Ralph Nader runs for President

[SnaFuBAR]

Again. I wish he wouldn't. That asshat split the democrat vote last time, and that's how we ended up with Bush. Why doesn't he get that NOBODY FUCKING WANTS HIM FOR A PRESIDENT.

[itszutak]

Here's a news link. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4336298&page=1)

Luckily, I doubt he'll have much influence this time around. Still hate him though.

[CrAsHOvErRide]

Go Obamamamamaba ohhh!!!

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

[Emmzee]

I'm going to laugh my ass off if it's Nader's fault the Democrats lose the election.

[n00b1n8R]

this nader guy sounds like a yank peter costello.

[DrunkenSamus]

"Nader" sounds awfully similar like nads.

[Flyboy]

Nader isn't the reason we have bush. Bush bribed his way into the Presidency, the democratic vote was more for Gore than it was for Bush. However the electoral collage bullshitted us out? Why? I just told you the only logical reason.


Nader's fine where he is.

[CN3089]

Nader isn't the reason we have bush.

Putting aside the http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-tinfoil.gif crap, yes he is. He took 97 000 votes from Gore in Florida (where Gore and Bush were separated by 500 votes).

[Zeph]

Well that sucks. Maybe he'll take away some votes from both parties this time :\.

[Skiiran]

........

GOD DAMMIT SONUFAFUCKINGBITCH.

[ExAm]

What the FUCK does he think he's doing!? That bastard is going to ruin everything!!

Seriously, though, I think he might be in league with the Republicans to fix the election. He has such a liberal facade that no one would notice. :tinfoil:

[Kornman00]

lol, its like getting Rick Roll'd only its Nadered

[bobbysoon]

stupid electoral system. There must be a better way

[ExAm]

THOUGHT OBAMA OR HILLARY WAS GOING TO WIN? YOU'VE JUST BEEN NADEROLLED (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/nader)! :awesome:

[Flyboy]

Putting aside the http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-tinfoil.gif crap, yes he is. He took 97 000 votes from Gore in Florida (where Gore and Bush were separated by 500 votes).
Correct but thats not the "reason" we have him (though it helps). Even with Nader, Gore still had a greater number of votes than Bush.


THOUGHT OBAMA OR HILLARY WAS GOING TO WIN? YOU'VE JUST BEEN NADEROLLED (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/nader)! :awesome:
That was lulz

[Skiiran]

The above post I made was hot-headed and an initial response, although I realize it does not excuse my actions.

My hope is that the momentum Obama has gained will send him to the White House. Seeing what Nader did in 2004, him running now is sort of like an enormous kick in the nuts, because if he steals as many votes as last time, it might kill the democratic candidates' chances.

[STLRamsFan]

As long as we get someone better than Bush I'm satisfied. Nader joining at this time really doesn't surprise me as I actually predicted to myself that he would attempt another run at the White House. While I actually don't have a set person that I like 100%, I would much rather have Obama than Clinton.

[Skiiran]

As long as we get someone better than Bush I'm satisfied. Nader joining at this time really doesn't surprise me as I actually predicted to myself that he would attempt another run at the White House. While I actually don't have a set person that I like 100%, I would much rather have Obama than Clinton.
Although for this specific race I am for Obama, I agree with the points you make. I don't want Hillary to win because of how she's handled both her past 'fights' and this current campaign.

[paladin]

John McCain, the mac is back. I hope Nader ruins your race democrats.

[Kornman00]

As long as we get someone better than Bush I'm satisfied.
Correction, as long as the NWO doesn't decide they need to appoint another scapegoat with the IQ of a grain of sand to take the fall for...things, you'll be satisfied, but we all know thats not going to happen.

[Dr Nick]

http://www.airsoftzone.org/pics/Grenade-launcher.jpg

'Nader?

Honestly, I don't think he's going to get anywhere or accomplish anything.

[Masterz1337]

Nader isn't the reason we have bush. Bush bribed his way into the Presidency, the democratic vote was more for Gore than it was for Bush. However the electoral collage bullshitted us out? Why? I just told you the only logical reason.


Nader's fine where he is.
If you have no idea what you're talking about, then you shouldn't be posting.

[Limited]

When will he learn? Didnt he drop out of the last election?

[Zeph]

When will he learn? Didnt he drop out of the last election?

Have you picked up on your habit of not reading threads before replying again?

[CN3089]

Have you picked up on your habit of not reading threads before replying again?

Limited's been shitposting ever since he first fired up his browser. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/07-19-06-munch.gif

[Warsaw]

Oh, didn't see this one coming.

/sarcasm

[I_Am_Error117]

Well all you Obama fans:

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/


wow....... cuz I really wanna help joe in india with my taxes..... IF you wanna help him give it to a charity. Some poor people in the US dont need to help other poor people. Plus one dollar might get you more in another country (I saw a video at school where a homeless woman whose children dont eat much sold fifty oranges for a dollar, why didnt she just eat the oranges???) Plus he wants to ban guns?? Gun control is not pulling the trigger.


Oh and if you're democrat canidate was really all that then Nader wouldnt be a prob now would he??




We need less goverment involvment, less taxes (I dont want to just hand out my money I WORKED FOR, to just anybody, Do you?), less global warming crap (Sure Recycle, clean up trash, don't litter, etc), less naturalist (Awww boo hoo gas is expensive then why can t we drill in Alaska naturalists, there isnt anything there its ice!), Less stupid war (Crazy terrorists in iraq, afgan, iran etc are a threat stop playing games and kill them before they kill us ala 9/11).


Ok you say we need to pull out of Iraq. Ok if all you liberals would let us do our job (kill all these terrorists and shut down their crazy organizations) then we could go home. We should be getting rid of all the threats that come our way, but we dont (If we had gone after Bin Ladden and cut off his funding from Sadam before he attacked us there would be no 9/11, or 92 WTC bombings)


Oh and while I'm here that phone thing where the gov could listen in.......they were using it to find terrorists in our own country. Dont turn a blind eye and say it doesnt exist, its happended before : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29#FBI_Office_Break-In


Bec some people broke in to the FBI and took some documents about how we were trying to stop theses guys they got off the hook....so now the same people who blew their own country up are allowed to run free today????




