Which candidate would YOU vote for?

The Gaijin · Post by **The Gaijin** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:04 am

Nuclear Gandhi wrote:I agree. But of course, that good ol' American revolution spirit is gone now...

It would kick ass to have another Civil War.

Yeah, brother torn against brother in bloody conflict would be totally badass. Especially the part where some crazy Southerner (I'm sure if there's another Civil War it'll be the Southerners again) eviscerates you and you're left to whimper and die a slow and bloody death in some god-foresaken ditch--alone and miserable, whimpering and crying. Real badass.

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:12 am

The Gaijin wrote:
Nuclear Gandhi wrote:I agree. But of course, that good ol' American revolution spirit is gone now...

It would kick ass to have another Civil War.
Yeah, brother torn against brother in bloody conflict would be totally badass. Especially the part where some crazy Southerner (I'm sure if there's another Civil War it'll be the Southerners again) eviscerates you and you're left to whimper and die a slow and bloody death in some god-foresaken ditch--alone and miserable, whimpering and crying. Real badass.

Haha. Sadly he's right though. If we had another Civil War it would be a horrible conflict that would accomplish pretty much nothing. The "gentlemen/honor" code of those days is virtually non-existant now. A Civil War today would definately include a great deal of guerilla warfare (like today's modern civil wars); in fact the same concept was brought to Gen. Lee prior to the Confederate surrender at Appomattox. One of his subordinate generals (Porter Alexander) suggested he should only surrender 1/3 of the Confederate Army, and have the rest scatter to continue the war, guerilla-style. This would have caused the war to drag on at the very least another year (if not more), and would have severely hampered Southern Reconstruction after the war; and maybe the US would have been permanently changed for the worse.

What Lee responded was

:"No, we have now simply to look the fact in the face that the Confederacy has failed. The men should quietly and quickly go home, plant crops, and repair the ravages of war. You young men might afford to go bush-whacking, but the only proper and dignified course for me would be to surrender and take the consequences."

Could he have prolonged the conflict if he wished? Absolutely. If he wanted to, he could have made it so difficult that the nation would probably never again reconcile. But Robert E. Lee was a man, and he took his loss like a man. He could have been like these overgrown power-hungry punks in today's political climate and clawed with his hands and teeth and do whatever it takes win, but he chose the honorable and dignified course. To steer this thread slightly back on topic, I think this is what makes an effective and good leader. Humility is a trait today's politicians lack, and probably never will obtain. The age where a man's word actually meant something is lost, how can anyone believe anything a politician says/claims?

Stainless · Post by **Stainless** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:09 am

Aye, the world is populated by selfish arse holes these days. Bit of a shame too.

/me is pro human testing

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:19 pm

Robert E. Lee pwns. And if it weren't for him, the South wouldn't even have had a chance. And Grant pwns too. The way he let them keep the guns and horses proves it.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:47 am

Jawz II wrote:doyle if u have sumthin to say about al sharpton y dont u just say it?

this is just stoopid

dont worry he wont be elected president,too many white dumb scared men around

Ahahahaha! That's rich!

Anyway, this has gone on longer than I intended, I had a couple tests this week that I had to study for. However, I do indeed have a point, and it has nothing to do with Al Sharpton specifically, or any other specific Democrat.

Airsoft Guy hit the nail on the head when he called Candidate B Socialist. That's exactly what he is: a Nationalist Socialist. The description for Candidate B is based on a number of points in the Nazi platform, and the specific person is Hitler as it seems many of you have guessed. Although I admit my description wasn't completely forthright, as Gray Fil pointed out.

Candidate A is actually a composite of many of America's Founding Fathers. Washington fits the bill very closely, as do most of the other big ones. (Jefferson, Adams, etc.) I believe that this description is actually quite honest. Yes, it leaves out that these men did create a new nation, but the description made it clear that that is what was desired.

