CoUnTdOwN to Nov 2nd: POLL/DISCUSSION

[Banzai]

Thought we could use a thread to release our political thoughts and ideas. PLEASE try to refrain from personal attacks on each other, remember this is about Bush, Kerry & Nader.

I posted a poll to see what the pulse of the S.U. community is...


VOTE NOV 2nd!!!

[Ted]

I'm voting for Kerry because Bush sucks. No other reason.

[21steps]

Kerry's best attribute, that he hasn't even outwardly advertised yet, according to John Stewart is "He's not Bush."

[atlya02]

Kind of ironic to have I dont vote and then you are voting that anyway...

[Ted]

Kind of ironic to have I dont vote and then you are voting that anyway...

who doesn't vote?

[atlya02]

who doesn't vote?

Im sorry I was reffering to the poll here in the forum. :o

[Ted]

oh, you mean to have an option that says "i don't vote" - but yet they are voting on the poll. well, some people go to the polls for elections and some people vote polls on the internet and some do both.

[mcurtiss1970]

I'm voting for Toby Keith

[atlya02]

oh, you mean to have an option that says "i don't vote" - but yet they are voting on the poll. well, some people go to the polls for elections and some people vote polls on the internet and some do both.

I know I just found it to be a little funny. :D

[Ted]

I know I just found it to be a little funny. :D

no biggie... i'm still on my first cup of coffee so my brain hasn't kicked in yet.

[Ted]

I'm voting for Toby Keith

now there's an idea "we'll put a boot in your ass it's the american way"

[Ted]

here's a thought -- is GWB a terrorist? i mean think about it... what is a terrorist but someone who attacks the innocent to advance his own version of reality... something to think about.

[usfhett03]

here's a thought -- is GWB a terrorist? i mean think about it... what is a terrorist but someone who attacks the innocent to advance his own version of reality... something to think about.

Here's a thought, that is the dumbest thing you have ever said.

[mcurtiss1970]

Here's a thought, that is the dumbest thing you have ever said.
not quite, but he has a point. aren't terrorists labeled by those who are terrorized?

[Ted]

Here's a thought, that is the dumbest thing you have ever said.

that's a personal attack. didn't you read the OP? express your political views and leave it at that.

[Ted]

not quite, but he has a point. aren't terrorists labeled by those who are terrorized?

thank you, thank you... my point exactly. if you took a poll in the middle east, WE are the terrorists.

[usfhett03]

FDR terrorizd te Germans and Japanese
Kennedy terrorized the Cubans and Soviets
Washington terrorized the British

Bad bad terrorists.

[Ted]

FDR terrorizd te Germans and Japanese
Kennedy terrorized the Cubans and Soviets
Washington terrorized the British

Bad bad terrorists.


And what does any of this have to do with GWB? Because nothing he is doing could be compared in any way to the above. If you disagree, be specific.

[mcurtiss1970]

Here's a thought, that is the dumbest thing you have ever said.

you're the reason i don't usually participate in political threads here.

you're a republican apologist who can't accept that others view Bush as something less than the best thing since sliced bread.

you have nary an original thought in your head and seem to parrot whatever the republican party tells you to think. so instead of actually trying to persuade people to your side, you talk down to others.

in other words, the above response was, IMHO, nothing but threadcrap trying to incite, demean, and lord over another your political ideology as superior.

[Ted]

you're the reason i don't usually participate in political threads here.

you're a republican apologist who can't accept that others view Bush as something less than the best thing since sliced bread.

you have nary an original thought in your head and seem to parrot whatever the republican party tells you to think. so instead of actually trying to persuade people to your side, you talk down to others.

in other words, the above response was, IMHO, nothing but threadcrap trying to incite, demean, and lord over another your political ideology as superior.

AMEN, brother curtiss!

[arpy64]

FDR terrorizd te Germans and Japanese
Kennedy terrorized the Cubans and Soviets
Washington terrorized the British

Bad bad terrorists.
Actually, the American and British fire bombings of German cities toward the end of WWII -specifically Dresden- could be considered terrorism. Dresden had no military value at all, and the only reason for fire bombing it to was to create terror in the German cilvilian population, in the hopes of demoralizing them.

Kennedy, as far as I know, never targeted civilians in Cuba or Russia. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

And Washington, I believe, only targeted British military personel. So, again, I don't know what you're talking about there.

I know we like to think that only the "bad guys" commit terrorist acts, but sometimes, the "good guys" do too. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[usfhett03]

you're the reason i don't usually participate in political threads here.

you're a republican apologist who can't accept that others view Bush as something less than the best thing since sliced bread.

you have nary an original thought in your head and seem to parrot whatever the republican party tells you to think. so instead of actually trying to persuade people to your side, you talk down to others.

in other words, the above response was, IMHO, nothing but threadcrap trying to incite, demean, and lord over another your political ideology as superior.

Are you serious? This is probably the first time that I have ever personally made fun of the poster, and the only reason I did that was because it was Ted, and it was more sarcastic then serious. And I think he knows that too.

I like how you call me a "Republican apologist". In most cases, I am not a Republican, when it comes to social issues and some economic issues, I have a very moderate opinion on. What I am conservative on his national defense, terrorism, and things related to that field. Maybe I have to talk down to others because everytime I enter a poltically discussion, I am the only person that doesn't think the president is a moron. Talk about attacking people, I get attacked more than anybody I know. So far, I am the only Bush-supporter that has posted, notice nobody else has posted? Why is that, because they will be told that they are being brainwashed, they are told that they are blind, they are told that they are unpatriotic, and they are told that the person they are going to vote for is a moron. And instead of having a debate about a issue, you attack me personally. Now who is gonna post here after your rant? That doesn't make people wanna post their opinions when they are assualted for feeling that way. They are told that they are the pawns of the Republican party. Aren't people allowed to have their own opinions? In your own opinion, is there any reason that somebody would vote for the president this year? I am guessing that you don't see any reason why anybody with half a brain would vote for Bush.

[Ted]

Actually, the American and British fire bombings of German cities toward the end of WWII -specifically Dresden- could be considered terrorism. Dresden had no military value at all, and the only reason for fire bombing it to was to create terror in the German cilvilian population, in the hopes of demoralizing them.

Kennedy, as far as I know, never targeted civilians in Cuba or Russia. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

And Washington, I believe, only targeted British military personel. So, again, I don't know what you're talking about there.

I know we like to think that only the "bad guys" commit terrorist acts, but sometimes, the "good guys" do too. Sorry to burst your bubble.

that touches on an interesting point... while we all like to think of america as the bastian of freedom and democracy and good will and all that, which we are, we also must be mindful that we have made many mistakes and that we are currently in the middle of a big mistake.

i only fault GWB in the sense that he moved too fast and in the wrong way with iraq. i think it was a good idea to remove him from power, but this "damn the torpedoes" attitude is causing more problems than it is solving.

i think if a sensible plan had been presented to our allies on how to remove hussein from power, with a sensible plan for how to put the country back together, all would have participated. but we had to be in such a damned hurry about it that we screwed it all up and alienated everyone.

i'm sorry, and i respect those who disagree, but this kind of short-sightedness has no place on the world stage. you wanna act like that, go back to texas where being a cowboy is popular.

[usfhett03]

I know we like to think that only the "bad guys" commit terrorist acts, but sometimes, the "good guys" do too. Sorry to burst your bubble.

NO, I agree with you on that. But there is a hazy line between terrorism, and fighting a war. And sometimes terrorism, is used as a battlefield tactic that wins wars. Sherman used it in the Civil War, he terrorized the Southern population. My point is that one has to look at the source and reason for fighting and using terrorism. You wouldn't call Sherman a terrorist in the conventional sense because he was fighting a war. You could say the same thing about Osama. That in his mind, and many others, he is fighting a just war against America and that was just a battle in the war. I think you just have to look at it with some commonsense.

[Ted]

I am the only person that doesn't think the president is a moron. ... I am guessing that you don't see any reason why anybody with half a brain would vote for Bush.

finally, the truth is being spoken! face it usf, he IS a moron. and NO ONE attacked you personally, quite the opposite, you attacked ME personally.

i for one, have 3/4 of a brain and i still won't vote for bush.

[usfhett03]

finally, the truth is being spoken! face it usf, he IS a moron. and NO ONE attacked you personally, quite the opposite, you attacked ME personally.

i for one, have 3/4 of a brain and i still won't vote for bush.

This is ridiculous. Doesn't matter what I do or say, I am wrong.

[Ted]

there is a hazy line between terrorism, and fighting a war. And sometimes terrorism, is used as a battlefield tactic that wins wars.

a good example of this is when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki... that was a "terroristic" battlefield tactic. the problem is that the target was civillians. in some circles the logic of that decision is still being debated to this day. the thinking at the time is that it would end the war sooner and thus an even greater loss of life would be prevented by shortening a long, protracted war. greater minds than ours have wrestled with these issues for years.

[Ted]

This is ridiculous. Doesn't matter what I do or say, I am wrong.

hey you left yourself open for that one :) seriously, though, don't you believe those of us who are voting for kerry to be wrong? isn't that what debate is? two people who think each other's view is wrong and try to have an intelligent (and/or humerous) discussion about it??

don't take it all so seriously. we are all wrong. in many ways BOTH bush AND kerry suck. we won't make you vote democratic.

[arpy64]

...

i only fault GWB in the sense that he moved too fast and in the wrong way with iraq. i think it was a good idea to remove him from power, but this "damn the torpedoes" attitude is causing more problems than it is solving.

...
The problem is that we went to Iraq at all. Instead focusing on real threats to the US (has anyone heard the name Osama mentioned by anyone in the Bush admistration lately?), the neocons surrounding Bush, convinced him to invade and occupy Iraq--a country that posed no threat whatsoever to us. Hundreds of billions of dollars and manpower and resources are being expended in Iraq. The war is a disaster, it was illegal, and most importantly, has created probably thousands of new terrorists that hate us.

Bill Maher said something the other day that kind of made sense. He said, basically, that it would be kind good if Bush stayed in office and for the first time in his life actually have to clean up a mess that he created and not leave it for someone else to do. While I don't think he's voting for Bush, he made a good point.

He, like many of us, will hold his nose and vote Kerry. He's better than the alternative.

[Ted]

The problem is that we went to Iraq at all. Instead focusing on real threats to the US (has anyone heard the name Osama mentioned by anyone in the Bush admistration lately?), the neocons surrounding Bush, convinced him to invade and occupy Iraq--a country that posed no threat whatsoever to us. Hundreds of billions of dollars and manpower and resources are being expended in Iraq. The war is a disaster, it was illegal, and most importantly, has created probably thousands of new terrorists that hate us.

Bill Maher said something the other day that kind of made sense. He said, basically, that it would be kind good if Bush stayed in office and for the first time in his life actually have to clean up a mess that he created and not leave it for someone else to do. While I don't think he's voting for Bush, he made a good point.

Arpy, I think we agree in principle but maybe differ on points of subtlety. I'm not suggesting that the war is right. I'm saying that getting Hussein out of power (with the help and support of the world, and maybe done in a different way) is a good idea.

I agree that it should definitely not be or focus, and should not be done the way we are doing it.

As for the comments by Maher, that's a nice idea, if there was any reason to believe that he actually WOULD clean the mess up. I think it's likely it would get worse not better.

[arpy64]

...

As for the comments by Maher, that's a nice idea, if there was any reason to believe that he actually WOULD clean the mess up. I think it's likely it would get worse not better.
The point he was making was that Bush had never had to clean up the messes he's made throughout his life.

I agree that it would be worse over the next 4 years if he was elected, as far as Iraq goes, not to mention the other issues we face: the environment, terrorist threats, etc.

[Ted]

AMEN, brother Arpy! (again!)

Usf... are you still in this debate? It's okay to disagree. Really.

[arpy64]

Out of the hundreds of users on this forum, political debates usually involve the same few members. Why is that? I can't believe no else has any opinions. Personally, I'd like to hear from some members who have been to Iraq, or from some veterans who have an opinion on who they think could protect the country better: individuals who used every resource available to them to avoid military service and/or going to Vietnam, or someone who actually volunteered to go.

[Ted]

agreed. let's hear from the rest of you SU'ers!

[mcurtiss1970]

agreed. let's hear from the rest of you SU'ers!as I stated above, it's people with argument styles such as usfhett that keeps me (a largely unpolitical person) from participating in these kinds of threads. I vote, I care who leads this country, but I will not debate with people who have agendas and take apologist stances.

I'm a registered independent who has voted mule, elephant, green, and many other ways over the past two decades. I don't need some political party who could give a rat's arse about my individual needs telling me what to think. So in other words, unless you are critical of your own leaders or party heads, you're just a lemming.

As for usfhett, what you don't understand is that you *are* an apologist. Isn't there anything the Bush does or says that makes you wonder why you support him? You say you support more moderate policies such as social issues and economy. what exactly is leftover? the military and homeland defense as you pointed out.

to that end, explain to me how you can vote for a man that will, if re-elected, likely seek to appoint some of the most conservative supreme court justices to serve on the bench in over 30+ years as well as likely support tax breaks at the expense of underfunding "home" issues such as education, labor issues, etc.

i'm not saying you're wrong, usfhett. but saying you're fiscally and socially moderate and a Bush-voter makes little sense to me.

