|
| |
LOki
Refusenik   SSHOLEPosts: 485 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 01:03 |
All right! Crackalakin thoughts on the radar!
Before we exchange hugs like retards who argue politics on the internet -- let me adress a few bits of business.Crackalakin - "How do you know it's programming?" I don't know this -- it has been my strong suspicion due to the lack of any hint of reason for an endorsement for voting Kerry except the well established bot answer "BUSHSUX."
Until your last reply to my criticism, I wasn't seeing any prospects for reason ... period.
On that account, I now offer my sincere apology.Crackalackin - "What is your point exactly? That this administration is good because it set us 10 years back in terms of economic growth, and therefore deserves reelection? Bravo, my friend, THAT makes sense." What are you up to here? Are you trying to trick me? You know very well that "10 years back" is not the conclusion to arrive at from the statement -- and you know very well that it can't be implied from the statement. I ask again, are you being tricky?
Crackalakin - ""Verifiable facts" in my book come from arguments that state their sources. " Oh, but I did -- in the original post -- Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
Crackalakin - "You state averages and expect them to be good indicators of common well-being? You must then not be much of a statistician. The devil is in the details of the second-order and distributional statistics." Ooooh! Fancy! Ok. I'm game. Firstly I offered only two of the dozen mere indicators this time -- and not for the purpose you seem to have mistaken them for (ie. the economy of 2004 is better than the economy of 1996), but to support my assertion that they are about the same.
I may not be Jerzy Neyman, but I do understand this much about statistics -- if the interval of deviation between statistics is smaller than that accountable by random chance, then the best you can say is that the two statistics are about the same -- which is the case I continue to assert.Crackalakin - "Instead, I challenge you to plot the CDF of the income. You will see that the income figure is inflated because the top ~5% of the richest (which also account for ~85% of total wealth) got the biggest gains at the expense of the middle and lower class. " Well if you actually plot the CDF, you'll likey see that the top 5% are still about the same number, and that number will be 1/19th the size of the rest, so the impact of increase will only assert 1/19 of the influence that the rest of the nation experienced.
In order for your assertion to be true, that "richest got the biggest gains at the expense of the middle and lower class," then you would have to demonstrate how very, very much richer the top 5% got, to counterbalance the losses of the bottom 95% and yet yield a net per capita increase in income growth. I'm just not seeing it.
I am certainly not Sir Ronald Fisher, but even I know that the 95% with 15% of the total wealth will have a greater imapact on the average than the top 5% -- no matter how much that top 5% made. Besides, income growth is income growth despite your notions of fair distribution.
Don't expect me to get scared by having "Continuous Distribution Function" thrown at me -- I've got guns.
Crackalakin - "While the GDP is a probably the best economic INDICATOR available it is just an indicator. You can be mired in debt, you could be selling off your house your car, your 401k (and anything else that does not count as a new good or service), but as long as you are spending money on new stuff the GDP (and the world of economists) would say that you are doing fine." Right. But you see now, I'm not Milton Friedman, but I think that's why the statistic presented was not just the plain old GDP, but the debt as a percentage of GDP. So when GDP goes up faster than debt (making debt as a percentage of GDP go down), that mean's we're spending more without borrowing more, right? OR it can mean we're spending more and paying down the debt, right? What are you up to? Are you trying to trick me again? I won't fall for it you know.
I hope that clears a little of the air between us, so that you can:
a) school me on statistics,
b) school me on economics,
c) school me on some reason to vote for Kerry besides "BUSHSUX"
Of course the point of this is to debunk this popular notion that the economy is in the tank. It really is not. Nor is it pretty and beautiful in every aspect. The fact of the matter is that it is growing (nobody disagrees with this) albeit more slowly than we might desire; but I find that preferable to the cotton candy explosion that was the dot-com bubble.
Alot of you guys in the tech industries forget about that -- |smak-talk|the smooth sailing because you could write HTML or then use cascading style sheets to create cardboard storefronts without the intrinsic value of the cardboard involved at all. |/smak-talk| You're disillusioned by the difficulties invloved in the aftermath of that debacle.
Throughout this whole period, my experience has not been that of a crappy economy. I've been getting raises and bonuses all along, and I've been watching contractors bitching left and right about not having enough $16 to $25 an hour labor to meet schedules on multi-million dollar capital improvement projects.
