PDA

View Full Version : The Stereotypical Political OT



CaptinPickAxe
09-13-2004, 01:49 AM
Who'd want this guy in office another four? (http://www.abum.com/?show_media=657)

David Jamieson
09-13-2004, 06:25 AM
uh, actually, I don't think that was one of his more bonehead remarks.

I personally thought the question was stupid lol.

sovereign is what the word means. What more is there to say other than sovereignity is a state of autonomous governing.

Which is basically what the shrub said.

You could have picked from more than 100 other things he's said that were really really dumb. :P

old jong
09-13-2004, 06:43 AM
Bush (http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater181.html)


Rebush!... (http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/.Pictures/poster/bush3.gif) :D

Christopher M
09-13-2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
Who'd want this guy in office another four? (http://www.abum.com/?show_media=657)

56% of Americans, last time I checked.

David Jamieson
09-13-2004, 09:55 AM
56% ah well, what's his name is right, democracy seems to be nothing more than a dictatorship of the majority. :D

count
09-13-2004, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Christopher M
56% of Americans, last time I checked.
:confused:
http://www.zogby.com/images/fp/091004.gif

The Willow Sword
09-13-2004, 10:01 AM
:D right on!! And lets not forget Mr Bush's illustrious Military service where he valiantly served our nation with bravery and conviction by getting his daddy and other high ups to weasel his way out of serving in vietnam when so many others had to go in his stead. And the intelligence and integrity he displayed by learning to fly jets in the national guard,,he sure did keep the houston area safe from those gooks didnt he? and finally his "true honor" by disregarding a direct order from his commanding officer to report for a physical evalutaion because he was busy fighting "charlie" in alabama,,oh and helping his daddy and others with a campaign there as well. plus the rumour that bush was real fond of cocaine in those days(but thats just a rumour;) )

yes yes definately looking forward to another 4 years of the middle class getting royally fuked by the rich 3% and the repubs supporting the offshoring of good american jobs to the east indians where the jobs are better served:rolleyes:


KERRY/EDWARDS for 2004 KERRY/EDWARDS for 2004

MasterKiller
09-13-2004, 10:03 AM
He lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes last time around...

count
09-13-2004, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by MasterKiller
He lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes last time around... Not counting Florida ;)

The Willow Sword
09-13-2004, 10:09 AM
i think that the reason why florida is getting so many hurricanes is that this is the Lords way of telling them not to rig the election ballots like they did last time. these storms are just gentle reminders that god's wrath is REAL and that kharma is a
real B!TCH:D

Shaolinlueb
09-13-2004, 10:12 AM
that was a tough question, i think that anyone put on the spot with that would have fumbled it.

Christopher M
09-13-2004, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Kung Lek
56% ah well, what's his name is right, democracy seems to be nothing more than a dictatorship of the majority.

Well... potentially. That depends on the voting system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#List_of_systems) being used, as well as the constraints under which government operates.

MonkeySlap Too
09-13-2004, 11:25 AM
Lets not forget the there were thousands of democrats voting in Florida who ALSO voted in thier home states. And in 2000 the dems promoted the concept of double voting to college students - and all they got was a slap on the wrist.

I know it's easier to appeal to the emotions, hence the rabid attitudes I see among many of today's dems, but when you actually dig for facts, not heresay, the picture is not good for us if John Kerry is elected.

Let's look at John Kerry:

This is a guy who violated the law by meeting with North Vietnamese while we were at wore.

Who hung around with people who plotted violence against U.S. Senators.

Who never met a tax he didn't like - for other people, but not for himself. Mass has a box you can check that allows you to pay a higher tax rate. The Kerry's have NEVER checked that box.

Who is for alternate energy, EXCEPT when it impacts him. Along with the Kennedy's John Kerry blocked a wind energy-farm from being built where it could be seen from one of his mansions.

He can't seem to actually stand for anything. His quotes on Iraq are all over the map - some so hawkish they read like FDR, others so appeaseing they read like Jimmy Carter. And they change based on his audience! Yecch.

John Kerry has never passed a significant piece of legislation, and is famous in the house for wanting to get out of work.

His wife funds political action groups that are often violent, or pose as other groups to incite violence or misrepresent thier opponents.

They get significant fuinding from Soros, a multi-billionaire currency trader who chose hos own profits over people by shorting the British pound and putting the UK into recession.

Is supported by political hacks who will lie, cheat, and steal (see the latest gaurd 'documents' scandal, or the new Kitty Kelley book). He should be able to win on his ideas:

Jimmy Carters Foreign policy (remember: giving away the panama canal - a strategic water way now run by the PRC red army, a country that views the U.S. as enemy number 1 in internal documents, cutting the programs that allowed the Ayatolla Khomeni to return to ran, and helping to create the problems we face today... I could go on.)

or Jimmy Carters domestic policy : 27% inflation, mass unemployment, and 'malaise.'

Make no mistake, Kerry is a Carter Democrat.

Meanwhile we have George Bush, who does what he says he will. Does not flinch or waver when the going gets tough. Who cut taxes, and led the fastest recovery ever to a recession he inherited. Whose unemployment rate is the same as Clintons when he got re-elected by a landslide. Where home ownership is the highest it has ever been, especially among minorities. And speaking of minorities, has distinguished African Americans in cabinet posts.

The media screams 'he lies', but when investigated he's found to be honest. The media screams 'he's a corporate guy' - but he has been tougher than any Democrat on corporate scandals - and frankly, the Kerry's and thier friends are far richer, and dangerous.

I may not agree with everything GWB tries to do, but he has proven himself (of course you need to actually research, not just take things at face value) to be a dedicated, strong, and capable leader. Someone who can help guide the ship of state forward. Is he perfect? Who is? Are you?

John Kerry is a rich brat who gets upset when he doesn't get his way, and changes his story based on who he is talking too. He just doesn't seem to have any principle besides his own greed for power and money. (Which is why it makes sense that he picked a trial lawyer as a runing mate.)

Finally, while GWB may not be the most eloquent speaker, but he is one of the most educated Presidents we have ever had. Sure, maybe he got grandfathered into Yale - but you can't stay there unless you perform, AND he has a Harvard MBA - which are not given away.

The American people are not stupid, which is why I beleive when they look at the facts, and measure the men, GWB will be re-elected.

MonkeySlap Too
09-13-2004, 11:28 AM
>> Great Orators of the Democratic Party
>>
>> (From OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today)
>>
>> "One man with courage makes a majority."--Andrew Jackson
>>
>> "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin Roosevelt
>>
>> "The buck stops here."--Harry Truman
>>
>> "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your
>> country."--John Kennedy
>>
>> "This isn't going to be some kind of, you know,
>> we're-like-them-they're-like-us-wishy-washy-mealy-mouth-you-can't-tell-the-d
>> ifference deal. This is going to be something where we're giving America a
>> real choice."--John Kerry
>>
>> ____________________________________
>> And now Kerry-isms:
>>
>> ABC News
>> I will stand up and struggle, as others have, to try to get that right
>> balance between violence, and sex, and things. - John Kerry
>>
>>
>> ABC News Peter Jennings: You told an Iowa newspaper recently that life
>> begins at conception. What makes you think that?
>>
>> Sen. Kerry: My personal belief about what happens in the fertilization
>> process is a human being is first formed and created, and that's when life
>> begins. Something begins to happen. There's a transformation. There's an
>> evolution. Within weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's
>> not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment,
>> ought to have the government of the United States intervening in. - John
>> Kerry
>>
>> Jennings: Could you explain again to me what do you mean when you say "life
>> begins at conception"?
>>
>> Kerry: Well, that's what the Supreme Court has established is a test of
>> viability as to whether or not you're permitted to terminate a pregnancy,
>> and I support that. That is my test. And I, you know, you have all kinds of
>> different evolutions of life, as we know, and very different beliefs about
>> birth, the process of the development of a fetus. That's the standard that's
>> been established in Roe v. Wade. And I adhere to that standard.
>>
>>
>> Jennings: If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a
>> first-trimester abortion not murder?
>>
>> Kerry: No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the
>> terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life.
>> Does life begin? Yes, it begins.
>>
>> Washington Post
>> The linkage to Al Qaida, number four. That said, they are really misleading
>> all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is
>> occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long
>> time. - John Kerry
>>
>> “Again and again and again in the debate, it was made clear that the vote of
>> the U.S. Senate and the House on the authorization of immediate use of force
>> on Jan. 12 was not a vote as to whether or not force should be used. - John
>> Kerry
>>
>> It is important to remember that this resolution does not authorize the use
>> of American ground troops in Bosnia, nor does it specifically authorize the
>> use of air or naval power. It simply associates the U.S. Senate with the
>> current policies of this administration and of the Security Council. – John
>> Kerry
>>
>>
>> The Washington Post
>> And you've got companies like Wal-Mart that are stripping underneath them,
>> that hire part-time people, that have actually advertised to come and work,
>> so they won't do their health care. - John Kerry
>>
>> The Washington Post
>> "This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that
>> could have been different had the president made a different decision
>> earlier." - John Kerry
>>
>>
>> New York Times
>> "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." - John
>> Kerry
>>
>> No, wait, wait, wait, wait you asked me if I'd met with any leaders. Yes. I
>> have had conversations with leaders, yes, recently. That's not your
>> business, it's mine. I've met with foreign leaders for any (inaudible)
>> purpose - I never said that. What I said was that I have heard from people
>> who are leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush
>> administration approach and would love to see a change in the leadership of
>> the United States. I'm talking our allies, I'm talking about people who were
>> our friends nine months ago, I'm talking about people who ought to be at our
>> side in Iraq and aren't because this administration has pushed them away in
>> its arrogance, that's what I'm talking about. Are you a registered
>> Republican? Are you a Republican? You answer the question. That's not an
>> answer. Did you vote for George Bush? Did you vote for George Bush? Thank
>> you. - John Kerry
>>
>>
>> New York Post
>> "I left some blood on a battlefield that President Bush never left
>> anywhere." - John Kerry
>>
>> The Boston Globe
>> Those weren't precisely my words, they were the words of a press release
>> sent out. - John Kerry
>>
>> If we hadn't voted the way we voted, we would not have been able to have a
>> chance of going to the United Nations and stopping the president, in effect,
>> who already had the votes and who was obviously asking serious questions
>> about whether or not the Congress was going to be there to enforce the
>> effort to create a threat. - John Kerry
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! News - Civil Rights Group Seeks Kerry Apology
>> "President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't
>> be upset if I could earn the right to be the second." - John Kerry
>>
>>
>> And one he hasn't said, but probably will:
>> “Ask not what your country can do for you, either as an individual or a
>> corporation, but what you can do for your country, which isn’t to suggest
>> that just because my opponent hasn’t won a Silver Star in combat, as some of
>> us have, he isn’t qualified to be president.”
>>

MonkeySlap Too
09-13-2004, 11:30 AM
Willow, there were several investigations by Democratic newspapers that proved there was no tampering in Florida.

There was however a great deal of Democrats who voted in thier home state AND Florida, which is a violation of federal law. Typical really.

To be fair, a much, much smaller number of Republicans did the same thing.

MasterKiller
09-13-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
[quote]John Kerry has never passed a significant piece of legislation, and is famous in the house for wanting to get out of work. Maybe he can take a lesson from Bush and take more vacations than any president in history...that 4 weeks off in August 2001 seem pretty important these days.


They get significant fuinding from Soros, a multi-billionaire currency trader who chose hos own profits over people by shorting the British pound and putting the UK into recession.As opposed to Kenneth Lay, Bush's largest campaign contributor, who helped ilk California out of millions, caused a FAKE energy crisis to boost profits, then stole the pensions of thousands of workers?


Is supported by political hacks who will lie, cheat, and steal (see the latest gaurd 'documents' scandal, or the new Kitty Kelley book). He should be able to win on his ideas: Karl Rove ring a bell? This guy once planted a Bug in his man's office and came out in the media accusing the other campaign of doing it. He also spread rumors Ann Richards was a lesbian during Bush's gov. run. And was behind the attacks on McCain in 2000 when he spread rumors McCain's ADOPTED Indian child was really his half-black love-child from an affair.

He also had to resign from the Reagan/Bush admin for LEAKING SENSITIVE INFORMATION to Robert Novak. Sound familiar?


Meanwhile we have George Bush, who does what he says he will. Does not flinch or waver when the going gets tough. In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Cheney came with him.

Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale: The need to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction until none were found; liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator; fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home; spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it's a safer America and a safer world.


And speaking of minorities, has distinguished African Americans in cabinet posts.All of which are wealthy. Condolezza Rice has an oil tanker named after her.


Finally, while GWB may not be the most eloquent speaker, but he is one of the most educated Presidents we have ever had. Sure, maybe he got grandfathered into Yale - but you can't stay there unless you perform, AND he has a Harvard MBA - which are not given away. You feel safe with the country run by a guy who was awarded "gentleman's Cs"?

count
09-13-2004, 12:02 PM
Monkeyslap,
The real numbers don't jibe with your talking points. As a percentage of the population, you make your argument but in real numbers, more people are unemployed, without health care of any kind, living in poverty, than any other time in history. More job loss in close to 80 years. The deficit is still between 4 and 500 billion dollars no matter how you look at it. The trade gap is the same. Cutting taxes is ok by me or anyone I would guess. But you can't cut taxes without cutting spending too.

As far as Bush's intelligence, his IQ is among the lowest of any president an the past 40 years that I can recall. Barely made it through Yale with a C average. I wouldn't hire a C average student to run my business, let alone my country.

You don't have to be an economist to know who benefits from the profits of privatizing social security, medicare, an education. You don't have to be a genius to see who is profiting from the war in Iraq. It aint you and me bub, and it aint the Iraqis either.

I hope the American people are as smart as you do.

MasterKiller
09-13-2004, 12:06 PM
And the 20 million the NRA has donated sure came in handy today when the ban on automatic firearms expired "before" Congress could push it through to the President...:rolleyes:

MonkeySlap Too
09-13-2004, 12:15 PM
Maybe he can take a lesson from Bush and take more vacations than any president in history...that 4 weeks off in August 2001 seem pretty important these days.

-- Can't speeak to this, as i don't enough about it.


As opposed to Kenneth Lay, Bush's largest campaign contributor, who helped ilk California out of millions, caused a FAKE energy crisis to boost profits, then stole the pensions of thousands of workers?

-- KL will almost certainly go to Jail for what he did. Unlike the Dems, GWB has not tolerated corruption close to home. I can't recall a president so swift to act of maters oof proprety. Certainly not Clinton... who overall I didn't really mind except for his never-ending sleaze factor. He made a pretty good republican!

Karl Rove ring a bell? This guy once planted a Bug in his man's office and came out in the media accusing the other campaign of doing it. He also spread rumors Ann Richards was a lesbian during Bush's gov. run. And was behind the attacks on McCain in 2000 when he spread rumors McCain's ADOPTED Indian child was really his half-black love-child from an affair.

He also had to resign from the Reagan/Bush admin for LEAKING SENSITIVE INFORMATION to Robert Novak. Sound familiar?

-- Don't know about these points, please provide reference and I'll look into it. Somehow, I don't think all of this s true, as I looked into the McCAin thing. The ad the DNC shows with the Bush/McCain debate leaves out GWB's response - which is telling I think. Lies of omission, are still lies.
In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

-- I think his comments, just like on the 9/11 commision were that he had concerns about the implications. Shows wise leadership. I've run a 40 million business (okay, only for a year because I didn't care for the lifestyle, but hey I did) - I see GWB actng like a good organizational leader. He doesn't go off half-****ed.

He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Cheney came with him.

-- see above. Because like all good leaders GWB seeks the advise of experts in thier fields. I never went to Union Negotiations without a lawyer and my VP Operations. How could this be seen as a bad thing?

Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

-- And he paid a price politically. It was dumb move. But his intentions were good. Want me to list the hundreds of dumb things Kerry proposed, but no one would go along with him? Eeveryone gets a few of these.

Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

-- This was an incomplete statement on his part. Funny, I heard what he said, and didn't draw the same conclusion as everyone else. Perhas you missed the 'nuance.' Oh, that's Kerry.

A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

-- and he was right OBL is a symbol more than a factor. We're aging a War of great complexity, with shifting targets. We would love to get OBL, but he is not as relevant of a target. This is not shifting a point of view so radically as proposing that Saddam Hussein is a threat that must be stopped militarily, then saying that is not what you really meant. I've watched the clips from CNN... It is the clearest thing Kerry ever said. GWB does NOT change his story for the audience. Kerry does. Who would you trust more?

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."


--A moment of candor perhaps? Don't see how wishing for one contradicts the fact of the other.

Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale: The need to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction until none were found; liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator; fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home; spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it's a safer America and a safer world.

-- Then John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Vladimir Putin, King Abdullah, Tony Blair, and most of the Democratic senate were wrong as well. George Bush didn't say anything new. He just took action in a new set of circumstances. Just because none were found yet, does not rule it out. Read up on how Germany was during the occupation. The opposition party acted the same way, pointing to every problem as if the sky was falling, instead of holding strong. These other points are all valid, and again are not contradictory. Kerry's flip-flops are literally taking different sides to issues, all based on who his audience is. All GWB is doinmg here is listing the different goals.

WinterPalm
09-13-2004, 12:22 PM
I think all that stuff about Bush is great. Except when you live in the Ghetto and ain't got no food. Except when your son or daughter was killed in a war that we now know, with facts, was a sham. Except for the shrinking middle class, the seniors without proper health care, the blockage of Canadian drugs because they might be terrorist infected.
I don't think Kerry is a good man by any stretch, but I think getting Bush out is a priority, then American's can start creating some watchdogs or let the UN in and keep a sharp eye on the actions the government takes. I mean, this country appears to be losing intelligence daily and with time, this could lead to an internal war!
Even if they keep Bush in, the time to start getting involved is here. People in rich democracies can't expect their responsibility to be a privelage, it is a privelage but it is also a responsibility and with the power the US wields, people have to keep a closer eye on what their government does.:)

Vash
09-13-2004, 12:24 PM
Bah. Cut the tiny testicles off of both of these rich, out-of-touch sumbiches, crush kill and destroy the Electoral College, wipe clean from the Earth the stain of our corrupt politicians, and elect me as the new president.

ZIM
09-13-2004, 01:19 PM
Who would want Kerry? (http://ariagoesdown.blogspot.com/2004/09/elephant-in-room-i-have-mentioned-to.html)

MasterKiller
09-13-2004, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by ZIM
Who would want Kerry? (http://ariagoesdown.blogspot.com/2004/09/elephant-in-room-i-have-mentioned-to.html) Are we supposed to care what some stupid beyotch says on her blog?

MonkeySlap Too
09-13-2004, 02:01 PM
MK - that is the response i expect from todays democrats. But here is the really scary part - All of these points that get brought up as if they are new: preemptive war, deficicet spending to finance war, etc. etc. have been with us since, well our country was founded.

