Global Electoral College

[Von Tonner]

Interesting.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/global.jpg

http://www.economist.com/vote2008/

[Hylander_1314]

Then we would be in trouble!

[kurtz]

Of course we people in other countries could just be voting Obama out of spite...:hmm:

It's strange though, that countries that form the laws around what they think their gods want them to do don't vote McCain, I'd have thought was republican policy.

*Hides behind sofa*

edit spelling i before e doesn't work for thier!

[CCIP]

lol Georgia

[Von Tonner]

lol Georgia
Don't forget McCain went on record saying "Today, we are all Georgians".

[Frame57]

Globalism=Socialism. Being born in a Country that actually had to fight for its freedom, I understand this perfectly.

[CCIP]

Globalism=Socialism. Being born in a Country that actually had to fight for its freedom, I understand this perfectly.

Funny, I thought globalism=capitalism :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Globalism=Socialism. Being born in a Country that actually had to fight for its freedom, I understand this perfectly.
Funny, I thought globalism=capitalism :hmm:Hardly. You have removed the competition part of it at the knees by making it all one country.

-S

[CCIP]

Yes, but that's something that came about due to market forces in the first place.

[Hylander_1314]

Reguardless, of socialism, or capitalism, who owns the capital is the difference. Socialism, communism, and fascism all have the government owning the "capital".

Fascism lets people think they own their capital, but they are controlled by the government through taxation and regulation.

Communism / socialism is more up front. The state owns controlling power of the capital.

Free market capitalism does let people own their capital, but only to a point. It too easily can fall into the trap of fascism, as government gets too involved in it's workings.

So the comment globalism=capitalism is more accurate. But who owns the capital is the question. Since capital is the means of production.

So basically, they are all capitalist in nature, just the levels of involvement are different.

[Frame57]

Reguardless, of socialism, or capitalism, who owns the capital is the difference. Socialism, communism, and fascism all have the government owning the "capital".

Fascism lets people think they own their capital, but they are controlled by the government through taxation and regulation.

Communism / socialism is more up front. The state owns controlling power of the capital.

Free market capitalism does let people own their capital, but only to a point. It too easily can fall into the trap of fascism, as government gets too involved in it's workings.

So the comment globalism=capitalism is more accurate. But who owns the capital is the question. Since capital is the means of production.

So basically, they are all capitalist in nature, just the levels of involvement are different.Agreed! But the people are really the sheeple, so they cannot figure this out...

[Tchocky]

Globalism=Socialism. Being born in a Country that actually had to fight for its freedom, I understand this perfectly.
Yeah, no other country has ever had to do that.

You guys are really special that way.

[Flamingboat]

lol Georgia

Georgia needs to go to the library. America has a consistent history of leaving it's "allies" to the wolves when we are down with them. Just ask the South Vietnamese or the Kurds, both during Iraq part 1 and 2.

We use these poor countries like our bitch and throw them out of the car after we have cum. Sorry Georgia, no reach around.

[Digital_Trucker]

lol Georgia
Georgia needs to go to the library. America has a consistent history of leaving it's "allies" to the wolves when we are down with them. Just ask the South Vietnamese or the Kurds, both during Iraq part 1 and 2.

We use these poor countries like our bitch and throw them out of the car after we have cum. Sorry Georgia, no reach around.

Yet your Presidential candidate wants to get out of Iraq on a specified date no matter what the situation is leading to a repeat of Vietnam.:hmm:

[Flamingboat]

Yet your Presidential candidate wants to get out of Iraq on a specified date no matter what the situation is leading to a repeat of Vietnam.:hmm:

It's been a repeat of Vietnam for years now. Don't take my word for it. Youtube what what they are doing in the way of counter insurgency. They airlift and drive into a village. They find nothing but old men, women and children. Maybe a booby trap here or there. Rinse repeat. Same stuff, different war.

[Digital_Trucker]

Yet your Presidential candidate wants to get out of Iraq on a specified date no matter what the situation is leading to a repeat of Vietnam.:hmm:
It's been a repeat of Vietnam for years now. Don't take my word for it. Youtube what what they are doing in the way of counter insurgency. They airlift and drive into a village. They find nothing but old men, women and children. Maybe a booby trap here or there. Rinse repeat. Same stuff, different war.
YouTube? This is where you get your information? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Flamingboat]

YouTube? This is where you get your information? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Yes, those are where the videos are. It's no secret. The same thing the Fench did in Vietnam, then the Americans in Vietnam and now America in Iraq.