[Ted]

i'd like to add to the question for usf and ask him... when he hears Bush speak, is he inspired? does he think that Bush is a good communicator? a man worthy of respect? or is he just solely going for the issue that he's gonna "go get the bad guys"

[Jonacell]

Wirelessly posted (my mobile mechanism: Samsung-SPHA700 AU-MIC-A700/2.0 MMP/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1)

or the "evil doers"

[Nugo]

George Bush is an idiot. Always will be. We should just do away with the presidency and let congress and senate rule.

[NavyCop]

here's a thought -- is GWB a terrorist? i mean think about it... what is a terrorist but someone who attacks the innocent to advance his own version of reality... something to think about.
My turn

After Operation Desert Storm, Saddam never adhered to the UN sanctions. Nothing never got done with Slick Willie in office for 8 years so Saddam had no worries.

So I guess the US Military and I are all Terroist? We go under the order of the President that you call a terrorist. Who the hell do you think you are? I have lost good friends over there, KIA for their country, and you sit back and pass judgement w/o knowing whats going on besides what the 11 o'clock news wants to tell you.

You think those radical Muslims are innocent? You need the "reality check".

And Kerry wants the UN to tell the United States when and where to send the US military? Im not wearing a blue helmet for the UN.

[Banzai]

My turn

After Operation Desert Storm, Saddam never adhered to the UN sanctions. Nothing never got done with Slick Willie in office for 8 years so Saddam had no worries.

So I guess the US Military and I are all Terroist? We go under the order of the President that you call a terrorist. Who the hell do you think you are? I have lost good friends over there, KIA for their country, and you sit back and pass judgement w/o knowing whats going on besides what the 11 o'clock news wants to tell you.

You think those radical Muslims are innocent? You need the "reality check".

And Kerry wants the UN to tell the United States when and where to send the US military? Im not wearing a blue helmet for the UN.


Nice to hear from you NavyCop! You are truly a hero and I commend your commitment to this great country. Your words are much appreciated here, & your friends did not die in vain. Thank you for pointing out that the war we are fighting is against a group or "radical Muslims". These extreme radicals must be wiped clean off this earth & a strong commander and chief is necessary in these times of uncertainty. You are also correct that news bites from the 11 O'clock news can be very bias. Luckily we have some new-media outlets that can open up the playing field and show America the true face of things we are facing, both "radical Muslims" and the enemy within. The American people will never let our military be at the feet of the UN, w/ strong leadership here at home we will make the hard decisions needed to keep this country safe.

[arpy64]

My turn

After Operation Desert Storm, Saddam never adhered to the UN sanctions. Nothing never got done with Slick Willie in office for 8 years so Saddam had no worries.

So I guess the US Military and I are all Terroist? We go under the order of the President that you call a terrorist. Who the hell do you think you are? I have lost good friends over there, KIA for their country, and you sit back and pass judgement w/o knowing whats going on besides what the 11 o'clock news wants to tell you.

You think those radical Muslims are innocent? You need the "reality check".

And Kerry wants the UN to tell the United States when and where to send the US military? Im not wearing a blue helmet for the UN.
How do you support a person who sent you into a war on false premises, who has no idea on how to get out, and who is, I believe, at the very least indirectly responsible for the deaths of not only your friends but for over a thousand other Americans?

These are questions I have for those who have been to Iraq and still support Bush. I'm so pissed about this unjust war and I don't even know anyone who's been killed there.

Also, I don't believe the radical muslims are innocent at all. However, would they be attacking US soldiers if we weren't occupying their country? How much more radical and angry have they become because of the tortures at Abu Ghraib at the hands of US soldiers--ironically in the very prison that Hussein used as a place for torturing Iraqis?

If anyone who's been there can answer these questions, I'd appreciate it. I'm seriously interested in how he or she is still able to support a man who is responsible for the mess in Iraq that causes the loss of American lives everyday.

[The 8]

I'm seriously interested in how he or she is still able to support a man who is responsible for the mess in Iraq that causes the loss of American lives everyday.

Arpy, loss of american lives > loss of Iraqi lives??
how many dead Iraqis does it take to justify the loss of one American life?
Iraq may be a mess right now.... but 5-10 years from now wouldnt you like to think they would be better off without Saddam than with him?

/just my 2 cents.... i dont know a lot about this stuff

[NavyCop]

How do you support a person who sent you into a war on false premises, who has no idea on how to get out, and who is, I believe, at the very least indirectly responsible for the deaths of not only your friends but for over a thousand other Americans?

These are questions I have for those who have been to Iraq and still support Bush. I'm so pissed about this unjust war and I don't even know anyone who's been killed there.

Also, I don't believe the radical muslims are innocent at all. However, would they be attacking US soldiers if we weren't occupying their country? How much more radical and angry have they become because of the tortures at Abu Ghraib at the hands of US soldiers--ironically in the very prison that Hussein used as a place for torturing Iraqis?

If anyone who's been there can answer these questions, I'd appreciate it. I'm seriously interested in how he or she is still able to support a man who is responsible for the mess in Iraq that causes the loss of American lives everyday.
I support my President. It is not my place to question his orders, nor would I. Every President that has sent Americans to war has suffered casualties. Thats why its called war.

You say they fight because we are "occupying their country". Again, what the news fail to tell the truth is that the Muslims have turned this into more of a religious war. I would love to rid the world of this filth.

As I said before when I came home, "The US Military is full of joy and getting the job done in Iraq".

addition to the terrorist comment, this is for you Ted:
Terrorist kill innocent civilians, use children strapped with bombs to kill "in the name of Allah", have no respect for human life. I can keep going.
Does that sound like what the President of the United States or the US Military is doing?

[Yummi]

i do not think the muslims alone have turned this into a religious war. they belive that their version of their faith justifies their actions.

it appears, only from what u said NavyCop, that you are not following your own thought, but those of a man who would not necessarily go and fight for you, as you have done for him. You are only doing what he told you to do. I dont think anyone was taught not to ask questions. Yes, the military is your job, and you may say your life, but why would you not question someone who wants you to go and kill another man, simply because he isn't following the American way.........

I do believe in the old addage 'what goes around, comes around'. America is a bully and it would appear, with 9/11, that the little guy got tired of being bullied. Too long had we, USA, thought we were too good to have a war fought on our on soil. That was unfortunate of us. Too long had we been ok with watching the lives of others being taken, victims of war if you will, and yet when it happens to us, on our own soil, we dont see it that way.

At present time, there is no one person, in my opinion, that can truly make this country right, or better, because it has long been f'ed up. Voting this year is choosing between the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, there will be some who vote for Kerry simply because he isnt Bush, just as there are those who will vote for Bush simply because he isnt Kerry. And regardless of who wins, the main losers of this race will be the military and their families, who will have lost so much more than just a race.

And one other thing I'd like to ask.......how many of you think Osama will show up just before Halloween?

(hopefully I don't come off too stupid)

[Ronkh]

How do you support a person who sent you into a war on false premises, who has no idea on how to get out, and who is, I believe, at the very least indirectly responsible for the deaths of not only your friends but for over a thousand other Americans?

These are questions I have for those who have been to Iraq and still support Bush. I'm so pissed about this unjust war and I don't even know anyone who's been killed there.
.

Bush as well as the people and quotes sighted below were working from information recieved.

Or did they all lie ?!?!?!


If you like, I can forward the entire document which consists of ALL democrats that were in favor of the war.

BTW. KERRY IS/WAS ON THE INTELGENCE COMMITEE (IRONIC I KNOW).
even though he has only attended 11 out of 78 meetings (oops)

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9.1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -

[usfhett03]

AMEN, brother Arpy! (again!)

Usf... are you still in this debate? It's okay to disagree. Really.

I'm here, some of us do work in places without a compooter

[mcurtiss1970]

INteresting blurb from Liz Smith on Pat Buchanan's new book:




'OSAMA BIN LADEN is saying ex actly what the enemies of the west ern empires said through the 20th century: The price of your occupation, the price of your empire in our world, is terror. The Islamic terrorists of 9/11 were over here because we were over there. We took sides in a religious civil war, their war, and they want us out of that war. The 15 hijackers from Saudi Arabia did not fly into the World Trade Center to protest the Bill of Rights. They want us off sacred Saudi soil and out of the Middle East."

So writes Patrick J. Buchanan in his compelling new book, "Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency."

If you are surprised that this column would commend anything from the ultra-conservative Buchanan, so am I. But wise people change their minds and keep them open. I've rarely read anything so concise and so right-on about our disastrous blunder of invading Iraq. Buchanan spells it all out. If you want to know why the Middle East despises us, read this book, especially the first few chapters. There's some pretty scary stuff on the U.S. economy, too. Buchanan compares the United States in 2004 to the Roman empire, on the cusp of a perhaps inevitable decline. He points to our invasion of Iraq — a country that had not attacked us, and was not an immediate danger — as the beginning of the end for imperial America.

There's plenty about Buchanan's stance I don't go along with, and some find more than a tinge of anti-Semitism in his railing against Israel. But it's hard not to agree at least partially with his hard hits on the neocons urging George W. Bush to disaster as well as the coarsening of popular culture — a true toboggan slide into a mudpit of everything! (As an entertainment journalist reporting on what's "hot," I often wonder if self-restraint is a truly antique notion.) Every American eager to understand where we are, and where we might go, should read this book.

[usfhett03]

As for usfhett, what you don't understand is that you *are* an apologist. Isn't there anything the Bush does or says that makes you wonder why you support him? You say you support more moderate policies such as social issues and economy. what exactly is leftover? the military and homeland defense as you pointed out.

I would say that I agree with the president a little more than half the time on the issues. The issues that I don't agree with the president on are very low on my list of issues. So the things that I disagree with don't even compare to the things I support him on. And thats not because I am a apologist, its because I support the president. If you wait for a candidate that you agree with 100%, you will be waiting for a long time. Bush has his faults, no doubt, everybody knows this. But everybody has faults and to act like he is the first president to have such faults is stupid. Issues like abortion, and gay marriage are so low on my political radar that I really don't care what happens either way. I understand the presidents view, and I understand the oppositions views, but either way I don't really care. On the economy, I agree with what the president has done, for the most part. There are some things I disagree with, but I don't disagree enough to not want to support him. The military and homeland defense, as you pointed out I agree with him mostly. If anything, I have gotten frustrated because I don't think he is doing enough now. But don't try and use that against me because I think Kerry would be a disaster to our national defense. Why do I think that, its not because a political party told me, its because I have examined his 20 year political record and his statements from his campaign. I could easily vote for a Democrat in 2008, and on if they were strong on my issues, until then, I am going to vote Republican for president until I think a Democrat can do better with our safety. Whether or not you agree with the president on Iraq, you have to admit in this day and age you need a president that has a clear message. What is Kerry's message? It has changed weekly and monthly, and that would be disasterous for America.


i'm not saying you're wrong, usfhett. but saying you're fiscally and socially moderate and a Bush-voter makes little sense to me.

Like I said, the issues that I may disagree with him are so low in comparison to the things I support him on.

[Ronkh]

I


Like I said, the issues that I may disagree with him are so low in comparison to the things I support him on.


I wish I had said it so well !!!

[usfhett03]

i'd like to add to the question for usf and ask him... when he hears Bush speak, is he inspired? does he think that Bush is a good communicator? a man worthy of respect? or is he just solely going for the issue that he's gonna "go get the bad guys"

The president has inspired me on two occasions in his presidency. The first was a few days after 9/11 when he gave that impromptu speech at ground zero. When he told the workers that the people responsible for for 9/11 would being hearing from them soon. I thought it was his greatest moment as president. The other speech that inspired me was his acceptance speech at the convention. It was a very emotional and powerful speech, that changed the mind of alot of independent voters. I think he is a man that is worthy of respect, I think the office of president deserves that type of respect, no matter who is there.

[usfhett03]

George Bush is an idiot. Always will be. We should just do away with the presidency and let congress and senate rule.

Thats interesting, we should let Congress and the Senate rule. Too bad they are the same thing.

[Ronkh]

Thats interesting, we should let Congress and the Senate rule. Too bad they are the same thing.


Well why is there a need for checks and balances anyway?

[usfhett03]

Well why is there a need for checks and balances anyway?

While we are at it, lets get rid of the Judicial Branch too. Then whenever the Senate and Congress can't agree, they have to have a fight to the death in the old Oval Office.

[Ronkh]

While we are at it, lets get rid of the Judicial Branch too. Then whenever the Senate and Congress can't agree, they have to have a fight to the death in the old Oval Office.


Not such a bad idea. For the last few years, they have been making law and not interpretting it. (something about a nj senator sound familiar?)

[Ted]

My turn

After Operation Desert Storm, Saddam never adhered to the UN sanctions. Nothing never got done with Slick Willie in office for 8 years so Saddam had no worries.