Heck, Bill Clinton had already approved the preemptive use of force. So why isn't it a bad thing when democrats do it? Honestly, on most major issues, there is little departue between Clinton and GW, although think Clinton was a tad more intellectual and a lot less honest.

The situation changed at 9/11 folks. If you listen to the TRULY left media (Pacifica Radio, Berkely CA.) like I do, you can only shake your head in horror. These morons see Queida and Hamas as 'brothers in the socialist struggle' against the 'North American Empire.' I mean, come on, these folks at Pacifica will be first to be excuted under Sharia law.

Count: Send me some sources for your statements, and I'll take a stab at them. Honestly, from where I stand (a semi-partner in a small consulting firm) I see business WAY up from where it was just a year ago. It is also WAY more competitive, as it is not just manufacturing that is competeing with overseas companies, but artists, designers, engineers, programmers, etc. It's a world economy bubba. We are helping those poor diadvantaged folks by opening our markets to competition.

I do agree that health care is an issue, but the fix has more to do with eliminating subsidies, and bringing wages in the medical field back down to Earth, rather than subsidizing a field that averages (I forgot the multiple, but many times other countries) way beyond what is earned in other countries. HMO's don't work either, they suck the life out of health care - you've got to pay for administrators when you could be paying for care. National health care only seems to work well in West Germany, everywhere else I've seen it, it blows big time. My thought was using military flks who want medical educations to do thier service in community hospitals and clinics. Then be on reserve for duty. Then there is the issue of malpractice insurance. Thanks to guys like John Edwards, many doctors have just stopped practicing.

Even though I am voting for GWB, I generally disaprove of the pharmaceutical industry. I'm a capitalist, but thier margins are insane.

On reflection, I'm voting for Vash. "Vash Smash Puny Humans in 2004"

MonkeySlap Too
09-13-2004, 02:43 PM
Winter Palm - live in a ghetto with no food? Work your way out. I did. I went from broke, no money, sleeping on a friends couch to comfortably middle class in five years - because I dedicated myself to fixing the problem. But to do that, you have to take responsibility for yourself and your situation. It helps to get outside help, but I didn't have any. It wasn't all wine and roses either, I had to eat a lot of sh!t, study my ass off, and work like a dog to make a better life. But it can be done. I've done it, and so have many of my friends.

Had a relative who died in Iraq? It''s tragic, I feel for those familes. But I have buddies who volunteered to go hunt Al queida over there. We are at war, and the Iraq war is/was not a sham. If you beleive that, you selecting only what you want to hear. Personally, I would preffered not to get into that war, but i would have also preffered more troops in Afghanistan to slaughter the Taliban/Al Queida fighters beforee they fled to Pakistan.

The shrinking middle class ... there are some issues here, but how many are out of the middle class because they moved up the ladder? The rest is a predicted result of NAFTA - the equalization of our wages with poorer countries. This was a compassionate move, eh? Everybody like compassion for the other guy except when it affects them.

See above in regards to health care. Neither party has a good plan. The democrats plan just ensures everyone gets bad health care.

An Internal War? Well, with all the hate spewed by the left, which drives me from it, because i am not a hateful person, I suppose so. But it will be a short one, because all of us Republicans are gun owners :p

MonkeySlap Too
09-13-2004, 02:46 PM
A thought on NAFTA. How can you have "Free Trade" with countries that do not have the same worker or ecologogical protections? This bugs the sh!t out of me. I'm all for NAFTA, but not for the way Bill Clinton passed it. Oops, he's a Democrat, how could that be?

count
09-13-2004, 03:01 PM
Monkeyslap,
I only site our own government's most recent census report which shows 45 million without health care. 1 million new people are living below poverty levels this year alone. The department of unemployment which shows over 8 million people collecting benefits, another 1 million who's benefits have just expired and Lou Dobbs who reports at least 5 million more who have stopped looking. There are at least 150,000 new population coming into the workforce every month and payroll jobs are down by over a million still from before 2000. I am an artist/designer/programmer. I work with dozens of others in the same boat. My accountant assures me I'm not the only one who has noticed. Let's face it, if business is up from last year, that's not saying much. Compare it to 4 years ago. Who can actually say they are better off now?


PS: I find pacifica's radio at least as factually informative as Rush, but I listen to both anyway. Of course I wouldn't base my own opinions on any one source. At least the FCC hasn't shut any of them down yet. Too busy worrying about who's looking at Janet Jackson's tit I guess. But give this administration 4 more years and you can look forward to an 8-1 supreme court on every issue and John Ashcroft at every turn. Than watch out.

FngSaiYuk
09-13-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Vash
Bah. Cut the tiny testicles off of both of these rich, out-of-touch sumbiches, crush kill and destroy the Electoral College, wipe clean from the Earth the stain of our corrupt politicians, and elect me as the new president.

Wow a solid platform! YAY VASH FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

Vash
09-13-2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
On reflection, I'm voting for Vash. "Vash Smash Puny Humans in 2004"


Originally posted by FngSaiYuk
YAY VASH FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

I accept this nomination, and vow to crush, kill, and destroy all who oppose me.

First, I will wipe the Republican party from the face of the Earth. Then, the Democrats will be crushed without mercy. Finally, I shall take all of the "Independent" parties, wad them into a tiny ball, and flick them into the sun.

MonkeySlap Too
09-13-2004, 04:44 PM
Count, these umbers need to be looked at a little more, I'll come back with some analysis. Please note, we were in a HUGE bubble. Unless a bunch of people want to ose thier life savings investing in tech companies wthout a profit model, I doubt it will ever be as good as four years ago. The economy was crashing and burning a year before Clinton left office.

John Ashcroft is a little to the right for my tastes, but at least he's not killing American citizens for thie religious beleifs... something Janet Reno was pretty good at. I can do without weirdo groups too on the left or right, but at least I don't want them dead. That's my problem with the left, they paint the right as Nazis, then proceed to act like Nazis themselves.

Rush is prety funny. What he has over Pacifica s that he says some things that are true, whereas Pacifica couldn't find thier a$$ if it wasn't attached. Still, anyone who puts party over principle is an a$$ in my opinion.

Really, this myth of 'impartiality' is being blown away by the recent events with Dan Rather... Stations and newspapers need to be honest and annonce thier affiliations - I read both sides too. I just feel like I get lied to so much more by the left. And frankly, we have already fulfilled the goals of the turn-of-the-century American Socialist party...

See my comments above about ending medical subsidies.

Yeah, the economy of today reminds me of the early 90's. It's tough, but growing.

The Willow Sword
09-13-2004, 05:00 PM
all this verbosity from monkey slap is making my eyes hurt,,just reading the BS makes my head hurt. but hey i guess if i had alot of money and were rich i would be a republican as well. or if i was a no brained conservative that only gave a sh!t about myself and people of my same color and social standing id be a republican as well. Hey lets not forget those "log cabin" repubs as well.

Just realize that 4 more years of a bush economy and war policy is going to be shoved right up the middle class's a$$ crossways and we will have to fit the bill.

the truth is i dont mind paying higher taxes,if it goes to improving our well being in this country such as better roadsystems and better sanitation and education and health care.

i dont mind paying a little bit more for computer products as long as the good american jobs are KEPT in this country(thank god the direct service industry hasnt been outsourced to india)because it means that i will have a decent JOB with decent pay and i can afford to pay the prices of products(it all gets recycled back in to the economy here)

AND I DEFINATELY do not mind voting for Kerry/ edwards, even though kerry has waffled a bit on the issues,,at least we wont be needlessly going after so called terrorists that so called threaten our nation(or our oil industry ties abroad)and hurting our ecomony just to make iraq a better place when we should be making AMERICA a better place. instead we will intelligently and harken to our intelligence reports and not disregard them as paranoia as the bush administration did when they got countless warnings that something major was going to happen in this country(ie:9-11).
you know **** cheney said that if kerry gets elected that we will suffer more terrorist attacks in this country(well who the FUK was in office when 9-11 hit us? stupid fuk brained dipsh!t cheney)

but hey all this will be decided in November and YES i am going to the polls and casting my vote even if it is a wasted one here in bush land texas.

oh and for the record those documents about bush's military record ARE authentic and only goes to show how this president truley LACKS in Honor and Integrity.

Your puppet Idiot friendly facist hitler and his constituents will be OUT come November,,,NO rigged election this time.

thats all i gotta say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Peace,,TWS

rogue
09-13-2004, 07:40 PM
A good lot of the number of people without health care have opted out. Young men who would rather buy big ass speakers for his civic than pay for an insurance policy. I've dealt with this first hand. Also the number is a snapshot, not a constant.

Get rid of the Electoral College and the country would be run only for the concerns of NY and Cali. Having lived in both I'll keep the EC.


There are at least 150,000 new population coming into the workforce every month and payroll jobs are down by over a million still from before 2000. I am an artist/designer/programmer.
And many of the jobs that have left were related to the pig trough we called the internet bubble. I've taken a hit in pay myself but I also rolled in the mud of an inflated salary for more years than I should have. Saved most of it, spent a little so I'm fine. Off shoring is a bad joke. Some of the work done in India is top notch, most is horrible. I've been getting calls to get on projects coming back over from India. I've been on review teams for two such projects and will soon do a third. My salary is going up with the demand to fix this junk.



oh and for the record those documents about bush's military record ARE authentic and only goes to show how this president truley LACKS in Honor and Integrity. If you have better proof you should send it to Dan Rather.


instead we will intelligently and harken to our intelligence reports and not disregard them as paranoia as the bush administration did when they got countless warnings that something major was going to happen in this country(ie:9-11).
And you know this how? Care to name the sources who knew the times that 9-11 was going to happen? Can you tell me why we haven't had another attack on US soil, or do you think they've just stopped trying?

The Willow Sword
09-13-2004, 07:48 PM
you posed to me Rogue.

and as for giving better proof to Dan Rather, i happen to KNOW who it was that aqquired the documents and i know where the documents were aqquired,,and the one who aqquired those documents has more integrity and honor and intellligence behind him than any politician EVER WILL.. and as CBS will not reveal that source neither will i,,,,

Radhnoti
09-13-2004, 07:59 PM
I'm voting Bush. Most the folks I know are doing the same. You know where he stands, he does what he says. I don't think I can say the same of Kerry. And, frankly, I will NEVER vote for someone who I think will raise taxes. In the 12 years since the National Taxpayers Union began grading the voting records of members of Congress on tax-and-spending issues, Kerry has received the grade of "F" eleven times. In 1996, the one year Kerry did not receive an "F," he received a "D." He's a tax and spend politician.
There is very little government does better than private industry. Why take the money from the capable citizens and give it to a less capable bureaucracy?

Amen to Rogue's statements about the beauty of the electoral college. It's amazing to me how many people think the election was "stolen" when the process worked EXACTLY the way it was supposed to...Bush is not the only President who won the electoral vote and not the popular vote.

CaptinPickAxe
09-13-2004, 08:40 PM
I really don't understand why bush supporters don't see what all has happened here in the states during dub's term.

I have to pay more (significantly) to go to school.

Tax breaks for the upper class, tax increase for the middle class i.e. most of America

I felt I was lied to about the Iraq situation and fail to see it as a positive thing for the bush regime. Sure Saddam may be out of power, but what about the finacial drain that Iraq is going to be in the years to come. Wasn't I told the war was over? Then why is the so-called "war" still a factor? Because the bush regime thrives on the insecurities of the people that "terrorists" and "dirty bombs" are everywhere. They portray it as if you don't vote bush then America is going to be playground for terrorists, arms dealers, etc.

I personally think Kerry is a putz, but giving him a chance is worlds better than keeping the shady, braindead, wanna be warlord we have now. In his acceptance speach for the Republican Nomination, he repeatedly talked about "expanding democracy"... I guess I missed the memo saying that America once again has its eyes set on expansion...

ZIM
09-13-2004, 09:28 PM
and as for giving better proof to Dan Rather, i happen to KNOW who it was that aqquired the documents and i know where the documents were aqquired,,and the one who aqquired those documents has more integrity and honor and intellligence behind him than any politician EVER WILL.. and as CBS will not reveal that source neither will i,,,,

BS.

The Willow Sword
09-13-2004, 10:07 PM
that will get me talking. :rolleyes: sorry kiddo,,but my loyalties are Solid when it comes to this. all i can tell you is that the information aqquired IS legitamate,,the white house has not denounced the documents as a fake. all they keep saying is that this is "old news" and the same dirty politics used against bush in the first election blah blah blah. The so called research that was done to disprove the documentation was done independantly by independant republican supporters AND the commercial that attempts to smear Kerry's military record was also done by an independant group FUNDED by the republican Party.

the dirty politics go both ways here,,the repubs arent saints(you hypocrititcal b@stards)


if we are going to make comparisons to military records and look at the negatives of them,,which one seems worse,,the one where a spoiled rich brat gets to stay at home and fly jets and not serve when his country calls for him to,,,OR doing what ever you can to survive the intensity of that war in vietnam because you went there and made an honorable committlent to serve your time and do your duty and survive it?

sheesh uhh lets see now who has more integrity and honor?
its a no brainer on this one fellas.

and you know i hate it when the people who dont support bush turnh around and say cr@p like,,,"yeah well i think kerry is a putz but im voting for him to get bush out blah blah blah" why contradict your views and political party? show some clout and CHOOSE A SIDE AND SUPPORT YOUR SIDE. the repubs do. dont be such a fukin CHUMP to your nominated democratic leader.

Peace,,,TWS

Christopher M
09-13-2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
Tax breaks for the upper class

Good! The upper class needs a tax break.

If you're waffling trying to find something bad Bush has done, here are some: letting the Doha discussions collapse, steel tariffs and softwood tariffs.

CaptinPickAxe
09-13-2004, 11:05 PM
Because I vote democrat doesn't make me a democrat. I am not a Democrat nor am I Republican. Kerry is just a much better vote than bush, but he still is a nincompoop. Now spare me the high and mighty "I'm loyal to the end" crap and pick your battles with the ones you should worry about. Your just lashing out at whoever you can, slugger.

Hey, ChrisM, who can afford the taxes. Ave joe who makes $25,000 a year working 9-5 day in day out? Or the Rich Kid who inherited a $5,000,000 estate and does nothing but surf the internet for porn all day? All the readjustments doesn't magically make the difference disappear, it gets forced on whoever it doesn't benifit.

Christopher M
09-13-2004, 11:09 PM
Unless Americans are starving to death that no one is hearing about, they both can afford it.

CaptinPickAxe
09-13-2004, 11:22 PM
There are tons of Lower income bracket families that are starving...Taxing the pants off of them doesn't help win bread either.

Christopher M
09-13-2004, 11:37 PM
Salary below the living wage isn't taxed; and despite your assertion to the contrary, there are actually not significant numbers of people starving to death in America. I believe the question you asked was a comparison between the middle and upper classes.

CaptinPickAxe
09-13-2004, 11:49 PM
the readjustments doesn't magically make the difference disappear, it gets forced on whoever it doesn't benifit.

You missed that...yeah...that's an important part. Excuse me for being lazy and not typing a story for the lower income bracket. I know how those little stories help people get the picture...so here you go...

Or the Single mother who makes $15,000 a year and has two kids to feed, and is trying to go to college to change the situation. (BAM! a double whammy! shafted two-fold!)

CaptinPickAxe
09-13-2004, 11:51 PM
How can you tax a single mother trying to go to school and feed her family?

Is that just to put more weight on her just so Johnny McI-got-it-from-daddy's chair can be a little more comfy?

Christopher M
09-13-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
Excuse me for being lazy and not typing a story for the lower income bracket. I know how those little stories help people get the picture

Um. Being unable to read your mind, I'm limited to responding to what you actually say. When you say you're talking about the middle class, even if you mean something else, I'm going to get the impression you're talking about the middle class. That's how things work.


Or the Single mother who makes $15,000 a year

What is your point? Are you under the impression Bush raised her taxes? He didn't. The lower tax bracket dropped 5%. Is your point that it sucks that people have to pay taxes? Yes; yes it does. And if you agree, then I presume you must support, rather than oppose, Bush's legislation.

rogue
09-14-2004, 05:19 AM
and as for giving better proof to Dan Rather, i happen to KNOW who it was that aqquired the documents and i know where the documents were aqquired,,and the one who aqquired those documents has more integrity and honor and intellligence behind him than any politician EVER WILL.. and as CBS will not reveal that source neither will i,,,,
Wow Willow, admitting to being an accomplie to freud and possible theft of gov't property is very cool. Without naming names how do you know this person?

David Jamieson
09-14-2004, 05:40 AM
accomplie to freud

I think he's too jung for that!

ha ha

...sorry, I had too...

MasterKiller
09-14-2004, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by count
But give this administration 4 more years and you can look forward to an 8-1 supreme court on every issue and John Ashcroft at every turn. Than watch out. You mean the Ashcroft that subpeoned the names of ALL women who had abortions last year at six Planned Parenthood affiliates? Why would you be afraid of him? :eek:

rogue
09-14-2004, 06:38 AM
...sorry, I had too... No, KL, you didn't. But I would have been disappointed in you had you not.:D

MasterKiller
09-14-2004, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
Heck, Bill Clinton had already approved the preemptive use of force. So why isn't it a bad thing when democrats do it? Honestly, on most major issues, there is little departue between Clinton and GW, although think Clinton was a tad more intellectual and a lot less honest. And do you remember how whiny the Republicans were when Clinton actually bombed Afghanistan? Oh, it's a "Wag the Dog" scenario! Oh, he's just trying to divert attention from Monica! We didn't think of it first! Waaaa Waaaa Waaaaaa!

Brad
09-14-2004, 07:09 AM
When did Clinton authorize pre-emptive use of force? I thought we were attacked...
BTW, I was 12 when he entered office, so maybe I missed something?

MasterKiller
09-14-2004, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Brad
When did Clinton authorize pre-emptive use of force? I thought we were attacked...
BTW, I was 12 when he entered office, so maybe I missed something? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=703&e=11&u=/ap/20040911/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_mullah_omar

count
09-14-2004, 07:33 AM
Monkeyslap,

I agree it is a mistake to put party affiliations over principle and policy. And I wholeheartedly agree about the mainstream media and the need for honesty in their party affiliations. But realistically, with the divide such as it is, they would lose half of their consumers and advertisers if they did. I would add that I think it would be nice if politicians would be more honest about their affiliations too. But the lines being blurred between the main two parties is way too distorted at this point. whatever happened to less government, fiscal responsibility, and less taxes the republican party used to stand for?

That said, I'm so sick of hearing we inherited the recession from Clinton. We inherited a 700 billion dollar surplus from Clinton's last year. Unfortunately the bulk of it went to tax cuts, bailouts, no-bid contracts, and the war itself. How can anyone keep their job after a 1.3 trillion dollar plummet to record level deficits? Maybe the recession did start in the final quarter of Clintons 8 years but Clinton is not running for president. I wouldn't vote for him if he was, that is, unless the alternative is Bush.

