Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-21-2004   #81
mvhyde's Avatar
Technology Partner, Littleton, Colorado
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 642
Send a message via AIM to mvhyde
just go out and vote... Free Markets rock

A free market system isn't supposed to be fair. If it were, we'd be socialists or communists with a mild outbreak of capitalist acne. This is one of my pet peeves and you hit a nerve. No one, not any system, or government owes you a damned thing in life. It's all about survival of the fit. What you have, you should bloody well earn in life, and not the contrary. If you want to live in a welfare state, move to Canada or the UK or Cuba.

An individual in this country is or should be responsible for their own state of affairs in life. They're responsible for their own success, and if they think the system beats them down, then their game plan was weak to start with.

This is the one greatest freedom we have over any nation in the world, the right to self-determination, the right to choose to win, or choose to lose, or choose to fight another day and win. If you want to see a great nation that screwed itself up with a socialized state, go to the UK. They've ruined their country with socialism, heavy taxation, and failed immgration policies.

mvhyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #82
FoCo,NoCo, Colorado
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 280
Comparing apples and oranges

MVHYDE - It is always difficult when you use examples of failed (socialist) countries. Perhaps the UK failed because the empire collapsed and the country was no longer able to support itself by exploiting the colonies. Hmmm, the support of colonies bleeding a country dry. Sounds like Iraq.

Survival of the fittest. So you think if someone suffers misfortune, say for instance a spinal chord injury, this person should just be left to die? Their game plan somehow was inadequate? And if this person were you? We need some sort of common decency or we are just animals.

It is great to see boaters discussing politics. talk abouit a panel of experts! Har.



sarahkonamojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #83
El Flaco's Avatar
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,879
I guess you can ask yourself one question before you decide to vote... Who would Al-Qaida vote for?
From the International Herald-Tribune:

"The newspaper, Al Quds al Arabi, which is based in London, said on its Web site that it had received a statement from the group, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, in which the group reiterated its responsibility for bombings, which killed 201 people and wounded more than 1,600.
"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections," it said.

Addressing Bush, it said: "We know that a heavyweight operation would destroy your government, and this is what we don't want. We are not going to find a bigger idiot than you." The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world. Comparing Bush with his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, the statement tells the president, "Actually, there is no difference between you and Kerry, but Kerry will kill our community, while it is unaware, because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish infidelity and present it to the Arab and Islamic community as civilization."
The group also repeated its claim of responsibility for the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad last August, when 22 people were killed, including the UN's chief envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.
The statement described the United Nations as "America's tail."


In other words, it doesn't matter to extremists- they going to come at us either way. For someone to make a political statement that terrorists would prefer one of our leaders to another is short-sighted and is meant to generate fear. I personally believe that these two candidates have played too heavily on the fears of the public, although the Bush Administration takes the cake on that front.

As far as who's best to respond to the terrorist threat, I think that comes down to a matter of opinion based one what W. has or hasn't done, vs. what you believe Kerry will do (which is entirely speculative). The pre-9/11 world is passed, and comparing Kerry to Clinton's or for that matter Bush's failures in intelligence does not strike me as a reasonable comparison.

As for the Iraq argument: Ok, a bad guy in the region is out of power. But I don't think you can say that our security situation has improved. Aside for debates surrounding the plight of the Iraqi people (and careful with that one, 'Survival of the Fit', we had that country contained. Had Saddam developed WMD - which apparently he had not post Gulf War I- he would have immediately suffered immediately retaliation from the US and Israel. Instead of containing 1 man while he subjugated an entire country, we now have thousands of jihadists, operating in automonous cells, that have more control over that country than we do- with more pouring in every day. If that's not enough, we put thousands of soldiers and civilian contractors in country for them to target. Which situation presents a more clear and present danger to the US? And why are we spending 4x the amount of money in Iraq than we are in Afghanistan? 10W-30, my friends.

Point of fact-
The mobile chemical weapons labs found in Tikrit and Mosel
Those were found not to have been used to create WMD; in fact, they were shown to have been used to creat hydrogen for weather balloons. There has still been no proven evidence of WMD in Iraq. I'll admit they had me fooled.

Here's my final thought- vote for aggresive campaign finance reform and we'll finally get true representation of the people.

