 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Every single thing that happened in the last million years!!
| Poll: Every single thing that happened in the last million years!! | |
|---|---|
| the Rise of Man | 3 |
| Ice Age | 2 |
| Roman Empire | 0 |
| Birth of Christ | 4 |
| Dark Ages | 0 |
| Crusades | 0 |
| Discovery of America | 0 |
| Industrial Revolution | 0 |
| World War II | 0 |
| Invention of pop-tarts | 1 |
sycophantman
Or at least all the good stuff...
Every single thing that happened in the last million years!!
January 03, 2004 at 07:12PM View BBCode
That's about it, too.Or at least all the good stuff...
farfetched
The world could certainly use another Ice Age... I just want to be ready with my thermal underground lair first.
January 03, 2004 at 11:11PM View BBCode
I guess you're inquiring as to what I would believe to be the most significant of these.The world could certainly use another Ice Age... I just want to be ready with my thermal underground lair first.
Duff77
All those other things (pop-tarts excluded) are important, but didn't define life for nearly everyone on the planet. Not unless you believe Hitler actually would've taken over the world...in which case WWII would qualify. But even if you don't, it's probably the next highest on the list, because of effects for Europe and parts of Asia would've been completely different if it hadn't. A lot of these other things are things that came in went, like the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages. Fascinating historically, but they don't have the kind of lasting impact the other's do. Unless you might say that the Dark Ages ultimately sparked the Renissance, which set us down the path toward science, which brings us into the modern age...etc.
January 04, 2004 at 01:12AM View BBCode
The rise of man, obviously, followed by a tie between the Birth of Christ and the Industrial Revolution. The Birth of Christ kickstarted a worldwide social revolution that spawned both Christianity and Islam, thus defining social morality in most parts of the world. I give it a tie with the Industrial Revolution because that completely revolutionized the way people live. Every modern technological device we have--everything that seperates us from being a people who work in fields for 16 hours a day and build our own houses--can find it's roots in the Industrial Revolution.All those other things (pop-tarts excluded) are important, but didn't define life for nearly everyone on the planet. Not unless you believe Hitler actually would've taken over the world...in which case WWII would qualify. But even if you don't, it's probably the next highest on the list, because of effects for Europe and parts of Asia would've been completely different if it hadn't. A lot of these other things are things that came in went, like the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages. Fascinating historically, but they don't have the kind of lasting impact the other's do. Unless you might say that the Dark Ages ultimately sparked the Renissance, which set us down the path toward science, which brings us into the modern age...etc.
Smocko
January 04, 2004 at 01:20AM View BBCode
You forgot when Al Gore created the internet. No Simdynasty without him! :lol:
GerryH3
Up until this season, I think I saw about 2 Devil Rays games on the live Wednesday night/Sunday night ESPN feed we get in the UK.
Now I can watch the Rays get beat up almost every night:(
January 04, 2004 at 01:27AM View BBCode
It has to be MLB TV!!Up until this season, I think I saw about 2 Devil Rays games on the live Wednesday night/Sunday night ESPN feed we get in the UK.
Now I can watch the Rays get beat up almost every night:(
Duff77
Turns out Al Gore did invent the internet. Well, actually, what he SAID was that when he was in Congress, he backed and was significantly involved in an effort to develop Arpanet, a technology the military was using to get their computers to talk to each other. The development of Arpanet, helped by the Congressional action Gore headed up, eventually led to the creation of the Internet.
Gore never actually said that he invented the internet. He said what I just did--that he backed and was significantly involved in a policy that lead to the eventual development of the Internet. The right--and eventually the mainstream media--took it completely out of context and made him look like a total dumbass. And think about it: Gore may be boring, but he's not stupid. Does anyone actually believe Gore was thinking, "Well, if I claim to have invented the internet, people will believe it!" Of course not--nobody's that stupid.
January 04, 2004 at 01:33AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Smocko
You forgot when Al Gore created the internet. No Simdynasty without him! :lol:
Turns out Al Gore did invent the internet. Well, actually, what he SAID was that when he was in Congress, he backed and was significantly involved in an effort to develop Arpanet, a technology the military was using to get their computers to talk to each other. The development of Arpanet, helped by the Congressional action Gore headed up, eventually led to the creation of the Internet.
