to do something good and people take advantage of it to ruin it for people who need it and can pay it back.

Re: Re: The only one?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Since when have women ever been considered as a "minority"???

They offer college scholarships that only women can apply for. I still haven't seen one only white men can apply for.

Re: Re: Re: The only one?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD They offer college scholarships that only women can apply for. I still haven't seen one only white men can apply for.

Do you even know what "minority" means?!

Or does the word "minority" mean somethig different in American English?!

Re: Re: Re: Re: The only one?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Do you even know what "minority" means?! Or does the word "minority" mean somethig different in American English?!

mi�nor�i�ty (mə-n�r'ĭ-tē, -nŏr'-, mī-) pronunciation
n., pl. -ties.

1.
1. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
2. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.
2.
1. A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part.
2. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
3. A member of one of these groups. See Usage Note at color.
3. Law. The state or period of being under legal age: still in her minority.

Thus a female would fall under this category, they were and are still thought to be lesser than a man in all races. They are discriminated against on a regular basis. I don't see why they aren't a minority.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only one?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD mi�nor�i�ty (mə-n�r'ĭ-tē, -nŏr'-, mī-) pronunciation n., pl. -ties. 1. 1. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole. 2. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes. 2. 1. A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part. 2. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society. 3. A member of one of these groups. See Usage Note at color. 3. Law. The state or period of being under legal age: still in her minority. Thus a female would fall under this category, they were and are still thought to be lesser than a man in all races. They are discriminated against on a regular basis. I don't see why they aren't a minority.

Way to prove his point. Women are more than 50% of the US population.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only one?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD mi�nor�i�ty (mə-n�r'ĭ-tē, -nŏr'-, mī-) pronunciation n., pl. -ties. 1. 1. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole. 2. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes. 2. 1. A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part. 2. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society. 3. A member of one of these groups. See Usage Note at color. 3. Law. The state or period of being under legal age: still in her minority. Thus a female would fall under this category, they were and are still thought to be lesser than a man in all races. They are discriminated against on a regular basis. I don't see why they aren't a minority.

Mate, "minority" doesn't mean "discrimination", does it?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD So.. it was before he was president too, but I think this has more to do with spending too much time on a power struggle between two separate parties.

do some research, you are wrong. the clinton admin had the budget in black.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD My friend just come back from 6 tours in the middle east will disagree with that, he is a Sgt. Mjr. in the Army Rangers. He belives in what we are doing he says 80% of the people there want us there and that the only people making a fuss are people that don't want things to change. The highest education 90% of them have is around a 3rd grade level and their religion only hinders and blinds them more. Since we have been there, we have begun training an army, building schools, houses, police and fire stations, and more.

military people have to rally around their own cause to feel like they are doing something important and popular. but that is the nature of the military, they are taught to be convicted to what they do.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD I don't thinks so, I think bush gained us credibility, and the media ruined it by showing extremists and terrorists opposing the war and calling them the general population of the middle east. We bought into and jumped right on with becuase we are Americans and the media always tells the truth.

you are simply dillusional if you truly believe that. ask our non-american forum members this question.

this is a quote from a partisan site, but the support is widespread - see below:

quote:

Among allied nations: pro-US sentiments plummet Polls conducted by the Pew Research Center show a precipitous decline in positive attitudes about the United States since the year 2000 in eight of 12 countries for which multi-year comparisons can be made.4 According to the Pew polls, the proportion of the population feeling positively toward the United States has plummeted in Great Britain from 83 percent to 56, in France from 62 percent to 39, in Germany from 78 percent to 37, and in Spain from 50 percent to 23. Japan, too, has seen a decline. Similarly, polls by the German Marshall Fund and The Chicago Council on Global Affairs have found a significant and uniform decline in positive feelings toward the United States between 2002 and 2006 in the European countries they surveyed.5 Today, in France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Poland -- all of them NATO allies -- negative feelings about the United States are almost as frequent as positive ones. In Spain, negative sentiments predominate.

http://people-press.org/commentary/...3?AnalysisID=77

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/news/pew1.php

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/524/glo...ers-and-leaders

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Apparently your getting mad becuase a bunch of loan companies went around to low income neighbor hoods and lent out money to people who needed it for a reasonable interest right that was no set. The people had all the opportunities in the world to read their contract before they signed it, and so far the loan companies haven breached it. The people who got the loan on the other hand have, they missed payments or didn't feel like paying at all. This causes everyones interest rates to go up and thus putting strain on people trying to pay it. Kind of reminds me of a when I was a kid in school and one kid did something everyone was punished, "not fair" I said they told me to deal with it. If people weren't stupid then this would have all been fine and people would have paid their loans or borrowed money they know they couldn't pay back. Why should loan companies be punished by trying to do something good and people take advantage of it to ruin it for people who need it and can pay it back.

