View Full Version : Yes, let's spend our tax dollars on this!
Joe DeFuria
11-Apr-2003, 15:30
http://news.com.com/2100-1043-996243.html?tag=fd_top
The lawmakers said Wednesday they intend to introduce legislation that would fund research on how exposure to different forms of media affects children.
Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, singled out video games as a particular area of concern and took yet another swing at "Grand Theft Auto III," the mega-selling PlayStation 2 game in which players take on the role of a small-time hoodlum.
:roll:
John Reynolds
11-Apr-2003, 18:20
Lord, please don't let Lieberman get the Democratic ticket for the 2004 elections.
He won't. Besides, it'd be an utter disaster for us in terms of middle east policy if Lieberman won. Could you imagine us trying to handle the reconstruction of Iraq, as well as any other diplomatic problems in that part of the world, with a Jewish President?
Dear lord help us. That's what I'd call the ultimate in perceived conflicts of interest. Personally I'm hoping Senator Joe Biden of Maryland throws his hat into the race. I've listened to him speak and he's by far the most intelligent, introspective politician I've heard. Frankly he's the only democrat that I'd be *rushing* out the door to vote for. The current crop, so far, would only get my vote because I'd rather have *anyone* than Dubya.
God, I wish McCain had beaten Bush in the primaries. He's the one republican I'd vote for in a primary election. He's truly sensible.
Now, to get back on topic. See, the thing I hate most is that you have lazy parents who don't want to actually *parent* their kids, so they want the government to legislate everything to "Save The Children." I grew up on violent videogames, violent tv. Hell I watched every Nightmare on Elm Street movie when they came out. But I'm certainly not going out there like an axe murderer. Why? Because for one, I'm not insane, and for another, my mom made sure that I knew right from wrong.
Some parents are just too goddamned lazy to raise their own kids instead of relying on the government to do it for them. Gah.
Joe DeFuria
11-Apr-2003, 20:31
He won't. Besides, it'd be an utter disaster for us in terms of middle east policy if Lieberman won. Could you imagine us trying to handle the reconstruction of Iraq, as well as any other diplomatic problems in that part of the world, with a Jewish President?
Why...is a Jewish President by definition immoral or incapable?
(For the record, I agree that Liberman would be a disaterous leader on several fronts...but the fact that he's Jewish in and of itself I have no problem with.)
Dear lord help us. That's what I'd call the ultimate in perceived conflicts of interest.
Yes, "perceived" being the key word. That could be a "diplomatic issue" simply based on his religion and how other world leaders "perceive" him because of it. I submit though, that many times the problem is with the perceiver, not the perceivee. And we shouldn't punish Lieberman and not give him the benefit of the doubt because others might have perception issues.
The current crop, so far, would only get my vote because I'd rather have *anyone* than Dubya.
And I couldn't be more pleased with Bush's overall performance and leadership.
God, I wish McCain had beaten Bush in the primaries. He's the one republican I'd vote for in a primary election. He's truly sensible.
Not surprising...McCain is much more liberal than Bush. Of course you'd vote for him in a primary. That's why you, not being a Republican, don't vote in Republican primaries.
Now, to get back on topic. See, the thing I hate most is that you have lazy parents who don't want to actually *parent* their kids, so they want the government to legislate everything to "Save The Children...Some parents are just too goddamned lazy to raise their own kids instead of relying on the government to do it for them. Gah.
Complete, 110% agreement there! :D
The current crop, so far, would only get my vote because I'd rather have *anyone* than Dubya.
Yeah, since Bush has killed all of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, sent thousands of Americans to die in Urban fighting, and let loose a whirlwind of overt enragement and hatred in the Middle east that's unpresidented and lead to the massive increase in terrorism, just as you predicted....
... Ohh wait, no.
RussSchultz
11-Apr-2003, 20:36
A jewish commander in chief? That would surely win the hearts and minds of the arab world.
At this very moment in time, a jewish president or vice president is the last thing we need, whether republican, democrat, or independant.
Joe DeFuria
11-Apr-2003, 20:43
A jewish commander in chief? That would surely win the hearts and minds of the arab world.