So I guess the US Military and I are all Terroist? We go under the order of the President that you call a terrorist. Who the hell do you think you are? I have lost good friends over there, KIA for their country, and you sit back and pass judgement w/o knowing whats going on besides what the 11 o'clock news wants to tell you.

You think those radical Muslims are innocent? You need the "reality check".

And Kerry wants the UN to tell the United States when and where to send the US military? Im not wearing a blue helmet for the UN.

whoa, *****. if you read my posts, i agree about removing saddam from power, i just wanted it done with the support of the world and in a well thought out manner. and i have no problem with the military. you are following orders, and you do so honorably and i have so much respect for everyone who is risking their life over this. all i am saying is i have NO respect for your commander in chief. period. please don't take it as disrespect for those in uniform.

[Ted]

addition to the terrorist comment, this is for you Ted:
Terrorist kill innocent civilians, use children strapped with bombs to kill "in the name of Allah", have no respect for human life. I can keep going.
Does that sound like what the President of the United States or the US Military is doing?

i know what a f&ck*ng terrorist is. i was merely posing a rhetorical question. GWB isn't smart enough to be one anyway. Just because I hate bush doesn't mean i'm on the side of radical muslims either. man you read way too much into ****.

i will say it again: i really respect what you guys are doing over there. it's the dickwad that sent you there that i have a problem with. tell me, would there have been any harm in presenting a well thought out plan that the world could agree on and act on together FIRST, and then executing that plan, with the world as a team?

[usfhett03]

i agree about removing saddam from power, i just wanted it done with the support of the world and in a well thought out manner.

It was obvious from day one that many of our allies were not going to support this. So if we never got the support from the UN militarily, would you have supported the president going into Iraq with the allies we had?

[Ted]

It was obvious from day one that many of our allies were not going to support this. So if we never got the support from the UN militarily, would you have supported the president going into Iraq with the allies we had?

i believe ALL of our allies would have supported us if we had worked WITH them to form a plan to rectify this situation. and actually LISTENED to what they had to say not DICK-tated it to them. and maybe war wasn't the way to do it, maybe it was complete sanctions from the entire world, no trade, no commerce, nothing. i don't know. greater minds than us have debated this. but one thing i do know, beotches, is that this was done in the most reckless way possible.

[Ronkh]

Hey Ted, stay on the sidlines of this. You're over your head.

France, Germany, Russia were all gettin favors from Saddam.

Did you really expect them to give up the gravy train?

[arpy64]

I support my President. It is not my place to question his orders, nor would I. Every President that has sent Americans to war has suffered casualties. Thats why its called war.

You say they fight because we are "occupying their country". Again, what the news fail to tell the truth is that the Muslims have turned this into more of a religious war. I would love to rid the world of this filth.

As I said before when I came home, "The US Military is full of joy and getting the job done in Iraq".

addition to the terrorist comment, this is for you Ted:
Terrorist kill innocent civilians, use children strapped with bombs to kill "in the name of Allah", have no respect for human life. I can keep going.
Does that sound like what the President of the United States or the US Military is doing?
Regarding your first point about following orders without question. I understand the need for that in battle. This is a huge reason why me and the military couldn't mesh. I'm not a "take orders, don't question authority, believe your leader regardless" kind of person. That mode of thinking is completely contrary to what I believe. I think questioning authority and your leader is a good thing.

Regarding your second point about occupation and that you "would love to rid the world of this filth". Are you talking about muslim religious extremism? Iraqi insurgents? Both? Well, contrary to popular belief, it's not the United States duty to go around the world "ridding the world" of things we disagree with. I believe the insurgents in Iraq feel they are fighting against an American occupation of their country. Millions of Americans would be doing the same if the roles were reversed and we were occupied by a muslim country. By the way, I can't stand religion of any flavor. I think it's responsible for more death and destruction than any other single factor in human history....and that includes christianity. So, don't think I'm defending muslims.

I get so little of my news from corporate media that it barely factors into my opinions and views of the world.

Regarding your point about terrorists killing children and civilians. Well, so do we....by the thousands. Unless it's the method of killing that you use to condemn the terrorist's killing. Personally, I think a child blown to pieces by a bomb dropped from 30,000 feet is just as tragic as one killed by a suicide bomber.

I don't criticize your thought process. I have many friends and relatives who have been in the military and have gone to war and fought and bled. I understand the mindset that the military wants its soldiers and sailors to have. I just wish that the military was used properly: to defend the United States. Not to go around the world to fight corporate wars and personal vendettas for a president that, when given the opportunity to fight for his country, said no. And a vice-president who, when given that same opportunity, got 5 deferrments to avoid service. Yet, these same individuals will send you to war without blinking. By the way, I don't blame them for not wanting to go 10,000 miles to the other side of the world to "kill poor people" (to quote Ali). I do resent them for questioning and mocking someone who did choose to go, and then after returning, calling that war what it was: unwinnable and wrong.

So, my question still is, how do you support Bush and Cheney?

[Ted]

Hey Ted, stay on the sidlines of this. You're over your head.

France, Germany, Russia were all gettin favors from Saddam.

Did you really expect them to give up the gravy train?

i don't think so. i have an opinion and just as much right to express it as any other user on this forum.

all i'm saying is, there has to be a better way then the way this was done.

[arpy64]

Hey Ted, stay on the sidlines of this. You're over your head.

France, Germany, Russia were all gettin favors from Saddam.

Did you really expect them to give up the gravy train?
Yeah, and Cheney's company was dealing with Saddam as late as 1999...in spite of US sanctions not allowing companies to do business with Iraq. That sounds a bit illegal to me. But, as we've seen, doing things illegally is not a big problem for these guys. Especially if there's a buck to be made.

[Ronkh]

. But, as we've seen, doing things illegally is not a big problem for these guys. Especially if there's a buck to be made.


I'm sorry, I thought it was Bush we were talking about not Clinton ..... )oops)


Anyway, it was subsidaries of Haliburton, not US company.

BTW Kerry/Heinz has 58 out of 79 Companies outside the US......

Ruh Roh.....

Can Heinz say outsourcing ?!?!?!?!

and my Ketchup was made in canada, and pickles in mexico :eek:

[arpy64]

I'm sorry, I thought it was Bush we were talking about not Clinton ..... )oops)


Anyway, it was subsidaries of Haliburton, not US company.

BTW Kerry/Heinz has 58 out of 79 Companies outside the US......

Ruh Roh.....

Can Heinz say outsourcing ?!?!?!?!

and my Ketchup was made in canada, and pickles in mexico :eek:
I could give a crap about Clinton. I thought it was joke that all the Republican's could get on him in 8 years was that he got a blow job in the oval office. Is that all the right wing has? Really? Must everything always come back to Clinton? He kicked you guys' asses in 2 straight elections (so I understand where the bitterness comes from), but he's gone now. Just get over it already.

And when, in the name of god, is anyone in the Bush administration going to actually take responsiblity for anything? I mean, Cheney was the CEO of this corporation and he pleads ignorance as to what was going on.
Bush is like the anti-Truman. He never takes responsiblity for any of his screw ups. What is with these guys?

[Ronkh]

I mean, Cheney was the CEO of this corporation and he pleads ignorance as to what was going on.
Bush is like the anti-Truman. He never takes responsiblity for any of his screw ups. What is with these guys?


So I take it, you arent going to respond to the 2nd part of my response.

Oh well, facts don't matter..... (as we have been told for teh last 7 days)

[arpy64]

So I take it, you arent going to respond to the 2nd part of my response.

Oh well, facts don't matter..... (as we have been told for teh last 7 days)
Which part? The Heinz/Kerry stuff? I agree with it. These are multi-billionaires who own companies all over the world.
Kerry, to me, is just the lesser of two evils here. And I'm probably voting for him only because I live in a state that is supposed to be very close.
Now if either Bush or Kerry were to open up a big lead in Ohio, I'd not vote for Kerry. I don't think he's the answer, he's just better than Bush...and more on domestic issues. Personally, I dont' think a whole lot's going to change as far as the war goes, regardless of which one is president.

[arpy64]

If you want real change in this country, check these candidates out.
No, they don't have chance in hell, but...a boy can dream, can't he?

Green Party: http://www.votecobb.org/
Socialist Party: http://www.waltbrownforpresident.org/

[Ronkh]

Personally, I dont' think a whole lot's going to change as far as the war goes, regardless of which one is president.


Well one thing Kerry has said he will do is to pull our toops out (supposedly by end of first term). Which is exactly what terrorists want. Kerry can turn that into his self fullfulling prophecy by making it similiar to Vietnam (not seeing it through). And the terrorists will love it since they will have a new harbor.

He has also said he will give Iran Nuclear fuel for their (peacfull) electric generators (think carter/clinton/north korea). For the life of me I can't understand why the need nuclear fuel for electrical purposes since they got more oil than sand.

Other than that, I guess every other day he may agree with me, and on the other days he agrees with you.

[usfhett03]

i believe ALL of our allies would have supported us if we had worked WITH them to form a plan to rectify this situation. and actually LISTENED to what they had to say not duck-tated it to them.

Uh..we did that for years. We passed resolution after resolution with the almighty UN that everybody agreed upon. It has become fairly obvious that the reason that France and Russia didn't agree with us was because they were making billions off weapons sales and the Iraqi oil for food program.


and maybe war wasn't the way to do it, maybe it was complete sanctions from the entire world, no trade, no commerce, nothing.

Thousands already died from the sanctions we put on them after the first war. If we would have done what you just suggested, it would have meant more of the population would have died from hunger and more people would have condemed the US for putting those sanctions on.

i don't know. greater minds than us have debated this. but one thing i do know, beotches, is that this was done in the most reckless way possible.

So you say that smarter people have debated this and made a decision, but those smarter people aren't smarter than you and they were wrong? Or did I miss something? Bottomline is that this was the only way to remove Saddam from power. You wouldn't have gone this track and if you were president Saddam would still be in power. Saddam would still be paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam still would have shady relations with Al-Qaeda. Saddam would still be killing thousands of his own people. It was the right thing to do and we should have done it the first time in Iraq, so we wouldn't have to be doing it now. Why didn't we do it the first time, oh wait, its because the UN told us not to.

[arpy64]

Well one thing Kerry has said he will do is to pull our toops out (supposedly by end of first term). Which is exactly what terrorists want. Kerry can turn that into his self fullfulling prophecy by making it similiar to Vietnam (not seeing it through). And the terrorists will love it since they will have a new harbor.

He has also said he will give Iran Nuclear fuel for their (peacfull) electric generators (think carter/clinton/north korea). For the life of me I can't understand why the need nuclear fuel for electrical purposes since they got more oil than sand.

Other than that, I guess every other day he may agree with me, and on the other days he agrees with you.
Trust me, I'm no Kerry fan. I think there's a reason he barely ever mentions his record of 20 years in the senate. Not because it's bad, just a little lean, shall we say.
The biggest thing to me is I think Bush has alienated valuable allies that we need to try to prevent another attack. Kerry, should be able to bring them back. The US is hated in Europe because of Bush. I refuse to buy into Bush's go-it-alone, cowboy, "bring 'em on" mentality. That's the way children think about the world, and it's dangerous. Kerry should have a positive impact on foreign relations.
The environment is a no-brainer. Kerry is pretty decent on environmental issues and Bush, well, let's say he'll probably end up going down in history as the worst president ever concerning the environment.

Like I said, Kerry's the lesser of two evils here.

As far as Kerry saying he'd bring the troops home by the end of his first term (very doubtful, imo). To me, that's too long. There should be a plan in place to get those guys home by the end of 2005 at the latest. I think this war is a disaster, has created thousands of new terrorists, and is unwinnable. The sooner we get out, the better.

[arpy64]

...Saddam would still be killing thousands of his own people. ...
As opposed to now, where we get to kill thousands of Iraqis ourselves.

[chrome8teenz]

on a different scale...

Efren Dato for Somerset County Sheriff!!!! I cant vote for him, Im a new yorker but if u live in NJ, somerset county, vote for him.

[usfhett03]

all i'm saying is, there has to be a better way then the way this was done.

Your probably right about this. But the problem that you have to admit is that the president doesn't have the ability to look into the future and see all the problems. What you are doing is being a Monday morning quarterback. Things aren't as easy as you make it out to be. There is no manual for invading a country, trying to install a new government, and getting out without a problems. If there is, I am sure the president would love to read it. The president doesn't have the luxury that we do here. He can't pass the decision on to someone above him. This no doubt was a tough decision. One with no easy answer. The easy thing to do would have been to ignore it. Ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Kinda like what we did with Osama. We ignored him far too long and look what it got us. We don't have that luxury to ignore our enemies. i don't envy the president for making this decision. The president could have ridden his high approval numbers all the way into his second term, easily. But this is what I truly like about the man. He is going to do whatever he can to stop another 9/11, whether it is popular or not in the short-term. Bush is looking out for this country and that is what I respect about him. He is not going to let other countries tell him where and when he is going to defend the US.