i don't think you understand how the process went down. the originating lenders were not keeping the loans, they were packing them and selling them to investors. therefore, they were not concerned with informing the homebuyers on the adjustable portion of the loan because they only cared if the homebuyers could pay the loan insofar as it affected the credit rating of the securities that were created to package the deal (and they really didn't care that much anyway because a lower rating translated into a higher return requirement). traditionally, the lender who keeps the loan on the books is highly interested in fully informing the consumer. you also can't expect these subprime borrowers to be fully informed because you think it should be that way. most of these people are low income and their credit is shot for a reason. these originators were beign opportunistic and predatory. they knew that the consumers would not be able to pay off the loans, but made them anyway because they were shifting the risk.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD I disagree.

That's completely your opinion then. White women are voting for Clinton by only a slim margin - how can you say her candidacy is based only on the fact that she's a woman?

Both candidates are galvanizing voters across demographics in ways that have never been seen before in a Primary. 3.8 million people turned out yesterday to vote in the Democratic Primary there, 1.4 million more than voted Democrat in 2004's general election... and you think that was entirely motivated by race and/or gender? Believe me, it is widely viewed that either of the two candidates in the Democratic race would make far superior options than Gore or Kerry.

quote:

So.. it was before he was president too, but I think this has more to do with spending too much time on a power struggle between two separate parties.

Not true. We were incurring budget surpluses under the second Clinton term. The reversion back to deficit spending only came when Bush took office.

quote:

My friend just come back from 6 tours in the middle east will disagree with that, he is a Sgt. Mjr. in the Army Rangers. He belives in what we are doing he says 80% of the people there want us there and that the only people making a fuss are people that don't want things to change. The highest education 90% of them have is around a 3rd grade level and their religion only hinders and blinds them more. Since we have been there, we have begun training an army, building schools, houses, police and fire stations, and more.

That's anecdotal evidence. Polling suggests otherwise. Also, the fact that the first official state visit by a foreign head of state to Iraq was by Ahmadenijad does not really fall in line with the "they want us there" mentality. The country is becoming increasingly divided under our watch.

quote:

I don't thinks so, I think bush gained us credibility, and the media ruined it by showing extremists and terrorists opposing the war and calling them the general population of the middle east. We bought into and jumped right on with becuase we are Americans and the media always tells the truth.

Again, you might think so, but polling suggests otherwise. Even before his opinion rate at home plummeted, his job approval was under 20% abroad - including in key ally states like Britain and France. Bush is a more unpopular president abroad than any President that's come before him. It has nothing to do with his popularity in the Middle East, though that is quite abysmal as well - why do you think people believe the US chose to intervene in Iraq and not Darfur, Burma, or Chechnya? Do you really think the "humanitarian intervention" angle is working on anyone?

quote:

We'll I suppose your right but I guarantee this would have happened under any other president and it worked, not that im condoning it. I don't know weather it has stopped or not I really don't know too much on the subject.

It certainly would not - the expansion of executive power to over-ride Congress and constitutional authority is unprecedented and is the most lasting legacy this administration is going to leave behind.

quote:

you also can't expect these subprime borrowers to be fully informed because you think it should be that way. most of these people are low income and their credit is shot for a reason. these originators were beign opportunistic and predatory. they knew that the consumers would not be able to pay off the loans, but made them anyway because they were shifting the risk.

'

Since when was ignorace an excuse.

quote:

Both candidates are galvanizing voters across demographics in ways that have never been seen before in a Primary. 3.8 million people turned out yesterday to vote in the Democratic Primary there, 1.4 million more than voted Democrat in 2004's general election... and you think that was entirely motivated by race and/or gender? Believe me, it is widely viewed that either of the two candidates in the Democratic race would make far superior options than Gore or Kerry.

I never said voter turn out had to do with race or sex. And no I don't believe anything in the election is entirely motivated by anything. I do think the democrats have done a good job reaching down to the young people, but this is besides the point. I also never said that women are going to vote for hilary just becuase shes a woman, I'm saying a majority of the people voting for hilary are doing so becuase she is a woman.

quote:

Again, you might think so, but polling suggests otherwise. Even before his opinion rate at home plummeted, his job approval was under 20% abroad - including in key ally states like Britain and France. Bush is a more unpopular president abroad than any President that's come before him. It has nothing to do with his popularity in the Middle East, though that is quite abysmal as well - why do you think people believe the US chose to intervene in Iraq and not Darfur, Burma, or Chechnya? Do you really think the "humanitarian intervention" angle is working on anyone?

