Forums > Social Discussion > Bush-God and War
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Okay...I saw that this:
"The Bush led Christian attack on Islam, and the reprisals, certainly sticks out as a corruption of religion. And it’s more than a litle ironic that all sides fighting this war believe God is on their side." was written in another thread and it really made me shift in my seat.
I ran into this belief in NZ too, and it shows to me that people really have no concept of what Bush is doing, or about the American Military for that matter.
Now, first let me say....I do not support nor agree with anything Bush does or has ever done. If there is ever a candidate for a drive-by, in my book GW is numero uno. HATE him...and that's not really a strong enough word for the way he turns my stomach.
However this war has nothing to do with religion. It is not a Christian attack on Islam. If it was there would not be the diversity of religion that there is in the military. I have friends who are Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, Muslim as well as Christian in the military. If it were about Christian supremecy, there would be more of a push for change in policy here in America for Christianity without an overseas focus because there are an aweful lot of us going to hell here. There are more areas of the world to branch out into as well, than just Iraq. This war has absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with oil and money. And I've not heard once that God is on our side in this (not that I pay attention to GW anyway). And quite frankly, I know a fair few who do not believe God is anywhere near this war.
GW, before being the despised political figure that he is, owned an OIL company. That's right, you heard me...oil. Now isn't it interesting that the targets of many of these attacks have been areas rich in oil, and that the latest headline I saw on CNN talk about attempting to sieze the largest oil reserve in Iraq.
Now, we have oil here...in Texas and Alaska and such. But GW and his friends are greedy s.o.b's and used the 911 bombings as an excuse to fight for...oil.
This has nothing to do with religion. If it did, the soldiers there would be all Christian and all the others would have been left home.
This war has nothing to do with terrorism and defending our nation, and that is the publicised reason we are given.
I'd also like to point out that historically, unless there are extenuating circumstances, a president up for re-election in a war time tends to be re-elected. And if you pay attention to the news you'll find that suddenly more reports about the war and terrorism were elevated in the summer before the election.
And trust me, this war has nothing to do with what Americans truly want.
Just because GW is Christian doesn't make it a Christian War.
And I know that media in the past has publicized the 911 attacks being for holy purposes, but then I have seen reports from Iraq stating the contrary. I have no idea what to believe...and personally don't care. It's all pointless and ludicrous. In the immortal words of Boy George...."War is stupid and people are stupid ...No more war."
Okay...I saw that this:
"The Bush led Christian attack on Islam, and the reprisals, certainly sticks out as a corruption of religion. And it’s more than a litle ironic that all sides fighting this war believe God is on their side." was written in another thread and it really made me shift in my seat.
I ran into this belief in NZ too, and it shows to me that people really have no concept of what Bush is doing, or about the American Military for that matter.
Now, first let me say....I do not support nor agree with anything Bush does or has ever done. If there is ever a candidate for a drive-by, in my book GW is numero uno. HATE him...and that's not really a strong enough word for the way he turns my stomach.
However this war has nothing to do with religion. It is not a Christian attack on Islam. If it was there would not be the diversity of religion that there is in the military. I have friends who are Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, Muslim as well as Christian in the military. If it were about Christian supremecy, there would be more of a push for change in policy here in America for Christianity without an overseas focus because there are an aweful lot of us going to hell here. There are more areas of the world to branch out into as well, than just Iraq. This war has absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with oil and money. And I've not heard once that God is on our side in this (not that I pay attention to GW anyway). And quite frankly, I know a fair few who do not believe God is anywhere near this war.
GW, before being the despised political figure that he is, owned an OIL company. That's right, you heard me...oil. Now isn't it interesting that the targets of many of these attacks have been areas rich in oil, and that the latest headline I saw on CNN talk about attempting to sieze the largest oil reserve in Iraq.
Now, we have oil here...in Texas and Alaska and such. But GW and his friends are greedy s.o.b's and used the 911 bombings as an excuse to fight for...oil.
This has nothing to do with religion. If it did, the soldiers there would be all Christian and all the others would have been left home.
This war has nothing to do with terrorism and defending our nation, and that is the publicised reason we are given.
I'd also like to point out that historically, unless there are extenuating circumstances, a president up for re-election in a war time tends to be re-elected. And if you pay attention to the news you'll find that suddenly more reports about the war and terrorism were elevated in the summer before the election.
And trust me, this war has nothing to do with what Americans truly want.
Just because GW is Christian doesn't make it a Christian War.
