Ambrosia Software Web Board: 4th of July - Ambrosia Software Web Board

nevermind

[This message has been edited by dude3 (edited 07-06-2003).]

Quote

Take it from a foreigner. Bush might command fear (and its associated goodness, hate), but he does not command respect.

------------------
Sundered Angel,
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy

Quote

Explain to me how the Clinton administration acted to prevent attacks on the United States. As far as I can remember, there was a lot of, "We'll find those responsible" and an attack against a baby food factory, but no real action.

Terrorists hate the United States because we're the United States, not because we have any given man (or woman) as our president.

------------------
I'll kill you.
[url="http://"http://taoistmonksquirrel.blogspot.com/"]My life[/url]
Tout que je voudrais est vivre la vie que j'aime.

Quote

Noted. At this point, it's just semantics - I know what you're saying, and I think you know what I'm saying, so there's no point arguing the term.

------------------
I'll kill you.
[url="http://"http://taoistmonksquirrel.blogspot.com/"]My life[/url]
Tout que je voudrais est vivre la vie que j'aime.

Quote

Bush has only done negative to make the world like us. Most Bush foreign policy makes it look like we are against Muslims, even though that isn't true.

------------------
my [url="http://"http://home.ptd.net/~hart1"]Home Page.[/url] Now with a link farm, picture gallery, section on Australia, and golf.

It's very understanderble "someone"(read muslims) would like to bomb USA, you guys are the only superpower left, coulped with an inferiority complex, sometimes the message from USA, is rather rude, and not very wise politicaly, but if it is the way citizens of USA is going to keep conducting themselfs, then I hope you have the strength to overcomne more terrorist attacks. because it's not going to get better, unless a focus on human rights and development, in the world, because I see no focus from the goverment of USA, on human rights at all, and yes Capital punishment is a crime against humanity.

------------------
Arhhhhhhg Replied
Arthur.
[url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Ares+Trash+Talk&number=1"]http://www.ambrosias...h+Talk&number=1[/url]

Quote

It doesn't matter who likes it, it matters how effective the policy is - granted, that's debatable. As for Bush's foreign policy being anti-Islamic, there's not much we can do about it. I see no reason to let lies deter us from doing what is right (if it is, of course...)

------------------
I'll kill you.
[url="http://"http://taoistmonksquirrel.blogspot.com/"]My life[/url]
Tout que je voudrais est vivre la vie que j'aime.

People resent the fact that the United States of America is stronger than other nations. We actually aren't arrogant, we just don't let the rest of the world tell us what to do - there is a difference. If George Bush were to listen to international opinion, as opposed to doing what he needs to do for this country, he would be a failure as a president.

Sundered Angel accidentally edited my message, as opposed to replying to it. That message is below:

Quote

You see, there's the problem. Normally, there's a healthy interplay between countries on the international stage. It's called diplomacy, and it keeps any individual country from stepping out of line in ways that are bad for the world as a whole. The US is so powerful that it barely pays lip service to the idea.

Of course people are going to resent a powerful nation. There's nothing that can be done about that. But the idea that America is somehow different, and doesn't need to listen to what anyone else thinks... well. You get pissed off with someone like OJ Simpson manages to, through sheer money and sway, get away with murder, don't you?

[This message has been edited by Sundered Angel (edited 07-07-2003).]

[This message has been edited by hawk (edited 07-07-2003).]

Quote

I wasn't happy with the policy of the government in any aspect, and I am certainly more prosperous now that Bush is in power.

Quote

First of all, what part of the world are you talking about? France? Russia? If youi look at the big picture I think you'll find that just about everyone likes the two presidents equally (with the exceptions of some of our so-called allies, who just tend to be more vocal than most countries. Bush is better liked in most of northern Africa than Clinton ever was), give me some notable countries that aren't supporting Bush who fully backed Clinton and I'll go along with your contentions. On the freedoms issue, Clinton did everything in his power to eliminate the Second Admendment which in many peoples' (mine included) view is the most basic freedom we have.

Quote

The Monica Lewinsky incident actually made me respect Clinton more than I did before, the respect that I instantly lost when he refused to resign.

