The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It's a simple choice this time, who do you want as the next president of the U.S.A. ?
For those not familiar with the format, you make your choice and it's put beside your name, the votes will be counted up at a later date, 5 spaces have been left for those that want to vote but aren't on the list.
Bush or Kerry ?
32 votes
Bush - 8
Kerry - 24
Bush
Ashley - Bush
Chad Niga - Bush
Mattribute - Bush
Notorious Biggles - Bush
Archangel - Bush
Kr - Bush
Johnson - Bush
Belldandy - Bush
Kerry
Cong woman - Kerry
Dakarus Joe - Kerry
Flock - Kerry
Forest Fan - Kerry
Grix Thraves - Kerry
Light - Kerry
Lipe - Kerry
Mumbai Duck - Kerry
Rickoss - Kerry
RoJ - Kerry
Sheepy - Kerry
Silent Thunder - Kerry
Strafio - Kerry
Trish - Kerry
Very Metal - Kerry
Whitestripes DX - Kerry
Ultima Weapon - Kerry
Astoria - Kerry
Innuendo - Kerry
Yuri Fan Kerry
The Ghost - Kerry
Gamesfreak - Kerry
LSD - Kerry
Grebo - Kerry
For those not familiar with the format, you make your choice and it's put beside your name, the votes will be counted up at a later date, 5 spaces have been left for those that want to vote but aren't on the list.
Bush or Kerry ?
32 votes
Bush - 8
Kerry - 24
Bush
Ashley - Bush
Chad Niga - Bush
Mattribute - Bush
Notorious Biggles - Bush
Archangel - Bush
Kr - Bush
Johnson - Bush
Belldandy - Bush
Kerry
Cong woman - Kerry
Dakarus Joe - Kerry
Flock - Kerry
Forest Fan - Kerry
Grix Thraves - Kerry
Light - Kerry
Lipe - Kerry
Mumbai Duck - Kerry
Rickoss - Kerry
RoJ - Kerry
Sheepy - Kerry
Silent Thunder - Kerry
Strafio - Kerry
Trish - Kerry
Very Metal - Kerry
Whitestripes DX - Kerry
Ultima Weapon - Kerry
Astoria - Kerry
Innuendo - Kerry
Yuri Fan Kerry
The Ghost - Kerry
Gamesfreak - Kerry
LSD - Kerry
Grebo - Kerry
Page:
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> All I am saying is that if you're going to criticise then you have to
> do so equally. Sure, it's a two party system but this is really the
> case for all democracies with some exceptions. Light- you argue that
> I counter failings of one sort with similar failings in another, but
> surely this is fairer than counting one person's failings whilst
> ignoring those of another?
That's very different to claiming people will see 'no change' from replacing Bush with Kerry.
> All I am saying is that if you're going to criticise then you have to
> do so equally. Sure, it's a two party system but this is really the
> case for all democracies with some exceptions. Light- you argue that
> I counter failings of one sort with similar failings in another, but
> surely this is fairer than counting one person's failings whilst
> ignoring those of another?
That's very different to claiming people will see 'no change' from replacing Bush with Kerry.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> Harking back to 97 - I'd argue those tory's you talk about were wrong
> Light, nearly 8 years of Labour has done far more damage than just
> leaving the Conservatives in power...
I'm sure you would. You say a lot of things without really knowing much of what you're talking about. Then, when asked to present evidence outside of the standard Tory propaganda, you'd start complaining that people were "going off topic" or whatever your current favourite method of evasion is.
As a hint, try reading Lend Me Your Ears by Boris Johnson. He at least is lucid when being pro-tory.
>
> All I am saying is that if you're going to criticise then you have to
> do so equally.
Hmmm...I'm not completely sure but maybe, just maybe, this is the most hypocritical statement you've ever made. It certainly shows the least self awareness. It definitely made me laugh the loudest.
Tell you what; if you can actually apply that rule to yourself, I'll buy you a pint.
[edit] Whatever else Kerry does, I'll bet he doesn't almost kill himself choking on a pretzel.
> Harking back to 97 - I'd argue those tory's you talk about were wrong
> Light, nearly 8 years of Labour has done far more damage than just
> leaving the Conservatives in power...
I'm sure you would. You say a lot of things without really knowing much of what you're talking about. Then, when asked to present evidence outside of the standard Tory propaganda, you'd start complaining that people were "going off topic" or whatever your current favourite method of evasion is.
As a hint, try reading Lend Me Your Ears by Boris Johnson. He at least is lucid when being pro-tory.
