Grizzle

It happens all the time when senators run for election, this is NOT news to anyone. I'm not saying it's excusable, but Kerry and Edwards aren't the first. As for fulfilling duties even the President is required to make appearances in public (like reading to school children), doesn't that take away from his job? I know I know, it's part of his job, but it shouldn't be in my opinion. The whole topic is a straw man argument.

Kal, Rebellion isn't imminent, but it still remains a possibility, whether it's a violent one or not depends on the people. As for the 1950s, it wasn't much different than today, it's just that people kept things more to themselves and the population was generally less educated and perhaps a bit more naive. Technology has made the world smaller with it's rapid dissemination of information, combine that with the desire to reduce political stance to a few talking points and you end up with what we have today. Too many people only getting half the story by limiting their exposure along party lines. Nomad, Another nice post. You are fortunate to have an external perspective on these matters and you always speak your mind well. For the past few elections we have had a third party, but due to the inherent problems with the current two party system, it's very difficult for any third party to gain much ground. So many people when faced with too many choices will always fall back on their political affiliation as the easiest way to make a decision. This is a good discussion, keep it up, for now I have some work to do

quote:Originally posted by Shingen: quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: The short answer to "what happened" is intellectual laziness. A strong element of US culture is it's consumer oriented mentality. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but that "consumer oriented mentality" can be directly traced back to The Illuminati. Capitalism, at it's heart needs consumers, in order to survive. Communism died because it couldn't produce...anything in the end, except death. Capitalism is successful because it allows for a basic human exisitance. It demands it. If the consumer has no buying power, then the Capitalist receives no profit. Profit equals power. The more profit the more power. This is the basis of Capitalism. This is why Capitalism has taken over the planet. The only problem with this is that the majority of the population is rendered a "consumer"...and once the "producer" becomes complacent, arrogant and starts producing a sub-standard product, the "consumer" becomes disenfranchised and rebels...violently. Nice post Shingen.

They are kinda busy with a Presidential campaign.

The short answer to "what happened" is intellectual laziness. A strong element of US culture is it's consumer oriented mentality. Most people don't want to be burdened with complex issues and thoughts so we end up with McDemocracy, a limited menu that's nothing but bland choices. The other problem as many people see it is the electoral college. Every state except for Maine and Nebraska have a winner take all system where all the states electoral votes go towards the candidate with the most popular votes. My home state of Colorado is considering splitting the electoral votes (they have 9) based on proportional representation. Each candidate will then get some of the votes. Maine and Nebraska are a little different in that they apply proportional votes based on congressional district, but have two "wildcard" votes that go to the overall winner statewide. It's a screwy system because you end up with situations like we had in 2000 where Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral votes. Not to mention the recent spat of congressional redistricting in some states for the sole purpose of tilting the scales in favor of one party or the other.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Edwards failed, in fact, for his first real debate I think he did OK. He was definitely too focused on hammering home the same old points. But then again, so was Cheney, he just has better presence than does Edwards.

Guess no one cares about the Veep anymore. Cheney put in an impressive performance, as I expected him too. Edwards was more like Bush in the last campaign, a bit nervous and very repetitive.

LOL..this isn't the "weed" thread guys. I agree about the abolishment of the two party system though. Two choices aren't enough and with it being so entrenched, a third party hasn't much of a chance either. I vote for NO political affiliation or party system whatsoever. Let candidates run on their ideas for change, not their idealogy.

Hey Scriv, do you have the 3 DVD boxed version of Brazil? If not it's a must-have if you're a fan of the film.

I think the VP debate is going to be a bit more interesting than the one we had last week. I'm looking forward to it tonight. Never saw Farenheit, but will either rent it or catch it on HBO if they will be showing it. Not that I expect to see anything I don't already know, but as you said Tak, he makes entertaining movies.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Where Bush gets money for raising prices of oil is beyond me. He has NO stock in ANY oil company, and receives NO personal income based on the price of oil. So where you got this information is beyond me. Favors among friends. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: That's a first. ROFL! Yes, we are a Democratic Republic and as such every person should be able to participate in the democracy (those of the present topic at hand excluded), that's kind of what Democracy is all about no?

quote:Originally posted by Shingen: I think America has entirely too many laws!! A person who smokes/sells a joint is not the same as a person who commits murder, rape or arson. I think that voting rights should be based on inherent intelligence and basic comprehension! Stupid people SHOULD NOT be allowed to vote! Ah Shingen, so you like a little doobie now and then huh? The voter rights are just fine the way they are now. Though there is something to be considered for letting reformed felons get their rights back.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: First off, felons are not allowed to vote, those that have murdered, bank robbery etc. I believe that there needs to be a test before people are allowed to vote. I think there should be a few other things as well before a person is allowed the right to vote, but the test is the MOST important as far as I am concerned. THe test would consist of 5-10 questions, regarding who is the current officeholder os certain offices within that persons district as well as state and federal offices. If a person is going to vote, but they DO NOT know who the current officeholders are, in other words whom they voted for last time, they should not be allowed to vote. I also believe that ANY person getting handout from ANY government institution, welfare, medicare, etc, NOT earned government checks, but GIVEN government checks, should also NOT be allowed to vote. If you are recieving free money from the government, then you are recused from voting until you are no longer recieving that handout. That is the most un-Democratic thing I've ever heard. I'm speechless...

Thanks Nomad, for saving me the trouble of pointing that out. One could define a criminal as anyone breaking the law, but the law breaks crimes down into further categories such as felonies and misdemeanors. Generally speaking a person is stripped of their right to vote if they are a convicted felon (murder, theft, drug trafficking etc...), since felonies are considered the worst of crimes. DUI is not a felony, but it is a "crime".

ROFL! http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc57.htm It'll be interesting to see how much attention this one gets. The link may be down at some point so get it while it's hot!

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Well people, time to look up the word "Fitna", because it is happening. The terrorists are strangling themselves, they are beginning to come apart at the seams, because the Muslim majority do not see them as militants anymore, but as murderers and warriors against Islam. We took the fight to them, and they are now killing 10 times as many muslims as they are Americans, and the muslims are getting a bit angry at them. The terrorists are not getting nearly the support they were when they were here in the US and just in Israel and other places killing infidels, now they are killing Muslims, ON PURPOSE, and that will not be put up with for long. We took the fight to their homes, and the terrorists are now being shown for the animals that they are, to the very people that used to support them. The Bush doctrine is working, just as it was supposed to. We took the fight to the enemy, and now that we are fighting them where they used to get their support, their support is realizing that maybe it wasn't such a good idea. The end of the war on terror will not be because we killed all of the terrorists, but because Islam itself has rejected them. It's about time for an Islamic reformation, and it looks to be happening. I hope, for the sake of humanity, that you are correct. Don't bother to respond as there is no need to reiterate your point, let's just wait and see what happens and hope for the best.

Jag, I take full responsibility for taking care of myself and don't expect help from anyone. I quit a very well paying job over a year ago, worked as a self employed software developer for a while and have just recently started working for another company. I haven't been hit nearly as hard as some, so I'm not complaining. When I began to look for corporate employment and contacted folks in my network, NO ONE was hiring, in fact they were still laying people off as recently as a week ago. I know many, many people who have been hit and are still suffering from the fallout of a mismanaged economy. You can throw all the numbers out that you'd like to prove the economy is doing well, but it doesn't change the reality on the ground for those that still suffer. I've said this before and I'll say it again, the unemployment figure is bogus. How many millions of americans are out of work but not counted in that number since their unemployment benefits have expired? I never have and never will use that number as a gauge. Instead I look to the people I know and the quality of work available as the most important indicator. Sure, the economy is doing well for some but on a level that the average american worker does not see or is even able to participate in. Investment bankers, real estate firms and corporations are benefitting from the economy right now, the latter mainly because they've cut their workforce and continue to do so. Sorry, but four years ago I could have had my choice of premium jobs and so could many others, that is not the case today. I know you are passionate in your beliefs and I find that an admirable quality in most people, but when you funnel that passion into condescension (chicken littles) and insults (I am not a child), you merely come off as an irate, frustrated individual unable to engage in civil discourse. It's one thing to believe you are sublime but it's something entirely different to actually be able to pull it off.

quote:Originally posted by Shingen: Given the lesser of two evils, and also, dealing with a devil that you know is much better than dealing with one you don't know, I sincerely hope that Senator Kerry never takes control of this country! He's far too leftist, and it seems, more than willing to turn control of America over to a Foreign Body (The U.N.), that I think I'd rather have a Power-mongering Capitalist in office than a Power-mongering Communist. I'm so sick of hearing the ridiculous conjecture thrown about by the republican party about how Kerry is a commie in a blue suit that would sell out his country. It's pure BS and you guys know it. It shows nothing more than a lack of intellectual honesty. I honestly don't like Kerry much either, but I cannot, and will not, support the policies of the current administration. I am not better off than I was four years ago. Our country is not better off than it was four years ago. And the world is not a better place than it was four years ago. It makes me sick to think that the Bush administration squandered all of the good will the world held towards us after 9/11. That they squandered a government surplus, have failed to truly revive the economy and have caused the US to lose credibility worldwide. Wonder why GW doesn't pursue more diplomacy? It's not because it's his style or even necessarily his belief, it's because the rest of the world refuses to work with him. He's like the angry bully on the playground that the other kid's parents warn them to stay away from. No thanks, I'll take my chances with Kerry, he couldn't possibly do any worse than what we've had for the past four years.

Well Jag, you might be surprised to find I agree with a lot of what you said. Whether it takes revolution or the governments self-destruction, change is inevitable. But one thing is for sure, it will never happen without people to challenge the current political environment. So why beat on folks that espouse ideas of change just because you consider it impossible to accomplish? That attitude is defeatist and only exacerbates the problem. I find it even more distrubing that you so strongly support an administration that is doing the very things that further limit the will of the people and are responsible for perpetuating the environment you say is so insurmountable. Based on your response, you shouldn't be allying yourself with any governmental body, why you choose one that is in direct contrast to your own statements is beyond me. Despite all of the problems with our government, it still belongs to the people and come election day, the loudest and strongest message we can send to our government is to vote Bush out. Not that it will necessarily change a damn thing, but it will prove that heart of democracy is still beating no matter how weakly.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Saddam MURDERED an Al Quaeda Lieutenant of Osamam Bin Ladens, who came to Iraq for medical treatment. So Saddam murdering a top Al Qaeda official is symbolic of complicity? Wow, that has got to be the hallmark of cooperation. I didnt know that Al Qaeda considered the murder of one of it's own by Saddam to be such a honor. I can see it now... "To prove my respect for you and your organization and as a show of my support, I will murder one of your men" Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like Saddam didn't care for Al Qaeda's ideas and plans at all, hmmmm.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: BTW, most of your thoughts are COMPLETELY politically impossible, and will never happen. They are great dreams, but the fact is, NONE of them are realistic. Remember, this is the REAL world, not some dreamland. Then again, you do seem to be in Dreamland a LOT lately, that Hate Bush thing has really got you going, and I am beginning to think it is taking you where you really don't want to go. There was a time when the world we live in today, was considered a dreamland. How do you suppose we got here? It certainly wasn't from people with your attitude about the status quo. You just go on living in the real world, while people like street and myself continue to push ourselves and our ideas towards a better tomorrow. We each have our roles to play in shaping our society and each of them is as necessary as the next. So thanks Jag, for keeping things working "the way they do" so others are free to pursue the way things could and should be.

quote:Originally posted by Kung-Fu Massa: quote:Originally posted by Reno: I think most of their creative processes were expended with KOTOR. Either that, or George is slippin with keeping the quality of his licenses in check. Whoa there Reno, credit for KOTOR goes to Bioware Regardless of the dev house used, LucasArts has final say on everything, so they are ultimately responsible for the quality of the game. Pandemic coded BattleFront, but LA approved it.

I think the issue is money. Lucas has always been about the money. So this causes development to focus on the least common denominator in order to maximize profits. So we end up with games most suited for the PC being shoehorned into the limited design and capabilities of console games. Games developed for the PC from the ground up aren't so bad, the Jedi Knight series for example I found very enjoyable. You would think that a man so concerned over copyrights and the image of Star Wars would never let this crap out of the door, but then again this is the same man that thought Jar Jar Binks was a good idea. Somewhere along the line Star Wars became more about the superficial and less about the substance. It's not enough that it looks and sounds like Star Wars and that he seeks to impress us with grand visuals over true content, it has to BE Star Wars. I found the documentary included in the latest DVD set to be very inspiring. He really was a cinematic genious and deserves as much praise as he has gotten, but it's no longer OK to just slap the Star Wars name on a piece of merchandise and throw in a few droids, wookiees and the theme music and expect it to enhance the franchise.

Well, I'm kicking myself for buying another LucasFarts product. Star Wars BattleFront flat out sucks. I just finished uninstalling it after a week of what I can only describe as the most frustrating and futile attempt to enjoy a game, ever. I had such high hopes for it too. It's got console port written all over it, and it's the WORST port I've ever seen. Terrible interface, terrible net code and terrible execution. The only thing that might save it is six more months of development and several patches, but I don't think it will ever lose that nasty console flavor. There are so many things that irritate me about this game that I don't even know where to start. So I won't. I'll just warn everyone else ahead of time to stay "far, far away" from this one. (if there were a vomiting graemlin in our happy little selection, it would be here)