Quick takes

[Guest DragonflyKid]

1. HAS THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM BEEN SUCCESSFUL?

 

It is still early but Bin Laden has not been captured and is presumed alive, Al Qaida has been nearly eradictated in Afghanistan although not competely, many of the top leaders have not been captured except their #3, there have been terroristic attacks thwarted due to intelligence picked up in Afghanistan and around the world,etc.

 

Overall the Al Qaida network has been severely damaged but stll poses a threat, there is still work to be done but so far I think it has been a success although it could have been better(when the US left the Afghanis to try to stop OBL from escaping Tora Bora which proved to be a mistake.).

 

2. IS A WAR WITH IRAQ A GOOD IDEA?

 

A confrontation with Iraq seems inevitable, Iraq has failed to cooperate with foreign weapons inspectors and may possibly be creating weapons of mass destruction while aiding anti-US terrorist organizations.

 

I'm sure the government has intelligence on Iraq that has not been divulged so I can't say whaether Iraq indeed has weapons of mass destruction ans if they pose a threat to the US and their allies. I would hope that if an attack against Iraq is launched it will be more than just a way to get revenge on Suddam for Bush Sr., not taking him out when he had the chance. The Iraqi people are suffering mostly due to sanctions which doesn't seem too important to Saddam, a new government is in order but should the US merely aid the Iraqi, anti-Saddam opposition or remove him by force themselves?  

 

3. YOUR POLITICAL PARTY/PHILOSOPHY?

 

The country is basically 50/50 democrat,republican, but Bush is very popular right now. The big cities are mainly democrats while the rest of the country is mainly republican.

 

I don't consider myself affiliated with any party or movement, I am mixed when it comes to democratic/republican leanings. Even though I am an anarchist at heart I know it's not a viable system, I do believe in having as much personal freedom as possible.

 

 

Add your quick takes to any issue or respond to the ones already listed.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

1. no

2.yes

3. Alliance Party (I'm Canadian)

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

1. Too early to tell.

2. A full scale military operation like in 1991 would be a waste of everyone's resources and time.  Right now, Iraq is like the annyoning neighbor who's full of himself and won't shut up about how dangerous he is, although in full actuality, he isn't dangerous at all.  Saddam might be the most pathetic head of state this side of Dubya.  What boils my brownies is how the people of Iraq are being treated, partly because of the sanctions, but mostly because Saddam is just like any other despot: concerned only with himself.  It's a fucking shame.

3. Hell, I just wish we could all get along and stop flinging bombs and the like at each other.  That's all I want.....

[Guest TJH]

1. Yes, to a degree. Osama isn't really as important as made out, more of a figurehead than anything, a spiritual leader in a way. We've got rid of the Taliban, and their haven't been any more terrorist attacks, so that is a good start. I could give you a better answer in 5 years time.

 

2. Invading Iraq is not going to happen, however airstrikes are a possibility. There is no way that they would try and invade another country, and unless they do, it will be difficult to justify an invasion to the Arabs, in particular Saudi.

Should we? Yes. Can we? No, not at this stage.

 

3. Liberal (Conservative) Party, I'm from Australia. My American sympathies are Republican.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

1) When you are in a “war” against terrorism, it’s a war you’ll never win since there will always be terrorists. As much as I hate this phrase, I do think the Al Qaida network has seen better days.

 

2) I’m still out on this one. In the future, I’ll probably be leaning toward the “yes” column.

 

3) Although I’m considered a right-wing facist by some of my more liberal-minded peers, I have also been called a wishy washy gutless wonder from a few of my conservative counterparts. For the record I’m a registered Republican with Libertarian sympathies who happily had the phrase “Gore can’t lick Bush, just ask Tipper” posted in my yard during Election 2000.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<1. HAS THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM BEEN SUCCESSFUL?

 

It is still early but Bin Laden has not been captured and is presumed alive, Al Qaida has been nearly eradictated in Afghanistan although not competely, many of the top leaders have not been captured except their #3, there have been terroristic attacks thwarted due to intelligence picked up in Afghanistan and around the world,etc.