Don't have a ton of time today for a lengthy debate- but I appreciate MVHYDE's candor and engaging arguments. I don't agree with all of them (except the part of all politicians being scumbags) but I think he makes some well-thought out points. I do agree that we should have driven all the way into Baghdad after Gulf War I. I am, however, thoroughly pissed that he's getting the action on the Animas while I'm stuck in my cubicle. :
El Flaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2004   #84
Arvada, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 84
Who can resist this topic?

Some good debate so far, and only one person (on page one) quoting something from Michael Moore. The "I call you my base..." quote. Actually taken from the Alfred Smith charity fund raiser, where candidates joke about each other and themselves. Which, by the way, neither candidate were invited this year. Which is very unusual. Clinton and Dole were not invited, and I think only one other set of candidates in it's long history. Anyway...

Stiff's post caught my eye. I think he nailed it on the head.

Originally Posted by stiff
The issue seems to come down to your view of the role of the government.
One thing is true of politicians, they look out for themselves, and in doing that, they keep their major financial contributors happy.

To see who you hang your hat with (as far as who is the financial support for your candidate), visit:


I think it fair to say, that those who contribute more, think they have more to gain.

So who do you hang your hat with?

The Financial/Insurance/Real Estate industry PAC (GW's largest PAC contributor)
Lawyers and Lobbyists (Kerry's largest PAC contributor)

Another thing Stiff said was interesting.

Originally Posted by stiff
I am bothered that the Republicans seem to be run by people who haven't seen all of America....
Is this a man who has "seen all of America"?

Not that many normal Americans hang with JFK. Face it, both of these candidates came from the social elite.

Originally Posted by stiff
I'm amazed that people believe so much of what the Republicans are saying. Why don't people see all the distortions?
I'm amazed people believe so much of what the democrats are saying. I guess it depends on your point of view.

Also, people always seem to hate an incumbent. Don't ask me why. People hated Clinton.

For fun you can see who paid to get into the White House, the famous Clinton sleepovers and Coffee's.

Edited to add:

Don't mean to pick on you Stiff. Your post was very well thought out.
andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004   #85
Golden, Colorado
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,012
This circular rhetoric you speak of is called Presidential campaign rhetoric, it is what needs to be said to win the election.
This is what I find most disturbing. Just telling the masses to get out and vote when this campaign rhetoric is the single most influential factor affecting their vote is asking for it. Whoever has the most gullible voters wins. I'm glad to see some well thought-out arguments on this thread, although too many seem to be buying and regurgitating the rhetoric.

Each election I get more and more despondent as November gets closer as both of the candidates and the media talk to me like I'm some kind of moron. I'm glad you were able to explain why I haven't heard a single word from Kerry that would make me vote for him. Politicians running for office can’t be open and honest about their opinions. There often isn’t only one right answer to every issue, but politicians have to pretend like there is. I truly believe that the people who would make great presidents are, unfortunately, also smart enough to not run for president.

Just a few other thoughts:

On the Economy: How can anyone blame the economy on Bush? I'm surprised the economy did as well as it did after terrorists leveled two of our tallest buildings, the stock market tanked after greedy investors drove the stock market up to unsustainable levels by buying up tech stocks whose profit to earnings ratios were laughable, and several huge corporations went under due to accounting scandals all in a relatively short period of time. At the same time I don't give credit to Bush for the rebound we’re seeing either. The economy is bigger than one man.

On Iraq: It must be nice to be able to sit back now with 20/20 hindsight and say “See, no WMD… we never should have gone into Iraq.” At the time, most people, including the UN, congress, and previously even Clinton were not so sure. The point is, Saddam defied the UN for over a decade, wasn’t abiding by the conditions of his surrender after Kuwait, and was being secretive about his weapons program. Since the UN obviously wasn’t going to do anything about it, it fell into our lap… Team America – World Police. Maybe had 9/11 not happened we wouldn’t have been so worried about a little shit dictator messing around with chemicals and atoms on the other side of the globe. I don’t think there was a connection between Al-Queda and Iraq, but after 9/11 I’m not about to look the other way and hope that we’re not in the crosshairs of some psychopath. If the UN and the rest of the civilized world is just going to sit there and pass more ineffectual resolutions for another decade, pre-emptive war is the only solution as I see it. Post-emptive war in the case of a rouge nation with nuclear weapons is what you would be doing after you clean up a million dead and fill in the crater. Call it pandering to fear but I’ll admit, after 9/11, I’m afraid.

