930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: markie on September 30, 2004, 09:59:00 pm
-
How would you see the debate?
-
i think it's unfair to have bush outside, where there are so many sharp objects and dangerous roads and bad people around............
he's not capable of doing the buttons on his shirt nevermind watching the crosswalks.............poorbushie
-
it just proved again that Bush is unable to think on his feet and does not have near the grasp of issues that most candidates at this level have, which makes it truly amazing that he is president, somehow he gets people to vote for him
-
A president shouldn't smirk. And a lady never tells...
-
I know smart people who say they will vote Republican next time. At this point I would really like some personal insight. I must be physcopathically narcissistic, but I am finding it really hard to understand.
-
Mr.Frozen versus The Joker(Smirkenstein)
I'm surprised that neither used the, "Riddle me this..." tagline from Batman. It would've been a surefire stinger.
-
It's the ideology involved. At this point the two parties are so divided on certain core issues that most people aren't even voting for the president anymore. They're voting for the person that at least has the same policies in mind as what you'd like to see happening. I'm sure the bit about the "international test" is gonna be a topic of that sort. liberals like the idea of more international government, conservatives want to preserve the sovereignty of nation states.
-
How long until that glittering Islamic showplace of democracy???
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
that most people aren't even voting for the president anymore. They're voting for the person
Is the president not a person?
Please go back to the start and say what you were trying to the first time.
-
What Arthwys was trying to say is that when things are this divided, people retreat to their ideologies and vote for whichever candidate unit best meshes with these ideologies, irregardless of the fact that one can't quite decide what he does or doesn't support and the other one isn't the swiftest boat on the Mekong.
I thought they both looked and sounded horrible.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
I thought they both looked and sounded horrible.
But you are coming from the viewpoint of bush fanboy? If you come in undecided or for Kerry I think you would see it differently.
So what he was saying is they will kneejerk to the parties of their parents. Oh joy!
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
I thought they both looked and sounded horrible.
i don't think kerry sounded horrible...........but it's nice to know you thought bush did.............
-
Really?
Bush was expected to stutter and repeat himself until the yellow light came on and he could safely stop and nod his head. And that's exactly what he did.
Kerry was expected to look strong and take the offensive. Instead, he shifted from foot to foot, leaned back, looked defensive, tried to turn a foreign policy debate toward talk of tax cuts and education spending and basically repeated his talking points almost as much as Bush did (albeit much more articulately). But he still reinforced the perceptions of him (Global Test?) and didn't outshine Bush as much as was anticipated.
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
If you come in undecided or for Kerry I think you would see it differently.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Really?.........
.......didn't outshine Bush as much as was anticipated.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
But he did clearly outshine Bush.
May I ask who you will vote for? If its for the Republicans, I would love to know why?
-
I think the times Kerry was repeating his talking points was because those were his defensive lines against flip flopping charges which Bush kept using as his answer to everything. I don't think Kerry repeated anything as much as Bush said hard work and full of hatred. If I remember correctly he diverted the attention to education and tax cuts twice and they were hardly substantive discussions of those issues.
And what is so wrong with the global test line anyway? The fact that Bush gave a simpletons reply to that of "We aren't going to let the rest of the world decide what we do" just shows what is fundamentally wrong with his administration. Does anybody think that we will have much staying power in the long run if we make like Fleetwood Mac and go our own way.
I really expected Kerry to do much worse, and thought he did a good job, he stuck on message without sounding like that is all he could do.
-
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
But he did clearly outshine Bush.
So did Al Gore, but it didn't seem to matter.
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
May I ask who you will vote for? If its for the Republicans, I would love to know why?
I will vote Republican because I think it's better than the alternative.
The Democrats won't really change much in Iraq. They will also try to tell everyone that the government can provide great retirement security and cheap quality healthcare for everyone. They can't do either, but they will be happy to take more and more of my money while they postpone the inevitable failure of the entitlement bureaucracy.
One of Kerry's points which I didn't understand is North Korea. If it was bad for us to go to Iraq without an alliance, why is he so adamant about breaking up the alliance negotiating with North Korea, and proceeding with one-on-one talks only?
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
One of Kerry's points which I didn't understand is North Korea. If it was bad for us to go to Iraq without an alliance, why is he so adamant about breaking up the alliance negotiating with North Korea, and proceeding with one-on-one talks only?
Thanks for being candid.
Obviously we will not agree.
Still dont you think negotiating with N.Korea would have been the right strategy from the get-go?
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
One of Kerry's points which I didn't understand is North Korea. If it was bad for us to go to Iraq without an alliance, why is he so adamant about breaking up the alliance negotiating with North Korea, and proceeding with one-on-one talks only?
I have not followed this issue as much as others, but basing it solely on the debate, Bush was the only one saying that negotiating with North Korea directly would break the alliance. Kerry never said it was his goal to do so at the expense of the alliance. Is it generally accepted that one on one negotiations would break any alliance involving China? (genuinely asking)
-
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
Still dont you think negotiating with N.Korea would have been the right strategy from the get-go?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Kerry said that he would move for bilateral talks -- just North Korea and the U.S.
At the same time, he said that we made a "collosal mistake" in going alone in Iraq ("90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost"). He didn't really explain why an alliance is vital for the one situation but counterproductive for the other.
As for negotiating all along -- the US negotiated twice before and both times the result was failure. Don't you think that bringing in China adds a lot to the negotiations? Certainly they are more engaged with North Korea on a regular basis and, presumably, can bring more to bear on NK than we could alone.
-
Not really a response to anybody, but the cynical side of me took Bush's eagerness to say diplomacy will work in North Korea but not necessarily Iran as a tip to his list of countries to invade. :D
-
I don't know. He didn't really explain himself on this issue and, as many times as Bush said it would break the 5-party ("6-party, 5-party, 6-party....") talks, Kerry never disputed that and simply reiterated that he didn't think Bush was doing the right thing in NK and that he (Kerry) would push for bilateral talks.
His website doesn't really give any details either.
Originally posted by pollard:
I have not followed this issue as much as others, but basing it solely on the debate, Bush was the only one saying that negotiating with North Korea directly would break the alliance. Kerry never said it was his goal to do so at the expense of the alliance. Is it generally accepted that one on one negotiations would break any alliance involving China? (genuinely asking)
-
We don't need to invade Iran -- we've hired some goons to take care of those pesky mullahs (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/23/iran.israel.bomb.ap/index.html) for us.
Originally posted by pollard:
Not really a response to anybody, but the cynical side of me took Bush's eagerness to say diplomacy will work in North Korea but not necessarily Iran as a tip to his list of countries to invade. :D
-
ggw interpreted what i was trying to say correctly. I should've said "voting for the candidate "
I also agree w/ ggw in that I will vote republican because it's better than the alternative. I have never since i set eyes on him liked Bush, and was rather more of a McCain supported last election time. Given a choice between a dummy who's policies i mostly agree with, or a brillaint politician that supports things I don't, i'll take the dummy. Then again, last time was the same deal for me and I chose to abstain. A lot of people say this is really bad, but i fail to see how i should support one or the other when i think both shouldn't be president. Shall i just vote for the lesser evil?
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
We don't need to invade Iran -- we've hired some goons to take care of those pesky mullahs (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/23/iran.israel.bomb.ap/index.html) for us.
Ah, I had not seen that. Well seeing how American politicians are not allowed to discuss issues involving Israel intelligently, I guess we wont see this coming up much in the debates. I was even surprised to hear Kerry mention Israel. Seeing Powell's quote in the article reminded me how often Kerry invoked Powell's name, must have really pissed Bush off.
-
Unfortunately I was on the road, and didn't catch the debates. But from what I've seen on TV, Kerry seemed to do very well.
As far as other points. Kerry can change Iraq to a point, by being likeable and respected by other nations that Bush has pissed off. Garnering that support can only help take the financial burden off our shoulders. No matter what, people in general, no matter what the party need to realize that democracy will never work in that country or many others in the Middle East for that matter.
I think the N. Korea thing is that there are people out there that feel China is screwing up the negotiations, basically because China's govt. may be as nuts as N. Korea. And no matter what, N. Korea is a place where we need to intervene, because it is proven that they have the WMDs.
And as far as taxes go...just pay them. The tax cuts do nothing. Yeah, they put some extra bucks in our pockets, but is that really needed against the common good. The deficit has gotten completely worse under Bush, and so had govt. funding of necessary programs because of the stinking tax cuts. People want all the shit the govt. does for free. Everyone needs to shut the fuck up and just pay the damn taxes!
-
i'm glad to have choosen to spend the evening listening to Sloan, a good old American band on shuffle and get my debate info from Kosmette and the rest of the board. :D
-
well at least the forum is having an intelligent discussion about the canidates unlike hearing "The Democrats Suck", "Kerry Sucks"... Kosmette had someone shout "Fuck Kerry" at her while driving down the BW Parkway. The best encounter was on the Metro while going down to class, she overheard someone saying something along the lines of "Why is a Kerry supporter taking the Metro, I thought all of them were rich enough to own a car" WTF...
-
in case anyone was wondering, we can't send mixed messages, and kerry said the war was the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. amazing that dub still flubs saying the two same things over and over.
i guess i should vote for kerry no matter how big of a douche he is because he's closer in political ideology to me.
-
Originally posted by pollard:
And what is so wrong with the global test line anyway? The fact that Bush gave a simpletons reply to that of "We aren't going to let the rest of the world decide what we do" just shows what is fundamentally wrong with his administration.
My favorite Bush-ism was how he ended this quote. "......I'll decide what we do."
-
What I came away with after last night was: Kerry is much better informed and more knowledgable on the issues.
Oh, and Poland is on our side...
-
An idea I had last night while watching and just remembered this morning is....even if only a few Poles have died in Iraq, what percent of their population is it? Would it be anywhere close to the percent of our population that has died? I think i'm gonna do a bit of research on this....
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
in case anyone was wondering, we can't send mixed messages, and kerry said the war was the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. amazing that dub still flubs saying the two same things over and over.
i guess i should vote for kerry no matter how big of a douche he is because he's closer in political ideology to me.
you forgot about the "good people doing hard work" :)
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
I'm surprised that neither used the, "Riddle me this..." tagline from Batman. It would've been a surefire stinger.
hahaha. that would have made the whole debate. lol :D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
An idea I had last night while watching and just remembered this morning is....even if only a few Poles have died in Iraq, what percent of their population is it? Would it be anywhere close to the percent of our population that has died? I think i'm gonna do a bit of research on this....
Thirteen members of the Polish troops have died since May 2003. Source: Brookings Institution Iraq Index, page 6 (http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex)
The population of Poland is approximately 39 million. Source: CIA (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pl.html)
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
An idea I had last night while watching and just remembered this morning is....even if only a few Poles have died in Iraq, what percent of their population is it? Would it be anywhere close to the percent of our population that has died? I think i'm gonna do a bit of research on this....
13 casualties - not sure of deaths (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/ - click graphical breakdown)
2,600 troops (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163780/posts)
38,626,349 population (http://www.indexmundi.com/poland/population.html)
-
Well, i checked on Bulgaria since that seemed like it would be the one that has the most deaths w/ smallest population. They have had 6 deaths. With a population of 7,517,973 according to CIA factbook online. I figured we have 38.97 percent more people in the US. So if they were as populous as we are, they should have 38.97 times more deaths than they do to be even with us, right? That only brings them to 234 deaths. Which actually isn't too far off, I expected it to be worse. We've only had 1,195. Damn, just realized how morbid all of this is, but at least it shows that other coutries are doing their bit even if it is still only about a quarter of the job we are doing.
-
I missed the debate last night because I spent the evening at the National Symphony Orchestra. After a brief skim of this thread, I have to admit that those voting for Bush seem far more sure of why they're voting for him than those voting for Kerry.
-
Originally posted by econo:
I missed the debate last night because I spent the evening at the National Symphony Orchestra. After a brief skim of this thread, I have to admit that those voting for Bush seem far more sure of why they're voting for him than those voting for Kerry.
I think most people who are voting for Kerry are fairly certain it is because he is not Bush.
And as Kerry told us, you can be certain and still be wrong. :D
-
I believe we have way more than 38% more people than Bulgaria. An extra 38% would put us at about 11 million population.
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Well, i checked on Bulgaria since that seemed like it would be the one that has the most deaths w/ smallest population. They have had 6 deaths. With a population of 7,517,973 according to CIA factbook online. I figured we have 38.97 percent more people in the US. So if they were as populous as we are, they should have 38.97 times more deaths than they do to be even with us, right? That only brings them to 234 deaths. Which actually isn't too far off, I expected it to be worse. We've only had 1,195. Damn, just realized how morbid all of this is, but at least it shows that other coutries are doing their bit even if it is still only about a quarter of the job we are doing.
-
Originally posted by hitman:
People want all the shit the govt. does for free. Everyone needs to shut the fuck up and just pay the damn taxes!
While it is politically convenient to paint anyone that wants lower taxes as a simple greedy whore, it masks the larger issues. Not everyone wants "all the shit govt. does."
I don't want the government running my healthcare. I don't want them in my retirement savings. I don't want them paying billions in sugar subsidies, or corn subsidies, or funding an emergency wool and mohair program in case there is an interruption of imported fabric. I think we could all find dozens of things the government does that none of us want or need.
The government shouldn't be doing those things that people could better do for themselves. Not only for financial reasons, but also because an increasing reliance on government ultimately undermines true community, where people should be looking out for their common good among themselves.
-
Originally posted by econo:
After a brief skim of this thread, I have to admit that those voting for Bush far more sure of why their voting for him than those voting for Kerry.
I don't know about that. The only good answer I've ever been given when asking someone why they'll vote for Bush is that he's better than the alternative - it's like they are pre-destined to vote Repub.
Which I find very alarming and frightening, especially after watching that debate last night. You can read all the transcripts you want - but you really need to watch it to see the delivery. Maybe it's just me, but Bush appears to be among the most incompetent public figures I have ever witnessed. I know 15 year olds that would appear more intelligent, polished & competent. He stammers, he avoids direct questions and reverts to soundbites only, he nearly loses his thoughts, he says childish things. He never once laid out EVEN one concrete plan for how he is going to fix Iraq last night. Even though Kerry repeatedly did so.
Bush is so obviously just a puppet for the rest of the Repub party (though how they settled for him is still befuddling). I actually wondered last night if Bush didn't have some type of secret agent transmitter planted deeply into his ear - he'd stare into the camera for an uncomfortable amount of time - and then blurt something out.
The danger as I see it is - that most people probably believe like I did that the President really has little actual power. He's a figurehead. But this latest excursion to Iraq has shown that there still are areas in which the President can and does exert tremendous influence and has very small control placed upon him. It really is amazing that a President has a harder time determining how to spend our tax dollars than he does ending American soldier's lives. Knowing that, how can anyone actually vote for a "dummy"?
His answers at times last night, showed exactly how he views this war. He thinks its a game. How else to explain something this flip to explain why it's taking longer than planned to exit Iraq:
"because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I mean, we thought we'd whip more of them going in."
I'm getting angry again just typing it. :D
******************
I don't mean to offend anyone who feels differently - and I know there are many. I just feel SO stongly about this & it gets me riled up much more than normal.
Tallking about music is better fun.
-
Originally posted by grotty:
He never once laid out EVEN one concrete plan for how he is going to fix Iraq last night. Even though Kerry repeatedly did so.
kerry did? other than holding a conference with "other nations," what did he say? oh, hold a conference, get nations together, and ask them for help. oooh. i really wonder how many nations will indeed help, just because someone new is in there, especially when you have certain governments that have already stated their opposition to any involvement in iraq. course, their help will be on their terms. . .
having said that. . .kerry did a better job than bush in the debate, but i do not agree with his policies and will not vote for him.
-
I find it hard to believe there are Republicans who are actually into indie rock.
-
Kerry said that he will let the Iraquis know he plans on leaving ASAP and that he wont leave behind 14 military bases.
So that would be a clear difference.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I find it hard to believe there are Republicans.
Right now I think you could have left it at that.
-
He's also said that he won't cut and run. I missed last night, but I haven't heard a clear response out of him.
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
Kerry said that he will let the Iraquis know he plans on leaving ASAP and that he wont leave behind 14 military bases.
So that would be a clear difference.
-
For those who missed the debate, you can watch it on C-SPAN.org (http://www.c-span.org/). It's the top feature on the page.
-
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
Kerry said that he will let the Iraquis know he plans on leaving ASAP and that he wont leave behind 14 military bases.