And I know that media in the past has publicized the 911 attacks being for holy purposes, but then I have seen reports from Iraq stating the contrary. I have no idea what to believe...and personally don't care. It's all pointless and ludicrous. In the immortal words of Boy George...."War is stupid and people are stupid ...No more war."
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
SILVER Member
mmm...i feel all warm and fuzzy... 'no dude, that's your hair on fire'
355 posts
Location: Birmingham, Australia
mmm...i feel all warm and fuzzy... 'no dude, that's your hair on fire'
355 posts
Location: Birmingham, Australia
Posted:
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but just to add:
Did people notice the fact that the Al'Qaeda based in Iran admitted the 9/11 attacks, so Bush went and levelled wherever with bombs from fighter planes.
2 weeks later (it's been a while now and even I'm not clear anymore) for some reason, Bush turned to Iraq...my first thought was 'what the f***?' because they had nothing to do with the attacks, from what I heard and then the onslaught began till this day.
'War on Terror' and finding so called 'Weapons of Mass Distruction' were on the agenda...so erm...where are they?...
Personally, I have never been so angry at someone, plus the fact that the British Government (i.e. pretty much only Tony Blair) wanted to support this war when there was no evidence, only reports from 'intelligence' (ironic eh?).
Everyone I knew was against the action taken by Blair, but I STILL don't understand how the f*** he managed to get re-elected.
Oh well, more a rant than constructive discussion, but I'm pretty sure no one can post without ranting about something...
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but just to add:
Did people notice the fact that the Al'Qaeda based in Iran admitted the 9/11 attacks, so Bush went and levelled wherever with bombs from fighter planes.
2 weeks later (it's been a while now and even I'm not clear anymore) for some reason, Bush turned to Iraq...my first thought was 'what the f***?' because they had nothing to do with the attacks, from what I heard and then the onslaught began till this day.
'War on Terror' and finding so called 'Weapons of Mass Distruction' were on the agenda...so erm...where are they?...
Personally, I have never been so angry at someone, plus the fact that the British Government (i.e. pretty much only Tony Blair) wanted to support this war when there was no evidence, only reports from 'intelligence' (ironic eh?).
Everyone I knew was against the action taken by Blair, but I STILL don't understand how the f*** he managed to get re-elected.
Oh well, more a rant than constructive discussion, but I'm pretty sure no one can post without ranting about something...
It's better to burn out than to fade away
SILVER Member
member
136 posts
Location: Maryland, USA
member
136 posts
Location: Maryland, USA
Posted:
Seems to be going around then, becuase it pretty much is what's going on here. I agree with the things that Pele said as well. The war is just one of the many shameful things that this administration is doing. Canada is looking better and better.
Written by: thelost_seraph
Personally, I have never been so angry at someone, plus the fact that the British Government (i.e. pretty much only Tony Blair) wanted to support this war when there was no evidence, only reports from 'intelligence' (ironic eh?).
Everyone I knew was against the action taken by Blair, but I STILL don't understand how the f*** he managed to get re-elected.
Seems to be going around then, becuase it pretty much is what's going on here. I agree with the things that Pele said as well. The war is just one of the many shameful things that this administration is doing. Canada is looking better and better.
I was touched by His Noodly Appendage
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I was screaming from day one that Iraq had nothing to do with September the Eleventh. Nice to be proved right, but not at the cost of so many civilian lives.
I also don't have a goddamned clue how either Bush OR Blair got re-elected. Basically, Blair only got in because of people voting traditionally. I.e. People voting the same way that they have for years, regardless of the current policies of said party. This annoys me intensely, because it would be better if these people didn't have the vote. Simple as that. If you're not going to care about what you're voting for, why should you vote? Just stay at home and watch TV instead.
Ehh... Pele, I'd say the fact that bush ends *every* speech with "God bless America" or "God bless us" is pretty conducive to the idea that God is backing America in the "War on Terror". How do you declare war on an emotion??? Ahhhgggg!!!
Sorry, this is the gist of my post:
rant
rantrantrantrantrantrantrant
I was screaming from day one that Iraq had nothing to do with September the Eleventh. Nice to be proved right, but not at the cost of so many civilian lives.
I also don't have a goddamned clue how either Bush OR Blair got re-elected. Basically, Blair only got in because of people voting traditionally. I.e. People voting the same way that they have for years, regardless of the current policies of said party. This annoys me intensely, because it would be better if these people didn't have the vote. Simple as that. If you're not going to care about what you're voting for, why should you vote? Just stay at home and watch TV instead.
