Guess who is stumping for Kerry

[rogue]

That's right, the King of Hip Hop, the Real Deal Holifield, Grand Master OBL. Hit it G!


OBL: You American people, my speech to you is the best way to avoid another conflict about the war and its reasons and results. I am telling you security is an important pillar of human life. And free people don't let go of their security contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. He should tell us why we didn't hit Sweden for instance. Its known that those who hate freedom don't have dignified souls.like the 19 who were blessed. But we fought you because we are free people, we don't sleep on our oppression. We want to regain the freedom of our Muslim nation as you spill our security, we spill your security.

OBL: I am so surprised by you. Although we are in the fourth year after the events of sept 11, Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you, and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to repeat what happened before. I will tell you the reasons behind theses incidents.

I will be honest with you on the moment when the decision was taken to understand. We never thought of hitting the towers. But after we were so fed up, and we saw the oppression of the American Israeli coalition on our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind and the incidents that really touched me directly goes back to 1982 and the following incidents. When the US permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet. In these hard moments, it occurred to me so many meanings I cant explain but it resulted in a general feeling of rejecting oppression and gave me a hard determination to punish the oppressors. While I was looking at the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it came to my mind to punish the oppressor the same way and destroy towers in the US to get a taste of what they tasted, and quit killing our children and women.

OBL: We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration due to the similarity of his regime and the regims in our countries. Whish half of them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and presidents and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries. Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was feeling jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations finances without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it th e Patriot Law to fight terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.

OBL: We agreed with Mohamed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole operation in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute the operation thank god.

OBL: Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doenst mess with our security has automatically secured their security.

OBL: Word to your mother.

[rogue]

Just remember that not all punk a$$ coxuckers come from the mid east. http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/gadahn.htm

[David Jamieson]

That "word to your mother" part makes me wanna shoot him. :mad:

seriously, this guy needs a brain enema.

[David Jamieson]

Rogue I think that under the patriot act that the fbi probably has close to 100 million web pages just like that. :p

[David Jamieson]

wow! Is there really only 21 most wanted terrorists?

I know they "say" there are "22" as seen here:

http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/waronterrorhome.htm

but really, i counted em! there's 21.

Conspiracy I tell ya!, I don't know what it means, but I like the idea that even simple typos by mervin the web dweeb fbi guy can be construed as conspiracy! lol

and to top it off, the fbi apparently stopped reporting on terrorism in the united states in 2001 as shown here:

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terroris.htm

anyway, how about that curse of the bambino?

[rogue]

seriously, this guy needs a brain enema.
Might be a good painful death. I like how you think.

[Mr Punch]

So how the **** is he 'stumping for Kerry'?

[count]

He's right about one thing though:


Originally posted by rogue
OBL: Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands.

Obviously, not stumping for Bush or Kerry. But he is sticking his tounge out at someone. :p

Yet another example of the many failings of George Bush. Rouge, you are either a bad Republican or a fanatical holy roller if you support this guy. I thought all good Republicans stood up for smaller government, balanced budgets, less taxes, and protecting our constitution at all costs.

[rogue]

Bush is a better Republican than Kerry and his butt boy Edwards. And besides Kerry throws like a girl.

[count]

At least Kerry supports a balanced budget and pay as you go. Bush can't even ride a bike without falling off or watch a football game without almost killing himself on pretzel bits.:D

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Mat
So how the **** is he 'stumping for Kerry'?

[Vajramusti]

Yes- how is Osama BL stumping for Kerry?
That is a silly and misleading spin by Rogue.

[Chang Style Novice]

Yeah, the very fact that OBL is still out there and taunting us like this makes me say

"REMEMBER TORA BORA!"

We could have had this guy, but GWB had a stiffy for Iraq, so he underfunded and undertrooped the Afghan operation. Get rid of this incompetent, tunnel-visioned Giant Douche.

Vote Turd Sandwich instead

[Vash]

Originally posted by rogue
Bush is a better Republican than Kerry and his butt boy Edwards. And besides Kerry throws like a girl.

Kerry is a Vietnam vet. He got wounded in said service. A rather short term in the war? Yes. But, let's look at Bush.

Bush was a cheerleader.

Kerry is indeed a turd sammich. But that's better than being a douche.

Bush is a *****.

[Buddy]

Kerry colluded with the enemy and then dishonored his service by smearing the names and actions of his comrades. Like the Sean Connery character in Untouchables said, "If they kill one of ours kill ten of them." These are 11th century fundamentalist turds of dogs. I'm no Bush fan, but Kerry will sell you all to the UN as he backpedals his way to defeat and then will spend us all into the poorhouse.
In Massachusetts,
Buddy

[Radhnoti]

Most the pundits say that if you're talking about "terrorism" Bush comes out ahead, if you talking about "Iraq" Kerry comes out ahead.