If you still belive yourself now, then it is not Bush, but you who has an IQ of 5.....Its simple really, you just gotta think.

[Pyong Kawaguchi]

I think that Ralph Wiggum would be better of a president
Also
"I voted for Nader I hate everybody!" - Pvt. Dick Simmons

[bobbysoon]

Again. I wish he wouldn't. That asshat split the democrat vote last time, and that's how we ended up with Bush
Thats the only complaint I hear about Nader, unlike the others, minus Huckabee and maybe (not that it matters now) Edwards. And Ralph Wiggum.
About these others (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us),
AMY GOODMAN: Let me bring Allan Nairn into this conversation. You have just written about the advisers, as well, on your blog, newsc.blogspot.com (http://newsc.blogspot.com/). Elaborate further on Hillary Clinton’s advisers.

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, I think one thing you could say about the advisers for all the candidates who have a chance is that the presence of these advisers makes it clear that these candidates aren’t serious about enforcing the murder laws and that they’re willing to kill civilians, foreign civilians, en masse in order to advance US policy. And they’re not serious about law and order. They’re soft on crime.

And start with Clinton. Madeleine Albright, she was the main force behind the Iraq sanctions that killed more than 400,000 Iraqi civilians. General Wesley Clark, he was the one who ran the bombing of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, came out and publicly said that he was going after civilian targets, like electrical plants, like the TV station there. Richard Holbrooke, in the Carter administration he was the one who oversaw the shipment of weapons to the Indonesian military as they were invading—illegally invading East Timor and killing a third of the population there, and he was the one who kept the UN Security Council from enforcing its resolution against that invasion. Strobe Talbott, he was the one who, during the Clinton administration, oversaw Russia policy, a backing of Yeltsin, which resulted in turning over the national wealth to the oligarchs and a drop in life expectancy in much of Russia of about fifteen years—massive, massive death. And you have various backers of the Iraq invasion and occupation and the recent escalation, people like General Jack Keane, Michael O’Hanlon and others. That’s just Clinton.

AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama?

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?” And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.” Another top Obama person—

AMY GOODMAN: I think his comment actually was, “What’s a few riled-up Muslims?” And this, that whole idea of blowback, the idea of arming, financing, training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including Osama bin Laden, and then when they’re done with the Soviets, they set their sights, well, on the United States.

ALLAN NAIRN: Right. And later, during Bill Clinton’s administration, during the Bosnia killing, the US actually flew some of the Afghan Mujahideen, the early al-Qaeda people—the US actually arranged for them to be flown from there to Bosnia to fight on the Muslim/NATO side.

Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.

Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in ’91 that you and I survived, he was—I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that—there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.

Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a key—he has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government—in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenik—I mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.

Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That’s the Obama team.

AMY GOODMAN: John Edwards?

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Edwards is a little different. The list of his foreign advisers is not as complete, so it’s not as clear exactly where they may be coming from, but it’s interesting. Last night on TV, one of the top Edwards advisers, “Mudcat” Saunders, was complaining about the fact that there are 35,000 lobbyists in Washington. And it appears, from the Edwards list, that many of the military lobbyists are working on the Edwards foreign policy team, because the names that—the Edwards names that are out there mainly come from the Army and the Air Force and the Navy Material Command. Those are the portions of the Pentagon that do the Defense contracts, that do the deals with the big companies like Raytheon and Boeing, etc. One of those listed on the Edwards team is the lobbyist for the big military contractor EADS. So, although Edwards talks about going after lobbyists, if he tries to go after the military lobbyists, he may get a little blowback from his own advisers.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you saying that there’s no difference between these candidates?

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, fundamentally, there’s no difference on the basic principle of, are you against the killing of civilians and are you willing to enforce the murder laws. If we were willing to enforce the murder laws, the headquarters of each of these candidates could be raided, and various advisers and many candidates could be hauled away by the cops, because they have backed various actions that, under established principles like the Nuremberg Principles, like the principles set up in the Rwanda tribunals, the Bosnia tribunals, things that are unacceptable, like aggressive war, like the killing of civilians for political purposes. So, in a basic sense, there is no choice.

But there is a difference in this sense: the US is so vastly powerful, the US influences and has the potential to end so many millions of lives around the world, that if, let’s say, you have two candidates that are 99% the same—there’s only 1% difference between them—if you’re talking about decisions that affect a million lives—1% of a million is 10,000—that’s 10,000 lives. So, even though it’s a bitter choice, if you choose the one who is going to kill 10,000 fewer people, well, then you’ve saved 10,000 lives. We shouldn’t be limited to that choice. It’s unacceptable. And Americans should start to realize that it’s unacceptable.

But that’s the choice we have at the moment. In Iowa, I think there are steps people could take to start to challenge that system, if they wanted to.I like to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, thinking she's playing along with the lobbyist system to make it happen. She's had a long time to think about the system, since her decades earlier attempt at bringing universal health care got obliterated.


Correction, as long as the NWO doesn't decide they need to appoint another scapegoat with the IQ of a grain of sand to take the fall for...things, you'll be satisfied, but we all know thats not going to happen.Aw, c'mon, can't we just pretend?


that phone thing where the gov could listen in.......they were using it to find terrorists in our own country. Dont turn a blind eye and say it doesnt exist, its happended before : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29#FBI_Office_Break-In

Are you saying the Weathermans were terrorists? I think at most they invoked alarm when calling in the bomb threats, but no actual terror occured from violent maimings, as they actually allowed occupents of demolition sites to be evacuated, unlike the events which they protested with their bombings. Trust in good ol PR to insert bassackwardly disinfo into the public mind

[SnaFuBAR]

Well all you Obama fans:

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/


wow....... cuz I really wanna help joe in india with my taxes..... IF you wanna help him give it to a charity. Some poor people in the US dont need to help other poor people. Plus one dollar might get you more in another country (I saw a video at school where a homeless woman whose children dont eat much sold fifty oranges for a dollar, why didnt she just eat the oranges???) Plus he wants to ban guns?? Gun control is not pulling the trigger.


Oh and if you're democrat canidate was really all that then Nader wouldnt be a prob now would he??




