Forum: Rants
Topic: When I was your age.....
started by: Jynx

Posted by Jynx on Oct. 26 2000,12:54
What is it with all these "adults" telling me how Bad things are nowadays?!?!!??

I feel like I can't have any conversation with someone older than, say, 40, without them mentioning how society has been going downhill, and it is really starting to PISS ME OFF. Guess what? Despite what everyone says, it isn't!

I am SOOO tired of hearing how there's "so much more corruption, crime, filth, bla bla bla...", when the truth is, we just hear about it more. My theory is that society isn't getting worse, it's just changing, and for every bad thing that happens, there is a good thing that counters it. Besides, murder isn't anything new--what about the story of Cain and Abel (let's NOT get into religion here, tho'--this is just an example of a story)?

We as The Human Race are evolving, and are bettering ourselves. Life expectancy is going up, crime is, believe it or not, going down, and the fact that the only thing we have to worry about in our day-to-day lives is whether or not gas prices are going up should be an indicator of something! I'd rather worry about gas than World War III any day of the week. We are bringing about a Global Economy, which will unify most of the known world, and that is a Good Thing--it's really unlikely that economic partners are gonna start a war.

Do not put up with this crap! Every time someone whines about "this generation" or "society" going into the toilet, defend us! We ARE the future, we ARE the present, and we ARE doing a pretty good job of it, and WE SHOULD NOT BE ASHAMED OF IT.

OK, I feel better.

------------------
--Jynx

"If it's not one thing, it's two."


Posted by pengu1nn on Oct. 26 2000,13:35
blame technology!
Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 26 2000,14:28
Better does not mean good.


Posted by Jynx on Oct. 26 2000,14:56
You're right, better does not mean good. It does, however, mean better.

After all, what would you rather have, bad or worse? I'll choose bad. Besides, despite all the complaining and all of the problems, real and imagined, most of us are doing okay.


Posted by Greasemonk on Oct. 26 2000,15:51
It depends on what area you are in that decides whats going up or down. For example, take SE DC, people are still killing and shooting each other but noone will help investigators find murderers, thieves. etc.
On the other hand in my area the "ghetto" attitude is slowly setting in. There are more and more police on the streets and if you go out for a walk, ghetto white trash will Yo Yo Yo and yell at you most likely. I mean comon, just because you think you are "ghetto" doesnt mean anyone really cares and is scared. Last but not least in yuppie developments its fine and dandy, people only come out of their houses on the weekends and all the housewives go shopping at the mall.
Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 26 2000,21:55
fighting back depends on who it is saying this. my grandma says shit all the time about young people today, but ive learned to ignore it, just cause i know she doesnt know what shes talking about, and if i tried to educate her in the ways of the truth, she just wouldnt care...
Posted by BLacK-JEsuS on Oct. 26 2000,23:00
Go to school, do your damned homework, get a job, move out. I'm 17 years old and I already know that the previous sentence is the society norm.
Posted by Michael on Oct. 26 2000,23:12
If you ever want to really feel the generation gap, mention dancing to your grandparents.
Posted by hair on Oct. 26 2000,23:57
quote:
Originally posted by Jynx:
We as The Human Race are evolving, and are bettering ourselves. Life expectancy is going up, crime is, believe it or not, going down, and the fact that the only thing we have to worry about in our day-to-day lives is whether or not gas prices are going up should be an indicator of something!

I take it that you are only talking about the US since more than half the countries in the world have a few more things to worry about than gas prices. Especially since most of them don't have cars.


Posted by darksol on Oct. 27 2000,02:24
ah yes, but masses are still as stupid if not worse, then they used to be.

------------------
Estuan interius
ira vehementi


Posted by Wolfguard on Oct. 27 2000,13:29
but it does appear that the number of fucknuggets is on the rise.

------------------
Nuke em' till they glow and shoot em’ in the dark and let the computer sort em' out.
Then wait for a mutation…


Posted by aventari on Oct. 27 2000,15:52
The problem with that is that people would get more intelligent and better adapted to current conditions through natural selection and evolution, but through science and technology people survive and reproduce that aren't "supposed to".