We also inherited the strongest military on the planet from Clinton. One that could walk to Baghdad in a few days. Unfortunately, the poor administrators of the new policy didn't have a clue what to do than, even though they wrote their strategy over a year before the war began. BTW, the Clinton doctrine of regime change in Iraq was about using political means to change the government of Iraq. Nothing to do with the war on Islamist fundamentalist terrorism. That didn't exist in Saddam's Iraq. Neither did the weapons of mass destruction, but my guess is Clinton wasn't looking for an excuse to go to war with Iraq and having gotten the inspectors back into Iraq, he probably would have given them time to be sure. This is clearly not a doctrine of pre-emptive force such as GW is opted for. GW has set the precedent and I wonder what he'll do when Russia goes into Afghanistan or Iraq or Saudi Arabia in it's own fight against Islamist terrorists.

Rouge,

I hear you man. Even with the economy barely creeping along, I still say that if people want to work, they can. Even if the jobs available are paying between 1500 and 9000 a year less than the same jobs paid 4 years ago and far fewer jobs provide any benefits at all, the opportunity is there. It is true that many of the jobs from the nineties that have been lost to foreign markets are hi tech or internet related, but the majority are manufacturing (or shrimp farmers :) ). But I must say from my personal experience, I'm paying almost double for my health insurance and the deductibles have gone up almost 200 percent. I feel bad for those on limited income that have to make a choice of buying their medicine or paying rent, which because of the cost of average property has gone up considerably. Yet people are still free to make choices, stupid as they may be.

As far as the electoral vote, what's the difference if it's winner takes all or divide the votes with the percentage of popular vote. i think we already know the answer from the Bush supporters but that's a fair subject for debate.

Willow Sword,

Tell us how you really feel.;)

Brad
09-14-2004, 07:39 AM
The attacks were to retaliate for the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa two weeks earlier that killed 231 people. Bin Laden, mastermind behind the al-Qaida terror network, was blamed for those as well as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.
That's not really "pre-emptive" though, is it? :confused:

rogue
09-14-2004, 08:55 AM
Pre-emptive now means that if a team of SEALs come across an al-qeda training camp in Africa they can take it out. Pre-emptive during Clinton and before meant they'd call it in, have it go up through the chain of command, have someone worry about the diplomatic problems taking the camp out would mean to the admininstration and then telling the SEALs to stand down.

The Willow Sword
09-14-2004, 09:35 AM
Originally quoted by captainPickaxe


"Because I vote democrat doesn't make me a democrat. I am not a Democrat" nor am I Republican.

This is the dumbest lame brained comment i have ever read.

i mean did you really mean to make that statement? i mean i was waiting for the allotted time that one has to edit thier posts after they submit them,,and it came and went.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The Willow Sword
09-14-2004, 09:44 AM
Wow Willow, admitting to being an accomplie to freud and possible theft of gov't property is very cool. Without naming names how do you know this person?

an accomplie to wha?:confused: how does knowing the one who aqquired these documents(and LEGALLY AND LEGITIMATLY i might add make me an acc-ac- acom- whatever you said to "Freud"? Freud was a psychologist you illiterate wank:p

(without naming names) and i have known this person for a long time,,we grew up together and he is like a brother. and as i said before he has more intelligence and integrity and honor than anyone i know.

rogue
09-14-2004, 10:11 AM
(without naming names) and i have known this person for a long time,,we grew up together and he is like a brother. and as i said before he has more intelligence and integrity and honor than anyone i know.
That's really not saying much as I don't know who you are.

Forgive my spelling error.

MonkeySlap Too
09-14-2004, 10:12 AM
Hopefully this thread will still be going tomorrow, as I am way to busy. But I see a good conversation with Count, and whup down for TWS coming, but here goes on one critical point:

Bill Clinton approved the use of preemptove force in June 1995 when he signed Presidential Directive 39 regarding counter-terrorism. Much of it is classified, but the partys that aren't suggest a pre-emptive stance.

The last Strategy paper of his administration effectively said "we will do what we must."

Unfortunatelty, at the time Bill Clinton beleived (as I did at the time) that certain legalistic restrictions between intelligence communitiers (domestic and foreign) needed to be maintained for the check and balances required to protect the constitution, and that actions required really good, go to court proof.

My mind has changed o the first point, as now I see it as an over simplification. On the second, the line needs to be drawn o the scale of the threat.

But, there you go. Bill Clinton approved it, he just didn't act on it.

MonkeySlap Too
09-14-2004, 10:29 AM
Please forgive my typos... I'm rushing.

The Willow Sword
09-14-2004, 10:39 AM
and whup down for TWS coming

oh more verbose ramblings? whatever dude. i have chosen my camp this election and thats that. you have your views and i have mine,,and as i stated earlier all will be decided this november. So afterwards we can either do the "nya nya nya nya" thing or have a drink and see what the next 4 years will bring us.

Oh and Rogue and zim and whomever else. i have been posting here for many years and i have NEVER LIED or was dishonest about anything that i have ever posted,,i am not a troll. i have always been direct and honest about every post i have put forth here. and when i say that i KNOW the person who aqquired those documents and where they were aqquired and that they were aqquired legally and legitamately then THATS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. end of story. ive known this person for many years, we grew up together and i trust his judgement about things more so than anyone else on the planet. you have any friends like that? if you do then you will understand why i say what i do and why i WONT divulge a name or place. CBS wont do it and neither will i,,and the reason why i shared what i know in the first place is just for that very reason that i trust my friend and KNOW that he would not be doing anything illegal or FRAUDulent.
but you dont have to take my word for it,,,the records speak for themselves,,the manner in which this president has conducted himself and the nation for 4 years speaks for itself,and in my opinion it is rotten.

PEACE,,,TWS

count
09-14-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
Hopefully this thread will still be going tomorrow, as I am way to busy. But I see a good conversation with Count, and whup down for TWS coming, but here goes on one critical point:

Bill Clinton approved the use of preemptove force in June 1995 when he signed Presidential Directive 39 regarding counter-terrorism. Much of it is classified, but the partys that aren't suggest a pre-emptive stance.

The last Strategy paper of his administration effectively said "we will do what we must."

Unfortunatelty, at the time Bill Clinton beleived (as I did at the time) that certain legalistic restrictions between intelligence communitiers (domestic and foreign) needed to be maintained for the check and balances required to protect the constitution, and that actions required really good, go to court proof.

This will go up to and beyond November, and I'm sure a good conversation and constructive debate is coming from your side. But I'm clearly not interested in a debate over what Bill Clinton did or did not do in the nineties. Debates over the past are mostly irrelevant unless they revolve around what Chenny, Wolfowitz and Rummy's role's were that got us into a war that's unrelated to our war against Islamic Terrorists. It's so hypocritical to say that Bill Clinton was wrong to treat the terrorists acts of the time as crimes not a war and than tell us about how different things are now in a post 911 world. Anyway, I voted against Clinton 2 times and I don't think his record is stellar either, But at least they got the nut jobs that bombed the World Trade center. Where's Osama?

Don't answer that question it's obviously rhetorical and he's dead of natural causes anyway.

The debate of who will be president should stick to a discussion of who can do the job of creating a decent atmosphere in this country (including the rest of the world) for economic growth, civil liberty, and defending the constitution (which doesn't need any changes to suit any one group or another) and who will be working for the people who put them there. (And I don't mean corporate interests)

The Willow Sword
09-14-2004, 11:31 AM
:o whatever you say,,its your world.



hey guys? are all upstate Ny'ers like this? :rolleyes:

count
09-14-2004, 11:36 AM
Remarkable that people are so outraged by these papers which may have been forged or not. Compared to the eyewitnesses to the favoritism that Bush got and Bush's public lies since than everyone should be outraged. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if these were forgeries, they came from Daddy Rove himself. I'm more offended by the cost of training the guy to fly fighter jets and having him not show up to complete his requirements.

Hardly significant compared to the forgeries of documents presented as proof that Iraq was trying to by uranium from Niger which sent us to war.

Com'on guys, get a perspective. This is a non-issue.

MasterKiller
09-14-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by ZIM
If he came by these documents 'totally legally' and he has 'absolute integrity' [both of which claims are so inflated that I really have to wonder...] then he has no fear of public rebuke for his malfeasance. Maybe you should talk to Robert Novak about Valerie Plame. :rolleyes:

MonkeySlap Too
09-14-2004, 11:58 AM
um, it turned out the African uranium buy was true... What was the guy? Wilson? He was pretty much reputiated.

MasterKiller
09-14-2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
um, it turned out the African uranium buy was true... What was the guy? Wilson? He was pretty much reputiated. Since when?

And it was Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, that was outed by Robert Novak (and probably Karl Rove) after he came out and said the administration was wrong.

MonkeySlap Too
09-14-2004, 12:02 PM
I have no doubt that GWB probably got some unwarranted favoritism... yet he could still have been shipped to Viet Nam, but the war was winding down, and there were two many pilots at the time. The Gaurd and Air Force let him go, because they were cutting pilots anyhow.

See, THAT is the catch, we need to know the history of what is happening before we go off half ****ed.

Just like John Kerry who willfully and knowingly met with emisarries of an enemy government during war time.

Somehow getting a little easy duty when you are going to be dropped anyways just doesn't stand up to criminal behavior on my part.

And Kerry is the example of the super-rich that I find distasteful. At least GWB has had to earn his way rather than marry it.

MasterKiller
09-14-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
And Kerry is the example of the super-rich that I find distasteful. At least GWB has had to earn his way rather than marry it. Earn...his...way...? How so? What has he ever done on his own merit? He was born into everything he has.

count
09-14-2004, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
um, it turned out the African uranium buy was true... What was the guy? Wilson? He was pretty much reputiated.
Not exactly true, but haven't they all been reputiated? Shinseke, O'niel, Clark, Max Clealand??? Pretty much anyone that has a different opinion gets reputiated by the white house.

count
09-14-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
I have no doubt that GWB probably got some unwarranted favoritism... yet he could still have been shipped to Viet Nam, but the war was winding down, and there were two many pilots at the time. The Gaurd and Air Force let him go, because they were cutting pilots anyhow.

See, THAT is the catch, we need to know the history of what is happening before we go off half ****ed.

Just like John Kerry who willfully and knowingly met with emisarries of an enemy government during war time.

Somehow getting a little easy duty when you are going to be dropped anyways just doesn't stand up to criminal behavior on my part.

And Kerry is the example of the super-rich that I find distasteful. At least GWB has had to earn his way rather than marry it.
Bush earned his way??? How so? Was it his oil company, his part ownership of a baseball team, couldn't have been his salary as Governor?

Merryprankster
09-14-2004, 12:29 PM
"um, it turned out the African uranium buy was true"

Let's be a little more clear than this.

The document Wilson was referring to was a clear forgery. However, the information itself was never repudiated by the British government.

As it stands, in the Summer of 2004, media reported that several European intelligence agencies believe that Niger was illicitly selling yellow cake to several nations, including Iraq and North Korea, between 1999 and 2001.

MasterKiller
09-14-2004, 12:36 PM
Niger’s "yellow cake" comes from two uranium mines controlled by a French company, with its entire output presold to nuclear power companies in France, Japan, and Spain.

Does that "media" you are referring to happen to be ONE article from the Financial Times?

GLW
09-14-2004, 01:39 PM
MonkeySlap,

did YOU live in Texas at that time?

I did...and still do. My sister was involved in war protests and sit ins...such as they were in this state then. They were VERY tame and orderly by any standard.

There were MANY people that tried to get into the guard. The waiting list was long enough to turn a number of them into perpetual never graduating college students.

The unit that GWB was in was known as the Champagne Unit...pretty much everyone in Texas KNEW that just like Houston's Marvin Zindler was the only person in the entire state that DIDN'T know that the Chicken Ranch in LaGrange, Texas was one of the oldest continually operated *****houses in the state.

There were NO partisan politics in getting into that unit then. Texas was a predominantly Democratic state...but the moneyed interests that were the few Republicans at the time did business with the moneyed Democrats...they did each other favors. So...it was NOT uncommon for a Republican like John Connally or George H.W. Bush to go to someone that then went to Ben Barnes to get in to the Champagne unit.

The Champagne unit was known as such because of WHO was in it... what went on in it...as in getting away with everything....AND by the fact that you had ZERO possibility of being sent to fight anywhere - but you DID get the military record that looked good later in business or government service.

Texas politics STILL has this type of stuff going on...but the funny thing is that when the state swung more Republican, the partisanship went up. The Republicans in control do not see their rich Democrat counterparts as part of a similar club the way the rich Democrats did back in those days.

As for the cake uranium and Niger story... It has been FAR from proven true... Yet, even if it is, the FACTS that are known - The papers that were used back when were KNOWN by many to be false. Valerie Plame, a CIA operative WAS outed for political retribution against her husband. The US DID lose a valuable CIA operative. A major federal law WAS Broken by someone pretty high up in the Bush Admin when this was done. Regardless of who is in the white house, this breach SHOULD be investigated and the leaking person charged and tried.

And...with such a major breach of national interest, the Republican folks that got upset about a BJ from Clinton are saying nothing about the outing of a CIA operative. (Not to mention the one they outed when British Intelligence was tracking Al Qaeda folks just after the Democratic Convention).

count
09-14-2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by GLW

As for the cake uranium and Niger story... It has been FAR from proven true... Yet, even if it is, the FACTS that are known - The papers that were used back when were KNOWN by many to be false. Valerie Plame, a CIA operative WAS outed for political retribution against her husband. The US DID lose a valuable CIA operative. A major federal law WAS Broken by someone pretty high up in the Bush Admin when this was done. Regardless of who is in the white house, this breach SHOULD be investigated and the leaking person charged and tried.
Not to mention a person with contacts who was effectively tracking the proliferation of what??? WMD??? What happened to protecting sources and means?


And...with such a major breach of national interest, the Republican folks that got upset about a BJ from Clinton are saying nothing about the outing of a CIA operative. (Not to mention the one they outed when British Intelligence was tracking Al Qaeda folks just after the Democratic Convention).
Of course it's more important for Clinton to testify under oath about a blow job than for Bush to testify under oath to the 911 commision.

MasterKiller
09-14-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by count
Of course it more important for Clinton to testify under oath about a blow job than for Bush to testify under oath to the 911 commision. He also refused to testify under oath when the FBI questioned him about the CIA leak (not to mention having his private lawyer present).

count
09-14-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by MasterKiller
He also refused to testify under oath when the FBI questioned him about the CIA leak (not to mention having his private lawyer present).
Noooo, nah couldn't be:D

CaptinPickAxe
09-14-2004, 04:01 PM
his is the dumbest lame brained comment i have ever read.

Its called choosing the lesser of two evils. Do you honestly belive I'd waste my vote on Nader? I'm voting Democrat this time, I am by no means a democrat. Is that really that hard to comprehend?

an analogy if you will...to help the retarded along.

Johnny was in line to buy school lunch. He knew he was nearing the juice bar and had to make a decision. High Sugar and extra calories Soda, Arsenic, or nothing. He chose the High Sugar and extra calories soda because it beats the hell out of Arsenic and is worlds better than nothing. This doesn't make Johnny a fan or supporter of High Sugar and Extra Calories Soda. Its called settling....THATS WHAT I'M DOING THIS ELECTION, SIMPLETON!

your calling me lame brained...Is this really that hard to understand? Who knows? Maybe next time I'll vote Republican, maybe I'll vote Communist. Thats the glory of being a swing voter, just because I vote one way doesn't make me a certain thing.

The Willow Sword
09-14-2004, 04:53 PM
Swing Voter. Always on the fence,,looking to see what camp to choose. not having any real loyalty to either side,or to anyone for that matter,just voting to suit their own needs rather than the needs of everyone and the country(or at least thats how it looks to the others who are either democrat/republican/libertarian/ or nader supporters. seems like the swing voters would sell off thier own grandmother too if it meant they could still remain annonymous and not make a REAL decision about thier legislators and house represenatives.

But hey i know what it means to be out for yourself,,,and i follow my own path,,but i have always been a liberal democratic supporter and will always be.

i find it sad that the parties now are relying on the apathetic and swing voters to change the course of the election this november.

oh well free country,,the freedom to vote or the freedom not to,,the freedom to be whatever your little RPG fanatsy games tells you to be :rolleyes:

i am so sick and tired of the " i dont give a sh!t" generation.
i hope you wake up pickaxe.

im out,,,,TWS

CaptinPickAxe
09-14-2004, 05:34 PM
Excuse me for not agreeing with either side 100%. God forbid I have a few opinions of my own...Sell off my own Grandmother? You must be a retard, GO SIT ON A BENCH, FOREST! I'm not choosing whats best for myself, in this case I'm choosing a side that has a little better politics(cause thats all we get untill they get in office). Your acting like since I have no loyalty to either of the two major parties I'm a selfish pig that thinks only of himself. Wrong! If that was the case I'd be voting bush...I honestly think your incredibly stupid for judging me because I'm "Not loyal to the Democratic Party" (a.k.a. a party I'm voting for because:
A. I'm not throwing a way my vote
B. I'm not voting for bush)

Your views are really twisted, kid. I think you must have smoked yourself retarded in Highschool or must live under powerlines.

CaptinPickAxe
09-14-2004, 05:37 PM
Oh...and just because your addicted to Final Fantasy doesn't mean the rest of us are...I hate video games...

rogue
09-14-2004, 05:44 PM
Don't worry Cap, Willow is still trying to figure out how someone with more intelligence and integrity and honor than anyone he knows is trying to pass off MS Words docs as memos from 1973. :D Now if you'll excuse me I have a SOCOM game to get to.

The Willow Sword
09-14-2004, 06:13 PM
hehe:cool: that got your psuedo political stance panties in a bunch now didnt it?

oh so democrats or republicans DONT have opinions of thier own? is that what you are saying now? you just keep digging that hole with your "pickaxe".

im finished going round with you ,"Kid" :rolleyes: anything that you have to say now is total BS. because i now know as others here do that what you say and what you mean are totally contradictory. if you have no loyalty to either political party and you swing your vote to suit whatever reality you wish to live in,,then why should ANY of us give a rats fuk about anything that you have to post regarding politics? since you dont have a solid point of view,,you go with whats cool to you at the time.

your full of SH!T Pickaxe. im done with you. i have more respect for monkeyslap,,,at least HE in his verbosity actually HAS a solid political point of view(even though i dont agree with it).

rogue
09-14-2004, 06:59 PM
if you have no loyalty to either political party and you swing your vote to suit whatever reality you wish to live in,,then why should ANY of us give a rats fuk about anything that you have to post regarding politics? since you dont have a solid point of view,,you go with whats cool to you at the time
Yeah Cap. I signed a loyalty oath when I became a Republican and I know that Willow drinks the Kool-Aid because his Democrat masters tell him to. Stop thinking for yourself and let a party do it for you.
Like Willow says, "but i have always been a liberal democratic supporter and will always be. " See now he doesn't have to think about things anymore, just follows what the party says and he feels happy. Remember thinking is bad.
:p

The Willow Sword
09-14-2004, 07:41 PM
dont fall in to his already dug hole. At least you have chosen a side and are sticking with it, despite the fact that your president is a total fuking idiot. i remember feeling the same way when i was with Shaolin-DOH and people kept on trying to tell me and i just wouldnt listen,,i finally had to learn the hard way. ;)

peace to you rogue,,,,,peas luv and "doh"pe.;)

ZIM
09-14-2004, 08:03 PM
Then you'll lose to a "total fuking idiot" becoz of this (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=41816&item=3839925186&rd=1)

The Willow Sword
09-14-2004, 08:09 PM
:o whatever you say Zim,,its your world.




hey guys? are all upstate NY'ers like this?:rolleyes:

Vash
09-14-2004, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by The Willow Sword
Always on the fence,,looking to see what camp to choose. not having any real loyalty to either side,or to anyone for that matter,just voting to suit their own needs rather than the needs of everyone and the country(or at least thats how it looks to the others who are either democrat/republican/libertarian/ or nader supporters. seems like the swing voters would sell off thier own grandmother too if it meant they could still remain annonymous and not make a REAL decision about thier legislators and house represenatives.