We need less goverment involvment, less taxes (I dont want to just hand out my money I WORKED FOR, to just anybody, Do you?), less global warming crap (Sure Recycle, clean up trash, don't litter, etc), less naturalist (Awww boo hoo gas is expensive then why can t we drill in Alaska naturalists, there isnt anything there its ice!), Less stupid war (Crazy terrorists in iraq, afgan, iran etc are a threat stop playing games and kill them before they kill us ala 9/11).


Ok you say we need to pull out of Iraq. Ok if all you liberals would let us do our job (kill all these terrorists and shut down their crazy organizations) then we could go home. We should be getting rid of all the threats that come our way, but we dont (If we had gone after Bin Ladden and cut off his funding from Sadam before he attacked us there would be no 9/11, or 92 WTC bombings)


Oh and while I'm here that phone thing where the gov could listen in.......they were using it to find terrorists in our own country. Dont turn a blind eye and say it doesnt exist, its happended before : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29#FBI_Office_Break-In (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29#FBI_Office_Break-In)


Bec some people broke in to the FBI and took some documents about how we were trying to stop theses guys they got off the hook....so now the same people who blew their own country up are allowed to run free today????




If you still belive yourself now, then it is not Bush, but you who has an IQ of 5.....Its simple really, you just gotta think.

not worth more of a response other than you're a fucking idiot. i hope you're not old enough to vote.

[Emmzee]

:words:
I'm sorry, all I read was "I'm taking the opposite side of an argument just for the sake of arguing; please pay attention to me."

[CN3089]

Correction, as long as the NWO doesn't decide they need to appoint another scapegoat with the IQ of a grain of sand to take the fall for...things, you'll be satisfied, but we all know thats not going to happen.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/i_want_to_believe-web.jpg


http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-downspatriot.gif

it's you, you're the one with an iq of 5

[Jay2645]

Well all you Obama fans:

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/


wow....... cuz I really wanna help joe in india with my taxes..... IF you wanna help him give it to a charity. Some poor people in the US dont need to help other poor people. Plus one dollar might get you more in another country (I saw a video at school where a homeless woman whose children dont eat much sold fifty oranges for a dollar, why didnt she just eat the oranges???) Plus he wants to ban guns?? Gun control is not pulling the trigger.
OK, first off, Global Poverty is a bad thing. People DIE every year from it. If we spend less than one percent of our budget to fight it, we can eliminate it. What you have there is a biased article. Show me one with a neutral opinion.
Banning guns would be a good thing, because most gangs won't go the extra mile and spend the money to import them from Mexico. If they want guns, they would have to cut into their weed money, and they don't want that.

Oh and if you're democrat canidate was really all that then Nader wouldnt be a prob now would he??
The asshat is why we have Bush. If he had stayed down, the Democrats would have won. Granted, Kerry won the popular votes, but Bush won the electoral college, whether he used bribes or not, and he became President.

We need less goverment involvment, less taxes (I dont want to just hand out my money I WORKED FOR, to just anybody, Do you?), less global warming crap (Sure Recycle, clean up trash, don't litter, etc), less naturalist (Awww boo hoo gas is expensive then why can t we drill in Alaska naturalists, there isnt anything there its ice!), Less stupid war (Crazy terrorists in iraq, afgan, iran etc are a threat stop playing games and kill them before they kill us ala 9/11).
The Government is very involved, and while that's unconstitutional, no one will do anything about, Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Just like no one would do anything about the unfair treatment of whites. We have Black History month, Cinco De Mayo (Which celebrates Mexicans), and all these other holidays, we give special privileges to the gay and other groups, not to mention "Minority Groups" (Though Whites are actually a minority now) can get scholarships and have special associations, but if I want a WHITE college, or a scholarship for WHITE boys, or propose a WHITE history month, it's racist. We should all be treated equal, so either revoke their privileges, or let us have them.
Wow, I went off on a tangent there, didn't I? Back to the topic. Taxes are what keeps the economy running. We use them to feed and supply the troops you so happily support. The Global Warming message is going around because people AREN'T GETTING THE POINT.
Alaska is one of the last wildernesses on Earth. If we drill holes in it, those drills would need workers. Those workers would need somewhere to live. Those houses need somewhere to go. Then they need somewhere to supply them. The stores need a cheap and close way to get their supplies. This destroys the wilderness completely, causing animals to go extinct. There is a LOT more than just ice.
We ARE killing them. It's a war we can't win, like Vietnam. There is no way to win it, all we will do is draw a stalemate. There is extra security measures that are enforced now, the only reason why they ever got away with 9/11 is because we thought that they were our friends. They helped us out last time we were in Iraq, and we had just found out Al Queda was behind the bombings at the U.S. Embassy in Africa. Now we know that they are no longer our friends, and we are prepared in case another attack happens. We can't kill them all, they'll just keep finding more people, and they look just like civilians, so we don't know who to fire on. If we just nuke the towns that we know they're hiding in, then they would go find some more civilians to recruit against us. We can't win, and we need to pull out.

Ok you say we need to pull out of Iraq. Ok if all you liberals would let us do our job (kill all these terrorists and shut down their crazy organizations) then we could go home. We should be getting rid of all the threats that come our way, but we dont (If we had gone after Bin Ladden and cut off his funding from Sadam before he attacked us there would be no 9/11, or 92 WTC bombings)
Like I said, we can't kill them because we don't know who they are. We don't want to risk hurting innocent civilians, and if we tell the civilians to evacuate, we tell them to get out, too. We ARE getting rid of all the threats that come our way. We had 9/11 because we thought we had an ally in Al Queda, and they betrayed us. Not to mention Al Queda had nothing to do with the 1993 WTC bombing, as they weren't even an organization yet.

Oh and while I'm here that phone thing where the gov could listen in.......they were using it to find terrorists in our own country. Dont turn a blind eye and say it doesnt exist, its happended before : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29#FBI_Office_Break-In (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29#FBI_Office_Break-In)
They were also spying on innocent civilians, and not just terrorists. They were listening in UNCONSTITUTIONALLY on private homes. And even if they did spy on terrorists, they wouldn't say "Oh, take the bomb and put it in the truck to go blow up the building." No. They would use codewords that they weren't stupid enough to say what they meant over the phone, like "Go take the package and deliver it to the Post Office." Nothing wrong with that sentence, but it could mean that they want to deliver a bomb. I have a Muslim friend (Who's a girl, by the way, so she has to wear a veil), but she's not a terrorist. No one in her family's a terrorist. They're just Muslim, and that's protected by the First Amendment. It was illegal, and they did it anyway. The FBI has higher technology now, it's a LOT harder to avoid detection. And seriously, WIKIPEDIA? Because we all know THAT'S the most reliable source on the internet.