OBL has become the epitome of terrorism, therefore by showing his face he's actually helping Bush...though I'd guess that he THOUGHT he was "stumping for Kerry". Hoping for a intimidation/Spain reaction maybe? I honestly believe that, at it's core, the U.S. is better than that.

Nobody that I know can articulate what Kerry is about, if they're voting for him it's; "He's not Bush." Fair enough I suppose, but I know where Bush stands and I don't think he'll pimp out U.S. interests in the name of coalition/multinationalism/warm fuzzies. I don't think he'll change his position every few weeks based on the latest polling data, and I don't think he'll have to qualify EVERY statement he makes with a "but" or "however".

Besides, it makes me sick every time Kerry talks about evil rich people and how they should pay more taxes...right before he boards Ketchup One and laughs about how he only payed a 13.4% tax rate last year.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Rahn20041027.shtml

[Mr Punch]

Fair enough. Good explanation Radhnoti.

I still don't quite see how a man (a dangerous extremist terrorist who just admitted responsibility for killing 3000 US citizens) that Bush said he would get Dead or Alive who is still living in the same country he was when Bush said this, making videos making fun of the US and Bush, while the US's resources are spread too thinly for your own military advisers' likings in a largely unconnected country is any kind of proof that Bush is sticking to his guns or getting the job done.

Same as I don't see how going into a war without a tangible end, saying it would be over quickly, then saying it was over, and then still telling your nation's soldiers to fight it and asking for four more years to do so (without, strangely, having made any mistakes it seems) is sticking to his guns or getting the job done.

Same as I don't see how pulling the Marines out of Falluja (when the job was half done and the Marines disagreed) was sticking to his guns or getting the job done.

He hasn't stuck to his guns or got any jobs done on a macro-political level, on a micro-political level, or on an operational level.

I don't know who TF Kerry is, and I'm not even American, but I can see this Bush man is a ****ing liability for your country, beliefs in freedom and the world in general.

[Stranger]

"REMEMBER TORA BORA!"

In all fairness, it could be, "Remember Sudan!" (circa 1993) or "Remember Kandahar!" (circa 1996).

Clinton gave OBL up twice while he was America's number one most wanted terrorist.

I'm not saying that makes Bush right, but it does spread the guilt around a little more evenly and fairly.

[Mr Punch]

Fair comment. But Clinton's not the President.

[Samurai Jack]

"I know where Bush stands and I don't think he'll pimp out U.S. interests in the name of coalition/multinationalism/warm fuzzies."

In point of fact we KNOW he won't, he can't. Bush has already pimped us out to Haliburton, Saudi Arabia, and any other oil conglomerate he and his filthy war profiteering pals have an interest in.

You don't really think he has the interests of the U.S. citizen in mind, do you? Pass the barf-bag.

[MoreMisfortune]

As I walk through this wicked world,
Searching for light in the darkness of insanity,
I ask myself, Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain, and hatred, and misery?

And each time I feel like this inside,
There's one thing I wanna know,
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?,
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?

And as I walked on through troubled times,
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes,
So where are the strong?,
And who are the trusted?,
And where is the harmony?,
Sweet harmony

'Cause each time I feel it slipping away, just makes me wanna cry,
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?,
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?

So where are the strong?,
And who are the trusted?,
And where is the harmony?,
Sweet harmony

'Cause each time I feel it slipping away, just makes me wanna cry,
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?,
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?,
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?

[jun_erh]

Bush and all the neocons should be put in jail. Anything that Saddam could possibly have given to terrorists was looted due to the poor planning and stupid strategies of Wolfowitz and co. all AGAINST the advice of the military. Lock em up and hrow away the key. Crawford, Texas should be turned into a toxic waste dump.

[unkokusai]

LOL

Lefties are just so darn rational! :rolleyes:

[rogue]

"Ummmmm, Kooolaid", said jun_erh .:D






















Anybody wonder how Kerry gets his wife's catsup out of her bottle?

[Mr Punch]

jun_erh for President!!!

[jun_erh]

what's not rational about what I wrote?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by count
I thought all good Republicans stood up for smaller government, balanced budgets, less taxes, and protecting our constitution at all costs.

No. All good conservatives do that. Being Republican doesn't make you conservative, or vice-versa. This reminds me of Foster's recent article (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=62f69c56-a606-4c21-a5db-08bd4eb8a05a) on Soros in the Financial post:

"The danger of commercial wealth corrupting politics and undermining the state has been a theme of heated debate since the time of Plato. Plato's answer was to have a ruling class of philosophers who would live in relative poverty. Some hopes.

The Bush administration is regarded as representing the culmination of Plato's fears. The United States, we are told, is run by a plutocracy under which -- to take the most prominent allegation -- the Iraq war was undertaken in order to grab oil concessions and snag contracts for Halliburton.