Gore never actually said that he invented the internet. He said what I just did--that he backed and was significantly involved in a policy that lead to the eventual development of the Internet. The right--and eventually the mainstream media--took it completely out of context and made him look like a total dumbass. And think about it: Gore may be boring, but he's not stupid. Does anyone actually believe Gore was thinking, "Well, if I claim to have invented the internet, people will believe it!" Of course not--nobody's that stupid.
GerryH3
January 04, 2004 at 01:44AM View BBCode
You're right Duff - nobody's that stupid. But from the relatively limited coverage I've seen on this side of the pond, Mr. Gore sure does a good impression!!
Smocko
What is the 'is' doing up there? You should talk about him in the past tense. Gore's political life is over. :lol:
January 04, 2004 at 04:16AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
He's boring, no doubt.
What is the 'is' doing up there? You should talk about him in the past tense. Gore's political life is over. :lol:
skierdude44
January 04, 2004 at 04:21AM View BBCode
my dad hates al gore. al gore came to his restaurant one time and everyone went out of the kitchen to meet him except my dad. the only people he hates more are the clintons especially hillary. whenever she is on tv he sits in front of the tv, makes his fingers into a gun and pretends to shoot her. as u could tell he is a republican.
Duff77
And despite the fact that Al Gore has no political career, he's still a bore. So that should stay in the present tense.
January 04, 2004 at 04:53AM View BBCode
I never liked Clinton much either--and I'm a democrat. As far as I'm concerned, he sold out the working man when he signed NAFTA. That's just not very liberal, if you ask me. I mean hell, as long as you're going to have the right wing accusing you of being a liberal nuthead, bent on turning the country communist, you might as well veto agreements that sell millions of American jobs to third world countries. No self-serving democrat should ever hail Bill Clinton as anything other than a sell-out politician. He betrayed the people who put him in office.And despite the fact that Al Gore has no political career, he's still a bore. So that should stay in the present tense.
skierdude44
January 04, 2004 at 05:00AM View BBCode
i love listening to my family arguing about politics. everyone on my dad's side is a die hard republican except schef's mom who is a die hard democrat. they will do anything to defend their party and make the other one look bad. it almost gets down to a name calling competition. my dad will say things like well that clinton wuz a no good poopy head and my aunt will say but bush is a dirty butt sniffer.
sycophantman
Dull though Gore might be, I personally would much rather have had someone smart and level-headed when everything went down that day. Instead we had a president who ran around like a punk when the towers collapsed, who didn't even leave the damn kindergarden classroom he was in at the time to address the nation or his staff until like 40 minutes later! Great leadership there, Shrub, you had to wait until someone could tell you what you should do, well done!:mad:
I wish there was someone who could unseat Bush in the election this year, but I don't think it will happen.:(
And I also wish the die-hard Republicans out there would have the character and the balls to at least admit what a screw-up and a waste Bush is, and how much he's hurting this country, but they never will...:yawn:
January 04, 2004 at 02:17PM View BBCode
I pity Al Gore, he probably would have been a much better president to deal with all the post 9-11 fallout then George Wanker Bush has shown himself to be.Dull though Gore might be, I personally would much rather have had someone smart and level-headed when everything went down that day. Instead we had a president who ran around like a punk when the towers collapsed, who didn't even leave the damn kindergarden classroom he was in at the time to address the nation or his staff until like 40 minutes later! Great leadership there, Shrub, you had to wait until someone could tell you what you should do, well done!:mad:
I wish there was someone who could unseat Bush in the election this year, but I don't think it will happen.:(
And I also wish the die-hard Republicans out there would have the character and the balls to at least admit what a screw-up and a waste Bush is, and how much he's hurting this country, but they never will...:yawn:
Duff77
But as a reasonable man, I can't blame Bush for running willy-nilly all over the fruited plain on 9/11. Like any other President, Bush is handled by his staffers and the Secret Service. The Pentagon was attacked that day, and all indications are Flight 93 was doing a B-line for the White House. It would've been stupid for Bush to head straight back to Washington. In the modern age, the country can be run from anywhere...it's designed to be run from AirForce 1 in the event of a nuclear (or as Bush would say, "nu-cu-lur") attack. The President being in Washington would've been entirely symbolic, and stupid given all that was going on.
