Get Free, Friendly, Expert Advice
Call 1-866-244-8796 or email

Designed and Manufactured in Canada Since 1980


AxiomAudio Blog

Sneak Peek into Axiom’s Current Research and Development

Axiom’s Newest Speaker: The In-Ceiling M3

Outdoor Speaker Placement

Wall'O'Fame
Experimental Atmos
Greetings fellow Axiom owners...
Who's Online
4 registered (Ian, Ken.C, brwsaw, MarkSJohnson), 47 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Financing
Forum Stats
13317 Members
11 Forums
22877 Topics
404361 Posts

Max Online: 378 @ 02/24/13 04:33 PM
Top Posters
Ken.C 17775
pmbuko 16273
SirQuack 13333
CV 11200
MarkSJohnson 10886
Meanwhile On Facebook

So much going on in this month's newsletter - new product announcements, a new v...

Love this comment from Doug T! "The M22 bookshelf speakers sound so clean and a...

󾓶 Andrew has spoken! Big update on the AxiomPlay Wireless Platform on the Axiom...

A New Look For Our Amps and Pre-amps? Adding yet another level of customization...

Page 119 of 172 < 1 2 ... 117 118 119 120 121 ... 171 172 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#53789 - 10/09/04 07:24 PM Re: OT: Politics
2x6spds Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 03/16/02
Posts: 2726
Loc: CA, USA
I thought both candidates did very well. Kerry is undeniably eloquent. Bush managed not to tie his tongue into a half-hitch.

I particularly like how Kerry said the war was not a mistake, but rather we were mistaken to rush into war without our traditional allies and new friends like Russia. Does anyone think that France and Russia would have gone to war with us? Does anyone think Germany would have backed us up in Iraq had we waited? France and Germany dominate EU and essentially set its foreign policy. We would never have received assistance from the EU or NATO. France and Germany were bent on delaying us until summer when our troops would have sauteed on ships and had their morale massaged by statements from Chirac, Schroeder and Saddam Hussein. France and Russia were on the UN 'Oil for Palaces and French and Russion Weapons' gravy train. France and Russia would never have supported US incursion and would NEVER have joined us.

Kerry intimates that we should have put together an alliance of Arab states as we had in Gulf War I, but of course, that would be impossible, Saudi Arabia would not even let our planes use the bases we built there, because of pressure from their fundamentalist base, base in Arabic is Al Qaeda. The Arab League won't even acknowledge the Arab genocide of black Christians and Muslims in Darfur, does Kerry seriously think the Arab League would have backed us? What Kerry is doing is taking credit for a pro war position, a strong national security position, and criticizing Bush for not meeting impossible conditions before going to war. Kerry agrees with the war but has imposed contingencies which would have made war impossible. That's talking out of both sides of his mouth, and I think that's one of the qualities which make folk a bit leary of Kerry.

Now, Bush can't put two words together in an orderly fashion, that's clear, but we don't expect a lot of palaver from a cowboy who sees the world in black and white. Now here's a situation which I think is best analysed in terms of 'black and white.' Kerry is lost in the nuances, paralyzed by nuances. In a time of peace I'm sure I would have voted for him. I don't believe he is war time presidential material. I think there are many democrats who will vote for Bush in 2004.


Edited by 2x6spds (10/09/04 07:26 PM)
_________________________
Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.

Top
#53790 - 10/09/04 11:19 PM Re: OT: Politics
BigWill Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 05/01/03
Posts: 1951
Loc: Corona, Calif. USA!!!
pmb, I had originally written a few sentences that did sound like stuff from the spinners, but I took them out.

Kerry's position is incredibly insulting and offensive to voters and the democratic process in the ways I described above, but also in that he SUPPORTED the war against Saddam this time. There was no intelligence that I know of, pre-dating the war, that said Saddam did not have WMD of some sort. Everybody thought they were there, including Kerry.