 

Overall the Al Qaida network has been severely damaged but stll poses a threat, there is still work to be done but so far I think it has been a success although it could have been better(when the US left the Afghanis to try to stop OBL from escaping Tora Bora which proved to be a mistake.).>>>

 

 

It's been a success, IMO. The Taliban was thrashed, Al Qaeda is about as big a threat to us as the KKK, and as much as other countries HATE us---none are going to be willing to try anything or else they'll suffer greatly.

 

 

<<<2. IS A WAR WITH IRAQ A GOOD IDEA?

 

A confrontation with Iraq seems inevitable, Iraq has failed to cooperate with foreign weapons inspectors and may possibly be creating weapons of mass destruction while aiding anti-US terrorist organizations.

 

I'm sure the government has intelligence on Iraq that has not been divulged so I can't say whaether Iraq indeed has weapons of mass destruction ans if they pose a threat to the US and their allies.>>>

 

 

We know, for a fact, that they had a very active biological weapons program. We are also VERY aware that they have been recruiting Russian nuclear scientists (though Iran is much worse about this than Iraq) and there is only one reason why they'd do that.

 

So, is a war with Iraq a good idea? Well, considering that their military is weaker than it was in 1991, it wouldn't be a big struggle.

 

 

<<<I would hope that if an attack against Iraq is launched it will be more than just a way to get revenge on Suddam for Bush Sr., not taking him out when he had the chance. The Iraqi people are suffering mostly due to sanctions which doesn't seem too important to Saddam, a new government is in order but should the US merely aid the Iraqi, anti-Saddam opposition or remove him by force themselves?  >>>

 

 

The Iraqi people suffer because the gov't controls the money and the economy.

 

Iraq gives the families of Palestinian suicide bombers several thousand US dollars.

 

The avg. citizen lives off of, roughly, $2 US a week.

 

There is money available---Saddam won't feed his people.

 

 

<<<3. YOUR POLITICAL PARTY/PHILOSOPHY?

 

The country is basically 50/50 democrat,republican, but Bush is very popular right now. The big cities are mainly democrats while the rest of the country is mainly republican.

 

I don't consider myself affiliated with any party or movement, I am mixed when it comes to democratic/republican leanings. Even though I am an anarchist at heart I know it's not a viable system, I do believe in having as much personal freedom as possible.

 

 

Add your quick takes to any issue or respond to the ones already listed. >>>

 

 

Obviously, I'm a Republican. Liberal ideas have been tried from the 1930's on and have not proven to be all that effective (Social Security isn't effective, welfare was a disaster, "gender equality" usually means slashing away men's sports, affirmative action is a total joke...)

                       -=Mike

[Guest phoenixrising]

1.  To an extent, yes.  While Al Queda hasn't been completely destroyed, it has been damaged, hopefully to the extent where it would no longer be able to carry out such massive operations as the ones seen on 9/11.  However, bin Laden is still out there, and I won't consider the war a complete success until he is caught or killed.

 

2.  Not sure.  If there was clear evidence that the Iraqis were funding terrorism groups in the U.S. I'd say go after him.  

 

3.  Registered Democrat, but that doesn't mean I follow the heard and vote for what they tell me is good and take their position on all issues.  For example I tend to oppose new gun control laws and just enforce the existing ones, a position most Democrats wouldn't agree with.  For the most part though, I'm a Democrat.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

1.  I think we have had success with our war on terror up to this point... I mean we were able to get rid of the Taliban, an organization which I detest, I can't stand countries which allow religion to govern it's people (long live seperation of state and religion)  I think that Al Queda really underestimated the military might of the US, and the fact that no other Muslim countries joined them in thier jihad.  and so in that regards we have had success.  Will the war on terror be a complete success, time will only tell.