What's interesting, though--and little spoken of--is the fact that Bush was reading to a bunch of school children when he found out about the attacks--including the second one that confirmed it was terrorism. When you find out a major terrorist attack is occuring against the United States, don't you jump up from your seat and try to find out what's going on? I sure would. I never got that. Bush says he didn't want to frighten the children, but I'm guessing when those kids got home from school and turned on the tube they were pretty damn scared anyway...
And furthermore, why wasn't Bush hustled away by the Secret Service? I'm sure there were plenty of security measures in place at that school...as there would be whenever a President was in town...but no one could've been expecting 9/11 to drop... The President was at a pre-planned, announced event that any terrorist could've found out about by logging onto the white house website. Why was America under attack for an hour before Bush actually got onto an airplane and into a bunker, where by rights he should've been? I'm not specifically blaming Bush for this. I just think his staff and the Secret Service took a real risk allowing him to stay there so long. It's a question I'd like to have answered.
January 04, 2004 at 02:52PM View BBCode
syco...you're my new best friend :)But as a reasonable man, I can't blame Bush for running willy-nilly all over the fruited plain on 9/11. Like any other President, Bush is handled by his staffers and the Secret Service. The Pentagon was attacked that day, and all indications are Flight 93 was doing a B-line for the White House. It would've been stupid for Bush to head straight back to Washington. In the modern age, the country can be run from anywhere...it's designed to be run from AirForce 1 in the event of a nuclear (or as Bush would say, "nu-cu-lur") attack. The President being in Washington would've been entirely symbolic, and stupid given all that was going on.
What's interesting, though--and little spoken of--is the fact that Bush was reading to a bunch of school children when he found out about the attacks--including the second one that confirmed it was terrorism. When you find out a major terrorist attack is occuring against the United States, don't you jump up from your seat and try to find out what's going on? I sure would. I never got that. Bush says he didn't want to frighten the children, but I'm guessing when those kids got home from school and turned on the tube they were pretty damn scared anyway...
And furthermore, why wasn't Bush hustled away by the Secret Service? I'm sure there were plenty of security measures in place at that school...as there would be whenever a President was in town...but no one could've been expecting 9/11 to drop... The President was at a pre-planned, announced event that any terrorist could've found out about by logging onto the white house website. Why was America under attack for an hour before Bush actually got onto an airplane and into a bunker, where by rights he should've been? I'm not specifically blaming Bush for this. I just think his staff and the Secret Service took a real risk allowing him to stay there so long. It's a question I'd like to have answered.
sycophantman
But to not address the nation from Air Force One? Not one word?? Shameful!
How on earth could he think it was ok not to say SOMETHING!? It's because by himself he has nothing to say, I'm sure when he sneezes his head sounds like an empty spray paint can.
I know all presidents have staff that handles most everything for them. The president is mostly there for leadership and a general sense of what the administration is about. These are the most important things for a president to be about, and Bush ranks near the bottom in both in the history of presidents.
The man is just a pitiful cypher for Karl Rove and it pisses me off that so many people couldn't care less. Too bad, because if Bush wasn't the president and I had just met him on the street or at some pub, I'd probably like him, most people would. He seems like a decent human being who's being manipulated from the shadows by people who obviously have no desire to serve the public trust, only to line their pockets and push through legislation that will give them the easiest possible time after they are finally booted from office...
But I do go on...
January 04, 2004 at 03:06PM View BBCode
Now I don't think Bush should have hustled over to Washington, that would have been dumb, REAL dumb...But to not address the nation from Air Force One? Not one word?? Shameful!
How on earth could he think it was ok not to say SOMETHING!? It's because by himself he has nothing to say, I'm sure when he sneezes his head sounds like an empty spray paint can.