For Kerry to say the war is a mistake and yet still wish to prosecute it is like a football coach telling his team at half time, "We shouldn't have scheduled these guys. We have no chance - it's a complete disaster. It was a mistake and we shouldn't even be here. But it isn't my fault, I was only an assistant last year. Now let's go out and win this one under my brilliant leadership, eh?"

Top
#53791 - 10/10/04 12:01 AM Re: OT: Politics
TurboDog1 Offline
devotee

Registered: 02/29/04
Posts: 342
You know....I have truly enjoyed this thread until recently. As of late, I have come to understand something: No matter what we discuss, no matter what evidence is presented, no matter what is said in the media....there is nothing that is going to change the minds of those who will vote for Kerry based solely upon their hatred for Bush.

PM - I hate to single you out, but you are probably the most outspoken Kerry supporter here. You have not wavered in that support in least. What troubles me is the fact that you maintain that position regardless of what you see or here here from us or the media. When I posted that link w/ Kerry's statements about Iraq....or that link w/ Kerry's flip-flops....my hope was that I could at least get you to admit Kerry's shortcomings. You may have done it, but I don't distinctly remember you doing so, which troubles me deeply. I don't expect you to vote for Bush if you are a Bush-hater. However, my hope was that you might finally admit that Kerry is an opportunist politician that forms his beliefs on what is beneficial to him at the moment. If you made that admission to us and then said you still were going to vote for him, I could respect that (to some extent). However, I cannot fathom how you can still continue to sing the praises of this man and denounce all statements against him as partisan.....especially in the face of the vast evidence to the contrary.

Now that I've beat up on PM a bit, I'll admit that I'm getting a bit discouraged about this whole election, because I am beginning to think that the problem that I describe above is widespread. I've been outspoken about my belief that the general public can be summarized as a bunch of selfish sheep being led around by the candidates offering them entitlements and promises to relinquish them of their responsibilites to contribute to society. However, in the back of my mind, I had held out hope that even the brainless drones would have enough sense to smell what kind of crap Kerry has been dishing out to them. As of late, I am beginning to lose faith in even that.

In the end, I continue to get a tinge of nausea when I think about the entire system as a whole. I used to say that we'd never be able to fix it because it was so screwed up. At this juncture, I still believe that it's beyond help. But, I'm now beginning to think that it's beyond repair either because the American public is too ignorant to actually understand the situation or it's just too apathetic and unmotivated to give a damn. It's with that thought that I wonder why I bother to try and fight this fight.

OK...it's late, I've had enough beer, and I'm tired. Good Night.


Top
#53792 - 10/10/04 12:35 AM Re: OT: Politics
bridgman Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 5408
Loc: Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
>>But, I'm now beginning to think that it's beyond repair either because the American public is too ignorant to actually understand the situation or it's just too apathetic and unmotivated to give a damn. It's with that thought that I wonder why I bother to try and fight this fight.

If it makes you feel any better, try to think of it as incurable optimism rather than ignorance and apathy.

We do have the same problem up here in Canada, although the sides are a bit easier to pigeonhole. Heartless rednecks on one side and arrogant, lying scoundrels on the other. Neither characterization is totally true (we do get the occasional exception on both sides) but there is enough truth there to take to the polls.

We seem to have a chronic preference for the arrogant, lying scoundrels no matter how many times I vote for the rednecks. It's not just a question of intelligence, energy or even education -- the question is whether you believe that "being nice" is enough to get by in the real world.

Inside our protected little countries (well, big honkin' countries) being nice will go a long way. The further you get from home, the more you need to project the image that you are willing to OVER-REACT if necessary to protect yourselves. It helps a lot if you don't over-react on a regular basis, but you HAVE to show strength.

The problem we always seem to have is that very few presidents (or PMs) seem to be able to find the right balance of strength and insight. If I have to choose, I have to hold my nose and go with someone willing to take and hold a strong position if required (ie Bush).

Having said that, there are a few things Bush desperately needs to fix.