 

2.  I don't know if invading Iraq, is such a hot idea at the moment.  Now don't get me wrong, I hate Sadam, I think he only cares about how much power he has.  He could care less about his people.  He is the reason that the Iraqi people are suffering.  But, at this moment I think that the our main concern is the out of control situation in Isreal.  I think we need peace in that region.  With peace, then we could focus attention to Iraq.  I do think we need the support of the other Muslim countries, I am aware that this is better said than done.

 

3.  I consider myself more Liberal-Moderate.  I am very liberal on some issues, like environment, schools, drug policy(legalize marijauna/hemp) and such, but I do try to look at each issue individaully.  But I do see a big problem with our current political system, which to me is being run by corporations and the special interest groups.  Why vote when in reality our say doesn't mean anything, without the Benjamins to back it up.  I feel that many other people in this country feel the same way, hence the reason for such low turnouts at the voting booths.  I live in California, and our voting turnout was pathetic.  I am basically sick of both the Republican and Democratic parties, both of whom are basically bought and paid for, so I am now looking at other political parties to go with, with a leaning towards the Green, but I still need to research and stuff before I make that choice.

[Guest]

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Independent libertarian (the philosophy, not the party)

[Guest Some Guy]

1. Yes

2. Yes

3.  I'm a Conservative, not neccesarily a Republican.  I'm a Libertarian at heart but realize that the system wouldn't work properly.  I'm for the legalization of drugs and Abortion which would push me out of the Republican party.  I was also one of the few MA residents who voted for the President.  Try living in MA and going to a State college and being Conservative, you find little sympathy for your idealogy.  The "open-minded" and "diversity" lovers tend to insult me and give me dirty looks a lot, for you know expressing my diversity.  I'm also called a racist from time to time, which is totally unfounded and untrue, but since I don't support reparations for Blacks and Indians I guess that's what makes me racist.  I can't stand that shit, some one can't beat you in a real debate so they resort to name calling.

[Guest]

1) It depends on what the "War on Terrorism's" aims were. If it was as I believe just to make America feel better about itself and show the rest of the world in a fairly puglistic manner who is boss then yes it has worked. Don't think I'm knocking these espeacilly the first one, hell if you guys had of stayed in the dumps then Europe really would have been in the shit.

 

However if you define its aims as beating Islamist Terrorism then no it hasn't. The fact is with the exception of the exiled Al' Queada leadership there were very few terrorists in Afghaninstan for the very simple reason that it was so far away from civilisation, espeacilly the western one Bin Ladien wants to attack. The fighting Al'Queada men in there were the rejects or trainees that were fighting as milta in a civil war, the real danger is in the literature spread by Saudi Arabia and sleeper units in Europe and America.

 

Bin Ladien was important because you made him important. Bush with his simplistic comic book morality had to have an "evildoer" to battle with and after hyping him so they just had to bring him in (and lets face it if teh Americans hadn't been so stupid to reveil that the (UK)SAS were tracing Bin Ladien's phone we would have got him by now) or else look like they had been defeated.

 

If you really had to have some sort of miltary solution then you could have dropped one dasiy cutter anywhere in Syria, Gaza Strip Saudi Arabia hell even parts of the UK and you would have killed more terrorists and hindered Al'Queda operations far more the entire Afghanistan campagin.

 

However by taking the miltary option America basiclly blew all the politically smpathy it had got due to Sept 11th and now we're back at America being everyone's favourite bogeyman. If Bush had restrained from an outright bombing campagin and had instead with the Irainian, Saudi, Pakistanian and the Northen 'Stan countries a proper seige with US troops on the ground you would have got the leadership apperatus of the Tailban and Al'Queda and got major brownie points in European and Muslim Opinion for being restrained plus you would have far less obligation to take part in nation building.

 

Couple this with a genuie effort to get peace in Israel/ Palenstine* and to install democraices in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait by a mixture of threats and increased aid and America would have dramatically ultered Muslims perception of them if we go by the evidence of MI5's efforts in getting intelligence from Muslims (before the actually bombing on Afgahanistan started Muslim intelligence was at a record high, when the bombing started it fell back dramatically), they will respond postivly to such a response and be more forthcoming with information. It will also help in the international police effort to get Al'Queda.