I know all presidents have staff that handles most everything for them. The president is mostly there for leadership and a general sense of what the administration is about. These are the most important things for a president to be about, and Bush ranks near the bottom in both in the history of presidents.
The man is just a pitiful cypher for Karl Rove and it pisses me off that so many people couldn't care less. Too bad, because if Bush wasn't the president and I had just met him on the street or at some pub, I'd probably like him, most people would. He seems like a decent human being who's being manipulated from the shadows by people who obviously have no desire to serve the public trust, only to line their pockets and push through legislation that will give them the easiest possible time after they are finally booted from office...
But I do go on...
Duff77
I must admit to having lost faith in our nation's ability to not be under the thumb of folks like Karl Rove...not to mention everybody at Faux News. These people lie, they misquote, they pull stuff out of context to make liberals look stupid, they make ridiculous claims left and right... and there's no way to stop them because no one in this country cares about the truth anymore. Some nuthead with a TV presence writes a book, misquoting people and misrepresenting statistics, and if some liberal calls them on it, the response is, "Well, you're a liberal--you're lying to discredit me." And while a thought-provoking, detailed analysis of whatever information is in question would reveal who IS lying, no one even bothers... The republican is flashier and more personable, so the people believe him...it's that simple.
If you actually want to understand some major issue...like health care, or welfare, or education, or terrorism, you have to do some real thinking, and you have to gather together and analyze a lot of facts...you have to separate the truths from the untruths, and wade through the irrelevancies. No society can act freely without a thorough understanding of the issues. But what Republican's learned a long time ago is that you don't have to do that. All you have to do is come up with some big, flashy slogan, and then shove it down our throats long enough for us to believe it.
For example...conservatives argue that high taxes on the rich hurt everybody--including those on the bottom. The truth, of course, is that during the golden era, when my grandfather could work at a steel mill, support a wife and two kids, and send both those kids to college (and one to law school)--the top-end tax rate was 84%. In the era of labor unions, economic isolationism, and progressive regulations, the workingman did very well. While we're now debating things like Social Security...and while everyone is paranoid about how they're ever going to retire...my grandfather got a pension from the steel mill and lived comfortably for decades after he retired.
Now you'd think any informed society--or press--would want to compare the economic policies of a good era with all the rest, in order to find out what worked well... But no, no one does that. No one has the time or attention span. And the Republicans have jammed "taxes are bad" down our throats long enough to get us to believe it.
My point is, if we can't have a real analysis of the big issues...if we can't have a reasonable debate...if the people don't demand to really have a sense of what's at stake and what ideas actually do work, then we really have no chance of acting in our own best interest. And I don't blame the Republicans for this. They have a tactic that works--be loud and people won't ask questions. I don't blame the press. They're concerned with ratings. If people wanted an informed debate, they'd get it. I blame the people. I blame the whole society for accepting simplistic slogans at face value, and for allowing those simplistic, unsupported slogans to become policy.
You know how they say knowledge is power? Knowledge is also freedom. Without knowledge, you can't make the decisions that best benefit yourself or your society, and without that freedom is irrelevant. When we allow sound bytes and slogans shape our opinions, we are surrendering our freedom to whomever's sound bytes are more compelling. That's not freedom--that's intellectual slavery.
January 04, 2004 at 03:48PM View BBCode
This topic will be banned shortly, I'm sure... I know better, but I just can't resist these things...I must admit to having lost faith in our nation's ability to not be under the thumb of folks like Karl Rove...not to mention everybody at Faux News. These people lie, they misquote, they pull stuff out of context to make liberals look stupid, they make ridiculous claims left and right... and there's no way to stop them because no one in this country cares about the truth anymore. Some nuthead with a TV presence writes a book, misquoting people and misrepresenting statistics, and if some liberal calls them on it, the response is, "Well, you're a liberal--you're lying to discredit me." And while a thought-provoking, detailed analysis of whatever information is in question would reveal who IS lying, no one even bothers... The republican is flashier and more personable, so the people believe him...it's that simple.