Certainly, businessmen will usually seek special favours if they are available. The answer to this problem is relatively simple, conceptually if not in practice: Limit the power of governments to hand out such favours. However, this solution presents a major problem to modern liberals, since for them big -- and expansive -- government is the sine qua non of the Just Society. But then George W. Bush can hardly be accused of being a fan of small government.

Since modern liberals have no fundamental comprehension of the power of markets, they believe that only a big state can save us from corporate servitude and environmental destruction. Businessmen -- in particular big businessmen -- are written off as irretrievable self-seeking hypocrites. And here, perhaps, modern liberals have their strongest point, although not quite in the way they think.

One of the most glaring fallacies of the conventional wisdom is that businessmen are supporters of free enterprise. In fact, to the extent that businessmen do become publicly involved in national politics, they are far more likely to espouse some version of special-favour fascism, radically redistributive liberalism or environmental alarmism."

This is a distinction Americans are going to have to understand before they have any hopes of fixing their government.

The interesting recent endorsement of Kerry is not that by Bin Laden, but rather that by the Economist (http://economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=3329802).

[jun_erh]

There is a difference. Fox News is very much pro-Bush administration. There loyalty lies more with that than conservative ideals. Another crazy thing is that Pat Buchanans magazine The American Conservative endorsed Kerry, though Buchanan himself did not.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by jun_erh
Another crazy thing is that Pat Buchanans magazine The American Conservative endorsed Kerry, though Buchanan himself did not.

Not that crazy: The American Conservative was essentially founded to be a critical voice against Neoconservatism.

[Chang Style Novice]

The interesting recent endorsement of Kerry is not that by Bin Laden, but rather that by the Economist.Yes, especially since (as has been repeatedly pointed out) Bin Laden did in no way endorse Kerry.

However, Hasan Rowhani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council did endorse Bush. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1334189,00.html)

[Christopher M]

I'd like to think you got my point and you're agreeing with me for emphasis, but I've got my doubts.

[Radhnoti]

Christopher...I just read that article you referrenced. Using the facts THEY supply I'd still pick Bush over Kerry.

From the article:
"Mr Bush was inspiring in the way he reacted to the new world in which he, and America, found itself. He grasped the magnitude of the challenge well... overall, the mission (in Afghanistan) has achieved a lot: the Taliban were removed, al-Qaeda lost its training camps and its base, and Afghanistan has just held elections that bring cautious hope for the central government's future ability to bring stability and prosperity.

Invading Iraq was not a mistake. Although the intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction has been shown to have been flimsy and, with hindsight, wrong, Saddam's record of deception in the 12 years since the first Gulf war meant that it was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt. The containment scheme deployed around him was unsustainable and politically damaging: military bases in holy Saudi Arabia, sanctions that impoverished and even killed Iraqis and would have collapsed.
...The current approach in Iraq, of training Iraqi security forces and preparing for elections to establish an Iraqi government with popular support, certainly represents an improvement

(In the rest of the Middle East)...Libya's renunciation of WMD is the sole clear piece of progress."

About Kerry:

"With any challenger, voters have to make a leap of faith about what the new man might be like in office. ...Mr Kerry has shaped many of his positions to contrast himself with the incumbent. That is par for the course. What is more disconcerting, however, is the way those positions have oscillated, even as the facts behind them have stayed the same. ...Oscillation, even during an election campaign, is a worrying sign. ...His only big spending plan, on health care, would probably be killed by a Republican Congress. On trade, his position is more debatable: while an avowed free trader with a voting record in the Senate to confirm it, he has flirted with attacks on outsourcing this year and chosen a rank protectionist as his running-mate. He has not yet shown Mr Clinton's talent for advocacy on this issue, or any willingness to confront his rather protectionist party. ...A war that he voted to authorise, and earlier this year claimed to support, he now describes as “a mistake”. On some occasions he claims to have been profoundly changed by September 11th and to be determined to seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they are hiding, and on others he has seemed to hark back to the old Clintonian view of terrorism as chiefly a question of law and order. He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush's targets of democracy, human rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies.
So what is Mr Kerry's character? ...His oscillations this year imply that he is more of a ruthless opportunist.

We agree that his (Bush's) broad vision is the right one...John Kerry says the war was a mistake, which is unfortunate if he is to be commander-in-chief of the soldiers charged with fighting it. But his plan for the next phase in Iraq is identical to Mr Bush's, which speaks well of his judgment."

Economist.com's argument seems to be that, "At least he isn't Bush." But they back Kerry with words like "moral authority" (since he's not Bush) and "no willingness to admit mistakes". And besides, with Republicans in control of everything else Kerry can't do any real damage. :confused:

I guess I partially fall into this category they referrence:
"Many readers, feeling that Mr Bush has the right vision in foreign policy even if he has made many mistakes, will conclude that the safest option is to leave him in office to finish the job he has started."