But then again $16 to $25 an hour is probably McDonalds wages to you guys. Or construction related work fails to meet the criteria of a "good" job. I guess I wouldn't know.
So you see, the statistics I'm aware of, and my personal anecdotal evidence does not support the notion of bad economy.
But if there is a worry I have, I would be this movement to wards universal health care. That business I can see will tank the economy.
Thoughts?
____________________
|
| |
LORDKAHUNA
Don't make me fuk your moustache  SSHOLEPosts: 1664 Registered: 8/5/2003 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 02:48 |
But if there is a worry I have, I would be this movement to wards universal health care. That business I can see will tank the economy.
It doesn't have to be scary, the Canada Health Act's goal is “...to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.”
I'd be the first to agree that the system isn't perfect, but we have been working on it for 50 years.
Universal health care allows me :
- To choose my own healthcare professional.
-"Alternative" medicine (i.e. Chiropractic care)
-Have my child delivered in the hospital of my own choosing.
-Home care.
-Access to new therapy.
Regardless of my income/status.
The sad part is that if mismanaged the costs soar out of control, but is the alternative any better (loss of life/quality of life)?
____________________
the rice I had yesterday came out practically verbatim |
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard  SSHOLEPosts: 1665 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 03:18 |
debt as a percentage of GDP
national debt? |
| |
dragonstaff
Too old to Rock and Roll...too young to die  SSHOLEPosts: 765 Registered: 8/19/2004 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 03:47 |
I have to agree with Kahuna on this. We have universal healthcare and whilst it costs a bit and waiting times for elective ( ie non urgent or life threatening ) treatment or surgery can be a bit long sometimes, it works quite well. We don't have a choice of doctor in a public hospital but most of the other things Canada gets, we do to ( no Alternative medicine) . Everyone helps to pay for it with a 'gap' between what Medicare pays and what the medic charges of around ten dollars ( unless the Doc accepts what the Govt. will pay him only, then we pay nothing ) and we pay a 1.5% 'levy' on our income tax.. All public ( Govt. owned ) hospital treatment is free unless you go in as a 'private' patient, ie you choose your own doctor, surgeon etc. Then you pay. The Govt also pays a 30% rebate on insurance premiums to encourage people to use the privatemedical system.
[Edited on 30/9/2004 by dragonstaff]
____________________
The Grumpiest Alpha
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov |
| |
Crackalackin
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 387 Registered: 7/19/2004 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 05:45 |
Aha! Now we're talking.
L0ki
Crackalackin - "What is your point exactly? That this administration is good because it set us 10 years back in terms of economic growth, and therefore deserves reelection? Bravo, my friend, THAT makes sense." What are you up to here? Are you trying to trick me? You know very well that "10 years back" is not the conclusion to arrive at from the statement -- and you know very well that it can't be implied from the statement. I ask again, are you being tricky?
No, no trickery, straight talk throughout. I am just pointing out that an economy actually grew since 1996, and grew a lot, as it would be expected from a juggernaut such as USA. But, it is very sad to see the data in 2004 be at the same levels as it was in 1996. It's almost as if someone has pressed a big 'undo' button (and you can probably see the general direction of where my finger's pointing).
L0ki
Crackalakin - "You state averages and expect them to be good indicators of common well-being? You must then not be much of a statistician. The devil is in the details of the second-order and distributional statistics."
Ooooh! Fancy! Ok. I'm game. Firstly I offered only two of the dozen mere indicators this time -- and not for the purpose you seem to have mistaken them for (ie. the economy of 2004 is better than the economy of 1996), but to support my assertion that they are about the same.
I may not be Jerzy Neyman, but I do understand this much about statistics -- if the interval of deviation between statistics is smaller than that accountable by random chance, then the best you can say is that the two statistics are about the same -- which is the case I continue to assert.
I think you are correct and wrong at the same time. See, it all really depends o[n the metrics you pick and what they really mean. It is actually a very poor achievement to have some metrics stay at the same levels, for example (like mortality). There has to be progress. Other metrics don't mean much by themselves until you overlay them on top of other related stats, and only then do they actually tell you something.