If you actually want to understand some major issue...like health care, or welfare, or education, or terrorism, you have to do some real thinking, and you have to gather together and analyze a lot of facts...you have to separate the truths from the untruths, and wade through the irrelevancies. No society can act freely without a thorough understanding of the issues. But what Republican's learned a long time ago is that you don't have to do that. All you have to do is come up with some big, flashy slogan, and then shove it down our throats long enough for us to believe it.
For example...conservatives argue that high taxes on the rich hurt everybody--including those on the bottom. The truth, of course, is that during the golden era, when my grandfather could work at a steel mill, support a wife and two kids, and send both those kids to college (and one to law school)--the top-end tax rate was 84%. In the era of labor unions, economic isolationism, and progressive regulations, the workingman did very well. While we're now debating things like Social Security...and while everyone is paranoid about how they're ever going to retire...my grandfather got a pension from the steel mill and lived comfortably for decades after he retired.
Now you'd think any informed society--or press--would want to compare the economic policies of a good era with all the rest, in order to find out what worked well... But no, no one does that. No one has the time or attention span. And the Republicans have jammed "taxes are bad" down our throats long enough to get us to believe it.
My point is, if we can't have a real analysis of the big issues...if we can't have a reasonable debate...if the people don't demand to really have a sense of what's at stake and what ideas actually do work, then we really have no chance of acting in our own best interest. And I don't blame the Republicans for this. They have a tactic that works--be loud and people won't ask questions. I don't blame the press. They're concerned with ratings. If people wanted an informed debate, they'd get it. I blame the people. I blame the whole society for accepting simplistic slogans at face value, and for allowing those simplistic, unsupported slogans to become policy.
You know how they say knowledge is power? Knowledge is also freedom. Without knowledge, you can't make the decisions that best benefit yourself or your society, and without that freedom is irrelevant. When we allow sound bytes and slogans shape our opinions, we are surrendering our freedom to whomever's sound bytes are more compelling. That's not freedom--that's intellectual slavery.
farfetched
I'm assuming you're more inclined to be leftwing?
January 04, 2004 at 07:18PM View BBCode
'Tis good to know there's a left-winger informed enough to say what I could only wish I could say. Kudos. :DI'm assuming you're more inclined to be leftwing?
Duff77
January 04, 2004 at 08:52PM View BBCode
When I draw a conclusion on something, it generally corresponds to the democratic point of view. Not always though. There are some big issues (at least one) that I disagree with them on. But I still consider myself a liberal--just an open-minded one.
ME
ITS A POLITICAL DISCUSSSION THAT HAPPY OR ME OR SKIERDUDE DID NOT START
I've made a promise to myself not to talk about politics here anymore (tyson was pissed when every topic was political), so no replies.
The thing that should be on that list instead of Dark Ages is the Renaissance, which is WAY more important.
January 04, 2004 at 09:40PM View BBCode
must...refrain...from...replying...ITS A POLITICAL DISCUSSSION THAT HAPPY OR ME OR SKIERDUDE DID NOT START
I've made a promise to myself not to talk about politics here anymore (tyson was pissed when every topic was political), so no replies.
The thing that should be on that list instead of Dark Ages is the Renaissance, which is WAY more important.
tysok
Here's another thought though. Talking about Bush right after the attacks of 9/11. Giving the government exactly what it wants (the benefit of the doubt that they knew nothing about it beforehand), what would you have him say if he had spoken from Air Force 1? "Greetings my fellow Americans. Some jet planes have just flown into the world trade centers, we're under attack....... please tune into NBC for more info"?????
It's not all unlike December 7, 1941. Early morning Japanese attack the US in what IS going to be a BIG deal. From what I've heard FDR didn't immediately jump on the radio. As far as I know the first address he made was in congress on Dec. 8. Strange that we didn't and don't think much about a full days delay from the president in talking about World War II isn't and wasn't talked about like a few hours delay on 9/11.
