Travis Dickerson Recording Studio Forum

Quote

while i agree that there may be times when war has sadly served a purpose, it has not been a solution.  you confuse the two.  there would never have been a resolution to any of the wars you cite without dialogue and diplomacy in conjunction and aftermath.

sometimes war is seemingly unavoidable, but that does not make it a solution.  as for your WWII analogy - do more reading - we did not take the situation seriously and again had our own ends in mind before we realized exactly where the entire situation was headed.  it was our stance that we didn\'t want to get involved.

in this particular case, war is steadfastly not the answer because there was no legitimate threat to anyone, it was a manufactured threat.  you want to believe what you want to believe, that\'s fine.

as for the rest - no, you don\'t really care to register what has been said so of course you\'re going to dismissively ignore what others are saying as not logically supporting their argument.

Wrong. The Japanese surrendered after we dropped two large bombs on them. I guess you can say diplomacy, were the two bombs and the Japanese saying "we surrender" as dialogue. Honestly it is hard to understand what you say it makes no sense. You do not have an understanding of logic. Can I get you to answer a question? What purpose did WWII serve with regard to either Europe or Japan?

I have registered what has been said but you won\'t answer questions to support your claims. You might want to look up the definition of solution. I asked you what solution would you propose to the current problems? No answer. I asked who is getting rich? No answer.  War is certainly a solution, to many problems.

Quoteyou need to do some serious reading...

how on earth anyone can think that war is a solution is beyond me.  the solutions are actual dialogues and learning to compromise.  the solutions are geniune diplomacy efforts rather than the nonsense that has been going on.  i\'m sorry but you seem to want me to concede something or come over to your way of thinking or else \'prove\' my way is right - self examination of your own line of thought and what solutions lie within your suggestions would be more fruitful for you.

Hmmm. Lets see.  Diplomacy with Hitler led to the slaughter of millions of Jews.  WWII was necessary to defeat him and free Europe.  We were attacked by the Japanese at pearl harbor, WWII was necessary to defeat them now they are very close allies.  War sucks, but it has always been and always will be a part of human behavior.

A dialogue with terrorists is absurd. The Islamic terrorists want nothing short of our complete demise, they state that frequently. Dialogues and diplomacy aren\'t getting us very far with Iran, its just buying time for them to keep moving toward the building of nuclear weapons. All the talk is a joke to them, their president openly advocates the destruction of Israel. If there is anything that was learned from appeasing Hitler, its that dictators like him don\'t compromise or play by the rules or get along. You are obviously a pacifist and thats fine, but would you be willing to lay your head on the chopping block if the U.S. adopted pacifism as a national policy.

I do lots of serious reading, from many sources of varying points of view. My position on war is one of simple logic and human nature. If someone is going to kill me or my friend I will try to kill him first. I don\'t want to get too personal here but I\'m sure you would kill someone given the chance if it was the only way to save someone you love.  You are right. I do want you to prove your way is right, but since I tried to get you to answer a couple of questions regarding your assertions and instead, you just made a "take the moral high ground and examine yourself" type of statement, I can only conclude that you are unable to logically defend your position. Typical, happens everytime.

Quotethat\'s a long stream of over simplicification and rationalization that i cannot subscribe to.  war is not the solution to any of the issues you\'ve skimmed over.  it is doing nothing to resolve any of the issues and it is simply serving to keep the public in those places beholden to one faction or another; and making a small group of people very wealthy.

I\'m not asking you to subscribe to anything, over simplification is saying that war isn\'t the answer to any of the problems. What are the solutions you would seek to solve the problems? What did I say that was over simplified? I gave some very relevant pespective to the entire picture. Who is getting wealthy?

QuoteI read an article recently I believe it was in Time Magazine that stated, and I am paraphrasing here, that the psychology of war has proven time and time again (war after war) that most crimes that are committed during war times are a direct result of a leader encouraging, directly or indirectly, the inappropriate behavior essentially creating a mob like atmosphere.  

I agree it would be nice to hear some more positive stories and not just handing out candy bars.

I watched a television program several years ago that claimed Iraq may have been better off under Saddam's rule.  Woman were not as objectified, children were getting a western school education, and they did not have as much religious turmoil as they do now, but all this was a direct result of the fact that if you didn't do it Saddam's way he killed you, besides that one little problem...