Ehh... Pele, I'd say the fact that bush ends *every* speech with "God bless America" or "God bless us" is pretty conducive to the idea that God is backing America in the "War on Terror". How do you declare war on an emotion??? Ahhhgggg!!!
Sorry, this is the gist of my post:
rant
rantrantrantrantrantrantrant After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
member
145 posts
Location: Little Rock, AR
145 posts
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posted:
The president might tack a God-related comment on the end of every speech, it might be on our dollar bills. However, the older America gets - the less Christians there are to be found, the more anti-Christian/organized religious views and stands many people are taking and the more placid the government is becoming in order to smooth things over for everyone.
The problem is - you can't please everyone.
My husband's in the military - he's been in the military far longer than I've been old enough to drive, he joined the force before the first president Bush took to office. My husband is piddling away at orders that have been drawn up because of president Bush, a president that, in many ways, is quite contrary to anything that we believe in.
I am not a Christian - though I try to be moral in my every-day-living. My husband is deffinately not a Christian, nor are our children spite the many attempt for my parents to intervene and instill Jesus and God in the minds. We're actually a bit insulted when people seem to glaze one view over all Americans. America is a very diverse country. We are so diverse, in fact, that now - with the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in the Orleans and Mississippi - some homeless victims have been fighting with the people who have come to rescue them!
When it comes to decisions being made for us by a president that I don't care much for - I'm disgusted.
I'd just like to get my two bits out about this issue - I'm all for everyone living their own lives without people butting in - meaning our country butting into the business of another country - or other countries butting into our business.
Around and around it goes.
This whole "war on terrorism" might have started out with a clear-conscience, but now it's just become a prick war with no real point. (George Carlin reference, there.)
I still love America, just not the problem's we're causing.
The president might tack a God-related comment on the end of every speech, it might be on our dollar bills. However, the older America gets - the less Christians there are to be found, the more anti-Christian/organized religious views and stands many people are taking and the more placid the government is becoming in order to smooth things over for everyone.
The problem is - you can't please everyone.
My husband's in the military - he's been in the military far longer than I've been old enough to drive, he joined the force before the first president Bush took to office. My husband is piddling away at orders that have been drawn up because of president Bush, a president that, in many ways, is quite contrary to anything that we believe in.
I am not a Christian - though I try to be moral in my every-day-living. My husband is deffinately not a Christian, nor are our children spite the many attempt for my parents to intervene and instill Jesus and God in the minds. We're actually a bit insulted when people seem to glaze one view over all Americans. America is a very diverse country. We are so diverse, in fact, that now - with the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in the Orleans and Mississippi - some homeless victims have been fighting with the people who have come to rescue them!
When it comes to decisions being made for us by a president that I don't care much for - I'm disgusted.
I'd just like to get my two bits out about this issue - I'm all for everyone living their own lives without people butting in - meaning our country butting into the business of another country - or other countries butting into our business.
Around and around it goes.
This whole "war on terrorism" might have started out with a clear-conscience, but now it's just become a prick war with no real point. (George Carlin reference, there.)
I still love America, just not the problem's we're causing.
"I'm your Huckleberry."
The muse spake her thought and then there was silence. Thy spiked tongue had melted, only a bitter heart remained.
SILVER Member
c",
199 posts
Location: Ireland
c",
199 posts
Location: Ireland
Posted:
Isnt it common knowledge that the war was fought for oil?
If it was to liberate people why arent American troops fighting in African countries? Because they dont have much oil so nobody gives a flying f
k ,thats why
Isnt it common knowledge that the war was fought for oil?
If it was to liberate people why arent American troops fighting in African countries? Because they dont have much oil so nobody gives a flying f
k ,thats why SILVER Member
mmm...i feel all warm and fuzzy... 'no dude, that's your hair on fire'
355 posts
Location: Birmingham, Australia
mmm...i feel all warm and fuzzy... 'no dude, that's your hair on fire'
355 posts
Location: Birmingham, Australia
Posted:
Pretty much everybody knows it was for oil, but it's the fact that everyone knows and still the government are lying through their teeth and saying it's against terrorism. That is what annoys me the most at the moment.
Pretty much everybody knows it was for oil, but it's the fact that everyone knows and still the government are lying through their teeth and saying it's against terrorism. That is what annoys me the most at the moment.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
an interesting fact more civilians in Iraq died on the first day of the war than where killed in the September attacks
an interesting fact more civilians in Iraq died on the first day of the war than where killed in the September attacks
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hi Pele, I wrote that bit as an example of how we attach stories to things like religion. And that's what causes corruption - the mental illness in religion.