Why wasn't he scrambling out of the classroom? It was quite obviously a terrorist attack. Up until 9/11 I've never heard of such an organized set of attacks. They hijack one plane, blow up one building.... Why would this be any different? Hijack one plane and fly it into a building it's over. As I recall (which isn't at all) he did leave and get in the air when the second one hit. Even an idiot, however, can see that this had nothing to do with targeting people... but things.
So okay, we're expecting the president to expect more than any other person in the US and get in the air. He didn't, so we're expecting the secret service to expect more than any other person in the US and GET him on the plane. Maybe they knew it was going to happen and wouldn't involve the president?
We'd been getting more isolationist for a long time. Vietnam almost punctured it, Somalia almost killed it.... we needed a reason to see that we're not alone in the world again. So our government gets information that something, SOMETHING will happen but do nothing. Perhaps Pearl Harbor comes to mind again? They know something will happen, but don't fully understand the extent.
Okay a plane will fly into the world trade center, couple hundred dead probably maximum. Oops the towers fell down... what? They hit the pentagon too? ... and another plane as well???
Sounds a lot like Pearl Harbor... we're gonna be attacked at Pearl Harbor, couple thousand dead max. What? They destroyed almost the entire pacific fleat?
Do we blame the president? Maybe and maybe not... we all know (or by god I hope we know) that the president doesn't run the country, in fact has only one power in governing the country. So just perhaps, the people who rn the country decided it was time for a war economically, or just vindictively. They need a reason, just like 1941.
Anyhow I don't really care. Just what I thought of when reading this. A few other notes, the last plane wasn't after the White House, it was after the Capitol Building. They went after the trade center (symbol of economic strength), the pentagon (symbol of military strength)... and the last is the symbol for politcal strength... not the White House.
Also, our grandparents generation was vastly better in every way to todays generation... there is no good way to compare the two.
Finally when the government stops working for its people it's time for the people to overthrow that government and install a new one. Old quote, not verbatim... and our government knows this quote. Leading to the dumbing down of todays generation. Another quote, no taxation without representation? Better than half of the citizens of the US are not represented in the US government. The government run by lawyers and politicians who have as much in common with a 30 thousand dollar a year factory worker as they have in common with a mouse somewhere in Moscow.
The only point in political discussions of this nature is to wake people up to see what's really going on in todays government and help bring quicker an ultimate resolution... but everyone is asleep, and shows no sign of waking, and some of those asleep include the people that take part in these kinds of discussions. So ultimately in some ways, it's like blind men screaming in the dark for someone to turn on the light.
January 04, 2004 at 10:47PM View BBCode
People like politics. I've never understood it. Why constantly bring into discussions that which you hate everything about... but anyhow...Here's another thought though. Talking about Bush right after the attacks of 9/11. Giving the government exactly what it wants (the benefit of the doubt that they knew nothing about it beforehand), what would you have him say if he had spoken from Air Force 1? "Greetings my fellow Americans. Some jet planes have just flown into the world trade centers, we're under attack....... please tune into NBC for more info"?????
It's not all unlike December 7, 1941. Early morning Japanese attack the US in what IS going to be a BIG deal. From what I've heard FDR didn't immediately jump on the radio. As far as I know the first address he made was in congress on Dec. 8. Strange that we didn't and don't think much about a full days delay from the president in talking about World War II isn't and wasn't talked about like a few hours delay on 9/11.
Why wasn't he scrambling out of the classroom? It was quite obviously a terrorist attack. Up until 9/11 I've never heard of such an organized set of attacks. They hijack one plane, blow up one building.... Why would this be any different? Hijack one plane and fly it into a building it's over. As I recall (which isn't at all) he did leave and get in the air when the second one hit. Even an idiot, however, can see that this had nothing to do with targeting people... but things.
So okay, we're expecting the president to expect more than any other person in the US and get in the air. He didn't, so we're expecting the secret service to expect more than any other person in the US and GET him on the plane. Maybe they knew it was going to happen and wouldn't involve the president?
We'd been getting more isolationist for a long time. Vietnam almost punctured it, Somalia almost killed it.... we needed a reason to see that we're not alone in the world again. So our government gets information that something, SOMETHING will happen but do nothing. Perhaps Pearl Harbor comes to mind again? They know something will happen, but don't fully understand the extent.