[arpy64]

Your probably right about this. But the problem that you have to admit is that the president doesn't have the ability to look into the future and see all the problems. What you are doing is being a Monday morning quarterback. Things aren't as easy as you make it out to be. There is no manual for invading a country, trying to install a new government, and getting out without a problems. ...
Actually, there is a manual for how western countries should invade or not invade muslim countries. It's called a history book. The French colonized Algeria until they were finally beaten out over a century later. The British tried the "invade and occupy" Iraq thing. Russian tried it with Afghanistan. Now we're gonna give it a shot. The bottom line with each of those western countries is that the occupiers were eventually beaten. I just don't think they like westerners occupying their countries.
There are lessons to learn from history.
From what Bush has said himself though, he's not really a reader.

[usfhett03]

as far as Kerry saying he'd bring the troops home by the end of his first term (very doubtful, imo). To me, that's too long. There should be a plan in place to get those guys home by the end of 2005 at the latest. I think this war is a disaster, has created thousands of new terrorists, and is unwinnable. The sooner we get out, the better.

You can't make public a specific date that the troops will be pulled out. That would be a disaster. Because if you come out and say that we will pull the troops out in 6 months, or 1 year, you make it easy for the terrorists. What they will then do is sit around and do nothing. Then when the soldiers leave, they will restart the insurgency and there will be no US troops to stop them.

[usfhett03]

The environment is a no-brainer. Kerry is pretty decent on environmental issues and Bush, well, let's say he'll probably end up going down in history as the worst president ever concerning the environment.


How so exactly?

[Nugo]

Thats interesting, we should let Congress and the Senate rule. Too bad they are the same thing.
Actually the Congress is the House of Representatives (also having names preceded by Congressman or Congresswoman) and the Senate (Senators' names being preceded, by, well, Senator).

As for checks and balances, here is what the president does:
Makes treaties with other nations
Carries out laws
Vetoes bills Congress passes if he thinks they are wrong
Appoints judges in the Judicial Branch for a life term
Writes the budget

The judicial branch could absorb the veto power while Congress absorbed the rest. We just don't need a president. A team of people representing states is far less likely to fall to a collective betise than any one man/woman would. We have a need to put a face on a leader out of nothing more than primal human nature and senseless tradition.

But I'm pretty much a Nihilist anyway, so I frankly don't give a fluck.

[twistedpac79]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)

Voting Is A Waste Of Time. Dont You Know That The Winner Is Already Picked. Why Do You Think That The Last President Vote Was So Messed Up. I Hate Bush :( But I Bet He Will Win Again. Its Fixed.

[arpy64]

How so exactly?
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/

http://environment.about.com/library/weekly/blbushbudget05.htm

[usfhett03]

Actually the Congress is the House of Representatives (also having names preceded by Congressman or Congresswoman) and the Senate (Senators' names being preceded, by, well, Senator).


Actually, Congress refers to both the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Both Senators and Representatives serve in the Congress.

[twistedpac79]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)



And I Am Not Scared To Say It. F*ck Bush And His Brainwashed Followers Atleast I Know I Wont Be Brainwashed By The Government.

[usfhett03]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)

Voting Is A Waste Of Time. Dont You Know That The Winner Is Already Picked. Why Do You Think That The Last President Vote Was So Messed Up. I Hate Bush :( But I Bet He Will Win Again. Its Fixed.

Thanks buddy, thats what we are all counting on :woohoo:

[Nugo]

Actually, Congress refers to both the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Both Senators and Representatives serve in the Congress.

Right which is what I said.
"Actually the Congress is the House of Representatives (also having names preceded by Congressman or Congresswoman) and the Senate (Senators' names being preceded, by, well, Senator)."

Another way to put it, in case mine isn't clear:
Congress=House or Representatives + Senate

[twistedpac79]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)

Who Really Cares. We All Have Our Own Lifes To Live. Move On.

[mcurtiss1970]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)

Who Really Cares. We All Have Our Own Lifes To Live. Move On.
yes, please move on

[arpy64]

yes, please move on
I second that. Twistedpac is an example of why it's almost impossible to have a real discussion here. There are, of course, "other sites" one can go to though.

[usfhett03]

Right which is what I said.
"Actually the Congress is the House of Representatives (also having names preceded by Congressman or Congresswoman) and the Senate (Senators' names being preceded, by, well, Senator)."

Another way to put it, in case mine isn't clear:
Congress=House or Representatives + Senate

Sorry bout that, I misread what you said.

[arpy64]

...Anyway, it was subsidaries of Haliburton, not US company.

...
Here's a link to a new report about Cheney's dealings with terrorist sponsoring states while he was CEO in the 90's. Including Iran and Iraq. Like I said, if there was a buck to be made, he just didn't care who he dealt with.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0916-21.htm

And the subsidiaries of Haliburton usually were/are simply dummy companies set up offshore in places like the Caymans to get around those pesky problems like sanctions.

[usfhett03]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)

Who Really Cares. We All Have Our Own Lifes To Live. Move On.

So why don't you "move on" by forgetting about this forum and letting the adults talk.

[Ted]

i think it should have been done Jack Ryan / Harrison Ford style... go in with a covert team of clueless, stumbling idiots who set everything on fire and somehow, manage to get the bad guys and also survive.

[Dm3]

If you want real change in this country, check these candidates out.
No, they don't have chance in hell, but...a boy can dream, can't he?

Green Party: http://www.votecobb.org/
Socialist Party: http://www.waltbrownforpresident.org/

With that Anarchy symbol in your avatar I'm surprised you would support such big government ideals.

If you want real change AND less government read what these guys have to say: http://www.lp.org

[arpy64]

With that Anarchy symbol in your avatar I'm surprised you would support such big government ideals.

If you want real change AND less government read what these guys have to say: http://www.lp.org
I'm more of a socialist than an anarchist. However, I believe in the basic premise of the anarchist movement, ie: libertarian socialism in the Noam Chomsky vein. He doesn't advocate the complete disassembly of government but putting power back into the hands of the people--specifically, the workers--and out of the grip of the corporations.
http://www.infoshop.org/

I'm familiar with the Libertarian Party. I was real impressed with Harry Brown back in the 2000 election, and heard several of his speeches on tv and was very impressed with him in the debates he participated in. However, Libertarians believe in unbridled, free-market, Darwinian capitalism and that's contrary to my beliefs.

[Dm3]

I'm more of a socialist than an anarchist. However, I believe in the basic premise of the anarchist movement, ie: libertarian socialism in the Noam Chomsky vein. He doesn't advocate the complete disassembly of government but putting power back into the hands of the people--specifically, the workers--and out of the grip of the corporations.
http://www.infoshop.org/

Interesting stuff. I'll have to read up on it more later.


I'm familiar with the Libertarian Party. I was real impressed with Harry Brown back in the 2000 election, and heard several of his speeches on tv and was very impressed with him in the debates he participated in. However, Libertarians believe in unbridled, free-market, Darwinian capitalism and that's contrary to my beliefs.

I agree with you to a point. But getting my paycheck every two weeks and seeing 24% of it gone angers me. Seeing all the money taken for Social Security (60 - 70 dollars a paycheck) thats supposed to be for me when I retire and knowing none of that money will be there bothers me, and it should bother every working citizen in the US.

Thats where I agree with Libertarians most - less taxation. And their gun control stance of course ;)

[NavyCop]

and this was sent to me by a Democrat!

[NavyCop]

a message from Iraq.

[Ronkh]

World War IV : The Uncontrollable Paradigm Shift



September 17, 2004

Part I: Joining the Battle

On September 11, 2001 planet earth embarked in earnest on what I believe to be World War IV. The Cold War fought directly and by proxy between the USA and the West against the USSR and World Communism being World War III.

World War IV began as the War on Terrorism. Its proper name is Operation Enduring Freedom and the United States engaged in actual ground combat in this war when US Special Forces entered northern Afghanistan and began organizing, training and fighting with the Northern Alliance against the radical Muslim Taliban and alQaeda fighters who were primarily responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. We took the prosecution of the war in a military tactic known as preemptive strike to Afghanistan to remove their biggest base of operations. Ultimately as forces were amassed regular ground combat troops like the light infantry 10th Mountain Division, the elite "All American's of the 82nd Airborne Division and the "Screaming Eagles" of the 101st Air Assault Division of the US Army and thousands of US Marines entered the ground war an obliterated the rag tag armies of the terrorist enemy and their benefactors. Afghanistan remains a battleground with intermittent alQaeda terrorist attacks and an unruly group of Afghan warlords hampering efforts to bring the peace the Afghan people want.

As a part of Operation Enduring Freedom in southwest asia, the recent continuation of the 1991 Gulf War, also known as Desert Storm to Liberate Kuwait, began in March 2003. Named Operation Iraqi Freedom this war removed the absolutely barbaric regime of Saddam Hussein and the threat it posted to the entire region in about 45 d ays. Combat Operations continue to this day, but for all intents and purposes the regime of Saddam was destroyed in one months time from April 19th to May 1st 2003. Virtually the entire massed might of active duty US ground troops with heavy armor and overwhelming air superiority annihilated the Russian trained and equipped army of Republican Guard divisions of Saddam's military.

As the opening strike's of this new world war these major land combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated to the enemies of freedom that America and its allies still possessed enormous military power. It showed the world that after 8 years of military cutbacks and downsizing America still had the strength and the will to strike back at implacable foes on their own turf half way around the world, even when one of the enemies in Saddam's were assisted by states allegedly on our side, or at least who publicly professing to be on our side. A new book by Bill Gertz entitled "Treachery" reveals that "an initial accounting by the Pentagon in the months after the fall of Baghdad revealed that Saddam covertly acquired between 650,000 and 1 million tons of conventional weapons from foreign sources. The main suppliers were Russia, China and France." We also know that during combat between US-led coalition air forces and the Iraqi defenders around Baghdad Russian technicians were manning Saddam's most recent air defense acquisitions - Russian made GPS jamming devices. The presence of these Russian military technicians so incensed the US that President Bush called Vladimir Putin and told him point blank that we were going to be killing his people if they were not removed from Iraq immediately. Finally on Sunday April 6th just days before US ground forces entered the Baghdad region a Russian diplomatic convoy bolted from the captial and immediately ran into US forces closing in from the west. The convoy was fired upon by US forces but continued with extreme urgen cy, completely refusing to stop on orders from US forces. This convoy removed itself from immediate danger and stopped in a town a little further to the west, a twon now familiar to the world as the most virulent of anti-American post war violence - Fallujah. In Fallujah the Russian technicians were warmly greeted and given all possible assistance, including medical attention. The convoy reported the incident to the Russian Embassy in Damascus Syria and stated that all was well.

The point of this is to demonstrate that virtually from the onset of this war our so-called allies have been acting directly against us, aiding and abetting our enemies. Such actions are nothing less than international treason with respect to public pronouncements of support and condolence following the events of September 11, 2001. However one should not be surprised at these events for there exists a tangible, continuing record of other events which told many observers at the onset that this war would become a real world war, not just against radical Islamic terrorists, but against other states which support them. Afghanistan was the first, then Iraq and now it appears to this writer that Russia is another such an enemy of America, and that in the course of recent events and subsequent to them further events and spoken words indicate that the War on terror may very well become an uncontrollable paradigm shift of World War IV in very short order.

Part II: Historical Perspective

America's terrorist enemy has been the global terrorist organization al Qaeda or Qaedat al-Jihad. It had been led from the beginning by Osama bin Laden. In the late 1990's another radical Islamist from Egypt fused his Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization into Osama's. This man is Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. There is an interesting part of al-Zawahiri's background which the vast majority of American's are totally ignorant of. I will attempt to remedy this vacuum of pertinent information with a brief historic al perspective from the writing of Mr. J.R. Nyquist and Evgenii Noikov.

To begin with Noikov wrote the following in The Jamestown Foundation in January of this year:


"The Arabic television channel Al Jazeera broadcast an audiotape on December 19, 2003, that was said to be from Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the right hand man of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In it, Zawahiri claimed that his group was chasing Americans everywhere, including in the United States. This claim helped raise the terror threat level."

Mr. Noikov continues by stating that Russian intelligence knows exactly where al-Zawahiri is because they probably remain in direct communication with him.

Why?

The answer is because in December of 1996 the Russian Federation intelligence service, the FSB/KGB, took Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri into custody while he was visiting Chechnya and kept him for the next six months, finally releasing him in May of 1997. This time under total Russian FSB/KGB control significantly altered al-Zawahiri's focus of terrorist operations. As Noikov writes, this "led to a change in Zawahiri's political orientation. Long talks with Russian intelligence officers "forced a critical change in his lethal planning. ...America, not Egypt, became the target."

None should find it odd them that within a very few days of the ending of the situation at the school in Beslan, Russia and two days prior to the third anniversary of 9/11 Ayman al-Zawahiri should appear on al-Jazeera television speaking about terrorist operations against America. None should also find it strange then that al-Zawahiri's words were preceded by just as few days with words, actions and deeds of President Vladimir Putin (I should say Tsar because he rules Russia by decree these days) of Russia. Besides being the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin is also a long time FSB/KGB officer.

