Offensive
Moderator: General Moderators
-
kettle_drum
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 9:25 pm
- Location: West Yorkshire, England
Re: Offensive
Despite multiple topics alluding to your avatar as being obnoxious, I didn't say anything. But since you asked..Straterra wrote:Would anyone get offended if I use this buddy icon as my avatar? (Look at my current one)
Keep in mind that you post a lot here. A LOT. In some threads, I've seen 4-5 of your posts in a single screen. Every post has your avatar. So on one page I have 4-5 obnoxious flashing icons.
Now, I have mozilla, and set it only display an animated gif once. However, I really gotta know - why do you need it to be animated? Especially with the current one, where you are simply animating the EXACT same message that you display in the end state!?!
Animated avatars are obnoxious, especially when used by a frequent poster. While I completely and totally support ANY effort to get Bush out of office, and thus would normally shout my support from the rooftops, your avatar simply "takes the cake".
You asked, so I'm answering.. your animated avatar is the absolute #1 thing I hate about these forums, bar none. If I could block a single graphic, yours would be it.
There is nothing in your avatars that justifies making my eyes bleed on threads that you have posted 4-5 times.
Well, its a tricky situation here in the US.Dr Evil wrote:I'm in Europe so not fully aware of the Bush vs. America situation.
What do people around you think ?
A large groundswell is building to vote Bush out. However, a few things may make it somewhat possible that he wont:
- Recent court rulings are heading towards making homosexual marriage legal. Almost all of the democratic candidates either completely support such a proposition, or have a hands-off approach. There is a huge number of conservatives and religious liberals who will vote on this topic, and this topic alone. Hence, he could pick up a number of votes that he normally wouldnt. (Of course the flipside is true, but religious/conservative voters generally do a better job of organizing than liberal/homosexual voters - at least in terms of numbers).
- Bush truly reached out to the immigrant population in the last few weeks, with substantial legislation to help them keep their status, jobs, and way of life. While the immigrant population isnt a huge voting block, they generally vote democrat - the net result being an erosion in very reliable democratic votes
- The administration does a great job of playing the "If you arent with us, you are against us" card. This reduces the likelihood of liberal-leaning reporters getting access, and it reduces the number of liberal-favorable stories that key reporters run. Its not huge yet, but its becoming an issue (imho).
- Bush did a good job in his State of the Union of scaring the public, and hinting that a democrat wouldnt keep us safe. While Wesley Clark could trounce him on this topic, others might have a hard time.
The point is, Bush is doing a great job of eroding traditionally democratic vote counts, and shoring up STRONG reasons for wavering voters to choose him. If the democrats don't try harder, they won't oust him.
This is honestly a truly critical election - on the line are changes that will affect the US and the world for decades:
- The US walked out on the Kyoto discussions, sending a clear signal that the economy totally trumps the environment - a message different from the compassionate discussions that have taken place since REAGAN was in office!
- The Supreme Court will likely have at least 2 liberal-leaning members (and possibly one conservative member) retire, if not more, completely changing the face of the highest court in the land. If a conservative (Bush) is in office, its likely he will pick conservative candidates. If a liberal is in office, its likely he will pick liberal candidates. Right now there is a slight leaning towards conservative views.. if the balance changes (in either direction substantially), expect to see huge numbers of cases pushed through the SC to change law in the US for decades to came.
- Bush essentially urinated on the shoes of the world. By invading Iraq to find WMD (which still have never been found), he showed that we were cowboys that didnt care about international law. After the fact, after we've lost 500 troops to a war that we cannot ever win, to find WMD's that don't exist, on evidence that key cabinet members admit was inaccruate, the president told the world in his state of the union that "We dont need a permission slip". Why should another country need one to invade US then?
I'm completely ignoring the draconian, nazi-inspired reforms requiring all visitors and travellers to "Show your papers" in the vain hopes of reducing terrorism.
Here in the US, its a critical time to vote, and get a good candidate through the democratic primaries. Whether conservative or liberal, Bush is causing some serious problems for both sides of the fence, and the damage from another 4 years will last for decades.
All of this is simply my opinion, with bias, and completely arbitrary.
For the record, I am a registered voter, I support the troops (but not the war), and have a unique understanding as I have a sibling in the armed forces, and lived in Saudi Arabia for several years myself.
Gosh !!
Thanks for that. I never expected such a full opinion. You are visibly very "up to date".
I live in Switzerland and over here in Europe Bush is gettimg a very bad name. He is considered a joke or a puppet of his dad and friends.
People were very hurt in Europe when a certain American press said France had forgotten how the US had helped in WWII and that they were traitors.
What access do you have to independant news ? Does FOX control all the info ?
Dr Evil (aka Niall Macpherson)
Thanks for that. I never expected such a full opinion. You are visibly very "up to date".
I live in Switzerland and over here in Europe Bush is gettimg a very bad name. He is considered a joke or a puppet of his dad and friends.
That's what our neighbours, the French, were told when they expressed their opinions on Iraq.If you arent with us, you are against us
People were very hurt in Europe when a certain American press said France had forgotten how the US had helped in WWII and that they were traitors.
What access do you have to independant news ? Does FOX control all the info ?
Dr Evil (aka Niall Macpherson)
I try. I also try to be somewhat impartial. While I personally think Bush is the worst president in the HISTORY of the US, I know that there are some key, legitimate issues that only he will support. Some people simply will not vote for anyone that will do anything short of banning homosexual marriage.Dr Evil wrote:Gosh !!
Thanks for that. I never expected such a full opinion. You are visibly very "up to date".
I've heard similar. I don't think its that simple. Bush is a complex guy. While he can be rather simple, mentally, he also has a keen understanding of voters and how to win the election. Whether that is thanks to his cabinet, I dont know.Dr Evil wrote: I live in Switzerland and over here in Europe Bush is gettimg a very bad name. He is considered a joke or a puppet of his dad and friends.
But I dont think he is a puppet, and I certainly dont think he is a joke. Both deeply underestimate a man that has removed more civil liberties in 4 years than all other presidents in history, combined.
Thats horrible. As a citizen, I deeply apologize for that view. (I of course defend his right to have that opinion and express it, even though its idiotic). Thats a complete shame. Perhaps the writer should look in the NYC harbor and view the gift France gave us ever so long ago, honoring us, and symbolizing their respect for us. Either that, or remove it as a national landmark if the issue is so serious/widely-felt (its not).Dr Evil wrote:That's what our neighbours, the French, were told when they expressed their opinions on Iraq.If you arent with us, you are against us
People were very hurt in Europe when a certain American press said France had forgotten how the US had helped in WWII and that they were traitors.
Beleive it or not, Fox isnt the major threat here. Its "Clear Channel Communications". A huge radio mega-conglomerate that has expanded to every market in the US practically. Thanks to Bush, the current FCC relaxed the rules on station ownership. As a result, in some markets, CCC owns multiple stations - so you simply have no other source for news.Dr Evil wrote: What access do you have to independant news ? Does FOX control all the info ?
While they arent very biased in their news coverage, they COULD be, and people would have no real alternative.
But thankfully, I have digital cable, and friends have satellite. Hundreds of channels, multiple feeds, dozens of completely unique sources.
Not to mention the internet, indie newspapers, and more.
So yeah, we've got multiple viewpoints, if we TRY to get the information. Sadly, most don't try to, so your point is still valid.