Roll into a village and put guns in everyones faces, turn their house upside down and act surprised when there are no bad guys found, because they heard you comming an hour ago. This is mixed in with the occasional IED or booby trap.

[Flamingboat]

Yeah, everybody knows that raw video is biased and lying.

Faux News taught them that. Denounce anything that isn't right wing positive and biased and wrong.

[Digital_Trucker]

Yeah, everybody knows that raw video is biased and lying.

Raw video only proves what happened at that point in time and at that location. My point was that some raw video on YouTube can't be taken to be exemplary of what happens all over the country, or do you believe that everything that has ever happened is contained in raw video on YouTube?

[Flamingboat]

Yeah, everybody knows that raw video is biased and lying.

Raw video only proves what happened at that point in time and at that location. My point was that some raw video on YouTube can't be taken to be exemplary of what happens all over the country, or do you believe that everything that has ever happened is contained in raw video on YouTube?

I'm trying to find it. It was an official military video. I think it was the 101st.

[Digital_Trucker]

YouTube? This is where you get your information? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Yes, those are where the videos are. It's no secret. The same thing the Fench did in Vietnam, then the Americans in Vietnam and now America in Iraq.

Roll into a village and put guns in everyones faces, turn their house upside down and act surprised when there are no bad guys found, because they heard you comming an hour ago. This is mixed in with the occasional IED or booby trap.

Maybe I should have spelled it out for you a little better. Everything that happens isn't on YouTube. If you believe that YouTube is THE authoritative source for information on what is happening in Iraq, then [rest of statement not stated due to lack of desire to be banned for life]

Yeah, everybody knows that raw video is biased and lying.


Faux News taught them that. Denounce anything that isn't right wing positive and biased and wrong.
I don't believe I denounced anything, but now that we've gotten off of the original subject, what does it matter?

Yeah, everybody knows that raw video is biased and lying.
Raw video only proves what happened at that point in time and at that location. My point was that some raw video on YouTube can't be taken to be exemplary of what happens all over the country, or do you believe that everything that has ever happened is contained in raw video on YouTube?
I'm trying to find it. It was an official military video. I think it was the 101st.

Did you even read my response?

[Digital_Trucker]

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=K5PqydMA1kA
I'll leave it at that :up:

Thanks:up: I'll be singing that song all day long now:rotfl:

[Flamingboat]

Did you even read my response?

Sure, but we have been hearing "all is well" since "mission accomplished". I mean how much more time do you all need in Iraq? The Iraq occupation is a month away from having been going on as long as world war 2!

[Digital_Trucker]

Did you even read my response?
Sure, but we have been hearing "all is well" since "mission accomplished". I mean how much more time do you all need in Iraq? The Iraq occupation is a month away from having been going on as long as world war 2!
I never said all was well, nor anything about what the situation in Iraq really is, just that one stupid video on YouTube doesn't necessarily represent what's going on in all of Iraq either. You assumed that you knew everything about how I feel about things because I didn't happen to agree with you.

As far as how much time "you all" need in Iraq, I don't have the answer to that question, nor do you. I'd love to see us out tomorrow, but not at the cost of leaving behind another VietNam as Mr. Obama has stated that he would do (yes, I know that he didn't use those exact words, but saying that he would leave on a specific date no matter what the situation is implies that he would, indeed, be willing to abandon Iraq in the manner that you deplored about the previous situations that you mentioned).

[Flamingboat]

I'd love to see us out tomorrow, but not at the cost of leaving behind another VietNam as Mr. Obama has stated that he would do (yes, I know that he didn't use those exact words, but saying that he would leave on a specific date no matter what the situation is implies that he would, indeed, be willing to abandon Iraq in the manner that you deplored about the previous situations that you mentioned).

Leaving behind another Vietnam. Want to know what happened? "made in Vietnam" is now labeled in the back on panties in Victoria's Secret. Oh the horror. A far cry from the domno theory eh?

I know the right will blame Obama for the Iraq disaster. They will scream "we were so close, and just one more month" to victory. We all are ready for that nonsense over the next 4 years.

Thing is we have been hearing "almost there" for years now.

[Digital_Trucker]

Yeah and the repubs want to install a saddam lite favourable to the US administration and keep bases over there without time limit. You speak as if Iraq wasn't already "another vietnam", hey, that's too late, it is.
It may well be, but it doesn't have to end the same way. What is your solution to the situation in Iraq? Please, when you are answering this question, don't even bring up how we got into the situation to begin with because we cannot change what has happened in the past. Please inform us of how you would rectify this situation if you were the next President of the United States.