------------------
aventari
"If we can't fix it -- we'll fix it so nobody can." -- B. Gibbons


Posted by Michael on Oct. 27 2000,17:35
quote:
Originally posted by darksol:
ah yes, but masses are still as stupid if not worse, then they used to be.

Not necessarily any stupider, just not any smarter than before either. How intelligent we as a species are is more a function of evolution than anything else, and that sort of thing tends to take quite a lot of time to have any effect.


Posted by dido on Oct. 27 2000,19:21
We are not *all* okay. There is rampant poverty in North America, not to mention the world. The public education system sucks for the most part, there is still sexism, classism, homophobia, racism, poverty, homelessness ect.ect.ect... Then the idea of globalization...it's not good for eveyone. Globalization just promotes the explitation of the Third World by the First World. Is that classified as "good"? Then we have wars breaking out across the world on religious, land and poverty grounds. Is that "good"?

I don't think it's just a matter of us getting more information now. After all the tv has been in exsitence for more than 30 years, the radio even longer and letters have exsited since the dawn of time. I think we need to step outside of our own ethnocentric biases when we declare that "society isn't getting worse" because for some people it is.


Posted by darksol on Oct. 28 2000,14:40
but we can have genocide, which is always fun. get people to take an intelligence/common sense/if you be cool test. Then if you fail you die.

------------------
Estuan interius
ira vehementi


Posted by Hellraiser on Oct. 28 2000,15:39
quote:
Originally posted by darksol:
but we can have genocide, which is always fun. get people to take an intelligence/common sense/if you be cool test. Then if you fail you die.


They tried that 5000 years ago, and only eight people survived. It's best not to play god, but use more persuasion than force to change people. Anything else puts you on the level of the people you are trying to change.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.


Posted by demonk on Oct. 28 2000,17:11
True, but do you notice that we, as a planet, are no longer worried that one day the entire planet will blow up due to two large nuclear powers going at each other? All the wars in the past decade or so have been centralized around one or two countries, not the entire world. The major nuclear powers, US & China, don't really seem to want to start another cold war, so that is one step in the right direction.

Also, all the -isms that were mentioned before, those and many more have existed in the US and other countries for centuries. Now, in the later half of the 20th century, we have begun to see some of them vanish and other to recede. So instead of just looking at all the things that we still haven't fixed, take a moment to see what we have fixed. Trust me, it will make you feel better. Then we can tackel what is left.


Posted by DuSTman on Oct. 28 2000,20:17
quote:
Originally posted by dido:
there is still sexism, classism, homophobia, racism, poverty, homelessness ect.ect.ect...

Most of us here would claim that we could respect people's opinions, even if we did not agree with them. I hear people say that they have no problem with other people disagreeing with them, because they are entitled to their opinions.

Does this only apply to certain trendy topics in which we are allowed to have an opinion?

How can people condemn racism, sexism and everything alse and still claim that it's fine for people to hold different opinions?

Ever consider, when you condemn racism, that you are actually being racist against racist people? Probably not.

Don't get me wrong, I am not racist, but it really bugs me when people moralise in such a fashion without realising that their morality itself is all their own opinion as well.

Just... strikes me as contradictory..