And of course it’s about oil to some extent. Unless you’re ready to start walking to work, heating your house with firewood and boating in a balsa wood kayak oil is always going to be part of the equation. Put as much energy onto supporting alternative fuels as you put into bashing Bush and Cheney. Is it JUST about oil? Please. Go listen to some more rhetoric.

As for the Iraq argument: Ok, a bad guy in the region is out of power. But I don't think you can say that our security situation has improved. Aside for debates surrounding the plight of the Iraqi people (and careful with that one, 'Survival of the Fit', we had that country contained. Had Saddam developed WMD - which apparently he had not post Gulf War I- he would have immediately suffered immediately retaliation from the US and Israel. Instead of containing 1 man while he subjugated an entire country, we now have thousands of jihadists, operating in automonous cells, that have more control over that country than we do- with more pouring in every day.
I consider this the strongest argument against what is going on in Iraq, although it is sad that we as a nation would look the other way while genocide was being committed, but it’s not our problem, right? It goes on all the time in other countries that don’t have oil, right? It’s a tough one. Should we consider ourselves safe and hope our intelligence is so great that we’ll know about any WMD before they are in a shipping container in one of our ports and thereby avoid aggravating radical militants that already hate us? Or do we hold rogue nations accountable and back up resolutions not with more resolutions but with credible threats of force even if that creates more problems in the short term but hopefully pays off in the long term in the form of a much more stabilized region? I’d need a crystal ball to answer that one. But seeing as I don’t have one, I’ll stake our future on the later.

France already learned the hard way that you can't beat terrorists with violence alone. Ever hear of two countries called Vietnam and Algeria? If you are perceived as an oppressor no matter if that perception is true or false no amount of “preemptive war” will bring you peace.
Agreed. However, the converse is just as true. Terrorists and thug dictators could care less about diplomacy unless they see that there are consequences in the form of military force. Ever hear of a guy named Qadhafi?

Is anyone (beside Kerry) suggesting that we pull out of Iraq now? That will only embolden terrorists everywhere and leave the Iraqi people in limbo like we did after the Gulf war. The main criticism I have of Bush (beside environmental policy) is he is a cowboy. I really wish he could be more diplomatic and enlist the aid of the rest of the civilized world in ridding the middleast of the cancer that has been and continues to grow over there. You would think that the civilized nations of the world could form an organization that could police these situations so we wouldn’t have to be the world police. Oh yeah, they have. It’s called the United Nations. Nevermind.

On the flat tax Mr. Hummer analogy: The difference is Mr. Hummer buys a Subzero, not a Kenmore and drives it back to his Cherry Hills mansion in his Hummer, not back to his double-wide in his Datsun pickup. Unless the rich suddenly stop displaying their wealth, they will end up paying the bulk of the taxes… as usual. Not that I’m necessarily for the flat tax.

As I've said before, it wasn't God, guts, and guns that made the USA a great nation. In the early days it was the boundless resources that allowed us to build our infrastructure and provide mass education to the citizenry. Things were going strong in the early 20th Century, and through collective bargaining, millions of lives were improved as workers gained a just share, in wages and benefits, of corporate profits, while gaining the biggest pro-family measure in history - the 40 hour workweek. In the last century we built the world's greatest transportation, and communication infrastructures and created extensive and safe food, water, and power distribution systems; we made enormous strides in widespread public health and academic research which all vastly improved the quality of life for a historically unprecedented portion of our society.
It wasn’t the government and unions that created all those things. It was greedy CEO’s and entrepreneurs looking to make a buck that created those things. Money is the motivating factor in most great achievements. You pointed out correctly, that government and unions were instrumental in ensuring that the masses got a fare share of the rewards but you seem to gloss over the fact that there would be nothing to share if it weren’t for the capitalist swine. Give the masses an undue share and you take away the capitalist’s incentive to create wealth and the masses' incentive to strive beyond just receiving a share of someone else’s wealth but creating wealth of their own.

If we increase our total spending on schools from 1.5% of our economy to 3%, the investment will more than pay off with a stronger economy in 20 years and a more knowledgeable society. It seems like a no brainer to me. I don't get it.
Your no brainer automatically assumes increased spending produces increased results. That’s not even close to a no brainer when the federal government is involved. I’ll concede that we should increase spending on schools, but only if they are held accountable and produce results.

