Discussions

Sabot wrote:

I can’t say I’m looking forward to the new series of Star Trek Enterprise at all. I mean (I need to watch my language)s in space … give me strength! Please … please … please … Paramount put this lame duck out of its misery

It will run for seven years probably (as is the norm since TNG, or so it seems).
I am a trekkie of sorts and my top-down list is thus:

DS9
TOS
TNG
ENT

Being a Vulcan fan I am a bit dissapointed with T'Hottie T'Pol. I prefer my vulcans a bit more Surak/Sarek/Spock/T'Pau.

Anyone for Blake's 7?

selflex wrote:

Our president's name is Vladimir Putin =)

Ah, yes, Vladimir P. Isn't he nominated for the George Orwell Awards, specifically the 1984 Lifetime Achievement Award and the Animal Farm Hall Of Fame? Although there is a long waiting list for both since a few years.

Maurits wrote:

Shell! (Company = Shell Oil)

No, shells don't float...

Oil floats on water or actually

Friends again?

Wait a second, is the Coffeehouse turning into Yahoo! message boards?
Well, I've taken part in this. However, if a result is not desired the causes should be avoided. So, taking my own advice, I will stop posting or responding such messages.

Shrage wrote:

The Europeans have turned against America in the War On Terror.

As it is the Netherlands have a military unit in Iraq (which has been attacked a few times). Their number is 1200 (as the Netherlands are 20 times smaller in population this compares to 24000 US soldiers). One of our vice-presidents (we have two but I will spare you an explanation of the Dutch electoral system) declared war on muslimextremism and terrorism (a response on the Van Gogh [indeed a great-grand nephew of Vincent])article you referred to). Fair enough he has received critisism for that however it has been said and more importantly several anti-privacy laws are in effect or about to go into effect.
The present government is pro-America and for a large part (about 33%, I estimate) pro-Bush.

Does this relieve your distress somewhat?

manickernel wrote:

I place my bet on the guys with the most money.

That is the best bet in any race.

manickernel wrote:

 Thought they just protected the President.

That's funny in this context, they came into being to protect the US currency against counterfeiters. Protecting the president came much later.
You see, it's all about the money, forget rethorics from ANY side about morals, ethics, democracy and freedom.

miamijjs wrote:

get over it you Kerry fanboys.

I certainly hope you do not count me as a 'Kerry fanboy'. The fact that I am not pro-Bush does not mean I am necessarily against him, or pro-Kerry.

1) I cannot vote nor have a stake in the US election, it does not effect me

2) Kerry is a bit too right-wing for my taste (Democrats may be left in the US political landscape, by generally accepted definitions maybe Nader is left-wing, Kerry is right-wing).

3) My last question, despite the final statement (Mt.Rushmore etc.) which was made in jest, was a factual one. To put it simpler: George Washington has most likely got less votes then either Kerry or Bush (less people and no voting rights for a sizeable part of adult Americans). Still I think he got quite a large percentage of the eligable voters behind him. And absolute numbers don't count when comparing electoral success.

So, the question remains: did he get the highest percentage ever?

For the result it does not matter of course: he won.

miamijjs wrote:

1. Bush had more popular votes than any other president in history

In absolute numbers or as an percentage of those eligible to vote? Has he surpassed the early presidents (Washington etc) percentagewise? That would be interesting. We might have to start relpacing a few heads at Mt. Rushmore and Lincoln will have to move out of his chair

manickernel wrote:

Bush was not elected out of fear of terrorism, he was elected by those that agree that it must be confronted. And defeated.

Well, you can confront it but not defeat it. That has nothing to do with what is right or wrong or what we should or shouldn't do. It is simply action -> reaction -> reaction -> reaction ad nauseam. Go in there if you must, fight if you think that it is right, but it will not stop. If you go in thinking that you will solve the problem, think again.
Take WW1. The Germans were defeated, war over, end problem. Right? Wrong, it caused WW2, which caused the cold war and on it goes. And WW1 didn't pop out of nothing either.
So, go in, fight, but don't think it wil stop anything, at best it will create another violence.
Oh, and I have no solution (apart from 'don't just do something, sit there' - but who is brave enough not to take action? I know I'm not)