Foresure, I’m disappointed by the amount of conflict in the world, and puppets like Bush making stupid decisions that were always going to lead to disaster.
So, the important question for me is “why don’t we have any really great world leaders? You know, people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, for example.
Where is the vision????
Hi Pele, I wrote that bit as an example of how we attach stories to things like religion. And that's what causes corruption - the mental illness in religion.
Foresure, I’m disappointed by the amount of conflict in the world, and puppets like Bush making stupid decisions that were always going to lead to disaster.
So, the important question for me is “why don’t we have any really great world leaders? You know, people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, for example.
Where is the vision????
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Clique Infiltrator, Cunning Linguist and Master Debator
4,219 posts
Location: Edinburgh burgh burrrrrr, United Kingdom
Clique Infiltrator, Cunning Linguist and Master Debator
4,219 posts
Location: Edinburgh burgh burrrrrr, United Kingdom
Posted:
wars like this have been blamed on religion for centuries. I'm a michael more fan and his books and films have brought to light how corrupt dubya is! he's a money hungry, power crazed war lord!
wars like this have been blamed on religion for centuries. I'm a michael more fan and his books and films have brought to light how corrupt dubya is! he's a money hungry, power crazed war lord!
Always use "so's your face" and "only on Tuesdays" in as many conversations possible
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
1. The war was about weapons of mass destruction
remember Tony Blair saying to parliament that Iraq was an imminent threat and repeating the 45 minute claim... Likewise Cheney telling the world that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons...
Unfortunately having invaded and sent in a 1200 strong team of weapons inspectors it turned out that Saddam was telling the truth when he said he didn't have any
2. The war was to fight international terrorism, and the rogue states who fund and arm terrorist groups.
Sorta went along with 1. but still gets repeated. The closest they got to pinning anything on Iraq was when an intelligence agent in Prague reported seeing an Iraqi official meet with Mohammed Atta (cell leader of the 9-11 hijackers). This claim was repeatedly reffered to by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice etc. Unfortunately further investigation revealed that the Iraqi official had met a man who resembled Atta but was in fact a Mercedes Benz salesman... The guy was buying a new car, not plotting the downfall of the infidels.
Also not helped by pre-war US intelligence reports which state that attcking Iraq will increase the chances of the US & its allies being attacked by terrorists, and will be viewed as a reason by many young men to join the terrorist cause, feeling that their muslim brothers are being attacked. See Madrid and London for proof of this. Current reports indicate that Iraq is now the location where most professional terrorists will be trained, making it the new afghanistan. Before the war there was virtually no terrorist activity in Iraq, Saddam viewed armed militants of any sort as a threat and his Baathist views were incompatable with Wahabism as practised by Al Qaeda.
3. The war was to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal and repressive regime
The reasoning for was which the elites resorted to once the first two were falling apart. This was a moral war, standing up for a people who had suffered greatly at Saddam's hands, a freaquently cited example being the gassing of the Kurds at Hajabla in March 1988. What they didn't rush to tell everyone was that in 1988 Iraq was an official friend of the UK & US. When the Kurds were gassed, we reacted by severly punishing Saddam's brutal regime by increasing military aid to Iraq... And denying export licenses to the Kurds who tried to buy antidotes for nerve gas. Fast forwards to the end of the first gulf war and the impostions of sanctions led by the US and UK. Between 1991-2001 the sanctions were estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children. Upon hearing this, former US secratary of state Madelaine Albright descibed these fatalities as 'a price worth paying.' Since the outbreak of the second Iraq war civillian casualties are estimated as being between 25 000 and 110 000. There isn't any official figure as no one thought these casualties were worth counting. Two years after the invasion many areas of Iraq still have electricity for only a few hours a day due to the extent of damage wrought upon the country's civillian infrastructure. Unemployment is around 70%, and the people live in constant fear due to the daily bombings. Not to mention Abu Ghraib.
All hail the liberators of Iraq.
George Bush has a habit of invoking god in his speeches. Possibly because if you trust that Bush is a good, god-fearing man (as many of his supporters do) you're less likely to spend time examing the evidence which demonstrates that the reasoning for going to war with Iraq he presented was a load of crap.
1. The war was about weapons of mass destruction
remember Tony Blair saying to parliament that Iraq was an imminent threat and repeating the 45 minute claim... Likewise Cheney telling the world that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons...