So that would be a clear difference.
i believe bush stated something similiar about when he'd leave. . .when the iraqi army/police is sufficiently trained and able to provide protection, then the u.s. would leave. whereas kerry, at one point or another, has not stated under what conditions he would bring the troops home, only that he would.
not like my vote really matters anyway, i live in d.c. :)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by grotty:
He never once laid out EVEN one concrete plan for how he is going to fix Iraq last night. Even though Kerry repeatedly did so.
kerry did? other than holding a conference with "other nations," what did he say? oh, hold a conference, get nations together, and ask them for help. oooh. i really wonder how many nations will indeed help, just because someone new is in there, especially when you have certain governments that have already stated their opposition to any involvement in iraq. course, their help will be on their terms. . .
having said that. . .kerry did a better job than bush in the debate, but i do not agree with his policies and will not vote for him. [/b]
Here's a summary of Kerry's plan when asked When Will the War in Iraq End?:
"...if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months."
"I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it."
"You have to close the borders."
"I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq."
"we're going to win the peace, by rapidly training the Iraqis themselves."
____________________________
Now here's Bush "plan" in the context of the same question:
"It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us."
"You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq."
"The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages"
_____________________________
You don't see a difference there? Politicians in general do a lot of filibustering, but at least Kerry made concrete statements - Such as: We will close the borders. Bush didn't even come close. The only logical reason I can assume then is because he does not know what to do. As he has shown.
-
Please, you think these are ideas created by Kerry or Bush? That's what their staff is for. You're not voting for the President, you're voting for who's staffing them.
-
Originally posted by econo:
Please, you think these are ideas created by Kerry or Bush? That's what their staff is for. You're not voting for the President, you're voting for who's staffing them.
True. But isn't that always the case? and if so, why ever go through the motions?
What should we do then: Just appoint someone? eliminate the position of President?
-
Originally posted by grotty:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by grotty:
He never once laid out EVEN one concrete plan for how he is going to fix Iraq last night. Even though Kerry repeatedly did so.
kerry did? other than holding a conference with "other nations," what did he say? oh, hold a conference, get nations together, and ask them for help. oooh. i really wonder how many nations will indeed help, just because someone new is in there, especially when you have certain governments that have already stated their opposition to any involvement in iraq. course, their help will be on their terms. . .
having said that. . .kerry did a better job than bush in the debate, but i do not agree with his policies and will not vote for him. [/b]
Here's a summary of Kerry's plan when asked When Will the War in Iraq End?:
"...if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months."
"I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it."
"You have to close the borders."
"I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq."
"we're going to win the peace, by rapidly training the Iraqis themselves."
____________________________
Now here's Bush "plan" in the context of the same question:
"It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us."
"You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq."
"The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages"
_____________________________
You don't see a difference there? Politicians in general do a lot of filibustering, but at least Kerry made concrete statements - Such as: We will close the borders. Bush didn't even come close. The only logical reason I can assume then is because he does not know what to do. As he has shown. [/b]
so. . kerry will do mostly talking and no action? that first statement, "if we do the things i've set out," then you said what he said. . .making statements as the winds blow, oh, and train the iraqi's. great. . .talk talk talk, promise promise promise. . .does that really accomplish or mean anything? so, if we're able to close the borders, make a bunch of statements and promises, we'll be outta there in 6 months. great. . .any idea on how long it'll take to close the borders?
anyway, your selection of quotes doesn't even discuss the international conference that he's proposed on iraq so he can get international approval on what america can do.
-
Bush definitely failed to give us any plan at all regarding Iraq other than "hard work", and I think that was his biggest mistake in the whole debate. Made it look like he doesn't have a plan at all. Which i'm sure democrats will agree with, lol. But econo is right, the president is "in charge" and "the leader" in most all of this stuff, but in reality he has loads of staff that are smart specialists in foreign policy and military matters, as opposed to shady politicians who until 4 years ago didn't know jack about the world outside of texas. So I'm not surprised that neither Kerry nor Bush were very illuminating on the subject of a plan. Another thing to think about. This is a public debate with only 2 minute answers. It's something set up to make people vote for you. They aren't about to actually spend the time explaining logistics and detail. Last night was about appearances first, content second. Don't know if anyone else noticed, but the last 5 seconds was always spent on some rousing patriotic statement that may or may not have any bearing to the previous minute and 55 seconds, something like "A free Iraq makes a safer world." or "I will make America safer."
btw, i'm republican college student and listen to indie rock :D
-
last time I looked Kerry was not the president. Therefore all he can do is promise things. :roll:
Promising to not leave behind a large U.S. presence in Iraq is a big deal.
Right now it looks like America may be on the verge of building an empire, do you want that?
-
Oh, and something else that i just remembered, I really liked Bush's jibe at Kerry about...."i don't know how he plans on paying for all that.."
That's just it...i'm sure our government could accomplish a whole heck of a lot if we gave it more powers and loads more money. Only thing is, there's many of us around that don't want to live with that kind of pervasive government presence in our lives.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
anyway, your selection of quotes doesn't even discuss the international conference that he's proposed on iraq so he can get international approval on what america can do.
You had already mentioned it and discounted it. Why bring it up again?
How can you write-off the ideas of someone who wants to make changes, yet ignore the fact that the one person who actually is in a position to make changes has no ideas at all?
-
Originally posted by econo:
Please, you think these are ideas created by Kerry or Bush? That's what their staff is for. You're not voting for the President, you're voting for who's staffing them.
So what is your point of view here? Were you expecting to have a candidate that gave you actual plans. No candidate ever does that, they dont need to. I know you probably dont support Bush, but you have been more critical of Kerry on this thread. You voting Nader?
-
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
Right now it looks like America may be on the verge of building an empire.
Huh?
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Only thing is, there's many of us around that don't want to live with that kind of pervasive government presence in our lives.
You aren't getting that with Bush? His response about money was anothe childish, "Oh Yeah" remark. Bush gives no concrete facts either.
-
Wow, an empire would be pretty cool.
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
last time I looked Kerry was not the president. Therefore all he can do is promise things. :roll:
Promising to not leave behind a large U.S. presence in Iraq is a big deal.
Right now it looks like America may be on the verge of building an empire, do you want that?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
anyway, your selection of quotes doesn't even discuss the international conference that he's proposed on iraq so he can get international approval on what america can do.
this is the one position the bewilders me most, what makes you think the US should do whatever they want without concern for what the rest of the world thinks, thats just wrong on a moral level for me
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
But econo is right, the president is "in charge" and "the leader" in most all of this stuff, but in reality he has loads of staff that are smart specialists in foreign policy and military matters,
Again - I agree. But again - how can you reconcile the fact that the face of your country and its leader is a "Dummy"[your words]?
Not me. We can talk issues all day. I have huge disagreements with all parties regarding issues. The debate is at a much higher level - I'm very clear on the fact that I do not want someone like Bush representing ME.
-
Originally posted by grotty:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
anyway, your selection of quotes doesn't even discuss the international conference that he's proposed on iraq so he can get international approval on what america can do.
You had already mentioned it and discounted it. Why bring it up again?
How can you write-off the ideas of someone who wants to make changes, yet ignore the fact that the one person who actually is in a position to make changes has no ideas at all? [/b]
the point of that remark is that you quoted from one question, when 95% of the debate was basically centered on iraq and how to get out it.
as to your latter point. . .there's a fundamental problem with it: bush doesn't think he's wrong, so why should he change? he believes that staying in iraq, building up a police force and army is the right course in this matter, international opinion be-damned. bush believes that the lot of good, hard-working people in iraq will get the job done. . .now, whether you think that in-and-of itself is wrong, is your right, and you get to exercise that right when you vote.
honestly, i don't think kerry can win on this issue. . .no matter how well he did last night, iraq is not a winning issue for him, instead, i'd look for the other 2 debates on economic and domestic issues for him to do something.
-
Sure the government is already pervasive, it's been that way for decades. Can't change that at this point, I just think the rate at which government will grow (cuz it will no matter who's in office) would be slower w/ a conservative president than a liberal one.
I wouldn't say the money remark was childish, rather, it was irreverent. An offhand, "oh haha there goes the silly liberal throwing money around" kind of remark that all political conservatives in this country like to snort at or sigh about whenever they come across it.
As for the dummmy bit. Sigh. This is exactly why I am a 22 year old and already thoroughly disillusioned with American politics. I'm convinced that America is slowly going crazy, and it's only a matter of time before something has to give. The extreme deadlock resulting in the election fiasco 4 years ago is just one early indicator of that.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
as to your latter point. . .there's a fundamental problem with it: bush doesn't think he's wrong, so why should he change? he believes that staying in iraq, building up a police force and army is the right course in this matter, international opinion be-damned. bush believes that the lot of good, hard-working people in iraq will get the job done. . .
Bush never once said that he firmly believed we were on the right track in Iraq. He had ample opportunities as Kerry challenged that "you can be certain and be wrong." All Bush did was juvenilely make excuses - "it's hard work."
Bush's 'no-turning back now' approach is much worse than Kerry's alleged waffling. Especially when you peel back the layers and try to determine what is driving Bush (e.g., his theocratic beliefs).
-
And to respond to something from way back in the thread about the population bit.... I said 38 times the people, not 38 percent more. Makes a big difference.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
I'm convinced that America is slowly going crazy, and it's only a matter of time before something has to give.
You know I agree with you...again. Except can you guess what I see as a major symptom of this "craziness"?
-
I must say it's nice to see an intelligent debate on this subject from both sides as well as those in the middle.
I'm reading a similar thread on the WOXY boards, too. Perhaps it's because the DC-area has more educated residents, but it's really sad on both sides.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Sure the government is already pervasive, it's been that way for decades. Can't change that at this point, I just think the rate at which government will grow (cuz it will no matter who's in office) would be slower w/ a conservative president than a liberal one.
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists)
Spending increases have been dramatic under this Republican-run federal government in recent years. In fact, it's so bad that, on this particular issue, I almost long for the days of - dare I say it? - Bill Clinton. During the Clinton years, federal government expenditures increased at an annual average rate of 3.6 percent. During the first three years under Bush, spending increases have averaged 7.5 percent.
Ah, but this must all be about defense spending, right? After all, defense took a major hit during the Clinton years, and since 9/11 we are a nation at war. But outlays less defense spending increased at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent during Clinton's eight years and 6.2 percent during Bush's first three years in office. It gets worse when you also take net interest payments out of the equation in order to get to spending on non-defense federal programs. That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
-
Thank you GGW. Deepak, what the hell are you saying?
Originally posted by ggw?:
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
Right now it looks like America may be on the verge of building an empire.
Huh? [/b]
-
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Sure the government is already pervasive, it's been that way for decades. Can't change that at this point, I just think the rate at which government will grow (cuz it will no matter who's in office) would be slower w/ a conservative president than a liberal one.
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists)
Spending increases have been dramatic under this Republican-run federal government in recent years. In fact, it's so bad that, on this particular issue, I almost long for the days of - dare I say it? - Bill Clinton. During the Clinton years, federal government expenditures increased at an annual average rate of 3.6 percent. During the first three years under Bush, spending increases have averaged 7.5 percent.
Ah, but this must all be about defense spending, right? After all, defense took a major hit during the Clinton years, and since 9/11 we are a nation at war. But outlays less defense spending increased at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent during Clinton's eight years and 6.2 percent during Bush's first three years in office. It gets worse when you also take net interest payments out of the equation in order to get to spending on non-defense federal programs. That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
[/b]
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
-
Its hardly a new criticism that the Iraq war smacks of Empire building. If you were one to believe the U.S. is occupying Iraq, then you are probably one who could believe it is empire building
empire - a group of countries ruled by just one of them
-
I wrote what I did because I really just don't trust politicians. This isn't a they're all out to get us sort of thing, it's just that I want to at least know who it is I'm voting for. Television doesn't cut it, nor do meet and greets.
To further make you all think I'm a loon, I believe government should be far more local than it already is. Put more trust in States, hell, Counties even.
I won't be voting Nader because I don't think he'd make a very good president. Last time I saw him as a decent man, and voted for him because I believed it was the right thing to do. Morals are one thing, and a very good thing, but that's not the only aspect of a leader.
Originally posted by pollard:
So what is your point of view here? Were you expecting to have a candidate that gave you actual plans. No candidate ever does that, they dont need to. I know you probably dont support Bush, but you have been more critical of Kerry on this thread. You voting Nader?
-
Originally posted by grotty:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
as to your latter point. . .there's a fundamental problem with it: bush doesn't think he's wrong, so why should he change? he believes that staying in iraq, building up a police force and army is the right course in this matter, international opinion be-damned. bush believes that the lot of good, hard-working people in iraq will get the job done. . .
Bush never once said that he firmly believed we were on the right track in Iraq. He had ample opportunities as Kerry challenged that "you can be certain and be wrong." All Bush did was juvenilely make excuses - "it's hard work."
Bush's 'no-turning back now' approach is much worse than Kerry's alleged waffling. Especially when you peel back the layers and try to determine what is driving Bush (e.g., his theocratic beliefs). [/b]
theocratic beliefs? i hope this isn't a manifest destiny argument. . .if anything his "theocratic beliefs" drive his domestic policy more than his foreign policy.
-
I'd be curious to see the comparison on a first-term vs first-term basis.
Originally posted by pollard:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists)
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
I think i'm gonna do a bit of research on this....
Arthwys...Son of GGW.
-
Originally posted by econo:
I won't be voting Nader because I don't think he'd make a very good president. Last time I saw him as a decent man, and voted for him because I believed it was the right thing to do. Morals are one thing, and a very good thing, but that's not the only aspect of a leader.
that is pretty much my same reasoning on why I wont be voting for him this time and why I did vote for him last time, not that either of our votes matter as DC residents
-
Just because the criticism isn't new does not mean it is valid.
Originally posted by pollard:
Its hardly a new criticism that the Iraq war smacks of Empire building. If you were one to believe the U.S. is occupying Iraq, then you are probably one who could believe it is empire building
empire - a group of countries ruled by just one of them
-
Originally posted by pollard:
Its hardly a new criticism that the Iraq war smacks of Empire building. If you were one to believe the U.S. is occupying Iraq, then you are probably one who could believe it is empire building
empire - a group of countries ruled by just one of them
All we hear about is the cost of the Iraqi war in terms of $$ and American lives, but the real 'cost' of this war and the way it's being managed won't be felt for years. Not until an entire generation of American-hating militant-leaning Middle Easterners come of age.
Bush will be long gone by then though. Someone else can deal with that mess. :roll:
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Just because the criticism isn't new does not mean it is valid.
I was not saying it was valid, your response seemed like one of surprise that the idea was even there
-
Testify brother.
Thirsty is a closet Republican.
Originally posted by econo:
To further make you all think I'm a loon, I believe government should be far more local than it already is. Put more trust in States, hell, Counties even.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
theocratic beliefs?
<img src="http://www.allhatnocattle.net/name%20that2.jpg" alt=" - " />
The Bush Theocracy
By Beto Segovia
America's president, George W. Bush, God bless him and God help the world, talks with God before he makes important decisions. Needless to say, based on his record, he doesn't fully understands the Divine. What he does understand, however, is fundamentalist Christianity. In Houston, at a recent interview, he stated that the doors of Heaven are only open to those who accept Jesus Christ, Christianity, as their religion. So much for Muslims, Hindus, Jews and, of course, the agnostics.
The Republican party is now infested with the descendants of the KKK who inhabit the bible belt along the southern states of America. Christian right fundamentalists - Robertson, Buchanan, Ashcroft - regardless of their actual residence are the controlling leadership of the Republican party. By capturing and controlling the party they have set the road map that guides the Republican platform, which is essentially, anti-abortion, anti-stem research, anti same couple unions ... anti United Nations, pro imperialistic, pro unilateral international policies ... additionally, supremacy of government over its citizens.
The Christian right Republican party has become a theocracy with Bush as its 'Pope' and Ashcroft as its enforcer. Not much unlike the regimes that the 'Pope' is seeking to replace. Preaching Christianity, democracy and patriotism to camouflage the invasion of human rights and civil liberties, unwarranted military intervention and civilian casualties, the theocracy sells its agenda to the gullible, trusting American who regrettably is guided by bullet sounds, slogans and the appeal to God and Country.
What is most perplexing about the new Republican Party is its dramatic departure from the policies and values that were the linchpin of the faithful: States rights, individual rights and liberties, separation of church and state, non-intervention in foreign entanglements, limitation of Federal government interference with the states and citizens ... The Theocracy now wants to override the Constitutional right of the States to legislate on internal welfare issues, such as same sex unions; wants to invade the right of its citizens to decide on issues such as abortion by imposing government moral values on the individual, is funding 'faith' based groups to implement the above and to form political cells to support the theocracy and its candidates.
It's a sorry state of affairs for the once noble Republican Party. But worse, it's a calamity to Americans and the international community. God help us!
-
Originally posted by grotty:
but the real 'cost' of this war and the way it's being managed won't be felt for years. Not until an entire generation of American-hating militant-leaning Middle Easterners come of age.
Bush will be long gone by then though. Someone else can deal with that mess. :roll:
applause applause applause
-
Markie is usually a bit smarter than the average person who trots out the empire accusation. The surprise is that he would make it. I hoped he would explain the thought process behind that belief.
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by ggw?:
Just because the criticism isn't new does not mean it is valid.