Quote

FDR was a president who had poor economic and domestic policy, brought America into the "war to end all wars," and basically wiped his arse with the Bill of Rights, yet he is remembered by the majority for responding to an attack on American soil and making America feel good during a time of crisis. He is not remembered for selectively suspending free speech, chaining the media, placing huge numbers of asians into internment camps, leveling the upper class with huge tax hikes to support "vegetable soup," and for carpet bombing civilians in Africa. These evils are far worse than what Bush has done, yet FDR is still remembered as one of the greatest Presidents of all time when he was, in fact, a horrifying, power-hungry, monster of a President. Bush will be remembered as an "alright" president who responded to a henious attack on our soil. Clinton will be looked back upon as a totally unremarkable president who managed to become only the second President ever to be empeached.

-Pufer

------------------
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Issac Asimov

Quote

It is the duty of the president to act in the interests of the United States, and when it is against the interests of other nations, it is unfortunate, but in my mind hardly a reason to NOT protect the interests of the USA. A healthy interplay is all nice and good, but in the end if it doesn't achieve the things that we need it to achieve, then we have the ability to ignore it, and the president then has the obligation to do what we need to do, even though it may not be pretty.

Remember that we can't actually do things willy-nilly without consequences. We've harmed our relationships with severl countries, and have certainly alienated many more foreign populations; what I argue, however, is that the job of the president is to act as the United States needs him/her to, not the world.

If the interests of the USA line up with the interests of the world, then it's great. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

And, for the record, Simpson got off because the prosecution was inept. I can only think of a handful of people that I knew that actually believed his innocence. I know I don't...

------------------
I'll kill you.
[url="http://"http://taoistmonksquirrel.blogspot.com/"]My life[/url]
Tout que je voudrais est vivre la vie que j'aime.

Quote

As am I. However, not everyone is, so just remember that, eh?

Quote

I'd say that I'm certain that more nations liked Clinton than Bush. That said, I don't really think it matters.

Quote

I disagree. Free speech is the most basic freedom we have. This cartoon puts it nicely, I think:



------------------
I'll kill you.
[url="http://"http://taoistmonksquirrel.blogspot.com/"]My life[/url]
Tout que je voudrais est vivre la vie que j'aime.

Quote

That makes 2. The country is much less prosperous. The stock market is down a huge amount. Bush is gone if it doesn't turn around. The Earth government in the show Babylon 5 accuratly displayes the way Ashcroft and others in the Bush administration want Earth to go.

Quote

Bush ignored the majority of the worlds view on Iraq. Where are the WoMD now? They can't find any. How long do we have to wait? I'm not denying Saddam was a horrible person, just that Bush's reasons were über bad for going in.
The gun issue is very debatable. You would rather have a gun then free speech?

Quote

Why should he resign? Because he did nothing wrong? I think Chaney should resign. His shadey deals with oil companies are much worse then the non-crime that Clinton "commited". If you had an affare would you quit your job?

Quote

If things continue on there present course, Bush won;t be remembered as anything but a blow to the US. Clinton will be looked on as a president who kept the US in good times and made a small mistake.

I predict the US will fall as a world power within 50 years. We are too afraid of risk. The media knows this and feeds of it. All we see is warnings and alerts. A ticker at the bottom of the TV says: WARNING BE EXTREMELY CAUTIOS. A THUNDERSTORM IS COMING, MAYBE. That is rediculous. We are trying to consolidate instead of grow. We are the Roman Empire of the modern era. We will fall. I need to go to bed. Remember, USA=ROME=FALL=BAD

------------------
my [url="http://"http://home.ptd.net/~hart1"]Home Page.[/url] Now with a link farm, picture gallery, section on Australia, and golf.

[This message has been edited by Trah (edited 07-07-2003).]

Sorry about that hawk, the edit button's right beside the reply button. It's funny it doesn't happen more often, come to think about it... ah well.

Anyway, the problem, I'd point out, with always doing what's best for the US, is that what's best for the US isn't necessarily what's best for the world as a whole. In fact, it very often isn't. While the playground bully certainly has the power to steal everyone's lunch money, and in fact it suits him very well to do so, it isn't a good thing for the school. That is why the interplay is vital.

------------------
Sundered Angel,
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy

Quote

It happens to me a lot, except that when I hit "submit" nothing happens.