I have to admit I'm very surprised at Americans having this line of thought.
I could give a rat's ass about winning the "hearts and minds" of the arab world (or the "Jewish World", or the "Euro" world....)
I care about having a good leader who's decisions are based by looking at relevant, timely and accurate information, while being guided by sound morals and well defined principals.
Of course, I'm a realist and understand that (along the lines of what Natoma said), the outside "Perception" of us being lead by a Jewish person can make things difficult in terms of middle-east relations.
But as far as I'm concerned, that's their problem, not ours. I would not vote for or against a Jew or a Muslim leader because they are a Jew or a Muslim. No matter how having such a leader might "look" to the outside world.
Above all, our elected leader is an AMERICAN.
RussSchultz
11-Apr-2003, 20:53
I really don't personally care what religion somebody is, but the plain truth of the matter is you should get the right man for the job. Somebody who, by their very nature, is handicapped and likely would ensure our defeat in the greatest challenge to the US since the cold war is the absolute wrong person for the job. I don't care if its all the "other sides" fault, I'd prefer to "win".
You wouldn't hire a satanist to be the ambassador to the Vatican, would you?
Natoma confuses me sometimes, So he'll fight to the death to give unfair advantage to minority kids entering college under the guise of "leveling the playing field" - but when it comes to giving a minority real power, to forge a true role model for the minorities and under-dog's out there under the aegis of the popular voice of citizens who'd stand up and say, "We don't care what the rest of the world thinks, we're an ethical people and as such we don't discriminate - not in the smallest office or the largest," he won't stand for it... makes little sence to me.
Perhaps if it wasn't a Jew...
Joe DeFuria
11-Apr-2003, 21:01
but the plain truth of the matter is you should get the right man for the job.
Correct.
And simply because someone is Jewish, doesn't mean they aren't the right man for the Job of President, or the right man for the Job to head Middle-East brokerage.
And to be clear, middle-east relations are only one facet of this Government's duties.
I don't care if its all the "other sides" fault, I'd prefer to "win".
What is your definition of "win?"
You wouldn't hire a satanist to be the ambassador to the Vatican, would you?
Bad analogy.
At least a more relevant analogy would be "you wouldn't hire a satanist to be the broker between Satan and the Vatican, would you?"
And my answer to that analogy: while that's not my ideal choice, if the Satanist displays that while he supports Satan by virture of his heritage/beliefs, he is a reasonable person who regognizes the Vatican's rights and viewpoints, and is willing to comprimise, then the Satanist is fine by me.
I'd rather have a "reasonable Satanist" than someone who claims to be "neutral", but demonstrates unreasonable thoughts or courses of action.
He won't. Besides, it'd be an utter disaster for us in terms of middle east policy if Lieberman won. Could you imagine us trying to handle the reconstruction of Iraq, as well as any other diplomatic problems in that part of the world, with a Jewish President?
Why...is a Jewish President by definition immoral or incapable?
(For the record, I agree that Liberman would be a disaterous leader on several fronts...but the fact that he's Jewish in and of itself I have no problem with.)
Huh? When did I imply anything about a jewish president being by definition immoral or incapable? That's what you get for splicing my sentences instead of reading the whole train of thought. Because I answered it in the very next two sentences, which you quote below. ;)
Dear lord help us. That's what I'd call the ultimate in perceived conflicts of interest.
Yes, "perceived" being the key word. That could be a "diplomatic issue" simply based on his religion and how other world leaders "perceive" him because of it. I submit though, that many times the problem is with the perceiver, not the perceivee. And we shouldn't punish Lieberman and not give him the benefit of the doubt because others might have perception issues.
I agree in a perfect world that would be the case. But unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. We've got a delicate balancing act right now in the middle east because we're already perceived as "Zionists" who only do Israel's bidding. That's one of the reasons why in our current Pro-Israel stance we are perceived as puppets for their "regime." Having a Jewish president would only exacerbate those tensions. And you state as much further in your post when you say that being a realist, you know that it would cause problems for us, some potentially huge, in certain situations.
The current crop, so far, would only get my vote because I'd rather have *anyone* than Dubya.