Unfortunately having invaded and sent in a 1200 strong team of weapons inspectors it turned out that Saddam was telling the truth when he said he didn't have any
2. The war was to fight international terrorism, and the rogue states who fund and arm terrorist groups.
Sorta went along with 1. but still gets repeated. The closest they got to pinning anything on Iraq was when an intelligence agent in Prague reported seeing an Iraqi official meet with Mohammed Atta (cell leader of the 9-11 hijackers). This claim was repeatedly reffered to by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice etc. Unfortunately further investigation revealed that the Iraqi official had met a man who resembled Atta but was in fact a Mercedes Benz salesman... The guy was buying a new car, not plotting the downfall of the infidels.
Also not helped by pre-war US intelligence reports which state that attcking Iraq will increase the chances of the US & its allies being attacked by terrorists, and will be viewed as a reason by many young men to join the terrorist cause, feeling that their muslim brothers are being attacked. See Madrid and London for proof of this. Current reports indicate that Iraq is now the location where most professional terrorists will be trained, making it the new afghanistan. Before the war there was virtually no terrorist activity in Iraq, Saddam viewed armed militants of any sort as a threat and his Baathist views were incompatable with Wahabism as practised by Al Qaeda.
3. The war was to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal and repressive regime
The reasoning for was which the elites resorted to once the first two were falling apart. This was a moral war, standing up for a people who had suffered greatly at Saddam's hands, a freaquently cited example being the gassing of the Kurds at Hajabla in March 1988. What they didn't rush to tell everyone was that in 1988 Iraq was an official friend of the UK & US. When the Kurds were gassed, we reacted by severly punishing Saddam's brutal regime by increasing military aid to Iraq... And denying export licenses to the Kurds who tried to buy antidotes for nerve gas. Fast forwards to the end of the first gulf war and the impostions of sanctions led by the US and UK. Between 1991-2001 the sanctions were estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children. Upon hearing this, former US secratary of state Madelaine Albright descibed these fatalities as 'a price worth paying.' Since the outbreak of the second Iraq war civillian casualties are estimated as being between 25 000 and 110 000. There isn't any official figure as no one thought these casualties were worth counting. Two years after the invasion many areas of Iraq still have electricity for only a few hours a day due to the extent of damage wrought upon the country's civillian infrastructure. Unemployment is around 70%, and the people live in constant fear due to the daily bombings. Not to mention Abu Ghraib.
All hail the liberators of Iraq.
George Bush has a habit of invoking god in his speeches. Possibly because if you trust that Bush is a good, god-fearing man (as many of his supporters do) you're less likely to spend time examing the evidence which demonstrates that the reasoning for going to war with Iraq he presented was a load of crap.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Basically, Blair only got in because of people voting traditionally
no... Blair got in because people didn't feel there was an alternative. The Tories were pro war and deeply unpopular, and under the current electoral system (1st past the post) no one else has much of achance of getting into power.
The labour party (and that doesn't mean Blair... It's not a presidential election, there are a lot of backbench labour MP's who voted against the war, against top up fees, against foundation hospitals and are very popular with their constituents) won 37% of the vote at the election but that translated to about 65% of the seats in the commons... democracy... what... huh?
Basically, Blair only got in because of people voting traditionally
no... Blair got in because people didn't feel there was an alternative. The Tories were pro war and deeply unpopular, and under the current electoral system (1st past the post) no one else has much of achance of getting into power.
The labour party (and that doesn't mean Blair... It's not a presidential election, there are a lot of backbench labour MP's who voted against the war, against top up fees, against foundation hospitals and are very popular with their constituents) won 37% of the vote at the election but that translated to about 65% of the seats in the commons... democracy... what... huh?
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Flying high!
245 posts
Location: At the beach.
245 posts
Location: At the beach.
Posted:
Can't Blair see that Bush is of no help to us and to stop being his little yes man
After 9-11 Bush said it's fine for us to travel over to the U.S. and don't let this worry us.
Then after the London Bombings he pulled all U.S. military personel out of the capital and told eveyone to stay away until it setteled down again. Thanks for the support?!
I wish Blair would take his head out of bush's ass. It only seems to be putting us in more trouble.
Can't Blair see that Bush is of no help to us and to stop being his little yes man
After 9-11 Bush said it's fine for us to travel over to the U.S. and don't let this worry us.
Then after the London Bombings he pulled all U.S. military personel out of the capital and told eveyone to stay away until it setteled down again. Thanks for the support?!