First off, **** you, you rat sodomizing, nut swilling, towing-the-party-line-cuz-boss-says-to mother****er.

The "swing" voter of course makes no real decisions about legislative elections, does no research into the candidate, his/her voting record, the party platform, the record of other politicians of the same party from that same area. Furthermore, no research is done in a similar fashion for all other candidates up for some election. After all, the "swing" voter has no loyalty. They suck and deserve to die.



i am so sick and tired of the " i dont give a sh!t" generation.


No one gives a ****. They're all too busy building Shaolin Do dojo and raping albino black sheep for crack money.

MonkeySlap Too
09-14-2004, 08:24 PM
Whatever you say Willow...








Hey guys, are all ren fest geeks like this? :rolleyes:

Don't worry Willow, I'm just jabbing because your doing the typical fascist thing of belitting those you disagree with. I'm sure a guy who followed Shaolin Do all the way to second degree black belt has the intellectual faculties to know who to vote for.

Pass the Kool-aid....

(Really, just jibing you, as I find your willingness to cut down those that disagree rather than supply content for your POV typical of your type. - back to your regular MonkeySlapping...)

MonkeySlap Too
09-14-2004, 08:36 PM
I only registered as a Republican for this election to make a point. Previously I was a 'swing' voter. The reason we have swing voters is because we have had a period of about 70 years where the two parties jerry-rigged the voting districts, and made the standards too difficult to attain for additional parties to gain steam.

"Your wasteing your vote" - unfortunately, because the system is rigged. Where the f@ck in the Constitution does it say we have a two-party system? What the h@ll does that mean? Politics would be much more interesting if we fought back these 'fixes' to the system. I'm all for really cantankerous government -- which is usually inefficient, which is what you want in a government, trust me.

At least swing voters try to analyze the lesser of two evils and roll the dice...

Between Dole and Clinton, I swallowed my bile and voted for Clinton. Hated to do it, but Dole just seemed out of touch. Before that I voted for the Libertarian candidate. I know, wasteing my vote, but for a while there it looked like they were going somewhere... Before that my man Ronnie.

I support the libertarian wing of the Republican party, but I think that is the true mainstream of what used to be called liberal thought, before the socialists and fascists took it over...

sure the Republicans have the Pat Robertsons and Ed Meeses. But the Dems have Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy... yikes! At least none of the Republican nuttters didn't get away with murder...

MonkeySlap Too
09-14-2004, 08:39 PM
CPA - if I only thought of myself, I would vote for John Kerry, stop working and go on the dole and get free healthcare. Why should I strive for anything when other people will work and pay for me? Hey! I got rights!!!!

On the other hand, if I beleive in taking responsibility for myself. Choosing when to do things in life based on my ability to pay my own way... ooh that's selfish.

Dude, you need to get out into the real world a little bit.

count
09-14-2004, 08:47 PM
See Monkeyslap, even on opposing sides here we can be in total agreement. When all is said and done we can come together as Americans and support our country. All I gotta say is if George W wins this election, it better be by a convincing mandate this time. You and I won't be able to hold the masses back. I'd hit this thread up some more but it's a rediculous mess. Democrat, Republican, Independant, who gives a rats ass what you say you are. Some of you guys need to open your eyes and look at the big picture.
This time I'm out!

The Willow Sword
09-14-2004, 09:05 PM
am not a swing voter.



oh and you arent doing the same thing with me monkeyslap? belittleing someone you disagree with. either directly or passivley with your overly verbose BS. i Dis pick axe because he has no real view,,so why should he be so predisposed to post a thread on the idiocy of bush when he doesnt even support any real politics in this country? i thought apolitical types did not give a sh!t. i mean thats what a swing voter really is,,just the waddling about beatnick generation x-er types that think its cool to have a sh!tty disposition about everything because it makes their otherwise boring and useless life more interesting?

and as far as calling ME a facist? hahaha look at your own president genious,,if ever there was a facist it is definately him.

I only registered as a Republican for this election to make a point.

and what was the point exactly? that you wanted to be different and go with the dumbsh!t rather than Gore, i mean now it seems like Gore would have been the Lesser of the two evils as you put it.

how have the last 4 years been to YOU ecomomically monleyslap? or are you in that upper 3% now. ( i hear the jeffersons theme running through my head right now).

and as far as the Sd comment,,hey i get the message there and i fully realize and acknowledge my mistake and naivity there. try not to rub it in too much slap,,i am in a much better way now then i ever was with that school.
oh and uhh thats EX-ren fest geek to you sir,,,EX,,,:p

Vash
09-14-2004, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by The Willow Sword
thats what a swing voter really is,,just the waddling about beatnick generation x-er types that think its cool to have a sh!tty disposition about everything because it makes their otherwise boring and useless life more interesting?

Nope. Some, of course, are absolute fruits with no grasp of reality. Some of us, however, hold true to our own system of beliefs and refuse to allow the banner name under which a politician runs to dictate where we place our vote.

CaptinPickAxe
09-15-2004, 12:39 AM
well said, vash.

Merryprankster
09-15-2004, 05:28 AM
CPA - if I only thought of myself, I would vote for John Kerry, stop working and go on the dole and get free healthcare. Why should I strive for anything when other people will work and pay for me? Hey! I got rights!!!!

On the other hand, if I beleive in taking responsibility for myself. Choosing when to do things in life based on my ability to pay my own way... ooh that's selfish.

Dude, you need to get out into the real world a little bit."

The biggest lie the American people were ever told by a politician is that Republicans are 'conservatives,' for small government and getting government out of your life, and that Democrats are 'liberals' interested in creating a nanny state.

The argument about the role of government ended a while ago gentlemen and those who believe (or saw that it was politically expedient) to make it all things to all people won.

The idea of reducing tax income to starve the government into submission was tried and found wanting. We simply borrow to make up the difference and instead of having a smaller number of well run, well funded programs, ask the executive branch to limp along with underfunded offices which serve nobody well.

Why? Because the American people reward lip service in a sound bite culture. Politicians in general don't have to worry about making tough decisions about funding and organization based on priorities - they know that by supporting a program they can increase their voter base and ratings. They will only come out against it if their constituency is particularly lopsided towards one particular POV or if it genuinely doesn't care about it.

The last president to ask for real bureaucracy cuts was Reagan. The last president to mandate serious budget cuts was Clinton. Contrast this with nearly 50 years of increased government throughout Republican and Democratic presidencies since the New Deal.

For the record, projected figures (from the white house) indicate that Bush's plan will increase our national debt to $3 Trillion over the next ten years, whereas Kerry's is estimated at $2 Trillion. Oh...and Bush's plan does not include the cost of the war.

Turning it into an argument about conservatism vs. government activism is the right path...but ascribing either party one side or the other, in this debate, even in general, cannot be supported by the facts at hand.

MasterKiller
09-15-2004, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
On the other hand, if I beleive in taking responsibility for myself. Choosing when to do things in life based on my ability to pay my own way... ooh that's selfish. In 2004, take-home pay as a share of the economy dropped to it's lowest level since the goverment started keeping records in 1929. It's becoming harder and harder for people to pay their own way.

And if we become an "ownership society," in which the taxes on dividends, capital gains on stocks, bonds, and real estate are eliminated in favor of taxes on wages and salaries (which rich people don't earn), we are all in trouble.

The Willow Sword
09-15-2004, 09:51 AM
Some of us, however, hold true to our own system of beliefs and refuse to allow the banner name under which a politician runs to dictate where we place our vote.

oh so what you are saying is that people who hold true to thier political banner have no independant thought? they do not think for them selves and make thier own decisions?
your quote is just about as retarded as the others i have been reading here.
The Political banner with which we support does NOT dictate where we place our vote,,it is the OPPOSING PARTY and their Banner thats dictates where we place our vote. Or at least thats how i see it,,,and thats how alot of others are seeing it too this time around.

and i DEFINATELY have my OWN system of beliefs,,when it comes to spirituality and when it comes to politics in this country,,and i love my country,,i dont like all the aspects of how this country is governed,,thats why i have chosen a camp that fits as close as possible my ideals and morals and i STICK TO IT, i dont Waddle and vote here and there frivolously just to suit my ideals at the time.

Vash
09-15-2004, 10:53 AM
oh so what you are saying is that people who hold true to thier political banner have no independant thought?

No. It was your implication that we without party loyalties have no care for the workings of our government.

The Political banner with which we support does NOT dictate where we place our vote,,it is the OPPOSING PARTY and their Banner thats dictates where we place our vote

In either event, it's an Us v Them issue.

I (and I imagine a good part of the American populace) want what will best serve the people as a whole, not a particular segment (Dem, Good Ole' Party, whatever).

I would have no problems sticking with a party so long as it stuck to a particular set of beliefs and policies. Unfortunately, the party can have the tendency to decide upon a particular issue before hearing all of the facts involved, choosing to side with it's belief system, even in the event that system is proven to be wrong, ineffective, etc.

i dont Waddle and vote here and there frivolously just to suit my ideals at the time.

A frivolous vote in your mind seems to indicate something that goes against the Party. After having reviewed the relevant issues, the facts involved therein, and the effects the planned policies spring from those beliefs and ideals, I place my vote. I do this for our local elections, I will do this for the National election.

And do trying to walk instead of riding on your high horse (ass, whatever it is). The Party can be wrong, no matter what it's name happens to be.

MonkeySlap Too
09-15-2004, 03:07 PM
MP - and this is my biggest issue with GWB.

However you left out Newt Gingrich and his Republican congress, who wiped out 20 years of intrenched waste created by an overly powerful Democratic party, who saw the government as thier own elite little fifedom. Until we get some new democrats, I just expect them to return to form.

The other issue to consider is this: Every significant expansion of the economy was the result of government laws that opened up paths for opportunnity - basically the government went away of supported certain economic activities. (I have a list of the three times this happened somewhere, wish I could remember). So, despite my libertarian tendancies, I do see a valid need for some government - and in turn the government needs to open the playing field. But.. that does not meen handouts.

The current president of Porsche is one of my heros. Not only did he keep his new SUV plant in Germany, he refused a government subsidy, because "we need to change this way of thinking."

People out here in California drive me nuts. There is a constant effort to raise EVERY single kind of tax "just by a little bit"... but no accountability on how it's spent. The Governator is changing this a bit, but there are a lot of nut jobs in the government that are in the way.

I have a friend who calls our system the "Republicrats" for the reason you cited. But me, I'd rather hang with Colin Powell or Condi rice than Al Sharpton and Carol Mosley-Braun. I just don't fancy hanging with criminals, and no ideaolgy can get me to ignore that.

MonkeySlap Too
09-15-2004, 03:08 PM
Can anyone tell me what John Kerry has done that is good in the senate/

What he stands for?

Why you would vote for him other than you have a fear of Bush?

count
09-15-2004, 03:37 PM
Not sure that's so important but as Lt. Gov. and in the Senate, Kerry spent most of his time on Environmental issues. Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He worked with John McCain to normalize relations with Viet Nam and tried to get accountability for the MIA. Worked on Veterans issues like health care and benefits. Not the most stunning superstar but certainly more experience than GW in foreign policy. Of course we all understand votes mean different things at different times. In your own words "THAT is the catch, we need to know the history of what is happening before we go off half ****ed."

Say Monkeyslap, I agree with you about Colin Powell, although It's still not clear if he'll be around for the next 4 years. But Condy...LOL, Clearly part of the problem and not the solution.

MonkeySlap Too
09-15-2004, 04:01 PM
Nah, Condi is still good material. I think she got caught off-gaurd, as she was a Russia expert, not a middle-East issue. Another reason I'm pro-Bush, is I think it'll take the inside knowledge of the same oil @ssholes who helped butress our Islamofascist enemies to outhink them. You need to know your enemy, and they know it, personally. And I do belive Bush/Cheney are more interested in the U.S. than making money.

Colin Powell is my kind of liberal democrat. While on principle I think affirmative action is wrong, in practice I see it's value for healing the rift left by our past. I'm always amazed by the casual sh!t my African American friends have to live with on a daily basis. Although I get to experience it myself as a mild conservative here on the west coast. The intolerance and hate of the left drives me to the right.

count
09-15-2004, 04:01 PM
BTW, I should mention, between him and Edwards, they actually have a plan for health care (not what the Bushies say it is), a plan for torte reform that will have results and not limit your rights. A plan to bring in re-enforcements to ease the burden on or troops in Iraq. A plan to create an environment that will produce jobs. A plan to actually fund the education system and really a lot more that it would be worth reading. In fact, if anyone didn't read it and voted for Bush anyway, I'd say you deserve what you get. I actually have read Bush's platform. LOL

MonkeySlap Too
09-15-2004, 04:03 PM
I think it is important... it's not like Kerry really acheived anything outside og government. Since this job is government... what in his track record makes you think he would be a good hire?

MonkeySlap Too
09-15-2004, 04:04 PM
Alrighty then, let me pull up that PDF I downloaded from K/E and we'll get started... after i finish work...

count
09-15-2004, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
I think it is important... it's not like Kerry really acheived anything outside og government. Since this job is government... what in his track record makes you think he would be a good hire?
Well I think I heard he did run a profitable business. As a state prosecuter he did his part to get criminals punished and as a Lt. for 2 terms in nam, 4 months in combat, well, you know the story and the counter story, you be the judge.

Hey, it's odd I find myself promoting Kerry. I didn't vote for him in the Primary's. I voted Republican in our last state election, (and not for Arnold) and I do think he's a typical Mass. Democrat. But I actually care what hapens to the planet and I'm scared to death of an 8-1 supreme court. What can I say?

Merryprankster
09-15-2004, 04:16 PM
However you left out Newt Gingrich and his Republican congress, who wiped out 20 years of intrenched waste created by an overly powerful Democratic party, who saw the government as thier own elite little fifedom.

Sort of. There were few program reductions, ie, no priority setting, just underfunded programs. And I've noticed that "waste" really means "spending money on programs I/we don't agree with," rather than "money that is lost or spent frivolously."

Brad
09-15-2004, 04:26 PM
Hey, does anyone here have the "official" websites & message boards(if there are any) for Bush & Kerry? How about good republican & democtat aligned message boards?

GLW
09-15-2004, 04:27 PM
Some good reasons NOT to vote for Bush:

He has really pi$$ed off our traditional allies. In REALLY fighting Terrorism and making people safer, you have to have long term allies. Can you spell EXTRADITION....

1000+ dead soldiers and no exit strategy. While you may say "well, the other guy doesn't have one" Even if that is true, it would be his job upon getting in there to see exactly how F'd up it is and then come up with one. It ALREADY IS the job of Bush to KNOW how F'd up it is (in C. Powell's words, "Your break it, you bought it") and to not only have one NOW, but to have had one BEFORE the first soldier set foot in Iraq.

Erosion of the Constitutional Protections for ALL Americans.

The fact that many of the Supreme Court rulings that have protected our rights have come down to a 5/4 vote. Four out of those 5 may very well retire or die in the next 4 years. Do you REALLY want a George Bush / NeoCon weighted court for the next 20+ years? And before you say how liberal the Supreme Court currently is, remember that ALL but TWO were Conservative REPUBLICAN appointees. Clinton appointed 2. The rest were Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush I appointees with Reagan and Bush providing a majority.

The deficit.

The total lack of checks and balances by having a very conservative Congress that is 100% unwilling to compromise combined with a President of their own party...and a lame duck one at that...and one that would not really worry about screwing the party for who comes after him in 4 years. He sure didn't worry about how much of a mess Texas was in when he left.

The environment - Backing out of Kyoto...come now...

Breaking treaties...and wanting to break MORE nuke treaties...

Those would be enough for me to vote for Alfred E. Neuman from MAD Magazine.

There ARE reasons to vote for Kerry...but looking at the previous items, they barely enter into the equation for me.

count
09-15-2004, 04:36 PM
LOL,
What GLW said.!!!

Brad, just try georgebush.com and johnkerry.com.

count
09-15-2004, 04:43 PM
GLW,
1019 last time I checked. But what's funny is Rummy refuses to disclose what the pentagon anticipates for the next year. They have that number and they refuse. Even John McCain said yesterday, it's worse and nothing is happening to prevent the so called insurgents from securing their base. Probably because another 2 or 300 deaths in the next month would blow the election for Bush. LOL "we won't play politics with 911 or the war"

rogue
09-15-2004, 06:20 PM
I was listening to Kerry on Imus this morning and if the guy is really on the ball he didn't show it. As much as I disliked Clinton the guy was sharp, but Kerry makes me wonder if he could wake up and pick out a tie to wear. W's best moment was 9/11 he stepped up to the plate and delivered, maybe Kerry's best moment was on that swiftboat. I just don't think Kerry has anything to offer. But he did give me one more reason to vote for Bush, he would ask Madeleine Albright to be part of his administration. The guy just loves to be around nutty women.

count
09-15-2004, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by rogue
I was listening to Kerry on Imus this morning and if the guy is really on the ball he didn't show it. As much as I disliked Clinton the guy was sharp, but Kerry makes me wonder if he could wake up and pick out a tie to wear. W's best moment was 9/11 he stepped up to the plate and delivered, maybe Kerry's best moment was on that swiftboat. I just don't think Kerry has anything to offer. But he did give me one more reason to vote for Bush, he would ask Madeleine Albright to be part of his administration. The guy just loves to be around nutty women.
There is a difference between slick and sharp and Slick Willy did have Albright as part of his administration. If you want to talk to me about nutty women, let's talk about Paul Wolfowitz.

But I gotta ask you this...

In what way did Bush deliver on 9/11, besides delivering My Pet Goat to a classroom full of kiddies? Sure, he stood up on the rubble and tried to console a shocked nation (even more shocked government) when he came out of hiding 2 days later, but where is Osama anyway?

rogue
09-15-2004, 07:16 PM
You can do better than the "My Pet Goat" stuff count. Osama could be dead, could be living next door to you in Cali, I personally don't know. A few things that I've like Bush doing is letting the terrorist hunters hunt terrorists, applying the same laws to terrorists as we do to gangsters. W is not my idea of a perfect president and I disagree with his idea of what free trade is and other issues, but I see him as a better choice than Kerry. There are things happening in the war on terror that we never hear about.