 

So the short answer it hasn't really as it was always portrayed as a crusade to get Bin Ladien and all the revisonist wriggling afterwards cannot change the fact that the US has failed to capture him, primarly due to the US Army's incompetence.

 

*It might be idea to give Tony Blair FULL power and responsiblity over the Israel/Palenstine question. Not only would he work doubly hard to get a deal in place (Nobel Peace Prize beckons) it would give him faaar more leeway to support you in an attack on Iraq.

 

2) It will happen, it will be done badly (probably by air strikes), it will cause revolution in the Middle East and may dragh AMerica and Israel into a war with teh United Arab armies.

 

3) I'm a right wing radical Eurospectic Tory (ha ha that shocked you) with "liberal" social values  (okay that didn't). I personally think I've got more than a little of the iconalist in me as I always seem to be going against establishment belief. I'm think Britian should pull out of the EU and have foreign policy of her own. I think Comprhensive Schooling should be replace with a selection based system and that even tough I dislike Corparal Puinshment it is needed. I think that all drugs should be leagalised with the more addictive ones prescribed to make the drug market entirley passive I think the NHS should be replaced by Social insurance. I think Multiculturism is divisive and will lead to further problems, as will Affiramte Action with is discrimantiona gianst the marjoity with a nice name. I'm proud to be British and Anglo-Saxon/English and of my country's Imperalist past, I belive in small state and national soverignity.

 

Still I'm such a big leftist.

 

William

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<1) It depends on what the "War on Terrorism's" aims were. If it was as I believe just to make America feel better about itself and show the rest of the world in a fairly puglistic manner who is boss then yes it has worked. Don't think I'm knocking these espeacilly the first one, hell if you guys had of stayed in the dumps then Europe really would have been in the shit.>>>

 

 

 

I prefer the phrase "It was done to show the idiots what happens when they try and attack the U.S".

 

Just think---Al Qaeda et al spent a lot of time and money to plan and execute the attack.

 

What has it given them? The Taliban was routed and bin Laden is powerless (and, quite possibly, dead---nobody has heard a word from him in a while now).

 

 

<<<However if you define its aims as beating Islamist Terrorism then no it hasn't. The fact is with the exception of the exiled Al' Queada leadership there were very few terrorists in Afghaninstan for the very simple reason that it was so far away from civilisation, espeacilly the western one Bin Ladien wants to attack. The fighting Al'Queada men in there were the rejects or trainees that were fighting as milta in a civil war, the real danger is in the literature spread by Saudi Arabia and sleeper units in Europe and America. >>>

 

 

Absolutely---but you can only do so much at one time. One should never spread oneself too thin. Next, we should suspend all aid to the Saud family and let Arabia fall into revolution. If they end up being governed by an "enemy"---at least they'll be an expressed enemy and not one who claims to be an ally.

 

 

<<<Bin Ladien was important because you made him important. Bush with his simplistic comic book morality had to have an "evildoer" to battle with and after hyping him so they just had to bring him in (and lets face it if teh Americans hadn't been so stupid to reveil that the (UK)SAS were tracing Bin Ladien's phone we would have got him by now) or else look like they had been defeated.>>>

 

 

bin Laden, and I'll say it now, is probably dead. There have been no sightings and no recent videos made of the man--and Osama never shied away from the spotlight.

 

 

<<<If you really had to have some sort of miltary solution then you could have dropped one dasiy cutter anywhere in Syria, Gaza Strip Saudi Arabia hell even parts of the UK and you would have killed more terrorists and hindered Al'Queda operations far more the entire Afghanistan campagin.>>>

 

 

But, since bin Laden was stationed in Afghanistan, then bombing other countries wouldn't have been productive.

