Grizzle

quote:Originally posted by Zane Marlowe: The heavy influence of religion as you call it is part of America's identity--no candidate has ever been elected who didn't appeal to that part of the American voting public, and people's voting trends indicate that the American public is overwhelmingly shaped by religious beliefs and attitudes. (People on both the left and the right make apppeals to religious ideas to argue for their particular views, so while Religion doesn't necessarily require a particular party alignment, to say that it doesn't belong in the discussion is pretty radical.) Are you trying to refute my point or validate it? This is one of the main reasons I say it won't happen. Religion is full of condescension towards women. Show me one church that allows women to rise to the highest position of power in it's ranks. Religion in American politics is a LARGE part of what is holding us back from true progression. It's so ironic that the country our forefathers fled to escape religious influence and persecution has beat us to the punch in successfully removing it's influence from politics, don't you think? quote: The boy's club mentality is about networking, not about men (I was working my way down this thread and thought Thatcher before I noticed someone had beat me to it). You don't like networking? Find your next job without knowing somebody or creating a good relationship with someone who does. The modern economy requires partnerships, and money doesn't care whether you pee sitting or standing. I only wish it were simply about networking. It's certainly not as openly discussed as in the past, but you are deluded if you do not believe that there are still men (the influential among them) that feel women are not our equals. Have you been blind to all the recent events surrounding the mistreatment of women in organizations dominated by men? The military, anyone? quote: The objectification of women in general is a consequence of the politics of sexual liberation that has been a hallmark issue for the left. You want women to stop being sexualized objects? Drop pornography from the news stands (heck, even Maxim, Stuff, and FHM contribute to this frat-party view of women). That sound like a knee-jerk fundamentalist conservative thing to do? Well I don't hear conservative voices defending pornography as a 1st Amendment right. I'd rather there were virtuous people who wouldn't print that (I don't normally favor regulation for this kind of thing, but I'd consider it for this), but the point is that conservatives didn't create this landscape for women. I would argue it is our puritanical roots and the suppression of sexuality that has led to this over-objectification. Pornography certainly does not help the matter but it's more of a symptom than a cause. Case in point, Britain is much more sexually liberated and progressive than we are and THEY were the country that elected Margaret Thatcher. Just listen to some of the conservative views of feminism and the feminist movement and tell me that conservatism isn't part of the problem. That's enough for this thread, it's off topic and I don't want to raise SC's hackles.

Sorry guys, I still have to disagree. It's nice to believe our society treats women with equality, but the fact remains we don't. In a few more decades maybe, but certainly not in 2008. Until we can extract the heavy influence of religion and the 'boys club' mentality from the political arena, as well as the objectification of women in general, it just simply won't happen. Sure, we'll pay them lip service and grant them lesser positions of power, but to run the country (Thatcher-esque or not), not now and not for a long time. Hate to be so pessimistic about this, but I'm just calling it like I see it.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: Hillary? No she wouldn't win either. Not because she's not qualified, but because she's a woman and she's a Clinton. This country is not ready to elect a woman to the Presidency, something made even more obvious by this election. Really? I saw figures on CNN which indicated that more women voted this time around than ever before. That may be true, but don't you think if Hillary ran even MORE men would turn out to vote her down? The women turned out in this election for security issues, not because Kerry was an exciting candidate. I haven't read any of the stats, but how many of the women voters actually went for Bush? Don't get me wrong, I'd vote for her, I just really think a large portion of this country lives their daily lives in the distant past and is not ready for a female President. I do think we need a candiate other than a rich white male. I think that is the only hope for putting this country back in the hands of the people. But to your point, that would likely rouse even more ire amongst the entrenched ethno-centric in our society.

Hillary? No she wouldn't win either. Not because she's not qualified, but because she's a woman and she's a Clinton. This country is not ready to elect a woman to the Presidency, something made even more obvious by this election. Obama, he would be a good choice, but I'd have to agree with you SC, the Dems are likely to elect another lame candidate for the 2008 race. Let's all just hope for the best and hope that the inevitable changes in Bush's cabinet will have a moderating effect on the direction this country is headed. I hope Kerry concedes soon, I don't want a drawn out battle. We should spend the next four years fixing what's broken with our voting process. Congratulations to the reppy's and to Bush. See you in 2008!