I was not saying it was valid, your response seemed like one of surprise that the idea was even there [/b]
-
Right. Because before Bush took office, we were all sitting around sharing the hooka and singing Kumbayaa.
World Trade Center 1993
African Embassies 1998
Khobar Towers 1996
Originally posted by grotty:
All we hear about is the cost of the Iraqi war in terms of $$ and American lives, but the real 'cost' of this war and the way it's being managed won't be felt for years. Not until an entire generation of American-hating militant-leaning Middle Easterners come of age.
Bush will be long gone by then though. Someone else can deal with that mess. :roll:
-
That was just my stump speech. I'll be shaking hands outside of the Au Bon Pain later on to rake in some liberals.
Originally posted by ggw?:
Testify brother.
Thirsty is a closet Republican.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I find it hard to believe there are Republicans who are actually into indie rock.
I find it even harder to believe that there are Democrats who are into country music. :D
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Markie is usually a bit smarter than the average person who trots out the empire accusation. The surprise is that he would make it. I hoped he would explain the thought process behind that belief.
well i wont speak for Markie, but even just by looking at it from the point of view of a non-american who does not support the war, the US went in to a nation and toppled its government with little support from the rest of the world and was already wielding influence around the globe with little concern for who it affected, sounds like a little empire in waiting to me, it is not that far of a reach if you already have little respect or trust in the American government
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Right. Because before Bush took office, we were all sitting around sharing the hooka and singing Kumbayaa.
World Trade Center 1993
African Embassies 1998
Khobar Towers 1996
Originally posted by grotty:
All we hear about is the cost of the Iraqi war in terms of $$ and American lives, but the real 'cost' of this war and the way it's being managed won't be felt for years. Not until an entire generation of American-hating militant-leaning Middle Easterners come of age.
Bush will be long gone by then though. Someone else can deal with that mess. :roll:
[/b]
Good point, but I think - "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
-
Sharing meth with Fundamentalists singing BTO? Wow!
Originally posted by grotty:
Good point, but I think - "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
-
If I were Markie, I'd be worried more about England jumping in with us.
Originally posted by pollard:
well i wont speak for Markie, but even just by looking at it from the point of view of a non-american who does not support the war, the US went in to a nation and toppled its government with little support from the rest of the world and was already wielding influence around the globe with little concern for who it affected, sounds like a little empire in waiting to me, it is not that far of a reach if you already have little respect or trust in the American government
-
Originally posted by econo:
If I were Markie, I'd be worried more about England jumping in with us.
I am sure he is
-
Originally posted by pollard:
well i wont speak for Markie, but even just by looking at it from the point of view of a non-american who does not support the war, the US went in to a nation and toppled its government with little support from the rest of the world and was already wielding influence around the globe with little concern for who it affected, sounds like a little empire in waiting to me, it is not that far of a reach if you already have little respect or trust in the American government
i dont see why you have to be non-american to think that way.
i was talking to a doodle friend of mine about this the other day, and he was saying that america was better than everyone else. and i said..."why do you feel the need to say you are 'better' than someone else" and it seems like a common train of thought for people here.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
i dont see why you have to be non-american to think that way.
you don't, was just saying it would be easier for a non-american to come to that conclusion, growing up as an American, or really just in America, you are told again and again to believe certain things about America, the same way a person who grows up in a religious family is more likely to believe in god
-
I love the fact that people accuse the Republicans of being in the KKK, even though the only man to hold KKK membership and currently be in the Congress is Robert Byrd - Democrat.
Originally posted by grotty:
The Republican party is now infested with the descendants of the KKK who inhabit the bible belt along the southern states of America.
-
Whoo, just what I need, more reasons to be completely convinced that we're screwed no matter what. It was a good article, and the bit at the end about lack of choice is telling. I'm mostly republican due to my opinion that "conservative, responsible spending" is the best way to go. That and less tax, hence more consumer spending power. Basic stuff, yet is any of it really working? Even if the republican party isn't working the way it should anymore, I sure as heck can't join the democrats. So who all is running away to Canada? I may join you! :cool:
-
Whoo, just what I need, more reasons to be completely convinced that we're screwed no matter what. It was a good article, and the bit at the end about lack of choice is telling. I'm mostly republican due to my opinion that "conservative, responsible spending" is the best way to go. That and less tax, hence more consumer spending power. Basic stuff, yet is any of it really working? Even if the republican party isn't working the way it should anymore, I sure as heck can't join the democrats. So who all is running away to Canada? I may join you! :cool:
-
geeze! i actually have to do some work for 20 minutes or so and i'm already a full page behind in this thread!
-
Ok, thanks for Pollard, in trying to answer in my lunch-break.
I think that going into Iraq and not planning on leaving could be considered building an empire. Kerry plans on leaving, I dont really think Bush does. Hence no exit strategy....?
This election could be fought on much worse battlegrounds.
Personally I dont care if they want to build an empire. I wish they would be more upfront about it.
As for Tony, well when Bush said last night (to paraphrase) " We have many great allies, including, umm, errr, umm,errr, Tony Blair" I really wished Tony would have his heart attack right at that point.
-
The biggest Republican complaint about Clinton's plan to go into Kosovo was that he "didn't have an exit strategy."
It's a political ploy. If you set a timetable, you are open to criticism that you are tying yourself to a schedule rather than to accomplishing the task. If you say "we'll stay until the job is done" then you open yourself up to accusations that you lack an exit strategy.
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
I think that going into Iraq and not planning on leaving could be considered building an empire. Kerry plans on leaving, I dont really think Bush does. Hence no exit strategy....?
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
I love the fact that people accuse the Republicans of being in the KKK, even though the only man to hold KKK membership and currently be in the Congress is Robert Byrd - Democrat.
Originally posted by grotty:
The Republican party is now infested with the descendants of the KKK who inhabit the bible belt along the southern states of America.
[/b]
I don't think he meant KKK literally - just as a point of reference demonstrating a starting point for an evolution of principles.
Either way - I don't necessarily agree with the article. I just found it humorous and extremist.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
The biggest Republican complaint about Clinton's plan to go into Kosovo was that he "didn't have an exit strategy."
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Sure, but I think you can have a strategy without a timetable. Planning on setting up permanent military camps didn'y sound like much of an exit to me. I think Kerry made that point last night.
-
Don't get suckered in by politico-speak.
Here's what Kerry said:
As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them.
Notice that Kerry is not saying that this is a fact. He's simply saying that "some people say" that the bases might be construed as possibly maybe being permanent.
Kerry gets triple bonus debate points for successfully planting the "permanent" idea in people's heads without actually coming out and saying that they are permanent.
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
Originally posted by ggw?:
The biggest Republican complaint about Clinton's plan to go into Kosovo was that he "didn't have an exit strategy."
Sure, but I think you can have a strategy without a timetable. Planning on setting up permanent military camps didn'y sound like much of an exit to me. I think Kerry made that point last night. [/b]
-
Check out the Post's truth squad with transcript of the debate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html)
Turns out China has *wanted* the US to do bilateral talks with N. Korea but Bush won't. Many other topics here are amply covered there.
Needless to say, Bush looked like a twit. When he begged for a rebuttal time and then spent the first 10 seconds just stammering (you would have thought that he would have composed a rebuttal during the time and be ready to state it at the start of his time) it made me think of the 7 minutes in Florida on 9/11.
Best line from Bush:
"That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality"
He got the friggin' date wrong!
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Don't get suckered in by politico-speak.
.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
I remember at the start of the war they war drawing up plans for America's largest foreign land base that would reside permanently in Iraq.
I thought it disturbing at the time.
As for the 14 bases, is that true? I have no idea if there are that many or about their permenance.
-
Seems that it's the Republicans are the ones spending irresponsibly and running up the deficit.
I seem to remember a more balanced budget and better economy under Clinton.
Originally posted by Arthwys:
I'm mostly republican due to my opinion that "conservative, responsible spending" is the best way to go. That and less tax, hence more consumer spending power. :cool:
-
whats this about the top 2% income tax breaks? I haven't heard specifially but it sounds kind of dubious....or is that dubya-ish.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
. Don't you think that bringing in China adds a lot to the negotiations? Certainly they are more engaged with North Korea on a regular basis
Ha! That's a laugh. China won't ever back the U.S. over Pyongyang. If Bush is planning on this, he's a bigger fool than I thought.
-------
BTW, who do you think's gonna be the first bboard member to die in battle overseas???
-
rob gee
or is he too old?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
whats this about the top 2% income tax breaks? I haven't heard specifially but it sounds kind of dubious....or is that dubya-ish.
Somewhere (think it was the post) they gave the reduction in taxes based on income, for those in the 1 million or more income bracket their taxes under Bush dropped around 6 1/2% while the so called middle class had their taxes drop something like 2%.
-
Originally posted by Sir HC:
Somewhere (think it was the post) they gave the reduction in taxes based on income, for those in the 1 million or more income bracket their taxes under Bush dropped around 6 1/2% while the so called middle class had their taxes drop something like 2%.
why would they do that? cause thats thier tax bracket?
-
3 Polls Show Kerry Won Debate Over Bush
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
CORAL GABLES, Fla. - President Bush and Sen. John Kerry rushed back to the campaign trail Friday to try to convince voters they had won the debate over foreign policy and to renew the argument over whether going to war in Iraq had made the nation safer.
Three post-debate polls suggested voters who watched the policy-driven confrontation Thursday night were impressed by Kerry. Most of those surveyed said he did better than Bush.
Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, said Friday he told Kerry after the debate "I think people saw the next commander in chief," and he criticized Bush for failing to acknowledge problems in Iraq. "You can't fix a problem if you're not willing to admit that mistakes have been made and that you have a problem," he told ABC's "Good Morning America."
Bush, however, believed he had effectively spelled out the strategy and shown the resolve with which he is fighting the war on terror, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. "I think he spoke from the heart, spoke with strength about the necessity for our country to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to face them here at home," Bartlett told ABC. "He had a good time last night."
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who informally advised Bush on how to debate his friend and Senate colleague, told reporters in Miami on Friday that the debate was probably Kerry's "brightest moment" in the last six weeks. "He presented himself well, John did," McCain said. "Kerry came out slugging."
Kerry's campaign prepared a TV ad that featured newspaper headlines from Friday praising the Democrat's performance. The Democratic National Committee was rolling out a Web video showing clips of Bush appearing frustrated at the debate.
When Kerry leveled some of his charges, Bush appeared irritated and scowled at times and, at other moments, glanced away in apparent disgust. Kerry often took notes when the president spoke. The television networks offered a split screen to viewers so they could see both men at the same time and watch their reactions.
Bush knew he would be on camera during the entire debate and was aware that the networks had not agreed to show only the candidate who was speaking, Bush campaign spokeswoman Nicolle Devenish said. Regarding Bush's facial reactions, Devenish said: "The president reacted honestly. It showed the president really believes in his convictions."
From the first question, Kerry went on the offensive, accusing Bush of leaving U.S. alliances around the world "in shatters" and later calling Iraq "this incredible mess." Bush said Kerry had voted to authorize the war he now criticizes. "That's not how a commander in chief acts," Bush said.
Less than five weeks before the election, Iraq dominated the debate on a day when a string of bombs killed 35 children and wounded scores of others in western Baghdad. Overall, more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq.
Kerry summed up Bush's strategy for Iraq as "more of the same" and added: "This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America."
Bush acknowledged that not every American agrees with the decisions he's made. "But people know where I stand," Bush said, suggesting they don't know where Kerry stands. "People out there listening know what I believe."
From Florida, Bush was heading out Friday to rallies in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, two key battleground states. Kerry was spending the day campaigning in Florida, where the presidential race was decided four years ago.
In Thursday night's encounter at the University of Miami, Bush and Kerry drew heavily on oft-repeated lines from their campaign speeches but they faced each other directly across the same stage for the first time.
On Iraq, Bush criticized Kerry for saying it was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. "What message does that send to our troops?" the president said. "Not a message a commander in chief gives."
Repeating a line he has used countless times to show his opponent is inconsistent, Bush tweaked Kerry for saying he voted for an $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan before he voted against it.
Kerry shot back, "Well, you know, when I talked bout the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"
Trying to persuade voters that he is tough enough to be commander in chief, Kerry said, "I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are." He said that Bush, in invading Iraq, lost sight of the goal of capturing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
But Bush insisted that "the world is safer without Saddam Hussein." He called Iraq "a central part in the war on terror" and said 75 percent of bin Laden's leadership had been brought to justice.
Trying to turn Kerry's criticism against him, Bush said, "I understand what it means to be the commander in chief. And if I were to ever say, 'This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,' the troops would wonder, 'How can I follow this guy?'"
To Kerry's contention that he could summon broader international support for the war, Bush said, "They're not going to follow someone whose core convictions keep changing because of politics."
While Iraq was the dominant issue in the debate, there were notable differences on North Korea and Iran, two nations suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons programs. Kerry urged that the United States hold direct bilateral talks with North Korea, but Bush called Kerry's proposal "a big mistake" that would crush multinational talks and remove pressure from China on North Korea. Kerry said North Korea has amassed more nuclear weapons during Bush's administration.
On Iran, Kerry said the United States should have worked with allies like France, Germany and Britain to impose sanctions if Tehran refused to give up its nuclear program.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Sir HC:
Somewhere (think it was the post) they gave the reduction in taxes based on income, for those in the 1 million or more income bracket their taxes under Bush dropped around 6 1/2% while the so called middle class had their taxes drop something like 2%.
why would they do that? cause thats thier tax bracket? [/b]
Bush Tax Cuts Widen US Income Gap (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0523-02.htm)
-
Oh, and Kerry wants to have the 6 way talks continue and have bilateral talks. As it stands the other 4 countries are doing bilateral talks also with North Korea. It is not a either/or situation, you can have both. Bush just can not (or will not allow himself) to see that.
Oh, and Bush threatened to veto his 87 billion spending bill. That beats voting for than against two separate bills.
-
Originally posted by grotty:
3 Polls Show Kerry Won Debate Over Bush
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
CORAL GABLES, Fla. - President Bush and Sen. John Kerry rushed back to the campaign trail Friday to try to convince voters they had won the debate over foreign policy and to renew the argument over whether going to war in Iraq had made the nation safer.
Three post-debate polls suggested voters who watched the policy-driven confrontation Thursday night were impressed by Kerry. Most of those surveyed said he did better than Bush.
Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, said Friday he told Kerry after the debate "I think people saw the next commander in chief," and he criticized Bush for failing to acknowledge problems in Iraq. "You can't fix a problem if you're not willing to admit that mistakes have been made and that you have a problem," he told ABC's "Good Morning America."
Bush, however, believed he had effectively spelled out the strategy and shown the resolve with which he is fighting the war on terror, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. "I think he spoke from the heart, spoke with strength about the necessity for our country to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to face them here at home," Bartlett told ABC. "He had a good time last night."
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who informally advised Bush on how to debate his friend and Senate colleague, told reporters in Miami on Friday that the debate was probably Kerry's "brightest moment" in the last six weeks. "He presented himself well, John did," McCain said. "Kerry came out slugging."
Kerry's campaign prepared a TV ad that featured newspaper headlines from Friday praising the Democrat's performance. The Democratic National Committee was rolling out a Web video showing clips of Bush appearing frustrated at the debate.
When Kerry leveled some of his charges, Bush appeared irritated and scowled at times and, at other moments, glanced away in apparent disgust. Kerry often took notes when the president spoke. The television networks offered a split screen to viewers so they could see both men at the same time and watch their reactions.
Bush knew he would be on camera during the entire debate and was aware that the networks had not agreed to show only the candidate who was speaking, Bush campaign spokeswoman Nicolle Devenish said. Regarding Bush's facial reactions, Devenish said: "The president reacted honestly. It showed the president really believes in his convictions."
From the first question, Kerry went on the offensive, accusing Bush of leaving U.S. alliances around the world "in shatters" and later calling Iraq "this incredible mess." Bush said Kerry had voted to authorize the war he now criticizes. "That's not how a commander in chief acts," Bush said.
Less than five weeks before the election, Iraq dominated the debate on a day when a string of bombs killed 35 children and wounded scores of others in western Baghdad. Overall, more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq.
Kerry summed up Bush's strategy for Iraq as "more of the same" and added: "This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America."
Bush acknowledged that not every American agrees with the decisions he's made. "But people know where I stand," Bush said, suggesting they don't know where Kerry stands. "People out there listening know what I believe."
From Florida, Bush was heading out Friday to rallies in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, two key battleground states. Kerry was spending the day campaigning in Florida, where the presidential race was decided four years ago.
In Thursday night's encounter at the University of Miami, Bush and Kerry drew heavily on oft-repeated lines from their campaign speeches but they faced each other directly across the same stage for the first time.
On Iraq, Bush criticized Kerry for saying it was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. "What message does that send to our troops?" the president said. "Not a message a commander in chief gives."