For further information on this incredib le information I turn now to an article written by Mr. J.R. Nyquist in July of 2002 entitled Ayman al-Zawahiri's Russian Adventure .Mr. Nyquist, whose website www.jrnyquist.com contains outstanding intellectual thought and research on this and other subject matter of your immediate consideration and concern, had this to day in the article I reference above:

"An inconsistency in the story of Zawahiri's Russian adventure also appears in the fact that he did not simply go to "independent" Chechnya, but was arrested after crossing over into Russian-held Dagestan. In addition, Higgins and Cullison tell us that Zawahiri arrived in Russia after visiting China where he had money dealings with a mainland Chinese bank in Guangdong province. One ought to ask what kind of Islamist sets up a command center in Bulgaria, does banking in China and pays extended visits to Russia? "

[Ronkh]

Nyquist continues: " Radical Islam was long ago infiltrated by Moscow's agents -- as evidenced by East German and Cuban support for the Saudi Islamists who attacked the Grand Mosque in 1979, as well as the KGB's clandestine role in provoking the Iranian hostage crisis during the Carter administration (see Bodansky's Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America, p. 9). It is therefore unlikely that the Russians would fail to identify Zawahiri (as he was the most important Egyptian terrorist in the Islamist movement). They knew they had an Arab in custody. Any Arabist in the Russian intelligence service would be able to tell an Egyptian from a local yokel. Furthermore, since Moscow was secretly supporting the Serbs against the Bosnians in Yugoslavia, the Kremlin could not have missed Zawahiri's activities in organizing resistance to the Moscow-backed Yugoslav central government. But things are not so simple in "former" communist countries. As with the Chechen War, the civil war following the breakup of Yugoslavia has an interesting pre-history in the l iterature of Russian grand strategy."

I urge the reader to read that article by Mr. Nyquist in full, several times in fact until its profundity finally hits home. That profundity that I speak of can best be surmised with one final sentence from JR:

Given Zawahiri's travels to Russia and China, given the full context of Russia's double game in Chechnya (described in last week's column), we ought to entertain the possibility that China and Russia secretly supported the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11.

And that Ladies and Gentlemen bring us to the here and now -- August, September and October 2004 -- and the events we are currently living through and which will shape our world in ways we can hardly fathom, yet I see will unquestionably be The Uncontrollable Paradigm Shift of World War IV.

Part III: The Chechen Connection

It is my belief that one of the direct causes of the end of the Cold War (WWIII) in addition to the massive defense build-up of the U.S. Reagan Administration was the clandestinely controlled disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This intricate plan of deception can be found in two related and sequential books on the subject by the highest-ranking KGB operative ever to defect to the West, Mr. Anatoliy Golitsyn. His works entitled "New Lies For Old" and "The Perestroika Deception" are uncanny in their "predictions" -- which aren't really predictions as much are they are informed insight and direct knowledge. One of the key points made by Golitsyn was that there would be a staged ollapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and in the USSR itself. This clearly did occur as forecast by Golitsyn, but the proof in the pudding is contained in a quote by Mikhail Gorbachev in a speech made to the Soviet Politboro in 1987:

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."

Indeed, and a great many of us have been slumbering ever since. However, in recent years many of us have awoken to the reality of this deception and the words of writers such as Golitsyn, Nemets, Lunev, Noikov, Nyquist and others have served as a everlasting tablet of Maximum Strength NoDoz. But we also have current events with which to use as indications of the continuing plot whose ultimate objective it is to subjugate America within a world order of totalitarianist socialism. The events in Russia of the past month which we are all witnessing, but perhaps not paying attention to or understanding completely for what they really are, are the greatest indicator we have that the plan is in its final phase of execution. The false front of what has been the political situatin in Russia is now actively being scrapped by the real power in Russia ˆ the KGB and its current head, Vladimir Putin.

One of the tools of the effort as has been mentioned earlier is terrorism, and the USSR is the architect of the terrorism we continue to face. This terrorist implement has also been used within Russia itself. There are strong indications that one of the principle Chechen separatist leaders is a Russian GRU agent. Concerning the school siege in Beslan, Russia, Shamill Basaev is reported in Russian -- and subsequently in the West -- media as claiming responsibility for that atrocity. Basaev was also blamed for the hostage situation at the Nord-Ost musical performance in the Moscow theater incident of 2002. Basaev tells a different story which can be found in The Jamestown Foundation website, and I quote:

"Basaev said that the original target of the October raid on Moscow had not been the "Nord-Ost" musical but the buildings of the Russian parliament. Each of the two houses of parliament (the Duma and the Council of the Federation) was to have been seized by twenty guerrillas. His account claimed that the detonators brought into the theater by the hostage-takers had turned out to be nonfunctional, as had the detonators in the hands of four women rebels who had remained outside the theater. These four women, he wrote, had managed to return to Chechnya, where he had personally spoken with them. According to Basaev, he and his lieutenants are still investigating what they clearly see as an act of deliberate sabotage. In their view, someone must have substituted non-working detonators for those originally supplied, and they are now trying to identify the possible traitor within their own ranks."

Another recent event was the granting of political asylum by the United Kingdom of another Chechen whom Russia claims to be a terrorist, Akhmed Zakaev. Zakaev is a political representative of Chechnya to the UK. In his report on the Moscow theater slaughter he reported that "the Nord-Ost raid had indeed been planned by Basaev, but that it had then come under the control of the Russian special services. But unlike Politkovskaya, Zakaev opined that it was the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) rather than the intelligence arm of the Russian military (the GRU) that had conducted this successful infiltration. In Zakaev's view, which was reported by the website Polit.ru on April 28, Basaev lost control of the hostage-taking party when it entered Moscow. He identified Terkibaev by name, claiming that it was he who secured the rebel group's safe passage into Moscow and who chose the theater as the object of the group's attack. According to Zakaev's version, Terkibaev then slipped out of the theater before it was stormed by federal commandos."

In light of the above, are we to take at face value reports coming from Russian media that Shamil Basaev conducted the siege and mass murder at the Beslan school? I think not. Yet the results of that operation are manifest in the consolidation of absolute power by Vladimir Putin and the KGB in the Kremlin. They will also be manifest in what I believe will be a major Russian military move to re-conquer the entire Caucasus region. The master puppeteers in the Kremlin have decided to adapt the legitimate US policy of pre-empting terrorism with forward deployment of military forces and engagement of the terrorist enemy and the states which support them to their own purposes, and they are masking this coming conquest with the charades we have seeing since August ˆ the twin airliner disasters, Moscow subway bombings and Beslan. There is also raw intelligence information directly from the mouth of a Russian general that the US Pentagon is actively planning to detonate a nuclear weapon in the Moscow underground and that recent bombings there were but a dry run. As events continue to unfold in the coming days please keep that in mind because World War IV is well underway and an event such as a "rouge" nuke going off in the US or Russia will be the event which triggers the uncontrollable paradigm shift of your current understanding and of the war itself. Rest assured that if a nuclear weapon is detonated in the United States or in Russia -- the weapon will most certainly be of Russian manufacture and the reason for the detonation was hatched in the Kremlin as part of the final phase of their operation to destroy America.

Sean Osborne, Network Analyst
Northeast Intelligence Network

[arpy64]

You guys can quit waving your flags now. I got it. You're good patriotic Americans and whoever disagrees with you is a commie.
Are you guys still really using the old "the commies are coming" argument? I thought that died back in the late 80's/early 90's. I guess not.

[arpy64]

a message from Iraq.
So, does this mean these soldiers are more patriotic and American than the soldiers who believe the war is wrong and can't stand Dubya?

[jsmithwick]

Ok, I have to weigh in here.

Point #1:

It is absurd to say Bush lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Many democrats, including Kerry, looked at the same evidence, and said there were weapons. Clinton and his Wife both said there were weapons. To say Bush invented the evidence of their existence is to say he was controlling the CIA while he was still the governor of Texas. And if you believe that, then welcome to the X-Files.

Point #2:

To the poster that said we, as Republicans should "get over" the years we had to endure Clinton and his criminals...that is just what we Republicans have been saying for the better part of 4 years to Democrats concerning the so-called "stolen election of 2000"...that they should get over that as well. The SUPREME COURT said in a definative albeit close (5-4) ruling, that there was no stolen election. This would be the highest court in the judicial system that some here think should take over the presidential powers.

No chance of that, though...the shoes never fit as well when they are on your feet.

Point #3:

If you are going to vote for any ticket other that one of the big two...you might as well wish for world peace, good will toward all mankind and an end to hunger as well, because you're just as likely to get that too.

And lastly Point #4:

If Kerry wins, we will still be at war, we will still have under-educated kids, we will still have rising crime rates, and we will still have forgotten senior-citizens and children with no insurance or prescription coverage. And I admit, the same goes for a Bush win. No president has ever had the stones to buck the well-entrenched system, and make steps toward change.

The absolute power to change these things in truth lies with us, and not the ONE PERSON we elect to take the fall for OUR mistakes. Maybe we should all get behind WHOEVER wins, and restructure the system to reflect the changes we have made in the last 200+ years since the last revolution so that we all can benefit from the government WE THE PEOPLE elect.

It's either that, or grab your muskets and revolt all over again.

I’m Jsmithwick, and I approved this message. (<-- cheap, but I figured what the H-E-Double-hockeysticks)

[NavyCop]

So, does this mean these soldiers are more patriotic and American than the soldiers who believe the war is wrong and can't stand Dubya?
Well the soldier on the right is my brother, 2nd I have yet to meet a soldier that and I quote "soldiers who believe the war is wrong and can't stand Dubya?"

Like I said before, the troops are "Full of JOY"

Unless you mean the "few" cry baby reservists that left their big money jobs because it's time for them to answer the call of duty. They had no problem signing up when they recieved the grants for college, now they are anti's. Again, I have met and heard of only a few.

[sheureka]

http://optruth.org/main.cfm - sheureka

[arpy64]

Thanks for the link, Sheureka. I find it hard to believe that out of the nearly 200,000 (I'm estimating this number) troops that have served in Iraq, there are none or virtually none, that are against the war and anti-Bush. That would be unbelievable from just a purely statistical point of view.

Oh, and NavyCop dissing reservists as "crybabies" while they're over there dying and bleeding along with the "real" soldiers is really kind of remarkable to me.

[Dan71]

Oh, and NavyCop dissing reservists as "crybabies" while they're over there dying and bleeding along with the "real" soldiers is really kind of remarkable to me.

"few" cry baby reservists

that left their big money jobs because it's time for them to answer the call of duty. They had no problem signing up when they recieved the grants for college, now they are anti's.

I know he don't mean all the reservists. He is refering to the reservist that have not been active and are getting called up. Not the resevervist that are over there or that are serving. I'm in the reserves with plenty of other guys that know him, he has always treated us with the utmost respect. NavyCop comes from "old school Navy". Thats all he knows, all his family served and most still do. I just dont think he would adapt well in civilian life. :D

[twistedpac79]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)

Well, I Can See That There Is Alot Of People Backing Bush Up. We All Have Our Own Point Of Views And Thats What Makes Us Human. Nothing Wrong With That. I Just Think That Bush Is A Total Fool And Only Cares About His $$ And Not About This Country. :(

[twistedpac79]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)

I Also Think That Bush Could Cares Less Who Dies As Long As He Is Not Fighting Over There. Call Me Crazy But Just Look At His Face When He Speaks. I Feel Sorry For All The People Getting Killed Over There. I Hope Bush Cant Sleep At Night!

[twistedpac79]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)

Maybe I Am Wrong. And I Am Not Saying Kerry Is Any Better But He Cant Do Any Worse Then Bush Has Done. Maybe We Are Just SOL >:(

[twistedpac79]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (MobilePhone SCP-5500/US/1.0) NetFront/3.0 MMP/2.0)

What Goes Around, Comes Around! Thats My Two ¢

[88jr]

I'm voting for Kerry because Bush sucks. No other reason.

Cool...that's an intelligent reason.

[goodeye18]

Have you guys seen the Bush vs. Kerry Boxing game available for Sprint Vision phones? My wife downloaded it from the list of all the games available for her VI660. Its some funny stuff I tell you.

[Banzai]

Kerry Sets a Record: 14 Flip-Flops in One Speech
Monday, Sept. 20, 2004

Sen. John Kerry set some kind of record today in a speech to his fellow leftists at New York University. The Republican National Committee counted 14 flip-flops on Iraq.


Among the more egregious of the tragicomic whoppers noted:


> Kerry now claims the "most important task" is to win the "war on terrorism." Yet Kerry, speaking to his pets at the New York Times in March, refused to call the war on terror a war, RNC recalled.

Kerry then: "The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don’t want to use that terminology."


> Kerry now claims Iraq was a "diversion from" the war on terror. On Dec. 15 he said: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror."


> Kerry now claims Saddam Hussein's evil was not enough to justify war. Here's what he said in a speech July 29, 2002: "I agree completely with this administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."


> Kerry now claims Saddam’s "downfall … has left America less secure." Oopsy: Here's his anti-Dean, anti-Saddam stand in December 2003, according to Newsday: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."