Posted by askheaves on Oct. 28 2000,20:54
I think we are, in fact, moving toward a more open and understanding culture. For example, my Grandpa has something against Jews... especially New York Jews... I don't understand why, but it probably stems back to the 40's, or something. When David Letterman came on TV, he exclaimed how much he hated those New York Jews. It was a wierd and awkward moment, since it was at a family reunion. Everybody just kind of let it slide. I still love my grandpa, he's a wonderful person that I learn a lot from, but I'm not going to hate Jews because of them. The wierdest thing was when, about 2 years later, my dad said the same thing one night... I don't know if he was joking, but my brother looked at each other like we were holding back the biggest laugh.
I also have a coworker who has something against Jews, but we all ignore that aspect of him, and we respect him as an amazing hardware engineer.
Now, ignoring this won't solve problems, but it's probalby a waste of time to try to change something this ingrained in a person just because I don't agree with it. The more I see, the younger people are pretty tolerant, and are willing to let this stuff slide in older people. Last case in point: Pat Buchanen. He's never going to be elected President because he's as transparent as oil soaked wax paper. We all know he's a racist, hates Jews, hates homosexuals, etc, and America doesn't like somebody like that in control... and they express that opinion with their vote.
Hell, 15 years ago, we hated the Soviets, because we were 5, and we were pretty sure we were supposed to. Shortly thereafter, we embraced the Russians as our allies. So, not only are the young people less judgemental towards people, but they can learn quickly to adapt to the people that are being nice to us back.

------------------
"Blue elf has shot the food!"


Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 28 2000,21:04
Well Askheaves, maybe people in your family are progressively becoming more tolerant to other cultures/religions, but that is such a minute sample of the population it hardly can act as an adequate representation.

I say this because...well, look at Isreal/Palestine. Look at the Former Yugoslavia. Things in our world get better in one respect, yet continue to degrade in another.

I can only hope one day everyone will realize the idiocy that is prejudice, but I'm not going to hold my breath. It seems that every generation loses a prejudice of the past, but gains a new one - usually due to some sort of war. We've seen hate breed from Africans (slavery, etc) to Jews (WWII) to Asians (Korean War, Vietnam) to Middle Easterners (Gulf, Terrorism Groups)...


Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 29 2000,01:42
everyone is going to be predijuced about something. i dont like that i am that way, but the fact remains that there are certain groups of people i just dont feel comfortable around. i truly wish there was some way around that, but there isnt.

also, about pat buchanan, will someone please give me an example to prove his racism/anti-semitism? theres some dumbass in my government class who actually believes hes not a racist or anti-semite, and the only evidence i had on hand was his quote about no gay marriages or gays in the military, and how profiling would suggest hes racist and such also. someone help me please.

also, askheaves, i have to give a personal thanks as a jew for not giving in to the peer pressure to hate jews. i really dont understand anti-semitism, i dont know any friendlier people than jews...but then again i dont know why anyone is prejiduced about these things....so yeah, thanks...


Posted by dido on Oct. 29 2000,11:28
I guess my biggest problem with all the "isms" and the fact that they still is exsit is this: it's the year 2000, the start of another millennium, I would have thought that the human race would be much more evolved then it is. For example, in Canada homosexuals can not get legally married and share in each others benefits, women are still paid 72\% of men's wages, women are still seen as the primary care givers, Blacks are regarded as "criminals", Asian people are thought to be "unusualy intellegent", and the list goes on and on and on.

Back in the 70s when I was born, people looked towards the 2000s and thought we would have flying cars, world peace and see an end to world hunger. Instead we are dealing with the same shit that they had 40 years ago, just in varying degrees. So I'm sorry if I don't look at the brighter side of life, I guess from where I'm sitting there doesn't seem too much to cheer about when obviously we as the human race are bound to grow in only baby steps instead of reaching our full potential.

------------------
"Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong and our dreams for this beautiful country will never die" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau


Posted by Jynx on Oct. 30 2000,18:35
dido, don't you think that it's a little unreasonable to expect everyone in the entire world to just wake up one morning and be "enlightened". I will take baby steps forward over standing still or baby steps backward any day of the week.

BTW, interesting point, whiskey. However, notice that they've actually stopped shooting for a few hours lately, and the leaders are actually talking to each other now. There is still fighting, but now at least there is dialogue between the two. Baby steps, but they are steps in the right direction.