And I couldn't be more pleased with Bush's overall performance and leadership.
Obviously. :P
God, I wish McCain had beaten Bush in the primaries. He's the one republican I'd vote for in a primary election. He's truly sensible.
Not surprising...McCain is much more liberal than Bush. Of course you'd vote for him in a primary. That's why you, not being a Republican, don't vote in Republican primaries.
Bad terminology use on my part then. I was referring to the general election for president, not the Republican Primary. If in the general election it had been McCain vs. Gore, in all honesty I would have voted McCain. I align closer to McCain than I do Gore, despite the political differences. It's one reason why I'm this close to changing my ticket to independent.
Now, to get back on topic. See, the thing I hate most is that you have lazy parents who don't want to actually *parent* their kids, so they want the government to legislate everything to "Save The Children...Some parents are just too goddamned lazy to raise their own kids instead of relying on the government to do it for them. Gah.
Complete, 110% agreement there! :D
:shock:
Joe agrees with me. 110% even! :wink:
The current crop, so far, would only get my vote because I'd rather have *anyone* than Dubya.
Yeah, since Bush has killed all of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, sent thousands of Americans to die in Urban fighting, and let loose a whirlwind of overt enragement and hatred in the Middle east that's unpresidented and lead to the massive increase in terrorism, just as you predicted....
... Ohh wait, no.
Huh... That has nothing to do with my wish to have anyone as President other than Bush. I've wanted this even before the fighting began. I've been counting down the days to election '04 since, oh, summer 2001? (I did give Bush the benefit of the doubt from January 2001 through summer 2001. Though that quickly eroded after seeing his ridiculous policies.)
Where does that whole spiel of yours come from Vince? Talk about left field. :roll:
RussSchultz
11-Apr-2003, 22:20
"Winning" in this situation is a lasting peace in the middle east, not just a cease fire. The largest problem facing the middle east is resolution of the Jewish/Palestinian conflict. We need to broker a peace, being as neutral as possible, where neither side feels like the other has an advantage, and both feel like they won.
I do not believe that a president that is jewish can accomplish this, though not through any fault of his own. Even if he is the most eloquent statesman with the most reasonable views, he will most likely fail in this endeavor simply because of his heritage. He will be percieved as biased regardless of his bias, and zionist regardless of his feelings toward a Jewish state (unless he comes out and proclaims he wants it swept into the sea, and even then it would be some sort of zionist plot). Any deal, short of the aforementioned sweeping into the sea, will be rejected out of hand by the militants because it was "forced upon them by a zionist superpower". With a jewish president, it would be an absolutely no win situation.
I don't make the rules, I just follow them.
And that is my opinion. (in other words, I've said my piece and have nothing further to add)
That being said: McCain for 2004? :)
Natoma confuses me sometimes, So he'll fight to the death to give unfair advantage to minority kids entering college under the guise of "leveling the playing field" - but when it comes to giving a minority real power, to forge a true role model for the minorities and under-dog's out there under the aegis of the popular voice of citizens who'd stand up and say, "We don't care what the rest of the world thinks, we're an ethical people and as such we don't discriminate - not in the smallest office or the largest," he won't stand for it... makes little sence to me.
Perhaps if it wasn't a Jew...
Yet again. Huh..... First thing, using race and gender in the equation for the admissions process, along with legacy, geographic location, and financial status is not what I'd call unfair.
But fine, lets play devils advocate. Lets take race and gender out of the equation. Lets leave legacy, geographic location, and financial status in the mix.
Lets see. I grew up in New York City. Wouldn't it have been unfair to me if someone from Iowa got in to Yale *just* because they're from rural Iowa and I'm from NY?
What urban kid didn't get a chance to go to his/her college of choice because the schools wanted to have a more diverse campus with people from all across the nation? Oh the humanity!
Wouldn't it have been unfair to me if one of Bush's kids got into Yale just because he went there, while I had superior grades and talent? If I seem to recall correctly, Bush was rejected from U. Texas for poor grades and SAT scores, but he got into Yale without a problem? *cough* :roll:. What white male student missed his chance to go to Yale in the 60's because of that favoritism?