Bec some people broke in to the FBI and took some documents about how we were trying to stop theses guys they got off the hook....so now the same people who blew their own country up are allowed to run free today????
One question mark is enough, thanks. We have no proof that they are terrorists, and they are innocent until PROVEN guilty, not having everyone say "Oh, we don't like them, let's imprison them." That's mob rule, not democracy.

If you still belive yourself now, then it is not Bush, but you who has an IQ of 5.....Its simple really, you just gotta think.
No, from my replies, it's YOU who have an IQ of 5. Did YOU think? At all? If you seriously believe that, you're a fucking idiot. Good day.
Replies in bold.

EDIT: Damnit, why'd you guys post when I was typing?

[Flyboy]

If you have no idea what you're talking about, then you shouldn't be posting.
I could say the same thing. Shall we view how this government elects people? Ok, great, listen up class.

A long time ago in 1787, there were a bunch of dudes who needed to re write a government. After bitching to eachother for about 4 months they eventually came up with a draft known modernly as The Constitution of the USA. Learning something yet class? I hope so! Now when they were half way done they said, "Hey, who the hell is gonna run our executive branch?" and they all decided on a president. "Now," they said, "How best to choose this, president?"

Well, it the 18th century they didn't exactly have funcy punts computers or counting machines, and there was no way they could effectively count the ballots of every living American. So they decided on using a system we now call the electoral collage. Where a bunch of dudes from each state cast a vote and pick a president.

So class, if you haven't realized it, the election is NOT democratic. It is decided by a bunch of individual people attempting to represent millions. However, when you have one person representing the choice of a million, you're at a disadvantage, as this person can be bribed. Bribed so he does not vote for who the people want, but for whom he was bribed by.

So lets see how this effects the argument at hand. It means that, A, Nader did not fuck up the election, as Gore already had the majority vote by the people even with Nader running. It was the electoral collage who fucked up the election. Nader does steel votes yes, but this entire idea that he killed the 2000 election is a load of crap. Gore had more votes with Nader, do you think the electoral collage would make a different decision even with all those votes for Nader on Gore? No!

It also brings into question if we should even have this fucking system. The original constitution set this up, but what worked 200 years ago obviusly doesn't work now. From my point of view we should abolish the constitution and re write something that follows the basic structure of the old one, however with modifications that would more suit our modern needs.

So yeah masterz, I know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about.

[Bodzilla]

Well all you Obama fans:
Ok you say we need to pull out of Iraq. Ok if all you liberals would let us do our job (kill all these terrorists and shut down their crazy organizations) then we could go home. We should be getting rid of all the threats that come our way, but we dont (If we had gone after Bin Ladden and cut off his funding from Sadam before he attacked us there would be no 9/11, or 92 WTC bombings)

Its simple really, you just gotta think.
you do realize that the US supported and funded Saddam originally when it suited you?
<_<

[DOMINATOR]

I could say the same thing. Shall we view how this government elects people? Ok, great, listen up class.

A long time ago in 1787, there were a bunch of dudes who needed to re write a government. After bitching to eachother for about 4 months they eventually came up with a draft known modernly as The Constitution of the USA. Learning something yet class? I hope so! Now when they were half way done they said, "Hey, who the hell is gonna run our executive branch?" and they all decided on a president. "Now," they said, "How best to choose this, president?"

Well, it the 18th century they didn't exactly have funcy punts computers or counting machines, and there was no way they could effectively count the ballots of every living American. So they decided on using a system we now call the electoral collage. Where a bunch of dudes from each state cast a vote and pick a president.

So class, if you haven't realized it, the election is NOT democratic. It is decided by a bunch of individual people attempting to represent millions. However, when you have one person representing the choice of a million, you're at a disadvantage, as this person can be bribed. Bribed so he does not vote for who the people want, but for whom he was bribed by.

So lets see how this effects the argument at hand. It means that, A, Nader did not fuck up the election, as Gore already had the majority vote by the people even with Nader running. It was the electoral collage who fucked up the election. Nader does steel votes yes, but this entire idea that he killed the 2000 election is a load of crap. Gore had more votes with Nader, do you think the electoral collage would make a different decision even with all those votes for Nader on Gore? No!

It also brings into question if we should even have this fucking system. The original constitution set this up, but what worked 200 years ago obviusly doesn't work now. From my point of view we should abolish the constitution and re write something that follows the basic structure of the old one, however with modifications that would more suit our modern needs.

So yeah masterz, I know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about.

actually you left quite a bit out. i hope you never really become a teacher because... well daaamn.

[Emmzee]

you do realize that the US supported and funded Saddam originally when it suited you?
<_<
There's nothing wrong with opportunism, even when it comes back to bite you in the ass.

[Flyboy]

actually you left quite a bit out. i hope you never really become a teacher because... well daaamn.
Summarizing. Did you honestly expect me to go into every little detail about Americas history? Not only do I not know it all, but it's kinda pointless.

[Skiiran]

Summarizing. Did you honestly expect me to go into every little detail about Americas history? Not only do I not know it all, but it's kinda pointless.
But your argument was wrong.

Had Al Gore won 300 of the 97000 Nader got, a substantial number more democratic electors than republican electors would go to the college.

[Jay2645]

Thats the only complaint I hear about Nader, unlike the others, minus Huckabee and maybe (not that it matters now) Edwards. And Ralph Wiggum.
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=26995

[Flyboy]

But your argument was wrong.

Had Al Gore won 300 of the 97000 Nader got, a substantial number more democratic electors than republican electors would go to the college.
You mean was supposed to.

I don't see how you people think that everyone is playing by the rules here. Think about it. Al Gore was winning, and yet the electoral collage ratted him out. Sure by a few votes, but it was still majority. Just because Nader would give him more votes doesn't make a difference because he was already fucking winning. If the collage made him loose then, whats to say that +x number of democratic votes would change that.