While all our heads have been turned to Israel, Iraq is currently on the brink of complete melt down.  When will we ever learn?  It makes me wonder if we had gone after Bin Lauden and won on that battle front wouldn't that have sent a stronger message to terrorist?  And in hind sight perhaps Israel, Iran, Iraq, Hizballah, Hamas, etc., etc. may all now be playing a little nicer.

Ok several things. It is not going well in Iraq right now, but sadam and his sons were responsible for state sponsered rape, torture and murder. Mass graves were uncovered recently, and I have heard different #s but between 100,000 to 300,000 bodies. sadam made desert out of the wetlands in the south forcing 10s of 1000s to become refugees in Iran. Here women are objectified, there they are livestock (have you ever heard of female genital mutilation?). I could go on and on. I hope there isn\'t a total meltdown, but what you don\'t see is that most of that country is getting on with life, there are thousands fighting and killing in a few cities but there are millions nowhere near the violence. I don\'t want to paint a rosey picture but sometimes you need perspective. I have these arguements with friends of mine and it makes me feel bad that some of them always believe the worst case scenario to be true.

Not getting Bin Laden is a shame but the terrorists won\'t stop until they are dead. Hezballah and Hamas are terrorist organizations that unfortunately have been given legitimacy by becoming members of government. This is what appeasement gets you. Iran supports terrorism financially more so than sadam did. They will never play nice. their goal is to kill you and me and the Jews and......could you imagine if everyone on your block was planning to kill you and making it known thats their plan. How would you react? blah blah am I still typing?

Quote"they were under orders to "kill all military age males," according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press." - This concerns me more than anything else in the article.  Who knows what really happened, for the sake of all the lives involved, soldier and citizen, I hope they come to the truth.  But to think that our soldiers are encouraged to "kill all military age males" is sickening.  

The commanding officer that was accused of giving this order flatly denies it. I am very skeptical of initial reports from any news organization. We will find out the truth of what happened, and if it turns out to be criminal those responsible will be held to account. No doubt the military has its bad apples, what bothers me though, is that for every accusation of a crime commited by someone in the U.S. military there are undoubtedly thousands of acts of heroism. I\'ve yet to hear even one, reported by the "objective media." Rape and murder are the worst of all crimes, and any rational person knows it is not the norm, for the U.S. military.
  
Having said all of that, it is unimaginable to me, what it would be like to be living in hell under the rule of saddam, only to be raped and murdered by someone that was sent there to save you. What could be worse?

Quotetrying to toss my words at me doesn\'t really work.  you can\'t have it both ways - you asked me if i was conceding that they did have WMD when we invaded and no i do not.  

i never said they didn\'t use wheapons, and i certainly did say that we sold them wheapons, but did they have what we accused them of having to precipitate our invasion?  no they did not, and i never said that they did.

if you want to discuss something, discuss it, rather than trying to undermine the person in the discussion.  your points should speak for themselves, rather than trying to twist someone else\'s words to be what they are not.

my point in remarking that the US sold many of the wheapons that Iraq used against others is that for us to get all high and holier than thou about their use is idiotic when we supplied them.

I did not twist your words, it was a direct quote all you had to do is tell me that you were making a distinction between the weapons we supplied and wmd. I do not know exactly what we supplied them with but as far as wmd being a manufactured reason, I disagree. Since the war started they have found many of the weapons that constitute wmd. Not the stockpiles they were expecting, but some of materials and weapons. Wmd was however only one reason to go to war. Among the others were 12 years of defying UN resolutions, over and over and over. Another was the connection between al qaida and sadam, and his direct financial support of palestinian suicide bombers.

weapons is not spelled with the letter H.

Things change. If at some time in the past they were allied with us does not mean we can\'t in the future fight them after they invade a country, just because we gave them weapons. That is ridiculous.

Quotedarlin\' we love differing points of view, but i have to remind you - the US sold Sadam many of those wheapons, and were tight buds with him, and aided in keeping him in power.  we remember a lot of things, and are wise enough to know that much of what the government tells us is the lie du jour based on their agenda at the moment.

your words.  Are you denying that sadam used them against the kurds?