Samurai Jack, I think the "it's all about the oil man!" conspiracy nuts have been debunked pretty well. And I disagree with you that Kerry cares more about the average U.S. citizen than Bush. Kerry is a hypocrite, a gigolo (he's married multiple millionairesses now), an "oscillater" and a "ruthless opportunist".

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
Christopher...I just read that article you referrenced. Using the facts THEY supply I'd still pick Bush over Kerry.

Sure. I'm not sure I agree with everything they say, but I think it's a much more nuanced analysis than most, and in that sense an interesting read.

[Chang Style Novice]

Chris - if you mean me, I think I do understand why you find the Economist's very tentative endorsement interesting.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Chris - if you mean me...

Yeah. I felt like you came across as somewhat reactionary in inferring I was making some claim about Bin Laden's remarks when that wasn't at all my point.


I think I do understand why you find the Economist's very tentative endorsement interesting.

Well, it seemed germane as it concerned both the issue of interesting political endorsements and the distinction between conservatism as an ideology and the Republicans as a group.

[Chang Style Novice]

Yes, Bush's economic policies have been in stark opposition to anything that could be reasonably described as "Conservative."

And for what it's worth, your post did refer to "the...endorsement...of Kerry...by Bin Laden" so I think my reaction was well earned.

(please excuse my excess of ellipses)

[jun_erh]

Personally, I am voting against Bush solely on the failure to plan properly for the post-war in Iraq. they should have listened to the generals.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
And for what it's worth, your post did refer to "the...endorsement...of Kerry...by Bin Laden" ...

Yeah, and you said "Bin Laden did... endorse Kerry" so I guess we're in agreement.

Please excuse my excess of ellipses.

[rogue]

Personally, I am voting against Bush solely on the failure to plan properly for the post-war in Iraq. they should have listened to the generals.

Kooooolaid, must drink koooolaid.

[count]

Bush...

Is losing the War in Iraq which he was wrong to begin in the first place.

Failed to protect our chemical and nuclear facilities here at home after 9-11. (in fact can't even pronounce "nukular")

Never caught the Anthrax killer.

Allowed millions of jobs lost, in fact, supports companies who hire outside the US with corporate tax breaks.

Cut your overtime and created policies that lowered your wages.

On his watch...

Healthcare and insurance prices are up around 50 percent.

Gasoline up around 140 percent. (Just wait for the winter, hee hee)

The stock market has gone down.

Poverty has gone up.

He bailed out Enron, who ripped off millions of California energy users and destroyed 10's of thousands of good Americans retirement plans, at the expense of your tax dollars to the tune of one trillion dollars.

Gave no bid contracts worth billions to Halliburton (Cheney's company) and Bektel.

Couldn't even get one decent piece of legislature through a republican congress and senate.

AND NEVER THINKS ABOUT, LET ALONE CAUGHT OSAMA BIN LADIN.

Yet people would vote for this idiot because they think he's a good guy. Go figure ???

The Osama video is fake designed to scare you into submission. Don't worry, your daddy will protect you.:p

[SimonM]

Hear hear count!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

In its most simple terms... Bush has looked us in the eye and lied.. not even convincingly, and taunted us to challenge him.. he refuses to answer direct questions when the answers are clear to everyone but him.. and, he has set foreign relations back 50 years.. He's a wannabe cowboy, that has no problem living out his fantasies with the lives and deaths of good American soldiers.. the wisdom of the office implores the president to choose the battles carefully.. such was not the case for Iraq..

At least Kerry realizes that we can't survive as an isolationist nation.. we're all in this together.. He sees the need to bolster the home-front's economy and has a more balanced approached for the future of the US as a world leader as opposed to a world dictator.. whether it's Democracy or Socialism or Communism, any imposed government will suffer in the home land where it is imposed.. Democracy at the point of a gun loses its flavor..

Be well..

[Christopher M]

I don't think regurgitating lists of talking points is particularly persuasive to anyone who isn't already persuaded. To everyone else, it looks like an inability or unwillingness to participate in discussion -- which is more likely to turn people against your position than anything else.

[count]

Originally posted by Christopher M
I don't think regurgitating lists of talking points is particularly persuasive to anyone who isn't already persuaded. To everyone else, it looks like an inability or unwillingness to participate in discussion -- which is more likely to turn people against your position than anything else.
Not simple talking points. Simple truths, which seem to escape 38/49th of the people if you actually look at the internals on some of these polls the media is using to support their adgenda. I am not trying to pursuade anyone to change their minds. Never have. Only trying to clearify what some of you are actually supporting. Pretty sad if you ask me. But than, no one did.