BTW they're on Willows friends trail...

CBS Guard Documents Traced to Texas Kinko's...

WASH POST: Documents allegedly written by deceased officer that raised questions about Bush's service with Texas National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene, Texas... Developing...

C'mon Willow and throw Gene Ching a bone. Let him break the news that the guy is Race Bannon.

ZIM
09-15-2004, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by rogue

BTW they're on Willows friends trail...


C'mon Willow and throw Gene Ching a bone. Let him break the news that the guy is Race Bannon. [/B]
Bill B-----t. Letters left off, out of courtesy.

count
09-15-2004, 08:26 PM
Rouge,

It's a historic fact, what happened that day. It's even on film. It's also a fact that Osama died of natural causes. I would have liked to see him brought to justice by US hands like we were promised. Too bad. Bush had more important things to do.

It's also a fact that the documents you guys keep talking about don't support or disprove anything. I listen to the people who were actually there and knew what was going on. If you weren't there, you got nothing to say. Like those so called swift boat veterans. Not a one of them is credible. Wonder what they get out of it? But nobody's stepping up to support Bush's story either. Not even for a $10,000 reward. If you guys wanna keep bringing up what a puss Bush was, using favoritism to avoid the draft go right ahead. I wonder if the guy who's place he took had to go to Nam? I wonder if he died over there? I remember Bush being on the record that there was no favoritism. It's on film too. Let's see how the story changes now that the people who were there are speaking up. Talk about a flip-flop.

First there were weapons, than we were liberators, than it's part of the war on terror. I think the guy actually thought he'd get some of the candy and flowers showered on us. But if it is part of the war on terror than God help us all. Because there is more terrorism on the planet now than there was before 9/11.

I'm not trying to convince you not to go ahead and vote your conscience. Please, just cast your vote for who you think is better for the country and for your family. You go right ahead and think of Bush as the swaggering, cowboy hero, policman to the world. You buy into his fear mongering. Big Daddy protecting you from those terrorists who hate us because we love freedom. :rolleyes: They hate us because of George Bush like the rest of the World. Not that that's not a good reason to vote Bush. I just wish he'd tell the truth for once.

I just see him in his Yale cheerleader outfit not even knowing where Pakistan is. A girlie man. :p

The Willow Sword
09-15-2004, 09:36 PM
BTW they're on Willows friends trail...


yeah right:rolleyes:,,although it does seem that the "sources for the documents, are getting death threats,,,its all a bunch of redneck repub BS though. apparently they shot one of the sources dogs in the head killing him.

You know, in my opinion, i wouldnt put it past the Bush repub Regime to Kill to stay in power(seems like they have been killing alot in the middle east),,,but on the other hand if the over zealous illiterate repub rednecks out in abilene decide to make a martyr out of one of the "sources" then that would seal the cap on bush's fate and it would pretty much be a winning time for Kerry/edwards, and thats all the Bush's really need now isnt it?
you know its funny that when certain people have media connections,,and they are for the left,,and douche bags like the ones who are making the death threats to those very people,,,,my god the stupidity,,,,they would kill thier own president in the process. stupid dumba$$es.:rolleyes:

rogue
09-16-2004, 06:15 AM
They hate us because of George Bush like the rest of the World.
Bullsheet count, if you believe that I'm disappointed in you. By "They" I'm guessing you mean people like Osama. Remember the Cole? Remember February 26, 1993? The Khobar Towers? Remember Kenya and Tanzania? I do and I don't remember W being around. Pull your head out of Michael Moores fat ass and think, remember and figure out what the catalyst for these attacks were.


It's also a fact that Osama died of natural causes. I would have liked to see him brought to justice by US hands like we were promised. Too bad. Bush had more important things to do.
1. We don't know if he's dead. I've heard that he is, I've also heard he isn't. No evidence either way. 2. I don't care how the dumb ass dies as long as it's painful.

Willow, your friend should never had done this and sounds like he's in over his head. I hope he stays safe. If he's as honorable as you say I'd guess he was played by a Dem operative.


Bush repub Regime to Kill to stay in power Hey it worked for Clinton.:p

MasterKiller
09-16-2004, 06:37 AM
We'll find out if Osama is dead soon enough. NeoCons always have an "October Surprise" when they run for office, so it will be interesting to see what Karl Rove pulls out of Bush's @ss next month.

And BTW, when Pat Buchanan says Bush got duped to go into Iraq and that the neocons should be out of office, it doesn't bode well for the unity of the Republican party.

count
09-16-2004, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by rogue
Bullsheet count, if you believe that I'm disappointed in you. By "They" I'm guessing you mean people like Osama. Remember the Cole? Remember February 26, 1993? The Khobar Towers? Remember Kenya and Tanzania? I do and I don't remember W being around. Pull your head out of Michael Moores fat ass and think, remember and figure out what the catalyst for these attacks were.
Where was W. back then? Probably snorting coke at camp David. I remember Rouge. I am also realistic about the number of terrorists brought to justice. I also remember the literally 10 times the number of Americans who died in the space of one hour on this continent in 2001.

In a recent world survey of 35 countries around the world conducted by the University of Maryland, The World's approval rating of GW is a whopping 12 percent. The only 3 countries he came close to a 50-50 split were Poland, The Phillipines, and Nigeria. In many cases, Bush didn't even make double figures. On 9/11 the whole world (excluding AQ) was solidly in support of us. Just look at what he has personally done in three short years.



1. We don't know if he's dead. I've heard that he is, I've also heard he isn't. No evidence either way. 2. I don't care how the dumb ass dies as long as it's painful.
Again, I defer to the people who were actually there. I know of at least one doctor who was there. The fact is, the evidence is there. You just won't hear about it unless it suits GW's political needs.

The fact is either one of the candidates has an equal chance fighting the war on islamist terrorism. But one has proven himself to be a misleader, either ignorant of the reality or deliberatly lying about it. The other hasn't had a chance yet. So go ahead and cast your vote because you don't like John Kerry. I'm sure people will cast their votes because they don't like George Bush. But the truth is in the facts, and if people choose to ignore the facts, they deserve what they get.

MonkeySlap Too
09-16-2004, 08:24 AM
Whoa, who, whoa... first Willow has Jason Putnam putting the forged CBS documents together (and Count, there never would have been a CBS story without them, so Rather's defense is specious at best - even if there is some truth to the story.)

Now OBL is dead? Count, you have proof? Where the h@ll did you get that? Gimme a source, man... Weekly World News? Inquiring minds want to know...

MonkeySlap Too
09-16-2004, 08:30 AM
I just remember Bob Dole's words "Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine a medal of valor winner would lose to a draft dodger."

Ahhh, where's Bill clinton when you need him?

Bush/Kerry aside - let's not forget the real reason to be afraid of Kerry winning: His cabinet. It's the return of Carter, I tell you.

count
09-16-2004, 09:04 AM
Sorry MS2,
I'd tell you, but than they'd have to kill both of us. :D Seriously, you know how to get in touch directly.

I have to say, I think it's more like a return to Clinton days than Carter days, but that's a fair enough reason to cast your vote the way you see best. But I gotta say too, Bush's cabinet is a **** site scarrier.

Chenny
Ashcroft
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Rice
:eek:

MonkeySlap Too
09-16-2004, 09:04 AM
Well, the forger has been named: Bill Burket

A man of stunning integrity or Not?:

"He sued the National Guard after being hospitalized for several nervous breakdowns. And when that didn't pan out he started going around trying to hawk this Bush story. If the memos can be tied to this loser, not only will his claims be made into a mockery, but the Dems who have been running around holding him up as proof of their National Guard fantasies are all going to look bad. And all the Dems, which is just about every one of them, who have been harping endlessly on this story for the last year or so, are going to look like...wow...liars."

Of course they can always trot out Whoopie Goldberg to spew some more hate...

count
09-16-2004, 09:08 AM
Forget the documents, the real story is Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, on the record. Better than documents, Lt. Col. Killian's secretary who says they reflect the sentiment of the times.

MasterKiller
09-16-2004, 09:17 AM
These validity of these documents DO NOT have anything to do with the facts: Bush received special priviledges to intentionally aviod combat, he scored a 25 (the lowest possible passing grade) on his Air Guard entrance exams, yet moved to the head of a 1,000+ name list in less than 4 weeks. When it came time for a required medical exam, he skipped out on his duty and went AWOL.


I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.--G W Bush

Whether or not the documents are forged, Killian's secretary says she remembers him being pizzed about Bush disobeying a direct order and skipping his physical.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml


She told 60 Minutes again and again that she believed Lt. Bush refused a direct order to take a physical.

“Col. Killian’s son says that this isn’t true,” says Rather.

"He has no way of knowing whether that is true or not," says Knox.

Knox says that working in a senate campaign in 1972 became more important to Mr. Bush than flying for the Guard.

"I think it is plain and simple. Bush didn't think that he had to go by the rules that others did,” says Knox.

"He had this campaign to take care of, and that's what he was going to do -- and that's what he did do.”

MasterKiller
09-16-2004, 09:34 AM
Maybe he has Alzheimers?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/09/14/a_medical_cause_for_bushisms/

And what's up with his flight logs? Funny how he wasn't allowed to fly alone, then started missing landings, and then skipped a medical exam...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C131961%2C00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040910_316.html

That doesn't sound like a coke-head, now does it?

rogue
09-16-2004, 10:04 AM
I am also realistic about the number of terrorists brought to justice. count, I doubt you or I know the real number of terrorists brought to justice.


Forget the documents, the real story is Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, on the record. Better than documents, Lt. Col. Killian's secretary who says they reflect the sentiment of the times. I like the way suddenly the documents don't matter. Sorry guys we'e not dealing with he said/she said. Face it you were all excited and you were all duped. In a way I wish Rove had done this, it just so funny. It's also funny how the Bush haters have to beat the same dead horses.

Wow some smoking gun MK...

Air Force experts who examined the records at the request of AP said they would need more information to know exactly what happened but that the logs could reflect anything from problems in Bush's flight performance to a shift in emphasis in his training.

For most of his National Guard career -- more than 200 hours -- Bush flew solo in a one-seat F-102A fighter that was used to patrol the skies against any attacks from enemy aircraft.

However, the logs show Bush flew nine times in T-33 trainers in February and March 1972 -- nearly twice as many times as he had flown in the training vehicle in the prior 18 months in the National Guard.

He flew eight times in the training vehicle in one week alone. On four of the trainer flights, Bush moved from primary pilot to co-pilot even though he had advanced from a second to a first lieutenant, the logs show.

The T-33 jet is designed to help train pilots early in their career, allowing for a more experienced pilot to sit behind a trainee before the trainee is permitted to fly solo in a single-pilot jet. During his pilot schooling at the beginning of his National Guard career, Bush flew extensively in the T-33.

Air Force experts said it is hard to know without more information what caused Bush to suddenly begin using the training vehicle at the end of his pilot career. He could have been practicing a skill he was struggling with, trying to learn a new skill, or help train another pilot.

Retired Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd, a former head of the Air National Guard, said Bush may have jumped into the T-33 in his effort to put in enough hours to stay current with his pilot requirements if there wasn't a F-102a jet available for him.

"It's hard to say without having been there," Shepperd said. "This is just speculation, but it may have had to do with the availability of aircraft."

The logs also show that Bush, who throughout his career usually landed his jet with a single pass, required two passes to land the F-102A fighter on March 12 and April 10, 1972. His last flight as an Air National Guard pilot cam,e six days later .

Former Air National Guard chief, retired Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver said Bush could have been simply practicing landing skills. "It doesn't mean anything to have multiple approaches," Weaver said.

Whatever the case, Bush stopped flying altogether shortly after the spate of trainer flights in spring 1972. He then skipped a required medical exam, did not appear for any training for six full months, transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama National Guard to work on a political campaign and was stripped of his pilot privileges, his officials records show.

White House officials also could not explain the final two entries of Bush's official flight logs that refer to him being assigned to work as an instructional pilot in late May 1972 at a Texas Air National Guard base. Bush actually sought permission and left the base for Alabama before the dates listed on the flight logs and his pay records show he wasn't paid for any work on the two dates of the instructional pilot assignment.

The logs have a code indicating the assignments were eventually deleted from his official records. White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the entries could have been a simple paperwork error.

Chang Style Novice
09-16-2004, 10:40 AM
The "war is lost"
Military experts say they see no exit from the Iraq debacle -- and that the war is helping al-Qaida.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal

Sept. 16, 2004 _|_ "Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how we are "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But according to the U.S. military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost.

Retired Gen. William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse -- he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He added: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving [Osama] bin Laden's ends."

Retired Gen. Joseph Hoare, the former Marine commandant and head of the U.S. Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."

"I see no ray of light on the horizon at all," said Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College. "The worst case has become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after World War II in Germany and Japan."

"I don't think that you can kill the insurgency," said W. Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, the top expert on Iraq there. According to Terrill, the anti-U.S. insurgency, centered in the Sunni triangle, and holding several key cities and towns, including Fallujah, is expanding and becoming more capable as a direct consequence of U.S. policy. "We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are X number of insurgents and when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the U.S. presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."

After the killing of four U.S. contractors in Fallujah, the U.S. Marines besieged the city for three weeks in April -- the watershed event for the insurgency. "I think the president ordered the attack on Fallujah," said Gen. Hoare. "I asked a three-star Marine general who gave the order to go to Fallujah and he wouldn't tell me. I came to the conclusion that the order came directly from the White House." Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded, and Islamist radicals gained control, using the city as a base, al-Qaida ("base" in Arabic) indeed.

"If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power, it becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation," Terrill explained. "Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators." He describes the religious imagery common now in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: "There's talk of angels and the prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and emanating wonderful scents."

"I see no exit," said Record. "We've been down that road before. It's called Vietnamization. The idea we're going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."

"This is far graver than Vietnam," said Gen. Odom. "There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with a war that was not constructive for U.S. aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile and we're in much worse shape with our allies."

Terrill believes that any sustained U.S. military offensive against the no-go areas of the Sunni triangle "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign." Thus an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."

Gen. Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it -- after the election. The signs are all there." He compares any such planned attack with late Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad's razing of the rebel city of Hama. "You could flatten it," said Hoare. "U.S. military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle. I hate that phrase 'collateral damage.' And they talked about dancing in the street, a beacon for democracy."

Gen. Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and senior military officers over Iraq is worse than any he has ever seen with any previous U.S. government, including during Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."

Radhnoti
09-16-2004, 01:39 PM
Lt. Col. Killian's son says that the lady CBS is trying to use to justify those documents wasn't anything like a "personal" secretary. He says she worked for a lot of officers in addition to his father. He also says his father held Bush in high regard.

It IS funny how all the democrats are "forget the documents" and "the documents don't matter" now. Kerry simply doesn't have anything to run on...almost nothing he did in the Senate would play well to the general public in the U.S. The only thing he thought he had a lock on was "war hero", so that's how he came out swinging. That's the only reason these documents mean a blasted thing, Kerry wanted to revisit the past...where he felt the strongest. Democrats who say that WASN'T the plan didn't watch the same nomination acceptance speech I did...
"Reporting for duty!", surrounded by Vets, almost NO mention of any of his Senate days. C'mon...the guy BEGGED for all this.

How many people think Kerry was given bad advice and support was lukewarm so Hillary can run in '08?

count
09-16-2004, 02:14 PM
Radhnoti,
I'll say it again like I told Monkeyslap, If you haven't read both platforms and read through the plans for policies, than you deserve whatever you get.

Maybe you or Rouge or Monkeyslap would care to give me an idea why I should vote for Bush. I already know why not to vote for him having read his platform and listened to the economists, and military experts explain what his ideas for privatization would provide you and me and what they would provide corporations. What his military strategy has gotten us into. How his energy policies effect the planet. How his foreign policy has weakened our relationship with our allies, created more terrorists, and put our citizens both private and government, in jeopardy around the world. Why should we allow him to shred our constitution with his ****phobic if not divisive language, preach his idea of religion in public, and appoint all conservative judges to take away any rights we've fought for throughout the past 228 years. Continue to support his corporate pals and ignore the some 3 million people added to the ranks of poverty level in the past 3 years. I could go on and on but I'd like to hear one good reason he deserves to get a chance to implement them. How about one thing he's done in office so far that he followed through on and benefited us?

Christopher M
09-16-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by count
I already know why not to vote for him having read his platform and listened to the economists, and military experts explain what his ideas for privatization would provide you and me and what they would provide corporations.

Could you expound upon this?

Christopher M
09-16-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by count
First there were weapons, than we were liberators...

You have it backwards. The weapons argument came later. You may consider Bush's remarks (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html) for yourself here.

Christopher M
09-16-2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by MasterKiller
And BTW, when Pat Buchanan says Bush got duped to go into Iraq and that the neocons should be out of office, it doesn't bode well for the unity of the Republican party.

Buchanan is better known as a representative of the Reform Party, isn't he?

GLW
09-16-2004, 04:31 PM
First, if you are going to use quotes and they are quotes NOT from this thread - as in quoting what someone said in a previous post, you really should provide your source. This is NOT necessarily applicable to paraphrasing but desirable...but direct quotes...come on...how hard is it to cite your source.

Second, a typical Karl Rove trick...been done here in Texas for a while and Rove is the master of it:

You have 95 documents that show your boy in a bad light. First, you try to discredit the source of those documents. The logic : if the source is bad, the documents are too. Barring that, you inject 5 false documents into the mix. Now you have 95 good and 5 bad. You then reveal the 5 bad - one at a time.... and now ALL of the documents are suspect or bad.

Third, Karl Rove's enemies have a strange habit of ending up bankrupt, sick, ruined, having nervous breakdowns, or dead. Rove is VERY VERY good at this type of dirty politics.

At the face of it, GW got preferential treatment...if you grew up in Texas and know about how the Guard worked then, there is zero doubt on that one. He got preferential treatment to get in, got more while he was in, and got away with things that regular folk would have spent time in the stockade for.

GW did NOT go to Viet Nam.

Kerry COULD have done the same thing. Regardless of whether or not he spent as much time there as he should have...he went to a combat unit when he could have gotten out of it.

Aside from having the audacity to challenge the Bush/Republican machine, his major crime here is that he came back and said things against that war and was very vocal.

Looking back on it, MAYBE some of the things were NOT first hand experience in his statements...but things like MaiLai DID happen. Many DID die.

I have yet to see a list of what were the goals and plans for that war. How we got in and how we planned to get out.

Now, move up to present day. Where is the plan for WHY Iraq. What were the reasons to go in? What were the goals? What was and is the plan for leaving? How do we know we met any of these goals?

These are standard questions asked of any endeavor in ANY job.

I don't think any company would keep a CEO that had botched it so badly.

We are in a situation where we are doing things that have been done before. We KNOW that they did not work before...yet we are acting like they should work now.

Isn't this part of the definition of neurotic behavior.

ZIM
09-16-2004, 05:03 PM
Forget the documents, the real story is Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, on the record. Better than documents, Lt. Col. Killian's secretary who says they reflect the sentiment of the times.