Okay a plane will fly into the world trade center, couple hundred dead probably maximum. Oops the towers fell down... what? They hit the pentagon too? ... and another plane as well???
Sounds a lot like Pearl Harbor... we're gonna be attacked at Pearl Harbor, couple thousand dead max. What? They destroyed almost the entire pacific fleat?
Do we blame the president? Maybe and maybe not... we all know (or by god I hope we know) that the president doesn't run the country, in fact has only one power in governing the country. So just perhaps, the people who rn the country decided it was time for a war economically, or just vindictively. They need a reason, just like 1941.
Anyhow I don't really care. Just what I thought of when reading this. A few other notes, the last plane wasn't after the White House, it was after the Capitol Building. They went after the trade center (symbol of economic strength), the pentagon (symbol of military strength)... and the last is the symbol for politcal strength... not the White House.
Also, our grandparents generation was vastly better in every way to todays generation... there is no good way to compare the two.
Finally when the government stops working for its people it's time for the people to overthrow that government and install a new one. Old quote, not verbatim... and our government knows this quote. Leading to the dumbing down of todays generation. Another quote, no taxation without representation? Better than half of the citizens of the US are not represented in the US government. The government run by lawyers and politicians who have as much in common with a 30 thousand dollar a year factory worker as they have in common with a mouse somewhere in Moscow.
The only point in political discussions of this nature is to wake people up to see what's really going on in todays government and help bring quicker an ultimate resolution... but everyone is asleep, and shows no sign of waking, and some of those asleep include the people that take part in these kinds of discussions. So ultimately in some ways, it's like blind men screaming in the dark for someone to turn on the light.
Duff77
When a government doesn't represent it's people, the people overthrow it...unless, of course, the people don't know they aren't being represented, or don't really care. That's where knowledge comes in, and there isn't a whole lot of to go around these days.
And actually I do blame the media--or I blame the corporations who own it. These days, every major news outlet is owned my a major corporations, and major corporations have their own interests, and don't tell me they're not going to cover things in a way that support their self-interest. Ultimately ratings dominate, and culture infulences television...but television, at times, has the capacity to infulence culture, and I absolutely believe it tries to.
January 04, 2004 at 11:10PM View BBCode
Blind men screaming in the dark to turn on the light, and the people at the switch not knowing the light is out.When a government doesn't represent it's people, the people overthrow it...unless, of course, the people don't know they aren't being represented, or don't really care. That's where knowledge comes in, and there isn't a whole lot of to go around these days.
And actually I do blame the media--or I blame the corporations who own it. These days, every major news outlet is owned my a major corporations, and major corporations have their own interests, and don't tell me they're not going to cover things in a way that support their self-interest. Ultimately ratings dominate, and culture infulences television...but television, at times, has the capacity to infulence culture, and I absolutely believe it tries to.
ME
January 05, 2004 at 12:30AM View BBCode
actually this topic is not going to be shut down for a while cause it has an innocent (non-political) name.
Duff77
January 05, 2004 at 03:36AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
True...how'd we get here? This one's my fault, isn't it? I think so. No...it was Smocko's fault. He made a joke about Al Gore. That's how it started.
Smocko
The attack was on a Tuesday, and Bush showed up in Washington at the Pentagon site the next day. But he didn't get up here to New York until Friday. By that time the bodies had been cleared away and the President arrived for what was little more than a photo shoot in one of his brown sport coats to shake hands with the rescue workers.
An insult, if you ask me.. and totally non-presidential.
Yeah - blame Smocko
January 05, 2004 at 03:52AM View BBCode
Another grumble about the President's action's two years ago...The attack was on a Tuesday, and Bush showed up in Washington at the Pentagon site the next day. But he didn't get up here to New York until Friday. By that time the bodies had been cleared away and the President arrived for what was little more than a photo shoot in one of his brown sport coats to shake hands with the rescue workers.
An insult, if you ask me.. and totally non-presidential.
Pages: 1 2