Winners should win, no matter by what margin.

[CN3089]

I could say the same thing. Shall we view how this government elects people? Ok, great, listen up class.

A long time ago in 1787, there were a bunch of dudes who needed to re write a government. After bitching to eachother for about 4 months they eventually came up with a draft known modernly as The Constitution of the USA. Learning something yet class? I hope so! Now when they were half way done they said, "Hey, who the hell is gonna run our executive branch?" and they all decided on a president. "Now," they said, "How best to choose this, president?"

Well, it the 18th century they didn't exactly have funcy punts computers or counting machines, and there was no way they could effectively count the ballots of every living American. So they decided on using a system we now call the electoral collage. Where a bunch of dudes from each state cast a vote and pick a president.

So class, if you haven't realized it, the election is NOT democratic. It is decided by a bunch of individual people attempting to represent millions. However, when you have one person representing the choice of a million, you're at a disadvantage, as this person can be bribed. Bribed so he does not vote for who the people want, but for whom he was bribed by.

So lets see how this effects the argument at hand. It means that, A, Nader did not fuck up the election, as Gore already had the majority vote by the people even with Nader running. It was the electoral collage who fucked up the election. Nader does steel votes yes, but this entire idea that he killed the 2000 election is a load of crap. Gore had more votes with Nader, do you think the electoral collage would make a different decision even with all those votes for Nader on Gore? No!

It also brings into question if we should even have this fucking system. The original constitution set this up, but what worked 200 years ago obviusly doesn't work now. From my point of view we should abolish the constitution and re write something that follows the basic structure of the old one, however with modifications that would more suit our modern needs.

So yeah masterz, I know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about.

You have absolutely no idea how the electoral college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College) works (I'm Canadian and I know this shit, there's no excuse for you). How about going to Wikipedia and learning the basics before letting everybody know how ignorant you are?

[Kornman00]

(I'm Canadian and I know this shit, there's no excuse for you)
Yes there is, and in one word: American. :downs:

[Bodzilla]

There's nothing wrong with opportunism, even when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
i was just saying that because he wanted to have saddams funding stopped from supporting the Al queada (however the fuck you spell it). but at the time america was supporting Sadam :/

and flyboy, good fucking post.
e: so it wasnt a good fucking post? :/

i have no idea .__.

[CN3089]

Yes there is, and in one word: American. :downs:

I knew there was a reason I made http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-downspatriot.gif

[n00b1n8R]

I'm going to assume that flag is upside down on purpose.

[Kornman00]

well it is a :downs:er...

[ExAm]

Upside down flag means "HELP!!!"

[bobbysoon]

Nokia Poll Results: Will Ralph Nader joining the presidential race make a difference? (http://www.mail.com/PollResults.aspx?cat=poll&poll_moduleId=Poll1&poll_pageId=4&poll_choice=0)
'No, I doubt it' is in the lead
Meanwhile, Bush 'predicts' that the GOP will win again (http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews&#37;5CGeneral%20Politi cs%5C20080226%5CBush_Governors_20080226.xml&cat=politics&subcat=&pageid=1)

[Kornman00]

Meanwhile, Bush continues to talk out of his ass (http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews%5CGeneral%20Politi cs%5C20080226%5CBush_Governors_20080226.xml&cat=politics&subcat=&pageid=1)
ftfu :eng101:

[Flyboy]

You have absolutely no idea how the electoral college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College) works (I'm Canadian and I know this shit, there's no excuse for you). How about going to Wikipedia and learning the basics before letting everybody know how ignorant you are?
Apparently the Canadian doesn't get my point here.

The entire point is that these people aren't doing what they are supposed to do. You people think that these guys interests lie in the public? If you do then you honestly know nothing of politics.

I know how the electoral collage system works, no need to link me to it. The simple fact of the matter is that the popular vote was ignored here, and the electoral collage apparently didn't go by the peoples hand (if they did we would probably have Al Gore as president). For you people who still call me a moron, and still say that Nader killed the election, then I shall say it again.

The Electoral Collage ignored the fact that Gore beat Bush WITH Nader running along side. As we all know Nader acts extremely liberal (the only reason why is to spread out the democratic votes on the democrat side), so if he wasn't running then all of his votes would go to Gore right? Yes they would. But if Gore had won the popular vote anyway, then IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER!

If you still don't get it then lets look at it this way.

How the elections should have gone:

Nader< Bush< Gore

Nader< Bush< Gore + N

This is the way the election played out in 2000. As you see according to the democratic vote Gore would have won with or without Nader.
This is how we should elect a president, democratically. However it was not done this way. So, if the electoral collage didn't let Gore win in that scenario, then why do you think they'd let him win in this scenario?

Bush < Gore + N

They wouldn't, they would probably dish out the same thing with Bush in the lead. If he lost in the electoral collage even with the popular vote, then more of the popular vote would make no difference for Gore as it was ignored in the first place. How many times do I need to say it?

And if you truely think I'm wrong then please stop saying "you're an idiot" or "you're ignorant." Because your inability to respond with anything close to a sensible argument really proves otherwise. :eng101:

[CN3089]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-pseudo.gif

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-eng99.gif

The electoral college doesn't work that way. It's winner take all by state (in most cases), with electors apportioned to states according to how many representatives each state has in Congress. Gore ran up the votes in the liberal, more populous states of New York and California, which is how he won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. The electors voted exactly how they were supposed to. The electors are pledged for one candidate or another, you can't bribe them or sway them. Perhaps if you actually read anything about the electoral college system you would know that, you ignorant idiot. :v


P.S. When this system came about it wasn't chosen because of problems counting the votes of every American, but finding out why they chose out is an exercise I leave up to you, maybe you'll learn something along the way. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-haw.gif

[Disaster]

Man nobody here likes the republicans. The democrats running today are frickin socialists. The health care system would suck. Look at the UK. Theres millions waiting in lines for health care that would normally take a simple office visit. Also people are paying ridiculous taxes for other peoples health care. Cmon, what would you possibly think would happen if the dems pulled the american troops out of Iraq. Iraq isnt stable enough to support its military. It would fall apart and the terrorists would take over. Hillary and Obama would ruin the government if this happened. There also for gun free zones. At that NIU shooting, the spot where the shootings took place was a gun free zone. Well that clearly explains gun free zones don't work.

