Qbasicnews.com

I'm interested in how much support GB has. So please vote, and post your reasons, but don't post stupid, highly emotive ones please.

Even though I hate being an American, I said I was in your stupid poll. I hope you're happy, jackass.

just kidding, but you didn't have the option of (No, I'm an American, and I plan on assassinating that )

Didn't I say, "no emotive opinions, please"?

I say no, and i'm american for one reason...

He aint that bright!!!

Quote:I say no, and i'm american for one reason...

He aint that bright!!!

Mech, You sho'nuf hit the nail on the head.
*****

Nooo....and I am a german

no and i'm british

reason: blairs bad enough. him and bush there lethaly dumb. and we'll get drageed in some crap again

Yeah, I heard some stuff about that guy who committed suicide because of the pressure, and the "sexed up dossier" etc. Those two together cause too much trouble.

Who is the likely democrat candidate to challenge bush?

I'd rather have a dumb president who has smart people doing stuff for him than a smart person who needs the word "sex" defined for him.

Now! Dumb and scandal aside, I'd sooner vote Reepublican than Demokrat because:

1) At least Republican politicians don't pretend (as much as the Democrats) to be out there exclusively for the poor and middle class, while filling their pockets. Only a movie star wouldn't do that, of course.

2) Clinton created a lot of waste programs.

3) 99.99% of democrats are too restrictive in laws and regulations.

4) I'd rather have someone who speaks his mind (Bush) than a trickery fellow.

5) Most democrats have so far been anti-pre-emption.

6) I don't agree with foreign policy of most democrats. In fact, Clinton was too trusting of various countries.. now they threaten us with nukes and geeks.

So, I'm skeptical that any democrat can do better than Mr. Bush, as it stands.

Quote:I'd rather have a dumb president who has smart people doing stuff for him than a smart person who needs the word "sex" defined for him.

The smart people only advise. He's the one who makes the big decisions, not them.

Quote:Now! Dumb and scandal aside, I'd sooner vote Reepublican than Demokrat because:

1) At least Republican politicians don't pretend (as much as the Democrats) to be out there exclusively for the poor and middle class, while filling their pockets. Only a movie star wouldn't do that, of course.

You think they're filling their pockets? I don't think it works like that...

Quote:2) Clinton created a lot of waste programs.

No comment.

Quote:3) 99.99% of democrats are too restrictive in laws and regulations.

Yeah? Well then look at GB's ACCOPS Act (Authors, Consumer and Computer Owners' Protection and Security Act 2003).

The ACCOPS act, which is currently before the US congress, would make it a federal felony for Americans to participate in peer-to-peer Internet networks like Kazaa for the purpose of sharing music or other copyright material. The maximum penalty proposed is five years' imprisonment and a $US250,000 fine.

Trouble is, about 60 million americans use Kazaa, and you can't put them all in jail. Even given the inevitable winnowing out of people who didn't wish to break the law, the system could never bear the load of prosecutions.

The bill also provides for "increased international enforcement efforts", by which the US will "assist" foreign authoritiesin enforcing their own copyright laws. The corollary to this part is likely to be pressure on other governments to adopt copyright law that matches that of the US. This is already evident in the preliminary negotiations over Australia's proposed free-trade deal with the US.

Now, file-sharing is already a breach of existing copyright laws in most places (actually, until proposed amendments to NZ's Copyright Act are passed, simply using the internet over here is a breach ), but surely putting it in a sentencing band that encompasses mail fraud, insider trading, perjury, third-degree assault, video peeping and some weapons offenses, and overlaps with some sexual and drug-dealing offences is overdoing things just a bit?

Michael Jackson thought so. In a statement in response to the proposal, he said he was "speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music. It is wrong to illegally download, but the answer cannot be jail. Here in America we create new opportunities out of adversity, not punitive laws, and we should look to new technologies, like Apple's new-music store for solutions. This way innovation continues to be the hallmark of America. It is the fans that drive the success of the music business; I wish this would not be forgotten."

A side note: The Recording Industry Association of America isn't waiting to see whether the law is passed. It has begun civil action against a random selection of about 1000 US file-sharers, from university students to grandparents, seeking the maixmum penalty allowed under the law of $US150,000 per song, exposing anyone with even a handful of tunes on their hard drive to judgements in the millions of dollars. It has also been using the present law to force Internet providers to divulge private customer information at the request of copyright holders.

Quote:4) I'd rather have someone who speaks his mind (Bush) than a trickery fellow.

So, you think he's speaking his mind, do you? That tells me a lot...

Quote:5) Most democrats have so far been anti-pre-emption.

That's exactly the trait that has caused this war in Iraq!

Quote:6) I don't agree with foreign policy of most democrats. In fact, Clinton was too trusting of various countries.. now they threaten us with nukes and geeks.

Clinton was building trust with nations, now Bush's hard line has destroyed it again. What do you think they would do?[/quote]

Quote:So, I'm skeptical that any democrat can do better than Mr. Bush, as it stands.

We'll see, after this election.