Quote

And I can certainly see the reasoning behind that. However, one cannot compare international politics with the schoolyard. I would expect the chief executive of any nation to act with the interests of that nation in mind. In the case of the United States, it's easier to do that than with a number of other nations on the international stage. I can't claim to know the solution to reconciling the two goals of acting in the interest of one's own nation and doing what is best for the hundreds of world nations; however, I do believe that in the case where the interests of my nation conflict with the interests of other nations that it is right and proper for the president to act as an agent of the United States, and not the rest of the world.

The one thing we haven't addressed here is whether keeping other nations happy is in the interest of the United States, and I'm inclined to think that it is - sometimes. However, I still believe that whatever the United States does, there are always going to be people who criticize, protest, etc. This fact is actually something that makes me more inclined to want to ignore the rest of the world.

------------------
I'll kill you.
[url="http://"http://taoistmonksquirrel.blogspot.com/"]My life[/url]
Tout que je voudrais est vivre la vie que j'aime.

Well, I'll make a few general rants here, I suppose. So here're some fairly random, somewhat related thoughts.

First off, see signature.

Secondly, I don't know how it happened, but people seem to have forgotten about the fact that there were more than two airplanes hijacked on September 11th. At least four. I know one went into the Pentagon (a far more significant target than the World Trade Center, in my opinion) and one had the passengers fighting to retake the plane and ended up crashing in a field somewhere, so that's at least four. No real arguments from me on this point, I just think it's weird how nobody remembers.

The Patriot Act (and wasn't there a less extreme one beforehand that passed, involving things about being able to tap your phones and such?) is quite scary. Much like turning all police into secret police.

There's a lovely place called New Zealand. Other than driving on the other side of the road, a government setup that appears to be better, and having more interesting culture and native plants and animals, it's quite similar to the US. Oh, and its dollar amounts are about the same as dollar amounts in the US, and the NZ dollar is worth about half as much. If things get too bad here, you can move elsewhere.

Regarding airport security: they have it backwards. Rather than trying to eliminate all weaponry in the possession of the people on board (which is both impossible and fairly pointless, as there are a nearly infinite number of fairly harmless-seeming objects that, with some skilled modification and use, could be used as lethal weaponry, and an unarmed person who is adept at various martial arts could probably take an unskilled person with a knife fairly easily), I believe that they should require all passengers to have a knife on them and should station guards by the cockpit with tranquilizer guns.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror. Essentially, the goal is to scare people. Scaring people is not in itself scary, and terrorism is one of the lesser problems of the world in raw statistics (I'm sure here, though I don't have any figures to quote). People die of starvation and the like much more than from terrorism, and it is theoretically much easier to bring an end to starvation than terrorism.

Terrorism is virtually unstoppable. It's essentially geurilla warfare. Declaring war on countries harboring terrorists is no good as they can move about quickly, and trying to stop them is impossible without completely eliminating the privacy of just about everybody on the planet and keeping a close eye on them all.

To me, patriotism is actually a scary thing, as I don't see much difference between it and fascism. Also, I did not choose to be born in this country, and neither did most people I see who are patriotic, so I do not see how they should be proud of something they had no hand in.

That's all that's come to my mind for now. I may have more thoughts on these various matters at a later time.

------------------
"Humans are hicks."
- Paff's Law
It explains so much...

[This message has been edited by Mag Steelglass (edited 07-07-2003).]

Quote

OK, I'm going to hit upon a few points here in no particular order.

Citizens' firearms guarantee the protection afforded by the first amendment. If the government sees fit to scrap our second amendment what is stopping it from scrapping the first? The answer is "nothing," they would have shown that they are willing to steal our rights and would (at some point) use this precedence to take some more. At least an armed society prevents them from doing this due to the threat of a civil uprising (I might mention that Hitler confiscated all civilian firearms directly prior to beginning the slave labor parties that built the autobahn). I do hold my right to a firearm higher than that of my more valued right to free speech (and I use my 1000th post here to say this ).

I think Clinton should have resigned due to the fact that he stated that "if any President should ever be impeached, he should resign immediately, lest he do irrepairable damage to his country" (or something to that effect, I don't have the full quote right in front of me) during the Watergate hearings. The Clintons are the biggest hypocrites in the history of the nation who shouldn't be able to show their faces in public (much less hold public office). Clinton should have resigned per his belief system, yet he didn't, so he was a terrible president because, when the cards were down, he showed that he cared more for himself than the nation.