Sigh.. Bob, you speak the truth :( . Besides, I never heard another Yale grad talk cowboy so good.

[count]

Osama speaks, reads and writes english, (probably better than Bush). If he wanted to address the American people, why did he do it in Arabic? Before you say he is stumping for Kerry, you might be served by asking someone who speaks arabic, what the video said.

[rogue]

The black helicopters are coming for you count, go quietly. I've met more simple minded liberals/Democrats who think everything is a conspiracy done by people who are too stupid to do such a thing. What happened to all the smart but wrong liberals that I used to know?


At least Kerry realizes that we can't survive as an isolationist nation.
Bob we are not isolationist. We are working quite well with France and others in Afghanistan and they are working in Northern Africa against terror cells there.


Only trying to clearify what some of you are actually supporting. Pretty sad if you ask me. But than, no one did.

Is losing the War in Iraq which he was wrong to begin in the first place.
Define losing?

Failed to protect our chemical and nuclear facilities here at home after 9-11. (in fact can't even pronounce "nukular")
It is too bad about those nukes being hit, made a big mess.

Never caught the Anthrax killer.
I believe that's the job of the FBI not the president himself

Allowed millions of jobs lost, in fact, supports companies who hire outside the US with corporate tax breaks.
Those taxbreaks have been on the books for quite awhile.
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/globe3.html

Cut your overtime and created policies that lowered your wages.
My wages are fine and determined by how much my services are needed.

On his watch...

[B]Healthcare and insurance prices are up around 50 percent.


Gasoline up around 140 percent. (Just wait for the winter, hee hee)
Laugh at the old people who die in the north east from the cold, it's very liberal. By the way can you tell me why oil prices are going up? Can you say supply and demand?

The stock market has gone down.
From what point. I play the market and I'm still making money.

Poverty has gone up.
Where?

He bailed out Enron, who ripped off millions of California energy users and destroyed 10's of thousands of good Americans retirement plans, at the expense of your tax dollars to the tune of one trillion dollars.
California lost it's millions by locking in it's energy prices at a certain amout. Grey Davis thought prices would go up by they went down. He gambled and lost at that point. The retirement plans were run by groups who didn't check out what they were investing in. Same thing happened when Clintons, tech bubble popped. It had nothing to do with Bush.

Gave no bid contracts worth billions to Halliburton (Cheney's company) and Bektel.
Please name the other companies that can handle what they do?

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by jun_erh
what's not rational about what I wrote?


Besides everything?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by count
Not simple talking points. Simple truths

Here is the problem: you didn't offer any discussion or support, but merely asserting a number points as if by divine fiat. You didn't propose any alternatives which you would prefer to see. You didn't relate any point to the ongoing themes of this thread, but merely posted in stimulus-response after hearing the word 'Bush' -- the same way you've posted the same list in a similarly vacuous fashion in numerous other such instances. You take the stance that they cannot be questioned, as you say: they are "simple truths" -- true on their own accord. So perhaps we can indeed identify in this thread, as you suggest, the natural reactions of people programmed by the "media" to "support their agenda."


[I am]Only trying to clearify what some of you are actually supporting. Pretty sad if you ask me.

Here is the problem: Because I have challenged your claim, I'm immediately delegated to the "some of you" whose moral standing is "pretty sad." In fact, I've never spoken a single word in support of Bush, and indeed do not support him. But your world view does not seem to accept a nuanced or grey area that would permit me to challenge a fallacious criticism of Bush without being his advocate. This is precisely the "us vs. them" perspective which you seem able to identify as the main problem in your culture, yet unable to recognize in yourself.

[Chang Style Novice]

A free-thinker's alternative analysis of the election (http://www.peoplesforum.com/cgi-bin/forum?14@@.5c833ab8/7105):eek: :confused: :rolleyes:

Seriously, you gotta read this to believe it.

And if you can understand it, I beg you, please explain it to me.

Elaine Supkis=Blooming Lotus?

[count]

Rouge,

I'm very happy your portfolio is doing so well. Tell it to the folks at Enron who's portfolio's are not quite as robust. In case you haven't been paying attention, check the governments most recent census on families living in poverty. It's typical to blame problems on previous administrations, but if the guy has four years, and makes things worse, he doesn't deserve another chance. (Especially as a lame duck) Blame the recession on Clinton if you want too. Blame Enron on Davis. LOL. Even though Clinton was not my pick, I still enjoyed the wealth. Thank God, I couldn't have survived the past 4 years if I hadn't. At the same time, even if I am a conservative fiscally, I have great sympathy for the people who can't afford to pay 500 a month for health insurance. I'm sure that takes a bite out of even your robust portfolio. Who knows, with the markets continuing in this direction, you may still be able to get medicare when you get old. I doubt it though. 70 trillion dollar failure. Why don't you get yourself one of those new medical accounts and hedge your bets.

