|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
What this thread needed more of was lesbians!
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
It's more than simply a preconception the public has about what the president should do; it's also a window into his character. That he doesn't feel as if he has to answer to anyone is not a good sign, you know? This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
How ya doing, buddy?
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage |
Most amazing jew boots
LlooooydGEEEOOORGE
|
I'd also point out that George W. Bush is in all likelyhood no different from any other Republican president from the specialised viewpoint of a homosexual voter. One of the unchanging truths of politics is that you must appeal to your core demographic and screw everyone else.
I do believe that it's a personal style of George W. Bush to gather more power directly to the office of the president, and I can't say I llike what I've seen of his public image one bit. However, it's his results, and his lasting effect that count, because he won't be there for long, in person. Each president does not come to the office with a clean slate, instead they have been place in a particular position by the actions of the former holder of that office. What Bush could, and could not do, has been partly defined by the groundwork laid down by the former presidents. It is for that reason that it's pointless to blame the man. Whatever you want to blame Bush for, you have to also blame Clinton, to a certain extent, and so forth. That's the case in politics everywhere, of course. We're still feeling the shockwaves of the Major adminstration over here in Britain, and that ended in the mid 90s. If we're very lucky, the next election might see that legacy finally laid to rest. It has only taken a decade. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Last edited by Soluzar; May 2, 2006 at 07:37 AM.
|
If George W. Bush's agenda was the same as his father's, it would be reasonable to assume that George Bush and his inner circle would be vocal in their support. But they aren't. FELIPE NO |
Maybe that's just to deceive us.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...033904,00.html An old article, but still entirely relevant to the discussion at hand. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by Soluzar; May 2, 2006 at 08:48 AM.
|
We probably have the best form of governing, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Nor that we have ideal people running it. Oh well, at least it isn't communism. Most amazing jew boots |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
His actions and the overall outcome mattered more then his intentions. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I was speaking idiomatically. |
His intentions were just as bad as his actions. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage |
I think you're confusing the intention with the means. Hitler intended to create a utopia. The means to create that was to rid the world of undesirables.
Yes, he put in writing and spoke about the need to put forth the final solution. If he had left it there we wouldn't have much to discuss other than criticizing his philosophy. The thing that made it so much worse was the fact that he acted upon those thoughts. The execution of his ideas is what burns into the collective history. As they say, "actions speak louder than words". However, in the era where thoughtcrime may become a reality, both actions and words may have equal weight and therefore intention will be under greater scrutiny. FELIPE NO |
You know, I've got an entire book on my desk called "Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science" that details many of the scientific advances that were made by accident or by someone meaning to do something else. For the most part, history doesn't rememember these people found their discovery by accident, but remembers that they were the one to have found it.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Absolutely. But science and politics operate fairly differently. One's character is much more important in a political setting than in a scientific one.
Also scientists who accientaly happened upon a discovery later intentionally developed and investigated it right? That's a far cry from accidentally setting things in motion that other people would subsequently pick up on and expand on. Jam it back in, in the dark.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
As for thoughtcrime/precrime, technology make's it easier to scam the system. It's never been easier to steal somebody's identity. Just get their social security number and it's practically done. It seems like to me that with every step forward there will be two steps backwards.
Most amazing jew boots |
Yeah, I think we are already dwelling heavily into Minority Report territory. Take all these Dateline (IIRC) stories where they do those sting operations to catch internet predators. I work in law enforcement, and even I can't figure out how any of the charges stick.
These news people are only pretending to be underage and luring these "predators" to their houses in order to get them arrested based on what they "thought" they were going there to do. In fact, from the reports I've seen, there were never any children used in these sting operations. Now I may not be a typical police officer, and that stuff may be way outside my field of expertise, but I would almost think this constitutes not only entrapment, but also punishing someone for a crime they "thought" about committing. Since when did we punish people based on thoughts and intentions? Since when were thoughts and intentions crimes? I know it's important to protect children and all, but this is ridiculous and overboard. Heck, I had a friend who, when she was underage, actually used grown men to satisfy her sexual desires, and she turned out perfectly fine (no pregnancies, no STDs); she was smart and actually put a lot of forethought into intentionally reeling in older men, and she knew exactly what she was doing. Even today, I'd have to consider her the predator over the older men she had sex with! Not all young girls are so innocent. Of course, bottom line is I think it's unjustified to punish someone based on what they think about doing as opposed to what they actually do. I don't see how it constitutes a legal sting, basically. Like with a normal sting, the cops use a real teenager to, say, buy a pack of cigarettes. Until the transaction is complete, no crime has been committed and no action can be taken. I would think that, in order for these Dateline stings to be legal, not only would they need an actual child on the computer to lure the predators over, but the child would have to be present and the predator would have to actually try to solicit sex out of the child. Like I said, reeks of Minority Report. Most amazing jew boots
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage |
I don't know much/anything about these stings, but from what I can gather they would/should be illegal in this country. It'd be fantastic if someone has a link as to how these work in the legal system. I mean, how often do people come *this* close to doing something they shouldn't, and then decide against it. How does one justify punishing them for being close enough to a criminal? I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
I was speaking idiomatically.
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
FELIPE NO |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
Why are you arguing with WoW players? It's pronounced "Shut the fuck up and get a job. Raiding isn't a job." - Lukage |
Better a bigot than being dumb as sin.
There can be any number of reasons why a person would visit the home of a vastly younger friend after discussing sex! Jam it back in, in the dark. |
So, Patty, you'd be in support of using actual minors in these sting operations? Should the police apprehend the guy before or after he's unclothed?
There's nowhere I can't reach. so they may learn the glorious craft of acting from the dear leader |