 

 

<<<However by taking the miltary option America basiclly blew all the politically smpathy it had got due to Sept 11th and now we're back at America being everyone's favourite bogeyman. If Bush had restrained from an outright bombing campagin and had instead with the Irainian, Saudi, Pakistanian and the Northen 'Stan countries a proper seige with US troops on the ground you would have got the leadership apperatus of the Tailban and Al'Queda and got major brownie points in European and Muslim Opinion for being restrained plus you would have far less obligation to take part in nation building. >>>

 

 

Quite frankly, European and Muslim opinion mean approximately squat. The British gov't is behind us and the rest of Europe can just rot. We did what we felt we had to do. Why waste our time with a big coalition (which, BTW, we did have in Afghanistan) when one was not necessary? I gives us fewer headaches.

 

America will always be the world's bogeyman because we are what the world strives to be. We took the best of Europe and made it better while discarding much of the drivel that passes for enlightened opinion in Europe.

 

 

<<<Couple this with a genuie effort to get peace in Israel/ Palenstine* and to install democraices in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait by a mixture of threats and increased aid and America would have dramatically ultered Muslims perception of them if we go by the evidence of MI5's efforts in getting intelligence from Muslims (before the actually bombing on Afgahanistan started Muslim intelligence was at a record high, when the bombing started it fell back dramatically), they will respond postivly to such a response and be more forthcoming with information.>>>

 

 

We FEED Muslim countries more than their own governments do. We FIGHT WARS for Muslim countries more than their own governments do (I still say that, next time, we let Kuwait get invaded. Screw 'em). If they still wish to hate us, fine.

 

We don't NEED to be their friends.

 

We can either have them LIKE or---or FEAR us. If they won't like us, then the latter is the more prudent choice of action, no?

 

And we have a genuine desire for peace in Israel---but we also recognize that Arafat is an untrustworthy little worm who is incapable of telling the truth. We also know that the European press, for whatever reason, has this propensity to simply buy whatever bilge Arafat spreads about Israeli "atrocities" (I assume it's residual anti-Semitism).

 

Heck, the Jenin "massacre" is one of the worst examples of shoddy reporting ever.

 

We're siding with the good guys in that conflict and if Europe doesn't like it, it's really not our problem.

 

 

<<<It will also help in the international police effort to get Al'Queda.>>>

 

 

No offense---but aren't most of your suggestions basically having the U.S get MORE involved in the world's business---which is a major gripe of numerous countries?

 

 

<<<So the short answer it hasn't really as it was always portrayed as a crusade to get Bin Ladien and all the revisonist wriggling afterwards cannot change the fact that the US has failed to capture him, primarly due to the US Army's incompetence.>>>

 

 

Again, where is he? Not a single word has been heard from him. Nobody has seen him anywhere.

 

 

<<<*It might be idea to give Tony Blair FULL power and responsiblity over the Israel/Palenstine question. Not only would he work doubly hard to get a deal in place (Nobel Peace Prize beckons) it would give him faaar more leeway to support you in an attack on Iraq.>>>

 

 

I say we tell Sharon to do whatever it takes to solve the problem. We can't trust Arafat as history has shown.

 

 

<<<2) It will happen, it will be done badly (probably by air strikes), it will cause revolution in the Middle East and may dragh AMerica and Israel into a war with teh United Arab armies.>>>

 

 

Hardly a threat. The united Arab armies v the US and Israel is comparable to an NFL team taking on a JV high school team. The united Arab armies have never been able to defeat Israel---what in the world could they hope to do against us AND Israel?

 

And we could always---and they KNOW it---simply decide to seize the oil fields should they wish to engage in a war with us.

 

 

<<<3) I'm a right wing radical Eurospectic Tory (ha ha that shocked you) with "liberal" social values  (okay that didn't). I personally think I've got more than a little of the iconalist in me as I always seem to be going against establishment belief. I'm think Britian should pull out of the EU and have foreign policy of her own. >>>

 

 

Britain should pull out of the EU because the entire idea of an EU is beyond idiotic. Takes power away from the citizenry which is NEVER a good thing.