Where's your outrage Vince?
Wouldn't it have been unfair to me if someone who's family was more able to pay the tuition got in instead of me, despite my better performance?
Save us Jeebus!
All kidding aside, I have stated so many times now that I think I should make a recording so that you can hear it whenever you bring this subject up.
I do not believe in Michigan's system where they give more weight to race and gender than they give to legacy, financial status, and geographic location. I believe they are all non-talent based factors which *do* matter in the "real world." They should *all* be weighted evenly imo, and much lower than grades, SAT scores, APs, talent-based factors (sports, musical ability, etc), good application essay, etc etc etc.
I believe I've stated that since day one.
Now, to get to the second part of your post. Let me ask you this question. Do you think it would have been in this country's best interests to have a Jewish president saying all the things that Bush has said over the past year or so?
We've already being accused by vast swaths in the middle east of engineering the fourth coming of the crusades due to the bellicosity of Bush's remarks and invoking christianity and "our god" when he makes them. We're already accused of being the puppets of Israel in our stance on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
You're telling me the middle east wouldn't have a cow if it were Lieberman openly professing his jewish faith and his belief that god is with us in crushing the evil arab dictator? C'mon, you simply cannot be that short sighted.
While I was happy when Lieberman was named Gore's vice president (this was before I knew where he stood on certain issues) because I felt that we were truly making progress in terms of racial/religious issues in this country, when I began to think about it further, and especially after the events of 9/11, I thought that it probably would not be a good idea, *at this time*, to have a jewish vice president or president, due to the current conditions in the world.
Here's an example. Colin Powell was openly suggested to be Vice President back in '00 with Bush. Didn't really cause any ripples, save for some fringe elements here and there. In fact it was praised by many as a sign of how far we've come in this country.
Rewind 50 years and try saying "We should have a black Vice President." You wanna talk about shock and awe at what would happen next if it were truly offered on the political stage?
My ideal, what I truly hope for, is not necessarily what is best in terms of real world conditions at this moment in time. And my ideal would be that *anyone* who is qualified could be president.
"Winning" in this situation is a lasting peace in the middle east, not just a cease fire. The largest problem facing the middle east is resolution of the Jewish/Palestinian conflict. We need to broker a peace, being as neutral as possible, where neither side feels like the other has an advantage, and both feel like they won.
I do not believe that a president that is jewish can accomplish this, though not through any fault of his own. Even if he is the most eloquent statesman with the most reasonable views, he will most likely fail in this endeavor simply because of his heritage. He will be percieved as biased regardless of his bias, and zionist regardless of his feelings toward a Jewish state (unless he comes out and proclaims he wants it swept into the sea, and even then it would be some sort of zionist plot). Any deal, short of the aforementioned sweeping into the sea, will be rejected out of hand by the militants because it was "forced upon them by a zionist superpower". With a jewish president, it would be an absolutely no win situation.
I don't make the rules, I just follow them.
And that is my opinion. (in other words, I've said my piece and have nothing further to add)
That being said: McCain for 2004? :)
I agree completely. And it is unfortunate that it has to be that way for now, but once the middle east is brought to modernity and the tensions between muslims and jews in that part of the world can be quelled, then I think the way will be paved.
As for McCain in 2K4. I don't think any party can replace an incumbent president in the election cycle, unless that president decides to step down. McCain couldn't run against Bush as a republican could he?
Is it a technicality, or is it something that is feasible, but just not done, for obvious reasons?
covermye
12-Apr-2003, 12:13
Now, to get back on topic. See, the thing I hate most is that you have lazy parents who don't want to actually *parent* their kids, so they want the government to legislate everything to "Save The Children." I grew up on violent videogames, violent tv. Hell I watched every Nightmare on Elm Street movie when they came out. But I'm certainly not going out there like an axe murderer. Why? Because for one, I'm not insane, and for another, my mom made sure that I knew right from wrong.
Some parents are just too goddamned lazy to raise their own kids instead of relying on the government to do it for them. Gah.
Natoma, what a brilliantly worded paragraph. I couldn't agree more.