[Digital_Trucker]

Leaving behind another Vietnam. Want to know what happened? "made in Vietnam" is now labeled in the back on panties in Victoria's Secret. Oh the horror. A far cry from the domno theory eh?

I know the right will blame Obama for the Iraq disaster. They will scream "we were so close, and just one more month" to victory. We all are ready for that nonsense over the next 4 years.

Thing is we have been hearing "almost there" for years now.

I'm glad you're psychic and know who will be President and what will happen in the future. Please, can you tell my how much longer I'm going to live so I know how far I have to stretch my savings? :D

[Digital_Trucker]

The key word in that first quote being "believe". Are you denying that Obama and the Democratic party wanted to set a firm withdrawal date, no matter the situation in Iraq?

Edit : And now he supports what the Republicans have been saying all along, that being that you can't set a firm date and it has to be phased as the situation allows. Guess he was wrong before, like he was wrong about the surge working. Which position are we supposed to believe, the one that he espoused before or the one he's pushing now or the one he's gonna come up with tomorrow?

[Digital_Trucker]

The key word in that first quote being "believe". Are you denying that Obama and the Democratic party wanted to set a firm withdrawal date, no matter the situation in Iraq?
Actually it's the Iraqi government who asked for a timetable in the first place, which Bush refused because puppets are not supposed to move by themselves. Are you gonna blame Obama for being willing to respect the Iraqi government's will ?
Second, the keywords are rather "directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government", what sounds so weirdo in that ?
Nothing sounds wierdo in that. The point I was making is that the statement did not give an absolute timetable. My bad if that wasn't clear.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/08/us.iraq/

Ali al-Dabbagh said any timetable would depend on "conditions and the circumstances that the country would be undergoing." But he said a pullout within "three, four or five" years was possible.
"It can be 2011 or 2012," al-Dabbagh said. "We don't have a specific date in mind, but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline."

Was that the Iraqi request that you were referring to? It sounds kind of vague as to the date and does seem to imply that a firm date would be rather difficult to arrive at. Perhaps we're getting into semantics here, but setting a goal and setting a deadline are two different things. Again, are you denying that Obama and the Democratic party demanded that a specific date be set for withdrawal in the recent past?

[Digital_Trucker]

Yes they did, because they are serious about the withdrawal but they didn't asked for a random date "no matter what" as you're saying. And again that timetable isn't a "fixed date" opposed to "a fuzzy date depending on the situation", it's about being serious about the withdrawal as opposed to being willing to keep bases there forever.
Read the two articles, it's interesting and puts some light on the matter. Bush first put up an agreement that would allow him to keep bases in Iraq, and he was willing to have it signed against the will of the Iraqi government.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01591:@@@D&summ2=m&


(Sec. 1904) Outlines specified determinations, relating to actions of the government of Iraq, that must be made by the President to Congress on or before July 1, 2007. Requires that, if the President fails to make any of the determinations, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq no later than such date, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days. Requires that, if the President makes all such determinations, the Secretary shall commence such redeployment no later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing that redeployment within 180 days.
Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but it looks like it's demanding that troops begin to be pulled out of Iraq beginning on July 1, 2007 if the Prez doesn't make some determinations and that they begin pulling out no later than October 1, 2007 if he does, with the stated objective of redeployment of all troops being no later than 180 days from start of redeployment. How, exactly, that was to be interpreted is a subjective matter.

The only point I originally tried to make was that, Obama and his party were willing to specify that withdrawal had to begin on a fixed date, no matter what the conditions. They now don't believe that was the right thing to do, which is a good thing unless they change their minds again after Barry O gets elected. And don't doubt for a minute that a politician will say whatever it takes to get elected and then do whatever they feel like doing.

[Digital_Trucker]

As for the cherry picking of the bill, I'm sure you didn't want me to post the whole bill:D
Did you find something else in the bill anywhere that negated that section of the bill?

Of course the entire bill wasn't designed just to start the withdrawal. Bills in the US are never about one thing. They start out that way sometimes and then practically every person who gets their hands on it has to add something to it in the hopes that their little part of the bill will become law even if those voting on it never bothered to read it all. There is nothing vague in the section of the bill that I quoted. It is very specific and would have been binding upon the President and the Secretary of Defense if it had been signed into law.

As you said, that matters not except in our mini-debate about what the Democrats wanted to do or not do.

What matters is that, no matter who gets elected, they're going to inherit a hell of mess.

Thanks for the link to McCain's site, too. While all his points may not be totally defensible (and how could they be, after all, we are talking about election time rhetoric which is rampant on both sides of the issues), there are quite a few sentiments there that are hard to disagree with.