I wish Blair would take his head out of bush's ass. It only seems to be putting us in more trouble.
If everything seems under control, your not going fast enough!
It's not the size of the wave, it's the length of the ride!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Dream: Everyone I know who could vote, voted Lib Dems. Thus we got a Lib Dem MP for our constituency. This, like you said, was because many people didn't like either "Evil" (Labour) or "Diet Evil" (Conservatives). The Green Party also had an upsurge in popularity. I still think that (from various media sources I have seen) traditional voting formaed a significant part of Labour's "Victory".
Representative voting? Sithspawn. The entire system needs reforming, because it's last major change was in the 1800's...
Dream: Everyone I know who could vote, voted Lib Dems. Thus we got a Lib Dem MP for our constituency. This, like you said, was because many people didn't like either "Evil" (Labour) or "Diet Evil" (Conservatives). The Green Party also had an upsurge in popularity. I still think that (from various media sources I have seen) traditional voting formaed a significant part of Labour's "Victory".
Representative voting? Sithspawn. The entire system needs reforming, because it's last major change was in the 1800's...
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Posted:
I agree most people don't see all this mess as anything to do with religion. In my opinion to assume that the many people in the middle east see it this way be a mistake.
They look at all of this within the context of history in it's entirety. I think George bush has made many comments that have fuelled this too.
My opinion on this is influenced by a movie which documented things in Al Jazeera as they happened in Iraq. I can't remember the name of it now....Anyone?
I agree most people don't see all this mess as anything to do with religion. In my opinion to assume that the many people in the middle east see it this way be a mistake.
They look at all of this within the context of history in it's entirety. I think George bush has made many comments that have fuelled this too.
My opinion on this is influenced by a movie which documented things in Al Jazeera as they happened in Iraq. I can't remember the name of it now....Anyone?
I live in a world of infinite possibilities.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Honestly, I'm not even sure he's Christian. I think he just plays one on TV.
I think he's about as much of a Believer as I am.
Written by: Pele
Just because GW is Christian doesn't make it a Christian War.
Honestly, I'm not even sure he's Christian. I think he just plays one on TV.
I think he's about as much of a Believer as I am.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Traditional voting... in your words
'People voting the same way that they have for years,'
how many years? general elections aren't annual, but the 1997 election saw one of the biggest swings in history. which means lots of people voting for a different party to the one they had at the previous election.
If on the other hand you mean wealthy people living in the south of England mainly voting Tory and public service employees mainly voting Labour, well yes they always have done, because it means they're voting for the party which looks after their interests.
Labour may have gone way off to the right in the last 20 years but its still very much a case of Tories (evil) and Labour (diet evil). While they agree ideologically (as do the Lib Dems) on neo-liberal capitalism as being the way forwards, and both boast a heavy pro-business outlook, supporting financial market liberalisation and a neo-imperialist foreign policy there are significant discrepancies in domestic policy over issues such as public sector funding.
You went on to say
'This annoys me intensely, because it would be better if these people didn't have the vote. Simple as that. '
What annoys me intensely are c**ts like you who think they should have the right to decide who should/shouldn't be allowed to vote.
sorry for the
post
Traditional voting... in your words
'People voting the same way that they have for years,'
how many years? general elections aren't annual, but the 1997 election saw one of the biggest swings in history. which means lots of people voting for a different party to the one they had at the previous election.
If on the other hand you mean wealthy people living in the south of England mainly voting Tory and public service employees mainly voting Labour, well yes they always have done, because it means they're voting for the party which looks after their interests.
Labour may have gone way off to the right in the last 20 years but its still very much a case of Tories (evil) and Labour (diet evil). While they agree ideologically (as do the Lib Dems) on neo-liberal capitalism as being the way forwards, and both boast a heavy pro-business outlook, supporting financial market liberalisation and a neo-imperialist foreign policy there are significant discrepancies in domestic policy over issues such as public sector funding.
You went on to say
'This annoys me intensely, because it would be better if these people didn't have the vote. Simple as that. '
What annoys me intensely are c**ts like you who think they should have the right to decide who should/shouldn't be allowed to vote.
sorry for the
post He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
SILVER Member
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
Posted:
Dream, please don't be calling people c**ts. Specially in Sethis case cos then it's not only rude but anatomically inaccurate.
Dream, please don't be calling people c**ts. Specially in Sethis case cos then it's not only rude but anatomically inaccurate.
.....Can't juggle balls but I sure as hell can juggle details....
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com