Bush will be remembered as a good leader for a nation in crisis who had an excellent crew of advisors but poor economic policy as was mandated by his party. He will be ranked (using what he has done up till this point) as above average.

As for Clinton, I pose to you a question: What do you remember about Andrew Johnson? Most people in America who know a bit about Presidential history will reply "He came after Lincoln, beat up the south, and got himself impeached." Clinton (who, as I have said before, was completely unremarkable compared to other presidents) will be remembered as "That President who came between the two Bushes, screwed around, and got himself impeached." He will be ranked as slightly above average for his environmental stance and economic good fortune, with his detractors being that he did damage to the nation's good name by getting himself impeached (no matter whether he was guilty or not, he still was impeached).

Consider what will be remembered of these two Presidents 100 years from now and you will find that "not much" will be the answer. Bush will be remembered more readily because of 9/11 and his response to the attack, so in history's view he will be regarded higher than Clinton who did nothing remarkable except for getting impeached.

-Pufer

------------------
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Issac Asimov

Quote

While NZ certainly has a few advantages (I'd know, being a Kiwi), it does have a few drawbacks Americans might notice more than Kiwis - no handguns, for instance. Admittedly, the criminals don't have them either, so you don't need them, but some NRA-types might miss them. And top salaries are nowhere near as high. Then again, practically all costs are far lower, so I guess that doesn't matter either.

I guess it's all a matter of taste.

------------------
Sundered Angel,
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy

Quote

Given that the only people with handguns that I see on a regular basis are cops, I'd not really notice it.

The problems generated by people owning guns are almost exclusivly, in my experience, limited to urban gangs, who often (probably more often than not) obtain guns illicitly anyway.

------------------
I'll kill you.
[url="http://"http://taoistmonksquirrel.blogspot.com/"]My life[/url]
Tout que je voudrais est vivre la vie que j'aime.

It's allways good to have the right to bear arms, when you live in a more rightwing country, you never know what "lies" around the corner.

------------------
Arhhhhhhg Replied
Arthur.
[url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Ares+Trash+Talk&number=1"]http://www.ambrosias...h+Talk&number=1[/url]

True, SA. No country is perfect, I suppose.

Regarding the right to bear arms: I think that soon, firearms will not really be effective weapons for uprisings. A vast mob of people with handguns can't really do much to tanks or aircraft now, and I can easily see their total obsolescence coming about in my lifetime. Essentially, the second ammendment is probably going to have to be revised fairly soon lest it becomes unable to do what it was intended to.

------------------
"Humans are hicks."
- Paff's Law
It explains so much...

Quote

The gun issue is too big to go into now, I think.

Quote

He was only impeached because a few Republicans thought he should be. A vast majority of the government and population thought the impeachment was rediculous. If some random guy sued you for something irrelevent and meaningless would you step down from your position? My point is that the impeachment was just Republicans trying to get him out of office, not trying to better the USA.

Quote

Excellent advisors? I think not. The only person in his administration that is even remotly close to excellent is Colin Powell;. I have found the rest to be war hawks.

Quote

Clinton will be remembered as a successful president who made a minute mistake blown out of porportion by the Republicans and media. Impeaching is just bringing a charge against the president. Saying he should have resigned is like saying someone proven innocent of murder should go to jail.

Quote

He bungled the attack. He will be remembered for that. Clinton will be remembered for what I said earlier in my post, not impeachment.


Congrats on 1000 posts I was wondering, how many are in This or That? The Revival.

------------------
my [url="http://"http://home.ptd.net/~hart1"]Home Page.[/url] Now with a link farm, picture gallery, section on Australia, and golf.

Quote

I'm not disagreening with any of this, yet when Nixon was in power Clinton believed (and stated publically, both verbally and in writing) that any president who lies to the American public should resign upon the first mention of impeachment. He thought that Nixon should have resigned because he lied, yet he changed his mind when his job was at risk. He is a hypocrite and a jackass for this.

My point in my previous post was that Clinton's impeachment did some damage to the name of the American Government, even if that damage came from France saying that we were silly for beating up on the President for screwing around, their perceptions changed for the worse because of this. The Congress impeaching Clinton also did damage to America in the realm of public opinion, no matter how slight (you cannot say that this is irrelevant because the basis for your Bush-bashing is based in public opinion in other parts of the world).