Although it does possess that element, the point of this exercise was not to make you say "Oh GAWD i voted for hitler over washington lol" but rather to illustrate the location of the political mainstream today. Candidate B could be any current Presidential candidate, while Candidate A by comparison seems like holed-up-in-a-compound extremist. By today's standards, he's very anti-government and anti-authority. This comparison helps to illustrate the fact that world politics have moved way to the Left. Even in America, which is perhaps the most conservative of the western nations, the mainstream is right in line with Socialist platforms of the first half of the century. Gun control, smoking restrictions, focus on animal rights and the environment are just a handful of issues in common but widely accepted income redistribution and disproportianate taxation are even more telling. (22% of the income pays 50% of the federal income tax) I don't even want to venture a guess how far to the Left European mainstream really is!

Americans still claim to value freedom, as does much of the western world. But when we find ourselves facing laws like the USA PATRIOT Act and Total Information Awareness; when teachers are fired from their jobs for wearing religious artifacts; when rights that "shall not be infringed" are widely being infringed; and when politicians tell us that "the only absolute right Americans have is the right to believe whatever you what" it becomes clear that we have become complacent when it comes to safeguarding freedom.

We need to wake up, folks. The system is working against us.

bloodbathmaster2 · Post by **bloodbathmaster2** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 8:45 am

Solution? A violent, bloody revolution! Yaaaaaaaaay!

To be honest I kept from giving my vote because I simply don't believe in voting for evil. Period. To me, there is no "lesser evil." And let me tell you, both of those two candidates are evil.

I suppose the big question is what my political view is. And I have to say I fall with no specific party. I believe in a strong republic. Not a despotism. Not a democracy. I would like to see a powerful republic take charge and use its power to provide my country with security and welfare. Kind of odd to think of, a nationalistic utopia enforcing socialistic ideals. No. Wait. The Bolshivicks tried that. Though I, unlike Stalin, would let the people have guns to shoot my ass when I fuck up.

Radoteur · Post by **Radoteur** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:01 am

I knew it.
IT depended on which government you were fighting against. Also, you failed to mention that a great deal of the citizens hated the rulers. If you told us candidate A's only recourse in changing the government were to take up arms, and more than a small minority agreed with him, more would have probably voted for him.
I think it's almost a good thing that few would vote for the first. Today's citizens (for the most part) aren't driven to become violent radicals like America's founding fathers. Instead, we have the power to change our government without taking up arms.

What are we supposed to do anyways? The people that care about politics and, more importantly, freedom seem to be a small but vocal minority. The majority of this country is mostly indifferent about politics. I fear we would be too indifferent to rise up against an evil dictator.
No, Bush isn't an evil dictator. Not yet, at least.

This was fun, though.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:15 am

Radoteur wrote:What are we supposed to do anyways? The people that care about politics and, more importantly, freedom seem to be a small but vocal minority. The majority of this country is mostly indifferent about politics. I fear we would be too indifferent to rise up against an evil dictator.

No, I'm not advocating violent insurrection. The real issue is that people need to be made aware of the realities of history and politics. People have a tendency to look at laws and assume it's right to have them simply because they exist. Even Republicans, who used to represent small-government conservatives, don't question income distribution programs, or excessively disproportionate taxation. Look at what Bush did, he increased spending to social programs even as he made relatively minor tax cuts and increased the military budget. If people could put modern politics into proper political perspective, I think it would help a lot. I think if people actually knew what the Constitution was and what it said, that would help a whole lot. But not even that much is happening.

Radoteur · Post by **Radoteur** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:46 am

There's this site I post on every now and then that you might like.
www.politicalsoup.com

Bother, I'm guessing I should get off my ass and read the Constitution carefully, huh? Yea, instead of getting it filtered to me.

Problem with everything I've read that's against the Patriot act and Total Information Awareness is that it's hardcore anti-Bush. I get the impression they don't really care about freedom and the stuff they preach, they just hate Bush. I mean, if it was like Clinton pushing these laws on us, they'd be lapping up and asking for more. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
No, I'm not going to read through the entire act. That's the lawmakers job. Heh, that's probably the thinking that will lead to 1984, huh?