Quotedarlin\' we love differing points of view, but i have to remind you - the US sold Sadam many of those wheapons, and were tight buds with him, and aided in keeping him in power.  we remember a lot of things, and are wise enough to know that much of what the government tells us is the lie du jour based on their agenda at the moment.

Yes at one time during the cold war Iraq and Iran were fighting each other the U.S. supported Iraq and the Soviets supported Iran.  During wwII we were allied with the soviets against the nazis, and the Japanese good friends of ours now were on the receiving end of a couple of bombs that ended the war.  Things change. Are you conceding the point that sadam had weapons of mass destruction?

QuoteI have to report this one even though it has nothing to do with pop corn...but I love the numbers game.
36% -- Percentage of Americans surveyed last year who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded in 2003.
50% -- Percentage of Americans surveyed this year who said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded in 2003.
What are we actually getting dumber?!

I will be here from time to time and I will probably make you mad (judging from what I\'ve read) most of the time. Polls mean absolutely nothing. If this one has any value maybe it indicates that people are starting to remember when sadam used them on occaision.

Quote8,591 Number of potential terrorist targets in Indiana - including the Amish Country Popcorn Factory

FACT: Terrorists love popcorn.
FACT: A popcorn factory has a lot of popcorn.
C\'mon people, lets connect the dots.

Quotenope.  i was answering buswolley and you must realize that because your first statement was that you didn\'t understand the "person-to-person remark" - of course you didn\'t because it wasn\'t directed to your remarks it was directed to buswolley.  as was most of what i said, not all, but nearly all.

you\'re out for an argument not a discussion, so i\'m just going to have to let you have your little steam vent on your own.

I read what buswolley wrote. I also read what you wrote. If was not directed at me you don\'t do a good job of making yourself clear. Also, an arguement is half of a discussion.

I feel that I have come in here and disrupted a comfort zone for you and buswolley. so I will let you have it back.

My predictions: electoral college stays. Iraq will get on its feet eventually and become a strong and productive peaceful country. And far left liberals will continue to be disappointed because the glass is half empty.

Quotenot everything was a response to your post - if you read Buswolley\'s you\'d see that much or most of it was actually directed toward that post and not your own.

i agree with the notion that lobbyists are a part of the system now and would likely continue to be, and there are differnt types of lobbyists, frankly, so i don\'t see that they should all be done away with.  however, having said that, i do find the notion that we are wedded forever to a system created two hundred years ago because of an inability to provide for an individual vote for several reasons that were legitimate 200 years ago and are now obsolete.

as you said, things change, and the electoral system in this country is one thing that should change to reflect the best interests of the populace.

Sorry but I don\'t see anything in your post that addresses a difference of opinion with buswolley. It most certainly is directed entirely at my post.

 Attempts to circumvent the electoral college have been made by using tactics that avoid ammending the constitution. Two such attempts were soundly defeated in CO. recently. One of these was started by someone in CA.  Why would he want to change the way CO. works but not the way CA. works. Could it have been that CO. right now is a red state and CA. is solid blue. This attempt dealt with the proportional distribution of electoral votes so that its not a winner take all. Right now there are two states that award their votes this way. My point is, the reason these attempts were made to change CO. was completely partisan and those involved know that an attempt to ammend the constitution to do away with the electoral college, would have no chance of succeeding. The assertion that most people are in favor of a popular national vote is flatly wrong.

Quotewhere why and how do you equate doing away with the electoral college with losing the state counts?  votes would still be gathered and noted within the town/city/borough and state they are cast.

i\'m sorry but to me it makes no sense to have Wyoming have the same weight as California or New York - they don\'t have the same population, don\'t provide the same level of GNP, don\'t use the same number of tax dollars - giving them equal weight makes no sense at all.  each state should have the weight of their actual population.

the 2004 vote was a sorry excuse for a vote and the actual winner is unknown - far too much tinkering went on.  the 2000 vote is likely have been nearly as bad though it\'s hard to tell.  all in all - i don\'t frankly believe that Bush was ever truly elected, because we cannot trust the results that put him in office.  not to mention that the supreme court decided the 2000 election in the end, not the voters.

it makes absolutely no sense to perpetuate the electoral college, i\'m sorry - your arguments don\'t sway my view in the least.  especially that one about them trying to connect person to person.  the electoral college actually does discourage voters - please understand that.  everyone i have talked to has said it is discouraging because they basically believe that their vote does not count.  they do it because the feel it is their duty (although some in fact say this is why they do not vote).

it does not encourage candidates to do more person to person campaigning - it encourages candidates to try and sway the delegates, not the people on the street.  it is the province of the lobbyists.