Define losing in Iraq, OK, how about being afraid to do anything that might cost you the election. I won't talk about 1120 American's or $225,000,000,000.00 yet. Leave off the 100 or so beheaded. How about killing 100,000 inocent civilians? How about creating 15,000 fresh terrorists that we have to kill. How about the reasons we went there in the first place have been proven false? THERE WERE NO WMD! THERE WERE NO WMD!!! How about our relationship with Russia, Germany and France. Oh, we don't need the French much anyway. And I'm not really that worried about our nuclear plants either. It's the bombs from N. Korea and Iran that make me a bit nervous.

I'm sorry Rouge, all this debate is really a silly waste. People have made up their minds and don't even want to discuss the facts. I've heard all the arguments and have yet to hear even one reason to give Bush a chance to screw things up even more. There is only one fact that can not be disputed. Have we caught the guy who is responsible for killing 3000 people on our soil almost 4 years ago? I doubt you'll find him in Iraq even today.

[SimonM]

I just hope that enough of you loveable yanks hold views similar to Count to get rid of the ******* once and for all on election night.

Just a point: The rest of the world hates George Dubya Bush. If you don't want to fast have no choice but to be an isolationist country, get rid of the ******* and put in Kerry. He may be the lesser of two evils but he is a lesser evil that places like Europe are willing to talk to.

[count]

Thanks for counting me as lovable. There are a majority of American's who do feel the way I do. At least I can say to the rest of the world that American's didn't elect Bush in the first place. He lost the election and won in an equally divided Supreme court. God help us if he somehow wins this election and gets to pick our next Supreme court.:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by count
I'm very happy your portfolio is doing so well. Tell it to the folks at Enron who's portfolio's are not quite as robust. In case you haven't been paying attention, check the governments most recent census on families living in poverty. It's typical to blame problems on previous administrations, but if the guy has four years, and makes things worse, he doesn't deserve another chance. Blame the recession on Clinton if you want too. Blame Enron on Davis.

Count, please sit back and look at your comments here, and then revisit my posts. Nothing you say here has any relation whatsoever to anything I have ever said. You seem to be fantasizing up a fictional person merely for the purpose of communicating contempt.

[count]

Sorry chris,
Rouge's post;)

[Christopher M]

:p

[jun_erh]

ukosai Rogue- We lost the iraq war because we have a bunch of morons who never served in combat in charge. The terrorists we were trying to keep saddam from conspiring with are running all the major cities using the weaopns we didn't guard. Osama is making video tapes LAUGHING at us. You republicans have about the same standing as bak mei practicioners post-first shaolin temple burning.

[Radhnoti]

Don't worry you pro-Kerry fellas. A couple of news organizations have gotten ahold of the entire Usama tape now. New (whole, unedited) interpretations are indicating that Usama promises he won't hit states that vote for Kerry...just the "red" states have to worry about his terrorist attacks.
Oh yeah, he also is supposed to go on a rant about Bush hurting the U.S. economy and Haliburton.

I admit I was wrong Rogue, OBL is stumping for Kerry after all.
I guess he figures he couldn't actually pull off an attack as was done in Spain, so he'd "make a deal" to try to influence U.S. elections.

[rogue]

Maybe OBL thinks Kerry and Edwards are the biggest bombs he could drop on us. :D


I'm very happy your portfolio is doing so well. Tell it to the folks at Enron who's portfolio's are not quite as robust.
Count, they rode the tiger. That's what happens when you play the market foolishly. I buy, I sell, and look to make a profit not get rich quick.


You seem to be fantasizing up a fictional person merely for the purpose of communicating contempt. Just because I exist doesn't mean he isn't.:D

[count]

You are right Rogue, and that is my biggest fear about Bush's plan for social security. That and all the money I already have in the pot.

I just want to say for Simon and the other world forum members that rogue is also a lovable yank,














dispite his mis guided politics.:p

[rogue]

****** count start spelling my name correctly or I'll start mispelling your!:mad: :mad: :p :D

Misguided and lovable, who could want anything more?

[Mr Punch]

Radhnoti...

I just revisited your sig...


Each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
-basic Libertarian (and part of my personal) philosophy
And I can't reconcile this philosophy at all with

the blatant prejudice against gay marriage (OK, I know it's an individual state decision but somewhat stacked, no?),

the refusal to support stem cell research (which has countless people supporting it as part of an active choice of how many patients want to live their lives),

the Patriot Act,

anti-abortionists in general (regardless of the issue of giving the collection of cells the 'choice'/right to live without interference, I'm more concerned with the threatening/abusive/downright criminal actions of the anti-abortionists in their opposition),

the general philosophy of Bush's that the American way of life is not negotiable, at the expense of the environment,

and countless examples of disgraced corrupt businessmen getting places in govt... such as some Enron execs who most certainly didn't respect the 'right' of other people to make their choices in life...