Agreed, its a civil liberty attack as per usual. I hate censorship of all things.
The ratings system is there for a reason, what more do we need?
As for the Jewish president. Well, I see both points of view on this so I am a little undecided. Frankly i'm inclined to tell the Arab world to go shove it, but then thats just me.
JF_Aidan_Pryde
12-Apr-2003, 13:43
I could give a rat's ass about winning the "hearts and minds" of the arab world (or the "Jewish World", or the "Euro" world....)
Frankly i'm inclined to tell the Arab world to go shove it, but then thats just me.
This whole attitude of "i don't give a shit" about what they thinks is exactly why they are so pissed. You can't expect the world to support you if don't give a rat's ass. You are still a nation sharing this globe with the other 191 countries in the world, and despite how much power you weld, you still can't afford not to care.
So in effect, despite your liking, your electoral preference is judged on more than just a national level, but an international one. In this case, electing a Jewish American leader, in my opinion isn't a sound move.
Joe DeFuria
12-Apr-2003, 14:33
This whole attitude of "i don't give a shit" about what they thinks is exactly why they are so pissed. You can't expect the world to support you if don't give a rat's ass.
You misunderstand.
I give a rat's ass about their opinions.
I do give a shit about what they think about any given situation.
Any U.S. leader would be foolish to not consider any and all opinions.
That being said, once all opinions are heard, and once we make a decision taking into account all viewpoints....at THAT point, I could give a rat's ass about what they think about it the decision that is ultimately made.
You are still a nation sharing this globe with the other 191 countries in the world, and despite how much power you weld, you still can't afford not to care.
Read above. I do care. I DON'T care if any number of thost 191 countries decides to not even consier OUR opinion, because of the religious background of our elected leader. See the difference? The hypocricy of your stance?
You want the U.S. to give a shit about others, but you are in essense saying "by default, if the U.S. leader is Jewish, that's grounds for some countries to not giver a shit about us."
Pure hypocricy.
So in effect, despite your liking, your electoral preference is judged on more than just a national level, but an international one.
And despite your liking, non US citizens don't elect U.S. leaders.
In that In this case, electing a Jewish American leader, in my opinion isn't a sound move.
It is if he's a good man (or woman, for that matter.)
How about a Muslim US President? ;)
Joe DeFuria
12-Apr-2003, 14:43
Huh? When did I imply anything about a jewish president being by definition immoral or incapable? That's what you get for splicing my sentences instead of reading the whole train of thought. Because I answered it in the very next two sentences, which you quote below. ;)
Then why don't you read my quotes and response below, before splicing MY sentences? My point is, making a blanket statemet about "Jewish leaders" is, in my opinion implying that they are immoral or incapable. Yes, even considering the "realist" explanation.
I agree in a perfect world that would be the case. But unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.
I know, we live in a world where people think that racial descrimination is a good means of leveling the playing field.
Having a Jewish president would only exacerbate those tensions.
I think it's grossly unfair to just eliminate one religion (or race, or sex). SOME Jewish leaders could be a huge problem, others may not. It all depends on the individual.
I guess based on your logic, we also shouldn't elect a female either? Arabs seem to have quite a differing view of women and their role in society.
[snip McCain...too off track at this point.]
Joe agrees with me. 110% even! :wink:
No one is more surprised than me. ;)
Joe DeFuria
12-Apr-2003, 14:45
How about a Muslim US President? ;)
Again, I have no problems with that, in and of itself. It all depends on the actual person.
RussSchultz
12-Apr-2003, 17:01
I think it's grossly unfair to just eliminate one religion (or race, or sex). SOME Jewish leaders could be a huge problem, others may not. It all depends on the individual.
It does not depend on the individual. The arab world is deeply suspicious, to a degree of paranoia, of anything that's even remotely unhostile to the jews.
Already, you can find a zillion op-ed pieces, and even websites and anti-whatever movements out there attempting to undermine Garner's rebuilding administration in Iraq because he condemned using children as weapons (against Israel). He's a zionist stooge in their mind for only spending 10 days in Israel.
Yes, its unfair. Sorry, but thems the breaks.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.