I really don\'t understand most of what you said. I never said anything about "connecting person to person".  Wyoming does not have the same weight as California.
Each state has 2 senators but varies on the number reps. based on the size of the population. The #of reps. and senators determines the #of electoral votes a state has. As far as the "tinkering" that went on in 2004, you\'re paranoid. If you really believe that sort of stuff without having any solid evidence (we would still be hearing about if there was any), then I can\'t take anything you say seriously, and I know I would never have a chance at changing your mind. Just because everyone you talk to says something, it does not necessarily make it so. I don\'t care about person to person campaigning, thats irrellevant, and lobbyists aren\'t going to disappear with the electoral college, they are a part of the system now and would be a part of the system with a national popular vote.

Quote
1.  The Electoral College gives disproportionate weight to the votes of citizens of small states. For example, a vote by a resident of Wyoming counts about four times more--electorally--than a vote by a California resident.
2.  Most Americans believe that the person who receives the most votes should become president.  Direct election is seen as more consistent with democratic principles than is the Electoral College system.
3.  If presidents were elected by direct popular vote, they would wage a campaign and advertise all across the nation, rather than (as they do in the Electoral College system) concentrating almost all of their time and effort in a handful of battleground states.  The Electoral College system encourages candidates to pander to the interests of voters in a few closely contested states.
4.  When the winner of the Electoral College is not the candidate who received the most votes of the people, the new president will face questions about his legitimacy.

First forgive me for forgetting the laidback nature of these sites, they are supposed to be fun. Second, thank you for the indepth explanation well said.

1). Exactly, Wyoming has a voice. In a popular vote a candidate would concentrate efforts in the largest states. It would make no sense to worry about Wyoming where the vote differential could be 5-10 thousand votes if you could win in CA. by a margin of millions.  Someone could carry 10 or 11 states, lose 39 or 40 and still become President.  A popular vote would make votes almost meaningless for people in small states (talk about not showing up to vote).

2).  A popular vote would be a direct democracy, exactly what was intended to be avoided by our founding fathers. We are a republic with 51 seperate elections for President.

3).  See no.1 above.  Swing states change, I\'m from CO. which was a swing state in the last election even though it has only 9 electoral votes, but it wasn\'t always a swing state.  A popular vote would never see swing states change, there would have to be mass population migration for this to change. Candidates would pander to the state with the largest populations.

4).  The election in 2000 is the only election in my lifetime the pop. vote went to the loser ( I think).  It was a margin of less than 500 votes? 2004 was also close but Bush got the pop. vote by 60,000 or so and the electoral total.

I think its incorrect to assume that a popular vote is the cure for the percieved problems.  You brought up a good point though, it would be a disaster if there had to be a nation wide recount. It could take months to figure out who won in a close election.

QuoteLOL!!!  i could live on pizza.  well... and red wine.

it\'s funny how often i was told i was naive for thinking that abolishing the electoral college would be feasible.  the fact is to me NOT abolishing it is unfeasible.  it is the very reason we have such shitty voter turn out, but of course, there are many in the places of power who very much want us to have shitty voter turn out - and to keep the common man from determining his own fate.  that whole \'we know what\'s best for you so you just keep tilling the soil and shoeing the horses, we\'ll take care of the hard work of government\' mentality.

There is no guarentee this would increase voter turnout, and I don\'t think you can support your claim that the electoral college is the cause for low voter turnout.  Were you saying all of this when Bill Clinton was in office? Nice job of throwing out a bunch of unrealistic steretypes.

Why was the electoral college useful way back when but not now? I don\'t think it has anything to do with the absence of powdered wigs, as someone else here puts it. It would be nice to have a political discussion, even a heated arguement, but so far everything I\'ve read is irrational, emotional and lacks any logic.