These polls are very biased, 53 out of 100 can say that we are threat to peace but 9947 out of 10000 might say we aren't. Polls are something to keep people occupied with numbers at best.

Also the people polled are influenced by the same type of media that we are, until you go there yourself or talk to people that have spent a deal of time there using the media a source will not sway me. I don't care if it is heavily republican or heavily democratic network your getting your information from they are both tainted.

The reason we never went after Darfur, Burma, or Chechnya was becuase there wasn't a reason. The middle east poses a threat on our national security by fighting over there we keep them over there instead of come back over here to blow more stuff up.

quote:

It certainly would not - the expansion of executive power to over-ride Congress and constitutional authority is unprecedented and is the most lasting legacy this administration is going to leave behind.

Can't override a guilty verdict on an impeachment, so if the president is over-rides the congress or constitutional authority that needs to be stopped one way or another it can be stopped.

quote:

Mate, "minority" doesn't mean "discrimination", does it?

2. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.

So a larger group can have less power and representation due to sex discrimination and, placing this group in a minority. Or if you don't consider them a minority now, if they ever were then that still leaves room to think of them needing some type of compensation, weather it be accepting them over someone else because they are female or placing them in the presidential election. One reason you could say we have never had woman president before is due to discrimination so with everyone wanting to be tolerant and all if you don't vote for a woman your wrong.

Women are not, never have been, and never will be a minority!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD The reason we never went after Darfur, Burma, or Chechnya was becuase there wasn't a reason. The middle east poses a threat on our national security by fighting over there we keep them over there instead of come back over here to blow more stuff up.

clearly you have been brainwashed by sean hanity. the middle east is only a threat because we make their business our business. If we stayed out of their internal politics noone in the middle east would hate the US. Why does noone hate French Polynesia? Answer - they don't meddle in internal affairs of foreign countries. The middle east standing alone doesn't pose a threat to our national security, rather, the ME is a constant pain in our ass economically because effects on oil prices from social/political struggles. It is only after US policy aggitates people in the ME that it becomes a national security issue. If the ME had no oil we wouldn't be over there and not one person would argue that part of the world posed a threat to our national security.

flip off fox news and read something unbiased.

Re: The only one?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Am I the only one here that thinks the democrats are exploiting minorities just to gain a victory. In my opinion neither obama or hilary are fit to lead this country. The only reason I think people pay attention to them is becuase they are "different" and in a way they would represent some form of change in this country. However, I think it's the wrong kind of change when we start judging a leader based on their outward appearance rather than their character and abilities "or lack thereof". If anything I would vote for the guy who came up with the idea of running these two at least he knows what he is doing, becuase it sure is working. Until one of them shows some merit, rather than just being different, I will vote for McCain.

Anyone who wants to stay in Iraq for 50-100 years is clearly an imperialist in my opinion. I'm a registered Republican, but will never vote for McCain. The Republican Party attracted me because of their limited regulation economic policies, but their foreign policy, and too little regulation has turned me invariably to the left.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD ' Since when was ignorace an excuse.

The irony is too much.

quote:

I also never said that women are going to vote for hilary just becuase shes a woman, I'm saying a majority of the people voting for hilary are doing so becuase she is a woman.

That rationale honestly entails males voting more for Hillary because she is simply a female instead of females voting for Hillary because she is a female. Can you demonstrate this in any way? Please support your answer with any verifiable links.

quote:

These polls are very biased, 53 out of 100 can say that we are threat to peace but 9947 out of 10000 might say we aren't. Polls are something to keep people occupied with numbers at best.

Can you demonstrate how the majority of polls taken together are somehow "biased" in any way? Please support your answer with verifiable links, especially in regards to the Bush's approval rating. If you are suggesting his approval is higher than what these combined polls strongly suggest, please support your assertion.

quote:

Also the people polled are influenced by the same type of media that we are, until you go there yourself or talk to people that have spent a deal of time there using the media a source will not sway me.

Ahh yes, that darn librul media routine again. You sure you want to go this route here?

This wouldn't happen to be the very same lapdog media that's did next to nothing to challenge Bush on invading Iraq from WMDs again, would it? That darn Judy Miller from that darn librul NYTimes newspaper really did you warmongers a favor, didn't she?

But speaking about people that have been there, how about 15,000 strong from VoteVets?:

http://www.votevets.org/index_html

Surely those darn librul media bastards didn't get to them too, did they?!?!?! Gosh, and I thought it was the Conservatives who created the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Huh.

quote:

I don't care if it is heavily republican or heavily democratic network your getting your information from they are both tainted.