L0ki Well if you actually plot the CDF, you'll likey see that the top 5% are still about the same number, and that number will be 1/19th the size of the rest, so the impact of increase will only assert 1/19 of the influence that the rest of the nation experienced.
Sounds like you're looking at a graph? If so, I'd like to see that URL.
But, maybe you're thinking that top 5% means that the "rest of the growth" is 1/19 of total. That means I confused you and I apologize.
What I really meant was that, for different layers of society, the income growth must have been different. Imagine that the income of 100 of people in the lower class grew by 200$; the income of 50 of people in the middle class grew by 500$ and the income of the 5 people in the CEO class grew by $22000 (imagine the disparity!). Now, you look at the average (100 * 200 + 50 * 500 + 5 * 22000)/(100 + 50 + 5) = $1000, and you may think, hey, not bad, everyone's salary is up by a $1000 bucks this year, on average! Correct, but that's really not the case.
L0ki
Don't expect me to get scared by having "Continuous Distribution Function" thrown at me -- I've got guns.
I had no ulterior motive...
L0ki
Crackalakin - "While the GDP is a probably the best economic INDICATOR available it is just an indicator. You can be mired in debt, you could be selling off your house your car, your 401k (and anything else that does not count as a new good or service), but as long as you are spending money on new stuff the GDP (and the world of economists) would say that you are doing fine." Right. But you see now, I'm not Milton Friedman, but I think that's why the statistic presented was not just the plain old GDP, but the debt as a percentage of GDP. So when GDP goes up faster than debt (making debt as a percentage of GDP go down), that mean's we're spending more without borrowing more, right? OR it can mean we're spending more and paying down the debt, right? What are you up to? Are you trying to trick me again? I won't fall for it you know.
No trickery whatsoever. Yes, I talked about the combined metric in the next paragraph. You're spot on, we're spending more on new goods and services at a slightly faster rate than we're borrowing compared to 1996 (and that includes national debt), but that is very, very bad because of the sheer amount of debt.
Basically, we are borrowing like crazy, at unprecedented levels, and we're spending even faster, far beyond our means! This is the downward spiral that might just land us on our bare ass...
L0ki
I hope that clears a little of the air between us, so that you can:
a) school me on statistics,
b) school me on economics,
c) school me on some reason to vote for Kerry besides "BUSHSUX"
Yes! Maybe over time these online discussions will let each of us learn something new. Hey, maybe we will find a good answer to (c) over time!
L0ki
Of course the point of this is to debunk this popular notion that the economy is in the tank. It really is not.
It is not in the tank. I believe that the overall situation is far more grave, and that it will unravel most unfavorably if something is not done about it.
L0ki
Nor is it pretty and beautiful in every aspect. The fact of the matter is that it is growing (nobody disagrees with this) albeit more slowly than we might desire; but I find that preferable to the cotton candy explosion that was the dot-com bubble.
Alot of you guys in the tech industries forget about that -- |smak-talk|the smooth sailing because you could write HTML or then use cascading style sheets to create cardboard storefronts without the intrinsic value of the cardboard involved at all. |/smak-talk|
First of all, all of the computer industry is suffering, including real-deal CompSci heavies, and outsourcing is the real reason, and not the "unbearable lightness of being an HTML coder" or the .com bubble burst (Speaking of which, I know a few formidable HTML hackers which rightly command respect and admiration). And second, I revolve in circles that encompass many industries, and almost everyone but defense and drug research is feeling it (even the taxi drivers, if you can believe it).
Throughout this whole period, my experience has not been that of a crappy economy. I've been getting raises and bonuses all along, and I've been watching contractors bitching left and right about not having enough $16 to $25 an hour labor to meet schedules on multi-million dollar capital improvement projects.
But then again $16 to $25 an hour is probably McDonalds wages to you guys. Or construction related work fails to meet the criteria of a "good" job. I guess I wouldn't know.
So you see, the statistics I'm aware of, and my personal anecdotal evidence does not support the notion of bad economy.
Consider yourself very fortunate. But please also think about many, many others.