Wha--? What do you mean? The documents are like friggin' CRACK-- I got NO patience for anything else

Christopher M
09-16-2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
Bill Clinton approved it, he just didn't act on it.

The missile strikes don't count?

rogue
09-16-2004, 06:00 PM
GLW, it's a moot point, Rove didn't do this one.


Maybe you or Rouge or Monkeyslap would care to give me an idea why I should vote for Bush.
No reason to Count, you already have all the answers. Which flavor of Kool Aid did you drink?:D


The missile strikes don't count? Like the one that took down Ron Browns plane, Chris?















Just a little bit of conspiracy fun...;)

The Willow Sword
09-16-2004, 06:42 PM
Records of Bush's service have significant gaps, starting in 1972. Bush has said he left Texas that year to work on the unsuccessful Senate campaign in Alabama of family friend Winton Blount.


The five kinds of missing files are:

A report from the Texas Air National Guard to Bush's local draft board certifying that Bush remained in good standing; The government has released copies of those DD Form 44 documents for Bush for 1971 and earlier years but not for 1972 or 1973. Records from Bush's draft board in Houston do not show his draft status changed after he joined the guard in 1968. The AP obtained the draft board records August 27 under the Freedom of Information Act.

Records of a required investigation into why Bush lost flight status; When Bush skipped his 1972 physical, regulations required his Texas commanders to "direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination," according to the Air Force manual at the time. An investigative report was supposed to be forwarded "with the command recommendation" to Air Force officials "for final determination." Bush's spokesmen have said he skipped the exam because he knew he would be doing desk duty in Alabama. But Bush was required to take the physical by the end of July 1972, more than a month before he won final approval to train in Alabama.

A written acknowledgment from Bush that he had received the orders grounding him; His Texas commanders were ordered to have Bush sign such a document; but none has been released.

Reports of formal counseling sessions Bush was required to have after missing more than three training sessions; Bush missed at least five months' worth of National Guard training in 1972. No documents have surfaced indicating Bush was counseled or had written authorization to skip that training or make it up later.

A signed statement from Bush acknowledging he could be called to active duty if he did not promptly transfer to another guard unit after leaving Texas; The statement was required as part of a Vietnam-era crackdown on no-show guardsmen. Bush was approved in September 1972 to train with the Alabama unit, more than four months after he left Texas.


SO these types of files were missing in the official records of Bush back then,,,documents surface that question what Bush is doing at the time,,and you wonder why they are being denounced as forgeries? in truth the documents are not forgeries but real documentations to signify that Bush was lacking in his duties as an officer to attend something simple as a physical(why would he not want to do that you might ask? well the rumours that he was real fond of cocaine back then would suggest that and the excuse for helping one of his dads friends in alabama(of all places)would be a convienient one to throw out there to buffer that rumour.

Why go on ahead and put out documents like these? what is the goal? oh sure it is to further taint and already tainted 4 year career as one of the worst presidents(my opinion dirty politics goes both ways,,repubs do it, and us demos do it). but what this is also showing is a total lack of integrity and HONOR to go to vietnam when his country called him to do so in the fight for the freedom and sovereignty of south vietnam(which is what he is doing as president right now in iraq,supposedly) there is a glaring contradiction here. He has ridden on the coat tail of his daddy since his daddy was in the senate and because he was a rich white boy he has had the privaledge of not going off to fight in a war that drafted so many underclass poor minorities,,given that some wealthy families sons went to vietnam,,,the ratio of rich white boys to poor white black and hisapic boys to go to vietnam was very low
Special favors for the rich elite and the real LACK of integrity on the part of these wealthy sons to go off and fight ,,hence Bush Jr and his lack. it is a very convienient thing for him to get the higher ups and aspiring politicians to pave young bush's way around going off to combat and it looks like Bush was all for it.
the strange thing is that none of you repubs really say anything about this,,his not going off to fight. How many veterans do we have here on the KF forum boards that want to add thier opinion to the mix? was it good that he did not go off and fight in that terrible conflict or was it a dereliction of moral conscience and honor to serve your country in times of war,,,what did he do? he flew planes over houston,,(and to my understanding he didnt do a very good job of that either) Bush's buisness dealings have gone sour,,with his dad's wealth and that of others bailing him out every time,,,and you wonder WHY we (the middle class and below are suffering economically because of 4 years of his policies) the only people benefitting are the top 3% wealthy.
it has ALWAYS been like that.

We ALL can sit here and type out our feelings and opinions and personal politics, we will ALL play the game until november when hopefully the "PEOPLE" will decide who should run things for the next 4 years,,,,I say it should be Kerry/Edwards. i DONT consider them to be the "lesser of two evils" fuk that, i wont base my vote on that like alot of others will,,you contradict yourselves and your politics when you do that, even though i understand that alot of people just want Bush OUT.

rogue
09-16-2004, 06:48 PM
I heard that John Kerry and John Edwards both jerked off like monkeys when they were teenagers. Pretty sad when the Kerry folks have to go back 30+ years to make their guy look good. MoveOn

count
09-16-2004, 07:24 PM
That's what I thought.:rolleyes:

Rouge, I got it. It's all about Kerry. Just like Monkeyslap asked me about Kerry, I asked about Bush. I'm an open minded person. More so than most. It's true, I didn't expect an honest answer even though when asked, I gave one. But I didn't think you had anything. That's why all the personal attacks on Kerry. Nothing to run on. If it's about Bush, he looses.

You know, I live in this country and I got my $500 from the IRS. (less than one months health premiums) I know what Bush thought about tax cuts. Unfortunately, he didn't understand that tax cuts have no effect if you keep spending. Probably should have studied harder in school. Or could he have thought he could just buy our votes.
Nothing to run on. It's pathetic.

Chris, I could expound on the effects of privatization for you, But if you could afford my consulting fee, you're probably going to vote for Bush anyway.

Christopher M
09-16-2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by count
Chris, I could expound on the effects of privatization for you, But if you could afford my consulting fee, you're probably going to vote for Bush anyway.

Why did you bring it up if you don't want to talk about it? :confused:

CaptinPickAxe
09-16-2004, 07:37 PM
I thought only American citizens could vote...

ChrisM isn't American...right?!?

Christopher M
09-16-2004, 07:48 PM
I only work here.

David Jamieson
09-16-2004, 07:49 PM
This is gonna be one of teh best presidential mudslinging matches to date!

Intellectual waffler vs Congressional Medal of Idiot holder!


ding ding ding

come out fighting, you 2 yank wankers got 46 days to get your opponent in a reverse naked!

I also find it funny that there is actual fear abouyt putting Nader on the ballot. I mean, Nader is smarter than both these guys, but he's definitely someone you want to lock in a room to analyze stats as opposed to making presedential decisions.

Whoever wins... America Loses. Although I would say that Kerry would change the perception of how the rest of the world feels about america. If Bush stays, expect more war, more fear and more terror along with your 500 bucks in the mail which won't cover your ambulance and bed fees for one day in the hospital with a cut knee.

go figure!

Neither one of these special heros has an exit strategy for Iraq, there is no news on the war on terror other than some hillbillies in Arkansas are on Orange alert because you never know when the Al Quaeda is coming to Blow up the Orange valley Wal Mart. :rolleyes:

American politics are more entertaining than American Movies!

Radhnoti
09-16-2004, 08:17 PM
"Radhnoti, I'll say it again like I told Monkeyslap, If you haven't read both platforms and read through the plans for policies, than you deserve whatever you get."

OK. Major point (as observed by MSNBC's site below) by major point as I see it:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4448630/

Abortion: I'm with Kerry. Forcing someone to carry a child...though moral and good if done with free will, in my opinion...amounts to slavery. Forcing someone to live/work for another against their will should always be opposed.

Budget: I'm with Bush. Kerry says "repeal tax cuts", that's always bad.

Death penalty: I'm with Bush. Violent crimes has been shown to be the same 5% of the criminal population...and I believe the studies showing fear of the death penalty being a deterrent to crime. (Ever seen stats from when New York brought back public hanging in the late 1800's, crime plummeted).

Economy: I'm with Bush. Kerry thinks taxing the rich will solve everything...well, I'm not buying into that class warfare nonsense. The rich are the guys HIRING others. Hurt them and I doubt they'll rush out to expand their business interests. Bush wants to make the tax cuts (which I DID see and use in my personal life) permanent. Oh yeah...another "brilliant" Kerry plan, raise the minimum wage. Here's another truth, whatever you raise the minimum wage to...products will raise in price accordingly. Little Johnny's wages go up 2 dollars an hour at the milk processing plant and you think the plant owner is going to accept less of a profit? NO. He'll raise the price of milk...which Johnny is going to have to pay for along with all the OTHER stuff that's gone up because of a raise in the minimum wage. Net gain = ZERO for the working guy.

Education: I'm with Bush. Bush increased spending on Education AND made the schools accountable to measurable standards. Kerry disapproves of the emphasis on test results and opposes private school vouchers. Who would school vouchers benefit? I'll tell you who it won't benefit, the richer folks. Their kids are ALREADY going to the BEST schools in the country. I look at my bills and see all the money being cut out for the schools...which is fine, but when it's my kid why NOT let me take the money that would've gone to him at a public school to a private school. The fact is Kerry and the Dems cater to the teacher's unions who DON'T want people to have that choice.

Energy: Tie. Both seem to have some decent ideas and neither stands out above the other for me.

Environment: I'm with Bush. I like the fact that he feels state and local government might know the needs of their community better than the huge federal government...which Kerry thinks should have a strong role. Anytime you expand the role of the federal government, it's probably going to be a bad thing.

Foreign Policy: Tie. One wants "entangling alliances" with countries that hate the U.S., the other thinks it's a sacred duty to spread democracy. I remember how GREAT it was that Bush handled the Taliban in Afghanistan. We didn't need a wishy-washy type on foreign policy then, we needed someone who was willing to strike back. Now I think all nations know, you harbor terrorists and it could mean the toppling of your regime. But his willingness to "do" is part of what led us to Iraq as well...and the first thing my military history teachers always stressed is an exit strategy. If you don't have one, you're not leaving and I've yet to hear one from either side that makes sense.

Gay and Lesbian Issues: I'm with Kerry. Everyone should be free to do whatever they want that isn't hurting someone else. But, I don't like adding to the ridiculous "hate crimes law"...all violent crime should be punished with equal severity regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation etc.

Guns: I'm with Bush...or at least the Republicans. I'm incredibly pleased with the way the Republican legislators have been handling repeated attacks on the Second Amendment. It's a shame Bush said he supported an extention of the laughable "assault weapons ban", but his Republican colleagues saved him from making a terrible mistake by voting for that bill. Immunity to gun makers is a good idea, reforming our Justice system would be an even better idea. Soon legislators will be considering immunity for fast food conglomerates as well. After all, no one is responsible for their own actions anymore. :rolleyes:

Health care: I'm with Bush, barely. Kerry wants to spend more than Bush. Switching as much as possible into privately owned companies is the best we can do.

Homeland security: Tie. I'm no fan of much of the Patriot Act, but Kerry's plan looks just as intrusive and his "revamping" of the Patriot Act mentions no specifics, just "what he thinks is intrusive". Both want more federal controls and power.

Immigration: I'm with Bush. I can't believe Kerry thinks anyone who's able to slip in ILLEGALLY and get by for five years deserves citizenship. I'm not totally with Bush's complicated "temporary legal status" plan either, but Kerry's plan is a slap in the face to all the folks who came here and immigrated the RIGHT way.

Iraq: Tie. Bush, no exit strategy. Kerry, voted for it...then opposed the aid packages. If you're gonna send our troops DON'T shortchange them in any way.

Religion: I'm with Kerry. I think seperation of church and state is a good idea. I'm not sure this category is relevent to the candidates platforms though...

Social Security: I'm with Bush. I don't think Social Security will be there when I retire, and private industry will almost ALWAYS do a better job than our government.

Trade: Tie. Don't really see much difference between the two candidates stances.

This wasn't in the article, but I love that Bush is saying that he thinks the tax code needs reform. I'd love to see income tax abolished...maybe switch to a consumer based tax?


So my totals:

3 for Kerry, 5 ties and 9 for Bush. Assuming the Libertarians show up about as strong as usual, I'll be voting Bush in this next election.

count
09-16-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Christopher M
Why did you bring it up if you don't want to talk about it? :confused:
Sorry Chris,
Didn't think you really wanted to change the topic so much. Let's just say it's a boring, complex subject that requires an awful lot of historic, political, and economic background. Definitely not as fun as arguing about the dummies who think they should be king. Briefly to say that privatization historically limits your choices, limits competition, lines the pockets of the corporate execs who already make 300 times what you and I make, and creates so much waste that the prices you and I pay average one and half times what we pay now for about 50 percent of the value.

Naturally, Bush is always looking for ways to help out his fat daddy friends and he might get rid of some of the administrative costs of social security and medicare or even education to the point where it looks like he cut into our half a trillion dollar budget deficit for this year, but than where would he borrow the money to pay for everything else if he couldn't raid social security? Oh, I forgot his line of credit he created when he borrowed the money to pay for his tax cuts. From Russia or China. Oh well, my daughters kids will be paying for it anyway. Why should I let it bother me?:p

Kung Lek: Your a funny guy.;)

David Jamieson
09-16-2004, 08:44 PM
Kung Lek: Your a funny guy.

Topical observational humour. There's a lot of material to exploit here. :D

count
09-16-2004, 08:49 PM
Radhnoti,
**** man if that were all true I would vote for the man. I do a little more research about your science and economics though.

Budget: half a trillion dollar deficit

Death penalty: States issue

Economy: 15 million unemployed 45 million can't afford health care. Wages down by an average of $9000

Education: Lip service unless you actually fund it.

Energy: What do you work for Enron or something?

Environment: cough, what planet do you live on? You might read about some of John Kerry's work and plans on the environment.

Guns: Tie, their both the same.

Health care: read my last post.

Immigration: Well since you said it's your belief and not your knowledge I let it slip. But don't come to California and say that. You'll get shot on the spot. And we can do it with assualt weapons now, even though Bush says he is against them.

Social Security: Again, read above.

Iraq: Well that's just another whole thread :rolleyes:

I'm 100 percent for debating a new tax code. A national sales tax would not work though as Bush has proprsed but I'm willing to debate it. I'm for a flat tax.

count
09-16-2004, 08:52 PM
Trade: I'm willing to debate the pros and cons of outsourcing all our good jobs. But a half a trillion dollar trade deficit?????

Leimeng
09-16-2004, 09:05 PM
~ WOW!
~ So many points and soo little time to cover them.
~ Anyway, a few observations:
~ Pat Buchanan is a Conservative in the Reform Party. Conservatives generally view Neo-Conservatives as liberals with morals. Point? Dont take Pat Buchanan as being a representative of the Republican Party.
~ Foriegn policy is the job of the office of the President of the United States. We hope that the President will do what is the best for the United States instead of what makes him popular with the world. Speaking of the rest of the world though: What is the actual track record of the UN or Europe? Do you remember Rwanda? When the UN did not want to act, (particularly France, who as it turns out was at least ignoring of not actually aiding the belligerant parties in that conflict), what did the UN say or do? What did they do or say when the US tried to introduce resolutions and action in the UN General Assembly? How about how certain nations (The allies that John KKKerry wants to confer with and impress) are complaining about the desire of the US to get some sort of decisive action to help minimize the genocide of Sudanese at the hand of islamo-facist in Sudan? How about when the UN puts Libya and Cuba on its Human Rights committee?
~ How about these so called allies of ours? What about the idiological evil twins of Communism/Socialism and Facism? (Facism actually being a form of Socialism)? Is that something worthwhile that was contributed to the world? Both of these blind fanaticisms led to innocent civilians being killed by the millions, during peacetime as well as in wars. Maybe you feel that European (Hegelian) Imperialism was a good thing? The track record of the Europeans is pretty pathetic if you look at it. (The track record of most African, Mid Eastern, South Asian and East Asian Countries is not that hot either...)
~ Heck, the US had to be the major force in the Lewinsky Wars because the Europeans seem to be rather incapable of solving their own problems. That is still leaving out the record of rape and institutionalised prostitution practiced by most UN observer missions around the world.
~ Are these the people to whom we should defer on life-and-death questions? Are our actions to be limited to what is acceptable to the lowest common denominator at the UN or in Europe? Are the lofty rhetoric and condescending airs of foreigners to impress us more than their dismal track records?
~ Oh well, those people dont like us so we must be doing something wrong....
~ Whilst Ken Lay and Enron were large donators to the Republican Party, they are were equally large donators to the demon-crap party. Infact, Ken Lay spend several nights in the Lincoln Bedroom at the behest of Wild Bill (3 times if I remember correctly).
~ Another funny thing. When KKKlintoon ran for office the left wing and their co-conspirators in the statist media did not care that KKKlintoon was a draft dodger. In fact, they said that Vietnam service should never be an issue in an election. John KKKerry even came to his defense on this issue. Now we find out that GW Bush was in the guard so that is important because John F(ing) KKKerry was in Vietnam? The demoncraps and their fawning sycophants should at least be consistant.
~ Speaking of military service during that time. Do you remember that GW Bush was the son of the CIA director at that time? They would not have let the kid go to Vietnam even if he WANTED TO. Just look at Al (the tree) Gore and his service in Vietnam. He had to BEG to go so he could help out his daddy's senatoral campaign. When he got there he had a detail of bodyguards around him to make sure he did not get shot at while there. The reason could be attibuted to having a rich and powerful daddy (Actually, as far as senators go, his father was not that influential) the other half of that is that for the enemy to catch and/or kill the kid of a leading US Politico in a war is very dangerous, and very exploitable.
~ Before this year, had you ever heard anyone claim that four months in combat makes someone qualified for four years as President of the United States -- with no questions asked about what they did in the intervening decades?
~ Oh well, we never accused the left of being logical...
~ Then there is this flap about GW Bush skipping some physicals. I served 16 years in the Air Farce. It is not really that big of a deal if people skip appoinments like that. (Actually they should make it to appointments, but people just really dont care unless they are going to get in trouble for something else.) Skipping appointments like that happens all the time. I know several people who missed appointments like that. It really is not a major deal.
~ Of course, then there is this pathetic whinning about giving tax cuts to the rich etc... If a person was intellectually honest and did some research about this matter though, they would find out that 44% of the populace outside of the tax paying system. According to IRS statistics and supporting studies: " 41 percent of whites, 56 percent of blacks, 59 percent of American Indians and Aleut Eskimos, and 40 percent of Asians and Pacific Islanders will have no 2004 federal income tax liability." Meanwhile: "The top 20 percent of income earners pay 80 percent, and the top 50 percent pay 96.5 percent of total federal income taxes."
~ If we wanted to be fair, we should demand greater tax cuts for those who earn it!
~ We all have a moral obligation to pay our share for constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government, but we have no such obligation to have Congress take the earnings of one American and give them to another American. Forcing one American to serve the purposes of another is one way slavery can be defined.
~ To be continued....
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

Flatulo Ergo Sum --

"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer." --John F. Kennedy

(***Insert Personal Wise A$$ed Comment Here***)

Christopher M
09-16-2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by count
Didn't think you really wanted to change the topic so much.