Repeating a line he has used countless times to show his opponent is inconsistent, Bush tweaked Kerry for saying he voted for an $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan before he voted against it.
Kerry shot back, "Well, you know, when I talked bout the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"
Trying to persuade voters that he is tough enough to be commander in chief, Kerry said, "I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are." He said that Bush, in invading Iraq, lost sight of the goal of capturing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
But Bush insisted that "the world is safer without Saddam Hussein." He called Iraq "a central part in the war on terror" and said 75 percent of bin Laden's leadership had been brought to justice.
Trying to turn Kerry's criticism against him, Bush said, "I understand what it means to be the commander in chief. And if I were to ever say, 'This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,' the troops would wonder, 'How can I follow this guy?'"
To Kerry's contention that he could summon broader international support for the war, Bush said, "They're not going to follow someone whose core convictions keep changing because of politics."
While Iraq was the dominant issue in the debate, there were notable differences on North Korea and Iran, two nations suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons programs. Kerry urged that the United States hold direct bilateral talks with North Korea, but Bush called Kerry's proposal "a big mistake" that would crush multinational talks and remove pressure from China on North Korea. Kerry said North Korea has amassed more nuclear weapons during Bush's administration.
On Iran, Kerry said the United States should have worked with allies like France, Germany and Britain to impose sanctions if Tehran refused to give up its nuclear program.
<img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/hauxfan/Signs/Group_3/23.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by marquee smith:
Originally posted by grotty:
3 Polls Show Kerry Won Debate Over Bush
<img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/hauxfan/Signs/Group_3/23.gif" alt=" - " /> [/b]
don't make me stop this car & come back there
-
So I went to lunch with three co-workers. All are conservatives and dig on me every time they can about Kerry and the "liberals". Well not one word said about the debate from them. To me that is a sign that Kerry won because these are people who gloat over any loss by the other side whether it be politics or sports.
-
There might still be a chance!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/)
The Race is On
With voters widely viewing Kerry as the debate’s winner, Bush’s lead in the NEWSWEEK poll has evaporated
Oct. 2 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president’s lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race.
Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent’s 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent.
Among the three-quarters (74 percent) of registered voters who say they watched at least some of Thursday’s debate, 61 percent see Kerry as the clear winner, 19 percent pick Bush as the victor and 16 percent call it a draw. After weeks of being portrayed as a verbose “flip-flopper” by Republicans, Kerry did better than a majority (56 percent) had expected. Only about 11 percent would say the same for the president’s performance while more than one-third (38 percent) said the incumbent actually did worse that they had expected. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans felt their man out-debated the challenger but a full third (33 percent) say they felt Kerry won.
-
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Sure the government is already pervasive, it's been that way for decades. Can't change that at this point, I just think the rate at which government will grow (cuz it will no matter who's in office) would be slower w/ a conservative president than a liberal one.
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists)
Spending increases have been dramatic under this Republican-run federal government in recent years. In fact, it's so bad that, on this particular issue, I almost long for the days of - dare I say it? - Bill Clinton. During the Clinton years, federal government expenditures increased at an annual average rate of 3.6 percent. During the first three years under Bush, spending increases have averaged 7.5 percent.
Ah, but this must all be about defense spending, right? After all, defense took a major hit during the Clinton years, and since 9/11 we are a nation at war. But outlays less defense spending increased at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent during Clinton's eight years and 6.2 percent during Bush's first three years in office. It gets worse when you also take net interest payments out of the equation in order to get to spending on non-defense federal programs. That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
[/b]
Defense budgets have been taking a hit since Reagan. That is when the base closures started, right at the end of his last term. Bush continued them at a much more alarming rate, and albeit a Republican, he also began to slash away at defense budgets. To everyone's dismay this continued under Clinton, but not to such a rate as under Bush. I love when this comes up and people automatically point to Democrats as far as killing the defense. It's been a shared exercise, but more by Republicans than Democrats.
-
I think it's funny that people would change their mind just because someone won a debate. It seems like people change their mind because someone won, not because what was said. Just goes with our sports mentality, I guess.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Originally posted by hitman:
People want all the shit the govt. does for free. Everyone needs to shut the fuck up and just pay the damn taxes!
While it is politically convenient to paint anyone that wants lower taxes as a simple greedy whore, it masks the larger issues. Not everyone wants "all the shit govt. does."
I don't want the government running my healthcare. I don't want them in my retirement savings. I don't want them paying billions in sugar subsidies, or corn subsidies, or funding an emergency wool and mohair program in case there is an interruption of imported fabric. I think we could all find dozens of things the government does that none of us want or need.
The government shouldn't be doing those things that people could better do for themselves. Not only for financial reasons, but also because an increasing reliance on government ultimately undermines true community, where people should be looking out for their common good among themselves. [/b]
Granted, there are areas that you speak of where things could be trimmed. However, that is such a small percentage of the whole, that even if you cut those things, it isn't going to make that much of a dent.
You put a lot of faith into the fact that people can do better for themselves. I don't have that much faith in society as a whole. Especially your feelings on community. We live in a very ME society in general. And whatever tax cuts are acheived just go to folks to buy bigger SUV's and rims to put on them. Not necessarily a charitable donation, or to pay down debt.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
The biggest Republican complaint about Clinton's plan to go into Kosovo was that he "didn't have an exit strategy."
It's a political ploy. If you set a timetable, you are open to criticism that you are tying yourself to a schedule rather than to accomplishing the task. If you say "we'll stay until the job is done" then you open yourself up to accusations that you lack an exit strategy.
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
I think that going into Iraq and not planning on leaving could be considered building an empire. Kerry plans on leaving, I dont really think Bush does. Hence no exit strategy....?
[/b]
1000 troops weren't killed in Kosovo, or in Somalia for that matter. Not to mention the civilian body count.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] Seems that it's the Republicans are the ones spending irresponsibly and running up the deficit.
I seem to remember a more balanced budget and better economy under Clinton.
\
Here Here!
-
Was glad Dale Earnhardt (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5789) died...
It's hard... (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5787)
-
Originally posted by marquee smith:
Was glad Dale Earnhardt (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5789) died...
It's hard... (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5787)
I'm an avid watcher of Bill Maher, whether it was on Politically Incorrect, or now on Real Time. This episode was great with Carlin, and with this skit on the Fox Facts.
-
to "Anybody who is undecided, if you think about it, being undecided is really dangerous, and I have a perfect example: people with mullets."
E Vedder
10/1 Reading, PA
-
He has a lot of nerve, mocking any haircut, after sporting this one:
<img src="http://web.wireimage.com/images/thumbnail/399546.jpg" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by grotty:
to "Anybody who is undecided, if you think about it, being undecided is really dangerous, and I have a perfect example: people with mullets."
E Vedder
10/1 Reading, PA
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Wow, an empire would be pretty cool.
Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
Right now it looks like America may be on the verge of building an empire, do you want that?
[/b]
And as we learned from Star Wars, the Empire can strike back...
-
The saddest thing of all is that through this 4-page thread nobody has mentioned the killings of more than 20k CIVILIANS..it's shame to humanity as a whole that thousands upon thousands of innocent civilans have met their end so violently in this day in age...
-
You are right.
But you gotta admit, Eddie Vedder's mohawk is a close second.
Originally posted by Fico:
The saddest thing of all is that through this 4-page thread nobody has mentioned the killings of more than 20k CIVILIANS..it's shame to humanity as a whole that thousands upon thousands of innocent civilans have met their end so violently in this day in age...
-
pains me to say it, but i think cheney is probably making a better impression on undecideds than Edwards
the tone of this debate is much worse
-
Originally posted by pollard:
pains me to say it, but i think cheney is probably making a better impression on undecideds than Edwards
the tone of this debate is much worse
I dunno....I thought that Edwards came out of the gate great....been evening up since then. Overall I give Edwards the edge so far.
-
i just thought Edwards was pulling a Bush and answering the same way to everything at the start, and Cheney seems calm and confident, it is a very different presentation from the 2, just trying to see how a non-partisan would see it, hard to tell
-
I agree it's hard to view it from a non-partisan viewpoint. It'll be interesting to see in the AM what kind of spin they put on the whole thing.
One thing's for sure, Cheney's got the brains of the ticket and Bush got the shit for brains.
-
Everyone chant with me:
Dick!
Dick!
Dick!
Dick!
-
Did anyone else get the feeling Cheney wanted to add "Fuck off!" to his brief comment thanking the Fun Uncle for bringing up his gay daughter? :D
-
I think Cheney wanted to use the "fuck off" rebuttal on several occasions.
I'm surprised Edwards didn't do better. We all know Cheney's a wonk, but I thought Edwards would look more relaxed and sure of himself and less rehearsed.
All in all, much more entertaining than the presidential debate.
-
I started dozing off towards the middle. I think it was the format of having them sit down. It reminded me of those informercials with Kevin Trudeau trying to sell fiber pills.
-
I thought Edwards did great. He never shrugged off responding like Cheney did a few times. And so far Edwards is the only one to bring up and challenge Cheney on Halliburton, and Cheney's own record for voting against Defense initiatives in the 80's (those same Def. initiatives that he loves to talk so much about now).
-
Bush's debate notes. (http://www.thatsuncalledfor.com/debate_notes/)
-
why where they sitting down? that was stupid.
-
Cheney's reference to El Salvador was such a lie!
-
I think one of the most signifigant points raised over and over is why, when they supposedly had Osama and his guys cornered, did they "outsource" his capture to local warlards? To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure of the validity of this claim made by the Dems but Bush and Dick each have had 2 chances during the debates to comment on it. In every instance of its mention they both failed to address this. The fact that they've not taken the opportunity to respond to these statement doesn't look too good and leads me to believe that the Dem's claims are in fact spot-on.
But it's not like my vote is up for grabs or anything anyway.
-
Because fatass Cheney might have a heart attack.
This played to the advantage of the Republicans, given that Edwards is a stand up fighting trial lawyer, and Cheney is a fatass.
I'm surprised Donald Rumpfelt didn't have an objection to this sit down crap.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
why where they sitting down? that was stupid.
-
In a strange twist - all a relatively strong showing by Cheney did for me is reinforce just how much of a buffoon Bush really is.
To me - there appears to be 3 candidates worthy of election. The 4th, and least worthy, is infortunately the incumbent.
It's still basically just a competency issue for me. And Bush clearly isn't (competent).
Why the Repubs settled for him (Bush) is almost beyond comprehension to me now.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
This played to the advantage of the Republicans,
doesnt everything seem to? the democrats really dont have a chance.....
-
Originally posted by chaz:
I think one of the most signifigant points raised over and over is why, when they supposedly had Osama and his guys cornered, did they "outsource" his capture to local warlards? To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure of the validity of this claim made by the Dems but Bush and Dick each have had 2 chances during the debates to comment on it. In every instance of its mention they both failed to address this. The fact that they've not taken the opportunity to respond to these statement doesn't look too good and leads me to believe that the Dem's claims are in fact spot-on.
But it's not like my vote is up for grabs or anything anyway.
From the Washington Post:
Edwards's statement that U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape during the battle at Tora Bora in 2001 echoed Kerry's repeated assertions about the December 2001 battle in Afghanistan during last Thursday's debate. The Pentagon in fact relied on Afghan proxy forces in an effort to minimize the potential loss of U.S. military lives, but whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora at the time of the assault there has been the subject of debate. After the battle, intelligence officials assembled what they believed was decisive evidence that bin Laden began the battle inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border before slipping away. But retired Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, a Bush backer who led U.S. Central Command in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has said he never saw conclusive proof that the al Qaeda leader was in Tora Bora at the time.
Franks has taken responsibility for the decision to send Afghan militias rather than U.S. ground troops to Tora Bora. During an interview last month at the Republican convention in New York, where the retired general endorsed Bush and addressed the delegates, Franks said his decision was influenced by the Soviet Union's disastrous efforts in the 1980s to fight with ground troops in Afghanistan. He also said the strategy was to use Afghan forces, backed by U.S. air power, to drive al Qaeda toward the Pakistani border, where 100,000 Pakistani troops killed and captured hundreds of al Qaeda operatives. Bin Laden was not among them.
After the Tora Bora fight, as local Afghan militias began withdrawing, considering their part of the war over, top Pentagon officials appeared ready to send hundreds of conventional ground troops into the White Mountains to press the search for bin Laden and his associates. That plan was dropped in favor of offers of money, weapons and cold-weather clothing to sustain Afghan cooperation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/1005c_text.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/1005c_text.html)
-
The best part of the debate would have to be Cheney dropping the ball on the Halliburton accusations.
He suggested that viewers should look at the political fact checking website set up by the University of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately for Cheney, he gave the address as factcheck.com, rather than the correct address of factcheck.org. This is a seemingly minor oversight until one goes to www.factcheck.com (http://www.factcheck.com) and discovers that the site automatically redirects to the website of the Democrat's bagman -- George Soros.
-
apparently Cheney had also met Edwards several times
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Originally posted by chaz:
I think one of the most signifigant points raised over and over is why, when they supposedly had Osama and his guys cornered, did they "outsource" his capture to local warlards? To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure of the validity of this claim made by the Dems but Bush and Dick each have had 2 chances during the debates to comment on it. In every instance of its mention they both failed to address this. The fact that they've not taken the opportunity to respond to these statement doesn't look too good and leads me to believe that the Dem's claims are in fact spot-on.
But it's not like my vote is up for grabs or anything anyway.
From the Washington Post:
Edwards's statement that U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape during the battle at Tora Bora in 2001 echoed Kerry's repeated assertions about the December 2001 battle in Afghanistan during last Thursday's debate. The Pentagon in fact relied on Afghan proxy forces in an effort to minimize the potential loss of U.S. military lives, but whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora at the time of the assault there has been the subject of debate. After the battle, intelligence officials assembled what they believed was decisive evidence that bin Laden began the battle inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border before slipping away. But retired Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, a Bush backer who led U.S. Central Command in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has said he never saw conclusive proof that the al Qaeda leader was in Tora Bora at the time.
Franks has taken responsibility for the decision to send Afghan militias rather than U.S. ground troops to Tora Bora. During an interview last month at the Republican convention in New York, where the retired general endorsed Bush and addressed the delegates, Franks said his decision was influenced by the Soviet Union's disastrous efforts in the 1980s to fight with ground troops in Afghanistan. He also said the strategy was to use Afghan forces, backed by U.S. air power, to drive al Qaeda toward the Pakistani border, where 100,000 Pakistani troops killed and captured hundreds of al Qaeda operatives. Bin Laden was not among them.
After the Tora Bora fight, as local Afghan militias began withdrawing, considering their part of the war over, top Pentagon officials appeared ready to send hundreds of conventional ground troops into the White Mountains to press the search for bin Laden and his associates. That plan was dropped in favor of offers of money, weapons and cold-weather clothing to sustain Afghan cooperation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/1005c_text.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/1005c_text.html) [/b]
I'm sure that Franks taking the blame has nothing to do with trying to make Bush look better (shaking head in disbelief).
-
Why would Cheney lie?
Originally posted by pollard:
apparently Cheney had also met Edwards several times
-
Originally posted by hitman:
I'm sure that Franks taking the blame has nothing to do with trying to make Bush look better (shaking head in disbelief).
So, you are saying that it wasn't General Franks who made that military decision?
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Why would Cheney lie?
for a good line to use I guess
here is the article http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041006_463.html (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041006_463.html)
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Why would Cheney lie?
he's a politician, why would he tell the truth?
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Originally posted by hitman:
I'm sure that Franks taking the blame has nothing to do with trying to make Bush look better (shaking head in disbelief).
So, you are saying that it wasn't General Franks who made that military decision? [/b]
Franks doesn't make those decisions without say so/input from the White House and Rumsfeld. Just like Stormin' Norman didn't make them all by himself in Desert Storm.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
The government shouldn't be doing those things that people could better do for themselves. Not only for financial reasons, but also because an increasing reliance on government ultimately undermines true community, where people should be looking out for their common good among themselves.
But taking private retirement accounts as an example, when people fuck up (through their own fault -- which is HIGHLY likely as most Joe Schmoes believe in their hearts that one day they'll be a millionaire so will be very risky in their investing -- or because the market collapses or an Enron dupes millions or California falls in to the sea), government will have to bail them out. At a much higher cost in an emergency and short period of time. There are certain absolutely essential services you cannot risk.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Oh, and something else that i just remembered, I really liked Bush's jibe at Kerry about...."i don't know how he plans on paying for all that.."
That's just it...i'm sure our government could accomplish a whole heck of a lot if we gave it more powers and loads more money. Only thing is, there's many of us around that don't want to live with that kind of pervasive government presence in our lives.
The irony is that under Bush the government has grown, and though there have been tax cuts, it's basically cost us $5 trillion as we switched from a surplus to a deficit...
And when I say govt is grown, I'm not even talking about the proposed govt controls over our religion, bodies, marraiges, medical research, etc.