[Edited on 30/9/2004 by Crackalackin] |
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth  SSHOLEPosts: 4529 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 13:06 |
I'd like to help determine and describe a winning point of Kerry's that elevates him from being "not Bush." But you know? I'm less and less interested in doing so over time. I'm comfortable voting for him because he's not Bush, and for my part, the Slashdot comment Cracka linked to a few days ago really said it well. I don't think BUSHSUX, and to whatever extent he DOES suck, Kerry might suck just as vigorously. I don't like the status quo.
Yes, I realize it's not philosophically rigorous for me to vote without having a complex and vigorously thought-out understanding of the benefits my chosen leader provides, but for me, it comes down to this one thing, much the same way LOki's gun-rights litmus-test works:
Kerry doesn't use words like "Creator" in his speeches.
Done.
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 485 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 13:22 |
This is fun!Crackalakin - "It is actually a very poor achievement to have some metrics stay at the same levels, for example (like mortality)." I think this and the appurtenant analysis is a bit unfair. Take mortality for example - if mortality hit 0, no change would be good. More realisticly, in the progress of certain kinds of trends, (economic growth being one example) cannot follow a linear curve. It's like losing weight -- when you're 500 lbs, it's easy to lose 250 lbs, or 50% of your weight; at 250 lbs, its more difficult to lose 125 lbs or agian, 50% of your weight; at 125 lbs you've got to get cancer to realize the same results as you did earlier. I may not be expressing myself clearly, but I hope I'm correctly illustrating my point, and that is I would expect that the actual real value growth of the economy should be slower and in smaller increments than was observed during the .com boom. I would say that the slow growth we see is appropriate, and the economic set-backs from the .com burst and 9/11 has much more to do with the description of sluggish economy, and Bush's tax policy has alot to do with the description of recovering economy. Crackalakin - "What I really meant was that, for different layers of society, the income growth must have been different. Imagine that the income of 100 of people in the lower class grew by 200$; the income of 50 of people in the middle class grew by 500$ and the income of the 5 people in the CEO class grew by $22000 (imagine the disparity!). Now, you look at the average (100 * 200 + 50 * 500 + 5 * 22000)/(100 + 50 + 5) = $1000, and you may think, hey, not bad, everyone's salary is up by a $1000 bucks this year, on average! Correct, but that's really not the case." Ah. but my point is that everyones income (on average) did in fact go up -- I do understand what what the term average entails, so I wasn't asserting that everyone's income went up whatever dollar amount. I perceive your problem as being a distribution of wealth issue. As I said earlier I'm not particularly concerned about that. I should add now that I'm not concerned in principle; ie. I really don't care that there are poor people. It's not that I don't care about them, i just don't care that they are poor. Rich people and poor people are (by and large) rich or poor for reasons other than money. And no, it's not government policy either. It's personal. You and I both know that if we took the cold hard cash that we've spent on the problem of poverty and just distributed it equally amongst all the poor, we would momentarily have thousands of new millionairs -- within a couple of years, they'd all be poor again.
So yes, I realize that not everyone realized the same growth in income; and no, I'm not sure your notions of fairness are right or relavlent -- new topic perhaps? Crakalakin - "Consider yourself very fortunate. But please also think about many, many others." It's not fortune at all -- it's hard work and realistic expectations.
Sass this from the BLS:
Manufacturing jobs created:
1996 - 25,000
2004 - 97,000
Workers not in the labor force, but who want a job now:
1996 - 5.78 million
2004 - 4.71 million
Unemployment rate:
1996 - 5.5%
2004 - 5.6%
I hope you understand why I'm not seeing your point.
ANd when it come to considering other, I'll tell you that one of my very closest friends has been out of work for months -- he's been experiencing 100% unemployment, and his economy probably sucks, but that doesn't indicate at all that the national economy is in any kind of trouble.
____________________
|
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 485 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 13:25 |
vasudeva - "Kerry doesn't use words like "Creator" in his speeches" I can accept anyone's bullshit superstitions as long as I can have any gun I want.