 

 

<<<I think Comprhensive Schooling should be replace with a selection based system and that even tough I dislike Corparal Puinshment it is needed. I think that all drugs should be leagalised with the more addictive ones prescribed to make the drug market entirley passive>>>

 

 

Don't agree with that. I could care less about pot (I don't touch the stuff)---but things like heroin et al are not worth the hassle of legalization. Let the junkies die on the street from tainted drugs.

                               -=Mike

[Guest Vern Gagne]

1.So far it's been successful but still work to be done. Getting Bin Laden isn't a necessity but it hurt Al Qaeda morale and help our morale even more. The man that is probably more important to capture or kill is the 2nd in command. The guy with the glasses in all the OBL videos. He's the supposed mastermind and brains behind Al Qaeda.

 

2.This will probably be airstrikes only with the U.S. and Great Britain hoping that opposion forces inside Iraq can overthrow Hussein's government and establish a pro-western democratic form gov't.

 

3.Conservative Republican(a strong Capitalist). Almost everyone in my family is a Republican and the one's that aren't are either more independent or really don't follow politics very much.

-pro death penalty not what I used to be

-against abortion. but it's bound to happen so they should probably keep it legal.

-against gun control. enforce the laws that are on the book.

-for more military spending.

-don't believe in global warming

-no universal medicare (everyone gets treated whether you have insurance or not)

-don't like Greenpeace, Peta or any other fringe groups that do more harm to humans than they do to help their cause. Some of the things these people do is terrorism. I honestly don't care if these groups exist and quite frankly they end up looking like idiots in most people's minds.

[Guest ant_7000]

1. no

2.no

 

3. My political philosophy im a Democrat or more of a liberal im not for the status quo, I tend to lean that because im black so I feel that the republicans dont represent Black issues that concerns me like racial issues, poverty in the minority community, jobs, enviroment, and overall equality. So I was pissed when Bush cheated the election.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<3. My political philosophy im a Democrat or more of a liberal im not for the status quo, I tend to lean that because im black so I feel that the republicans dont represent Black issues that concerns me like racial issues, poverty in the minority community, jobs, enviroment, and overall equality. So I was pissed when Bush cheated the election. >>>

 

 

I've always wondered this.

 

What, exactly, are the Republican positions that you feel don't best represent you? Is it opposition to affirmative action?

 

I'm asking because, honestly, I don't see it.

                 -=Mike

 

...And Bush won the election fair and square. Every vote was counted---repeatedly.

[Guest Some Guy]

I'm also curious what you dislike about Republicans.  And Bush did win the election by the Constitution's rules, so it was fair and square.  How can people still be complaining about this?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I'm canadian so I'm not really familer with how you guys count up the votes.

 

But in America the winner isn't necasarly the one with the most votes, right? it's  the one that win's the most states or something?

 

it's been bugging me for a while and I hope someone could explain it to me.

[Guest Dr. Wrestlingphysics]

1. Depends if the aim was to kill OBL or not.

2. No

3. Largely Socialist. I know that's a dirty word in the USA and Britain, but recent events have shown that privatisation of public utilities is deeply flawed, and I believe healthcare should be free at the point of receival (ie, NHS).

That doesn't mean I'm some sort of liberal who thinks repeat offenders and drug addicts should get showered with sympathy, as Right Wing Mike said, "Let the junkies die on the streets from tainted drugs".

[Guest ant_7000]

Republican party in my view, they're rich people that care about themselves for some reason to me they always wanna eliminate the middle class they want it upper class (rich) lower class (poor). Yes and no affirmitive action because I havent benefited from it and actually it doesnt benefit alot minorities but white women and immigrants seem to benefit from it more than I do, but i feel that should be in place anyway because it "levels the playing field" but I dont wanna hear republicans crying talking about the people who benefit from it didnt work hard as them which is bullshit. But in a way Dubya Bush used affirmitive action since Bush Sr. went to Yale and Dubya was a average student he proably wouldnt got into Yale without his father's alumni status,money, and influence there's noway in hell he got into Yale, thats a good example affirmitive action. so why there against it?

 

I want answer more your question on why I dont like republicans because But I got to go I'll answer later and still think Dubya Cheated the election and tell you why later.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'm canadian so I'm not really familer with how you guys count up the votes.