But for some reason the old party tenets stick in people's minds -- Republicans mean smaller government and bigger (i.e., better) defense. Talk about knee jerk assumptions not based in truth anymore...
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
I just think the rate at which government will grow (cuz it will no matter who's in office) would be slower w/ a conservative president than a liberal one.
Disproven in a comparison of Clinton and GW's administrations. You're thinking of the Grand Old Party of yore. It largely doesn't exist anymore, and has been replaced by a Christian jihad.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it??
-
A. Better to be responsible only for the fuck-ups than for everyone.
B. The fact that people fuck themselves isn't a decent rationale for enabling them to fuck themselves. But I guess we have pretty much given up on the idea of personal responsibility, which is pretty much the death knell for a nation built on the Protestant work ethic (God helps those who help themselves).
Originally posted by Bags:
But taking private retirement accounts as an example, when people fuck up (through their own fault -- which is HIGHLY likely as most Joe Schmoes believe in their hearts that one day they'll be a millionaire so will be very risky in their investing -- or because the market collapses or an Enron dupes millions or California falls in to the sea), government will have to bail them out. At a much higher cost in an emergency and short period of time. There are certain absolutely essential services you cannot risk.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
I'm mostly republican due to my opinion that "conservative, responsible spending" is the best way to go. That and less tax, hence more consumer spending power. Basic stuff, yet is any of it really working?
Okay, but if the "less taxes" results in cuts to funding services, then the consumer spending is going to higher costs for local taxes, property taxes, healthcare, education (including college), housing -- not Walmart or Chrysler.
-
The idea that comparing Clinton's two terms and Bush's one term is apples to apples is a fallacy.
First, Clinton had a massive peace dividend to expend. Second, Clinton had the good fortune of serving during the largest economic expansion in the history of the U.S. Third, it was Keynes, the champion economist of the liberals, who recommended deficit spending during an economic slowdown, which kind of puts the kabosh on the left's faux outrage at deficit spending. Fourth, deficits didn't matter before, they don't matter now. Fifth, every president spends oodles during their first term in order to garner support so that they can win a second term. Sixth, the fact that Bush has failed to exemplify traditional conservative small government values is not a viable reason to vote for Kerry who espouse big government values.
-
and don't forget that Bush has the largest cock of any US president.
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5789 (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5789)
Originally posted by ggw?:
The idea that comparing Clinton's two terms and Bush's one term is apples to apples is a fallacy.
First, Clinton had a massive peace dividend to expend. Second, Clinton had the good fortune of serving during the largest economic expansion in the history of the U.S. Third, it was Keynes, the champion economist of the liberals, who recommended deficit spending during an economic slowdown, which kind of puts the kabosh on the left's faux outrage at deficit spending. Fourth, deficits didn't matter before, they don't matter now. Fifth, every president spends oodles during their first term in order to garner support so that they can win a second term. Sixth, the fact that Bush has failed to exemplify traditional conservative small government values is not a viable reason to vote for Kerry who espouse big government values.
-
But it will be everyone who retires within the same period if the market crashes. Which happens. Not just fuck ups who want to get rich using their retirement mechanisms.
It's true, there is no trupe personal responsibility because when the ship sinks, U.S. citizens -- liberals and conservatives alike --look to the government to bail them out.
Originally posted by ggw?:
A. Better to be responsible only for the fuck-ups than for everyone.
B. The fact that people fuck themselves isn't a decent rationale for enabling them to fuck themselves. But I guess we have pretty much given up on the idea of personal responsibility, which is pretty much the death knell for a nation built on the Protestant work ethic (God helps those who help themselves).
Originally posted by Bags:
But taking private retirement accounts as an example, when people fuck up (through their own fault -- which is HIGHLY likely as most Joe Schmoes believe in their hearts that one day they'll be a millionaire so will be very risky in their investing -- or because the market collapses or an Enron dupes millions or California falls in to the sea), government will have to bail them out. At a much higher cost in an emergency and short period of time. There are certain absolutely essential services you cannot risk.
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it?? [/b]
didn't fund? $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year. while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded.
plus, funding for major elementary and secondary education programs has INCREASED by 43% in the last 3 years.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it?? [/b]
didn't fund? $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year. while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded.
plus, funding for major elementary and secondary education programs has INCREASED by 43% in the last 3 years. [/b]
Thanks for pointing this out. NCLB and that draft reinstatement legislation were the two biggest crocs referred to by the Dems (and MoveOn) this election cycle.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
But it will be everyone who retires within the same period if the market crashes. Which happens.
How many times has it happened?
Once?
The stock market of 1929 bears no resemblence to the capital markets of today.
And again, the possibility of individual fuck-ups and/or the remote chance of a catastrophic event are not valid reasons for why the government should take full responsibility for the savings of its citizens. Just as with healthcare, the result will be a system of far, far lower quality run at far, far higher costs and an eventual collapse under its own bloated bureaucratic dead weight.
-
Correct -- I meant didn't fund enough to carry out the actual program as intended. So they need to stop taking credit for the fucking whole program as an exemplar of the Bush drive for education when you don't fund it (enough).
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it?? [/b]
didn't fund? $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year. while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded. [/b]
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
remote chance of a catastrophic event are not valid reasons for why the government should take full responsibility for the savings of its citizens. Just as with healthcare, the result will be a system of far, far lower quality run at far, far higher costs and an eventual collapse under its own bloated bureaucratic dead weight.
There have been two market crashes in my lifetime...how you get only '29 is beyond me.
And I never said full responsibility for retirement should go to govt -- is Social Security full retirement today? Sure, if you want to live in a box and eat dog food. But there is a critical base-level that is ensured.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
[QB] Correct -- I meant didn't fund enough to carry out the actual program as intended. So they need to stop taking credit for the fucking whole program as an exemplar of the Bush drive for education when you don't fund it (enough).
You seem to be the education expert....So how much do we need to carry out the actual programs within NCLB then? If you have ever actually read the NCLB legislation, you would know that the only "program" in the legislation that is appropriated (meaning actual funding amounts for the program) in the legislation beyond 2001 is Title I. Therefore, it is left up to the yearly appropriations process to determine funding for every other program under NCLB.
So how much do we "need" to fully fund other programs within NCLB? How much do we need for Teacher Quality Grants, State Assesments, Rural Education, Reading First...the list goes on and on. Since you are the education expert, please share with me the amounts that would satisfy "fully funding" these programs...
I would really like to see your numbers since groups like the NEA can't even put out specific numbers on the need for funding for programs outside of Title I!
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Correct -- I meant didn't fund enough to carry out the actual program as intended. So they need to stop taking credit for the fucking whole program as an exemplar of the Bush drive for education when you don't fund it (enough).
well, the 2005 bush budget calls for NCLB to be funded at $24.8 billion. but, as we all know, congress will do what it wants to do. i wonder if his 2004 budget called for a full appropriaton of nclb? i'm sure someone can look it up.
i think the administration can take all the credit they want. . .NCLB was the re-authorization of ESEA, which, in its final year in 2000, was only authorized to be funded at $17.4 billion. whether or not it's fully funded, it's still more money going to education than ever.
-
Can I get some dates?
Surely you can't be talking about October 1987?
The market regained everything it lost within a year and a half. And had you invested the day before the "crash" (i.e., at the worst possible time), you still would have tripled your investment within ten years, which would have been an annualized gain of twelve percent. Hardly the stuff that produces bread lines.
Originally posted by Bags:
There have been two market crashes in my lifetime...how you get only '29 is beyond me.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
The idea that comparing Clinton's two terms and Bush's one term is apples to apples is a fallacy.
First, Clinton had a massive peace dividend to expend. Second, Clinton had the good fortune of serving during the largest economic expansion in the history of the U.S. Third, it was Keynes, the champion economist of the liberals, who recommended deficit spending during an economic slowdown, which kind of puts the kabosh on the left's faux outrage at deficit spending. Fourth, deficits didn't matter before, they don't matter now. Fifth, every president spends oodles during their first term in order to garner support so that they can win a second term. Sixth, the fact that Bush has failed to exemplify traditional conservative small government values is not a viable reason to vote for Kerry who espouse big government values.
Deficits matter all of the time. You shouldn't be able to keep spending when in debt. When normal people do that, bankruptcy occurs. Then what is the govt. guilty of? If Clinton spent this kind of money, doubling the deficit, the Republicans would have cried foul. What now? Deficits matter to me, because it will end up falling on our generation, and ones to follow. Of course Bush doesn't care about that or Social Security, because he'll be worm food by then.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it?? [/b]
didn't fund? $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year. while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded.
plus, funding for major elementary and secondary education programs has INCREASED by 43% in the last 3 years. [/b]
As I am teacher, this funding has had to increase because of the all of the new standards that need to be met.
-
So you only pay cash for everything and you don't have (or plan on getting) a mortgage or a car loan?
Originally posted by hitman:
Deficits matter all of the time. You shouldn't be able to keep spending when in debt.
-
To pay the minority kids to stay home the day they give the standardized tests? ;)
Originally posted by hitman:
As I am teacher, this funding has had to increase because of the all of the new standards that need to be met. [/QB][/QUOTE]
-
Originally posted by hitman:
Deficits matter all of the time. You shouldn't be able to keep spending when in debt. When normal people do that, bankruptcy occurs. Then what is the govt. guilty of? If Clinton spent this kind of money, doubling the deficit, the Republicans would have cried foul. What now? Deficits matter to me, because it will end up falling on our generation, and ones to follow. Of course Bush doesn't care about that or Social Security, because he'll be worm food by then. [/QB]
I'm sorry, has there ever been a plan to save Social Security for our generation? Social security was screwed a long time before the Bush Administration! The bottom line is that right now there are 7 workers for every s.s. recipient and in less than a decade, when the baby boomers retire, there will only be 2 workers per every s.s. recipient. Someone needs to come up with a real plan to fix this and thus far no one- not a single Republican OR Democrat has come up with a viable solution!
-
Originally posted by cubby bear:
I'm sorry, has there ever been a plan to save Social Security for our generation? Social security was screwed a long time before the Bush Administration! The bottom line is that right now there are 7 workers for every s.s. recipient and in less than a decade, when the baby boomers retire, there will only be 2 workers per every s.s. recipient. Someone needs to come up with a real plan to fix this and thus far no one- not a single Republican OR Democrat has come up with a viable solution!
Agreed. I'm not telling anyone that Dr. Bush has the prescription, but at least he's willing to touch the "third rail of American politics" rather than continuing to dig the hole deeper by throwing more money at this broken system, as all his predecessors have done, and as his current opponent pledges to do if elected.
-
Originally posted by hitman:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it?? [/b]
didn't fund? $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year. while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded.
plus, funding for major elementary and secondary education programs has INCREASED by 43% in the last 3 years. [/b]
As I am teacher, this funding has had to increase because of the all of the new standards that need to be met. [/b]
what? <gasp> <cough> you mean, someone, somewhere is actually taking into account the end result of all this money? surely you must be joking. all this time, money went to schools, and no one knew if it was worth it? no way!
-
Originally posted by hitman:
As I am teacher, this funding has had to increase because of the all of the new standards that need to be met. [/QB]
Do you not agree with the standards then? Should we not expect a child in the 5th grade to be taught to read and be able to read at a 5th grade level? And the same for every grade before and after that?
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Agreed. I'm not telling anyone that Dr. Bush has the prescription, but at least he's willing to touch the "third rail of American politics" rather than continuing to dig the hole deeper by throwing more money at this broken system, as all his predecessors have done, and as his current opponent pledges to do if elected.
I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE!
-
Originally posted by ggw™:
First, Clinton had a massive peace dividend to expend.
Sorry for my English, but do you mean that Clinton was president during a peace time? If that's what you meant, then we should take into account that the war in Irak was a result of the lies created by the Bush administration. That war could have been prevented. If there is someone to blame for this, that's the Bush administration, I think it's a big mistake to say that Bush was president in a difficult time (I mean the portion of this difficult time due to the war in Irak, not the 9/11 attacks or the Agfhanistan war) because he just made the whole thing up.
-
What I mean is that Clinton came into office right after the Cold War had ended and he had a budgetary windfall because a great deal of money that was previously spent on vast and hugely expensive defense programs such as ICBMs and tactical nuclear subs was no longer needed for staying ahead of the Soviets. So he had a big chunk of change he could spend on new programs without running into deficits. This was a one time event not an ongoing savings in military spending.
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Sorry for my English, but do you mean that Clinton was president during a peace time? If that's what you meant, then we should take into account that the war in Irak was a result of the lies created by the Bush administration. That war could have been prevented. If there is someone to blame for this, that's the Bush administration, I think it's a big mistake to say that Bush was president in a difficult time (I mean the portion of this difficult time due to the war in Irak, not the 9/11 attacks or the Agfhanistan war) because he just made the whole thing up.
-
anyone who wants Bush to be re-elected is guilty of extreme illogic or ill-informedness. Take for example, the traditional Republican small government argument. OK, it makes some sense, except Bush isn't cutting government -- government has expanded massively under his regime even as taxes have been cut, leading to the largest deficits in the history of the world. Bush and the neo-cons are so radically removed from either conservative or liberal approaches that whether you're a liberal or a conservative, there really is no choice but to defeat him.
-
Originally posted by cubby bear:
Originally posted by hitman:
As I am teacher, this funding has had to increase because of the all of the new standards that need to be met. [/b]
Do you not agree with the standards then? Should we not expect a child in the 5th grade to be taught to read and be able to read at a 5th grade level? And the same for every grade before and after that? [/QB]
That isn't the point of the legislation. The legislation doesn't even agree with common nature.
Not all kids in 5th grade are going to be able to read at a 5th grade level. It is very simple, it will never happen. When you consider the number of Sp.Ed. students and those students coming from poor homes (I mean in the sense of upbringing, not just socioeconomically) it will never happen, not even in fucking utopia. There are kids that are below average, average, above average, and even higher and lower than that. However, we are supposed to be some kind of miracle workers and make lemons into lemonade and get all kids on the same level. As much as that would be nice, the reality is it rarely happens.
So much of education is out of the teachers' hands. Education must start at home first, then at school. It needs to be taught that education is important and necessary. A school just isn't a place to drop your kid off and get govt. provided daycare.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
What I mean is that Clinton came into office right after the Cold War had ended and he had a budgetary windfall because a great deal of money that was previously spent on vast and hugely expensive defense programs such as ICBMs and tactical nuclear subs was no longer needed for staying ahead of the Soviets. So he had a big chunk of change he could spend on new programs without running into deficits. This was a one time event not an ongoing savings in military spending.
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Sorry for my English, but do you mean that Clinton was president during a peace time? If that's what you meant, then we should take into account that the war in Irak was a result of the lies created by the Bush administration. That war could have been prevented. If there is someone to blame for this, that's the Bush administration, I think it's a big mistake to say that Bush was president in a difficult time (I mean the portion of this difficult time due to the war in Irak, not the 9/11 attacks or the Agfhanistan war) because he just made the whole thing up.
[/b]
Well then how do you explain the real defense cuts getting started near the end of Reagan's presidency? That was during the Cold War.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
To pay the minority kids to stay home the day they give the standardized tests? ;)
Originally posted by hitman:
As I am teacher, this funding has had to increase because of the all of the new standards that need to be met. [/b]
[/QB][/QUOTE]
It's more like the short-bus riders...
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
So you only pay cash for everything and you don't have (or plan on getting) a mortgage or a car loan?
Originally posted by hitman:
Deficits matter all of the time. You shouldn't be able to keep spending when in debt.
[/b]
When you have a mortgage or a car loan, you're paying on it, and have to pay every month, or run the risk of repossession and the like. You're not doubling, tripling that debt every year.
The deficit is just a tad different than a mortgage. Talk about comparing ant hills to mountains.
-
my two bits (adjusting for inflation), both candidates:
1) will not consider ending the drug war;
2) will not consider the ramifications of the prison-industrial complex;
3) will not repeal or modify either the PATRIOT or INDUCE Acts;
4) will not offer meaningful reform of social security;
5) will not offer anything meaningful in terms of national healthcare;
6) will not check the FCC on media monopolization;
7) will not check the FDA on blatantly catering to the highest bidder, aka covering up juvenile suicide rates regarding experimental antidepressants, or allowing reimportation of designer medications;
8) will revoke free trade if enough "swing votes" are at stake;
9) will support israel, without question, despite the moral and diplomatic liability of allying with an apartheid state;
these are the issues important to me. if you want your vote to count for something other than the status quo, consider the libertarian, green, or reform parties. why put it to waste on either side of the same coin?
-
I'm voting for the same guy I always do:
The lesser of two beagles.
