War on Terror

Gato_Solo said:
I wish you luck, but I also have a caveat...if we had a viable third party, this wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The one thing it takes to be elcted president in this country is money. Lots and lots of money obtained in every way possible, legal or not. A third party would likely as not just add another mouth to the teat. I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that a third viable candidate would be any more palatable than those we get now. I guess I'm looking for an honest politician and that's nothing but an oxymoron.
 
chcr said:
I disagree. The one thing it takes to be elcted president in this country is money. Lots and lots of money obtained in every way possible, legal or not. A third party would likely as not just add another mouth to the teat. I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that a third viable candidate would be any more palatable than those we get now. I guess I'm looking for an honest politician and that's nothing but an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Not really. All of the public money aside, Kerry and Edwards had much deeper pockets than Bush and Cheyney. The reason a third party would make things more 'honest' is because a third party would give the people a larger choice. More choice is hardly ever bad. Especially in this scenerio, as the parties would have to cooperate or be marginalized. So far, the only thing they cooperate on is keeping a viable third party candidate from running...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Not really. All of the public money aside, Kerry and Edwards had much deeper pockets than Bush and Cheyney. The reason a third party would make things more 'honest' is because a third party would give the people a larger choice. More choice is hardly ever bad.
Click to expand...

It can be taken too far. Just ask the Italians. They change governments as a national sport.
 
HomeLAN said:
It can be taken too far. Just ask the Italians. They change governments as a national sport.
Click to expand...

That's because they have a Parliament...We'd still have three branches in a somewhat balanced structure.
 
flavio said:
Where? Oh, you're just making up more stuff. You're on a roll with that today.


I looked and Gonz and I just proved you wrong.
Click to expand...

Riiighttt...Keep talking. You may convince yourself in time...Just scroll down to December 16, 2005...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Not really. All of the public money aside, Kerry and Edwards had much deeper pockets than Bush and Cheyney. The reason a third party would make things more 'honest' is because a third party would give the people a larger choice. More choice is hardly ever bad. Especially in this scenerio, as the parties would have to cooperate or be marginalized. So far, the only thing they cooperate on is keeping a viable third party candidate from running...
Click to expand...
opensecrets.org

Receipts:

George W. Bush (R) $367,228,801

John Kerry (D) $326,236,288

Ralph Nader (3) $4,566,037

Michael Badnarik (L) $1,093,013

Michael Peroutka (3) $709,087

David Cobb (3) $496,658

Spending:

George W. Bush (R) $345,259,155

John Kerry (D) $310,013,730

Ralph Nader (3) $4,563,877

Michael Badnarik (L) $1,073,940

Michael Peroutka (3) $708,221

Cash on Hand:

George W. Bush (R) $19,291,231

John Kerry (D) $16,222,557

David Cobb (3) $110,949

Michael Badnarik (L) $19,602

Ralph Nader (3) $7,766

Michael Peroutka (3) $864

David Cobb (3) $385,707
Click to expand...
chcr said:
The one thing it takes to be elected president in this country is money. Lots and lots of money obtained in every way possible, legal or not.
Click to expand...
:shrug:
The simple fact is that it's not just the parties that keep the two party system in place. I find it very difficult to believe that a third party with the ability to raise the kind of funds required to mount a viable campaign would be any less corrupt than the existing ones. Call it cynical if you like, I call it realistic. More choice would be better, but is it really a choice or just two (or three) masks?
 
chcr said:
opensecrets.org



:shrug:
The simple fact is that it's not just the parties that keep the two party system in place. I find it very difficult to believe that a third party with the ability to raise the kind of funds required to mount a viable campaign would be any less corrupt than the existing ones. Call it cynical if you like, I call it realistic. More choice would be better, but is it really a choice or just two (or three) masks?
Click to expand...


Whilst that site is nice, it does not mention the Heinz fortune. It also doesn't mention Edwards deep pockets, or Cheuney's, for that matter. Now...if a third party did come to existence with some backing, I'm fairly sure that it would strip some of the cash from the two main parties as well as raise their own capital. Cynical as you are...I thought you would realize that. One more thing...this is not about corruption. It's about choice. Corruption is the end result of all of mankinds works. ;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
So now what? The newspaper can't be prosecuted due to the Freedom of the Press...but their sources can be. We've already seen the measures the administration can go to to get a name if they desire, so will we be seeing more 'reporters' in jail for contempt?
Click to expand...

Scruples

Funny how they have a hard time pointing out that John Rockefeller, a key (D) knew about this...as a Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he (and his fellow members of the committee did)
 
Gonz said:
Scruples

Funny how they have a hard time pointing out that John Rockefeller, a key (D) knew about this...as a Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he (and his fellow members of the committee did)
Click to expand...

I'll reserve comment...for now...;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
Riiighttt...Keep talking. You may convince yourself in time...Just scroll down to December 16, 2005...
Click to expand...
Are you trying to prove something by linking to an opinion piece?

Right here...
Click to expand...
I don't think you're going to get too many people that want to open a 6mb zip file on their PC just because you linked two words to it. At least I hope people here are smarter than that.
 
flavio said:
I don't think you're going to get too many people that want to open a 6mb zip file on their PC just because you linked two words to it. At least I hope people here are smarter than that.
Click to expand...

So that means you don't give people enough credit to check the link before downloading or opening the link. Nice. Now you've insulted everyone on the board.
 
Gato_Solo said:
So that means you don't give people enough credit to check the link before downloading or opening the link. Nice. Now you've insulted everyone on the board.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that?

I'm expecting people to check the link, see that it's a zip file, and realize that opening zip files from unknown sources is a bad idea.
 
flavio said:
Where did I say that?

I'm expecting people to check the link, see that it's a zip file, and realize that opening zip files from unknown sources is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
um AVG is free man, and it can check inside a zip. :confused:
 
Can it check inside a zip that's not on your PC? Even if it can can you be 100% certain it will detect every virus created up to the current moment?

Zipping a video file normally gets you very little file size reduction in the first place so what's the motive really?
 
Personally I have to check stuff that IS quetionable all the time. That's one
reason I keep Good image backups.
I have seen many comps with AVG, and it hasn't missed much, and what it
did was pretty easily cleaned up.
It does have "realtime" protection, so if it did have a virus, it wouldn't
execute while in the zip, and even if it did, AVG would stop it dead.
 
flavio said:
Where did I say that?

I'm expecting people to check the link, see that it's a zip file, and realize that opening zip files from unknown sources is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Ummm...you can see the link before you open the file...Guess you ignore quite a bit of information when you don't agree with the poster, right?
 
There's a little gray bar down at the bottom of the browser screen. When you put your mouse over a link, in that bar will be the location of the link.

Today's lesson has been brought to you by the letters F and U and the number 9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top