[bobbysoon]

As we all know Nader acts extremely liberal (the only reason why is to spread out the democratic votes on the democrat side)Actually, I think his intentions are more along these lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#Activism)

[CN3089]

Also people are paying ridiculous taxes for other peoples health care.

Don't look now, but Americans pay more in taxes per capita for other's healthcare ($2887 per person, next highest is Australia, with $2106 per person) than any other country in the world. :ssh:

[Flyboy]

Once again, I know that. I am not trying to lecture everyone on how the system works, I know how it works, so should everyone else. Simply because I did not mention
how the collage is arranged by states doesn't imply I don't know about it, it simply implies that it's not my point. In fact, nothing in my argument relies upon anything you just mentioned so even if I didn't know about pledges or how it's divided by states (which I did) it wouldn't fucking matter

Rather I am arguing how it was played out. And yes, you're not ALLOWED to bribe electors, but hey, I didn't think governments were allowed to kill 3000 people and blame it on terrorists. (whole other issue entirely that most people wouldn't give a shit about)

Oh, and to your tiny text comment, I know that as well. I brought up the matter simply because I believe that with modern counting methods there should be no need for the collage, and rather the elections should be based only on the democratic vote.

Man nobody here likes the republicans. The democrats running today are frickin socialists. The health care system would suck. Look at the UK. Theres millions waiting in lines for health care that would normally take a simple office visit. Also people are paying ridiculous taxes for other peoples health care. Cmon, what would you possibly think would happen if the dems pulled the american troops out of Iraq. Iraq isnt stable enough to support its military. It would fall apart and the terrorists would take over. Hillary and Obama would ruin the government if this happened. There also for gun free zones. At that NIU shooting, the spot where the shootings took place was a gun free zone. Well that clearly explains gun free zones don't work.
Simply commenting on you're idea on pulling out of Iraq, it's not that simple. I agree with you on the matter that Iraq would rip itself to shreds likely over religious civil war. However, what threat does that pose to the rest of the nations in the world? Iraq currently doesn't have a strong central government, no central militia, no nuclear weapons, ect. Leaving now would simply mean civil war in the area, and thats pretty much un-avoidable. The U.S. will have to leave at some point, the American people can only tolerate a situation like this for so long (and 7 years is pretty long). So here's my take, pull out now before more troops die over the long run in combat.

We went into Iraq without a plan to get out. Not only that but we don't even have a definition of "victory," so as of now U.S. forces are simply there. There is no primary objective, and there is no way to win. Whats the point of staying then?

[bobbysoon]

It would fall apart and the terrorists would take overIf we quit fucking with them in our futile efforts to make ourselves feel more secure, perhaps they would be less inclined to blow us up?
For an example, see Taliban Country (http://gnn.tv/videos/37/Taliban_Country)

[CN3089]

And yes, you're not ALLOWED to bribe electors, but hey, I didn't think governments were allowed to kill 3000 people and blame it on terrorists. (whole other issue entirely that most people wouldn't give a shit about).

Oh, so you're a troofer. I guess it's useless arguing with you then, since you live in a separate reality than the rest of the world. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/gf-cripes.gif

[Flyboy]

If we quit fucking with them in our futile efforts to make ourselves feel more secure, perhaps they would be less inclined to blow us up?
For an example, see Taliban Country (http://gnn.tv/videos/37/Taliban_Country)
Bingo!


Oh, so you're a troofer. I guess it's useless arguing with you then, since you live in a separate reality than the rest of the world. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/gf-cripes.gifRight, because not trusting the government is sheer stupidity. I mean, look at Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, they only killed a dozen MILLION...right?

Thats not a lot, right?

[CN3089]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-godwin.gif BUSH IS HITLER OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-godwin.gif

Yep I'm just mindlessly trusting the government, it's not like there's mountains of evidence against your stupid conspiracy theory, no siree http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/mmmhmm.gif

[Skiiran]

-Kosovo should be our concern now, being a country, you know, actually in severe DANGER of ethnic cleansing.
-Too many have died for a war that shouldn't have happened. I'm all for supporting the Iraq government, but there's a point where a baby has to stop nursing. And usually that point would be equivalent or less than the time we've spent in Iraq.
-Clinton is wrong about Obama.
-Obama is wrong about Clinton.
-McCain is right about both of them but isn't on my side of issues therefore I'm not in open liking of him.
-Huck is fucked.
-Despite his charisma, Obama is not a new JFK.
-Nader ain't gonna be Vader in a race like this.
-A plane in the Pentagon made an enormous hole and high velocities destroy things.
-A year ago I believed the 9/11 conspiracies, but then I realized these same people believe in lizard men and Nazified airports. Also that the idea behind it (killing 3000 people and then not killing some dweeb on the internet) is Bullshit.

[Kornman00]

You realize we do have soldiers deployed to Kosovo right? At one point I was listed as a possible replacement for someone who got injured down there in another unit.

I still think the whole airplane-in-da-pentagon's ass is a lie.

[Flyboy]

You realize we do have soldiers deployed to Kosovo right? At one point I was listed as a possible replacement for someone who got injured down there in another unit.

I still think the whole airplane-in-da-pentagon's ass is a lie.
I have a friend who saw it. It happened.

And yes Kosovo (bad name, too many o's) should be one of our primary concerns next to Iraq. However I don't think any kind of military action should be necessary unless it becomes absolutely necessary. The US needs to kill it's reputation as the country who "Fucks with everyone else's problems."

Oh, and for the 9-11 conspiracy being dumb lets get a few things clear (not going to try and explain if it's true or not, if you care about that look up the details yourself for those reading). Firstly, I don't view Bush as hitler, there's a difference between committing genocide and blowing up a building in an attempt to cease power. Secondly, there is a good deal of evidence, most of it is somewhat sketchy and can kind of go either way, but the majority of it lies in the Building 7 incident. Thirdly, just because the guys who come up with this stuff believe in lizard men doesn't mean I'm insane.

[Llama Juice]

I VOTED FOR NADER I HATE EVERYBODY

In all honesty and more on topic... What I find funny is that this country was founded on lies and everyone thinks its atrocious when the government lies to everybody.