If anyone decides to try it, at the top of the try/download page is a link to the forum so you can grab the 2.x beta, I'd recommend it. It's got tons of cool factor and it hasn't caused any problems on my PC, plus it's not a *true* replacement for the windows shell but rather sits on top of it. You can cancel it anytime and you're right back to your own desktop. Go ahead...give it a try...nothing to lose

I'm not a big Star Trek fan, but I do like geeky things and cool gadgets (who here doesn't?). THIS is sure to set you on geek overload. Haven't played with it enough to decide on it's practicality, but it sure is fun to mess with.

Please do. I think I broke my scroll wheel on that one.

So I watched Farenheit, very good movie lots of footage I've never seen before. I'll not get into the specifics of it as all of the topics it covers have been hashed out here before. Jaguar, if you intend to see Farenhype, I would recommend you watch this first. Doesn't make much sense to watch a film that is supposed to rebut a film you haven't seen. There's lots of good things in it and if you look beyond the immediate presentation to the message behind it I think you'll find lots to agree with (in regards to power and corruption etc...)

I saw that on Leno last night, it's pretty damn hilarious.

I'm a little ticked that I missed watching the debate. I had some crap to do for work and had it on the TV in the next room. I could hear it well enough but I missed alot because I was concentrating on what I was doing. From what I could tell it was a bit of a draw, but a lot more passionate than the previous one. All I heard was more of the same albeit a bit more enthusiastic this time around. I caught some after-action reports and it seems this was one to watch not just hear because they were talking about the physical moves and actions of the candidates. Nevertheless, it's going to be an exciting few weeks from here on out.

quote:Originally posted by Matchoo: quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: A bit of synchronicity or one of life's little mysteries... Went to rent Farenheit 9/11 just a while ago and my bill worked out like this... Two movies, a box of Sno-Caps (yummy) and a small late charge from a previous rental...total came to $9.11... I kid you not! Your point being???? Synchronicity - Coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully related, conceived in Jungian theory as an explanatory principle on the same order as causality. Philosophy my friend.

A bit of synchronicity or one of life's little mysteries... Went to rent Farenheit 9/11 just a while ago and my bill worked out like this... Two movies, a box of Sno-Caps (yummy) and a small late charge from a previous rental...total came to $9.11... I kid you not!

I enjoy reading both of your posts Jag and street, but can we please tone down the antagonism? It really disrupts the flow of these threads. I don't want anyone banned and would still like to think we can all exchange ideas without being labeled as one thing or another simply because we don't agree.

No I haven't read the report Jaguar, but I intend to this weekend. I want to read the whole thing and it's going to take a large investment of time. Regardless of Saddam and his sons, democracy cannot be imposed, it's an inherent contradiction. So you hate the UN, we get that. Do you believe there needs to be some sort of multi-national organization?

Campaign Finance reform was a good idea that was poorly implemented. The 527's from both sides disgust me. I have never agreed with negative campaigning, but it looks as if it's here to stay. As for his power, that's the downside of Capitalism. We should be asking why it is that people with power also happen to be rich or vice-versa. As long as world societies continue to hold the rich in high esteem, simply because they are rich, the problem will never go away. It would be nice if those with money would put it to more immediate use by feeding the hungry and elevating the poor, but there's and old saying "Give a man a fish..." So I can see why they would rather spend their money and use their influence for more long term benefit. It makes sense. There's another saying that applies, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". It would seem that regardless of one's intentions, that a certain dynamic comes into play that inevitably spawns corruption. I hardly think Soros has ideas of Hegemony, but you never can be too sure.