I'm not sure how this is a change of topic. The topic seems to be people's reasons to vote for or against Bush and/or Kerry. You gave your opinion. Assessing that opinion is precisely on topic, isn't it?


privatization historically limits your choices, limits competition, lines the pockets of the corporate execs... and creates so much waste that the prices you and I pay average one and half times what we pay now for about 50 percent of the value.

I flatly disagree, and so does, contrary to your initial assertion, mainstream economic thought. When you said originally 'Bush's thoughts on privitization' it was not clear if you were offering a critique on privitization generally or on some specific version thereof which you attribute to Bush. From this explanation it seems to be the former.

In this case, your critique simply doesn't pan out. Let's address these concerns one by one:

"Privatization... limits your choices." It's difficult to make sense of this. The absence of privatization means to have a single enterprise, the state, which is guaranteed delivery for a service. From this very definition, it's impossible for privatization to limit choices for service delivery -- even in a complete monopoly there will still be as many choices as under the absence of privatization. Thus, it's impossible ab initio for privatization to limit our choices.

"Privatization... limits competition." The same problem exists here. In the absence of privatization there is one enterprise, and you need multiple enterprises for any competition. So, again, it's impossible ab initio for privatization to limit competition.

"Privatization... lines the pockets of corporate execs." I'll accept this premise, but I don't see how it's a critique. Having 'corporate execs' pockets not lined is not, in itself, a public good.

"Privatization... <is cost inefficient>." Whereas the above were easily dismissable, this requires some analysis -- so perhaps would be where future discussion is most fruitfully directed. As it stands now, in refutation of this claim I offer: competition generates cost efficiency, privatization generates competition, therefore privatization generates cost efficiency.

David Jamieson
09-16-2004, 09:54 PM
uh, Leimeng, who exactly told you that Fascism is a form of socialism? :p hahahahaha. you've been punk'd!

count
09-16-2004, 09:56 PM
Chris,

Actually you might examine the plan the government wants. Economic thought on the left or the right differ drastically in privatization. See Argentina. See Iraq. What you might consider mainstream might be a bit radical to me.

Leimeng, a very interesting post. I don't disagree. If you read my comments about Bush's foreign policy blunders, I did say the fact the mojority of the world hates us might not be a reason not to vote for the guy, but at a time when you've been attacked and are at war, it's not the best time to **** everyone else off. You might consider that contrary to the Republican line, there are other countrys besides France and Germany that have blown us off.

You might also notice that no one is against tax cuts. It's what you do with the budget that matters.

I agree, there's no place for any discussion of past war records but I also see discussions of what Clinton did pretty irrelevant too. Maybe for a comparisons sake but all that doesn't mean much today.

I understand with your background why you might support Bush but I only refer you to your JFK quote. As I have been saying to everyone else, all you can do is vote your conscience.

MonkeySlap Too
09-16-2004, 10:18 PM
Kung Lek, please stop making Canadians look stupid. Fascism is a form of socialism. Hence "national Socialists", unlike the left wing variety it advocates limiting capital to a handful of owners versus the 'state''. But it is socialist nontheless.

CaptinPickAxe
09-16-2004, 10:23 PM
yoh fiyahd!!!

David Jamieson
09-16-2004, 11:22 PM
ms2- as much as the right would like fascism to be associated with the left, it is the opposite of marxist socialism in ideology and practice.

fascism is what it has always played out to be. Right wing dictatorial politics.

The National Socialist party (the nazis) were socialist in name only, like zell miller is a democrat! Ha! ...and I can't see that being the model for the italians under Mussolini either.

anyhoo... I find it interesting that calling fascism what it is in historical context and practical application will always attract some guilt ridden right winger to try and sew it to socialism politically.

I can't for the life of me seem to figure out how this makes canadians look stupid. However, I find several of your political opinions to be off the meter when it comes to stupid bud. So, there you have it. And thanks for coming out.

Christopher M
09-16-2004, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Kung Lek
as much as the right would like fascism to be associated with the left, it is the opposite of marxist socialism in ideology and practice.

Fascism is indeed opposed to Marxism. That doesn't mean it's opposed to socialism generally. Marxism is an example of the general sort of theory known as socialism; fascism is another example. This is clear: fascism claims to be socialism (eg. national socialism), developed out of socialist theory (see Mussolini), and features the main characteristic of socialism: planned markets. These are good reasons to consider it socialist, and there is no good reason not to (that other socialists find the association disfavorable is a reason, but not a good one).

Christopher M
09-16-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by count
Actually you might examine the plan the government wants.

Ok. If you have any response, I would like to hear it.

David Jamieson
09-17-2004, 05:53 AM
well Chris, if we really want to pull hairs, democracy itself in any of it's various iterations can be construed as a form of socialism.

Democracy can also fit a model that is not unlike that of a communist politburo or of a socialist dictatorial proliteriat.

Point being that if a person takes it upon themselves to see the world in Black and White terms then they are taking a fundamentalist position. And we can see where fundamentalism takes us through the actions of any given amount of people or their associated groups. It is for the most part, a bad thing.

MasterKiller
09-17-2004, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Radhnoti
Budget: I'm with Bush. Kerry says "repeal tax cuts", that's always bad. Daddy Bush was smart enough to repeal some of his cuts, even though it cost him the election.


Death penalty: (Ever seen stats from when New York brought back public hanging in the late 1800's, crime plummeted). The key word there is PUBLIC. If no one sees it, it's not a deterrent. The Romans didn't crucify people in private.

GLW
09-17-2004, 08:39 AM
Some things to think about in a death penalty:

It actually costs MORE to execute a person than to imprison them for life. You have to add in the extra court costs, appeals, and so on. The last I checked, it was roughly 3 times more in the US.

Now, in other countries, this is not the case. Singapore for example, found guilty and within the week you are hung. China, found guilty, then or the next morning, taken out, shot, and your body and a bill for the bullet used are sent to your family.

The use of the death penalty in the US - heavily aimed at minorities....even though the population is NOT.

There is evidence that many prosecutors are more concerned with their conviction rate than with justice. This has led to the suppression of and falsification of evidence. For example, in Texas, there was recently a Houston man, Black, convicted of rape on DNA evidence. The DNA test from the Houston crime lab was botched. The DA knew it may have been. In appeal, the DNA tests were rerun and proved that the man was NOT the perpetrator. I haven't checked lately, but he is now out of jail but NOT yet cleared of the conviction.

That was for a rape, what about a capital offense where the guy has already been executed... I don't know about sending a big "OOPS..." to the family there.

Personally, I am against capital punishment on economic grounds. I don't want to pay one thin dime more for a criminal being punished than is necessary. (Notice I sais PUNISHED...we do not rehab them...that is up to them and the money to REALLY do rehab is not and never will be there).

Were this cost issue to be changed, I would expect the prosecution to be legitimately concerned more with justice than with their personal stats before I would support the idea.

Strange that...coming from someone that lives in the execution capital of the US.

Nick Forrer
09-17-2004, 09:10 AM
The fundamental aim of socialism is to maximise the wealth of the worst off i.e. to minimise poverty –which is subtely but importantly different from seeking to bring about an equitable distribution of wealth. The common ownership of the means of production is simply the means by which Socialists wish to achieve this. Were it to turn out that an alternative mode of social and economic organisation is better able to meet this goal then any truly committed socialist (i.e. one not bound by dogma) would embrace it. A centrally planned economy is therefore method, not message.

The fundamental aim (and typical result) of Capitalism , OTOH, is to maximise the wealth of the best off, a free market laisse faire economy typically (though not always) being the means proposed to achieve this. Of course some posit a ‘trickle down benefits to the poor’ argument to try and offset this naked self interest but it is clear that only direct taxation can ensure that this really happens in practice.

In contrast to the above two ideologies, the aims of fascism are difficult to talk about since the clearly differ from case to case. Hitler for example had the specific aim of eliminating jews and was able to achieve this (at least initially) through democratic means. Pinochet, Suharto, Somoza & The Shah (all supported by the US BTW) had other aims specific to them. However if there is a defining characteristic of Fascism it is this: the subordination of the legislature to the executive. This clearly can be the case whether the economy is centrally planned or not.


It is true, however, that Hitler and his party the national socialists modelled a lot of their social programs on Roosevelts 'new deal' which involved large scale state spending. This of course was used to bring America out of the economic slump known as the great depression which was caused by market forces being allowed to run riot . America therefore, which is often used as an example of a successful free market, in fact has had and continues to have ‘planned’ markets – for example agribusiness is heavily subsided. Also look at jet engines, lasers etc all these things originated from publicly funded research programs which were then handed over to the private sector gratis when it was clear a profit could be made from them – is America therefore socialist?

Christopher M
09-17-2004, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Kung Lek
democracy itself in any of it's various iterations can be construed as a form of socialism.

No it can't, at least not accurately.

ZIM
09-17-2004, 09:38 AM
It is true, however, that Hitler and his party the national socialists modelled a lot of their social programs on Roosevelts 'new deal' which involved large scale state spending. The "New Deal", in turn, was based upon Communism as envisioned by Stalin- or "Uncle Joe" as Roosevelt foldly referred to him. The FDR Admin was rife with Communists.

Christopher M
09-17-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Nick Forrer
The fundamental aim of socialism is to maximise the wealth of the worst off... The fundamental aim of Capitalism , OTOH, is to maximise the wealth of the best off

This is plainly incorrect. You seem to be confusing your personal speculations about capitalism with the aims of capitalists, which is a common but completely unreasonable tactic. Socialism and capitalism share the same goal of distributing wealth and labor in a manner to most benefit the citizens, where they vary is not in this goal, but rather in how they suggest this goal be reached.


The... typical result... of Capitalism , OTOH, is to maximize the wealth of the best off

While maximizing the wealth of the least off as well -- or would you like to argue that the lower class in the leading capitalist economies are worse off than the lower classes elsewhere?


Were it to turn out that an alternative mode of social and economic organisation <than planned economies> is better able to meet this goal then any truly committed socialist would embrace it.

Maybe, and then they'd stop being a socialist. This is certainly what happened to me: I recognized that the free economy is a better tool; yet it would be absurd to call me a socialist. Your error here seems to arise from the above noted mistake of believing socialism and capitalism to have entirely different goals by which they may be distinguished. In absence of this, we need some other way of distinguishing them -- and here it is.


some posit a ‘trickle down benefits to the poor’ argument to try and offset this naked self interest but it is clear that only direct taxation can ensure that this really happens in practice.

No, that's not clear at all. The free market is not put forth, as you suggest, as the method for making the rich richer, but for making everyone richer. Again you confuse your personal speculations about capitalism with what capitalists actually think (again this is unacceptable).


the aims of fascism are difficult to talk

No they're not. Hitler wanted to improve the lifestyle of his countrymen, just like other socialists and capitalists do. It's a vast error to rewrite him into a senseless monster. Just like with the distinction between socialists and capitalists offered above, where Hitler differed was in his methods.


Hitler for example had the specific aim of eliminating jews

No, this was a method. He didn't say "we have to do X to get rid of the Jews", he said "we have to get rid of the Jews to do X."


<Fascism> clearly can be the case whether the economy is centrally planned or not.

Could you give an example when it was not, then? Otherwise, this doesn't seem to be the case.


is America therefore socialist?

I think Merryprankster addressed this a while ago.

Spark
09-17-2004, 10:01 AM
While maximizing the wealth of the least off as well -- or would you like to argue that the lower class in the leading capitalist economies are worse off than the lower classes elsewhere?

That is such a load of bunk.
If a capitolist society is so concerned about "maximizing" the wealth of the least off - then why do corporations close shop and go to mexico, burma etc ... so they can pay wages of $1 a day? How is that "maximizing" the wealth of the least off?

Christopher M
09-17-2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Spark
why do corporations close shop and go to mexico, burma etc ... so they can pay wages of $1 a day? How is that "maximizing" the wealth of the least off?

The least off only count if they're Americans?

Leimeng
09-17-2004, 12:05 PM
~ Perhaps a better way to state the difference of political policies than to say "Right & Left" or what ever would be to talk about "Statism" v "Libertarianism or Liberty". Facism and Socialism are forms of statism as is modern Amerian Liberalism. That is, they want to use the state to control the people and resources of a given people. In Liberalism the ideal is to set up institutions and regimes which will take from all to provide some sort of benefit to the minority. Thus we can observe why many people feel that GW is a liberal. He wants to strenghten institutions to provide benefits to a certain constituancy. The point in it is that it is a state form of control over private resources. Communism comes out and says that there is no such thing as a private resource.
~ Given that, the question comes down to; how much state control do you want to permit in your life? Do you want the state to tell you what you can or cannot do with your money? Excessive taxation is exactly that.
~ Corporations exist solely to make profit for their owners. In a Corporation the owners are the stock holders. These are people who buy mutual funds that invest in the corporation or people who own common and/or preferred stock. When the cost of operations cuts into profit the corporations try to cut costs so they can provide profit to the owners. Due to the cost of excessive regulation and high wages, many times the company will move outside of the country to do business. A company also will move a facility if there are not enough people with the required skill level to do a job, because of a tax advantage, or because of regulations. Sometimes a company will move a manufacturing facility to another location to cut down on shipping costs. That is why a lot of Japanese cars are made in the USA - $4000 in shipping costs raises the price of a product and makes it less competative.
~ Interestingly, most jobs that 'move overseas' don't go to India, China or Mexico. Instead they go to Europe, or come to the USA. Official statistics published last March in the Survey of Current Business showed an increase of 2.8 million jobs outsourced by American-owned multinational corporations during a quarter of a century ending in 2001. Over that same span of time, there was an increase of 4.7 million jobs outsourced to Americans by foreign-owned multinational corporations.
~ Meanwhile our current unemployment rate -- 5.4 percent -- is one of the lowest in the world and one of the lowest in our own history.
~ Political and economic analysis needs to look at a lot of factors beyond they tripe fed us by the statist media and our edu-cratorial school systems. There are a lot of resources out there for analyzing what is really happening so that you need not be swayed by rhetoric.
~ To be continued....
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

Flatulo Ergo Sum --

Is it possible to be totally partial?

(***Insert Personal Wise Assed Comment Here***)

Merryprankster
09-17-2004, 12:19 PM
I think Merryprankster addressed this a while ago.

Huh? When? Not challenging, just curious - as I certainly do not believe that I did it anywhere in this thread on purpose!

I've got to go with Chris M on all the capitalism vs. socialism stuff. With respect to capitalism, I would like to make a distinction, please - "Trickle down effect," is a term commonly used here in the States to refer to the economic benefit derived from cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations. The theory is that these are your primary investors and giving them more money to play with means economic growth as money required to establish new businesses or recapitalize existing ones becomes easier to obtain. I happen to disagree fundamentally with this approach, and most economists - although there are some who support it - tend to believe that this is, in fact "voodoo economics."

Capitalism's goal is to maximize total economic size. While it is true that the wealthy tend to get wealthier, the poor, contrary to some opinions, do not continue to get poorer. In general, they tend to get richer as well and their real purchasing power increases. What DOES happen is, as the economy evolves and changes, different skill sets are required - manufacturing jobs do go overseas, but new ones are created in other sectors. In the AGGREGATE over time, the economy grows, it's just that some sectors lose while others gain. I realize that this causes consternation in the rust belt or in the textile factories, but protecting these and other economic sectors in favor of some sort of autarchy is inadvisable because specialization and economies of scale makes for a more efficient, profitable and ultimately bigger economy. There is no more efficient method of creating wealth for the simple reason that a private economy multiplies the money supply as the currency changes hands over and over again. When a government agency or government owned business gets hold of it, it's static. It doesn't get spent as many times and contributes less to overall growth. There is a real opportunity cost incurred for every dollar that goes to the gubmint.

This should not be taken as a wholesale endorsement of an unregulated business environment. Transparency in the economy is key to a fair, competitive market. Consequently, you need a stable, corruption free government IN THE MAIN, which will actively policing businesses for ethical and legal violations. Otherwise, you devolve into a kleptocratic environment driven by bribes, kickbacks or other considerations - a death blow to economic growth.

Christopher M
09-17-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Merryprankster
When?

With your "The argument about the role of government ended a while ago gentlemen and those who believe to make it all things to all people won." I was being a little <more> facetious <than usual even> though, as I think it's a silly question.


I would like to make a distinction, please - "Trickle down effect," is a term commonly used here...

Right, you don't have to be a supply-sider to be a capitalist. (Bringing it back to the former topic -- just like you don't have to be a Marxist to be a socialist.)

Merryprankster
09-17-2004, 01:48 PM
Right, you don't have to be a supply-sider to be a capitalist.

Thank god...

MonkeySlap Too
09-17-2004, 02:59 PM
Thank you MP. What he said.

CaptinPickAxe
09-17-2004, 03:14 PM
Bigg Jus (http://www.ninjatune.net/videos/video.php?type=qt&id=72)

ZIM
09-17-2004, 04:57 PM
Celsius 41.11 (http://65.36.166.137/Trailers/c4111t128.wmv)

Radhnoti
09-17-2004, 05:48 PM
Count, I took my "where they stand on key issues" info from the site I referrenced.
You made quite a few responses there. Just to refute the one that's in direct conflict with the site I mentioned.

You said, "Education: Lip service unless you actually fund it."

Federal spending on Education has jumped nearly 50% with Bush in office. What the democrats seem to have a problem with is that he asked teachers and schools to show what kind of return that funding is bringing.

Everything else you said I also disagree with for various reasons...most of which was covered earlier in this thread.

Edit: Actually, I meant to agree with you that the Death Penalty should be a State issue. I didn't choose the "key issues" though, just took what MSNBC had thrown together. I wouldn't have put down their religious views as "key" either.

Take care,

Radh

count
09-17-2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Radhnoti
Count, I took my "where they stand on key issues" info from the site I referrenced.
You made quite a few responses there. Just to refute the one that's in direct conflict with the site I mentioned.

You said, "Education: Lip service unless you actually fund it."

Federal spending on Education has jumped nearly 50% with Bush in office. What the democrats seem to have a problem with is that he asked teachers and schools to show what kind of return that funding is bringing.

Everything else you said I also disagree with for various reasons...most of which was covered earlier in this thread.

Radh
Well go right ahead and vote for your man. I have no problem with that. Except Bush still is around 27 billion short so far on what he promised for his education program and the data is still out on how effective his call for accountability will be. He still plans to cut afterschool funding by 40 percent in 2004, but hey, what can you do with a half a trillion dollar deficit? But if that doesn't bug ya, by all means feel free to disagree with everything I said. :)

You take care too. :)

Merryprankster
09-18-2004, 04:34 AM
There is a real opportunity cost incurred for every dollar that goes to the gubmint.

As an aside, I would also like to point out that this opportunity cost is overplayed by many people when it comes to the United States. For instance, we spend about 4% of our GDP on defense - reducing or increasing that spending by even, say, half would have little effect on our economy one way or another.