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 10:08 am

Radoteur wrote:Problem with everything I've read that's against the Patriot act and Total Information Awareness is that it's hardcore anti-Bush. I get the impression they don't really care about freedom and the stuff they preach, they just hate Bush. I mean, if it was like Clinton pushing these laws on us, they'd be lapping up and asking for more. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

No, I'm not going to read through the entire act. That's the lawmakers job. Heh, that's probably the thinking that will lead to 1984, huh?

Well I wrote something about the Patriot Act for my sister three weeks ago and I still have it on Notepad, so I'll paste it below (with a few edits). The Patriot Act is another thing that's been way overblown. The reason being the powers granted in the act were present long before the PA came into existence. I do however disagree with several powers law-enforcement have, but that isn't due to the Patriot Act, but instead due to pre-existing powers; all the PA does is streamline it and increase timetables for the most part. So in essence the PA is the scapegoat, when in fact the problem lies with pre-existing laws. I've spoken with the several people I know in law-enforcement (since it's a field I could possibly be going into in the future) and with their help wrote my assessment of the PA.

Anyway, here's what I wrote for her:

There are actually alot of misconceptions about the Patriot Act. And while I do agree that a few of the powers granted in the Patriot act may be a bit too strong and should be modified, most of the powers extended in the Patriot Act have the similiar limitations as the powers prior to the Act's passing.

For example, prior to the Patriot Act, if a law-enforcement agency wanted to conduct a wiretap of a person's phone or bug their home, they would first have to obtain a court order allowing them to do so if they have probable cause, in which the court order granted expires within 30 days. Under the Patriot Act, that law enforcement agency still must obtain a court order to conduct their wiretap, and it instead expires in 90 days (if you're a US Citizen) or 12 months (if you aren't a US Citizen). Critics argue that the information the law-enforcement agency finds from their investigation utilizing the Patriot Act does not require reports to the court about what the surveillance found; no reports of what is being sought or what information is retrieved are ever available to the public.

That "probable cause" evidence has always been secret, due to the purported "right to privacy". The only time that information becomes public, if it ever does, is at trial. And it is perfectly common for the probable cause from a raid or an arrest to be concealed even in court. All this was true before the Patriot Act.

Examining the "Roving" wiretaps also reveals more misconceptions. When the existing wiretap law was written, cell phones were not even a wet dream, and there was no such thing as a "pay phone". That law had been updated from time to time, but at its base, it did not contemplate that a person might use more than one phone. The Patriot Act updates it to bring it in line with the capabilities of modern technology, on both the criminal and law enforcement side of things.

So for instance, let's say for the sake of the debate that Doyle was a supsected terrorist. A FISA court grants the FBI to conduct survelliance on Doyle. Prior to the Patriot Act, if Doyle used another computer (lets say his cousin's computer at her house a few miles away), the FBI would only be able survey his home computer. If the FBI wanted to survey his cousin's computer, they would have to obtain another court order to do so. By the time that was done, Doyle would have been able to do what he needed to do, without surveillance being placed upon him. What the Patriot Act does is allow the FBI to now tap every communication Doyle uses, whether it be e-mail, fax, or phone no matter what location he is at (they still need a court order or definate probable cause). They also cannot look at the content of those e-mails, just who you sent them to.

The Patriot Act also allows easier access to library records and similar public documents. It has always been possible for law enforcement to subpeona such records. The only difference under the Patriot Act is that the DEGREE of probable cause that is required for the subpeona has been lowered. The same thing is true of book store sales records.

Critics argue that under the Patriot Act the FBI will begin conducting surveillance in their mosques. Under the Patriot Act, federal investigators are now allowed to surveil people in church and in public political meetings. Prior to the passing of the Patriot Act, it was perfectly legal for a local police officer to follow you into a church and observe what you do there, but it was not legal for a federal officer to do so. Does that make any sense as to why a police officer can conduct surveillance but an FBI agent wouldn't be able to?

Investigators pursuing terrorism investigations are allowed to share information with investigators pursuing criminal investigations. Prior to the Patriot Act, if an investigation into mob activities developed information that one of the mob people was selling explosives and arms to people who were under investigation by another agent for possible terrorist activities, it was ILLEGAL for him to tell the other investigator about it. I think even most will agree that the sharing of such information is a good thing.