>
> All I am saying is that if you're going to criticise then you have to
> do so equally.
Hmmm...I'm not completely sure but maybe, just maybe, this is the most hypocritical statement you've ever made. It certainly shows the least self awareness. It definitely made me laugh the loudest.
Tell you what; if you can actually apply that rule to yourself, I'll buy you a pint.
[edit] Whatever else Kerry does, I'll bet he doesn't almost kill himself choking on a pretzel.
Harking back to 97 - I'd argue those tory's you talk about were wrong Light, nearly 8 years of Labour has done far more damage than just leaving the Conservatives in power...
All I am saying is that if you're going to criticise then you have to do so equally. Sure, it's a two party system but this is really the case for all democracies with some exceptions. Light- you argue that I counter failings of one sort with similar failings in another, but surely this is fairer than counting one person's failings whilst ignoring those of another?
EDIT: On the other hand, if Kerry does win - and at this point I wouldn't say either way how things will go - then I'll see how he does before really saying anything. If he can turn Iraq around, bring other's onboard, and end the war on terror or at least bring it closer to some sort of end then that's good. Likewise on other issues.
All I am saying is that if you're going to criticise then you have to do so equally. Sure, it's a two party system but this is really the case for all democracies with some exceptions. Light- you argue that I counter failings of one sort with similar failings in another, but surely this is fairer than counting one person's failings whilst ignoring those of another?
EDIT: On the other hand, if Kerry does win - and at this point I wouldn't say either way how things will go - then I'll see how he does before really saying anything. If he can turn Iraq around, bring other's onboard, and end the war on terror or at least bring it closer to some sort of end then that's good. Likewise on other issues.
I don't really give a damn. It's happening in America, not here. Both are idiots, but if it really came down to it, Kerry, becasue I'm fed up seeing George Bush's piggy little eyes and retarded expression.
That makes sense I guess
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> It's a strange argument you make that a Kerry America will be exactly
> the same.
It's what is known as "the last gasp of the truly desperate". I remember a lot of tory friends of mine saying much the same thing prior to the 97 election. Whilst they were right, and whilst I'm sure Kerry is going to turn out to be a typically untrustworthy and corrupt politician, you know that someone has ran out of idea's when they resort to a "well, things will be just the same under them so you may as well leave us in charge" kinda argument.
> It's a strange argument you make that a Kerry America will be exactly
> the same.
It's what is known as "the last gasp of the truly desperate". I remember a lot of tory friends of mine saying much the same thing prior to the 97 election. Whilst they were right, and whilst I'm sure Kerry is going to turn out to be a typically untrustworthy and corrupt politician, you know that someone has ran out of idea's when they resort to a "well, things will be just the same under them so you may as well leave us in charge" kinda argument.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> But why Kerry?
>
> I'm interested in hearing some reasons which are based on the man
> himself rather than variations of "well, it's not Bush".
I figure in a 2 horse race that's a good enough reason.
Most of us believe that Bush is a dangerously incompetent retarded assclown.
Even if he won't change everything completely, electing a man who probably isn't all of the above is still going to change things.
It's a strange argument you make that a Kerry America will be exactly the same.
> But why Kerry?
>
> I'm interested in hearing some reasons which are based on the man
> himself rather than variations of "well, it's not Bush".
I figure in a 2 horse race that's a good enough reason.
Most of us believe that Bush is a dangerously incompetent retarded assclown.
Even if he won't change everything completely, electing a man who probably isn't all of the above is still going to change things.
It's a strange argument you make that a Kerry America will be exactly the same.
Well the several sites I checked all stated that,asI thought, no one in the US signed up at all, Clinton didn't even sign it.
And if you're going to bawl Bush out for his business relations, then how about Kerry? Already for his campaign he's;
*Received a quarter of a million from Mintz Levin. Kerry has pushed for relaxing telecommunications regulations which would really benefit Mintz Levin. And Kerry's brother also works for them.
*Received $180000 from Fleetboston Financial Corporation. Sound familiar? It should do because they got the contract to hold the DNC in their Fleetcenter in Boston. Back in 1998-99 Kerry backed a strongly opposed (by local people) merger involving the company and Bank Boston.
*$150000 from Time Warner. Kerry previously voted for FCC reforms which allowed the company to be formed, and later denounced the reforms.
*$140000 from Hale and Dorr - law firm that represents various telecomms and biotech companies (like Mintz Levin....). Kerry helped ensuere wireless telecomms companies could easily get airwave access (and cheaply) and to relax damaging export regulations for biotech firms.
And that's just what I remember from the article.