And Josh, can I lick your... I mean buy you a beer too? Seriously though, nice well thought out points. I appreciate reading thoughtful viewpoints that don’t consist of the typical “war is bad”, “violence=violence”, “the economy sucks, must be bush’s fault”, “no war for oil” and my favorite: “anyone but Bush”. Keep ‘em coming. It’s a nice break from listening to the candidates.
blutzski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004   #86
Charc in = charc out
ToddG's Avatar
Seattle, Washington
Paddling Since: 1992
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 475
[On Iraq: It must be nice to be able to sit back now with 20/20 hindsight and say “See, no WMD… we never should have gone into Iraq.”]
While it may seem like a lot of people take this stance, I think you may be oversimplifying. Take yourself back to the time of the UN resolution that authorized Hans Blix & his team to make the call on the WMD situation in Iraq, and whether Saddam was in material breach. At that time the process was actually working the way it was supposed to. Under international pressure & US (Bush) threat of unilateral action, Saddam was actually cooperating & turning over the evidence -- albeit reluctantly & slowly -- but nonetheless, he was abiding by the resolution. Unhappy with the lack of evidence supporting a predetermined war, the Bush Admin. hastily rushed into Iraq, when perhaps we should have been focused on Al Qaeda.

I think a lot of people that you now accuse of reactionary/revisionist 10th-inning commentary are actually people who, at the time of Mr. Bush's premature war decalaration, fully supported giving the UN weapons inspectors the time they needed to complete their tasks. I know that's what I was thinking at the time ... But then I seem to remember being told that the Iraqi "nucular" threat was "imminent" ...

Now, thanks to our invasion, our super arrogant, super risky foreign policy since then, & the administration's continued mismanagement of the war in Iraq, we have INCREASED THREATS in N. Korea, Iran, & globally via the Al Qaeda terror network. I know a couple narrow minded "gun totin'" conservatives that would say something to the effect of "F*ck it, we'll go in there & clean that mess up too". But since we can't seem to get a handle on the first mess we've created, & since both the civilian Iraqi death toll & the US military & civilian contractor death toll continue to rise, along with the growth of Iraqi insurgency, I suspect we've gotten ourselves into one hell of a long term mess with this -- no matter who gets elected to run our corporation, i mean country ...

ToddG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004   #87
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 89
For accurate facts, try:

A good synopsis is
stiff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004   #88
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 25
pure democracy

Someone way back in the beginning of this thread posted a suggestion to do away with the electoral college, along with some other simple conservative = bad / liberal = good stuff that I hear all the time - while most of these points have been argued extensively I didnt see anyone point out that we are not a true democracy for a reason and that the electoral college, while not perfect, is far less dangerous than a pure democracy (mob rule).
I would think that those with liberal slants would be even more concerned than conservatives about letting the majority rule - though I suppose as our country moves from a rural aggrarian, to an urban society, the scale is tipping fast -
Aztec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004   #89
mvhyde's Avatar
Technology Partner, Littleton, Colorado
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 642
Send a message via AIM to mvhyde
this is a nice lively debate... a good thing too

it's good to see people passionate (however misguided) about the outcome of this election.

Some points I find intersting are:

Bush: sucks on the environmental policy
Kerry: hasn't made a clear statement on what he'd actually do


Bush: John Wayne'ing to the hilt
Kerry: He's for it, then against it, then for it, then.....


Bush: Appointed John Ashcroft (who scares the bejeezus out of me)
Kerry: Would like to take away ALL firearms from us


Bush: Gave a few aspirins in the form of tax cuts, breaks, etc.. but really, that's just a bandaid on a more endemic problem
Kerry: He will raise taxes on everyone but the rich (even he's not so stupid as to piss off the money brokers)


Bush: (has too much money in the bank to need it or worry about it)
Kerry: He'll pay lip service, but his wife has too much money for him to worry about it either (Who said sugar mommas were fun in bed?)


Bush: Guv'ment pays my doctor bills, y'all
Kerry: His wife pays the bills


Bush: Daddy paid his
Kerry: GI Bill paid his


Bush: has'em
Kerry: his wife has'em


Bush: Delegatory
Kerry: Committee of Monkeys Theorum

mvhyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2004   #90
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 112
The unfortunate state of our democracy is eloquently explained in this column entitled, "The Average Voter is an Idiot."
This is one reason that W stands a good chance of winning, people simply do not think or do not know how to think rationally and/or critically.