Posted by mqa on Oct. 31 2000,02:38
the year 2000 is the end of the second millenium. at midnight january 1, 2001, the new one will begin. there was no year zero. now that thats out of the way...

i do think that america is slowly strangling its self. i dont recall hearing of any stories of 13 y.o. boys killing people w/ bricks for no good reason 25 years ago. NAMBLA didnt exist 25 years ago. (but i cant be entirely sure as i was not alive 25 years ago.)

modern medical technology has pretty much halted the evolutionary process for human beings. not that it was progressing rapidly in the first place.

also, sithee, by saying "i dont know any friendlier people than jews" you are making a prejudiced statement. it is impossible to classify any religious group as friendlier than any other.

and while i do think the world is getting worse in some ways, it IS getting better in many others. and even though the world sucks sometimes, there is nothing worse than the guy who sits on his ass and does nothing about it.


Posted by dido on Oct. 31 2000,13:23
quote:
Originally posted by mqa:
and while i do think the world is getting worse in some ways, it IS getting better in many others. and even though the world sucks sometimes, there is nothing worse than the guy who sits on his ass and does nothing about it.

Here here!! I agree fully and completely! If one is not willing to get off thier duff to help out, then imho they sholdn't really complain. I feel that way about voting. If you didn't vote don't complain cause you threw your one chance to change things out the window.

Get involved...

------------------
"Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong and our dreams for this beautiful country will never die" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau


Posted by cr0bar on Oct. 31 2000,14:34
Actually, you have that backwards. If you do vote, you can't complain.

------------------
"Everyone's favorite implement for any task"
------------------


Posted by Wolfguard on Oct. 31 2000,15:25
quote:
Originally posted by dido:
If you didn't vote don't complain cause you threw your one chance to change things out the window.

Get involved...




ok lets see...Bush or Gore... Ill take the ice pick to the base of the brain thankyou.

Do you realy want me to pick the better fucknugget out of these two? You must be kidding me. You want change? Then vote 3rd party. Its got to be better then these two.

------------------
Nuke em' till they glow and shoot em’ in the dark and let the computer sort em' out.
Then wait for a mutation…


Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 31 2000,16:07
quote:
Originally posted by Jynx:
BTW, interesting point, whiskey. However, notice that they've actually stopped shooting for a few hours lately, and the leaders are actually talking to each other now. There is still fighting, but now at least there is dialogue between the two. Baby steps, but they are steps in the right direction.

Can't say I agree with you, Jynx. Sure, the leaders are getting together, but I think it's pretty evident that the heads of state have lost total control. It seems to be a people's revolt.

Regardless, today's headline:

(AP) - In a bitter cycle of retaliation, Palestinians threw stones and firebombs at Israeli troops Tuesday after a night when Israeli helicopter rained missiles on command centers of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. The Israeli assault was a response to the slayings of two Jews, presumably by Palestinians.


Posted by dido on Nov. 01 2000,12:43
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfguard:

ok lets see...Bush or Gore... Ill take the ice pick to the base of the brain thankyou.
Do you realy want me to pick the better fucknugget out of these two? You must be kidding me. You want change? Then vote 3rd party. Its got to be better then these two.

I agree Wolfguard. Voting for a third party is not "throwing your vote away" as is commonly said. If everyone who wants to vote for someone other than Gore or Bush actually did so, there would be a big change in American politics. It could be the beginning of the end of the two party system. Not to mention it would help to raise the voter turn out rate (which I believe is somewhere in the 40-45\% range) by providing a good alternative to the classic two parties.

In Canada we are having an election right now and the media is making it out to be a race between the Canadian Alliance and the Liberals. However there are still two other parties in the fray (The Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party)who are being virtually ignored. Between the Libs and the Alliance it's almost a choice between the lesser of two evils. But if people voted for the NDP like they want to it would send a real message to the governing party that the current attack on our social programs will not be stood for. And one never knows perhaps the NDP would actually form the government (a feat that has never occured before).

In short: Vote for who you want to vote for, even if it's a thrid party...just get out and vote!