-
Originally posted by Ikarus:
my two bits (adjusting for inflation), both candidates:
1) will not consider ending the drug war;
2) will not consider the ramifications of the prison-industrial complex;
3) will not repeal or modify either the PATRIOT or INDUCE Acts;
4) will not offer meaningful reform of social security;
5) will not offer anything meaningful in terms of national healthcare;
6) will not check the FCC on media monopolization;
7) will not check the FDA on blatantly catering to the highest bidder, aka covering up juvenile suicide rates regarding experimental antidepressants, or allowing reimportation of designer medications;
8) will revoke free trade if enough "swing votes" are at stake;
9) will support israel, without question, despite the moral and diplomatic liability of allying with an apartheid state;
these are the issues important to me. if you want your vote to count for something other than the status quo, consider the libertarian, green, or reform parties. why put it to waste on either side of the same coin?
How can a vote from these parties always count for something? Half of the time, candidates from these parties can't even make it on a ballot. But then again, I know that is all part of a governmental control conspiracy.
-
Sadama? Iraqistan? (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5800)
-
Originally posted by hitman:
That isn't the point of the legislation. The legislation doesn't even agree with common nature.
Not all kids in 5th grade are going to be able to read at a 5th grade level. It is very simple, it will never happen. When you consider the number of Sp.Ed. students and those students coming from poor homes (I mean in the sense of upbringing, not just socioeconomically) it will never happen, not even in fucking utopia. There are kids that are below average, average, above average, and even higher and lower than that. However, we are supposed to be some kind of miracle workers and make lemons into lemonade and get all kids on the same level. As much as that would be nice, the reality is it rarely happens.
So much of education is out of the teachers' hands. Education must start at home first, then at school. It needs to be taught that education is important and necessary. A school just isn't a place to drop your kid off and get govt. provided daycare.
Wow, I hope you never teach my children- you're giving up on them before they even enter the school building! You have basically confirmed that you can have absolutely no effect on a disadvantaged child's life because they are screwed from the get go?
First of all, the goal of the law is to increase the number of students that are performing at grade level in math and reading and soon science. Would you actually like to tell one of the parents of your disadvantaged students- or your ELL students- or your special ed students that you won't challenge their children to achieve that goal because they just aren't able to learn? You're not even willing to try?
Everyone in the education community realizes that not every child is going to learn at the same rate or be able to achieve such goals, however, finally addressing accountability in education is a noble goal! For the last 45 years no one, not a single educator, policy maker or parent has actually known what kind of return they were getting on their educational investment and finally we are getting some idea of what that is!
I for one am now certain that accountability is the right way to go- if I were a parent of one of your students I would certainly want to know that you don't feel you should be held at all accountable for their son or daughters education!
-
Call me a joker, call me a fool
Right at this moment I'm totally cool
Clear as a crystal, sharp as a knife
I feel like I'm in the prime of my life
Sometimes it feels like I'm going too fast
I don't know how long this feeling will last
Maybe it's only tonight
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes
Too high or too low there ain't no in-betweens
And if I stand or I fall
It's all or nothing at all
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes
Sometimes I'm tired, sometimes I'm shot
Sometimes I don't know how much more I've got
Maybe I'm headed over the hill
Maybe I've set myself up for the kill
Tell me how much do you think you can take
Until the heart in you is starting to break?
Sometimes it feels like it will
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes
Too high or too low there ain't no in-betweens
You can be sure when I'm gone
I won't be out there too long
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes
Out of the darkness, into the light
Leaving the scene of the crime
Either I'm wrong or I'm perfectly right every time
Sometimes I lie awake, night after night
Coming apart at the seams
Eager to please, ready to fight
Why do I go to extremes?
And if I stand or I fall
It's all or nothing at all
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes
No I don't know why I go to extremes
Too high or too low
There ain't no in-betweens
You can be sure when I'm gone
I won't be out there too long
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes
I don't know why...I don't know why...
I don't know why...I don't know why...
Out in the dark...into the light...
-
So what is Pollard's point?
If a bug eyed short bus riding alcoholic turd like Billy Joel can make it in life and marry a beautiful woman his daughter's age, anybody can make it in life. We just need to give them a chance.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
So what is Pollard's point?
If a bug eyed short bus riding alcoholic turd like Billy Joel can make it in life and marry a beautiful woman his daughter's age, anybody can make it in life. We just need to give them a chance.
it just kept popping in to my head while reading responses like cubby bear's, certainly not the only one who does it
but I am not sure where hitman said teachers should not be held at all responsible
taking everything "to it's extreme" possible meaning does little for a discussion
-
Well, yeah, that too.
I agree with Hitman and Cubby Bear both, in general.
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
So what is Pollard's point?
If a bug eyed short bus riding alcoholic turd like Billy Joel can make it in life and marry a beautiful woman his daughter's age, anybody can make it in life. We just need to give them a chance.
it just kept popping in to my head while reading responses like cubby bear's, certainly not the only one who does it
but I am not sure where hitman said teachers should not be held at all responsible
taking everything "to it's extreme" possible meaning does little for a discussion [/b]
-
I never said that teachers should never be held responsible at all. They should be. However, there are things that are out of a teacher's control, which NCLB does not address. So automatically if a child isn't performing up to ability, it is automatically the teacher's fault, which just plain isn't fair. That would be like if a car breaks down, automatically blaming the driver, when it could be faulty manufacturing of the car.
I give all of my students a chance, no matter what, and prefer to teach the disadvantaged kids more, because they appreciate what I do, rather than the rich-ass spoiled kids. And unless you've been in the trenches like myself, reserve your judgements on my abilities as an educator.
Case in point. I have a student who had a hemispherectomy (sp?) at age 3 or 4. Number one, this kid is lucky as hell to be alive. However, now he is in the 5th grade, although he has the functioning level of a 4 year old (after all he is missing half of his brain). But his parents will not accept his limitations and have him on a diploma track which means he is supposed to graduate from high school and meet all requirements. And because of wonderful legislation like NCLB and the IDEA Act of the 80's, we are held responsible for this kid's progress or lack thereof. There is only so much you can do, especially when the parents are fuck-ups who just want to blame others for their own shortcomings as parents when they don't change the kids diapers or help with his studies at home, at the same time ignoring his brother (who is "normal") and flushing his upbringing.
And this is only one of the problems my wife and I deal with on an everday basis, that takes away from getting all of the other kids performing where they need to be. So in reality, the NCLB is more about shutting out reason, than holding accountability.
Can anyone now see why a teacher would feel like this? Especially when all I hear from others outside of the profession is that teaching is so great because of having the summers off. When in reality we have classes that we have to take to constantly keep up our certification, and don't get paid enough that my wife and I can't even afford to buy a house under the current wonderful economy in the district where we teach.
Now I just feel like taking a bullet.
-
Hitman, as a former teacher, you have all my sympathies. You are right, people don't have a clue about the life of a teacher.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Hitman, as a former teacher, you have all my sympathies. You are right, people don't have a clue about the life of a teacher.
Rhett, this may be the only time that you hear this on the boards...THANK YOU!
-
Originally posted by hitman:
prefer to teach the disadvantaged kids more, because they appreciate what I do, rather than the rich-ass spoiled kids.
So you pre-judge your students based on the net-worth of their parents.
Nice!!
Never too early to indoctrinate the proletariat into class warfare, eh Comrade?
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Never too early to indoctrinate the proletariat into class warfare, eh Comrade?
ggw: Our very own Senator McCarthy.
-
Ten Questions for Dick Cheney
10/03/2004 @ 3:22pm
Dick Cheney, who spent most of his administration's first term in a secure undisclosed location, has been campaigning this fall in the Potemkin Villages of Republican reaction. As such, he has not faced much in the way of serious questioning from his audiences of party apparatchiks. Nor has he been grilled by the White House-approved journalistic commissars who travel with the Vice President to take stenography when Cheney makes his daily prediction of the apocalypse that would befall America should he be removed from power.
On Tuesday night, however, Cheney will briefly expose himself in an unmanaged setting ?? to the extent that the set of a vice presidential debate can be so identified. In preparation for this rare opportunity to pin down the man former White House counsel John Dean refers to as "the de facto president," here is a list of ten questions that ought to be directed to Dick Cheney:
1.) When you appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you announced that, "We will be greeted as liberators." In light of the fact that more than 1,000 young Americans have been killed, while more than 20,000 have been wounded, in the fighting in Iraq, do you think you might have been a bit too optimistic?
2.) Why were maps of Iraqi oil fields and pipelines included in the documents reviewed by the administration's energy task force, the National Energy Policy Development Group, which you headed during the first months of 2001? Did discussions about regime change in Iraq figure in the deliberations of the energy task force?
3.) When the administration was asking in 2002 for Congressional approval of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, you told the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." You then claimed that, "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten American friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." Several months later, when you appeared on "Meet the Press" just prior to the invasion of Iraq, you said of Saddam Hussein, "We know he has reconstituted these (chemical weapons) programs. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons, and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." As it turned out, you were wrong on virtually every count. How did you misread the signs so completely? And why was it that so many other world leaders, who looked at the same intelligence you had access to, were able to assess the situation so much more accurately?
4.) Considering the fact that your predictions about the ease of the Iraq invasion and occupation turned out to be so dramatically off the mark, and the fact that you were in charge of the White House task force on terrorism that failed, despite repeated and explicit warnings, to anticipate the terrorist threats on the World Trade Center, what is it about your analytical skills that should lead Americans to believe your claims that America will be more vulnerable to attack if John Kerry and John Edwards are elected?
5.) Speaking of intelligence, were you or any members of your staff involved in any way in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative who was working on weapons of mass destruction issues, after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, angered the administration by revealing that the president made claims about Iraqi WMD programs that he and his aides had been told were unreliable?
6.) During your tenure as Secretary of Defense, you and your staff asked a subsidiary of Halliburton, Brown & Root Services, to study whether private firms could take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. They came to the conclusion that this was a good idea, and you began what would turn into a massive privatization initiative that would eventually direct billions of U.S. tax dollars to Halliburton and its subsidiary. Barely two years after you finished your service as Secretary of Defense, you became the CEO of Halliburton. Yet, when you were asked about the money you received from Halliburton -- $44 million for five year's work -- you said, "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it." How do you define the words "absolutely nothing"?
7.) No corporation has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than Halliburton. The company, which you served as CEO before joining the administration, moved from No.19 on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors before the Iraq war began to No. 1 in 2003. Last year, alone, the company pocketed $4.2 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. You said when asked about Halliburton during a September 2003 appearance on "Meet the Press" that you had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest." Yet, you continue to hold unexercised options for 233,000 shares of Halliburton stock, and since becoming vice president you have on an annual basis collected deferred compensation payments ranging from $162,392 to $205,298 from Halliburton. A recent review by the Congressional Research Service describes deferred salary and stock options of the sort that you hold as "among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer." In the interest of ending the debate about whether Halliburton has received special treatment from the administration, would you be willing to immediately surrender any claims to those stock options and to future deferred compensation in order to make real your claim that you have "severed all my ties with the company."
8.) You have been particularly aggressive in attacking the qualifications of John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, to serve as commander-in-chief. Yet, you received five draft deferments during the 1960s, which allowed you to avoid serving in Vietnam. In 1989, when you were nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense, you were asked why you did not serve in Vietnam and you told the Senate that you "would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called." Yet, in an interview that same year, you told the Washington Post that, "I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." Which was it -- "proud to serve" or "other priorities"?
9.) Nelson Mandela says he worries about you serving in the vice presidency because, "He opposed the decision to release me from prison." As a member of Congress you did vote against a resolution expressing the sense of the House that then President Ronald Reagan should demand that South Africa's apartheid government grant the immediate and unconditional release of Mandela and other political prisoners. You have said you voted the way you did in the late 1980s because "the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization." Do you still believe that Mandela and others who fought for an end to apartheid were terrorists? If so, are you proud to have cast votes that helped to prolong Mandela's imprisonment and the apartheid system of racial segregation and discrimination?
10.) Mandela has said that, to his view, you are "the real president of the United States." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said of the first years of the Bush presidency that, "Cheney and a handful of others had become 'a Praetorian guard' that encircled the President." O'Neill has also argued that the White House operates the way it does "because this is the way that Dick likes it." Why do you think that so many people, including veterans of this administration, seem to think that it is you, rather than George W. Bush, who is running the country?
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Ten Questions for Dick Cheney
10/03/2004 @ 3:22pm
Dick Cheney, who spent most of his administration's first term in a secure undisclosed location, has been campaigning this fall in the Potemkin Villages of Republican reaction. As such, he has not faced much in the way of serious questioning from his audiences of party apparatchiks. Nor has he been grilled by the White House-approved journalistic commissars who travel with the Vice President to take stenography when Cheney makes his daily prediction of the apocalypse that would befall America should he be removed from power.
On Tuesday night, however, Cheney will briefly expose himself in an unmanaged setting ?? to the extent that the set of a vice presidential debate can be so identified. In preparation for this rare opportunity to pin down the man former White House counsel John Dean refers to as "the de facto president," here is a list of ten questions that ought to be directed to Dick Cheney:
1.) When you appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you announced that, "We will be greeted as liberators." In light of the fact that more than 1,000 young Americans have been killed, while more than 20,000 have been wounded, in the fighting in Iraq, do you think you might have been a bit too optimistic?
2.) Why were maps of Iraqi oil fields and pipelines included in the documents reviewed by the administration's energy task force, the National Energy Policy Development Group, which you headed during the first months of 2001? Did discussions about regime change in Iraq figure in the deliberations of the energy task force?
3.) When the administration was asking in 2002 for Congressional approval of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, you told the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." You then claimed that, "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten American friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." Several months later, when you appeared on "Meet the Press" just prior to the invasion of Iraq, you said of Saddam Hussein, "We know he has reconstituted these (chemical weapons) programs. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons, and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." As it turned out, you were wrong on virtually every count. How did you misread the signs so completely? And why was it that so many other world leaders, who looked at the same intelligence you had access to, were able to assess the situation so much more accurately?
4.) Considering the fact that your predictions about the ease of the Iraq invasion and occupation turned out to be so dramatically off the mark, and the fact that you were in charge of the White House task force on terrorism that failed, despite repeated and explicit warnings, to anticipate the terrorist threats on the World Trade Center, what is it about your analytical skills that should lead Americans to believe your claims that America will be more vulnerable to attack if John Kerry and John Edwards are elected?
5.) Speaking of intelligence, were you or any members of your staff involved in any way in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative who was working on weapons of mass destruction issues, after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, angered the administration by revealing that the president made claims about Iraqi WMD programs that he and his aides had been told were unreliable?
6.) During your tenure as Secretary of Defense, you and your staff asked a subsidiary of Halliburton, Brown & Root Services, to study whether private firms could take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. They came to the conclusion that this was a good idea, and you began what would turn into a massive privatization initiative that would eventually direct billions of U.S. tax dollars to Halliburton and its subsidiary. Barely two years after you finished your service as Secretary of Defense, you became the CEO of Halliburton. Yet, when you were asked about the money you received from Halliburton -- $44 million for five year's work -- you said, "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it." How do you define the words "absolutely nothing"?
7.) No corporation has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than Halliburton. The company, which you served as CEO before joining the administration, moved from No.19 on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors before the Iraq war began to No. 1 in 2003. Last year, alone, the company pocketed $4.2 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. You said when asked about Halliburton during a September 2003 appearance on "Meet the Press" that you had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest." Yet, you continue to hold unexercised options for 233,000 shares of Halliburton stock, and since becoming vice president you have on an annual basis collected deferred compensation payments ranging from $162,392 to $205,298 from Halliburton. A recent review by the Congressional Research Service describes deferred salary and stock options of the sort that you hold as "among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer." In the interest of ending the debate about whether Halliburton has received special treatment from the administration, would you be willing to immediately surrender any claims to those stock options and to future deferred compensation in order to make real your claim that you have "severed all my ties with the company."
8.) You have been particularly aggressive in attacking the qualifications of John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, to serve as commander-in-chief. Yet, you received five draft deferments during the 1960s, which allowed you to avoid serving in Vietnam. In 1989, when you were nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense, you were asked why you did not serve in Vietnam and you told the Senate that you "would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called." Yet, in an interview that same year, you told the Washington Post that, "I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." Which was it -- "proud to serve" or "other priorities"?
9.) Nelson Mandela says he worries about you serving in the vice presidency because, "He opposed the decision to release me from prison." As a member of Congress you did vote against a resolution expressing the sense of the House that then President Ronald Reagan should demand that South Africa's apartheid government grant the immediate and unconditional release of Mandela and other political prisoners. You have said you voted the way you did in the late 1980s because "the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization." Do you still believe that Mandela and others who fought for an end to apartheid were terrorists? If so, are you proud to have cast votes that helped to prolong Mandela's imprisonment and the apartheid system of racial segregation and discrimination?
10.) Mandela has said that, to his view, you are "the real president of the United States." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said of the first years of the Bush presidency that, "Cheney and a handful of others had become 'a Praetorian guard' that encircled the President." O'Neill has also argued that the White House operates the way it does "because this is the way that Dick likes it." Why do you think that so many people, including veterans of this administration, seem to think that it is you, rather than George W. Bush, who is running the country?