> Kerry now claims the decision to go into Iraq was a "colossal" failure. Yet on Aug. 9, Kerry said that had he known then what he knew now, he would still have voted for the use-of-force resolution, according to CNN:
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively."


> Kerry now claims Saddam was not a "threat to our security." Here's what he said in January 2003, according to the L.A. Times: "If you don't believe … Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."


> Kerry now claims Saddam's "capability to acquire weapons" was not reason enough for war. Yet according to the Congressional Record of Oct. 9, 2002, he called those who would leave the Iraqi dictator alone "naive to the point of grave danger."
And so on and so forth.

At least no one can say Kerry is two-faced. He has so many more faces than that.

[usfhett03]

Kerry Sets a Record: 14 Flip-Flops in One Speech
Monday, Sept. 20, 2004

Sen. John Kerry set some kind of record today in a speech to his fellow leftists at New York University. The Republican National Committee counted 14 flip-flops on Iraq.


Among the more egregious of the tragicomic whoppers noted:


> Kerry now claims the "most important task" is to win the "war on terrorism." Yet Kerry, speaking to his pets at the New York Times in March, refused to call the war on terror a war, RNC recalled.

Kerry then: "The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don’t want to use that terminology."


> Kerry now claims Iraq was a "diversion from" the war on terror. On Dec. 15 he said: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror."


> Kerry now claims Saddam Hussein's evil was not enough to justify war. Here's what he said in a speech July 29, 2002: "I agree completely with this administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."


> Kerry now claims Saddam’s "downfall … has left America less secure." Oopsy: Here's his anti-Dean, anti-Saddam stand in December 2003, according to Newsday: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."


> Kerry now claims the decision to go into Iraq was a "colossal" failure. Yet on Aug. 9, Kerry said that had he known then what he knew now, he would still have voted for the use-of-force resolution, according to CNN:
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively."


> Kerry now claims Saddam was not a "threat to our security." Here's what he said in January 2003, according to the L.A. Times: "If you don't believe … Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."


> Kerry now claims Saddam's "capability to acquire weapons" was not reason enough for war. Yet according to the Congressional Record of Oct. 9, 2002, he called those who would leave the Iraqi dictator alone "naive to the point of grave danger."
And so on and so forth.

At least no one can say Kerry is two-faced. He has so many more faces than that.


Ridiculous

[Nugo]

Here's my opinion.

George Bush is Yadda yadda yadda, and John Kerry is Blah Blah Blah. The reason that discussions on politics and religion are so popular is because people can come join the debates/discussions/fights and they have a good chance of not losing, because there are no clear answers.

It reminds me of a guy I used to know that worked at a small Computer Repair store. He would get as technical as he possibly could so the customers wouldn't realize how many holes he had in his technical education. He'd scare them off with five-syllable words.

I guess it's just my problem; I'm disgusted with how we, people, behave (self included). We always want to dominate the thing; the game, the girl, the audience, the wild animal, the other army, the opponent... Make our mark; hammer our everlasting signature on it.

I guess what I just said means nothing, as far as I can see. I just hate how we do this; we believe things for reasons we don't fully understand, based on how we ourselves were raised and the specific experiences we've had. But to be truly open-minded (I'd like to believe I'm a Nihilist, but I'm not allowed to) you can't believe in anything so strongly that you won't at least consider changing your mind in light of new and convincing evidence. And even if you accepted that new view, it would have to be under a precondition that you may change your mind about it again.

So we jump into these political discussions and what I see is little microcosmic battles; a smaller version of all the wars ever fought over difference of opinion (all of them, maybe?). It comes down to this; you don't think like I do, or you embarrassed me by proving me wrong, so I'm going to attack you.

I'm gonna go see if somebody will turn me into a Golden Retriever.

[DcDave63]

<Blink>

You're a golden retriever.....


Now Sit!

:hee:

[Nugo]

Is my leg twitching, cuz I'm shonuff dreamin about Jeannie :))

[usfhett03]

Have you guys seen the Bush vs. Kerry Boxing game available for Sprint Vision phones? My wife downloaded it from the list of all the games available for her VI660. Its some funny stuff I tell you.

Ya its pretty good, I like that Nader holds the round sound between rounds.

[arpy64]

Ridiculous
In response to the Kerry "flip flop" list.

Of course "Bush the Resolute" never flip flops....oooooops, maybe I spoke to quickly:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
Bush was against campaign finance reform; now he's for it.

Bush was against a Homeland Security Department; now he's for it.

Bush was against a 9/11 commission; now he's for it.

Bush was against an Iraq WMD investigation; now he's for it.

Bush was against nation building; now he's for it.

Bush was against deficits; now he's for them.

Bush was for free trade; then he was for tariffs on steel, and now he's against them again.

Bush was against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; now he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush was for states' rights to decide on gay marriage; now he is for changing the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

Bush said he would provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency); then he doesn't.

Bush said that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts their benefits and health care.

Bush claimed to be in favor of environmental protection; then he secretly approved oil drilling on Padre Island in Texas and other places and took many more anti-environmental actions.

Bush said he is the "education president;" then he refused to fully fund key education programs and rarely does his homework, such as read position papers so he will be more knowledgeable on issues.

Bush said that him being governor of Texas for six years was enough political experience to be president of the U.S.; then he criticized Sen. John Edwards for not having enough experience after Edwards had served six years in the U.S. Senate.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush said there were too many lawsuits being filed; then during the Florida recount, he was the first to file a lawsuit to stop the legal counting of votes after Gore took advantage of Florida law to ask for a recount.

On Nov. 7, 2000, the Bush campaign supported Florida county officials drawing up new copies of some 10,000 spoiled absentee votes in 26 Republican-leaning counties that the machines did not read and marking them for the candidates when they showed "clear intent;" they opposed doing the same thing after Nov. 7 when Gore asked for such recounts. Bush dominated absentee balloting in Florida by a two-to-one margin.

Bush said during the 2000 campaign that he did not have a "litmus test" for judges he appointed to be against abortion; then he mostly appointed judges who were against abortion.

In the early 1990s, Bush led a campaign to raise taxes in Arlington, Texas, to build a new baseball stadium for the team he partly owned; he later criticized politicians for supporting tax increases – after he got rich by selling the team with the new stadium to a wealthy campaign contributor.

Bush opposed the U.S. negotiating with North Korea; now he supports it.

Bush went to the racist and segregationist Bob Jones University in South Carolina; then he said he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq; later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.

Bush first said the "mission accomplished" Iraqi banner was put up by the sailors; he later admitted it was done by his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the U.S.; after meeting with Mexican President Fox, he decided against it.

Bush was opposed to Rice testifying in front of the 9/11 commission citing "separation of powers;" then he was for it.

Bush was against Ba'ath party members holding office or government jobs in Iraq; now he's for it.

Bush said we must not appease terrorists; then he lifted trade sanctions on admitted terrorist Mohammar Quaddafi and Pakistan, which pardoned its official who sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

Bush said he would wait until after the Nov. election to ask for more money for the war effort; then he decided he needed it before the election, after all.

Bush said, "Leaving Iraq prematurely would only embolden the terrorists and increase the danger to America." His administration now says that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq when the new provisional authority asks. Then he said they'll stay "as long as needed" again. Now he's
saying that the Iraqis can ask the troops to leave, and they will. Or is he?

The Bush administration officials said that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to "enemy combatants." Now they claims they do.

Bush officials said before the Iraq invasion that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to U.S. security and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and even nuclear weapons; after the invasion, they denied saying the word "imminent" and saying that Iraq had WMDs and nuclear weapons, even though they were caught on tape making such statements.

[DcDave63]

WOOHOO!!!

Great response!

I love it!!!!!!

:joy:

[tuolumne]

WOOHOO!!!

Great response!

I love it!!!!!!

:joy:

second that

[Banzai]

In response to the Kerry "flip flop" list.

Of course "Bush the Resolute" never flip flops....oooooops, maybe I spoke to quickly:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
Bush was against campaign finance reform; now he's for it.

Bush was against a Homeland Security Department; now he's for it.

Bush was against a 9/11 commission; now he's for it.

Bush was against an Iraq WMD investigation; now he's for it.

Bush was against nation building; now he's for it.

Bush was against deficits; now he's for them.

Bush was for free trade; then he was for tariffs on steel, and now he's against them again.

Bush was against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; now he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush was for states' rights to decide on gay marriage; now he is for changing the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

Bush said he would provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency); then he doesn't.

Bush said that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts their benefits and health care.

Bush claimed to be in favor of environmental protection; then he secretly approved oil drilling on Padre Island in Texas and other places and took many more anti-environmental actions.

Bush said he is the "education president;" then he refused to fully fund key education programs and rarely does his homework, such as read position papers so he will be more knowledgeable on issues.

Bush said that him being governor of Texas for six years was enough political experience to be president of the U.S.; then he criticized Sen. John Edwards for not having enough experience after Edwards had served six years in the U.S. Senate.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush said there were too many lawsuits being filed; then during the Florida recount, he was the first to file a lawsuit to stop the legal counting of votes after Gore took advantage of Florida law to ask for a recount.

On Nov. 7, 2000, the Bush campaign supported Florida county officials drawing up new copies of some 10,000 spoiled absentee votes in 26 Republican-leaning counties that the machines did not read and marking them for the candidates when they showed "clear intent;" they opposed doing the same thing after Nov. 7 when Gore asked for such recounts. Bush dominated absentee balloting in Florida by a two-to-one margin.

Bush said during the 2000 campaign that he did not have a "litmus test" for judges he appointed to be against abortion; then he mostly appointed judges who were against abortion.

In the early 1990s, Bush led a campaign to raise taxes in Arlington, Texas, to build a new baseball stadium for the team he partly owned; he later criticized politicians for supporting tax increases – after he got rich by selling the team with the new stadium to a wealthy campaign contributor.

Bush opposed the U.S. negotiating with North Korea; now he supports it.

Bush went to the racist and segregationist Bob Jones University in South Carolina; then he said he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq; later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.

Bush first said the "mission accomplished" Iraqi banner was put up by the sailors; he later admitted it was done by his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the U.S.; after meeting with Mexican President Fox, he decided against it.

Bush was opposed to Rice testifying in front of the 9/11 commission citing "separation of powers;" then he was for it.

Bush was against Ba'ath party members holding office or government jobs in Iraq; now he's for it.

Bush said we must not appease terrorists; then he lifted trade sanctions on admitted terrorist Mohammar Quaddafi and Pakistan, which pardoned its official who sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

Bush said he would wait until after the Nov. election to ask for more money for the war effort; then he decided he needed it before the election, after all.

Bush said, "Leaving Iraq prematurely would only embolden the terrorists and increase the danger to America." His administration now says that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq when the new provisional authority asks. Then he said they'll stay "as long as needed" again. Now he's
saying that the Iraqis can ask the troops to leave, and they will. Or is he?

The Bush administration officials said that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to "enemy combatants." Now they claims they do.

Bush officials said before the Iraq invasion that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to U.S. security and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and even nuclear weapons; after the invasion, they denied saying the word "imminent" and saying that Iraq had WMDs and nuclear weapons, even though they were caught on tape making such statements.

Don't you just love politics. Fact is, when you make 10 contrasting statements in one speech you are rendered a political weather vane and your word is of no value. The Bush statements above are a combination of changes due to VISCOUS pressure from democrats, media BIAS propaganda & normal policy changes. Every president is going to change his stance on issues from time to time, but with extraordinary negative reporting by the likes of CBS (Rathergate), NBC and CNN; the president had been under unprecedented pressure & if the media had it's way; Mr. Bush would be trailing in the polls due to their slanted and false reporting. Mr. Bush is the right man for the job at the right time, and the American people are speaking.

[FlxiblePhantom2]

Don't you just love politics. Fact is, when you make 10 contrasting statements in one speech you are rendered a political weather vane and your word is of no value. The Bush statements above are a combination of changes due to VISCOUS pressure from democrats, media BIAS propaganda & normal policy changes. Every president is going to change his stance on issues from time to time, but with extraordinary negative reporting by the likes of CBS (Rathergate), NBC and CNN; the president had been under unprecedented pressure & if the media had it's way; Mr. Bush would be trailing in the polls due to their slanted and false reporting. Mr. Bush is the right man for the job at the right time, and the American people are speaking.

Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the side he's flopped to has been the side that, at least he thought, was politically popular.

For example, on the National Intelligence Director issue, he flopped only when something like 70% of Americans supported it in a poll.

Kerry's weakness is that he over communicates and tries to explain too much. Bush's weakness is that when he tries to speak off the cuff, it ends up on a bumper sticker.