------------------
"Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong and our dreams for this beautiful country will never die" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau


Posted by kuru on Nov. 01 2000,13:38
that really does depend on whether or not enough people want to vote on a third party candidate and don't.

if only 6 million out of 30 million that vote vote want to vote for the third party candidate, but only 3 million of 'em do. and say 10 million vote for one of the major candidates, and 17 million vote for the other major party candidate. take 3 million off that 17, add it to the 3 million already voting for the third party guy, and he still has 14 million votes. even with the FULL six million voting for the third party guy, he's not going to win.

you guys seem to be saying that everyone wants to vote third party and no one does. in reality, a HUGE number of people want to vote for one of the major candidates. that's just how it is. this isn't to say a third party candidate can never win, but it's unrealistic to say that all of them have any real chance.

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin


Posted by fatbitch on Nov. 01 2000,14:07
the purpose of voting third party is not on the chance that they will win, but so they will get greater recognition, and maybe win a few years/decades down the track, or at least have a greater influence. how many times does this need to be said??

------------------
"i was born without any nads, so i guess like, my kids wont have nads either" - Beavis

Metal/Electronic/Ambient etc..
< http://www.mp3.com/fatbitch >


Posted by jim on Nov. 01 2000,14:59
I also believe that if they get a certain number/pertage of votes, they can qualify for federal funding???

Correct me if I'm wrong.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >


Posted by Wolfguard on Nov. 01 2000,15:46
10\% of the vote

only done once by a kebler elf

------------------
Nuke em' till they glow and shoot em’ in the dark and let the computer sort em' out.
Then wait for a mutation…


Posted by askheaves on Nov. 01 2000,18:31
Well, the reason I'm not voting for a third party is that I don't like any of the candidates they have up to offer. In MN, Jesse was a third party candidate, people liked him, they voted for him. Nader scares the crap out of me, as does Browne, McReynolds, etc. There's nobody else in the fray that comes to mind after that. Gore frightens me more than anything else, so I'm left with Bush, who probalby won't anally rape my grandmother while pouring sugar in my gastank.
Posted by dido on Nov. 01 2000,19:54
kuru I never said that a thrid party in the US would form the government I said they might be able to be an official party which would provide a viable alternative to the Republicans and the Democrats. In Canada there are no third parties. We have five offical parties (4 of which voters outside of Quebec can vote for). The Canadian Alliance is a new party (this is their first election) so they haven't formed a government yet, the Liberals and Conservatives have been trading places as governing parties since Canada became a country and the NDP has had some success at the provincial level. However in Canada there are a lot of people who would like to vote NDP but don't cause they are afraid they would be throwing their vote away. If these people did vote NDP they could at least have a strong presence in the legislature or possibly form the Opposition. Forming the government takes time for new parties, all voting for a third party would do is create a climate where US citizens can vote for someone other than the two intrenched parties. Which could raise voter turn out...which is I believe the lowest of all the Western nations.

------------------
"Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong and our dreams for this beautiful country will never die" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau


Posted by Sithiee on Nov. 01 2000,20:07
yes, if third parties do get enough votes then they get some federal funding (thats what the whole deal with buchanan/hagelin and the reform party was about, and thats also why hagelin and buchanan wanted to be candidates for the reform party anyway, for the money) and if you all really knew your history, people who want to will vote third party (hello ross perot 1992, 19\% of the popular vote) what really should be reformed is the electoral system, because thats why third parties cant win (i dont mind the two party system, but this is mainly whats keeping it so dominant) if the votes from each state actually went according to the percentages that got voted for, more people would believe that third parties have a chance, and i think people in general would vote more because they would feel they have more effect on the vote. i personally feel it is almost a waste of time to vote democrat here in virginia, considering you know far before election time that it will go republican. but if we knew that northern VA would get its own electoral vote (which is the part of VA which is more liberal) a lot more people would go vote IMHO. or maybe they could just do it according to popular vote, also something i think should be implemented.

and i dunno about in canada, but here voter turnout is usually around 2/3 of the eligible population. about a century ago it was more often around 80\%, but that could have changed either a) because parties dont promote voting as much anymore, or b) because a lot of people could get away with voting more than once (where do you think the slogan "Vote early, vote often." came from?)