<img src="http://www.johnsbit.com/b3ta/images/My%20b3ta%20pix/are%20we%20there%20yet.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Originally posted by hitman:
prefer to teach the disadvantaged kids more, because they appreciate what I do, rather than the rich-ass spoiled kids.
So you pre-judge your students based on the net-worth of their parents.
Nice!!
Never too early to indoctrinate the proletariat into class warfare, eh Comrade? [/b]
I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally. No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever. However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives. So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.
-
Once again you show your bias -- Kids from yuppie homes are spoiled. And, by it's glaring absence, we are left to assume that all the kids from poor homes are unspoiled little angels.
Originally posted by hitman:
I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally. No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever. However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives. So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.
-
I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies. Is that true?
Originally posted by hitman:
I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally. No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever. However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives. So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.
-
So you're looking for a career change?
Originally posted by econo:
I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies. Is that true?
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
So you're looking for a career change?
Originally posted by econo:
I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies. Is that true?
[/b]
i think he's trying to help tweaky out.
-
I thought art teachers were artists who were tired of waiting tables, and weren't lucky enough to have a trust fund or rich spouse to leech off of.
Originally posted by econo:
I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies. Is that true?
Originally posted by hitman:
I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally. No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever. However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives. So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.
[/b]
-
I missed the hippie craze by a few decades. What about jaded 20 somethings? What's the career of choice for them?
Originally posted by ggw?:
So you're looking for a career change?
-
Originally posted by econo:
I missed the hippie craze by a few decades. What about jaded 20 somethings? What's the career of choice for them?
Web design
-
Cubby Bear is one of those people whom I would so love to make teach for at least one year in a typical school with all the crap that teachers have to deal with. I can guarantee that he'd be a changed man! This is the kind of stuff that is so hard to explain to outsiders partly because there are so many variables involved that are compounded on top of each other making it such a toxic work environment. It also is not in the best interest of any student who is not entirely self-motivated, which most aren't when it comes to education. That's normal. They are only kids who are very immediate thinking in their life scope as of yet and just want to have fun. (If you don't believe me, read some developemental psychology books. And don't try to point out the exception. There are always a small few.)
One thing that most people don't understand and usually prefer to play the denial game over is that so many things in this country have been de-institutionalized which has had a very negative effect on the public schools. There are a vast number of students in the regular classrooms now who, at one time, would have been in some other learning envirnonment from special education classes, pull out for special resource classes, reform schools, psychiatric institutions, hospital type learning envirnonments to any number of other types of schooling. While it's claimed to be in order to mainstream the students into the 'real world', we all know that it really has everything to do with not wanting to spend the money on them even though tons of money is still sent to the larger school districts itself yet doesn't reach the classrooms for a multitude of reasons. A lot of it in Baltimore Shitty has been mismanaged and even embezzled by administration...but that's another story yet a reality that effects the classrooms. (This is why I'm against increasing funding in education in many cases until the people at the top get their shit together. I got tired of my taxes being increased, the entire systems budgets increased, yet every school and classroom, expecially my very own, had budget cuts!!!)
Once these kids are placed in a regular classroom, they are then labled and considered 'regular' students though they still have all of the problems that would have otherwise previously placed them for some sort of special services. It is now quite common for a dangerous schizophrenic to be sitting next to that student that Hitman mentioned while little GGW sits on the other side. Odds are, there are lots of other extreme differences and problems in that room that the teacher now has to work around that often makes it so fucking hard to reach every student everyday at their maximum potential.
Did I address extreme behaviorial disruptions yet that are now ignored my administrators and some parents? No. What about all the insane amounts of excessive paper work that has been recently thrown on teachers that wasn't required years ago? Work that really doesn't help the teacher or the class in the least bit but administrators now seem to put more stock in that than what is really going on in the classroom. And what about all the extra concepts and subjects within one freaking subject area and class period? "Oh, you are an art teacher but you didn't teach language concepts in this class today." If you did than they pick on you for not including math, science, geography, or whatever they choose to pick on you about...and they will. In the meantime, you end up sneaking a little art in there around all of the other crap. This is how it is in all subject areas, not just art. Oh, and I forgot about all of the feel good brainwashing crap that they now demand. Most of you have no clue what is going on in these classrooms at everybody elses but the teachers' insistance but it's only the teachers who get any of the blame when things don't work out no matter how hard they've bashed their heads against all the brick walls that are built around them.
Have I even begun to scratch the surface? HELL NO!!!!
Think about this for a moment. Almost all school districts now are having a very serious problem with retaining teachers at all levels of the career ladder. Though the pay is bad, it's much better than it had been meaning that there's a whole lot more to why they are quitting. If a field can't retain it's employees, something must be horrid about that field. In fact, they could now offer me $200,000/year to come back and there is no way I would ever consider it. You wouldn't believe the insane chaos that has been going on in the district I worked for. Just in the past couple days there have been a number of shootings and arsons. Yesterday, the last school that I taught in, the kids had some kind of protest and the principal ended up being put on suspension. (Have no clue what the story was but knowing that place, they always blame the teachers and/or principals when the students go completely crazy. Almost never, ever the students! But they do have a lot of insane principals too.) Today, the kids tried to burn the school down. This is the kind of stuff that has become par for the course lately in Baltimore Shitty. And this is only the crap that has made it to the news media. One thing that I've learned over the years is that little offences in many other districts across the country will be publicized yet tons of very serious offenses, such as things involving guns, assaults on teachers, etc, in Baltimore will be swept under the carpet as though they are trying to hide how bad and corrupt they are.
NCLB is yet another one of those government programs that sounds wonderful in bullshit political speeches and quick fix scams to those who have not an inkling of the inner workings but has absolutely no real working substance in practice.
Hitman, you know I fully understand. Rhett does too.
-
Ahhhhh....kindred spirits.
I'm not the typical hippie art teacher. I'm only 29 and not burnt out from reefer (never touched it) and never owned a pair of Birkenstocks. Most of the time, people meet me and are amazed that I'm an art teacher because I just don't fit in the typical mold. BS in Art Ed. from Towson, MA in Art Ed. from MICA (but would never fucking do it again). Nor am I an artist who got tired of doing bullshit jobs. I barely have any time or drive when I do have free time, to do any of my own work. I would much rather go to shows. As a kid I was just good, and figured to keep up on it, and was very inspired by some great art teachers I had to go into the profession, figuring I could do some good by bringing some culture to the masses before it all got burned down by Guiliani (i.e. Brooklyn show) or card carrying NRA members who think Elvis on velvet is art.
I guess it is time to step on my rose colored glasses.
-
Can I be part of the club as well?
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Hitman, you know I fully understand. Rhett does too.
-
Originally posted by econo:
Can I be part of the club as well?
Originally posted by Jaguär:
Hitman, you know I fully understand. Rhett does too.
[/b]
To ggw's dismay, there is no discrimination here. Sure come on in.
-
Originally posted by hitman:
Elvis on velvet is art.
i wholeheartedly agree. . .that and the drug trade is what keeps ciudad juarez in business. . .oh, and i suppose prostitution too, but i wouldn't know anything about that.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/opinion/08krugman.html?oref=login (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/opinion/08krugman.html?oref=login)
Ignorance Isn't Strength
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 8, 2004
I first used the word "Orwellian" to describe the Bush team in October 2000. Even then it was obvious that George W. Bush surrounds himself with people who insist that up is down, and ignorance is strength. But the full costs of his denial of reality are only now becoming clear.
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have an unparalleled ability to insulate themselves from inconvenient facts. They lead a party that controls all three branches of government, and face news media that in some cases are partisan supporters, and in other cases are reluctant to state plainly that officials aren't telling the truth. They also still enjoy the residue of the faith placed in them after 9/11.
This has allowed them to engage in what Orwell called "reality control." In the world according to the Bush administration, our leaders are infallible, and their policies always succeed. If the facts don't fit that assumption, they just deny the facts.
As a political strategy, reality control has worked very well. But as a strategy for governing, it has led to predictable disaster. When leaders live in an invented reality, they do a bad job of dealing with real reality.
In the last few days we've seen some impressive demonstrations of reality control at work. During the debate on Tuesday, Mr. Cheney insisted that "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." After the release of the Duelfer report, which shows that Saddam's weapons capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, at the time of the invasion, Mr. Cheney declared that the report proved that "delay, defer, wait wasn't an option."
From a political point of view, such exercises in denial have been very successful. For example, the Bush administration has managed to convince many people that its tax cuts, which go primarily to the wealthiest few percent of the population, are populist measures benefiting middle-class families and small businesses. (Under the administration's definition, anyone with "business income" - a group that includes Dick Cheney and George Bush - is a struggling small-business owner.)
The administration has also managed to convince at least some people that its economic record, which includes the worst employment performance in 70 years, is a great success, and that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." (The data to be released today, which are expected to improve the numbers a bit, won't change the basic picture of a dismal four years.)
Officials have even managed to convince many people that they are moving forward on environmental policy. They boast of their "Clear Skies" plan even as the inspector general of the E.P.A. declares that the enforcement of existing air-quality rules has collapsed.
But the political ability of the Bush administration to deny reality - to live in an invented world in which everything is the way officials want it to be - has led to an ongoing disaster in Iraq and looming disaster elsewhere.
How did the occupation of Iraq go so wrong? (The security situation has deteriorated to the point where there are no safe places: a bomb was discovered on Tuesday in front of a popular restaurant inside the Green Zone.)
The insulation of officials from reality is central to the story. They wanted to believe Ahmad Chalabi's promises that we'd be welcomed with flowers; nobody could tell them different. They wanted to believe - months after everyone outside the administration realized that we were facing a large, dangerous insurgency and needed more troops - that the attackers were a handful of foreign terrorists and Baathist dead-enders; nobody could tell them different.
Why did the economy perform so badly? Long after it was obvious to everyone outside the administration that the tax-cut strategy wasn't an effective way of creating jobs, administration officials kept promising huge job gains, any day now. Nobody could tell them different.
Why has the pursuit of terrorists been so unsuccessful? It has been obvious for years that John Ashcroft isn't just scary; he's also scarily incompetent. But inside the administration, he's considered the man for the job - and nobody can say different.
The point is that in the real world, as opposed to the political world, ignorance isn't strength. A leader who has the political power to pretend that he's infallible, and uses that power to avoid ever admitting mistakes, eventually makes mistakes so large that they can't be covered up. And that's what's happening to Mr. Bush.
-
I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt. For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt. And the gem, "If you're against the war, you're against the troops."
-
Originally posted by hitman:
I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt. For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt. And the gem, "If you're against the war, you're against the troops."
Exactly. Best line by Kerry (paraphrased) - "The military won the war, the president lost the peace"
Now, back to the internets...
<img src="http://img5.exs.cx/img5/2088/gwbushtxt.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by hitman:
I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt. For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt.
Gimme a fvcking break....
Have you not picked up a newspaper in the last four years?
Krugman, most notably, has written an anti-Bush column every single Tuesday and Friday since 2000.
The rest of the NY Times Columnist posse (with the exception of Safire) have been writing plenty of anti-Bush columns over the same period. This doesn't include the formal editorials which have also been critical of much of the Bush agenda since before inauguration day. Even Frank Rich has managed to angle his weekly Arts & Leisure column into a Bush sucks crusade.
-
Originally posted by ggw™:
Originally posted by hitman:
I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt. For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt.
Gimme a fvcking break....
Have you not picked up a newspaper in the last four years?
Krugman, most notably, has written an anti-Bush column every single Tuesday and Friday since 2000.
The rest of the NY Times Columnist posse (with the exception of Safire) have been writing plenty of anti-Bush columns over the same period. This doesn't include the formal editorials which have also been critical of much of the Bush agenda since before inauguration day. Even Frank Rich has managed to angle his weekly Arts & Leisure column into a Bush sucks crusade. [/b]
To me, The New York Times is one of the best newspapers in the world. You see it as anti-bush, I see it as an objective newspaper. The thing I hated after September 11 was how patriotic most papers in the US became, for a few months it was impossible to see any criticism of Bush, you are with us or against us, I hated that, all the freedom Bush talks about for the middle east didn´t even exist in the US.
-
Originally posted by ggw™:
Originally posted by hitman:
I'm glad to see that there is media now that will actually speak against the current govt. For such a long time, you weren't American or fucking Patriot if you spoke against Bush and/or the govt.
Gimme a fvcking break....
Have you not picked up a newspaper in the last four years?
Krugman, most notably, has written an anti-Bush column every single Tuesday and Friday since 2000.
The rest of the NY Times Columnist posse (with the exception of Safire) have been writing plenty of anti-Bush columns over the same period. This doesn't include the formal editorials which have also been critical of much of the Bush agenda since before inauguration day. Even Frank Rich has managed to angle his weekly Arts & Leisure column into a Bush sucks crusade. [/b]
I haven´t read articles by Friedman and Brooks lately, but Friedman supported the war in Irak and I recall Brooks being pretty conservative, but this was a long time ago and he might have changed or I might have got a wrong impression. Unless I am wrong for not having followed too much on these two writers, I would say that things are pretty balanced in the New York Times. You have Krugman, Dowd, Kristoff or Herbert, but you also have Friedman, Safire and Brooks. But I might be wrong since I only read Krugman, Dowd, and Kristoff (pretty biased choice you may say).
-
Originally posted by Barcelona:
To me, The New York Times is one of the best newspapers in the world. You see it as anti-bush, I see it as an objective newspaper.
My point in saying "anti-Bush" is not to imply that the NY Times is not a fine paper. I read it most days and have for years. They are one of the few that still do a half-decent job of covering things outside the U.S.
The Op-ed pages are for just that -- Opinions and Editorials -- and if those opinions go against the Bush Administration, then they are "anti-Bush." I'm not using the term in a derogatory sense, only a descriptive one.
Friedman was in favor of action against Iraq, but he has also complained about Bush's actions and policies plenty of times (and supported Bush many times as well).
As you noted in your other post, there are no less than three regular opinion columnists (and this doesn't even include the contributor articles and the formal editorials) who have been consistently and steadily critical of Bush since the day he took office.
The opinion that the media overdid the patriotism in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 may very well be valid. But to claim that there were no contrary opinions is ridiculous.
-
Just because you're supporting the war in Iraq doesn't mean you're pro Bush.
Originally posted by Barcelona:
I haven´t read articles by Friedman and Brooks lately, but Friedman supported the war in Irak ...
-
Originally posted by econo:
Just because you're supporting the war in Iraq doesn't mean you're pro Bush.
Originally posted by Barcelona:
I haven´t read articles by Friedman and Brooks lately, but Friedman supported the war in Irak ...
[/b]
I think that in 2003, if you supported the war in Irak, in that specific issue you were pro-Bush, especially given the little evidence available. This helped me made the point that the New York Times' editorials are not as liberal as to say that only one editorialist is sympathetic to the Republicans. I think the NYT'editorials over the Bush presidency have been pretty balanced.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Originally posted by Barcelona:
To me, The New York Times is one of the best newspapers in the world. You see it as anti-bush, I see it as an objective newspaper.
My point in saying "anti-Bush" is not to imply that the NY Times is not a fine paper. I read it most days and have for years. They are one of the few that still do a half-decent job of covering things outside the U.S.
The Op-ed pages are for just that -- Opinions and Editorials -- and if those opinions go against the Bush Administration, then they are "anti-Bush." I'm not using the term in a derogatory sense, only a descriptive one.
Friedman was in favor of action against Iraq, but he has also complained about Bush's actions and policies plenty of times (and supported Bush many times as well).
As you noted in your other post, there are no less than three regular opinion columnists (and this doesn't even include the contributor articles and the formal editorials) who have been consistently and steadily critical of Bush since the day he took office.
The opinion that the media overdid the patriotism in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 may very well be valid. But to claim that there were no contrary opinions is ridiculous. [/b]
My comment was based more on the TV Media rather than those in print. Let alone, I really wasn't meaning OpEds either.
-
Originally posted by ggw™:
Originally posted by Barcelona:
[qb]
The opinion that the media overdid the patriotism in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 may very well be valid. But to claim that there were no contrary opinions is ridiculous. [/b]
I remember that at the time of the September 11 attacks I was subscribed to the Washington Post. However, a couple of months after the attacks, I canceled the suscription, not a single criticism to Bush that I recall. Maybe the New York Times was more critical, but I can assure you that if it was, it wasn´t too much. I am sorry, but after Sept. 11, Bush introduced a doctrince that either you were with him or against him, Gob bless America, Axis of Evil and all this crap, a state of terror, it reminded me of the dictatorships in Spain and Latin America. I just don´t support that.
-
Originally posted by Ikarus:
these are the issues important to me. if you want your vote to count for something other than the status quo, consider the libertarian, green, or reform parties. why put it to waste on either side of the same coin?