I thought I believed in the same things as you say in your sig, but now I'm not so sure.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Mat
the blatant prejudice against gay marriage

The libertarian position is most amenable to the idea of government withdrawing complelely from marriage, so you should not expect them to agree with the typical arguments against Bush's stance here.


the refusal to support stem cell research

This is simply a fallacy. Bush has given more support to stem cell research than any leader in history. The typical response to this observation is that stem cell research is so new that no other leader has had the chance to support it. However, this is no defense of the intial claim. Bush's stance is to refuse government funding for research which uses stem cells collected from embryos past a certain date. This is not particularly problematic for stem cell research, given that the cells used in such research comes from lines which are indefinitely propagated in vitro, and given that we have sources for pluripotent stem cells that are non-embryonic.


anti-abortionists in general

Like all anti-abortionists, libertarian anti-abortionists oppose it because they believe it to be murder, and someone's right to not be murdered supercedes someone's right to have an abortion -- in this sence, anti-abortionism is completely consistent with a libertarian stance.


the general philosophy of Bush's... and countless examples of disgraced corrupt businessmen getting places in govt

These criticisms are too vague to be constructive.


the Patriot Act

There are some good arguments from the libertarian position against Bush's government, and they are readily available in libertarian publications. You've hit on one here.
Other points of interest would be federalism, protectionist trade policies, protectionist domestic policy, and expansionist government.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Christopher M
The libertarian position is most amenable to the idea of government withdrawing complelely from marriage, so you should not expect them to agree with the typical arguments against Bush's stance here.Bush is against gay marriage. How is that amenable to the idea that the govt should withdraw completely from marriage?

I think the govt should withdraw completely from marriage, which would include federal interference. Therefore there would be no choice to have a statewide ban, but anyone should be allowed freedom of marriage.
This is simply a fallacy. Bush has given more support to stem cell research than any leader in history...which uses stem cells collected from embryos past a certain date. This is not particularly problematic for stem cell research, given that the cells used in such research comes from lines which are indefinitely propagated in vitro, and given that we have sources for pluripotent stem cells that are non-embryonic.OK, then I don't understand how this has become such a huge point against Bush: I must have missed something... unless it's possible that there are loopholes or catches that have got everyone up in arms about this issue. I'll read up again.
Like all anti-abortionists, libertarian anti-abortionists oppose it because they believe it to be murder, and someone's right to not be murdered supercedes someone's right to have an abortion -- in this sence, anti-abortionism is completely consistent with a libertarian stance.Like I said,
regardless of the issue of giving the collection of cells the 'choice'/right to live without interference. While there are anti-abortionist protesters threatening physical violence against abortionist doctors and patients, preventing these people from going about what is still as of now a legal right and a personal freedom (though I don't agree with that that also is neither here nor there) and indeed carrying out acts of violence, the freedoms and rights of adult thinking humans must supercede the rights of a loose collection of cells. Consequently, the criminal actions of these anti-abortionists negates any supposed links to rights they think they have, in my mind.

Sure, it's tarring them all with the same brush, but until I see anti-abortionists protesting about the violence of other anti-abortionists and campaigning more vigourously for legislation that's the way I see it. And sure, legislation is interference by the govt in individuals' freedoms, but given that there is no way to balance the rights of the expecting mother and the rights of the unborn child, in this case some legal definition is necessary.
These criticisms are too vague to be constructive.No, I don't believe they are. Specifically, in response to proposed curbing of CO2 emissions in relation to climate change, George Bush said that the American way of life is not negotiable: suggesting that it is the right of the people of America to continue (over)producing at the rate they are and the subsequent output of CO2 is just tough... also including the supposition that it is perfectly OK for every ****er and his dog to drive an SUV 500 yds to a supermarket. A lot of scientists seem to think that we are entering an emergency stage of human existance now, irreversible and unmeasurably catastrophic, and to a lot of people this is just a joke. As feasibly close to zero emissions would be ideal... this is unnattainable but Kyoto was not even close in addressing the magnitude of this problem.

If Bush had opposed Kyoto on the grounds that he were doing something comparable in scope, fair enough, but he opposed pretty much on the basis that everybody should back the **** off from the freedoms of the greatest nation on earth. Sorry, in a hurry, at work so no chance to link anything but I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Other points of interest would be federalism, protectionist trade policies, protectionist domestic policy, and expansionist government. Cheers. The protectionist trade policies and domestic policies i know a bit about, but not enough to get into an argument here. The federalism and exapansionist govt, apart form a couple of really obvious points, I don't know anything about.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Mat
Bush is against gay marriage. How is that amenable to the idea that the govt should withdraw completely from marriage?