Posted by dido on Nov. 01 2000,20:36
Basing the vote on the popular vote is proportional representation. It is much more accurate and some argue much more democratic. However the parties that have the power to change it are the parties in power, which the current system (called first-past-the-post) benefits.

In Canada voter turn out has been traditionally around 76\%. In the last election (1997) it dropped to 69-70\%. There increasing voter cyncism developing in Canada, especially among the younger generations. Hopefully this election will show an increase in the numbers closer to the traditional rate.

------------------
"Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong and our dreams for this beautiful country will never die" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau


Posted by whiskey@throttle on Nov. 01 2000,20:42
If I remember correctly, 5\% of the vote gets you in the national presidential debates, no?
Posted by Sithiee on Nov. 02 2000,00:00
no, you have to have an average of 5\% in the polls from somethin like 10 polltakerplaces(whats the official name of this?). this actually can change from election to election, but the rules have to be set way before campaigning starts, so people cant bend the rules to exclude candidates. thats basically straight from the source.
Posted by j0eSmith on Nov. 02 2000,00:33
dido: If they NDP suddenly got wiped off the face of the earth, I'd die happy.

They have completely FUCKED UP this province.
(BC). Our health care is shit. They fucked up the major economy (forestry) spent many many many millions of dollars on Fast Ferries that don't work and they can't sell, Put us through a recession. If anybody I know votes NDP I am going to punch them in the teeth.

-edit
oh, dido, the reason most people don't bother to vote is because once the poll stations close in Ontario and Quebec, unless its a near 50-50 split, the election is decided. This is because we use a Representation by Population, and Ontario and Quebec have over half the population of Canada.

------------------
When my flying days are over, and my death has come to pass
I hope they bury me upside down, so the whole damn world can kiss my ass

This message has been edited by j0eSmith on November 01, 2000 at 07:36 PM


Posted by askheaves on Nov. 02 2000,03:24
quote:
Originally posted by j0eSmith:
oh, dido, the reason most people don't bother to vote is because once the poll stations close in Ontario and Quebec, unless its a near 50-50 split, the election is decided. This is because we use a Representation by Population, and Ontario and Quebec have over half the population of Canada.


That's the one thing that's nice about American government. We have a general dislike for federalism (we like the states having power). We like the idea of states deciding what will work best for that region of the country in a lot of circumstances. That's the reason for our civil war: besides slavery, the southern states didn't like bowing to the whim of the northern states that had most of the power. Being from the north, I'm glad we have one nation right now (by god, we'd be fuX0red if we had a Confederate States of America), but I understand the states' needs to decide fore each state what works best for them.

From the little I know of Canada, they seem to have a strong federal government, mostly centered around a couple of cities. The more policies set according to what would work for those cities, the less benefit makes it out to BC, and the extremities. I guess that if I were in Canada, I would vote for whatever party would offer less centralized government (much like I'm voting here in America... go BUSH!)


Posted by Sithiee on Nov. 02 2000,08:30
hmm....is that why so many canadians jump the border?
Posted by dido on Nov. 02 2000,12:20
Okay first of all, the NDP, while are link federally and provincially are not the same party. The federal NDP would not be a solution to our current problem, but they do have some good plans including a nation day-care program. That said in BC the left party (NDP) screwed up health care, but in Ontario the PC (right) has created a crisis in health care, education, the environment, poverty, homelessness and the list goes on and on and on. Going to the extreme right (Alliance) will do nothing other than completely devestate this country.

While Ontario and Quebec are the most populus provinces, our voter turn out rate has been very high traditionally. It is only in the last 10 years (2 elections) that it has been falling. The voters in other provinces are just as important to winning a majority government as Ontario and Quebec are. No party can depend on Quebec because of the Bloc Quebecois, and Ontario is tied up by the Liberals. Thus the other provinces are vital to winning a majority. People in Canada do vote in large numbers, the voter cyncism that is developing is caused by our electoral system (first-past-the-post) and would be helped if we went to a proportional representative system like they have in most European countries.

As for our federal system, decentralisation is not the answer. National statndards can not be kept if we decentralise. Having a "patch-work" of social programs will not work. Canadians will just end up moving to the province that offers the best programs. The federal system is vital to the Canadian way of life. Decentralisation will kill Canada as we know it. Now I know that a lot of Westerners believe that they are not heard at the federal level, and that can be true to an extent. Proportional representation would help to solve that problem.

As for the Canada "brain drain", what we Canadians like to call CAnadians who move to the states. It is greatly inflated by the parties who wish to cut taxes. The theory is that if taxes were low less Canadians would head to the states. Unfortuntely the jobs the Canadians are moving to the US to get are not offered in Canada. We have no silicon valley, we don't have a strong IT sector nor programming sector. Cutting taxes would not change this. And you are not considering all the American businesses that are moving to Canada. We don't have Americans flocking to Canada because our immigration policy accepts very few Americans. Mostly people form other continents (Europe, Middle East, Asia ect.) so an American brain drain can not be felt. Another thing is that most of the Canadians polled in the US want to come home. They miss our social programs, like health care and education.

Now I'm not dissing the many Americans on this board. I'm just pointing out that many American-Canadians are not happy in the States once they get there.

------------------
"Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong and our dreams for this beautiful country will never die" -Pierre Elliot Trudeau


Posted by incubus on Nov. 03 2000,00:07
IANAP (I am not a politician) - but from what I gather over in the US everyone is voting for this Nader guy, not 'cos he's all that brilliant but because the two main candidates suck donkeyballs. It's apathy really, we do it in the UK too. The system can get on my nerves sometimes, like when theres 3 boxes to choose from and they all sux0r? You pick the one opposite the guy/gal you don't like.

Tell you what would have been good in the US?

Frank Zappa getting in as President. It would then be the COOLEST country in the known universe. He did try to run once, it's in his biography, but somehow he wasn't allowed to run for it. Which is a shame, 'cos he'd have probably got in. lol.

------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...


Posted by Sithiee on Nov. 03 2000,08:29
not very many people are voting nader, and that makes all the nader people mad, cause they seem (from what i observe anyway) to think that everyone actually hates the two party system, they all want an alternative, and that theyre all just too afraid to vote nader. in reality, a lot of people actually dont like nader, and would actually rather a) make their vote count by voting for someone who can win, or b) actually want one of the two main candidates. bozeman is probably going to reply with how if you vote for nader, youll give him a better chance in the next election, and start bringing down the two party system and whatnot...
Posted by incubus on Nov. 03 2000,13:35
My response to the original post is a quote from the film Trainspotting:

Renton:Diane was right. The world is changing, music is changing, drugs are changing, even men and women are changing. One thousand years from now there'll be no guys and no girls, just wankers. Sounds great to me. It's just a pity that no one told Begbie.

------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...


Posted by jrh1406 on Nov. 06 2000,19:01
Ok, i wasn't going to post anything more about the election. I've already stated that i will be voting for nader and why. But it occured to me that i have no clue why bush is even in the polls, when quayle stated that he wanted to run everyone panicked because he is infact a dumb-ass, and from what i've heard of bush's speeches, there are things coming out of his mouth that are ten times dumber than what quayle ever said.
Posted by Sithiee on Nov. 06 2000,20:02
hey, i heard about this thing in class today, but i havent gotten to check it out, and probably wont, but you nader people probably will like it, or already know about it...my friend said hes gonna vote for nader now, (who would have originally voted gore) because of a site called nadertrader.com. the point is that people in swing states can vote for gore (who is likely to be second in their choice if they want nader) and then someone in a guaranteed republican state (like here in VA) will vote nader. that way nader still gets his 5\% to get his money for next year, and the country isnt fucked by bush. i think its a cool idea, except that you cant make sure those people vote for the person theyre sposed to...
Posted by Hellraiser on Nov. 06 2000,22:33
Yeah, like being buttfucked by Al Gore will be any better than having Bush in office.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.


Posted by Sithiee on Nov. 07 2000,00:32
many people obviously think so.
Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.4 © 2006 Ikonboard