[Skiiran]

Oh, and for the 9-11 conspiracy being dumb lets get a few things clear (not going to try and explain if it's true or not, if you care about that look up the details yourself for those reading). Firstly, I don't view Bush as hitler, there's a difference between committing genocide and blowing up a building in an attempt to cease power. Secondly, there is a good deal of evidence, most of it is somewhat sketchy and can kind of go either way, but the majority of it lies in the Building 7 incident. Thirdly, just because the guys who come up with this stuff believe in lizard men doesn't mean I'm insane.
As stated by other interwebbers (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons);

THE FACT THAT THIS MAN IS ALIVE:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/dylan_avery_big.jpg
IS PROOF THAT THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY.

I realize there are troops in Kosovo. I'm not sure how many there are, but I'm damned sure they couldn't survive a united Russo-Serbian incursion into the country (this is obviously worst-case-scenario thinking).

[SnaFuBAR]

if they do another incursion into kosovo, we'll airstrike the ungodliness out of them again.

[Flyboy]

Ok, the entire idea of him still being alive has nothing to do with there being no conspiracy. If your a government of a still democratic nation, and then all of a sudden the guy who dies who was speaking out against the government. Doesn't that seam like a give a way to you?

Secondly, the steel loosing 90&#37; of it's strength is correct, and I do believe that the towers would have fallen anyway. However, what makes no logical sense is how it collapsed in a pancake method.


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

The puffs of smoke can be considered bull shit, and is not substantial evidence by itself to support a controlled demolition, however, the pancake theory is.

But the main proof of the argument lies in building seven. For those of you who are un aware building seven was a building owned by yet again Larry Silverstein. It was farther away from the towers than several other buildings (of which took no damage). And yet apparently not long after the WTCs collapsed, it mysteriously caught fire. After taking no debris this building was engulfed in flames. Everyone was evacuated and then Silverstein made a choice to pull the building (blow it up). Whats odd here as well is that the building didn't need to be pulled, as the fires weren't even serious and until that time the trade centers were the only skyscrapers to ever fall without controlled demolitions. Now right here is the catch, demolitions crews usually take weeks to prepare the proper explosives to knock out a building. Not only that but there is a certain amount of engineering required to get it to do that iconic pancake drop. However, apparently the crew trying to put out the building was able to pull if off in around an hour. (impossible) The only way for that to have happened was for there to already be demolitions inside of the building. But what was the motive here, what was in building seven. Records for the FBI, CIA, NSA ect. Conclusion is if you can get rid of a bunch of documents, then your gonna have a hell of a lot easier of a time pulling this off with your country believing you.

If we're going to argue this further, then lets do it on another topic. I no longer wanna pollute this one.


And back to Kosovo, I'm pretty sure in the situation that if our Russian "friends" decide to make a move then the US is going to remain purely diplomatic for as long as considerably possible. The last thing the American people want is another war (And in this case we'd be up against a far greater adversary than we are now. Not only that but Russia has about 15, 000 nukes and I'm hopping they're not trigger happy.)

[bobbysoon]

there's a difference between committing genocide and blowing up a building in an attempt to seize power. Secondly, there is a good deal of evidence, most of it is somewhat sketchy and can kind of go either way...Notable difference: Hitler didn't get to attend Phillips Academy prep school at Andover, then Yale from 1964 until 1968, and graduate with a major in history (http://www.famoustexans.com/georgewbush.htm)

[Flyboy]

And yet Hitler was smarter <.<

And what was the "unnescisary supplimental comparative"

[SnaFuBAR]

Secondly, the steel loosing 90% of it's strength is correct, and I do believe that the towers would have fallen anyway.

except there's examples of large aircraft colliding with steel frame structures through recent history with no similar effects, not even close.

And back to Kosovo, I'm pretty sure in the situation that if our Russian "friends" decide to make a move then the US is going to remain purely diplomatic for as long as considerably possible. The last thing the American people want is another war (And in this case we'd be up against a far greater adversary than we are now. Not only that but Russia has about 15, 000 nukes and I'm hopping they're not trigger happy.)

look up the balkans crisis. they don't send their military, they send mercs.

.

[bobbysoon]

And yet Hitler was smarter <.<

And what was the "unnescisary supplimental comparative"
I misread "there's a difference between committing genocide and blowing up a building" as "there's a difference between blowing up a building", so I initially posted something like "there's a difference between blowing up a building [and brainwashing an army into slaughtering millions of civilians]"

Hitler was more menacing than smart. Bush was a little similar, spewing unintelligeble bable, and leaving the trusting sheeples to assume they were just to stupid to understand. Similar in the way they herded the populus, rather than lead adoring followers

also, sum current pressi news: Civil Rights Leader Switches to Obama (http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews&#37;5CTop%20Headlines% 5C20080228%5CObama_Endorsement_20080228.xml&cat=topheadlines&subcat=&pageid=1)

Civil rights leader John Lewis dropped his support for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid Wednesday in favor of Barack Obama. Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Atlanta, is the most prominent black leader to defect from Clinton's campaign in the face of near-unanimous black support for Obama in recent voting.loosely related to Lord Nader

[Skiiran]

What is all this bullshit about Bush = Hitler?

Bush is a douchebag, yes, but at least he's smart enough to not initiate a mass ethnic cleansing of everyone who has ever criticised him ever in his own country and dumb enough not to listen to his own populace.

What made Hitler dangerous is that not only was he a smart hatred-spewing racist but that he was a smart well-talking and crazy racist bugger who people listened to, and while I'm not sure on the last bit I can pretty much assure you that Bush is none of that, even though I still hate what he's done.

Oh yeah, and also at least he isn't into mysticism and the occult as though he lived in California.

[Flyboy]

Cheney pulls the strings here my friends. Mr. Bush is a puppet. However I don't think he could restart another holocaust, though I don't think anyone wants to. (Power and genocide are different things)

[Skiiran]

Not discussing genocidal tendencies? Good. Then don't compare them to Hitler.

Shit, I mean, anything the US has had thrown at it will never be as bad as Hitler.

[Bodzilla]

but the US has already committed genocide.

hiroshima anyone?