[arpy64]

Don't you just love politics. Fact is, when you make 10 contrasting statements in one speech you are rendered a political weather vane and your word is of no value. The Bush statements above are a combination of changes due to VISCOUS pressure from democrats, media BIAS propaganda & normal policy changes. Every president is going to change his stance on issues from time to time, but with extraordinary negative reporting by the likes of CBS (Rathergate), NBC and CNN; the president had been under unprecedented pressure & if the media had it's way; Mr. Bush would be trailing in the polls due to their slanted and false reporting. Mr. Bush is the right man for the job at the right time, and the American people are speaking.
My point about the flip flop BS is that politicians-especially at the national level-change their minds over time due to a variety of circumstances: voters, society, media, polls, PR people, their own perceptions, new information, whatever.
For the Bushies to try to turn Kerry's flip flops into an issue is ridiculous considering Bush is just as guilty. Let's be "Fair and Balanced" here, okay?

[usfhett03]

My point about the flip flop BS is that politicians-especially at the national level-change their minds over time due to a variety of circumstances: voters, society, media, polls, PR people, their own perceptions, new information, whatever.
For the Bushies to try to turn Kerry's flip flops into an issue is ridiculous considering Bush is just as guilty. Let's be "Fair and Balanced" here, okay?

I totally agree with you, all politicians change their mind about issues. But when Kerry's statements contradict statements he made earlier in the day or week, there is NO comparison. Its like he doesn't remember the things he says when he says them. The Democrats should be destroying the president right now. If they had nominated anybody other than Kerry, they would probably be winning in a landslide. But to the average person, the person that couldn't tell you what the 9/11 report said, or don't know what No Child Left Behind is. They are mostly going to vote for the person they trust the most. And the Bush campaign has done an excellent job is portraying Kerry as somebody that you can't trust. And the Kerry campaign has done the opposite and not been able to send out a clear signal. Kerry should be hammering the president on healthcare, jobs, education, domestic issues, but his focus iis on foreign policy. Kerry doesn't stand a chance winning this election debating foreign policy. While you people on here will disagree with the presidents foreign policy, a vast number of American's, some 65% trust the president on terror, national defense and Iraq.

[arpy64]

I totally agree with you, all politicians change their mind about issues. But when Kerry's statements contradict statements he made earlier in the day or week, there is NO comparison. Its like he doesn't remember the things he says when he says them. The Democrats should be destroying the president right now. If they had nominated anybody other than Kerry, they would probably be winning in a landslide. But to the average person, the person that couldn't tell you what the 9/11 report said, or don't know what No Child Left Behind is. They are mostly going to vote for the person they trust the most. And the Bush campaign has done an excellent job is portraying Kerry as somebody that you can't trust. And the Kerry campaign has done the opposite and not been able to send out a clear signal. Kerry should be hammering the president on healthcare, jobs, education, domestic issues, but his focus iis on foreign policy. Kerry doesn't stand a chance winning this election debating foreign policy. While you people on here will disagree with the presidents foreign policy, a vast number of American's, some 65% trust the president on terror, national defense and Iraq.
Couldn't agree with you more on this. Bush, after the last 4 years has a near constant string of failures both domestic and foreign (largest terrorist attack in US history, 1st president since the Great Depression to finish a term with a net loss of jobs, largest deficit in history, 2 wars, trashing of the environment, and on and on), and the fact that the Dems aren't cruising to a landslide victory, but actually losing, is a good indicator of the condition that the Democratic party's in. A convoluted message, no plan on how to get out of Iraq, and for some reason they continue to nominate dull, unexciting candidates--at least since Clinton.

The American public in general is just not interested or just not intelligent enough to vote for the smartest or the most capable candidate (except in 92 and 96). They vote for who they "like". Gore was infinetely more experienced and undoubtedly more intelligent than Bush. The same goes for Kerry. Yet these guys can't crush a dim, inexperienced, inarticulate George Bush. It's amazing.

[usfhett03]

Couldn't agree with you more on this. Bush, after the last 4 years has a near constant string of failures both domestic and foreign (largest terrorist attack in US history, 1st president since the Great Depression to finish a term with a net loss of jobs, largest deficit in history, 2 wars, trashing of the environment, and on and on), and the fact that the Dems aren't cruising to a landslide victory, but actually losing, is a good indicator of the condition that the Democratic party's in. A convoluted message, no plan on how to get out of Iraq, and for some reason they continue to nominate dull, unexciting candidates--at least since Clinton.

The American public in general is just not interested or just not intelligent enough to vote for the smartest or the most capable candidate (except in 92 and 96). They vote for who they "like". Gore was infinetely more experienced and undoubtedly more intelligent than Bush. The same goes for Kerry. Yet these guys can't crush a dim, inexperienced, inarticulate George Bush. It's amazing.


Well I don't know if I would go as far as you have in your criticism of the president. But I recently have had the opportunity to sit and watch over a dozen focus groups that were sponsored by both campaigns. And it is a great opportunity to sit back, and listen to people talk about politics that really don't have any idea about the issues, candidates, etc. The vast majority of the people, who intend to vote for Kerry or Bush, believe that Bush is to be more trusted on our defense then Kerry. There answers weren't scientific, or have any evidence to back their statements up, but they just feel that Bush can protect America better. Kerry's focus groups were very interesting. They only wanted people that were going to vote for Bush. None of the people in the group would be able to argue politics for a second. But all of their reasons for voting for the president went back to believing that Kerry wasn't a strong leader, he wasn't capable of leading the country through another terrorist attack.

[arpy64]

Well I don't know if I would go as far as you have in your criticism of the president. But I recently have had the opportunity to sit and watch over a dozen focus groups that were sponsored by both campaigns. And it is a great opportunity to sit back, and listen to people talk about politics that really don't have any idea about the issues, candidates, etc. The vast majority of the people, who intend to vote for Kerry or Bush, believe that Bush is to be more trusted on our defense then Kerry. There answers weren't scientific, or have any evidence to back their statements up, but they just feel that Bush can protect America better. Kerry's focus groups were very interesting. They only wanted people that were going to vote for Bush. None of the people in the group would be able to argue politics for a second. But all of their reasons for voting for the president went back to believing that Kerry wasn't a strong leader, he wasn't capable of leading the country through another terrorist attack.
Hell, I've got a list of stuff I could criticize Bush on. (FYI, I had/have a list of stuff that I criticize(d) Clinton on too). So, that little rant was nothing.

According to all the polls, you're right in saying that on the "leadership" and "protection" issues, Bush stomps Kerry. Why, I don't know. After the loss of 3,000 American civilians in the biggest attack on this country by foreigners since probably the war of 1812, not to mention the anthrax attacks, plus that fact that he has inflamed the whole middle east against us and his war in Iraq has spawned thousands of new terrorists, I seriously question that claim.
But, like I said, people like Bush, and the Republican PR machine has been masterful over the last 3 years in convincing alot of people that he's a strong leader who protects America.
I just shake my head and want to run screaming to the Netherlands....I heard they got great coffee shops in Amsterdam.

[Banzai]

haha....http://www.flippercam.com/

[Jonacell]

Any one watch today's presidental debate?

Kerry to me was doing pretty well. I think his experience in law school is helping him. He took notes. and then fired shots at bush.

[usfhett03]

Yea, Bush seemed to me like he just wasn't prepared or something. He had a ton of opportunities to go after Kerry and he just didn't do it. He better take the gloves off in the next two debates or hes in a lot of trouble.

[AWESOM-O]

here's a thought -- is GWB a terrorist? i mean think about it... what is a terrorist but someone who attacks the innocent to advance his own version of reality... something to think about.

Thought about it and came to the conclusion that you are a ****ing moron.


PLEASE try to refrain from personal attacks on each other, remember this is about Bush, Kerry & Nader.

Not possilbe in a thread like this...sorry.

[AWESOM-O]

By the way I am selling my vote. Someone has offered me $7.50 for just the presidential vote. If anybody thinks it is worth more than that let me know. If you want me to vote a certain way across the board let me know and that can be arranged....for the right price.

[AWESOM-O]

Actually, the American and British fire bombings of German cities toward the end of WWII -specifically Dresden- could be considered terrorism. Dresden had no military value at all, and the only reason for fire bombing it to was to create terror in the German cilvilian population, in the hopes of demoralizing them.

Awesome strategy if you ask me.

[arpy64]

By the way I am selling my vote. Someone has offered me $7.50 for just the presidential vote. If anybody thinks it is worth more than that let me know. If you want me to vote a certain way across the board let me know and that can be arranged....for the right price.
FYI, it's a federal crime to sell your vote. But what are the chances of getting caught really?

[arpy64]

Yea, Bush seemed to me like he just wasn't prepared or something. He had a ton of opportunities to go after Kerry and he just didn't do it. He better take the gloves off in the next two debates or hes in a lot of trouble.
Agreed. Also, to me, Bush seemed unprepared, and really showed his lack of depth on complex issues. How many times did he pause for a painfully long time before answering....and it wasn't because he was formulating an intricate, nuanced answer but instead just seemed to be out of bullets intellectually.

[Guy]

Bush's big point of the night...

"It's HAAARD WORK"


:hee:

Yes it is Mr. President...to hard for your delicate mind. Get outta office!!

[AWESOM-O]

FYI, it's a federal crime to sell your vote. But what are the chances of getting caught really?

Exactly, any takers? Either I sell it or I go to the polls and flip a coin on what to vote for.

[AWESOM-O]

Yea, Bush seemed to me like he just wasn't prepared or something. He had a ton of opportunities to go after Kerry and he just didn't do it. He better take the gloves off in the next two debates or hes in a lot of trouble.

REMEMBER THIS POST, BUSH WILL NOT LOSE.

[Ted]

Thought about it and came to the conclusion that you are a ****ing moron.

if not making personal attacks is "not possible" in a thread like this then maybe you should consider posting somewhere else. it was a rhetorical question. maybe you don't agree, but you can disagree with respect.

if you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, then stay out of it.

[AWESOM-O]

if not making personal attacks is "not possible" in a thread like this then maybe you should consider posting somewhere else. it was a rhetorical question. maybe you don't agree, but you can disagree with respect.

if you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, then stay out of it.

Man I am sorry that I lost my temper, but I live in Boulder, Colorado, a hippy haven. I am so sick and tired of Bush being compared to terrorist or Hitler and I don't even know if I am going to vote for the guy. It sickens me to see some people say the things they do about him. I don't understand why so many people think he straight up lied about Iraq? Bad intelligence was the cause and not just our own does anyone else remember reading about how Russia told us they believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction too? If you want to hate someone, hat Chirac (the president or prime minister, or whatever they call the main guy in France). How many times have we backed up France? The bastard was in Georgia for the G8 summit and wouldn't go to Reagans funeral! Why? Because he hates America. This is what it all boils down to for me, I am sick of America having to fight the "nice, politically correct war". Take Abu Grahib for example, all over the news for months. A terrorist chops someones head off and it makes the news three days tops. You think about which one you think is worse, I dont need to....So this is so random...lets call it pent up frustration and again I apologize for questioning your intelligence when I have never even met you Ted.

[varma]

looking at this thread for an hour.
Its very interesting, but i think bush is going to win this elections with all the mistakes he has done. If can find solutions to all the mistakes he has done, it will be good for America. I dont know how kerry is going to make decisions. Bush showed his inexperience in making decisions and screwed up everything.

[Ted]

So this is so random...lets call it pent up frustration and again I apologize for questioning your intelligence when I have never even met you Ted.

Apology accepted. Is it me or are people so much more politically "charged" than they ever have been about an election? This is nuts! Mayhem in the streets! I love it! Gets everyone involved.

Vote for who you want but at least people are thinking about it!

[Banzai]

DEBATE MYSTERY: DID KERRY HAVE CHEAT SHEET?

New York Post Article (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31273.htm)

That question was burning up the Internet yesterday after a slo-mo review of the footage showed the Massachusetts senator taking an object out of his right pocket before the first question.

Was it a cheat sheet — as some conservative bloggers claimed — or was it something innocuous?

Either way, it would violate the debate rules agreed to by both campaigns: "No props, notes . . . or other tangible things may be brought into the debate."

Many blogs offered links to the "Pocket-gate" footage. One, INDC Journal, even posted frame-by-frame stills purporting to show Kerry pulling out a notecard and placing it onto the podium.

But the mystery was solved when The Post reviewed a Fox News Channel feed from Thursday's debate: Kerry pulled out . . . a black pen.

Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade remained angry at the bloggers' guilt-by-insinuation.

"The right-wing attack machine will say anything to steal a debate do-over," he said.

"We plead guilty to having a pen."

The Bush campaign did not comment.

Video Replays (http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Movies/JFKCheat.mov)

[A tight zoom analysis of the Boston.Com feed shows Kerry pulling a mysterious item his jacket [14 seconds into video, after commerical]. Kerry appears to unfold some sort of paper seconds later, at his podium.] (http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/debate_video/sept29/1.html)

[huntm856]

My turn

After Operation Desert Storm, Saddam never adhered to the UN sanctions. Nothing never got done with Slick Willie in office for 8 years so Saddam had no worries.



I am not sure what you mean here, but the fact of the matter is that the sanctions on Iraq, combined with the no-fly zones, had more or less completely degraded both the Iraqi conventional military--the regular army, the Republican Guards, the Special Repulican Guards--and their WMD
programs.