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: I'm still waiting for the rest of the media to cover this issue with the same gusto they have in focusing in on WMD. Still nothing, this is the best CNN has done in this matter Cheney uses WMD report to defend Iraq war. Yep that's it folks no indept reporting like the fox article going on point for point with specifics. quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: and only had plans to reconstitute them once the sanctions were lifted. And you don't think that Saddam would have been a threat that we would have had to deal in the near future anyway? Well the way I look at it take him out now before he has enough WMD to cause massive amounts of casualties. If you think the casuality count is high now, can you imagine what the count would be like if we needed to take him out in the near future and he had many WMD's to use effectively against any invading troops. The answer was simple, continue with sanctions and weapons inspections until Saddam died of old age or the populace rebelled on their own. We could have worked to breed democracy from within rather than take the strong arm approach and attempt to force it upon them. Besides, going back to the original justification given to the US people, Saddam was a near term, immminent threat and we couldn't risk his weapons falling into the wrong hands. Oops. As for the UN, despite it's problems, some sort of international organization is needed as the world grows smaller every day. There is no way the human race can survive if all nations aren't capable of finding some common ground to engage in ideas and diplomacy. Safety in numbers as they say, two heads are better than one.

I think it's an excellent summary of the situation. I don't see where anyone can call Soros a socialist when he is merely interested in spreading democracy and freedom. I can only assume the folks that make that claim do so because he speaks so harshly of Bush. Speaking of, that's the only issue I take with the article. While Bush may be President, I'm sure he relies heavily on input from the group that Soros mentioned that includes Cheney, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Rumsfeld etc. I'm not so sure Bush would have taken the action he did without their prodding. I really don't hold any anger or animosity towards GW, I can separate the man from his policies and it is his policies that I strongly disagree with. However, as the President he is ultimately accountable for his decisions and actions and I can see how so many place the blame squarely on his shoulders. As for Soros, if he really has established worldwide agencies to spread peace and democracy then I applaud him. As long as he isn't seeking a position of power himself which is where I can see potential for his idealogy to become as corrupt as the ones he speaks so loudly against.

LIS, I've heard that the US was also participating in the scandal, though I haven't had time to research it myself. There is also evidence that the sanctions did indeed cripple his weapons building plans etc... Hence the report released the other day that pointed out he had no WMD's and only had plans to reconstitute them once the sanctions were lifted.

I noticed that during the debate, only then it looked more like wrinkles on the center seam of his jacket to me. That pic makes it look like something entirely different. Maybe he was wearing a bulletproof vest or something, but I sure hope it's not some electronic device, that would just be too much to bear.

I'm glad to see you haven't abandoned us street. There's a lot to read there, but when I have a chance I'll stop back

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Grizzle, boy are you in for an october surprise... ROFLMAO!! You don't know about the infighting that is occurring between the CIA and the DIA, and other intelligence agencies. The CIA is FULL of CLinton holdovers, that want nothing more then the defeat of George Bush. The CIA has released all kinds of information, too bad that most of it is Disinformation. The fact is that the WMD's exist, did exist and still exist. They have been found, and will be retrieved, in some way shape or form. The DIA has yet to be heard from, but that shout from the wilderness is gonna come out pretty soon and the CIA will once again have egg on it's face. Hopefully, that will mean a MAJOR cleanout and reorganizing for that agency. The surprise is coming, stand by, because it will be a doozy. And your argument about no WMD's is gonna fall apart at the seams. Then I imagine that you'll just move the goalposts again, as liberals always do. And that crow won't taste too good while you're eating it. But it'll be my pleasure to watch. I like it medium rare and served hot, with a little steak sauce and some mashed potatoes on the side. Don't expect a big tip though as I'm sure I'll be waiting a long time for that meal.

The whole WMD issue is dead Jaguar, give it up. It's been proven over and over by more people both within and without the administration who have more first hand knowledge of the situation than any of your sources could possibly hope to have. At this point, the evidence against it and the lack of evidence in the first place so overwhelms any and all speculation that it's simply a moot point. Get over it and move on. I'm much more willing to accept the war in Iraq as a strategic decision to institute stability and democracy in the middle-east than the load of crap we were fed about Saddam's plans to attack the US. No plans, no weapons have surfaced. Speculate all you want about what happened to them and where they've gone or even what he would have done if sanctions were lifted, but if you continue to ignore the mounting evidence against the whole concept then you do yourself a disservice. If you want to continue claim it's all true but it's "super-secret" then go ahead if it makes you feel better, but you just look foolish. Crow doesn't taste very good, but it's time you took a bite and just let it go, we'll forgive you.

Well, this used to be a good thread.

Lots of good stuff here many good points being made, but so far no one has posted anything that is absolute. There's room enough here for everyone's idea's and opinions.