In my opinion GW Bush has done an absolutely terrible job of governing this country showing incredibly poor judgement in the most serious issue any President will ever face: going to war. At the beginning of all the hype surrounding the war, I supported going into Iraq and getting Sadaam out of power. Not b/c of the threat he posed, but b/c as mvhyde said it was simply the right thing to do. My support was conditioned on getting a coalition together, supported ideally by the UN, and if not the UN at least strongly supported by other many countries, especially prominent Muslim countries. Despite all the B.S. surrounding weapons of mass destruction, this was, at base, a war of choice and it was a nation building excercise. As crappy of an organization as the UN is, it is only one that can confer internationaly legimiticay on such a risky enterprise.

Nation building routinely fails, there are very few examples of going in somewhere and saying hey you guys will be better off if your democracry and they say willingy "gee Uncle Sam you know you're right, here's my AK-47." In order, to undertake nation building you need legitimacy and you need financial and political staying power. The US has none of those required elements in Iraq. Many times, as is happening in Iraq the situation spirals into a civil war and the occupying power leaves with a little whoops . . . sorry.

The flowering of democracy crap in the mideast is a great idea (one most prominently put forth by the neocons - a group of JEwish intellectuals - yea they're not biased) A great ideal perhaps, but the reality of pulling that off is very very dicey. WE failed miserably at this not long ago, it was called Vietnam, and we are a few more years away from failure in Iraq. There was a right way to do this and wrong way. Bush chose the cowboy way and it is proving to be very wrong. The country is less secure now than when W arrogantly declared "Mission Accomplished" and every day the situation worsens. To turn that around will require more firepower, and more money. Think that is going to happen. . .. .think again - the American military is stretched to the limit and the budget well that's another rant. The time for all of this and the only way to do this rigth was before this fucking disaster happened not after.

Wars of choice cannot be fought in the manner we did. Iraq will require many years of sustained financial and political clout. How long do you think the American people are going to tolerate their sons and daughters being killed? Wars of choice and nation building cannot be done alone. Iraq is on the verge of civil war and no one is going help now.

And I don't want to hear about this shit that there are other countries. Bullshit man don't be so fucking naive!!! A bridigade of 10 troops from fucking Guatemala, and another 6 from that country and 8 from this country is not a fucking coalition. It is tokenism contributed by other countries b/c they fear retaliation by the US (which Bush has also proved quite good at). Morevover, none of the "coalition of the willing" countries are even in combat, they are doing candy-ass low risk shit. Whose getting killed man??? 1000 Americans to date, with more to come.

Bush is surrounded by arrogant war mongers (with exception of Powell), and this was largely DICK'S WAR. Bod Woodward detailed this well in his book. It war to make up for his failure there in 91. 9/11 provided a conveniant excuse.

Bush exercised extremely poor judgment and is a utter failure as a diplomat and he needs go. If he was a CEO of private company he would have been sacked long ago. He got us into another fucking Vietnam that we will never be able to win. And I fully expect that if Bush is re-elected he'll drag us into IRan too. IF that happens, I hope he's learned at least a few lessons from Iraq.

After the rant, here's another rant on our the morons who select our Moron in Chief:,00.html

God Bless America

matobs is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dangerous conditions in the BC backcountry ToddG Winter Buzz 1 03-07-2007 10:40 AM
Dangerous wood in Foxton! soylent green Whitewater Kayaking 3 07-23-2006 06:56 PM
Dangerous Encounter at the Mystery Canal RiverWrangler Whitewater Kayaking 5 03-29-2006 06:57 PM
A Real dangerous Question erdvm1 Whitewater Kayaking 9 09-23-2004 07:52 PM
How dangerous is Frog's Rock Rapid on Ark/Fractions? cstork Whitewater Kayaking 2 09-07-2004 02:16 PM

» Classified Ads
Fluid Flirt (med)

posted by dlanci

Medium Fluid Flirt. Bought brand new in 2007. Great river...

Wavesport Project X 56

posted by rendock

Hardly used Wavesport Project X56 kayak $400 obo

Demo Jackson Karma L

posted by 4CRS

Used 2016 Jackson Karma LG whitewater kayak - lightly used...

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.