ZOMBIE FORUMS

Given Bush's lowering poll numbers, the fact that Powell is a dove and a moderate Republican, but willing to go to war because he thinks it's the right thing to do, and Powell's good speaking skills, I think Powell could have a better chance at reelection than Bush, if not now, then four years from now. I'd certainly want him to be president more than Bush or *shudder* Cheney, although I of course wouldn't vote for him. Although I'm pretty sure they can't file to be candidates anymore, this is more of a "what-if" anyway. Comments?

The Poll thingie is just a whim; consider carefully before you say, "Popular war president=reelected", because, at least as of this writing, there's some doubt as to that.

Just as long as we don't get some sissy like Al Gore that will enact a whole slew of shitty restricting firearm laws, I really couldn't care less.

Where's the option for Spiderman?!

yep,
have to go with spiderman

Hmm...well then, let it be known to all that this is now the, "Which superhero is best?" debate thread. :)

I say batman, cause he doesn't just have money, he does have some degree of skill. I mean, who else does that cool now-you-see-me, now-you-don't thing? And also, being otherwise "mortal", he gets into, and gets out of, worse situations than the other superheroes. That can't all come from high-tech gadgetry. Not counting Batman:Beyond, of course.

I'm gonna say Nader, but I'm a goofy optimist like that. As for Powell though, he'll never run for president. He almost didn't take the Secretary of State job. His wife has some sort of psychological disorder, and he doesn't want to put her through the stress of being in the public light.

I sadly vote Bush, not because I think he /should/ be president, but because I don't think the US populous hates him enough to vote him out. Powell would make a good pres, but he'd never run because of his wife (who, as I hear it, he does not want to subject to the political mudslinging). And the dems...well...they are kinda running around like chickens sans heads right now. Third party...well..yeah.

-Rae

Nader gets my vote in '04, not that I actually believe he will win. But I would rather vote for him than help elect some corporate-sponsored a-hole.

Ahh yes, the ancient, fuzzy and ill-defined hatred for TEH EVAL CORPORASHUNS!!!111.

I don't see what the hell is wrong with them. Certainly no more than is wrong with unions, who have (at least in my home state of california) contributed more to government war chests than any corporation.

Add to that the fact that a vast majority of the 'evil corporations' are mom and pop shops putting up for certain tax breaks, and you've got yourself being an idiot. Ahh, well.

Sidenote for all of you- please note that Bush's current approval rating (at 55-58%) is about the same as Reagan when he got reelected in a landslide, I believe. Over 50% approval is actually noteworthy and quite a big chunk of people.

-MiB

Damn...that sucks about his wife...and wow, an actual, honest-to-god caring politician...*shudder*.
MIB...I think you have to consider that Reagan wasn't actually instigating a war at the time, only fueling the cold war. Besides, Bush is no Reagan, even if I do hate that damn actor-turned-traitorous politician's guts. And no, I don't want this to turn into a debate about Reagan, so just ignore that. Concentrate on the Bush part, not the Reagan part. Concentrate!!

"IT'S ALL REAGAN'S FAULT!!!!" - Bloom County

MiB, about the 50%.... I think we all know the public is generally stupid and fickle. I sorrowfully though, must agree with Rae. Bush probably will win, though that has little to do with his actual fitness for the position. Reagan, in addition to having an "evil empire" to shift attention to (sorta like Bush and the "axis of evil"), was also responsible for ending the "gas crisis" by denying its existence. The public probably felt some residual dislike for the "tree-hugging hippies" responsible for the inconvienence of gas rationing.

I doubt a trip to http://www.opensecrets.org will change your mind, but I don't think you will find many mom-and-pop businesses contributing to presidential candidates. State elections are a slightly different matter, because campaign costs are much lower and unions can afford to donate a sizeable chunk of a candidate's funding.

As for what is wrong with corporations, that's a personal issue I suppose. Most (not all, but the vast majority) of corporations place profits over consideration for product quality, safety, and environmental impact. Adam Smith (who corporations love to quote because he advocated a free market economy) hated corporations, because they do not have the best interests of consumers in mind. Keep in mind I think the whole concept of consumerism is lame, and I see corporations as largely useless and destructive.
I would appreciate it if you would not demand proof of such behavior, because I assure you examples are not difficult to find and I really don't want to spend time doing what you can do on your own.

The Martian Manhunter is the best superhero. PERIOD. Nothing beats being able to fly, go ethereal at will, communicate telepathically, AND have super-strength. Other good ones: Flash, Hawkgirl, Green Lantern. I don't like Spiderman, he's just too lame. And Batman is a pansy, he doesn't belong with the rest of the superheroes. He's just a rich guy who bought his way in. Superman is a dumb brick. That is all.

We can't forget the INCREDIBLE HULK!!

N00B SMASH!

.....er, HULK SMASH!!

I've heard rumblings that Powell will retire from politics completely after the current presidential term is over. I think Cheyney will as well over health concerns.

I see a Bush/ Jack Kemp ticket next term though I'd like to see Bush/Alan Keyes, or Bush/ Oliver North. For most of you who don't know him or much about him ON is just a byword. I've actually talked to him and called in to his show and got on 5 times (4 actually with him, once with a guest host). I have gotten on Keyes show twice as a caller.

(all of these happened when I was homeschooling 8th and 9th grade because my family moved in the middle of the year and didn't want to try to get me into a school in midstream.)

I like Keyes best because it would be great to have a republican be the first with a minority running mate. I actually think if Powell retires, Bob Dole will be Sec. of State

Lieberman is the best democratic candidate but I don't know who could be his running mate. Anyone but Dashell. Gebhardt(sp?) is also no damn good. Who was that guy that came in second behind Gore in the primaries?

Mystical: ...? Why does this matter? Its like saying "well, having 50 people like you when you're just being a jerk is different than having 50 people like you when you're in a fistfight." I don't see the logic here, just some mystical 'well, war makes everyone less popular' BS that I think you're trying to imply.

Anubai: ...I'm getting the implication here that you don't believe the soviet union was all that bad. Otherwise, your statement is akin to saying Churchhill used the threat of Germany to shift attention away from Britain's failing economy. It wasn't so much a dirty trick a nessesity- Germany needed to be smacked down, the Soviet Union needed to be stood up to (lets not get into the debate of what caused the downfall of the soviet union- but I think we can safetly say that Reagan didn't slow it down any) and crappy dictators need to be killed to ensure the safety of the US.

Your statement about the American public being fickle and such is quite true, but has no relevance to the current talk, since you in no way connected this with either side of the quasi-debate. Its also stupid in and of itself- yes, poll numbers could change drastically if something happened tomorrow, but why are you mentioning such an obvious point?

Tycho: Well over 99% of corporations are small-time businesses that have little or no connection to politics. You assume all corporations are huge, bloated, evil things that bribe the politicians into doing their evil will. That is my main beef. Besides illustrating that you have very poor definitions of what a corporation is, it also shows how one-dimensional your view of politics is.

Second point: thats politics, you numbskull. You give someone aid in whatever form, and you call in a favor later. Unions have done this on the national level to many politicians (we give you votes, you support us in some future time, make more unions, etc etc.) Its how its all run- corporations are merely the most public players (noticed I refriegned from saying the biggest- the democratic party, for example, got more hefty donations from various unions than any single corporation in the last election.) Unions arn't powerless entities, they are in fact large political players, sometimes even larger than the biggest corporation in several states (due to the fact that, even though corporations can spend more money than them, large unions control a lot of votes- which is more precious than money in any political campaign.)

No one is assuming politics is a nice, happy fun business. But claiming that corporations are at fault is silly in the extreme. The fact is that politics is a game of receiving and returning favors. Campaign finance reform doesn't remove this at all- it just gives that much more power to the voter-based entities (such as unions and, in local campaigns, clubs and such.)

-MiB

I'll answer you later. I have more important things to do right now.

First, my opinion of the Soviet Union in a nutshell: Lenin, good. Stalin Bad. (Naughty dictator! No cookie for you!) I still subscribe to whole idea of communism as too idealistic. In a better world it might work, but then so might enlightened anarchy.
Under Lenin, it was a relatively good system with some painful flaws. Under Stalin, it was a glorified dictatorship. Stupid power grubbing Stalin. *mutters and grumbles* Shoulda gone to Trotsky. (Additional reading material: Three Who Made a Revolution)

As for Germany, I am no doubt fuzzy on my WWII history, so enlighten me as to how the USSR was "smacked down." If you are referring to after the war when the powers that be decided to "isolate and contain" the USSR, I would point out that if it worked against a superpower, it will probably work against Iraq in a shorter amount of time.

The US has a terrible track record with dictators (both of our own making, and of others'). Castro. Stalin. Hussein. All are dictators that we have failed to assasinate. We made Hussein and Bin Laden what they are today, and now we seek to kill them, with very good reason. We fail horribly (I would prefer not to go into the why right now). I cannot trust our government's current policy on installing governments.

The fickle public thing: I apoligize, that was stupid and senseless of me. I'm sure I had a point and was derailed thinking of other things, but I no longer remember. Anyways, to not give my point with that sentence was pretty idiotic of me. *false seriousness* I hope you'll find it in your kind heart to forgive me.

As for corporations: they're not evil, just terribly selfish through the accumulation of all the small "evils" of their employees.

hello

<I> - First, my opinion of the Soviet Union in a nutshell: Lenin, good. Stalin Bad.</I>

I never liked Lenin either, re-wrote communism and made it fail, nor was he too slow to order random shootings and the like, hardly a *good* leader eh? at least stalin went all out, lenic just messed around. anyway...

<I>- when the powers that be decided to "isolate and contain" the USSR, I would point out that if it worked against a superpower, it will probably work against Iraq in a shorter amount of time.</I>

hasn't worked in th last 10 years has it? doesn't look like it from here anyway, other than the totally different conditions that the comparison is set it etc

<I> - Castro. Stalin. Hussein. All are dictators that we have failed to assasinate. </I>

no one really tried, all were half hearted attempts by CIA men with too much time on their hands, a serious attempt would have easily worked, they've offed other leaders more than effectivly in the past

<I>- We made Hussein and Bin Laden what they are today, and now we seek to kill them, with very good reason. We fail horribly (I would prefer not to go into the why right now). </I>

once again, if they actually wanted to they would, it sets a dangerous precident if you start offing elected (however) leaders tho, as it sets up friendly heads of state up for revenge actions, most (if not all) assasination attempts come from within the country of the leader, not without

and by 'we' do you mean American, the West, or who..?

<I> - I cannot trust our government's current policy on installing governments.</I>

that really doesn't matter, you vote them in, then they do what they want untill it's time to vote them in again. rarely do you get a chance to affect them once they're there, that's the idea

<I>As for corporations: they're not evil, just terribly selfish through the accumulation of all the small "evils" of their employees.</I>

"there's no good or evil, just power, and those too weak to take it" - a prize goes to whoever can tell me where that quote comes from.

people don't like corporations because they themselves are, both in person and in association, weak. a corporation is (on the face of it) united and strong, in many cases earning and spending (and therefore commanding more influence) for more than an individual will in many lifetimes, thing is, if you get a strong group together, a union, a party, whatever, you too can weild that power, it's just that unless peopel are being paid, are directly profiting from it then they can't be bothered. corporations are strong because they have drive and vision, peopela re weak because they don't

I'm tired.