Then demonstrate where unbiased news comes from other than your anecdotal sources, please.

quote:

The reason we never went after Darfur, Burma, or Chechnya was becuase there wasn't a reason.

Millions of people being killed in a humanitarian crisis is not a good enough reason?

quote:

The middle east poses a threat on our national security by fighting over there we keep them over there instead of come back over here to blow more stuff up.

Great, so why did we take our eye off the ball by leaving the hunt for bin Laden to corrupt Afghan warlords in Tora Bora to go after a hapless dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11 again? And we're still there because the 95% insurgency that's killed our troops, i.e. the Sunni insurgency and Shiite militia has plans on attacking us on our own soil?

Gosh, I'm sorry, can you demonstrate that somehow with supporting evidence how the insurgency from these two groups in a civil war would come here again?

quote:

Can't override a guilty verdict on an impeachment, so if the president is over-rides the congress or constitutional authority that needs to be stopped one way or another it can be stopped.

This really isn't terribly coherent. Can you restate?

quote:

These polls are very biased, 53 out of 100 can say that we are threat to peace but 9947 out of 10000 might say we aren't.

The worst understanding of statistics that I have ever ever witnessed.

quote:

This really isn't terribly coherent. Can you restate?

If the president over-rides congress in some form or fashion, congress doesn't have to put up with it they can impeach him. Even with all the new legislations that provide the executive branch with "too much" power there is still a system of checks and balances, there will always be a way for each branch to over-ride the other.

quote:

The worst understanding of statistics that I have ever ever witnessed.

Statistics do not include the whole entire population therefore they are prone to error and do not always represent a fair ratio of what ever it is your polling.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Statistics do not include the whole entire population therefore they are prone to error and do not always represent a fair ratio of what ever it is your polling.

statistics is based on the proposition that a sample of the population fairly represents the whole. The sampling error (or error for margin) takes into consideration that the entire population wasn't sampled.

you really need to get into a classroom!!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Statistics do not include the whole entire population therefore they are prone to error and do not always represent a fair ratio of what ever it is your polling.

of course, but your argument (9947 out of 10000) is completely and utterly incorrect.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD If the president over-rides congress in some form or fashion, congress doesn't have to put up with it they can impeach him. Even with all the new legislations that provide the executive branch with "too much" power there is still a system of checks and balances, there will always be a way for each branch to over-ride the other.

Thanks, I see what you're saying now. This is most certainly true, however one can argue that the impeachment card should not necessarily be one played as merely a check and balance. This really is a card of last resort, and it only should be used if the president is unwilling or has not complied with the law.

But no doubt, you are right that Congress does have this power. And given the absolute lack of spine in these Democrats controlling Congress to even try to keep Bush's powers in check (ex: signing statements), not to mention House Speaker Pelosi stating right out back in November that "impeachment is off the table," that's certainly not happening in the rest of Bush's term.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD If the president over-rides congress in some form or fashion, congress doesn't have to put up with it they can impeach him. Even with all the new legislations that provide the executive branch with "too much" power there is still a system of checks and balances, there will always be a way for each branch to over-ride the other.

the president actually has to break some law in order to be impeached. Given the broad executive privilege, it becomes very difficult to actually prove a crime occurred. Congress can NOT impeach the president because he vetoes bills or has "too much" power. that's fundamentally incorrect.

quote:

the president actually has to break some law in order to be impeached. Given the broad executive privilege, it becomes very difficult to actually prove a crime occurred. Congress can NOT impeach the president because he vetoes bills or has "too much" power. that's fundamentally incorrect.

First off I'm not saying simply having too much power is a reason to impeach someone. I'm saying that if the president takes his power too far or beyond reason then that might be a case for treason. Considering bill clinton was impeached for having an affair, and having an affair is not a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 statistics is based on the proposition that a sample of the population fairly represents the whole. The sampling error (or error for margin) takes into consideration that the entire population wasn't sampled. you really need to get into a classroom!!

I know what the "margin of error" is, but that isn't that accurate either. The margin of error can still be well off the suggested number given.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Can you demonstrate how the majority of polls taken together are somehow "biased" in any way?

Ah come on Opus! Don't confuse the poor chap with words like "majority"!

def

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD First off I'm not saying simply having too much power is a reason to impeach someone. I'm saying that if the president takes his power too far or beyond reason then that might be a case for treason. Considering bill clinton was impeached for having an affair, and having an affair is not a crime.

The president extending his power further than congress is willing to accept is not treason. The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

clinton was not impeached for having an affair. it was for perjury because he lied about it under oath. there is a distinction.

Oh well, at least I learned something.....

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.