[Edited on 30/9/2004 by LOki]
____________________
|
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1665 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 13:37 |
Sass this from the BLS:
Manufacturing jobs created:
1996 - 25,000
2004 - 97,000
Workers not in the labor force, but who want a job now:
1996 - 5.78 million
2004 - 4.71 million
Unemployment rate:
1996 - 5.5%
2004 - 5.6%
for these numbers to mean anything to me, i'd have to see every year. and i'm still keeping in mind that the unemployment rate only counts people who are still looking.
call me naive, but if i'm sick of pizza i'll eat anything but pizza. |
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1665 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 13:39 |
mundhra: debt as a percentage of GDP
national debt?
or estimated personal debt? |
| |
BloodyBowels
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 265 Registered: 3/29/2003 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 14:05 |
So your out with a couple of friends one night and you get pretty drunk. Neither of your friends have a car so you don't really know how either one of them drivesso you don't care who drives. You choose friend A and toss the keys to him. Friend A drops them and friend B picks them up. Ok Friend B is driving you home. On the way home friend b crashed your car and fuks you up and doesnt apologize. In fact he then offers to take your car to his body shop and fix it for you at an outrageous cost but he lets you pay over time and you don't have alot of cash so you take his offer. 4 years down the road your out with friend b and c (you dont know friend A anymore). You get pretty drunk again and need someone to drive you home. Are you going to toss the keys to friend B who fucked up your car, got you hurt and then ripped you off when trying to fix it? Or friend C who you have never seen drive but seems to have all the capacities it takes to do it?
HMMM????
WHo's it gonna be???
____________________
The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it. . . . Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.- Dr. Alfred Velpeau (1839) |
| |
azron123
I can break you with my mind. Watch, I'll do it.  SSHOLEPosts: 1505 Registered: 3/6/2003 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 14:25 |
EXACTLY!!
____________________
If you give a man a fire you keep him warm for one night.
If you set him on fire you keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
| |
SexNinja
the illest nigga  SSHOLEPosts: 1534 Registered: 10/28/2007 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 14:31 |
Bush has driven this country's car into an AIDS lake.
____________________
HAMFIGHTER> He shrugged, and started finishing himself off, on my breasts, while I was crying. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 485 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 14:57 |
Ok Bloody, let's say this friend B of yours is a midget, and that's the reason he couldn't operate your car.
You're looking over at your friend C, and by all appearances he's a dwarf -- Are you telling me I should just pick C without measuring for height?
____________________
|
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1665 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 15:06 |
loki, you're much too forgiving.
p.s. why the hell you hanging out with 'little people' anyway? |
| |
BloodyBowels
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 265 Registered: 3/29/2003 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 15:17 |
LOki: Ok Bloody, let's say this friend B of yours is a midget, and that's the reason he couldn't operate your car.
You're looking over at your friend C, and by all appearances he's a dwarf -- Are you telling me I should just pick C without measuring for height?
Ive avoided this topic with you for a long time for good reason.
Mostly because you live for the fight alot more than the outcome. Also because vasudevas forum sig (LOki> I'm watching a retarded dwarf fight a retarded midget -- when one gets the upper hand, I fight the other one to prolong the event and maximize the bipartisan bloodshed.) is exactly on point of how you operate. I love you for that. "Oh look a bee's nest, lets hit it with a stick".
Secondly because my view of things is very simplistic and I won't bother with stat quotes and bullshit. I simply feel Bush has really fucked us. I don't like the direction we are heading in and I wish to see Kerry take a crack at it instead of willingly let Bush take me where I know I don't want to be.
[Edited on 30/9/2004 by BloodyBowels]
____________________
The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it. . . . Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.- Dr. Alfred Velpeau (1839) |
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth SSHOLEPosts: 4529 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 15:43 |
LOki: vasudeva - "Kerry doesn't use words like "Creator" in his speeches" I can accept anyone's bullshit superstitions as long as I can have any gun I want.
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
LuckyLuciano
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 364 Registered: 9/7/2003 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 16:21 |
Funny he talks about God mumbo jumbo, but the Pope doesnt really like him as a leader.
____________________
|
| |
Crackalackin
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 387 Registered: 7/19/2004 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 16:48 |
BloodyBowels, that's freaking awesome.
|
| |
azron123
I can break you with my mind. Watch, I'll do it. SSHOLEPosts: 1505 Registered: 3/6/2003 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 17:45 |
WERDZ!! Nice job Bloody!
____________________
If you give a man a fire you keep him warm for one night.