[ExAm]

but the US has already committed genocide.

hiroshima anyone?Little Boy and Fat Man were small by nuclear bomb standards. I wouldn't say that's all that close to genocide.

In fact:


gen&#183;o&#183;cide http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http&#37;3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fgenocide) /ˈdʒɛnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˌsaɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jen-uh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.By virtue of the definition of genocide, it wasn't. It did not constitute systematic extermination of an ethnic group. :eng101:

Now I'm not saying that the fact that so many Japanese died as a result of both the bombs and their radioactive fallout isn't a terrible thing, I'm just saying that it's nowhere close to genocide.

[Bodzilla]

Little Boy and Fat Man were small by nuclear bomb standards. I wouldn't say that's all that close to genocide.

In fact:

By virtue of the definition of genocide, it wasn't. It did not constitute systematic extermination of an ethnic group. :eng101:

Now I'm not saying that the fact that so many Japanese died as a result of both the bombs and their radioactive fallout isn't a terrible thing, I'm just saying that it's nowhere close to genocide.
If japan didnt surrender it would of been political genocide.

Afterall America threatened to sear japan off the earth Before and After Hiroshima, and they had more bombs in production for other cities planned.

so thats systematic extermination of an ethnic group isnt it?
thought so.

[CN3089]

If japan didnt surrender it would of been political genocide.

Afterall America threatened to sear japan off the earth Before and After Hiroshima, and they had more bombs in production for other cities planned.

so thats systematic extermination of an ethnic group isnt it?
thought so.

No, it isn't. They were fighting Japan, not the Japanese, and their goal in using the bombs was mainly to bring about an unconditional surrender. The killing of the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the means, not the ends.

[Bodzilla]

i guess so.

But i still see killing civilians and something terribly disgraceful that should never be overlooked and ignored. To me it's still just as terrible as Genocide, even though it might not fall under that very definition.

the Japanses emperor said it best.
"Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

[Skiiran]

i guess so.

But i still see killing civilians and something terribly disgraceful that should never be overlooked and ignored. To me it's still just as terrible as Genocide, even though it might not fall under that very definition.

the Japanses emperor said it best.
"Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Junkers_Ju88.jpg
Oh hi.
My name is Junkers 88. Starting in the early 1940s I deliberately destroyed most of London without thoughts for civilians.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Avro_Lancaster_B_I_PA474.jpg
Oh hi.
My name is Avro Lancaster. In the late war I obliterated most of Germany with my pals with no regard for civilian life.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/USS_Alabama_%28BB-8%29_1921.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/USS_Alabama_&#37;28BB-8%29_1921.jpg)
Oh hi.
I'm a white phosphorous bomb. I burned down most of the obliterated cities.

Think jackass.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/WorldWarII-DeathsByCountry-Barchart.png
58% of the deaths in WWII were allied civilians. More of those civilian deaths were Chinese deaths than anything else (remember, we're talking about the green bars here). They never apologized for what they did to those poor people.

[CrAsHOvErRide]

They never apologized for what they did to those poor people.
I lol'd so hard.

[bobbysoon]

Did you lol like this F-16 pilot did after bombing a crowd of civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity)?
q0Mu6r4aWrs

[Flyboy]

Not discussing genocidal tendencies? Good. Then don't compare them to Hitler.

Shit, I mean, anything the US has had thrown at it will never be as bad as Hitler.
I never did. (That thing about goverments killing citizens was just me saying: "this has happened before, to not at least watch out for it is ignorant. Not comparing Bush to Hitler)

And what a lot of people fail to realize is that Japan was under an ideaolagy to never surrender. Look at Okinawa for example, 100,000 people commited suicide rather that surrender to allied forces, and they weren't even military personal, they were civilians. Japans citizens, men women and children had all gone through extensive training to fight American soldiers had they invaded. The only other solution was to firebomb the entire area (and that took a hell of a lot of time, though it was effective). So essentially it would have taken either a multitude of time, or a huge number of casualties to stop the Japanese and invade the island nation. However, the reason we used the atomic bomb was simple because this was the japanese reaction when they lost two of their major cities:

"WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS THING!"

Small by todays standards yes, but one bomb obliterated an entire city, it basically killed the entire Japanese war drive knowing that instead of being invaded or fire bombed, in which you could see what was about to kill you, the atomic bomb simply dropped, and you were dead. Japan had no choice to surrender after that.

[Skiiran]

So you would rather that the war had raged a buhmillion times longer to occupy Japan than ending quicker than taking a shit.

Right. I can entirely see the logic there.


I lol'd so hard.Did you lol as hard as when you read about the Japanese government censoring textbooks containing any reference to the rape of Nanking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking)?


The extent of the atrocities is debated between China and Japan, with numbers[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking#_note-1) ranging from some Japanese claims of several hundred,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking#_note-2) to the Chinese claim of a non-combatant death toll of 300,000[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking#_note-3). A number of Japanese researchers consider 100,000 – 200,000 to be an approximate value.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking#_note-4) Other nations usually believe the death toll to be between 150,000–300,000.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking#_note-5) This number was first promulgated in January of 1938 by Harold Timperly (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Timperly&action=edit&redlink=1), a journalist in China during the Japanese invasion, based on reports from contemporary eyewitnesses. Other sources, including Iris Chang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Chang)'s The Rape of Nanking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_&#37;28book%29), also promote 300,000 as the death toll. In addition, on December 12, 2007, newly declassified U.S. government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._government) documents revealed an additional toll of around 500,000 in the area surrounding Nanking before it was occupied.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking#_note-6) In addition to the number of victims, some Japanese critics have even disputed whether the atrocity ever happened. While the Japanese government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_government) has acknowledged the incident did occur[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking#_note-7), some Japanese nationalists have argued, partly using the Imperial Japanese Army's claims at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, that the death toll was military in nature and that no such civilian atrocities ever occurred.
Controversy flared up again in 1982, when the Japanese Ministry of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Ministry_of_Education) censored any mention of the Nanking Massacre in a high school textbook. The reason given by the ministry was that the Nanking Massacre was not a well-established historical event.

...The more hardline members of the government cabinet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Japan) feel that the extent of crimes committed has been exaggerated as a pretext to surging Chinese nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_nationalism).

[bobbysoon]

It would have been sufficient to douse them with a tsunami