Here's a good scare liberals are putting out for the "sneak-and-peek" warrants:

"Now, the government can secretly enter your home while you're away . . . rifle through your personal belongings . . . download your computer files . . . and seize any items at will."

"Under the USA Patriot Act, the government can invade your privacy even if you're not suspected of terrorism or any other crime. And, because of the Patriot Act, you may never know what the government has done."

Let's look at the scare-tactic advertisement for a moment. The courts have interpreted the Fourth Amendment and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow sneak-and-peek warrants since the 1980s. See: United States v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1423 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000). What the Patriot Act does is expand those sneek-and-peek warrants slightly; though to suggest that the Patriot Act created that type of warrant is a flat-out lie meant to scare the populace. Under the Patriot Act, a federal judge must authorize the sneak-and-peek warrant after a finding of probable cause and reasonable cause to delay the notice. While the notice can be delayed, it must be given. The judge must not only find probable cause to believe that evidence of crime is located in the place to be seized, but the judge must also find that there is a good reason for notice to be delayed, and the delay must be only for a limited time.

"...the government can secretly enter your home while you're away . . . rifle through your personal belongings . . . download your computer files . . . and seize any items at will." But they can't. The Patriot Act does not authorize such a search, and such a search would plainly violate the Fourth Amendment. If the police use the warrant as an opportunity to conduct a entire expedition for any kind of incriminating information not named, all of the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant must be suppressed. Further scare-tactics.

Virtually all evidence you find concerning mis-use of the Patriot Act have in fact been around long before the Patriot Act. There always was and will be false arrests and mistaken warrants. What the Patriot Act mainly does is extend those existing powers of law-enforcement slightly, by giving them more time to conduct searches/survey suspects, by lessening the degree of probable cause slightly (in the case of library records), and improving the cooridination between the law-enforcement and intelligence community.

I do have complaints with the powers granted prior to the Patriot Act though. But what liberals have done, using scare-tactics of bold-lies to influence the public sickens me. I'm all for disagreeing with things, but to make the biggest lies to influence the public, and actually getting away with it, is wrong.

By the way, I completely agree with Doyle that we're slowly losing the rights we once had and being screwed over. Such as this for example: http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo. ... id=1309807

We've become complacent as a society, and we pretty much take things for granted nowadays (even I'm guilty of that). But everyday we're slowly losing our rights and we're being way over-taxed. In NYC, there's certain neighborhoods where you can't even honk your car horn (or else face a $100 dollar fine). It's gotten crazy now, and both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. Another thing is that society on a whole has become too dependent upon the media to base their own individual opinions. Instead of a person analyzing both sides of an issue/story carefully (and over an extended period of time), a large majority just believe whatever a single source states, whether it be TV or a webpage for example.

Getting slightly back on topic, politically I'm an Independent, though the past several years I've been skewing more to Republican polices than Democrat ones. The past election I voted for Bush, not because I agree with everything he stood for, but because I agreed more with his policies than I did with Gore's. However I don't believe Bush is a fantastic president (nor do I think he's a bad one either), and instead of Democrat presidential candidates trying to take the good things Bush has done and institute their own policies for the ones he's made that haven't panned out, they instead campaign themselves as the complete Anti-Bush. Unfortunately (for them), if they continue to portray themselves that way I'm just going to have to vote for Bush again in the next election. I don't want a polar-opposite of Bush for President, I want a Democratic nominee to actually state the war against Iraq was the right course, and that we didn't need the whole world to agree with us whether or not we should be allowed to do so. Instead I get all of them pandering to other nations and spewing ridiculous garbage about "multilateralism" (which if you have any experience in multilateralism in diplomatic or military operations, you'll know it is a complete mess). Take the effective policies of his and remove the bad ones; don't just disagree with everything because it was made by a Republican. Of course they won't do that, and that's why I'm probably going to be voting Republican again in 2004.