If you set him on fire you keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 485 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 17:57 |
BloodyBowels - "... because my view of things is very simplistic and I won't bother with stat quotes and bullshit. I simply feel Bush has really fucked us." I know there's really more to it than this, but you describe it like you put your hands down your pants and then sniff your fingers -- then like the oracle at dephi you state -- "BUsh fuked us ... FUK HIM!"
And I love you for that.
____________________
|
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 485 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 18:01 |
vasudeva - "Not me. Niger can give me a raise and buy me a fuking Cray, but if he's going to be slowly infecting our laws and our country with his God mumbo-jumbo, I won't vote for him." What are you on about here? Are you talking about computers? WTF?
Dude - you MUST be missing the point.
Let me clarify -- I'll accept any politician attempting to ram his bullshit down my throat as long as I'm allowed to hold a gun while he's trying.
____________________
|
| |
BloodyBowels
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 265 Registered: 3/29/2003 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 18:06 |
LOki: BloodyBowels - "... because my view of things is very simplistic and I won't bother with stat quotes and bullshit. I simply feel Bush has really fucked us." I know there's really more to it than this, but you describe it like you put your hands down your pants and then sniff your fingers -- then like the oracle at dephi you state -- "BUsh fuked us ... FUK HIM!"
And I love you for that.
I dont need to give reasons for believing this. Turn on your tv, open a newspaper, ask over 1000 people how thier husbands, kids, and fathers are doing.
____________________
The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it. . . . Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.- Dr. Alfred Velpeau (1839) |
| |
Crackalackin
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 387 Registered: 7/19/2004 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 18:17 |
LOki:
Let me clarify -- I'll accept any politician attempting to ram his bullshit down my throat as long as I'm allowed to hold a gun while he's trying.
LOL -- and you call ME a robot? "Weapon systems functional. Now accepting commands."
[Edited on 30/9/2004 by Crackalackin] |
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1665 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 18:31 |
BloodyBowels: I dont need to give reasons for believing this. Turn on your tv...
loki, how many people have died in iraq since 'mission accomplished'? furthermore, how are we going to ever get out of there?
GWB: ...we're making progress, you bet. |
| |
LORDKAHUNA
Don't make me fuk your moustache SSHOLEPosts: 1664 Registered: 8/5/2003 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 18:56 |
I have yet to see any real discussion concerning Nader's platform, besides the "a vote for Nader, is a vote for Bush" arguement.
This is a huge flaw in your two party system, at what point do you (as a nation) break from convention and vote in the independant guy.
____________________
the rice I had yesterday came out practically verbatim |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 485 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 19:09 |
Crackalakin - ""LOL -- any you call ME a robot? "Weapon systems functional. Now accepting commands."" WTF are you talking about? You are NOT implying Cristian Soldier, are you?
I fuking hope not.
[Edited on 30/9/2004 by LOki]
____________________
|
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard SSHOLEPosts: 1665 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 19:10 |
LORDKAHUNA: I have yet to see any real discussion concerning Nader's platform, besides the "a vote for Nader, is a vote for Bush" arguement.
This is a huge flaw in your two party system, at what point do you (as a nation) break from convention and vote in the independant guy.
basically in the US it's a vote for 'some rich white guy'. dude a or dude b, they're basically the same. the only ones who aren't hardcore professional bullshitters are third party candidates who don't get much (any?) press. for example, neither green nor libertarian candidates are in the debates. sure, it's a load of bullshit, but i don't see it changing.
we've been in a 2 party system for quite some time now, and without media exposure the 3rd party candidates will never get votes from a large portion of the general populace.
also, i'm not sure your point is exactly relevant at this juncture, as a vote for nader is a vote for bush.
[Edited on 30/9/2004 by mundhra] |
| |
BloodyBowels
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 265 Registered: 3/29/2003 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 19:11 |
There is nothing good left coming out of your mouth's
This was supposed to be cool. FAILED AGAIN!
[Edited on 30/9/2004 by BloodyBowels]
____________________
The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it. . . . Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.- Dr. Alfred Velpeau (1839) |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent  SSHOLEPosts: 562 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
9/30/2004 at 19:38 |
People who are willing to have Bush in office for another term need to read some books. I'm going to post a thread on this shortly
____________________
I'm an INTJ. This explains why I'm alternating between silence and judging you. |
| |
|
sometimes i am glad not to understand all the sentences you write -- Sachsenpaule
|