 

But in America the winner isn't necasarly the one with the most votes, right? it's  the one that win's the most states or something?

 

it's been bugging me for a while and I hope someone could explain it to me. >>>

 

 

Here, the electoral college isset up so that each state has a certain number of electoral votes (I believe it's the same as the total number of representatives and Senators in Congress). The winner of the Presidential election must get at least 270 electoral votes or else the election is decided by the House of Representatives.

 

This system is kept because it minimizes corruption (the Chicago political machine could only throw enough votes for a Democrat to win Illinois, not the entire country) and it's done to force candidates to visit the ENTIRE county (from which a more legitimate claim for a leadrship mandate can be drawn) rather than staying in a few big cities and simply piling up votes there.

                   -=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

First, I do appreciate you expressing your views. Obviously, I disagree---but I have always wondered the reasoning:

 

 

<<<Republican party in my view, they're rich people that care about themselves for some reason to me they always wanna eliminate the middle class they want it upper class (rich) lower class (poor).>>>

 

 

As a Republican, we want to completely eliminate the lower class and have EVERYBODY be rich. Cutting taxes tends to spur capital investment which tends to increase employment.

 

 

<<<Yes and no affirmitive action because I havent benefited from it and actually it doesnt benefit alot minorities but white women and immigrants seem to benefit from it more than I do, but i feel that should be in place anyway because it "levels the playing field" but I dont wanna hear republicans crying talking about the people who benefit from it didnt work hard as them which is bullshit.>>>

 

 

Not necessarily BS. If a student has better grades, better extracurricular activities, and better grades---why in the world should his/her race/gender play a role?

 

I some situations, elite schools will take students who, flat out, can't handle the pressure.

 

It, to me, does nobody any favors to send a minority student who is not qualified to be there to somewhere like Stanford (where failure is a likely outcome) rather than sending them to a "lesser" school (USC, UCLA, etc) where they have a much better chance of graduation.

 

 

<<<But in a way Dubya Bush used affirmitive action since Bush Sr. went to Yale and Dubya was a average student he proably wouldnt got into Yale without his father's alumni status,money, and influence there's noway in hell he got into Yale, thats a good example affirmitive action. so why there against it?>>>

 

 

We can't make all things in life "fair". That is an impossibility. However, many schools hold minorities to lower standards than they do white and Asian studies which is both wrong and insulting to the minority students (if you set the bar high, people will still succeed). Affirmative action is unfair to white and Asian students and casts all minority students in a poor light.

 

If Japanese students can succeed---even with their families being sent to "camps" back in the 40's and us having a war with them---why can't others?

 

And, for what it's worth, how is racism against white and Asian students, who had nothing to do with any previous discrimination, fair? You can't punish children for the sins of their fathers.

 

I'd also like to know what racism Hispanics have ever had to face.

 

 

<<<I want answer more your question on why I dont like republicans because But I got to go I'll answer later and still think Dubya Cheated the election and tell you why later. >>>

 

 

He won more states by a huge margin.

 

The press' giving Florida to Gore before the polls closed---and with Gore never leading in the state---cost him at least 200,000 votes (and that's a study by Bob Beckel's group---not exactly pro-Republican).

 

There was massive voter fraud in St. Louis.

 

Bush won the election clean.

                -=Mike

[Guest Vern Gagne]

<<That doesn't mean I'm some sort of liberal who thinks repeat offenders and drug addicts should get showered with sympathy, as Right Wing Mike said, "Let the junkies die on the streets from tainted drugs". >>

 

Isn't socialism another name for liberalism?

[Guest Some Guy]

Socialism is more of a form of watered down Communism, Liberalism is watered down Socialism.  None of those systems work particularily well, but people do steadfastly follow those idealogies.