Similarly, increasing or decreasing the income tax 1% on the wealthiest 20% of Americans would have little effect on our economy.

The reason is the sheer size of our GDP. These changes (which have significant impact in the size of the United States' government budget/revenues) are like ant bites to an elephant.

I would also like to point out that my comment regarding the government being all things to all people is NOT a comment about government size (the U.S. government is relatively tiny and uninvolved compared to other powers in this world) - it's a comment about priority setting. Resources are finite, but the tasking for government from the people can be infinite. Our process, in theory, should create a set of priorities which can be used to pare down that tasking to meet resource constraints. This has not happened because it is politically expedient to tell the executive branch to meet all those tasks, then underfund them, while borrowing to fund the real priorities, all the while claiming you "supported" these programs in the first place.

Which brings me to my next point - Radhnoti, increasing the funding by 50% (we can quibble about that number as well, of course) hasn't come close to meeting the costs incurred by the new testing program and education systems are having to absorb that cost out of hide. Pumping 50% more money in doesn't help much if instituting and processing a mandate, while trying to do all the other things they were doing (which were already underfunded), meets or exceeds the funds available.

So it sounds cool, but it's not that great.

rogue
09-20-2004, 10:47 AM
EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

MasterKiller
09-20-2004, 10:57 AM
Even then, Rather said no one had disputed the story's premise: that the future president had pulled strings to get a relatively cushy National Guard assignment and failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.

rogue
09-20-2004, 12:01 PM
And we all know how Dan the News Man is with facts. Geraldo laughs at him.:p

GLW
09-20-2004, 03:37 PM
What you are seeing with the 60 minutes story is typical of the things Karl rove is famous for.

In the past, he has taken a situation where his candidate had some very damaging items agianst him. when he KNEW that the story was going to break no matter what he did, he took the legit parts of the story and mixed it in with false parts...

Then, when the story broke, his guys would start pointing out the false areas ONE AT A TIME. If they had done it en masse, it would have been too obvious what was happening.

By the time they had debunked several of their planted "facts" and proven them wrong, no one was interested or believed the true parts of the story. This is similar to hiding things in plain sight.

The first part of the story is what Ben Barnes had to say...and did say under oath about the pulling of strings to get GW into the Guard in the first place.

The papers presented were SO obviously timed just right. It blew up right after they lost mileage with the SwiftVet stuff. I mean, how convenient for them.

count
09-20-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by GLW
By the time they had debunked several of their planted "facts" and proven them wrong, no one was interested or believed the true parts of the story. This is similar to hiding things in plain sight.

You mean like the trillion plus dollars it cost taxpayers to bail out Enron and Worldcom? And than publishing the story in newspapers buried by the events of the day? We Americans couldn't be fooled like that?

You mean like presidential appointments of judges during a senate recess and when the people are to busy worrying about J lo's ass to notice?

You mean like pushing a bill through the house and the senate instituting mandatory draft in Spring 2005 for any boy or girl aged 18 to 26, and than losing it in the din of a noisy election year? No, these things couldn't get past our brilliant citizens???

The Willow Sword
09-20-2004, 04:10 PM
and it is even more dissapointing to my friend who actually aqquired the documents from Bill burkett. seems like my Friend along with CBS and Dan Rather have been duped. It is dissapointing to ME in that the integrity of my friend now has come in to question,,,i still stand before what i said about him.

Still though,,,the main factor in all of this is the REAL source from where the documents were aqquired,,which bill burkett is not naming because those people have already been getting death threats and such. Whatever investigation that CBS does now i think will not matter in the long run,,,,this has put a big hurt on the kerry/ edwards campaign and Kerry and edwards themselves are doing the right thing by not saying one d@mn thing about it.

there is still hope yet i feel,,,,November will decide. I am still in the Kerry/edwards camp though.

PEace All,,,TWS

Christopher M
09-20-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by GLW
What you are seeing with the 60 minutes story is typical of the things Karl rove is famous for...

I'm not antagonistic to conspiracy theories as such, but my problem with this is that it seems unfalsifiable: it seems to be a belief system that would excuse away any possible observation. If this is the case, surely it's not reasonable? Do you have any reason to believe this claim other than this belief system you have about Rove?

rogue
09-20-2004, 06:40 PM
GLW, count, Willow, do you hear that noise? It's W and Rove in a black helicopter using mind control on you. So if Rove planted this the Democrats machine and CBS are too stupid to verify the documents. If Rove didn't plance this see above and maybe add in a little Max Kleeland conspiracy. MoveOn boys you've lost this round.:p

count
09-20-2004, 07:05 PM
Sorry Rouge,
You won't find anything but published and documented facts in any one of my posts on the topic of Bush or Kerry. No propaganda or conspiracy theory from me. I haven't lost a thing, yet. It's you're boys election to lose. I just hope everyone pays attention so they know what they get. I have my doubts. But it doesn't effect me if some radical supreme court takes away abortion rights. I doubt my wife has to worry about it these days. I couldn't afford another one anyway. Do I care if gays get married? Not really. So this country loses a few rights from our constitution or our bill of rights. Spends a few trillion more to ease our government instilled fear. I just hope you guys don't have children or are yourself of legal draft age. Too bad for you if you do nothing about it yourself. :p

rogue
09-20-2004, 07:21 PM
You mean like pushing a bill through the house and the senate instituting mandatory draft in Spring 2005 for any boy or girl aged 18 to 26, and than losing it in the din of a noisy election year? No, these things couldn't get past our brilliant citizens??? Where was John Kerry during these votes? When did he rail against it?

rogue
09-20-2004, 07:30 PM
he he he (http://michaelmoore.com/words/message/)

GLW
09-20-2004, 08:31 PM
sorry but there is no conspriacy theory here. It is simply normal Texas politics taken to the nth degree.

Texas has a long long history of really dirty politics. Character assasinations, leaked news, leaks that are partly true but not really, and so on. Rove is the guy that circulated the rumor that Ann Richards was a lesbian. He is the one that made the fact that she was a recovered alcoholic an issue in her race against Bush...even though he is one as well. Although, in actuality, Richards IS a recovered alcoholic. Bush has never worked through his addiction...he simply stopped drinking in favor of getting high on power and religion.

Rove has ruined more than one news person. The Swift Vets can be traced to Rove friends, and such. He is NOT a person of any level of ethics. However, if you have no qualms about the how of thing....if you believe that the end justifies the means...and the end doesn't have to be for anyone but your own gain, Rove is your go to guy.

While I deplore his methods and lack of ethics, I can truly admit that he is formidable and very good at what he does - especially what he does to others.

This entire story, just like the Swift boat stuff, the McCain having a "black" baby, McCain being mentally unstable due to being a prisoner of war, etc... are classic Karl Rove methods. The fact that people only find out about and believe what he has done only way after the fact is a testament to exactly how much of a dirty politic expert he is.

count
09-20-2004, 09:21 PM
Where was John Kerry. Probabably busy running for president. At least it not like he's been on vacation, playing golf, ignoring his expert advisors while Al Queda was plotting to blow up the world trade towers. He was campaigning to do something about getting rid of the worst president in history.

A Bill (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm)

Enter HR 163

Hope your's aren't of draft age.

Christopher M
09-20-2004, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by GLW
sorry but there is no conspriacy theory here. It is simply normal Texas politics taken to the nth degree.

Ok. My question is do you have any reason for believing your interpretation of the 60 minutes issue other than the belief system you have about Rove?

Otherwise, it's a nonfalsifiable theory, and thus rather meaningless in the context of rational discussion, right?

Leimeng
09-20-2004, 11:47 PM
~ One of the funny things about this "Draft Legislation" being 'pushed on us by the bushies' or what ever the accusations are, is that I bet very few people have ever read it. Do you notice who are the sponsors for the legislation?

"January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services "

~ This is legislation being pushed by morons on the left wing of the demon-crap party. Notice the people sponsoring it. Are you capable of reading it? How are these left wing wackos pushing legislation for the Republicans? Can anyone come up with an honest explaination for that? Perhaps you should read the congressional records and hear Mr RANGEL talk about how we need the draft to enforce military service across racial and economic lines.
~ I am suprised at all you supposedly intelligent individuals for allowing yourselves to be duped by this sham. Sham on the demon-craps for their lies. Shame on KKKerry for playing on your fears. Shame on you for not reading the facts of a situation, but instead relying on the moronic left to spoon feed you their propoganda.
~ The Pentagon has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to the draft. All branches of the military service are exceeding their retention and recruiting goals. The Republican party, and the Administration has continually stated that they are opposed to the draft. The only people supporting this legislation are left wing democrats.
~ Oh well, such is life.

~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

Flatulo Ergo Sum --

"Why did God make so many dumb fools and Democrats?" --William Powell in the movie, "Life With Father"

(***Insert Personal Wise A$$ed Comment Here***)

CaptinPickAxe
09-21-2004, 12:26 AM
My friend just returned from a month long excursion in Europe...He had the time of his life. He said that Europeans hate American politics but don't mind Americans...

count
09-21-2004, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by Leimeng
One of the funny things about this "Draft Legislation" being 'pushed on us by the bushies' or what ever the accusations are, is that I bet very few people have ever read it. Do you notice who are the sponsors for the legislation?

"January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services "

~ This is legislation being pushed by morons on the left wing of the demon-crap party. Notice the people sponsoring it. Are you capable of reading it? How are these left wing wackos pushing legislation for the Republicans? Can anyone come up with an honest explaination for that? Perhaps you should read the congressional records and hear Mr RANGEL talk about how we need the draft to enforce military service across racial and economic lines.
~ I am suprised at all you supposedly intelligent individuals for allowing yourselves to be duped by this sham. Sham on the demon-craps for their lies. Shame on KKKerry for playing on your fears. Shame on you for not reading the facts of a situation, but instead relying on the moronic left to spoon feed you their propoganda.
~ The Pentagon has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to the draft. All branches of the military service are exceeding their retention and recruiting goals. The Republican party, and the Administration has continually stated that they are opposed to the draft. The only people supporting this legislation are left wing democrats.


Whatever you say that's muffeled in your rhetoric, Mr. Charlie Wrangles serve/d/s his country with honor. Perhaps a little disgruntled that 50 percent of the grunts in the military are people of color, and guys who can ride on the daddy's coat tails are shurkers. Kerry's not peadling this. Don't be a hypo-repuli-crit. It's obvious who is mongering fear around here. I'm a realist. I don't fear Osama for a second. But I don't doubt for a minute that my 15 year old could get pulled into George Bush's war given the state of the military today.

It's laughable you think that the military is meeting your retention goals. The way their getting guys to re-up is to offer them mandatory 3 more years or a trip to iraq today. They might as well stay in since they won't have any benefits left when Bush gets done. Of course the pentagon still thinks they can do it on the cheap. They've mis-calculated at every step of the implementation of their neo-con plan to take down Saddam.

No thanks, I think I'll buy my fear from the reality facing me every day when the bills come in the mail. You may blindly support the incompetence in Washington.

GLW
09-21-2004, 07:16 AM
"Otherwise, it's a nonfalsifiable theory, and thus rather meaningless in the context of rational discussion, right?"

As valid as ANY OTHER opinion placed forth in a forum such as this.

Living in Texas, I HAVE been aware of Rove and his methods for a while. There ARE sources such as the Houston Press and even a Texas Monthly article and others on Rove and his methods. Also there was a PBS documentary on his rise from leading minor campaigns to becoming the Bush family go to man. That one was on Houston's PBS in August. It simply went from the beginning of his career and chronicled his races and how he won. It also traced the leaks and stories that aided his candidates...and how they were later tied back to an individual that then was tied to a person directly connected to Rove. His habit appears to be no more than 4 degrees of separation for the big stuff.

It showed his money connections. Some of those listed in that documentary were the same ones with the Swift Vets funding as well.

Now, would the CBS news thing stand up to scrutiny as it sits now. Of course not. NONE of Rove's stuff ever have been scrutinized until way after the fact.

For example, the guy that came out with the book about Bush and his alleged cocaine use... Rove was implicated in that man's discrediting. However, it did not stop there. Not only was he discredited...on personal areas and nothing was ever said about his allegations ...sound familiar... but within a couple of years, he was found dead in a motel room. Victim of an apparent overdose of something...but the investigations of the circumstances were highly textbook.

So...there is only supposition on this. However, it was supposition based upon some predictions made months ago by others - that outlined everything about this EXCEPT for it taking down CBS news and Dan Rather. (makes me wonder who he pi$$ed off...).

In a civil law sense, what we have here is a known pattern of behavior on Rove's part.

While only a full IMPARTIAL investigation could tell if there is fire here, there is the indication of, if not a smoking gun, a gun, bullets, and motive.

Of course, even if there were an investigation, it would never get beyond page 65 in any newspaper.

GLW
09-21-2004, 07:25 AM
Rangel's bill, if memory serves, was to enact the draft for ALL young people at age 18 or 19 - Male AND Female...with NO exceptions or deferrments - meaning that all of those rich kids and the legislators and president's kids would have to go in.

His statements were basically that until everyone was putting some skin in the game, the leadership that had never served and whose children never serve in any war would keep their family out of harm's way while the burden of all of the US military endeavors fell in large part on the lower economic classes and minorities.

Is he that far off?

I know of very few kids graduating high school either from upper income families, with scholarship or college options, money, or in the top of their classes that opt to go into the military (with the exception of those that I have known that got appointments to the various military academies like West Point).

For many of the young people of military age, enlisting is considered a loser option.

Chang Style Novice
09-22-2004, 09:40 AM
Are you religious? Do you believe in divine messages? (http://bordergatewayprotocol.net/jon/humor/images/GODvsBUSH.gif)

Christopher M
09-22-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by GLW
As valid as ANY OTHER opinion placed forth in a forum such as this.

Are you saying that unfalsifiable theories are as valid as any other, or that only unfalsifiable theories can be offered in this forum?

Neither one of these statements seems reasonable, which returns us to my initial critique of your position.

David Jamieson
09-22-2004, 11:27 AM
No it can't, at least not accurately.

uh, yes it can.

Take a look at Canada. Which is a representative democracy that upholds a socialist centralized form of government, with a provincial level beneath that and in the near future, city states.

So, any political ideology or model can be borrowed from and placed into the works of a democracy.

As for an "accurate" description of any government platform or ideology, that entirely depends on who's in power and how they define themselves.

There are no hard set rules beyond the very base fundaments and even then it gets murky. Like having a prime minister who became elected to the position almost a year after holding it. :eek: Or having an electoral college decide who gets to be president despite the actual one person one vote concept of democracy which was clearly not used in the 2000 elections in the US, which opted to have the college decide who the winner was instead of actually counting all the votes or fixing the issues with people who didn't have their vote registered etc etc.

Or having extremely powerful positions in government being "appointed". Look at Canadas Senate, or for another example the positions of power in the Pentagon or public service sectors anywhere in North america. Like the supreme court, or any number of other key positions that effect and affect everyday internal and external policies of the country.

No, by hair and hair, North America can hardly be called a purist democracy and is fairly socialist in the north and fairly capitalist in the south, with a mix of that in Mexico. But who knows, the shifts occur with the people who take the reigns of power, they do not seem to occur from a grassroots level except when we look at long term struggles to make change. The people themselves are always superceded by the holders of the halls of power.

GLW
09-22-2004, 02:42 PM
"Are you saying that unfalsifiable theories are as valid as any other, or that only unfalsifiable theories can be offered in this forum?"

I love your use or lack thereof of language. Eschew Obfuscation. Unfalsifiable - learning words from Alexander Haig, are we?

If what you mean is that you cannot prove a theory false - hmmm... What I pointed out was a documented pattern of behavior by Karl Rove. I DID cite some references. A PBS documentary (within the past two months aired in Houston - topic was Texas politics. I also cited some other sources. Doing a search at places like http://www.workingforchange.com and http://www.georgewbush.org and then asking a few questions for sources can turn up more.

While a pattern of behavior is NOT sufficient for a court of law dealing with a criminal case, it IS sufficient in a civil case in meeting a preponderance of evidence. In recent pop-court culture, this was seen in the fact that O.J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court but lost to the Goldmans in civil court.

Can anyone prove that this was orchestrated by Mr. Rove. No. Similarly, people working for Bush, Republican pundits and party faithfuls, and others are already being quick to say that this whole thing was orchestrated by the Democratic party or some of their Rove counterparts.

So, if those guys are credible, we are being asked to believe that some people in the Democratic Party planted the story but were so incompetent that they used documents and people that were easily proven to be suspect. How is flipping the coin and saying that Rove, who has a history of this type of politics, did the same thing and simply then had his chomping at the bit hordes descend on the things he "indicated" to look at that different?

What those PAID Political Analysts are saying would by your definition be unfalsifiable in exactly the same mode as the pattern of behavior I am referencing and my "theory". The only difference I can see is they have a bully pulpit and media access.

GLW
09-22-2004, 03:19 PM
This just In:

McAuliffe: Will GOP Answer If They Know Whether Stone, Others Had Involvement With CBS Documents?

Washington, D.C. - In response to false Republican accusations regarding the CBS documents, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued this statement:

“In today’s New York Post, Roger Stone, who became associated with political ‘dirty tricks’ while working for Nixon, refused to deny that he was the source the CBS documents.

“Will Ed Gillespie or the White House admit today what they know about Mr. Stone’s relationship with these forged documents? Will they unequivocally rule out Mr. Stone’s involvement? Or for that matter, others with a known history of dirty tricks, such as Karl Rove or Ralph Reed?”

from
http://www.democrats.org/news/200409210001.html

Hmm....sounds an awful lot like what I was saying...and coming from the head of the DNC...so, while unfalsifiable or not....it is NOT unthinkable.

Marky
09-22-2004, 03:28 PM
GLW,

You may have noticed that the DNC and RNC websites are mildly biased toward their own platform. You and your hypothesis would be better served by looking at "real" news sources for facts. This is just a suggestion, of course.

And now, in keeping with the pettiness of the arguement (which I will excuse myself from, as I lack anything further to contribute), I will laugh at you...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Just teasin' ya, of course

count
09-22-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Marky

You and your hypothesis would be better served by looking at "real" news sources for facts.
Well if CBS hasn't laid to rest the illusion that there are any "real" news sources in the mainstream media, than just have a look at fox/cnn/msnbc for a laugh.

Rove's antics are not only well documented but sell professed. And face it, the fact that the only story on every network has been about the documents and not what's going on in Iraq or in New York this week.

GLW
09-22-2004, 03:51 PM
yeah...I am fully aware of the bias of BOTH the RNC and the DNC.

However, I kind of figure that if poor little 'ol me can look at this and go "You know, this is just the type of thing that Karl Rove is known for...I wonder if he had anything to do with this...?"

And then, as soon as I think that, the RNC and their guys come out and say it was a DNC plot....and THAT fits with Rove's history...and then the DNC comes out and says "No, this is an RNC plot..."

Well, my only question is how come they aren't paying me the big bucks. I am just as good at this cr@p as they are....