Remember, too, that Saddam had effectively lost control of the entire northern third of his country--the Kurd part--years ago. The Kurds have effectively had their own government for several years now.

As everyone pretty much agrees now, Saddam's WMD capability had been pretty much destroyed by the sanctions, etc. That's why we didn't find anything when we went in after this second war.

So it isn't accurate to say that 'nothing ever got done' during Clinton's years. The regime--sanctions and no-fly enforcement--in place since the end of Gulf War I had done a very effective job of degrading Saddam's ability to pose any sort of threat. Where the Bushes have lost credibility is in the fact which now seems obvious that they intentionally overstated the case against Saddam as a way of moving towards a war some of their people (Wolfowicz, etc.) had been fomenting for at least since the late 90's, and in the fact that now that a lot more evidence has come to light about what the conditions were in Iraq, they refuse to change their stance or admit that they might have let their ideology get ahead of the facts on the ground.

As far as your 'Blue Helmet' statement goes, Kerry has explicitly expressed the necessity for American freedom to act unilaterally when it is warranted. This characterization of his position has clearly been an intentional distortion on the part of the Bush campaign, a la the current 'Global Test' ad they're running, and it is sad that many people like you are not capable of seeing this.

[huntm856]

Well one thing Kerry has said he will do is to pull our toops out (supposedly by end of first term).

This is another *intentional* distortion of what Kerry said--I know I was listening to NPR on the day they broadcast the Robert Siegel interview in which he said it. Again, it is sad that so many people listen so uncritically to things which are put out there.

[huntm856]

DEBATE MYSTERY: DID KERRY HAVE CHEAT SHEET?



The attitude seems to be that if Bush lost the debate then it can only be because Kerry cheated.

Heck, Kerry didn't need a cheat sheet. *I* could have told you what Bush was going to say before that debate, and even if I couldn't, I could have told you after the first 10 minutes, because he was so obviously prepared only to say the two or three things he kept repeating: 'America is safer...' 'Mixed messages...' 'It's hard work...'

Pathetic.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of credibility, how about the Rebublicans making a major ad campaign out of what can only be an intentional mischaracterization of Kerry's statements regarding the U.S.'s proper position with regard to unilateralism, with the 'Global test' ads they rushed into distribution?

Again, pathetic.

[zaphod]

how about the Rebublicans making a major ad campaign out of what can only be an intentional mischaracterization of Kerry's statements regarding the U.S.'s proper position with regard to unilateralism, with the 'Global test' ads they rushed into distribution?This is the MO of the Republican Party. Reduce a complicated situation to a simple talking point, taken completely out of context, and then hammer the message that "it's wrong" home until it "becomes" the "truth". Just like the Swift Boat Vets for Lies, if you say it enough, it must be true. Haven't noticed the press running with the fact that many of the names on the Swift Boat website specifically asked not to be included.

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that GWBush has NO problems sending the National Guard into harms way now, when 35 years ago, it was a convenient shelter from the Vietnam war for him?

What we are seeing the the hijacking of America, where a group of people live outsite the law of this nation, and then convince enough people that they are right. And so far it's working.

The neocons scare the hell out of me. This whole thing smells of 1936 Germany. And we all know what happened after that.....

[Banzai]

After First Debate, Bush Still Leads Kerry
Washington Post Poll Shows President Holding 5-Point Edge

Washington Post Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6294-2004Oct4.html)

[huntm856]

Reduce a complicated situation to a simple talking point, taken completely out of context, and then hammer the message that "it's wrong" home until it "becomes" the "truth".
...

What we are seeing the the hijacking of America, where a group of people live outsite the law of this nation, and then convince enough people that they are right. And so far it's working.
...


What I find so disheartening is that they use this tactic and the tactic of promulgating 'wedge' issues like 'gay marriage' so cynically, so *obviously,* but that most Americans seem not to notice.

Ultimately, under a representative form of government, the governed get the sort of government they deserve. My mother has voiced an opinion that she almost hopes Bush wins so he can still be in power when everything falls apart, as we are both sure it will. I might also support that view were it not for the consequences of letting the Republicans stack the Supreme Court, and the dire consequences in areas like environmental protection and staving off the big IP industries' desire to eliminate fair use and extend copyright to infinity, where the Republicans are 100% in their pockets.

[huntm856]

After First Debate, Bush Still Leads Kerry
Washington Post Poll Shows President Holding 5-Point Edge

Washington Post Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6294-2004Oct4.html)

Yes, that poll shows Bush still ahead, essentially changed in the 'overall favors' category; but if you read it carefully, it's pretty clear that Kerry has made some inroads. At the very least it's looking more competitive. This thing is not over yet.

Plus, there's the matter of the fact that there's a lot of uncertainty in the 'likely voters' judgments inherent in these sorts of polls this year because of the extremely high level of new registrations (see, for example, http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/9834103.htm (http://) , http://www.kait8.com/Global/story.asp?S=2386577, and http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1096906140127900.xml&storylist=orlocal, among many you'll find with a simple Google search). Some demographers are saying that one of the reasons the polls have been so volatile and disparate this year is because there is unprecedented registration activity among demographics which haven't traditionally voted at high rates, and there's no consensus among the polling organizations as to how to account for this. So I wouldn't read too much into any of these polls just yet. I bet you there's going to be a lot of post-mortem work after the election this year.

[huntm856]

What I find so disheartening is that they use this tactic and the tactic of promulgating 'wedge' issues like 'gay marriage' so cynically, so *obviously,* but that most Americans seem not to notice.

Ultimately, under a representative form of government, the governed get the sort of government they deserve. My mother has voiced an opinion that she almost hopes Bush wins so he can still be in power when everything falls apart, as we are both sure it will. I might also support that view were it not for the consequences of letting the Republicans stack the Supreme Court, and the dire consequences in areas like environmental protection and staving off the big IP industries' desire to eliminate fair use and extend copyright to infinity, where the Republicans are 100% in their pockets.

Please amend that last sentence to read:

"...I might also support that view were it not for the consequences of letting the Republicans stack the Supreme Court, and the dire consequences in areas like loosening environmental protections and promoting the big IP industries' desire to eliminate fair use and extend copyright to infinity, efforts Republicans are generally behind to a much greater degree than are Democrats, although, to be fair, there are a considerable number of nationally prominent Democrats with whom I profoundly disagree on these issues."

I reread my original statement and it seemed to me to be overstating my position, and I was beyond the time limit by the time I realized it.

I apologize for any confusion this may cause.

[Banzai]

Bush makes significant gains in two polls of Catholic voters

Washington Times Article (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041004-123844-3867r.htm)

[tuolumne]

Bush makes significant gains in two polls of Catholic voters

Washington Times Article (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041004-123844-3867r.htm)

You a redneck, bible thumper too...?

[Banzai]

You a redneck, bible thumper too...?

Guess you didn't read the part about NO personal attacks...How about a little civility.

[tuolumne]

Guess you didn't read the part about NO personal attacks...How about a little civility.

Sorry, I have better things to do than read a 11 page thread!

[Banzai]

Anti-Fahrenheit 9/11 Movie

Site / Movie Trailer (http://www.citizensunited-interactive.org\)

[tuolumne]

Anti-Fahrenheit 9/11 Movie

Site / Movie Trailer (http://www.citizensunited-interactive.org\)

What a Joke... :eyeroll:

Who's the producer...? Rush...?

The director...? Sean Hanity...?

[Banzai]

What a Joke... :eyeroll:

Who's the producer...? Rush...?

The director...? Sean Hanity...?

So, you believe what you see in Fahrenheit 9/11....uhhh oh

Fahrenheit 9/11 = Worst Lies Ever Told!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ted]

You a redneck, bible thumper too...?

Tuolumne: You are an infernal moron. How long must we listen to this drivel? Didn't Quillhill spank you yesterday? You just don't get it. People have repeatedly told you that you act like an ass and yet you persist on doing it. Why don't you crawl back over to hofo where you and quatre and jj can engage in your useless banter.

[huntm856]

So, you believe what you see in Fahrenheit 9/11....uhhh oh

Fahrenheit 9/11 = Worst Lies Ever Told!!!!!!!!!!!!

What were the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11? The part about Bush just sitting there during the WTC attacks? The part about Bush family personal/business ties to the Saudis? The part about how the Patriot Act was passed when a lot of congressman didn't even read it, because the final version of the several-hundred page bill was released scant hours before the vote? The part about how virtually no congress members had any family members subject to deployment in Iraq?

I didn't see the movie and am going only from reviews I've read, but if you have fact-checking source that disputes any of the movie's claims, please post it. I've seen some sources that back up a lot of the movie's claims. I went to the site for that anti-Moore movie you posted and didn't see anything in the way of real info there.

[huntm856]

You a redneck, bible thumper too...?

Ah, the Washington Times. The Fox News of print media. Although I must say that as poorly as I think of Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Moon scares me far, far more.

[Banzai]

What were the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11? The part about Bush just sitting there during the WTC attacks? The part about Bush family personal/business ties to the Saudis? The part about how the Patriot Act was passed when a lot of congressman didn't even read it, because the final version of the several-hundred page bill was released scant hours before the vote? The part about how virtually no congress members had any family members subject to deployment in Iraq?

I didn't see the movie and am going only from reviews I've read, but if you have fact-checking source that disputes any of the movie's claims, please post it. I've seen some sources that back up a lot of the movie's claims. I went to the site for that anti-Moore movie you posted and didn't see anything in the way of real info there.

HERE'S FIFTY-SIX DECEITS

READ THE FIFTY-SIX DECEITS OF FAHRENHEIGHT 9/11 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164856/posts)

[mcurtiss1970]

HERE'S FIFTY-SIX DECEITS

READ THE FIFTY-SIX DECEITS OF FAHRENHEIGHT 9/11 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164856/posts)

deceit #7 is a load of crap. you think most people didn't think that terrorism on US soil was pretty remote? i feel 100% different today than i did in 2000.

[huntm856]

HERE'S FIFTY-SIX DECEITS

READ THE FIFTY-SIX DECEITS OF FAHRENHEIGHT 9/11 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164856/posts)

I scanned through the article briefly, and will concede that Michael Moore does in many cases make disingenuous use of the facts to put forward a decidedly biased point of view; although I will also point out, as the author does in many places, that very little of what Moore implies/insinuates is done so in the form of outright falsehoods.

Hence the name of the essay--'DECEITS,' not 'LIES'.

On the other hand, many of the deceitful tactics Mr. Moore uses could have been lifted piecewise from the Karl Rove political handbook. Remember what the Bush campaign did to McCain in the 2000 SC primary? Or the recent 'global test' commercial? Just to name a couple of examples off the top of my head; there are many more to be found.

It seems to me to be one thing for a *documentary filmmaker* to play games with the facts in order to put forward a political/ideological/philosophical point of view, and another for political campaigns to do so.

Do you not feel that politicians should be above such tactics? Mr. Moore isn't running for anything, nor is he putting himself forward as a journalist with the task of presenting an objective view of available facts, so far as I can see.

And Mr. Moore's film seems to me to be very similar in construction and approach to most if not all of his prior films, all of which have used facts and real-life footage selectively in to support Mr. Moores' polemics. (So far as I know, that is the *only* sort of film Mr. Moore has ever made.) But documentaries are considered 'films' and not efforts of journalism for the simple fact that they are often put forward as expressions of an explicit point-of-view, and not put forward as journalistic efforts.

So I would say to you that you are welcome to be disparaging of Mr. Moore's film; it does use the facts as we know them in a way which someone sympathetic to Mr. Bush would feel is unfair. I suspect Roger Smith's friends and family felt very similarly about 'Roger and Me.' That's all well and good--this is America, Mr. Moore is free to make his films and you are free to agree or disagree with his viewpoint. But I don't see what this has to do with how our *politicians* behave. The Bush/Cheyney campaign has played fast-and-loose with the facts as well, and that, to me, is an entirely different matter. Do you not agree with this view?

[zaphod]

Remember what the Bush campaign did to McCain in the 2000 SC primary?One of the saddest things about the Bush campaign approach is the tendency to eviscerate good people. What he did to John McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was unconscionable. Personally, I wish that McCain had switched parties a year ago and run for the Democratic nomination. I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat.

What Michael Moore gave us in Farenheit 9/11 was nothing more than propaganda, but it was nice to see it from the liberal side. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the whole right-wing radio talk show host thing.....all propaganda, all "deceits".......

[Ted]

One of the saddest things about the Bush campaign approach is the tendency to eviscerate good people. What he did to John McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was unconscionable. Personally, I wish that McCain had switched parties a year ago and run for the Democratic nomination. I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat.

What Michael Moore gave us in Farenheit 9/11 was nothing more than propaganda, but it was nice to see it from the liberal side. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the whole right-wing radio talk show host thing.....all propaganda, all "deceits".......

to take it a step further, it's all propaganda on both sides. therefore i have discarded all propaganda and statistics and am making my decision based on the person themselves. i feel that the president needs to be an articulate, skilled communicator who will engage in diplomacy and that is why i am voting for Kerry.