The only way to escape such ties between companies and Presidents would be a complete overhaul of the election system and campaign funding
And if you're going to bawl Bush out for his business relations, then how about Kerry? Already for his campaign he's;
*Received a quarter of a million from Mintz Levin. Kerry has pushed for relaxing telecommunications regulations which would really benefit Mintz Levin. And Kerry's brother also works for them.
*Received $180000 from Fleetboston Financial Corporation. Sound familiar? It should do because they got the contract to hold the DNC in their Fleetcenter in Boston. Back in 1998-99 Kerry backed a strongly opposed (by local people) merger involving the company and Bank Boston.
*$150000 from Time Warner. Kerry previously voted for FCC reforms which allowed the company to be formed, and later denounced the reforms.
*$140000 from Hale and Dorr - law firm that represents various telecomms and biotech companies (like Mintz Levin....). Kerry helped ensuere wireless telecomms companies could easily get airwave access (and cheaply) and to relax damaging export regulations for biotech firms.
And that's just what I remember from the article.
The only way to escape such ties between companies and Presidents would be a complete overhaul of the election system and campaign funding
To a large extent, I do see where you're coming from in that the US weren't the only nation who shat on the treaty. Although it is fun to see you resorting to your usual trick of "Never mind the US; look at what all these other nations have done..." whilst ignoring the ills of the USA.
However, the point about Bush not being President at the time is neither here nor there; Clinton signed up to it on behalf of the nation. If congress had rejected it without the interference of Dubya, then fair enough. For Dubya to go back on it shows that he was only interested in short term political gain and financial gain for big business buddies, and didn't give a damn about the welfare of the people both in the US and worldwide who are condemned to an increasingly grim future by pollution. And if he didn't care about anyone but his business buddies when it came to the environment...well, it doesn't take a genius to work out that he probably doesn't care about anyone but his business buddies on most issues. War included.
However, the point about Bush not being President at the time is neither here nor there; Clinton signed up to it on behalf of the nation. If congress had rejected it without the interference of Dubya, then fair enough. For Dubya to go back on it shows that he was only interested in short term political gain and financial gain for big business buddies, and didn't give a damn about the welfare of the people both in the US and worldwide who are condemned to an increasingly grim future by pollution. And if he didn't care about anyone but his business buddies when it came to the environment...well, it doesn't take a genius to work out that he probably doesn't care about anyone but his business buddies on most issues. War included.
But it's not like the US was the only one not to sign up, and of those who signed up many have not ratified it in their own country, and of those who did some are just ignoring it anyway. Even IF a US President did sign up he has to get Congress to ratify it.
And an awful lot of them are dependent on people employed in or who own industries which would be negatively effected by it.
Then there are the 11 "get out points" - known officially as Declarations, made by nations which allows them to, for the most part, ignore Kyoto in certain places/circumstances - China did this with it's two industrial areas. Russia has, to the best of my knowledge, not even signed up, nor did India originally sign up. Don't forget that China is currently the fastest growing industry in the world, along with the fastest growing rate of car ownership.
And let's conveniently forget that the original Kyoto summit was back in 1998 and in my history book the President wasn't Bush in 1998.
There is little punishment if a country does exceed the limits, and countries are allowed to sell their own allowances to others anyway, so it's my opinion that, whilst Kyoto was a nice idea, in practice it's like the organisation - the UN - that drafted it, ineffective and beset by the need to court every interest.
One thing Kyoto did barely nothing about was address the fact that, given 10-50 years, we'll have solved the emissions problem because there will simply be no oil and little gas left.
That's the point that things get "fun".
And an awful lot of them are dependent on people employed in or who own industries which would be negatively effected by it.
Then there are the 11 "get out points" - known officially as Declarations, made by nations which allows them to, for the most part, ignore Kyoto in certain places/circumstances - China did this with it's two industrial areas. Russia has, to the best of my knowledge, not even signed up, nor did India originally sign up. Don't forget that China is currently the fastest growing industry in the world, along with the fastest growing rate of car ownership.
And let's conveniently forget that the original Kyoto summit was back in 1998 and in my history book the President wasn't Bush in 1998.
There is little punishment if a country does exceed the limits, and countries are allowed to sell their own allowances to others anyway, so it's my opinion that, whilst Kyoto was a nice idea, in practice it's like the organisation - the UN - that drafted it, ineffective and beset by the need to court every interest.
One thing Kyoto did barely nothing about was address the fact that, given 10-50 years, we'll have solved the emissions problem because there will simply be no oil and little gas left.
That's the point that things get "fun".
Page: