oops - what no poll

[geeftr]

I appear to have missed the election poll off my previous post. Should be here now

[elipsesjeff]

Its literally 50/50 here and it will go down to the wire just like the last one.

I dont like Bush, but i hate Kerry more. Thats usually how it is for the other side too. No one really likes any candidate, its just who doesnt hate each candidate the most. We had the debates here and the media is extensively liberal (except FoxNews). When Kerry beat up Bush in the first debate it was everywhere for a good 3 or 4 days. I dont know if the news got old or the fact that the media doesnt want to admit that the Bush campaign might have been able to compare the Kerry's, but the media coverage here has increasingly decreased with respect to the debates. Even Jon Stewart stopped doing his live post-debate shows and we aren't very happy because of it.

Barring some catostrophic event in either direction, this election will come down to the wire like the last one. My opinion, I think Bush will win just because he has more substance than Kerry, as opposed to Kerry's more style. Kerry is doing the same thing Gore did in the last election: "I'm not Bush." That won him the popular vote but the electoral college is where its at.

You really have to look at the last 8 swing states, thats where the only votes will count.

I also would like Bush to win because then all those anti-bush/anti-war people can STFU and finally we can get some peace and quiet over here!

[geeftr]

I understand your feelings over the two candidates. We have an Hobsons choice comming up over here next year. We can vote for the old tories or the new tories (aka new labour). We do have a slightly more viable third candidate than yourselves with the Liberal party, but I'm sure plenty of people over here would laugh at that statement.

Politics seems to be a career rather than a belief in party policies nowadays and I think more and more people are getting sick of it all.

[stuck]

Personally, I think it would be great if Kerry lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote. Mainly so that the electoral college might finally have a chance of being eliminated (it seems so terribly out dated to me). Plus, it would be very amusing to watch all the partisan pundits "flip-flop" from four years ago :P

I'm going for the ABB category though.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yah, well i just cruised back from a class where we had a little debate on the topic. I'm kinda angry that everyone seems to hate both candidates. In electing one of them, you need to trust them to run your country. Some people dont trust Bush becuase of Iraq, some people are pleased that he didn't make the world a greater authority than himself in American issues and did what he believed to be truely best for his country. Some people hate Kerry becuase he may have lied about his purple hearts. I'm voting for Bush becuase I trust him to lead the country but if Kerry gets elected, I will not be too unhappy about it. Both candidates were picked for a reason, they are both excellent choices. America isn't gonna burn to the ground if Kerry/Bush is elected like some people may say. It'll still be here in 10, 20 and 50 years reguardless of who wins the electorial vote.


-'rilla

quote that got me real miffed from class "I'm undecided becuase I don't know which of the lying bastards to vote for."

[Hotel_Detect]

I too will vote for Bush b/c I have problems with Kerry (mostly that he wants to redistribute income and views himself as a world citizen instead of an american). I also think the Bush admin, should be given 4 more years to try to finish some of the things they've started. (these things dont come to fruition over night). Kerry has some trully worrying policy changes, and I just cannot stand edwards! (he is trying to wage class warfare, which is the last thing we need)

That being said, i do not think things will fall apart if Kerry gets elected, as long as there is a republican congress.

My guess?.. the electoral votes will push bush over the edge, the popular vote will be 1% in either direction.

The person that said the electoral college is outdated?... i do not agree with this at all.. it is intended to protect state's rights and people that do not live in huge population centers. Personally I do not want New York city and southern california to have a monopoly on the decision-making process for the country.

[|~|ypermegachi]

Bush: "fool me once...shame on... ... ... ... shame on you... ... ... but fool me can't get fooled again"

funny shit.

[Aceofone]

mostly that he wants to redistribute income and views himself as a world citizen instead of an american

Contrary to the manifest destiny shoved down American throats in schools... There is a world outside your borders. I don't say this to be mean spirited, but America really is the most hated country in the world, it's the "I'm big, so I can do what I want" adolescent mentality that does it.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yah, we understand that fact and tend not to care. We're happy with how our country turned out, popular or not.

-'rilla

[BoondockSaint]

"I'm big, so I can do what I want"

Um yeah.

[elipsesjeff]

"I'm big, so I can do what I want"

...obviously.






Dont you do the same thing with a large stack in a tournament? (unrelated I know but its still a nice comparison)

[geeftr]

'I'm so big I can do what I want'....sounds like a real nice world to live in - NOT! Remember the bigger they are the harder they fall.
The poker comparison was quite good - but with poker we are dealing only with plastic chips and not peoples lives. Also the big stacks do get stung quite often due to over confidence. Right, I'll get off my soap box.

Oh, I'd just like to point out that the USA is the second most hated country in the world, the first being Wales.

[7ape]

reposted below for typo edits

[7ape]

BoondockSaint

Quote:
"I'm big, so I can do what I want"


Um yeah.

a500lbgorilla

Yah, we understand that fact and tend not to care. We're happy with how our country turned out, popular or not.

elipsesjeff

Quote:
"I'm big, so I can do what I want"


...obviously.

My God. I don't know if I even have the energy left to reply.

Sorry guys, it was a round planet last time I checked, and when the election of the leader of but one country within that planet will (arguably either way) seriously jeapordise the health and security of every other person on the planet, a "we're biggest, we don't care, we rule, GO USA! USA! USA!" outlook is exactly the kind of frat-boy mentality that creates the hatred the rest of the world (including a huge majority of the popluation of your "staunchest ally", the UK) has for you. This haterd in turn fosters the mistrust in every action your government makes, their continual use of terrorism in countries they wish to have an overt power base within over the last 50 years or so being a very good case in point, made all the worse by the gross hypocricy in then declaring a "war on terror" and enacting this "war" by invading a rogue state with no connection to the terrorist act it was invaded in retribution for, which is far less of a terrorist hotbed than a failed state, which Iraq now is (see Jonnyawe's blog for a good summation of this concept). And your honest opinion is that Bush and co would do a better job of maintaining the high standards of leadership they have set over the last 4 years than, ohhh, ANY OTHER CANDIDATE IN EXISTENCE? I'm no fan of Kerry, but in what POSSIBLE way could he be any worse? How is his awareness of the fact that other countries exist outside of the US a DRAWBACK?!?

An aside - allow me to make an analogy with regards to the "we're the biggest, we can do what we want, who cares what anyone else thinks" attitude posted above. Picture a playground with a dozen kids. 11 are perfectly normal 12 year olds, the 12th is a 6 foot, 300 pound brick shithouse who has been spoiled by his parents every day of his life and has no concept of compassion or empathy (which most children learn at about age 6 or 7). He beats the living shit out of every other kid in the yard every day of his life; some of them because he wants their lunch money; some of them because he wants them to do what he says; some of them because he just plain doesn't like them. There's no reasoning with him, he's too pig-headed, and has all the social responsibility of Eric Cartman. Even if all the other kids ganged up, he would still take them down because he's that big and tough.

I'm sure if you asked that kid how his life was, he'd feel it was pretty great, cus he gets everything he wants. If you asked the other kids, they'd tell a different story. Now, honestly, and pragmatically, which of these parties (the 1 bully or the 11 victims) would you say had the best moral standpoint to make such a judgment? Which is acting in a morally "right" way? Which party has the biggest impact on the other? Which party undergoes the most suffering due to the acts of the other? I f@cking DARE you to reply "I'm big, so I can do what I want...obviously" or "Yah, we understand that fact and tend not to care. We're happy with how our country turned out, popular or not" given an OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE through which to view the problem.

Jonny, help me out here - reassure a genuinely terrified Brit that there are, in fact, Americans that believe in making an informed, pragmatic, utilitarian choice, and appreciate the very real and abiding impact their decision has on the other 6 BILLION people on the planet? And that those 6 billion people are not, by dint of having been born outside of the US, in countries with no chance of competing with the US (due in no small part to prohibitive US foreign policies), in any way inferior to US citizens? For the record, I do not believe that other countries should have an influence in deciding the results of the US election (in spite of the US substantially interfering in just about every election in S America since the year dot), however, for the love of Christ, wake up and learn to appreciate the fact that we are ONE F@CKING SPECIES and we're in it together, like it or not, regardless of what arbitrary lines have been drawn on maps of the planet.

Perhaps it makes sense that those who are informed and compassionate would not post replies on a poker forum, given that poker requires insular single-mindedness and ruthlessness... it all makes sense now...

It genuinely saddens and mortifies me to see so many American posters living up the very same image that makes the entire rest of the world regard them as immature ignorant idiots with a "trust fund baby" mentality that precludes any possibility of understanding brought about by external dialogue. I have been arguing against this prejudice with my friends and colleagues for many months, advising them that the actions of the government do not necessarily reflect the opions of the populace. I will advise them to avoid the FTR boards, or this argument will completely unravel...

btw, geeftr - best avatar I've seen on this site to date.

[G_host]

Tried to stay out of this but just can't. As a swede from the country Sweden (which your current leader don't think even has an army which says everything about his competence).

Anyway what I want to say to you, lucky enough to live in a free and relative nice country, no that's no sarcasm I like US. PLease look beoynd the scare tactics about world terrorism and think about one other even more global issue. The enviorment!! , can you really support the current politics about totally disregarding cutting down pollution? US is the only western country that won't sign the Kyoto agreement.

As said above you big and can do what you want, but it's a bitch living in a dump and you should think about that too when you go voting. Not just on who you like as a person or can promise you the lowest taxes...

And one last thing, I ope you all do your duty and VOTE!! That goes for all FTR's, it's a right that our gandparents have paid in blood for us, don't sell their efforts short...

[koolmoe]

the 12th is a 6 foot, 300 pound brick sh!thouse who has been spoiled by his parents every day of his life and has no concept of compassion or empathy

I don't entirely disagree with your post, 7ape, but I have to say that your analogy falls short in the highlighted section. You mayhave disdain for the actions of US figureheads, but by no means is the US lacking in compassion and empathy. In fact, the last time I checked, the US provides more money, people, time, and effort to humanitarian causes than any other country in the world.

[geeftr]

see next post, this one has nothing in it!

[geeftr]

7ape you seem very passionate about those remarks, which is understandable. I agree with a lot of what you have stated, especially with regard to the USA's invasion of countries that it deems unfit to rule itself or would be of benefit (i.e. Iraq has oil). I'd also like to state that the USA does good in some countries too, such as Somalia for instance and where definetly appreciated for their contribution during the second world war - even though I wasn't alive then I can understand the implications of the Nazis winning.

I have been to the US on holiday a couple of times and thoroughly enjoyed myself. The majority of people I met were also very nice. I don't hate the USA I just think your too insular for your own good. In the short term its ok but surely thinking long term has to be the way forward. Doesn't this sound like a poker strategy? Obviously you are all allowed your opinions about your own country but to state you couldn't give two cahoots about anyone else as long as your alright seems a little sad.

There are number of issues with Bush which provide reason for us non Americans to worry about this man. First of all he got into power under very suspicious circumstances. Secondly he's not very intelligent - not his fault per say, we are who we are, but to be in such a powerful position concerns me.
Thirdly, an article on the radio over here last week was querying the odds of a father and son both being president within 3 terms in a country which prides itself with allowing everyone the opportunity to reach the top - gotta be pretty high. Finally, his family has strong links with the Arabs who are linked to the 9/11 attacks yet those Arabs were allowed to leave your country - and USA decides to invade Afghanistan....hmmm.

It seems obvious to me that the USA is establishing a power base in the middle east for some alterative motive and oil is a precious commodity nowadays. Bush is just using the terrorism card to justify this.

[BoondockSaint]

I f@cking DARE you to reply "I'm big, so I can do what I want...obviously" or "Yah, we understand that fact and tend not to care.

Video Games have warped my mind!!!!!!!

If it makes you feel any better I have thought about joining the peace corps and there is probably at least a 50% chance I will next year when I graduate college. On second thought I have also thought about joining the Marines as a fighter pilot and dropping bombs on people.

Another thought. If you own some land and you catch someone camping on it, do you start blowing the mother fuckers up when you know they will cause you no harm if you dont attempt to annihilate them, and deep down you know they are only trying to help you.

Anyway Iraq is fucked now thats all there is to it. I dont agree with how we are handling it now but what can we do???? We cant just get out and leave em there on their own now.

On a side not. I saw a license plate last year when I was mowing grass that I thought was phat. And for you non USers out there if you didnt know u can have just about anything on your license plate if you pay a special fee and no one has taken your combination of letters & numbers yet. Well guess what it said. NUKE EM !!!!!!!! (Don't take seriously I just thought it was funny)

Like I said video games have warped my mind. I'm sorry!!!!

[7ape]

geeftr - you pay me a compliment by saying "passionate", many would say "rabidly angry".

BoondockSaint, your reply comes across as far more informed and open-minded than the response I originally took offence at, and apologise, with some relief, at any unfounded accusations. No worries about the license plate, I would've laughed, too...

G_host - I absolutely agree. it's so easy to get sidetracked onto the obvious key issue of terrorism, but the environment is a very good example of something that affects us globally, but which the US government, by it's refusal to join the Kyoto treaty, is proving to be ruthlessly self-serving.

koolmoe - very good point, well made. I would be the first to admit that the US government and people have done their share in helping those less fortunate around the world. I would counterargue that this concept is not at the top of Bush's political agenda, nor will it ever be, and that kerry (for all his faults) seems more "globally aware" overall than Bush. Hell, he seems more SENTIENT than Bush, but then the same could be said of any item of furniture...

I guess this is why I am as much saddened as angered by the US government's actions of late. The following excerpt from a letter by Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University, says it far more eloquently than I ever could:

Dear Americans,

Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don't let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden's dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.

Before 9/11 gave him his big break - the neo-cons' Pearl Harbor - Bush was written off as an amiable idiot, certain to serve only one term. An idiot he may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive; and the thuggish ideologues who surround him are dangerous. 9/11 gave America a free gift of goodwill, and it poured in from all around the world. Bush took it as a free gift to the warmongers of his party, a licence to attack an irrelevant country which, however nasty its dictator, had no connection with 9/11. The consequence is that all the worldwide goodwill has vanished. Bush's America is on the way to becoming a pariah state. And Bush's Iraq has become a beacon for terrorists.

In the service of his long-planned war (with its catastrophically unplanned aftermath), Bush not only lied about Iraq being the "enemy" who had attacked the twin towers. With the connivance of the toadying Tony Blair and the spineless Colin Powell, he lied to Congress and the world about weapons of mass destruction. He is now brazenly lying to the American electorate about how "well" things are going under the puppet government. By comparison with this cynical mendacity, the worst that can be said about John Kerry is that he sometimes changes his mind. Well, wouldn't you change your mind if you discovered that the major premise on which you had been persuaded to vote for war was a big fat lie?

Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn't justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out.

As the bumper stickers put it, "Re-defeat Bush". But, this time, do it so overwhelmingly that neither his brother's friends in Florida nor his father's friends on the Supreme Court will be able to rig the count. Decent Americans - there are absolutely more intelligent, educated, civilised, cultivated, compassionate people in America than in any other country in the western world - please show your electoral muscle this time around. We in the rest of the world, who sadly cannot vote in the one election that really affects our future, are depending on you. Please don't let us down.

Perhaps I could learn a thing or two about moderation from Prof. Dawkins, I apologise for my online rants on this board, and hope that most will understand where they come from... the sense of futility, anger and frustration in the UK right now is really quite oppressive, as I'm sure it must be in some areas of the US also.

7ape

[BoondockSaint]

I apologise for my online rants on this board, and hope that most will understand where they come from... the sense of futility, anger and frustration in the UK right now is really quite oppressive, as I'm sure it must be in some areas of the US also.

We are all one big happy family!!!!! We understand!!!!! No need to apologize. I myself love hearing other peoples opinions no matter what they are or who they are. I'd have no problem sitting down having a bud with Osama discussing his views. Of course I would never let him get up and leave either and would chop his head off as soon as he tried to but I would at least let him speak his views first. :P

[Mookie]

I guess this is why I am as much saddened as angered by the US government's actions of late. The following excerpt from a letter by Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University, says it far more eloquently than I ever could:

Quote:

Dear Americans,

Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don't let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden's dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.

Before 9/11 gave him his big break - the neo-cons' Pearl Harbor - Bush was written off as an amiable idiot, certain to serve only one term. An idiot he may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive; and the thuggish ideologues who surround him are dangerous. 9/11 gave America a free gift of goodwill, and it poured in from all around the world. Bush took it as a free gift to the warmongers of his party, a licence to attack an irrelevant country which, however nasty its dictator, had no connection with 9/11. The consequence is that all the worldwide goodwill has vanished. Bush's America is on the way to becoming a pariah state. And Bush's Iraq has become a beacon for terrorists.

In the service of his long-planned war (with its catastrophically unplanned aftermath), Bush not only lied about Iraq being the "enemy" who had attacked the twin towers. With the connivance of the toadying Tony Blair and the spineless Colin Powell, he lied to Congress and the world about weapons of mass destruction. He is now brazenly lying to the American electorate about how "well" things are going under the puppet government. By comparison with this cynical mendacity, the worst that can be said about John Kerry is that he sometimes changes his mind. Well, wouldn't you change your mind if you discovered that the major premise on which you had been persuaded to vote for war was a big fat lie?

Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn't justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out.

As the bumper stickers put it, "Re-defeat Bush". But, this time, do it so overwhelmingly that neither his brother's friends in Florida nor his father's friends on the Supreme Court will be able to rig the count. Decent Americans - there are absolutely more intelligent, educated, civilised, cultivated, compassionate people in America than in any other country in the western world - please show your electoral muscle this time around. We in the rest of the world, who sadly cannot vote in the one election that really affects our future, are depending on you. Please don't let us down.



I'm not even going to dignify this post with a response. This quote was by a liberal English educator?

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY. Earl Pitts, American....Pitts OUT!

[BoondockSaint]

Yes I think Mookie is the one responsible for swaying the vote to 12 bush 11 kerry. Amen brother!!!!!!! I'm with ya!!!!!

[elipsesjeff]

We are big, we are bad, and we would have it no other way.

We have never 'theoretically' lost a war to date (no need for the communism remarks). We got this big by our own actions, from our own hard work and determination. We didn't have to form an ally with 60 other countries to create a 'Union' to try and compete with the size of the United States.

Another topic:

including a huge majority of the popluation of your "staunchest ally", the UK

you cant forget Poland!!! hello!!!

Moving on:

Both of our candidates are just as qualified as the other, otherwise they wouldn't be where they are at. It is very common in the United States for Father-Son type politics to occur. Mayor Daley has a stranglehold on Chicago (just like his father did) and the fact that the success of one son in America comes from his father isn't as surprising as you suggest.


Most people living over-seas do not get to see the entire picture of what America is. The liberal media abroad only shows the worse pieces of the pictures.


We do have to think more 'in the long run.' The people of the world (including Americans) hated the U.S. for going into Korea and stopping the spread of Communism. But you know what? It worked. South Korea's Gross Domestic Product today is over 27 TIMES that of North Korea. It WORKED. Iraq will work too, give it time. You can't go from nothing to everything in a day, week, month, or even a year. It took S. Korea some 30-35 years to get to where its at today.

You are right in that the majority of people in America are very nice, and to tell you the truth, the majority of people here dont give a damn about politics, and only once every four years do people come out of their shell to have a 'voice.' In America the 'silent' majority always holds true. You never see the Anti-Kerry protestors nearly as much as you see the Anti-Bush protestors (when they are all 50/50). The same thing happened with the Iraq war. Any American who says we shouldn't have invaded Iraq is a hipocrit, as over Two-Thirds of our country agreed with Bush on his decision to go to war with the information that he had. Our people should defend our administration, and the Anti-Bush people don't help with our popularity abroad any more than Bush himself helps our popularity abroad.

I hope Bush gets re-elected, if not only to deter other people from other countries to try and influence our elections. Remember what happened in Spain? That was bull-sh7t, that terrorist act single handedly swung the election. The Phillipines pussied out too, bowing down to the terrorists in removing their troops from Iraq. One man's life does not determine the country nor does the country determine one man's life.

The United States got to where its at today not by bullying people around, we got to where we got today by our own hardwork. We had to fight the Britains over 200 years ago (twice) too keep our country. We've also had to fight amongst ourselves to preserve our country. We had to defend our allies in both WWI and WWII because we were aware of the effects a nazi-run Europe would mean to the world. Maybe we were wrong on the spread of Communism and our way in dealing with it might not have been the best way by today's standards. But the most important thing is we saw a danger on this planet and we have to do what we can to stop them. Obviously communism only works in theory, but not in reality.

And you know what, I hope Bush went to Iraq to get more damn oil b/c the prices here are way to high!!!! Just admit we did and get it over with already so we can start to use the oil already.....geez.


My advice: Stop listening to the Michael Moores of society, no matter where you are. Make sure you get all the correct information before you vote and find out whats right. I would rather stupid idiots with incorrect information to not vote than have them swing the election on wrongful information. Secondly, anyone who believes the draft will be coming is a complete moron himself.

[BoondockSaint]

Great Post!!!!! You mentioned a ton of great stuff in there. Including this Gem!!!

And you know what, I hope Bush went to Iraq to get more damn oil b/c the prices here are way to high!!!! Just admit we did and get it over with already so we can start to use the oil already.....geez.

Hallelujah Brother!!!!!

[Aceofone]

We have never 'theoretically' lost a war to date (no need for the communism remarks).

1812, the Canadians and the British marched down Pennsylvania Ave and burned the white house to the ground.


Overall, I'm surprised by the apathy towards Bush, he invaded a country that has cost many civilian and American lives, ON A LIE. No ifs, ands, or buts about it, he lied, in most countries he would have been thrown out of office. It's not that I have a small problem with Bush, I have a big problem with his entire administration (excluding Powell). Rumsfeld should have resigned over the abu gairab incident, but he has clung to power.

Granted, the whole Iraq fiasco cannot be ignored now. The Bush administration dug a big hole, and now it needs the support of countries because it's rapidly turning into a failed state, Iraq cannot be left to develop on its own. Unfortunately, the rest of the world realizes that we cannot allow Iraq to fail, it must succeed now that the groundwork has been setup. Also, how long has it been since anyone thought about Afganistan (not sure on spelling). it IS a failed state, and with the US diverting its resources towards Iraq, social circumstances will lead to another Taliban and the process will repeat itself.

Some other things to consider about the Bush/Kerry decision, Economics and the long term effects of Bush's decisions. The US has its biggest Current Account deficit ever. For all the younger posters in the US (my age) in college, its important to remember that his rampant spend and bomb policies are mortgaging your future, you are the ones who will be taxed heavily, with little to no social safety net.

*exhales, Im off the soapbox*

[elipsesjeff]

1812, the Canadians and the British marched down Pennsylvania Ave and burned the white house to the ground.

Yet you still lost the war and you made it that far? Incredible.

Overall, I'm surprised by the apathy towards Bush, he invaded a country that has cost many civilian and American lives, ON A LIE.

You see this as a lie, you shouldn't. The information we had was incorrect. A lie means purposeful misleading. It must have INTENT. Bush's advisors and intelligence gathers should be at fault, not himself, he was only acting on the information he had.

Also, how long has it been since anyone thought about Afganistan (not sure on spelling). it IS a failed state

Again, incorrect. They just held public elections there last week, and that was a SUCCESS, with relative or little problems (considering it was their first EVER election). The opponent doesnt know how to realize he lost, thats all.

US diverting its resources towards Iraq, social circumstances will lead to another Taliban and the process will repeat itself.

You forget how BIG of a country we are and how SMALL of a country Afghanistan is. My have more troops in Afghanistan now than we did 3 years ago after 9/11. The Taliban is done. Get off your liberal high horse and find out some facts before you post about a country in which you dont even live.

[scgolfer]

HEy Aceofone, I was wondering if I could get a copy of the Democratic National Committee talking points, since it is obvious you have one.

For all the younger posters in the US (my age) in college, its important to remember that his rampant spend and bomb policies are mortgaging your future, you are the ones who will be taxed heavily, with little to no social safety net.

Another terrorist attack in the US would make this "deficit" seem very small. A Kerry presidiency will heavily tax us anyway. As a consevative boarding on Libertarian "little to no social safety net" seem about perfect to me. In OUR constitution the government has taking very LIBERAL views on what its job is. People have a view that the governments job is "to take care of you" thru vast numbers of social programs that have been created to discount personal responsiblility, hardwork and ingenuity, and promote government handouts.

[elipsesjeff]

I'm not in favor of lowering taxes, but increasing them right now when our economy is at such a vital time would be incorrect. Kerry's plan to 'rollback' the tax refund of the upperclass will do nothing more than hurt the job problem as it is, considering thats where the majority of job increases are.

And don't get confused that Kerry will be 'hurting' his family any either by rolling back those refunds, considering his wife pays on 3% less each year on income tax than the average middle class person (its not incorrect, just hipocritical).

Like I have said earlier, I don't like Bush, but he's the best we've got. The democrats should just start looking on who they can get to win the next election in 4 years and start now, because if they can't beat Bush (especially after whats happened the last 4 years) then they have some more planning to do.

[Cut Card 04]

Overall, I'm surprised by the apathy towards Bush, he invaded a country that has cost many civilian and American lives, ON A LIE.

You see this as a lie, you shouldn't. The information we had was incorrect. A lie means purposeful misleading. It must have INTENT. Bush's advisors and intelligence gathers should be at fault, not himself, he was only acting on the information he had.
<<<snip>>>

Bush had the information he had because he and/or his HANDPICKED advisors were willfully ignorant. Did the information they had point to an active WMD program in Iraq? You bet! Special steel tubes to make centrifuges! A memo stating that Iraqi officials were trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger!

But wait... could Iraq want those tubes for another purpose? Well... yeah. The harsh desert environment might lead them to want tubes that are more corrosion resistant than the alternative so they could make conventional weapons that don't decay away in 5 or 6 years. Still unsavory? Sure, but not a nuclear threat.

What about the memo?!?!? Oh... dates that don't make sense? Signatures and titles that don't match? Crappy chain of evidence (Reporter with interest in having a story to Italy to UK to USA)? How about the fact that literal TONS of yellowcake are required to glean enough enriched uranium to make a fissionable nuclear warhead? The memo said nothing about an actual shipment. Say what you will about Nigeran record keeping and export controls, that's a lot of uranium to misplace.

These are only a couple of examples of things the Bush administration has been dead wrong about. So, do I think that this willful ignorance (the reliance upon transparent evidence) equals a lie? ABSOLUTELY.

I admit that I voted for the man the first time around. I live in Washington state, so I knew it was just a protest vote. I sincerely wanted Gore to win, but didn't want him to enter office believing he had a strong majority of the voting public on his side. I wanted him to watch his step. Gore took WA in 2000 without any problem (no suprise). Imagine my disappointment when the Supreme Court disenfranchised many hundreds if not several thousands of voters in Florida by ordering a stop to the recount.

But I decided not to be bitter. We had a President, and I would support him. I had no reason not to. Then he lied to us, and I believed his lies because he's the President. Why would he lie to his own people and to the rest of the world? Then he and his insular cabinet proceeded to squander the good will the world had heaped upon us after 9/11 on a dirty little war that had little to do with terrorism.

Do I think Saddam needed to go? Yes. Do I think the US should have intervened in Iraq? Yes, but not because of WMD. It should have been because Saddam tyrranized his own people, torturing and murdering them, using chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians, commiting genocide against the swamp Arabs in the south, etc... And it should have been with significant commitments of soldiers and materiel from a broad coalition of other freedom loving nations. Not a rag-tag "coalition of the willing", whose total current commitment in Iraq is what? 10,000 troops? Something like 8k from the UK, 100 from Spain (oh, wait a minute, that didn't pan out), and handfuls from the rest of the coalition partners, who are pulling out their piss-ant troop commitments by the day. All this in comparison to 160k or so American troops, many of whom are reserve and national guard units ill equiped and poorly trained for the mission at hand. Just to be clear I DO NOT hold those brave men and women responsible for the current debacle, and I wholeheartedly thank them for signing up to protect our nation.

On a little bit of a non-sequiter, what exactly is Bush doing about the N.Korean nuclear threat? The only news I've heard from that corner of the world is that the US is going to significantly reduce troop commitments in S.Korea over the next 6 years and go from a forward deployed position at the 39th pallel to a rear-deployed position south of Seoul. Kim Jong-Il scares me way more than Saddam ever did. Saddam was at least consistently loony - we knew what kind of craziness he wanted to pursue. KJI is a total nuthouse. To put it in poker terms, Saddam is like Dewey Tomko, Kim Jong-Il is like Gus Hansen. Tomko = dangerous rock who rarely does anything out of character, Hansen = dangerous and unpredictable. I'd much rather be facing the consistently dangerous opponent then the erratic and dangerous one. (Apologies to Mssr.s Tomko and Hansen for the unflattering comparison.)

Okay, my fingers are tired and I've rambled on long enough. So, yeah, I'm voting for Kerry. Lesser of two evils? Probably, but it at least appears that he thinks before acting and is willing to change his mind when new information comes to light.

[Aceofone]

Get off your liberal high horse and find out some facts before you post about a country in which you dont even live.

My posts were intended to spark debate on some political subjects. If I hit a nerve I'm sorry, but since you left this one pretty open, I'll finish it.

*Breathes in deeply*

Yet you still lost the war and you made it that far? Incredible.

Taken from www.historycentral.com

The War of 1812 is one of the forgotten wars of the United States. The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate; it was in fact a war that once and for all confirmed American Independence. The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada. On the other hand, the British army was successfully stopped when it attempted to capture Baltimore and New Orleans. There were a number of American naval victories in which American vessels proved themselves superior to similarly sized British vessels. These victories coming after victories in the Quasi War (an even more forgotten war) launched American naval traditions.

Hmmm... Stalemate, it would appear we were both wrong in our statements.

You see this as a lie, you shouldn't. The information we had was incorrect. A lie means purposeful misleading. It must have INTENT. Bush's advisors and intelligence gathers should be at fault, not himself, he was only acting on the information he had.

Again, this is a misperception of my previous statement, I said it was done "ON A LIE" to be exact, I didn't specify that it was Bush, but incorrect information starts somewhere, somebody lied, or was pressured to lie about WMD before the war could begin, Gieger counters dont go off if there is no radiation, you follow? Furthermore, I'm curious as to why there has been no one to accept responsibility for the F*ckup.

Again, incorrect. They just held public elections there last week, and that was a SUCCESS, with relative or little problems (considering it was their first EVER election). The opponent doesnt know how to realize he lost, thats all.

Re: the afghan issue. I apologize for using the term "Failed State" that was contradictory to the message I was intending, what I should have said is: "Radically unstable." This showed up in todays paper, I can provide more instances of similar violence if you like.

For Example
Kabul explosion kills election organizer, four others
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ry=afghanistan

These are my sources, I pulled these up quickly through searching, if you would like something more concrete for my arguments then please notify me. Yes I am a liberal, that much is clear, but my opinions are not based solely on the 5'o'clock news that spews the same biased garbage onto the unsuspecting masses. I carefully research current events that interest me as it is a hobby of mine.

Now that you know where the information I have used comes from, present a rebuttal using facts, not broad sweeping statements.

I'll mention this again, Elipsesjeff: This was intended to start a debate, if you have stinging sarcastic comments to make about me, please make them TO me through use of the PM function. I have no desire to argue with anyone on this board, for it would in essence, be pointless. But, if you want to redo your rebuttal of my original post, then now you have the facts and I welcome your opinion.

[stuck]

The person that said the electoral college is outdated?... i do not agree with this at all.. it is intended to protect state's rights and people that do not live in huge population centers. Personally I do not want New York city and southern california to have a monopoly on the decision-making process for the country.

So instead you'd like Ohio and Missouri and the few swing states to have the monopoly over the decision making process? Most of the states are flat-out ignored by the candidates - they don't care about them at all. For that reason most votes people cast (in NY, OK, NE, TX, etc) aren't going to matter at all.

Besides which it gives people in smaller states a disproportionate number of votes vs. people in large states. I forget the exact numbers, but if you divide the population of, say, Alaska (or Maine or Rhode Island or any other state with a small population) by the number of electoral votes for that state (3) and compare it to the ratio of population of California (or Texas or New York...) to their electoral votes, you end up with a much larger number for the bigger states, meaning that each vote from a small state has more of an "electoral vote" than does a vote from a large state.

I understand your concerns about state rights, but I doubt that if the electoral college was removed, all of a sudden the politicians would be pandering to the hippy-pinko-commie ( ) masses of California and New York

[elipsesjeff]

This was intended to start a debate, if you have stinging sarcastic comments to make about me, please make them TO me through use of the PM function. I have no desire to argue with anyone on this board, for it would in essence, be pointless.

You would be surprised how many people try to argue their points without any facts to back them up, didn't mean to sound angry, just a good way to get people to think about what they are saying first.

incorrect information starts somewhere, somebody lied, or was pressured to lie about WMD before the war could begin, Gieger counters dont go off if there is no radiation, you follow? Furthermore, I'm curious as to why there has been no one to accept responsibility for the F*ckup.

I see your point, and if Bush had lied directly to the Public it wouldnt be the FIRST time an American President did it, Clinton coming to thought (Not saying anything bad about Clinton, if he could run again I would vote for him in a heartbeat). Thats probably what seperates the country though, those who believe Bush's administration whole-heartedly lied to us are the ones not voting for them, but those that believe he made his decision on incorrect information then those are the ones voting for him. I imagine if he gets reelected then his advisors will get fired one by one.

Do I think Saddam needed to go? Yes. Do I think the US should have intervened in Iraq? Yes, but not because of WMD. It should have been because Saddam tyrranized his own people, torturing and murdering them, using chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians, commiting genocide against the swamp Arabs in the south, etc...

Thats the swing vote right there, those that don't give a damn if he had WMD or not and he shoulda been taken care of 13 years ago.

Kim Jong-Il scares me way more than Saddam ever did.

I disagree. Kim Jong-Il is just a big baby who wants attention. You notice he 'threatened' he had been working on a bomb right around that time that the U.S. and Iraq conflict started. I wouldn't believe KJ-Il if he had pictures of them with himself in the picture. Sure, I wouldn't put it past him, but N. Korea has a lot more worries than the U.S., you can be sure China, Japan, and S. Korea would more than be able to handle North Korea this time around and N. Korea knows this. N. Korea are a bunch of atttention-starved pricks who felt that the U.S. was spending too much time on Iraq and had to make up something.

Again, although Bush's foreign policy plan probably isnt the best out there, due partly to his advisors, due partly to our hatred among other nations, and probably also due on Bush himself. But I think Kerry's plan is just that much worse. He's quoted in saying he wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 40,000, yet he wants to stop the 'back-door' draft and have more troops come home. All this without instating another draft, these numbers don't add up, I'm sorry.

And his domestic plans scare me as well. Decreasing the tax cut on the rich will not solve our deficit problem any more than Bush giving out more tax breaks. We all saw what happened when Bush Sr. used the line 'no new taxes'....well, he increased taxes and he lost the next election. Kerry will have to increase taxes sometime in the next four years if he wants to decrease the deficit, and thats okay but go ahead and say you are going to increase taxes.

About education, considering education in this country is run by the state, theres little Kerry (or Bush) can do to control it. The governor of IL has royally dicked us on tuition at all state colleges and on local businesses (increasing the unemployment tax from 3.2% to 8.6%) in an effort to balance our budget.

Social Security - man, if that isnt a dilemna i dont know what is. But Kerry's solution of "if sometime down the future it needs fixing then I'll fix it" doesnt do anything for anyone. Bush doesn't seem to have a plan either, but he's at least trying to come up with ideas (individual 401K plans gradually built into the system wouldn't be a bad idea if it worked).

Religion/abortion/etc - Kerry went against his own church about abortion and Stem Cell Research and all that other crap. I love the pro-Kerrys out there telling me Kerry is much more of a Catholic than Bush is...well duh, considering Bush is methodist.

Gay Marriage - yeah, an amendment would be bunk but if thats what it takes for the judges to not be able to define the term marriage over what state's rights are then thats what it has to be. Plus, the fact that Kerry and Edwards mentioning Cheney's gay daughter will hurt him in the long run, plus its a low blow...Not like there arent other parents out there that have gay sons/daughters.

The debates I think really cleared the air on everything, obviously Bush had work to do after the first one but he finished real strong and now has a lead over Kerry in several polls.

[7ape]

elipsesjeff - re your citing of Michael Moore as the probable source of my (and other liberal posters') information, I thank you for telling ME where my facts come from, but I feel forced to correct you on this - I don't care for Michael moore one bit and feel he does more harm than good. If I have a "source" on "liberal" information it would be Chomsky at best, who, regardless of your political beliefs, inarguably substantiates every assertion with historical fact. Of course, though, you would think I loved Moore, wouldn't you? Given that you hang on every word Ann Coulter says... (see how offensive it is when someone presumes your sources on your behalf? Cut it out.)

and as for:

You see this as a lie, you shouldn't. The information we had was incorrect. A lie means purposeful misleading. It must have INTENT. Bush's advisors and intelligence gathers should be at fault, not himself, he was only acting on the information he had.

... this is just the most blinkered thing I've ever heard. Sure, Bush and co had NO CLUE that the information they were being given was insubstantial conjecture, and the fact that they had been planning a war in Iraq for YEARS but had no "hook to hang it on" did not influence their decision to invade based on this non-intelligence ONE IOTA. Ever heard of "plausible denial"? The reason the men at the top have so many "advisors" is that there's always a scapegoat to take the fall. "It's the president's fault", "it's his advisor's fault", "it was the CIA", etc, etc, until eventually the issue disappears in a puff in a puff of apathetic public fatigue. A purposeful omission or disregard for the truth, in terms of giving an entire nation a valid reason for invading another country, is no better or worse than a "lie".

Furthermore:

Plus, the fact that Kerry and Edwards mentioning Cheney's gay daughter will hurt him in the long run, plus its a low blow...

How exactly is this a "low blow", elipsesjeff?

From Andrew Sullivan's blog site:

The Mary Cheney thing really is a fascinating Rorschach test. Many conservatives are appalled and cast their anti-Kerry opinion as a defense of Mary. Here's one:

"Last night he allowed his obsession with his own selfish desire to win a point overshadow the appropriate boundaries of taste, compassion, and kindess. Lynne Cheney has the right to call him a bad man. And woman across the nation have the right to see for themselves that he is willing to victimize THEM if it comes to padding his advantage, reputation, position, or standing."

Victimize? All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form...

You have to regard homosexuality as immoral or wrong or shameful to even get to the beginning of the case against Kerry. That's why it's a Rorschach test....

Seriously, I've called out anti-gay statements by Democrats in the past; and have a long record of sniffing out homophobia and the use of it, wherever it's coming from... And I fail to see how Kerry's remark could be understood in any conceivable way as gay-baiting. It never occurred to me when I heard it. It does not occur to me now. You know what is based in gay-baiting? Implicitly, clearly, shamelessly: the Bush-Cheney campaign. The GOP has a nutty candidate in Illinois who called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist" - but Dick Cheney wasn't an "angry dad," then. Lynne Cheney didn't call that "tawdry." So Bush runs the most anti-gay national campaign ever and it's his opponent who gets tarred as a homophobe! Brilliant, even by Rove's standards. And when it comes to gay-baiting, there are few as practised as Rove. The sheer nerve of these hypocrites never ceases to amaze.

Kevin Arnovitz, Slate:

Had the president, when speaking about immigration, referenced Teresa Heinz Kerry's experience in a positive or neutral light, would that have been inappropriate? Is Mary Cheney's homosexuality some sort of affliction? A verboten family tragedy like the death of John Edwards' son? The only "cheap and tawdry political trick" performed Wednesday night was the one turned by the Cheney parental units. It was they who used their daughter's sexuality as a weapon against John Kerry's sympathetic (and very general) remark. If only Dick and Lynne were so indignant when their daughter was legitimately under attack by an administration willing to write gays and lesbians out of the nation's founding document. Selective indignation has never been so crass ..."

That said (or quoted, to be precise - Apologies for another lengthy post, but I am providing sources, as requested above, rather than just passing opinion - albeit only second-hand opinions, but from people far better placed than myself to comment with impunity), I agree that Kerry's remark will hurt his campaign. But NOT because it was in any way, shape or form homophobic or a "low blow" - rather, because of the inherent ignorance of the people who interpereted it as such, and the shameless spin-doctoring of the Cheney's, even at the expense of any repect for their daughter.

[elipsesjeff]

Ape,

Given that you hang on every word Ann Coulter says...

I have no problem with you thinking I listen to Coulter, I listen to her only as I Laugh my ass off because she is so hilarious. She is the Michael Moore of the Republican party, and her arguments some times are 'stretchy' at best.

The reason the men at the top have so many "advisors" is that there's always a scapegoat to take the fall.

And, you know, to advise.

How exactly is this a "low blow", elipsesjeff?

In order to determine if it is a 'low blow' you first must determine what was Kerry's intent on saying such a statement. Was Kerry trying to strenghen his own stance against gay marriage by mentioning Cheney's daughter? That doesn't make any sense at all, considering Kerry ALSO is against Gay Marriage. If he wasn't trying to improve his own position then he was definately trying to harm that of his opponents. You tell me how using the daughter of the Vice President against their own campaigns ISNT a low blow. That would be similar to you using my drug-addicted brother to discredit my own merit if I were to run for office. Tell me how that isnt a low blow.

You can quote online blogs by as many liberal authors as you want, god knows that there is only a liberal online blog for someone willing to read them. I am not going to believe them or their 'opinions' any more than any staunchly republican online blog, its hard to find the truly 'independant' journalists, those that hate both Bush and Kerry and have no alterior political motives.

Ape, You have yet to give me YOUR opinion on OUR Presidential race. If we wanted to hear the opinions of other journalists all we would have to do is turn on the television and watch 'Hardball' or 'Cross-fire.'

You have also not given any reason to vote FOR Kerry, other than he is NOT Bush. I have mentioned every reason to vote for Bush over Kerry yet I have heard few arguments to vote for Kerry. Please, enlighten me.

[koolmoe]

Besides which it gives people in smaller states a disproportionate number of votes vs. people in large states.

Well, that's kind of the point of the electoral college, now isn't it? This "problem" not a flaw; it is by design.

[stuck]

Besides which it gives people in smaller states a disproportionate number of votes vs. people in large states.

Well, that's kind of the point of the electoral college, now isn't it? This "problem" not a flaw; it is by design.

Sort of. not really. Back when it was first founded there were only 13 states and the population differences weren't as disparate as they are now.

For example: Wyoming and North Dakota combine for six votes, while their combined population is less than 1.2 million people; Arkansas, a state with over 2.7 million people, gets the same six votes. In addition to Wyoming and North Dakota, other states with only three electoral votes are: Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, Vermont, Delaware, and D.C. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Idaho, Maine, and Hawaii all have four votes. That's 13 states with a combined 44 electoral votes. They have a combined population (July 2003 estimate) of under 11.8 million people. Illinois, a state with 21 electoral votes, has a population of over 12.6 million people.

In my opinion, those are gross disparities.

[phylos]

I don't entirely disagree with your post, 7ape, but I have to say that your analogy falls short in the highlighted section. You mayhave disdain for the actions of US figureheads, but by no means is the US lacking in compassion and empathy. In fact, the last time I checked, the US provides more money, people, time, and effort to humanitarian causes than any other country in the world.

You mean like the $2.5 billion it gives to Israel every year so that they can carry on developing better WMD and continue with their illegal occupation of Palestine? What a force for good that is. Invade a country with no WMD, support a country with them. It's this sort of consistent policy in the Middle East that causes terrorism, it does nothing to end it.

Another terrorist attack in the US would make this "deficit" seem very small.

As an observer from the UK I simply don't get how Bush's record in the war on terrorism is anything to be proud of. So only he can prevent further terrorist attacks occurring within the USA? Well, he did a pretty poor job preventing the last one didn't he? The Presidential Daily Briefing for 6th August 2004 stated that Bin Laden was planning to hijack planes and use them as weapons, it stated that Al Qa'ida were surveying buildings in New York and Washington. And Bush did nothing. And Rumsfeld did nothing. And Condy Rice did nothing. Even Cheney admitted recently that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qa'ida prior to the invasion last year. Iraq is now full of terrorists of all hues. There are daily bombings, murders and kidnappings. But it's a safer place now, right?

The Taliban is done.

Err, no it isn't.

http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php...N=200403220021

The propaganda says they are gone and that Afghanistan is a functioning democracy, but it simply isn't true. And where is bin Laden?

As 7ape said - we are one planet, we all breathe the same air and drink the same water - putting the war and terrorism aside, Bush still scares me as he backed out of the Kyoto accord on Climate Change.The US has 3% of the world’s population but produces 25% of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. This is already having a disastrous effect on the planet, with warmer summers and colder winters changing the natural biodiversity of entire regions. The increase in the numbers and intensity of storm systems hitting various parts of the world (including the US) is blamed on global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Global warming and global pollution cannot be restrained within the borders of individual countries. The policies of the biggest nations have a disproportionate effect. To truly take a lead in world affairs as America wishes to do means more than simply responding to crises it also means setting a positive example to developing nations.

Clinton was in the UK a few weeks ago pushing his new (and very dull) book. He was greeted like a hero. We're 'side by side, shoulder to shoulder' with the US according to Bliar. But when Bush came over last year, a statue of him was built in Trafalgar Square, London, then toppled with ropes and chains as he met the Queen. Thousands of people took to the streets to protest at his presence. We’re the people on your side remember. How have our attitudes changed so quickly? If you think the answer is anything other than Bush's subtle blend of arrogance and ignorance then please tell me.

[koolmoe]

I don't entirely disagree with your post, 7ape, but I have to say that your analogy falls short in the highlighted section. You mayhave disdain for the actions of US figureheads, but by no means is the US lacking in compassion and empathy. In fact, the last time I checked, the US provides more money, people, time, and effort to humanitarian causes than any other country in the world.

You mean like the $2.5 billion it gives to Israel every year so that they can carry on developing better WMD and continue with their illegal occupation of Palestine? What a force for good that is. Invade a country with no WMD, support a country with them. It's this sort of consistent policy in the Middle East that causes terrorism, it does nothing to end it.

Nice strawman. Do you deny that the US provides more money, people, time, and effort to humanitarian causes than any other country in the world?

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would make an effort to attribute the quotes in your above post to those that actually made them (I only posted the first statement you quoted. Other posters posted the second and third quotes.). It's not that complicated; a smart guy like you could certainly figure it out.

[7ape]

You can quote online blogs by as many liberal authors as you want, god knows that there is only a liberal online blog for someone willing to read them.

Indeed, and furthermore for every liberal blogger I use as a reference I am sure you could find a conservative blogger and do likewise. However, I did not suggest that the blog I quoted served as hard and fast "proof" of the nature of Kerry's statement, I merely used it to illustrate my argument, which saved me having to paraphrase and thereby run the risk of omission, or worse, accusations of unthinking plagiarism. Furthermore, I would suggest that the source of this particular blog makes the comments ascribed to it all the more weighty. Andrew Sullivan is a gay conservative, who is now considering voting for Kerry over Bush. This should show that he is (a) nowhere near as objurate as the majority of bloggers (or, for that matter, the voting public), (b) open-minded, (c) has an existing preference towards voting Republican (and therefore should not have "undue bias" against Bush) and (d) has far more of a right to call people out on homophobic comments than you or I (assuming that you are straight. From your arguments on this subject, I find it hard to believe in any other possibility).

[Ann Coulter] is the Michael Moore of the Republican party, and her arguments some times are 'stretchy' at best.

Hmm... I'm having trouble with this one. As stated before (on more than one occasion), I am not a fan of Moore's work. However, even I would credit him with being better than an extremist liberal mouthpiece, which is all that can be said of Coulter for the conservatives... he clearly loves the people of his country, particularly the working classes which he grew up a part of. He believes that questioning the actions of one's government does not make one "unpatriotic", much less "traitorous". He acknowledges the right to all points of view and encourages informed debate over mindless haranguing. I have heard him make ad hominem comments, but not nearly as many - or as hateful - as Coulter. Some examples:

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

"The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

""I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97

... in summary, Michael Moore is a misguided satirist who believes, above all else, in the accountability of decision-makers and the citizen's right to truthful information, as well as their right to challenge any lack thereof. He tends to challenge those who are in power (corporate or political), regardless of whether they are Republican, Democrat, or whatever.

Conversely, Ann Coulter is a rabidly bigoted borderline fascist, "pundit for hire" adjunct of the Republican party. Whilst I would be the first to describe Moore as "partisan", to describe one as the left / right wing equivalent of the other shows alarming ignorance to the difference between both fact and opinion, and discourse and dogmatism.

As for the intention of the comment Kerry made, this is, by it's very nature, highly subjective. I will respond to your quote in two parts:

You tell me how using the daughter of the Vice President against their own campaigns ISNT a low blow.

1) What Kerry actually said was "We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as". My interperetation is that the subtext of this was an effort to convey the fact that the Cheneys are committed to a crass set of double-standards, whereby they don't think that gay people are godless scum, but still want to win the votes of people who DO. It WAS designed to damage his opponent's campaign - aren't almost ALL statements made in the debates designed to glorify one's own campaign or damage one's opponent? - but not, in this case, by "smearing" them or hitting a "low blow", rather by pointing out their inherent hypocricy. This is, of course, only my opinion, but then, given that we are dealing with a person's "intent" behind making a comment, that is all ANY of us can offer. Pro-Bush people will argue that it was intended to damage his opponent's campaign using smear tactics. Pro-Kerry people will argue he was making a valid and generalised point, using a high-profile gay person to illustrate, and that the point was made all the more hard-hitting by dint of the fact that the gay person in question was the daughter of one of his opponents (who therefore, one would assume, ought to know better).

2)

That would be similar to you using my drug-addicted brother to discredit my own merit if I were to run for office.

Your choice of anaology is as weak as it is telling. Again, from Andrew Sullivan (yes he's a blogger, but his opinion is word for word the same as my own, so why hide behind an uncredited quotation?)

"Notice two things. First, the equation of gayness with some sort of embarrassing problem or, worse, some kind of affliction. For people who believe this, of course Kerry was out of line. That's why Rove's base is so outraged. But if you don't believe this, it's no different than, say, if a candidate were to mention another candidate's son in the Marines. Or if, in a debate on immigration, a pro-immigrant candidate mentioned Kerry's immigrant wife. You have to regard homosexuality as immoral or wrong or shameful to even get to the beginning of the case against Kerry. That's why it's a Rorschach test. Secondly, Mary Cheney isn't private. She ran gay outreach for Coors. She appears in public with her partner. Her family acknowledges this. She's running her dad's campaign! Whatever else this has to do with - and essentially, it has to do whether you approve of homosexuality or not - privacy is irrelevant."

...the point is that, REGARDLESS of your personal, subjective interperetation of the "intent" of the statement, the ONLY way in which one can argue it was a "low blow" is if one presupposes that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of, a "dirty little secret" that nobody needs to hear about in polite company. Hence the "Rorshcach test" comment in my previous post, which I thank you for skimming through so rapidly, then replying to with a "counter-argument" which did nothing but support the argument it perported to refute.

Quote:
The reason the men at the top have so many "advisors" is that there's always a scapegoat to take the fall.


And, you know, to advise...

As for this, perhaps my point was lost in the vitriol. Perhaps I am not nearly as eloquent as I previously assumed. Perhaps I need to speak in some form of robotic verse, which moves from one factual preposition to another, with no diversion into realms of rhetoric or emotion. Perhaps (as I suspect) you are being quite deliberately pedantic and facetious and trying to pass this off as a valid point. Regardless, I shall clarify, so that you better understand the message I was trying (so inarticulately) to convey. Here goes...

Whilst the prime purpose of having "advisors" is to "advise" onesself, one of the most politically useful by-products of this (given the general "spin"-based nature of contemporary politics) is the fact that, in spite of the fact that an INDIVIDUAL is elected to office as the representative of a party, that individual need never be held accountable for ANY decision they make - there are always ample fall guys to point the finger instead.

I hope this is clear now, and I apologise (1) for being unclear and (2) for having neither the time nor the inclination to trawl through every post you have made, quoting any excerpts whose meaning is readily apparent from the context of the post (or even a simple "common sense" assumption on the part of the reader) and following them with a pithy statement of the obvious followed by an eye-rolling emoticon.

Ape, You have yet to give me YOUR opinion on OUR Presidential race. If we wanted to hear the opinions of other journalists all we would have to do is turn on the television and watch 'Hardball' or 'Cross-fire. You have also not given any reason to vote FOR Kerry, other than he is NOT Bush. I have mentioned every reason to vote for Bush over Kerry yet I have heard few arguments to vote for Kerry. Please, enlighten me.

Well, here's the rub. For one thing, I am not (and have never claimed to be) "pro-Kerry". It's very much a "lesser of two evils" race right now, and I am more inclined to elect ABB (anyone but Bush). This sounds childish, but please ask yourself, why are you citing "mistrust" of Kerry as one of the prime reasons for not voting for him? What is this based on, and in what way is he LESS trustworthy than the Bush administration?

To quote workingforchange.com - why don't you trust Kerry? Are you worried that he might cynically exploit the threat of terrorism to justify the invasion of a country which actually poses no threat - diverting our resources and giving the real terrorists time to regroup? Or are you worried that he will foist lie upon lie to the scared and angry American public in order to justify this war which has been in the planning for years? Or are you concerned that the targetted country in question could become a breeding ground for new terrorists as a result of his incompetent leadership - leaving [America] more vulnerable than before? Or are you just afraid that in the middle of all this, he'd be so insanely irresponsible as to run up record defecits in order to finance a tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of the country? Or do you not trust him to be able to plan the follow-up to the invasion effectively, having spent all available resources on the invasion and not considered the requirements to MAINTAIN control one iota?

You're right, that Kerry eh? Why would anyone "trust" him over Bush...?

Perhaps you find him too aloof or uncharasmatic. Some of the posts above cite Bush as the guy the American working man would most like to "go for a drink with" (or similar). That's as maybe, but is this REALLY a basis for electing him? It's not a homecoming King and Queen contest, you don't choose the candidate who seems like a gee-whizz stand up guy (and then presumably elect Paris Hilton for his homecoming queen), you vote for the candidate who is most capable of running the country. The media's involvement in the electoral process has turned the election for the most important and powerful office in the world into just another version of "Pop Idol". Vote Bush - he's a real nice fella! Not like that snooty Kerry, nosiree.... I honestly and sincerely believe that if Tom Hanks ran for office, he'd win it by a LANDSLIDE. He's a "likeable everyman", ain't he? The Jimmy Stewart of his day! Sure, he MUST be the right guy to run the country!

As you stated, there is little benefit in offering you the reasons you have heard time and time again, and that you could hear for yourself by watching any political commentary show. However, since you are asking, a few things come to mind, but I would request that you bear my closing paragraph in mind as you consider these points:

I think Economy would be the strongest point for Kerry in that he bases his policy on realistic forecasts and trends and not the wildly inaccurate forecast on which Bush based his terrible economic policy.

Kerry would allow research into cells that Bush believes are "against God" (not that this opinion is in any way, shape or form related to the way in which a deomcratic government should decide policy), and this would help many otherwise helpless people. Indeed, it would've helped Reagan, had he and Nancy not so vehemently protested against stem cell research. Quite amazing how quickly Nancy capitulated on this when Ronnie's medical condition became more apparent... and people say a Republican political worldview is based on an inherent sense of selfishness! The NERVE!!

He would support women's rights to choose whether to have a child or not, where as Bush wants to stop abortions (again, based primarily on religious arguments, which have NO PLACE in a democratic process of policy reform)

Kerry would be better for the poor of the US by stopping tax breaks for the ultra rich.

Also, a nice bonus to having Kerry in office (although by no means a good enough reason to solely base a vote on) is that the US will no longer be a laughing stock around the world.

In closing, do I think that Kerry would better for (a) America and (b) the rest of the world if he were elected? Well, like every other person, I honestly couldn't say, I'm not clairvoyant. Do I think that Kerry would be WORSE for (a) America and (b) the rest of the world if he were elected? Again, I can only offer opinion - but frankly, I fail to see how he could possibly, in any way, shape or form, be any WORSE than Bush.

I never said "you all should be voting for Kerry". I never said I would vote for Kerry (if I could). All I asked was that you consider the impact of your decision on the 6 billion other people on the planet. More than any other time in history, your current election may determine the fate of not just your countrymen, but a hell of a lot of other nations' too. All I would ask is that you remind yourselves that American people have no greater value than British people, Canadian people, Iraqi people, ANY people. I know it sucks to have some guy pointing this out to you like he feels you need it pointed out, I know I'd take offence if someone advised me what to consider when I vote. And I know that, coming from a "stuck-up, tea-sipping, yellow-toothed limey", it is even harder to stomach. But the problem is twofold. Firstly, the above description (actual quotes from Clark County voters expressing their disapproval at receiving letters from concerned British people wanting to explain their point of view - no more, no less) shows just how blinkered the "average" voter is (no moreso in America than anywhere else in the world, but nowhere else in the world stages an election that will have as great an impact on every man, woman and child on the planet as the USA does), responding to simple requests for open-mindedness with hateful, deep-seated and laughably inaccurate prejudices, coupled with the ubiquitous, inaccurate and utterly irrelevant references to having "defeated" the Brits to gain independence and "saving our asses" in the war.

Secondly, whilst you constantly hail your "liberal" media, the fact is that over the last half a century, your "liberal" media has reported key events in whatever way the government of the time felt most beneficial. Repeated acts of worldwide US terrorism have been described as "incidents", "local insurrections", "just wars" and the like, if they have been reported at all. Please, please, please, look beyond your borders and do some independent research. Without verifiable, unbiased, factual information - the kind you never receive from CNN, Fox, or any other mainstream media source - how can you possibly say you are making an informed decision?

Finally, some postscripts concerning posts made since I first drafted this (epic) reply:

You mean like the $2.5 billion it gives to Israel every year so that they can carry on developing better WMD and continue with their illegal occupation of Palestine? What a force for good that is. Invade a country with no WMD, support a country with them. It's this sort of consistent policy in the Middle East that causes terrorism, it does nothing to end it.

Good point Philos, take note Koolmoe. I had intended to respond with figures demonstrating that, whilst the US contributes more dollar-for-dollar than any other nation to international good causes, it is about twelfth (IIRC) in terms of per capita contribution (i.e. a measure of the percentage of wealth contributed rather than a flat value). However, I am running out of time, and do not have this information readily available - please, feel free to do some research and check for yourself. If you regard this as "wriggling off the hook" on my part, I shall respond accordingly with facts and figures (I am honeslty not in a position to be able to provide them right now).

Also, way to bash (comparitive newbie) Philos, who did the same thing as I usually do when quoting people - mention their name if I think to, otherwise just insert the quote and trust people to recollect for themselves who posted it (or scroll up the page to find out). The "straw man" comment (quite how you can ascertain this from one, well-informed post is beyond me...), combined with the "a smart guy like you could certainly figure it out..." part worries me. Obviously one cannot determine tone of voice from a forum post, but this reads like it might be dripping with sarcasm, in which case it really just comes across at sour grapes at having your argument rebutted, regardless of whether you feel the rebuttal was accurate or relevant. If it was sincere, I apologise for the misinterperetation. If it was not, I have to wonder why you chose to make ad hominem attacks on Philos' computer literacy, rather than taking the same time to refute his (presumably disagreeable) argument?

As for the mention of Israel, perhaps Fnord will grace us once more with his incredibly insightful and informed summary of the ongoing Palastine conflict: "In brief, Isreal is an ally and the Palistinians are seriously messed up"

Apologies if this Fnord quote seems catty, I am merely trying to illustrate the kind of partisan non-information on which many Americans will base their vote. It's only a "choice" if it is made in light of absolute and non-partisan evidence, rather than whatever information most benefits the powers that be for you to hear.

[koolmoe]

Besides which it gives people in smaller states a disproportionate number of votes vs. people in large states.

Well, that's kind of the point of the electoral college, now isn't it? This "problem" not a flaw; it is by design.

Sort of. not really. Back when it was first founded there were only 13 states and the population differences weren't as disparate as they are now.

For example: Wyoming and North Dakota combine for six votes, while their combined population is less than 1.2 million people; Arkansas, a state with over 2.7 million people, gets the same six votes. In addition to Wyoming and North Dakota, other states with only three electoral votes are: Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, Vermont, Delaware, and D.C. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Idaho, Maine, and Hawaii all have four votes. That's 13 states with a combined 44 electoral votes. They have a combined population (July 2003 estimate) of under 11.8 million people. Illinois, a state with 21 electoral votes, has a population of over 12.6 million people.

In my opinion, those are gross disparities.

The point of the electoral college is to redistribute electoral power from states with large populations to states with small populations. Knowing this, you are still surprised at the numbers you quoted?

I would add that, unless the small group of states you have cherry-picked for your example have similar issues that they would lobby for, it is largely irrelevant that their combined electoral votes double that of Illinois.

The best argument against the electoral college is that states' rights are not as big an issue as they were when the union was formed.

[Cut Card 04]

Must agree with 7ape about being in the "ABB" camp. I can put my reasoning for being there into something sound-bite sized for those who are too busy to digest a long post:

We know Bush isn't even going to kiss us first. Kerry just might. In fact, he seems like the kind of guy who would buy us flowers on occasion, too.

[elipsesjeff]

7ape, your last book *cough* post was nicely put and I find it hard to disagree with alot of it.

First, I liked Clinton, but you forget it was he who made a mockery out of the presidency, not Bush.

Secondly, just because you are against Bush doesnt necessarily mean Kerry is any better. You have to look at who can lead the next 4 years the best, and by that i believe Bush can.

Every politician lies, thats what makes them politicians. Maybe somewhere other than America do they not have politicians that lie. I have pretty much grown up with the fact that they do. Its the consequences of these lies and the importance of these lies that must be taken into effect (which I can assume you agree with me on considering your above posts).

The situation that Bush/his advisors supposedly lied to America about WMD in an effort to invade Iraq would have very forseeable consequences. He isn't as dumb as the world/himself portrays (he is the President, and he had to get there somehow). If he lied to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, well, I'm still happy with that. That dick shoulda been removed 13 years ago in the first war.

Now, if he lied to get 'oil' for the U.S., which would be a possible reason to lie and invade, it couldnt have been the reason. By this, i am considering our Oil prices here are so high that if his goal to invade Iraq was to take its oil then Goddamn we arent getting any!

Other than these two reasons I see no other reason for Bush to 'lie' to America about in going to war against Iraq, which leads me to my conclusion that maybe Bush was telling the truth on his information he had and he was misinformed. You can't deny that this is also a very good possibility.

Going back to what I mentioned earlier: Bush more likely would run the country better than Kerry in the next 4 years. This is running the U.S., not the entire world, and not making others in the world perceive us as more likeable. The world will not like us any better if Kerry is in the Presidency or not, to most foreigners, America is America, it doesnt depend on who is leading the country because the voters put him there. It will take years to regain our self-image, we will never go back to the isolationists we used to be before the World Wars, no matter how hard we try. The U.S. is like those annoying friends who try to help us on everything we do wrong when we just want to figure things out for ourselves.

Moving on...

(straight from Accounting class) - You cant make decisions on things that happened in the past (i.e. sunk costs) and you must use relevant future decisions when deciding goals for the future. I explained this concept horribly but I hope you get my point. Bush's plans for the next 4 years actually have substance to them, and I believe Bush in what he is saying than give merit to Kerry's claims (Kerry not raising taxes? yeah right!)

I'm definately not hard-core republican, I wanted Gore to win in the last election because I liked what he did under Clinton. But to reasonably say that Kerry will do a better job at President than the incumbent himself based on the fact that Kerry will 'not do' what Bush will is unreasonable. It should be the other way around, what will Kerry DO and provide that Bush won't do? And that factor alone provides my basis on Voting for Bush over Kerry.

[!Luck]

How to run/create an Orwellian Society.
1) Perpetual war (One cannot defeat an idealism/concept)
2) Control the flow of information (patriot act)
3) Get rid of civil liberties (Use of patriot act with Induce act)
4) Constant fear, for better manipulation of the public's opinion, until opinions can be contained and unfavorables imprisoned.
5) Bend the law to do whatever you want (There are many cases where the patriot act was used to limit people’s rights as citizens. In some cases it was used to catch people who pirate and distribute Intellectual Property of other people. I am okay with the people being caught for IP crimes, but NOT when they use an act that was created to catch terrorists)

From all that I have seen, I am scared; I am not scared of terrorists, but of my own government. Our rights are being slowly taken away. Privacy is almost nearly gone, whether it is in outside or in your home. Cameras are being put up in major cities to protect us (yes it lowers crime, but at what cost) (what is next daily workouts in front of the view screen [for our own health of course], I believe there have been times where the ACLU tried to file a complaint against the government but because of a certain prevision in the Patriot act they could not even disclose they even filled a compliant(or at least what the complaint was about). I think that is horrible. I said most of this from memory if you require sources I would be happy to locate them for you.

Now how this relates to BUSH/KERRY, well Bush seemed not to care about the aforementioned acts, Kerry is not much better. The reason I vote for Kerry is basically based on abortion, stem cell research and the national debt. Many other issues as well, sorry for this semi off topic post.

[elipsesjeff]

No, you are right in assuming such things, the only problem is though is that Kerry also supports the Patriot Act, so whats the difference?

And its hard for me judge the abortion issue considering I am neither catholic (the die-hards) nor am I a woman so I feel its not my decision.

I'm a man of science so I am in favor of stem cell research.

However these issues pale in comparison to that of the national debt, of which Kerry practically lied by saying he won't raise taxes, but if he wants to decrease the debt he HAS to raise taxes, its the only way. If Bush increased the national debt by decreasing taxes it only makes sense that in order to decrease the debt he has to increase taxes.

[!Luck]

I believe that an increase in taxes IS necessary. Plus I think the fact that bush almost created two departments is not good. Sure the homeland of security is important but there has got to be a better way to do it. The other one he almost made was an oversight department for medicine which would further add administrative costs.

[7ape]

7ape, your last book *cough* post was nicely put and I find it hard to disagree with alot of it.

LoL! Verbose? Moi?

Yeah, it was quite an effort, I'm just amazed (and gladdened) that you actually managed to make it through the whole thing without nodding off... look out for the movie version next year, it's longer than the LotR trilogy combined.

I'll try and respond in brief to some key comments this time, to save my aching fingers if nothing else...!

First, I liked Clinton, but you forget it was he who made a mockery out of the presidency, not Bush.

Heh, well, that's one way of putting it... I'm not a huge fan of Clinton myself, but even I would be hard-pressed to say he "made a mockery" of the American presidency. His extramarital antics were of passing amusement to most of the rest of the world. I think the reaction to the circus-like drama that unfolded around it could mostly be described as a "ripple" of bemusement, partly at his overdeveloped libido, but mainly at the assertion that his infidelity should in some way impact upon his ability to run a country. The global reaction to Bush, however, has been more like a "tidal wave" of anger and disbelief that someone so inarticulate, uninformed and unevolved could become the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

Secondly, just because you are against Bush doesnt necessarily mean Kerry is any better. You have to look at who can lead the next 4 years the best, and by that i believe Bush can

Overall, I have to say I can absolutely appreciate your point of view on the election. I may disagree with much of it, but I have no problem with most of your rationale for the basis of your vote. I won't make this post longer than it has to be by repeating myself, I think we are fundementally agreeing to disagree on the weight of certain factors in determining ones' vote. I appreciate what you're saying here, but personally, having been brutally lied to and manipulated for 4 years, I'd be inclined to give the other guy a try rather than stick with the liar I'm used to on the basis that "the other guy will probably prove to be a liar too". I'm thinking more in terms of a protest vote, here, than anything else.

He isn't as dumb as the world/himself portrays (he is the President, and he had to get there somehow).

That's a matter of opinion. The office of president, like most political offices, is bought, not earned. And before anyone replies citing his attendance at Harvard, the exact same applies there - if I was the CEO of a wealthy neo-con company, I could get my son into Harvard too, regardless of his IQ. There are numerous examples of Bush demonstrating a mentally sub-normal attitude to questions he is posed, and (whilst I derive snobbish amusement from them) I am not speaking of his many verbal slips (although I honestly believe that these are a partial indicator), but rather his categorical ignorance of many of the key issues on which he is supposed to make decisions every day.

If he lied to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, well, I'm still happy with that. That dick shoulda been removed 13 years ago in the first war.

I agree with the second line, but not the first. Again, it's a matter of personal morality. I might be persuaded to get on board with the "the ends justifies the means" argument if it weren't for (a) the fact that this has yet to be proven, Iraq may be better off without Saddam, but it is now a terrorist breeding ground and a beacon for terrorists the world over to galvanise their efforts. Also, (b) even if it were irrefutable that the results are entirely favourable, I would have serious trouble re-electing a president who has been proven to have been lying on an issue of such scale (I agree that all politicians lie - it is a matter of degrees, however, and this was inarguably a very high-profile and contentious issue on which to misinform the public).

Now, if he lied to get 'oil' for the U.S., which would be a possible reason to lie and invade, it couldnt have been the reason. By this, i am considering our Oil prices here are so high that if his goal to invade Iraq was to take its oil then Goddamn we arent getting any!

I don't know if you'll have heard all the counterarguments to this already and disagree with them, or honestly think that rising oil prices "prove" that it wasn't about oil. Check into some "peak oil" information, remind yourself that the dust is barely settling, appreciate that rising prices do not indicate that the goal of securing an oil supply has not taken place, and take into account that, if the oil in and around Iraq was the ultimate aim, the means of achieving it was the securing of a foot-hold and power-base in the Middle East from which to expand US influence. (I am speaking economically, not militarily)

The world will not like us any better if Kerry is in the Presidency or not, to most foreigners, America is America, it doesnt depend on who is leading the country because the voters put him there. It will take years to regain our self-image, we will never go back to the isolationists we used to be before the World Wars, no matter how hard we try. The U.S. is like those annoying friends who try to help us on everything we do wrong when we just want to figure things out for ourselves

I agree with the principle that it is largely the US government (regardless of who is leading it) that causes such strong opposition from the rest of the world. Whilst I liked your "annoying friend" analogy, I don't think it quite does justice to the nature of the beast... the US is a self-appointed policeman of the world, always doing "what is right" (by it's own standards) with flagrant disregard for the opinions of other world leaders, international law, and so on. Also, a good deal of the reason for people's hatred of America (note - the country, NOT the people) is not, as Bush (with typical ignorance and hubris) asserts, that "they are jealous of our freedom" - it's because of it's hypocricy. Citing it's generous foreign aid in spite of it's contribution to the perpetuation of third world debt; instigating a "war on terror" in spite of being responsible for more terrorist deaths in the last 50 years than every other nation COMBINED; arming unstable dictatorships then invading them on the basis that they "pose too much of a threat"; and so on.

As for Kerry changing this image? Well, I'm with you on doubting this. However, the only way to affect this kind of paradigm shift would be to affect policy changes. Whilst I share in your doubts, I am more inclined to think that Kerry would affect policy changes than his opponent, what with Bush being the incumbent and all...

And its hard for me judge the abortion issue considering I am neither catholic (the die-hards) nor am I a woman so I feel its not my decision.

Again, I would point out that this is more a "conservative" worldview, based as it is on a disregard for issues that aren't personally affecting. Also, I am having trouble figuring the meaning of this - If you feel that "as a man, it is not [your] decision", then it follows that you believe it is a woman's decision (correct me if I am wrong). This would surely make you pro-choice?

In closing, I was amazed to find the following link forwarded to me today. Not "amazed" by the content, but rather the timing, given the nature of this debate and my overriding message of the voting public "being informed" and the devastating effect that their "being uninformed" will have on the elections in the US. I won't clog up the thread with yet more lengthy quotations, but please, if you have any further interest in what I (and more recently, Philos and !Luck) have been talking about, please follow the link:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20263/

... I apologise for the "Bush-bashing" tone of the narrative, but the figures really do speak for themselves, and perfectly illustrate the point I have been trying to make; vote for whomever you please, this is your right as a citizen of a democratic nation. But it is also your right to make this decision on the basis of accurate, factual information. Any impediment to this (such as Bush's proven track-record of constantly misinforming the public in order to instigate a economically crippling war) essentially makes a mockery of this democratic process.

[elipsesjeff]

This would surely make you pro-choice?

Yup. That doesnt mean I vote for Kerry though. If Kerry didn't shove that he is so religious and then go against his church with it. I am not very religious, but Bush's explanation kicked the crap out of Kerry's in the debates. Bush simply wants us to stop getting into the situations where abortions occur (of which who can't disagree?), as opposed to Kerry's outright: its a woman's right.

I tend not to vote solely on one issue either way and in all likelyhood the issue of abortion will still be here 4 years from now in the next presidential election.

The current election is unique in that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly different perceptions of reality.

So true.

That article is interesting, and I would be the first to tell you its most likely true. No doubt that the majority of Bush supporters support Bush for the wrong reasons, most of them have their mindset from last April still.

In other words, Bush supporters choose to keep faith in their leader than face the truth either about their president or the world as it is.

Yeah, ignorance is bliss sometimes. I would like to see supporters of both Bush and Kerry to have more knowledge on their candidate. Most people I talk to have don't no anything about either of them and usually their defense is to start quoting liberal journalists from TV. To my defense I didn't quote Ann Coulter but I may start!

I'm not going to disagree with that article showing most Bush supporters are morons. I think they are voting for Bush for the wrong reasons, talking about misinformed twits....geez.

Then again I think everyone is retarded unless proven otherwise.

[Hotel_Detect]

take out the 2 brits and the canuck who probably voted in the poll and Bush wins!!!....

We are headed for 4 more years of bitching from the left, should be funny...

I wonder if Gore will return to his mountain retreat for a few months.

[geeftr]

I've just read through all the posts on this topic and very interesting it was too. It's obvious that people with greater political awareness than myself feel strongly on certain issues and both sides put their points across effectively. I try to keep up with current affairs but certainly not enough to state a list of evidence to why I prefer Kerry to Bush or why I don't think we should have invaded Iraq etc - although if you want to argue with me on these issue I'll giove it may best shot. This is a failure on my part as we should all be concerned with the affairs of our government - but hey I'm more interested in playing poker and riding motorbikes!

My last comment on this issue. I need to make clear firstly that I'm certainly of the liberal minded slant when it comes to politics. Stems from being brought up in a working class background in Manchester, England during the Maggie Thatcher years. When you live in a community where most people's lives are made a misery by a right wing, self serving, lets make the rich richer government then it has to have an affect on your outlook. As a result of my liberal outlook on life I do argue against right wing policies (Bush is a bit right wing I' say) because I know they don't work for the people I care about, which are usually the people who need the most help anyway. By 'eck its bad over 'eer in blighty.

Anyway, my point - I found reading through these posts that I tend to agree much more with the liberal points of view - obviously. I could pick holes in any pro Iraq invasion argument very easily or with anyone who supports Bush. But is it because I wanted to find a fault with it, or because there is a fault with it? Mostly the latter with a bit of persuasion from the former - in my opinion. So if your of a right wing view, for whatever reason, than you would find Bush more appealing because they are your beliefs - incorrect beliefs in my opinion but thats your choice.
And thats all it is - my opinion based on what I've read and listened too. (Note - that's assuming what they wrote and told me was true - 'cause maybe the press only gets what certain people / organisations want the press to get. You need to decide for yourselves which press organisations are worthy of your attention. Or even the people in the press are biased - thats obviously true too - but you do usually get both sides of the argument, with one contradicting the other)!

Thnaks for all the posts on this subject as I'm now better informed on the whole subject of the good old US of A.

Oh well, happy voting.

one of the uk kerry voters (well on this poll anyway - which is possibly better organised than the real thing, he he ).

[zenbitz]

I didn't read this whole debate, but if you think the US media is liberal, you should look up who owns CBS, NBC, ABC.

In fact, the only TV news outlets that are NOT owned by defense contractors are: FOX (Austrialian) and CNN (recently came out in favor of Bush)

[geeftr]

Zenbitz - thanks for the info on the US TV news outlets. I did't know who owned these companies but I do now (Viacom, General Electric - hmmmm, I can see some media jiggery pokery occuring here). Very interesting. Seems Bush has got the media on his side then

[elipsesjeff]

Very interesting. Seems Bush has got the media on his side then

Definately not, its obvious that those that are conservative think that the media is liberal and those that are liberal would think the media is conservative. Walter Cronkite himself admitted in 2003: "most of us reporters are liberal." The organizations themselves, being huge corporations and all, are conservative, their journalists are not.

Feeding that point the majority of americans believe the media here is liberal: (including most liberals)

http://www.freepress.net/news/article.php?id=1410

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38628

incorrect beliefs in my opinion but thats your choice

Who? What? When? Where? Why? Sounds to me you don't have an opinion to think someone else's opinion to be wrong.

[Aceofone]

take out the 2 brits and the canuck who probably voted in the poll and Bush wins!!!....

We are headed for 4 more years of bitching from the left, should be funny...

I wonder if Gore will return to his mountain retreat for a few months.

Take out the 2 brits and myself (canuck) and bush/kerry are tied... suprising? Not really.

[Humphrind]

Kerry is going to win.

I recently found this little piece of news in the 'Weird news' section of the paper:

The outcome of Redskins football games has correctly predicted the winner of the Presidential Election for the past 17 elections. Since 1936, if Washington lost its final home game leading into the election, the incumbent party lost. If they won, the incumbent party stayed in power.

The Redskins lost to the Packers @ Washington on Sunday.

take out the 2 brits and the canuck and bush wins

Make it 3 brits, I voted too...Kerry all the way! Can't be doing with that warmonger Bush anymore!

[zenbitz]

So, I will vote for Kerry, but pointlessly as he will take California easily without my vote. I am somewhat conflicted, because I think he's too conservative. Last "winners" I voted for were Clintons (Bill the first time, Hiliary in NY). After Clinton bombed that pharma plant in the Sudan to distract the media from Monica, I vowed to not vote for him again.


I can come up with a few legit reasons why someone might vote for Bush, I am curious if those backing him can defend them.

1) Lower taxes - although not guarenteed with B over K, seems like the consensus here

1a) Think K-based economic policiies will hurt the recovery

2) Think K will FUBAR Iraq worse

3) Think B is a better defense against foreign terrorists

4) Is a major business owner/shareholder - particularly oil or defense (Halliburton)

5) Is a conservative Judeo-Xtian, anti-abortion and/or gay

6) Is a paranoid gun nut (not that there's anything wrong with that... but I think you're paranoid if you think Kerry's going to take away your guns)


Of the above, I think 1,4 and 5 are defensable in terms of self-interest alone, I don't agree - but that's why we have a democracy. 2,3,6 I think are going to be hard to make a concrete argument based on evidence.

[Radashack]

"Moral Fiber"

Two words that should mean more to people then they currently do.

[zenbitz]

Yeah - even granted that you have some sort of Moral Fiber detector - how does that actually make him a good president? See one of 6 reasons above.

[Radashack]

I have a patent on that moral fiber detector and I want royalties .

You can have a great executive in a company, who appears to do great things and makes the company soar and then all of a sudden it comes crashing down because the man was a crook, and lacked integrity. Enron, MCI, ect.

Thats the point where Moral Fiber comes into play.

{This post has been removed}

[zenbitz]

Rada -

So, in your opinion, Kerry is likely to be a crook to the extent that the US economy will collapse?

Can you back that up with anything?

[Radashack]

..

It wasn't a direct comparison just an example.

Pls if nothing else, there is no way in Hell i would vote for Kerry for 1 single reason. He wants to give the US over to the UN, and thats bullshit. Why not just throw away 225 years of History and undermine all our forefathers fought for right? who cares?

[elipsesjeff]

I didn't read this whole debate

Read it, you will get more than enough reasons to vote for bush over kerry, i have provided everyone of them. On all 6 points you said and even more so.

I am somewhat conflicted, because I think he's too conservative

What are you smoking and can I have some? Kerry is too liberal!

He wants to give the US over to the UN, and thats bullshit

What if Clinton was head of UN.....now that would be bitchin.

The Redskins lost to the Packers @ Washington on Sunday.

Yeah, and the Red Sox won the world series, history has to change sometime.

I dont know what everyone's big deal is, it will only be 4 more years if Bush wins....

[Radashack]

"What if Clinton was head of UN.....now that would be bitchin. "



Hi i'm Bill Clinton I've goten a hummer from 134 women of different countries, can I be in the guinness book of world records?

[elipsesjeff]

Hi i'm Bill Clinton I've goten a hummer from 134 women of different countries, can I be in the guinness book of world records?

Bill Clinton for president in 2008

[stuck]

Kerry is too liberal!

I hate to break it, but Kerry actually isn't very liberal at all, despite what the independent foundation or whatever said. The method they used is a bad measure of 'liberal' anyway. (Why is it such a bad thing to be "liberal" anyway? When did it pick up the bad connotation?)

I certainly don't like Kerry. But I far more dislike Bush. Maybe that's because "national security [at all costs]" isn't on the top of my prioritity list.

I'm relatively young, I'd like to live to an old age, yeah, but the chances of me, or you, dying in a terrorist attack is very, very slim (we probably have a better chance of dieing in a car accident or other such thing). And when we get, oh, 30, 40 years in the future, when the oil reserves are depleted, I'd like for a total, collapse of society to *not* occur, and a massive die-out to *not* happen (because with the loss of the energy supply comes the loss of mass agriculture).

I have far more trust in Kerry to put the nation on a course for a sustainable future than I do Bush.

That's one of the reasons I'm not voting for Bush.

[elipsesjeff]

I hate to break it, but Kerry actually isn't very liberal at all, despite what the independent foundation or whatever said.

umm, no.


You just dont want to admit that you are a liberal as well. Considering all of his policies are to the left of anything close to moderate, Kerry is nothing close to conservative.


According to a recent analysis of the National Journal, the Massachusetts Democrat was the "No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1241-3716r.htm

Your tactics of trying to influence others without proof may work on them, but in this forum you will need a lot more evidence than opinion to back up a claim as huge as 'kerry is not a liberal'.

[stuck]

I hate to break it, but Kerry actually isn't very liberal at all, despite what the independent foundation or whatever said.

umm, no.


You just dont want to admit that you are a liberal as well. Considering all of his policies are to the left of anything close to moderate, Kerry is nothing close to conservative.


According to a recent analysis of the National Journal, the Massachusetts Democrat was the "No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1241-3716r.htm

Your tactics of trying to influence others without proof may work on them, but in this forum you will need a lot more evidence than opinion to back up a claim as huge as 'kerry is not a liberal'.

OK, fine, healthcare, education, medicare, etc, Kerry is fairly liberal. Pro-war? Not so 'liberal'. Pro Patriot Act? (apparently) not so 'liberal'. (a lot of old-school conservatives are against most of that POS though) And, fine, so he's pro-choice, chalk-one toward the liberal side.

From the link you gave me:

Their high scores may be due, in part, to having missed so many votes while campaigning last year. Of the 62 votes the magazine tracked, Mr. Kerry missed 37 and Mr. Edwards missed 22. Both men usually returned for the most critical party votes, which probably boosted their liberal credentials.

I'm not saying "Kerry is so moderate that he's *actually* conservative". I'm simply saying "Kerry is not the uber hippypinkocommie the-world-is-going-to-end-and-God-will-smite-us-all Liberal that his detractors make him out to be"

I mean, bloody hell, some of his 'liberal' economic policies are more traditionally conservative than Bush's! Such as, perhaps, trying to get a balanced budget. Any time a Democrat runs up a deficeit it's "Oh, those tax-and-spend liberals". Instead, Bush has this odd notion of "don't-tax-but-spend" what kind of notion is that? Not conservative, not even common sense! Some obscene portion (I think it's somewhere between 25-35%) of the budget goes to paying interest on the current national debt, and it's sound, conservative policy to increase that? I think not. It would, advance the conservative agenda to bring down the debt because then -- you could afford to cut taxes because there's not so much interest to pay! Have Bush's actions led me to believe that he'll do this? no. In fact, he seems to be going the opposite direction.

I could go on, but I need to get some sleep.

[elipsesjeff]

Any time a Democrat runs up a deficeit

Democrats are always known for raising taxes, they are called 'those tax and spend liberals' because they don't run up the deficit because they actually tax the people. Like i have said earlier, I have no problem with taxing the public, but Kerry's promise to "not increase taxes" is absolutely ludacris. The amount of money you would receive by simply roling back the tax cuts is no where near enough. He HAS to tax us, he lied to us. Bush ran up the deficit by giving a sh*t load of tax breaks. Theres no way to decrease the deficit without taxing us, its just plain common sense!

It would, advance the conservative agenda to bring down the debt because then -- you could afford to cut taxes because there's not so much interest to pay! Have Bush's actions led me to believe that he'll do this? no. In fact, he seems to be going the opposite direction.

This makes no sense either, especially with no proof behind your theory. First, why would conservatives pay off the national debt just to decrease taxes and run it up again? Republicans are always known to decrease taxes, i.e. the 'trickly down effect'. Democrats increase taxes on the wealthy, i.e. the 'bottom up effect.' These are simple democratic/republican guidelines you are trying to go against. I think your definition of what a democrat and a republican are mixed up.

OK, fine, healthcare, education, medicare, etc, Kerry is fairly liberal.

How many more do you need?

Pro-war?

Where have you been? Kerry is currently anti-war.

And, fine, so he's pro-choice, chalk-one toward the liberal side.

LOL, so, he's not liberal except for every basis of his campaign sans Patriot Act. And if Kerry was smart he would oppose the Patriot Act just to be even farther away from Bush. If Kerry were smart he would also be against the 'no child left behind act' to further distance himself from Bush. These are all POS doctrines that Kerry is for, and the only thing Kerry is running on is that he 'isn't Bush.' He needs more criterion to win.

[zenbitz]

The point is that Liberal vs Conservative is *relative*. Relative to ME, Kerry is conservative.

And I can pretty much guarentee that should Kerry win today, we will STILL have a war in Iraq in 4 years. THere's just no easy getting out of that little mess. Well, maybe we could get out in 3 if the insurgants are cooperative, but I haven't yet heard of a cooperative insurgant!

Finally - as for "giving the US over to the UN" - utterly luda-KRIS1. The fact is, we are a founding and security council member of the UN, even if we don't pay our dues (actually we may currently be up to date, but I doubt it).

If the UN is that bad, we should leave it like the other rogue nations. But as long as we are member, we should abide by it's decrees, lest Iraq invade us or something.

[Radashack]

Abide by its decrees, lol. The UN is a Burocratical trash heap with a river of bullshit flowing through it, and you want to abide by its decrees? Please.

And you think Kerry is a conservative? Damn man what do you want? Sex in public? Gladitorial Games? Or Drugs legalized?

Lets just reinstate the roman empire eh?

[zenbitz]

Hey, I said abide by the UN's decrees OR LEAVE. Don't claim to be a member state and then ignore it! That's poppykosh!

While I don't have a problem with any of the the three things you listed, but I'm a communist, not a libertarian.

how about National Health care? Like a civilized nation?

[elipsesjeff]

I have a feeling zenbitz you do not live in the united states.

how about National Health care? Like a civilized nation?

Thats what bush is accusing Kerry of doing and Kerry is constantly refusing such. With nation health care you get worse coverage for more people. Bush's plan of a 'health savings account' might not be the best answer, but it definatly beats community health care to pieces.

Even with national health care, the rich will still get better service than the poor so what is this fixing? Taking away the middle class's choice of health care to give to those who need it? Sounds good in concept, just like communism, but in reality it will never work.

For an interesting opinion on health care, read:

http://www.businesspundit.com/archives/000015.html

Also, how would you plan on giving national healthcare without increasing taxes? Kerry's lies go full circle, i wish he would admit he will raise taxes, then I may actually respect him.

[Radashack]

National Health care is a joke. The average time in sweeden to get a gynocological exam is 2 years. Similar waits accompany similar programs with national health care system.

Yeah thats civilized.