1. The "bringing peace to Iraq" thing isn't working, and part of the problem seems to be that the administration seems to be having a tough time deciding if there is still a war going on. Hey, wake up and smell the Anfo guys. Build a "Fort Bush" out in the desert if you have to. Put all the aid and support organizions inside a fence with security checks in AND out. Nobody gets kidnapped if the bad guys have to pass a post full of Marines to get back to their hideout. Make sure the insurgents can only kill Iraqis -- either they will stop right quick or it will become clear that they are no friends of Iraq and their support will fade.

2. Drug pricing. Importing drugs from Canada is not the answer, but there is no reason why the US can't start to play a bit tough with "big pharma" and start to get some of the volume pricing that Canada enjoys. Bush has to make it clear to the drug companies that they have to throw his administration a bone BEFORE the election, or Kerry is going to win too many supporters on the drug pricing issue.

I can live with the left wing guys, at least the honest ones, but Kerry strikes me as the worst of both worlds -- a left-leaning idealogue willing to wrap himself in the flag and lie about being a tough guy just long enough to get elected. Then watch what happens... you are NOT going to like it.

Top
#53793 - 10/10/04 01:56 AM Re: OT: Politics
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16273
Loc: Leesburg, Virginia
TurboDog,

Your honestly and tactfully delivered criticism is duly noted and appreciated. One reason I stand alone here as a Kerry suppporter is that others have either been scared off or don't have enough control over their emotions to participate.

But you're right, I don't often acknowledge Kerry's shortcomings. But make no mistake (heh), my desire to see Bush out of the White House has not completely blinded me to the faults of his most likely replacement. I've acknowledged Kerry's "political whorish" tendencies elsewhere, so I'll do it here, as well. The thing is, every politician with a desire for upward mobility will change his mind at opportune moments. Click hereto see a nicely done photo-journal of Bush's flip-flops, for example.

This election, like most, is a choice between two less-than-ideal candidates. What sane person would want their entire lives trotted out on parade for all to see? That's what running for President is like. You have to be a little crazy to want to go through that.
_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Top
#53794 - 10/10/04 09:26 AM Re: OT: Politics
Zarak Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 03/09/03
Posts: 1849
Loc: PA
Crazy or powerhungry...

BTW, turbo, you made a comment about not expecting much palaver from a cowboy (Bush). Are you currently reading Stephen King's Dark Tower series by any change. The choice of words just reminded me of the series (I'm currently reading the last one).

Top
#53795 - 10/10/04 11:02 AM Re: OT: Politics
TurboDog1 Offline
devotee

Registered: 02/29/04
Posts: 342
Bridgman - Thanks for letting me know that we're not alone in this.

Zarak - I think that quote was from Bridgman. However, I have read the first three books of the Gunslinger series....great books....and the others are on deck to be read. The problem I encountered is that it took so long in between reading the first three and the fourth one that I found that I couldn't just jump back into the series and remember all of the details. Therefore, it's been on my to-do list to restart the series and read it through to the end.

PM - I'm glad you didn't get to ticked off at me for singling you out....I was uneasy about posting those statements. However, you are a level-headed guy who took my statements in context and that's appreciated. I wish all Dems were that way.

The link that you posted is interesting. First of all, I think that many of these are quite obviously stretches by those trying to deflect criticism of Kerry.

Take for example the quote concerning the link between Al Quaida and Iraq. If you read closely, the comments aren't contradictory. He originally said that both are equally part of the war on terror. He then said that the latter did not have anything to do w/ 9/11. They have never stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

The same goes w/ the comments about WMDs. The first comment states that they had found weapons, which they did. The second is an admittance that they did not find the STOCKPILES that they ALL thought they would. There is no contradiction in those two statements.

You could probably address each of these in a similar fashion. The core problem is that these references do not represent what is the focus of the Kerry criticism. The attacks on Kerry are based upon direct contradictions between words that come out of his mouth at different times of opportunity. They are based upon the consistent lack of core belief structure that Kerry displays when he changes his positions as he does.

Let's try to put this in another light. Let's take the steel industry tarrif issue for example. I don't know a lot about the issue, but it's a good comparison to work with. Let's assume that this was indeed a change of position (again, don't know context and history around that decision). If that's the case, then you might have a case for a flip-flop. Now, if you want to understand the difference between that and what Kerry does, you would have to fudge the history a bit. First of all, you'd have to have Bush get up on a stage and tout his actions in imposing those tariffs as the right thing to do for America. Then, when the issue came back up at a later date, he would have to publicly say that anyone would be foolish and un-American to vote to roll back those tariffs. Then, once he did vote to roll back those tariffs, he would have to state that he voted for them before he voted against them and that the original tariffs were a bad decision....not on his part, though. When asked about his contradictory language, he'd brush off the questions by saying that he "mispoke" rather than address the contradiction in his own voting.

We can go round and round about flip-flops, but it's tiresome. I can only ask that you read and listen to Kerry's actual words. His problem is that his contradictions go beyond changes in votes....into changes in beliefs...changes in core beliefs. Political give and take always leads to changes in votes. Opportunistic changes in core beliefs is nastier animal entirely.

On a different note, that's an interesting quote at the end of the website. I did a little research into it, because it fit so well with what I've been feeling about where we are in society. What I found is that the quote is most often used by Republicans to combat the Democratic trend towards government dependance and socialism. This makes me wonder whether or not the creator of that site didn't really read and understand the quote. Beyond that, I also found that the authenticity of the quote is in question. There are tons of sites and blogs that quote it, but the origin is very much in question. When people have tried to research the author's books, they cannot locate the particular book or even the quote in the author's real books. At a minimum, it appears that this displays both the power and danger of the Internet as a historical source.

Top
#53796 - 10/10/04 12:32 PM Re: OT: Politics
BigWill Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 05/01/03
Posts: 1951
Loc: Corona, Calif. USA!!!
I enjoy this forum even though I suspect we are all just pissin' in the wind. The newspaper only publishes one letter every 30 days from any particular reader and they always edit out the best parts so this is a much better place to vent.

Anyway, nobody has anything positive to say about Kerry and his record after he returned from Vietnam. He's not a strong candidate for President. He's the anti-Bush candidate with no accomplishments of his own.

But look at who the Democrats had out there: Edwards, a slick freshmen Senator too short on experience to be a real viable candidate; Sharpton, uh... no way; Clark, anti-war ex-general also completely lacking in political experience (and a little psycho maybe); Dean, who was also a little psycho, but more credible than Kerry; the black lady (I forget her name), who was completely un-electable, but probably the most impressive, capable and sincere of the bunch; Kucinich, short, unelectable, humorless, psycho commie.

Where are the real candidates? Where's the big names? The capable and respected Democratic governors?

They didn't want to run because beating an incumbent war time President has no precedent, and attacking Bush on the Iraq war is un-American and political dynamite. Kerry will likely weasle out of that too somehow.

The real candidates are waiting for 2008, but will likely be facing a very strong candidate in John McCain.

Top
#53797 - 10/10/04 12:37 PM Re: OT: Politics
bridgman Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 5408
Loc: Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
>>Anyway, nobody has anything positive to say about Kerry and his record after he returned from Vietnam. He's not a strong candidate for President. He's the anti-Bush candidate with no accomplishments of his own.

Agreed, but what happens if he becomes President ? My big fear is that one of the forces countering Canada's tendency to the "worst of the left" has been the relatively right-leaning US leadership, so a "vaguely Utopian" Kerry in power could potentially be disastrous for Canada as well as the US.

Top
#53798 - 10/10/04 01:29 PM Re: OT: Politics
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16273
Loc: Leesburg, Virginia
You have a point there. I have it on good authority that the first thing Kerry will do when he gets into office is have all the GPS satellites reprogrammed so that all missiles aimed at the USA will actually land somewhere in Canada.
_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Top
Page 119 of 172 < 1 2 ... 117 118 119 120 121 ... 171 172 >



Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Home  |  Corporate Info  |  Products  |  Message Board  |  FAQs  |  Warranty  |  Site Map  |  Privacy Statement   |  Contact Us

©2014 Colquhoun Audio Laboratories Limited
All Rights Reserved.