In the case of Andrew Johnson, it could be argued that it was just the Republicans thinking that he should be impeached. They tried to force his hand in regards to reconstruction, but he wouldn't have it (his position was terrible, but that is beyond the point). This eventually caused the firing of his Secretary of War which was the basis for his impeachment. Most Americans, however, don't know this about him. They also don't know all of the good things he did for the nation in regards to reconstruction, protecting the Mexican peoples, preservation of historical sites, or even his purchase of Alaska from Russia. His domestic policy allowed for the rebuilding of the economy, and it had gained a crapload of momentum by the time he left office. Yet all of this is deemed irrelevant by today's history books and people, he is only remembered at that president who got impeached. All I am saying is that none of Clinton's accomplishments are going to be remembered by future generations (Johnson bought frickin' Alaska for crissakes, this is one helluva lot bigger than anything Clinton did and even it isn't remembered at a large scale) Clinton will fade from memory is all I am saying.

Quote

This is your opinion, I won't argue it with you (even though he really has very good advisors ).

Quote

Please bring up an example of something he did that would seem bigger than his impeachment to future generations. He should have resigned because of his beliefs, he didn't, and, thusly, was a terrible man and (by my way of thinking) this means he was a terrible President.

Quote

What part of the attack did he bungle? Militarially both Afghanistan and Iraq were very good attacks by historical standards.

Quote

Prove it, buddy. I really would like to know what you think he will be remembered for that drags him out of the realm of the "average" President.

Quote

Thanks. 95, as of 8PM MDT today (you can count them if you like).

-Pufer



------------------
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Issac Asimov

Quote

The impeachment did the damage, not Clinton. Congress or the media didn't have to make any noise about it. Clinton is of course partially to blaim, but the damaging of the USA wasn't a definite outcome.

Quote

He led the USA through a time of peace and prosperity. Presidents shouldn't be judged on war. He did a great job on keeping the world happy and the USA prosperous.

Quote

Afghanistan was good, but there weren't enough troops in Iraq for a complete and total victory. Also, the administration had no real plan for after the war was "over". As you see now, Iraq is still a mess. Looting, fighting, and rebeling against the US presence. That could have been done much, much more cleanly.

Quote

He led the USA through a time of peace and prosperity. Presidents shouldn't be judged only on war. He did a great job on keeping the world happy and the USA prosperous. Anyway, my point was that Clinton was and is better then "the bush"


------------------
my [url="http://"http://home.ptd.net/~hart1"]Home Page.[/url] Now with a link farm, picture gallery, section on Australia, and golf.

Quote

My point is that many presidents have led the US through more peaceful times than Clinton (Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and a couple middle eastern conflicts were intered into by Clinton's administration, he wasn't all that peaceful), and he certainly isn't the only President to ever lead the country through good economic times, he hasn't done anything that is particurally memorable other than being impeached (the circumstances don't matter, he was still impeached). Bush done other things, so he will likely be remembered more readily than Clinton ever will. My point is that in the greater scheme of things, Clinton has made a far smaller dent on history than Bush has, and, because of this, he will shape the future of the US far more than Clinton did. It is my opinion that there are only about 5 or 6 presidents that were worse than Clinton at being president, also in my opinion, Bush comes in at about the lower part of the middle. I don't like Bush by any means, but nothing (compared to past events) in today's society is really all that remarkable in American history. There will always be recessions (Johnson, Nixon, and the elder Bush all faced greater recessions than this one, this one is piddly-crap, comparatively) and wars (at least in the forseeable future). In the simplest terms, Bush will be remembered for 9/11, Clinton will be remembered for being impeached, it doesn't matter what the circumstances surrounding either event were, it will just be this way.
-Pufer

------------------
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Issac Asimov

It's hard to come by good presidents, simply because they are all politicians, some of the worlds lowest form of scum. I mean, honestly, does it make any sense at all to put people who want power (and are therefore the most likely to abuse it) in power? I say we find the people least willing to be president and force them into office.

*A group of policemen go over to some guy walking down the street.*

"Excuse me, sir, but you're going to be the next president."

"What? No! I won't let you!"

"Come with us, sir."

*Policemen drag the guy away kicking and screaming.*

"Noooo! No, please, I'll do anything, don't give me power! Aaah!"

------------------
"Humans are hicks."
- Paff's Law
It explains so much...