[Guest ant_7000]

MikeSc, respect your views and all I disagree with you its that democrat vs  republican thing, in all honestly minorities dont need affirmitive action, true it was meant for us but we dont even benefit from it that much as than white women and immigrants. As I stated before it should be there anyway it prevents minorities that are QUALIFIED from getting discriminated because of race. Really affirmitive action not a reason that i dont really care for republicans. And I also agree with the tax cuts and all but who really benefit from it? the upper and upper middle classes not poor people, and always talk about eliminating welfare and all but its only 1% of the budget and make it seem like they are tryin to threat minorites by tryin to take it way but it dont effect minorities as much as does single white mothers.

 

But, the real reason I dont care for republicans is that have this thing I call the republican superior complex, they seem like they like they're better than the minorites (no offence). they dont really care about minorities interests when it comes to race its like you guys treat us like second class citizens. its like someone commits a hate crime on a minority where republican is in charge of that state and it seems to me it like every time minority leaders want set up some kind of meeting about a racial issues its like republicans try to alienate them and the topic instead trying together and solve the problem I look at is that they dont care about hate crimes and racial profiling, and discrimination.

 

And the reason why I dont care for Dubya Bush is that he cheated the election and I also find ironic that his brother is the Govenor of Florida he might've help him we may never know.  regardless any republican says, because not all of the votes were counted in Florida, people were voting for Gore and didnt understand the ballet setup so wrote his name on the ballet I think a lot black people was confused by it which I dont understand that one myself quite honestly punch a hole.But wanted vote for Gore but ended up voting for Buchcanan (sp?) in which he honestly admitted and said that most of the votes was not his. But alot of people wanted to do a revote and could've and should've but noooooooooooooo, so that comes across as Black people from Florida and the rest of the US your vote doesnt count and now minorities feel disinfrachised at the time. Someday I do wish Demcrats and Republicans can get together on issues I think the world would be a better place. thats all im saying

[Guest]

people were voting for Gore and didnt understand the ballet setup so wrote his name on the ballet

Dr Tom (01:29:02): He's "talking" very poorly, though. Christ, even Cooling is better than that.

Marney (01:29:21): I think we're all glad that politicians don't wear tutus.

Dr Tom (01:29:36): I know I am.

[Guest ant_7000]

ya'll talking about me?

[Guest]

No, no, that'd be a hate crime. We were talking about, um, Mike. Yeah, that's the ticket. He's probably white.

[Guest ant_7000]

In white mode whatever dude, I think faster than I type this is not english class dude. How you like my typing now fag.

[Guest]

"Dude?" <tragic sigh> Why does everyone think I'm male?

 

I think faster than I type

But, obviously, not faster than you vote.

[Guest]

<Socialism is more of a form of watered down Communism, Liberalism is watered down Socialism.  None of those systems work particularily well, but people do steadfastly follow those idealogies.>

 

Only an American could think this.

 

Socialism is the belief that the state can provide things better than the free market and that the rich should support the  the poor via redisturbution.

The most obivous example of socialism is nationalisation where the state owns in the company and in theory the profits benefit the whole country not the shareholders. I say in theory as to my knowledge only the british Post Office has succeded.

Socalist countries usually have high taxes and lots of business restrictions.

Most genuine Socalist parties come from the working classes and have Trade Union support i.e The pre Blair British Labour Party .

The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is the allowing of personal property and acceptance of democarcy.

Watered down Socialism is Social Democarcy which although believes in "Social Justice" and will redisturb wealth to the poor acccepts the free market i.e the British Labour Party today. These parties are usually middle class in orgin.

 

Liberalism as an alternative to Conservatism as existed for centuries long before socialism (which was invented in the late 19th century) as shown by the existence of the British Liberal Party. It is pretty vague but mainly is a belief in rights of the indiviual over the state and feedom of the indiviual. Liberals are usually optimists when it comes to the behaviour of humans which explains their belief in legalisation in drugs.

A lot of the Liberal agenda i.e. Free trade and power of the indiviual against the state has been "stolen" by the Reegan/Thatcherite conservatives.

True Liberalism is the very oppisite of Socialism which believes in a very powerful central authority and that "citzens" are just cogs in the state.

 

Hope that helps

 

William