It's not. I didn't say the libertarian position agrees perfectly with Bush, I just suggested it would disagree with the typical criticisms of his position here.


OK, then I don't understand how this has become such a huge point against Bush

Essentially none of the "huge points against Bush" (or any other politican) have any substance to them whatsoever. They are designed on one hand to polarize the electorate to better control it, and on the other hand, to consume the public's energy on irrelevant matters to prevent them from activism in relevant ones.


Like I said, regardless of the issue of... right to live

Except that you can't really discuss the issue regardless of that idea, because it's the central issue.


While there are anti-abortionist protesters threatening physical violence against abortionist doctors and patients

This is a completely different issue. Being anti-abortion doesn't require you to be pro-killing-abortionists. And the fact that this is sometimes the case doesn't invalidate the former position.


No, I don't believe <these criticisms> are <too vague>. Specifically...

I don't mean they're indefinitely too vague, just that they were too vague as stated.


Specifically, in response to proposed curbing of CO2 emissions in relation to climate change...

Well, keeping in mind that the issue here is a libertarian's perspective of Bush, I'm not sure your observations here are pertinent -- libertarians tend to oppose dramatic state intervention on environmental issues. Now, I think a libertarian arguement can be made in defense of state environmentalism, but it's not currently the typical position. It's an argument I have been trying to make to my friends, and there is some hope that this will change in the future.


The protectionist trade policies and domestic policies i know a bit about, but not enough to get into an argument here.

Well, the free market and free trade are perhaps the most fundamental libertarian interests, and Bush has set back both significantly during his presidency: increasing tariffs and industry subsidies in a number of areas (eg softwood with us Canadians), and stalling the WTO Doha agreement.


The federalism and exapansionist govt...

By federalism I mean that libertarians tend to prefer more state power and less federal power, whereas Bush seems to prefer the latter. With expansionist government I just mean the size and scope of the government in general: with libertarians preferring to see it shrink and Bush having made it increase quite significantly.

[count]

Guess you were wrong? (http://www.pixunlimited.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2004/11/01/smabll.jpg)

[Radhnoti]

Count. :)

I don't think Bush is perfect, but I think his idea of government will be less intrusive than Kerry's. The Republicans at least pay lip service to the idea of less government. I personally think lowering taxes is stepping in the right direction...with the next step needing to be coming in under budget by eliminating huge sections of the government. I'd love to think the libertarian party had a shot, but it seems that the best way to change things to the way I want them to be is to work within one of the two parties a la Congressman Ron Paul (a one time Libertarian presidential candidate). I'm joining the Republican Liberty Caucus:
www.rlc.org

Libertarians just seem to have a much louder voice in the Republican party.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Hey Count,
What happened to your secret knowledge that UBL was dead? Did it go the same place as the 'unimpeachable' source Willow Sword had for the CBS forged documents?

I've read all the party platforms, and looked at voting records, then proudly voted for Bush/Cheney.

Enjoy the Republic while you can - get out and vote.

[norther practitioner]

then proudly voted for Bush/Cheney.

Your heating bill must not be going up again this year.....


75% last year
105% this year

It has direct correlation to the current admin.
It has affected my cost of living significantly, in the tune of a couple hundo a month.

[MonkeySlap Too]

I'm more of the 'pay any price, endure any hardship' kind of guy when I'm at war. Rome fell when it's citizens were to cosmopolitan and into comfort and chose THAT over defending themselves. In a way, we are being invaded by Vandals all over again. The West has been at war for 1400 years, but we've been too busy this century to notice it.

Besides, it has a lot less to do with this administration, than with the burgeonming economies in India and China.

[count]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
Hey Count,
What happened to your secret knowledge that UBL was dead? Did it go the same place as the 'unimpeachable' source Willow Sword had for the CBS forged documents?

I've read all the party platforms, and looked at voting records, then proudly voted for Bush/Cheney.

Enjoy the Republic while you can - get out and vote.
You believed that fake video? You probably believe in Zarqawi too. LOL.

Thanks for voting, you aren't the only one. ;)

[MonkeySlap Too]

Well, enjoy the Kool-Aid my friend...

[count]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
Well, enjoy the Kool-Aid my friend...

Sure, pass it over when you're through with it. Sincerly, thanks for making at least an educated pick. More than I can say for the majority of the voters.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Personally, I was rooting for the guy in Ohio who is running on a platform demanding reparations for the damage caused by alphabetical order in public schools...

[Radhnoti]

My state (KY) has just been called for Bush, every county on the map (except one) went with Bush according to NBC.

[rogue]

I'm more of the 'pay any price, endure any hardship' kind of guy when I'm at war. C'mon MSToo, that's old school. Now people look for a deal and want the war finished by dinner time.