IMHO now is the time to organize a new party that would sit in the middle using the model of MoveOn, etc. I don't expect this parties candidate ever to become president, but a well organized party can start placing candidates in school board, county government, state government, and hopefully the US house and senate. This party dosen't need to hold a majority in any one location, just enough votes to create a block which has to be dealt with in order to get things done.
Of course it's a huge uphill battle given the current enviroment where very few races are actually up for grabs. Any legitmate party candidate is going to be attacked from both sides. Where are they going to find a slate of candidates to run given most potential polticos are part of the two machines already.
The most fustrating part of this is just how does a party even start, it's just so daunting given the money and resources in place for the dems and repubs
-
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/11/news/newsmakers/sinclair_kerry/index.htm?cnn=yes (http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/11/news/newsmakers/sinclair_kerry/index.htm?cnn=yes)
Anti-Kerry film to air in prime-time
Nation's largest TV chain orders all 62 stations to show movie without commercials next week.
October 11, 2004: 12:40 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the nation, plans to air a documentary that accuses Sen. John Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War, a newspaper reported Monday.
The network has ordered all 62 of its stations to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" without commercials in prime-time next week, the Washington Post said, just two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.
Sinclair's television group, which includes affiliates of all the major networks, reaches nearly a quarter of all U.S. television households, according to the company's Web site. But the affiliates owned by the major television networks reach a larger percentage of U.S. homes because they are in the largest markets.
A dozen of Sinclair's stations are in the critical swing states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin.
The company made news in April when it ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a "Nightline" segment that featured a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; a Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest."
Calls to Sinclair by CNN/Money were not immediately returned Monday.
Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, has written a letter to Sinclair asking the company to cancel reported plans to air the film between now and the Nov. 2 election, the group said in a statement.
"Sinclair's plan to air anti-Kerry propaganda before the election is an abuse of the public airwaves for what appears to be partisan political purposes," Media Matters CEO David Brock said in the letter.
The letter warned Sinclair that its plan could constitute a violation of broadcast regulations requiring equal time for political candidates, as well as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the group said.
Sinclair's top executives include members of the controlling Smith family, who have been strong financial supporters of Bush's campaign, the Post said in its report.
Sinclair executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, 97 percent of it going to Republicans, since the beginning of the year, according to the Los Angeles Times.
According to the report, "Stolen Honor" focuses on Kerry's antiwar testimony to Congress in 1971 and its effect on American POWs in Vietnam, and was produced independently of Sinclair.
The anti-Kerry film states that the senator's testimony hurt the American war effort and undercut morale among the troops.
Sinclair (SBGI: down $0.05 to $7.45, Research, Estimates) shares were little changed on Nasdaq Monday.
-
They could just air it on FOX News. They're fair and balanced...right?
-
http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov (http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov)
-
The Greens have been trying to accomplish this for a little while now. Especially locally.
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
IMHO now is the time to organize a new party that would sit in the middle using the model of MoveOn, etc.
-
The reform party has also had success at getting candidates elected.
-
In the words of the Times Public Editor:
Passion is a distorting lens that makes it hard to perceive the shape of things. Partisans will see the depredations committed against their man, but won't notice similar articles or headlines or photographs that may damage the other guy.
-
so where do the greens and the reform party, whom i've never heard before, lie on the scale conservative, moderate, liberal scale.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
so where do the greens and the reform party, whom i've never heard before, lie on the scale conservative, moderate, liberal scale.
reform party = Ross Perot party, the original party of Jesse Ventura when he was elected
-
And this is where I read your statement wrong. I read your original statement as the need for a third party. The Greens or Reform aren't really your middle of the road types. That's more Democrat/Republican.
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
so where do the greens and the reform party, whom i've never heard before, lie on the scale conservative, moderate, liberal scale.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041012/pl_afp/us_iraq_scholars&cid=1521&ncid=1480 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041012/pl_afp/us_iraq_scholars&cid=1521&ncid=1480)
600 US scholars flunk Bush on foreign policy
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Iraq (news - web sites) war is the most misguided since Vietnam, benefits terrorists and is justified by false claims, said more than 650 foreign-policy specialists in a letter to President George W. Bush (news - web sites).
"We're advising the administration, which is already in a deep hole, to stop digging," said Professor Richard Samuels of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news - web sites).
The letter was released by "Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy," a nonpartisan group.
"The current American policy centered around the war in Iraq is the most misguided one since the Vietnam period, one which harms the cause of the struggle against extreme Islamist terrorists," the letter said.
The experts said the war has distorted "public debate on foreign and national security policy (with) an emphasis on speculation instead of facts, on mythology instead of calculation and on misplaced moralizing over considerations of national interest."
The letter applauded Bush for destroying Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan (news - web sites), but called the inability to capture or kill most Al-Qaeda fighters a "blunder," and said finding terrorists in Afghanistan was preempted by the war in Iraq.
"Many of the justifications offered by the Bush administration for the war in Iraq have been proven untrue by credible studies, including by US government agencies," the experts said.
"Even on moral grounds, the case for war was dubious: The war itself has killed over a thousand Americans and unknown thousands of Iraqis, and if the threat of civil war becomes reality, ordinary Iraqis could be even worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
"The administration knew most of these facts and risks before the war, and could have discovered the others, but instead it played down, concealed or misrepresented them," they said.
The scholars signing the letter are from more than 150 colleges and universities in 40 states. They include former Pentagon (news - web sites), State Department and National Security Council staff, as well as six of the last seven presidents of the American Political Science Association.
"I think it is telling that so many specialists on international relations, who rarely agree on anything, are unified in their position on the high costs that the US is incurring from this war," said Professor Robert Keohane of Duke University.
-
so will kerry use this tonight?
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041013-111643-9369r.htm (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041013-111643-9369r.htm)
For Kerry, Germany might go to Iraq
Berlin, Germany, Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Germany has indicated it would possibly send troops to Iraq if Democrat Sen. John Kerry is elected U.S. president, the Financial Times said Wednesday.
Defense Minister Peter Struck said the German government welcomed Kerry's proposal to convene an international conference on Iraq including countries that opposed the war if he were to win next month's election.
Struck said it was "a very sensible proposal," and because of responsibilities Germany has taken on in Iraq, "would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference."
Berlin is providing financial assistance to Iraq and training Iraqi troops and police officers in the United Arab Emirates. It also announced last month a shipment of 20 armored vehicles to the Iraqi military, as part of Berlin's increased involvement in NATO-led reconstruction efforts there.
While Berlin has refused to comment on the outcome of the U.S. election, the newspaper said Struck's comments are significant as Kerry said he would try to draw in countries to work in Iraq that opposed the war, such as Germany and France.
-
Originally posted by pollard:
so will kerry use this tonight?
I doubt it, I thought tonight's debate was about domestic issues...or maybe I'm wrong...
-
Originally posted by hitman:
I doubt it, I thought tonight's debate was about domestic issues...or maybe I'm wrong...
i am sure we will hear about how lots of domestic programs are being neglected because of $200 billion in iraq, which by the way is 90% of the cost, oh and while we are on the topic, we also have 90% of the casualties
response: need some wood?
-
update
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/international/europe/13cnd-germ.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/international/europe/13cnd-germ.html)
Germany Rejects Speculation That Iraq Policy May Change
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
Published: October 13, 2004
BERLIN, Oct. 13 - German officials today reaffirmed their policy of not contributing troops to the American-led coalition in Iraq and rejected speculation, prompted by a remark by the country's defense minister, that that policy might change in the foreseeable future.
-
Germany = Flip Flopper
-
Originally posted by pollard:
update
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/international/europe/13cnd-germ.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/international/europe/13cnd-germ.html)
Germany Rejects Speculation That Iraq Policy May Change
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
Published: October 13, 2004
BERLIN, Oct. 13 - German officials today reaffirmed their policy of not contributing troops to the American-led coalition in Iraq and rejected speculation, prompted by a remark by the country's defense minister, that that policy might change in the foreseeable future.
If they do this just to avoid interfering with the US election, good for them. Actually, if this is the case, Republicans should learn from this and not stick with their policy of threatening latin american countries to stop aid funds or stop immigration policies as they have recently done in Bolivia or El Salvador. That would be a good lesson for Bush (and ironically his policy of bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world).
-
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist
Originally posted by ggw?:
Germany = Flip Flopper
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist
Originally posted by ggw?:
Germany = Flip Flopper
[/b]
true.
-
I'm hoping for tonight's debate that Kerry doesn't ramble on about Chris Reeve's death. But I know he will.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist
Originally posted by ggw?:
Germany = Flip Flopper
[/b]
or one that doesn't admit to being wrong, or can't use new information to change their mind.
-
<img src="http://mulling.net/vpdebate.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
What would the new information be?
German pre-war intelligence was actually more dire than our own -- they estimated Hussein could have operable nuclear weapons within three years.
Are you saying now that they know this assessment was wrong, they would be happy to send troops?
Originally posted by hitman:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist
Originally posted by ggw?:
Germany = Flip Flopper
[/b]
or one that doesn't admit to being wrong, or can't use new information to change their mind. [/b]
-
Wasn't referring to Germany, but to our current administration.
Originally posted by ggw?:
What would the new information be?
German pre-war intelligence was actually more dire than our own -- they estimated Hussein could have operable nuclear weapons within three years.
Are you saying now that they know this assessment was wrong, they would be happy to send troops?
Originally posted by hitman:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist
Originally posted by ggw?:
Germany = Flip Flopper
[/b]
or one that doesn't admit to being wrong, or can't use new information to change their mind. [/b]
[/b]
-
Originally posted by ggw™:
What would the new information be?
German pre-war intelligence was actually more dire than our own -- they estimated Hussein could have operable nuclear weapons within three years.
Are you saying now that they know this assessment was wrong, they would be happy to send troops?
Originally posted by hitman:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Better a Flip Flopper than a Fascist
Originally posted by ggw™:
Germany = Flip Flopper
[/b]
or one that doesn't admit to being wrong, or can't use new information to change their mind. [/b]
[/b]
ggw, have you ever criticized Bush on this board or admitted that he might have been mistaken? Even The Economist has been critical of Bush (even though they supported him at the beginning). You should at least admit that there is a chance that this people were so eager to go to war against Saddam that they might have manipulated information to make the case. You deny this? Don't you see a chance that this might have happened?
-
I've said that I'm not at all satisfied with the way Bush has run the war. I think he should have listened more to Powell (If you go in, do it with overwhelming force) and less to Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz (We can get this done quickly and cheaply).
But on the issue of Iraq possessing WMD, I don't think one can say Bush was mistaken unless one also says Kerry was mistaken, Al Gore was mistaken, Hillary Clinton was mistaken, the United Kingdom was mistaken, Russia was mistaken, Germany was mistaken, etc....
The disagreement wasn't about whether Iraq had the capacity for building weapons. The disagreement between the U.S. and other nations was whether a military solution was warranted or whether inspections would keep him in check.
I don't think there is evidence that he "manipulated" information. Did he "spin" it? Sure. I think the chances that Bush faked intelligence or suppressed contrary evidence so successfully that he not only fooled his domestic opposition but many foreign intelligence agencies also, to be highly, highly unlikely.
The Clinton Administration believed that Iraq still had the capacity to build WMD. As did non-US intelligence sources. If you want to criticize everybody for being wrong on the intelligence that's entirely fair. However, the practice seems to be to blame "Bush" alone. If you want to blame Bush for being too aggressive or for not giving inspections more of achance, that's fair also. But this whole "Bush lied about WMD" is a sham.
I could find several other things on which to criticize Bush. The "Bush Doctrine" for instance, may well be the stupidest foreign policy ever enacted. As Kerry pointed out, the U.S. always reserved the right to act alone and strike first if we felt it was necessary. There was no need to put it down in writing and piss people off.
I also think Bush has been spending too much money. However, I chalk that up to first-term campaigning. If he were to be elected to a second term (which I find highly unlikely) spending would come way down.
Originally posted by Barcelona:
ggw, have you ever criticized Bush on this board or admitted that he might have been mistaken? Even The Economist has been critical of Bush (even though they supported him at the beginning). You should at least admit that there is a chance that this people were so eager to go to war against Saddam that they might have manipulated information to make the case. You deny this? Don't you see a chance that this might have happened?
-
regarding first term spending
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rugy-030212.html (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rugy-030212.html)
According to Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute, over the first three years of Bush budgeting, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 18% ?? a number that far exceeds the spending increases during the first three years of the last six administrations. And it pales in comparison to the Ronald Reagan budgets. President Reagan restored America's military during his two terms, boosting defense outlays by 19.2% in the first term and 10.4% in the second. But Reagan also reduced non-defense outlays, cutting domestic spending by 13.5% in the first term and 3.2% in the second. That is real budget discipline.
President Bush is also spending more than Bill Clinton. Clinton actually reduced non-defense outlays in his first term, albeit by only 0.7%. And, for all his flaws, he still signed market-oriented reforms such as NAFTA, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and financial-services deregulation.
-
Bags told me to never trust the Cato institute...
Originally posted by pollard:
regarding first term spending
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rugy-030212.html (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rugy-030212.html)
According to Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute, over the first three years of Bush budgeting, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 18% ?? a number that far exceeds the spending increases during the first three years of the last six administrations. And it pales in comparison to the Ronald Reagan budgets. President Reagan restored America's military during his two terms, boosting defense outlays by 19.2% in the first term and 10.4% in the second. But Reagan also reduced non-defense outlays, cutting domestic spending by 13.5% in the first term and 3.2% in the second. That is real budget discipline.
President Bush is also spending more than Bill Clinton. Clinton actually reduced non-defense outlays in his first term, albeit by only 0.7%. And, for all his flaws, he still signed market-oriented reforms such as NAFTA, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and financial-services deregulation.
[/b]
-
Right, because they have no bias....
Originally posted by ggw?:
Bags told me to never trust the Cato institute...
Clinton actually reduced non-defense outlays in his first term, albeit by only 0.7%. And, for all his flaws, he still signed market-oriented reforms such as NAFTA, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and financial-services deregulation.
-
trying to find other sources, it just looks like the same person is writing about it for everybody
-
Alas, ggw, because the numbers are NOT favorable to Bush, I'm tempted to believe the Cato numbers -- and I believe they hated publishing them.
Similarly, if the Progressive Foundation reported that Kerry voted against 200 important tax cuts for the middle class, I'd believe that as their finding is not supportive of the organization's overall mission. But, if you have to decide, I'd err on looking for other sources as I believe Cato has a transparent bias.
-
Anyone see the debate last night? I missed it, though I hope to catch it and PBS' "Choice 2004" over the weekend on video.
-
I don't doubt that Bush's spending has been that high.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Anyone see the debate last night? I missed it, though I hope to catch it and PBS' "Choice 2004" over the weekend on video.
it was a lot of the same, i was flipping between baseball and the debate, but from what I saw and what they said afterward there was nothing really surprising
btw, which channel did people watch them on, I found ABC did a really good job, they did not have any spinners on afterward
-
Hilarious (http://www.thetoiletonline.com/leaveit.htm)
-
What's up with all these clipboard-toting people asking if I want to talk about John Kerry?
I swear, you can't spit in this city without hitting one. Believe me, I've tried.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
What's up with all these clipboard-toting people asking if I want to talk about John Kerry?
I swear, you can't spit in this city without hitting one. Believe me, I've tried.
they are annoying, it is especially fun when they are very close, like when you walk down connecticut and you get one north of dupont and another south of dupont
-
PIRG has a bunch too. I'm not sure what PIRG stands for but from what I understand, they are a clearinghouse of sorts for protest groups.
-
Did anyone see the SwiftVet Leader on Nightline last night? What a tool...
-
Originally posted by econo:
PIRG has a bunch too. I'm not sure what PIRG stands for but from what I understand, they are a clearinghouse of sorts for protest groups.
Public Interest Research Group
-
I think the Cheney's screaming about Kerry mentioning their lesbian daughter is ridiculous. If you watched the debate, I really didn't think Kerry was being mean spirited at all. It wasn't one of those moments where after he said something I was like a little kid yelling "oooooooohhh!" I don't know if the problem over Kerry outing Mary Cheney or what, because she has already been outed. It's like the Republicans are trying to spin this into something that it wasn't. Surprise, surprise!
-
Some funny stuff (http://www.n3t.net/humor/Seriously.mpg)
-
i'm off to see John Edwards, No Loyaly oath or eassy required...
-
The whole time I watched this, I thought for sure that something was going to happen to the people walking down the pathway, like getting bitten by that rabid squirrel that ran by.
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Some funny stuff (http://www.n3t.net/humor/Seriously.mpg)
-
Every time I see a picture of W, he's wearing pleated pants. PLEATED PANTS! Talk about being "out of touch"!
-
Originally posted by ggw™:
I've said that I'm not at all satisfied with the way Bush has run the war. I think he should have listened more to Powell (If you go in, do it with overwhelming force) and less to Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz (We can get this done quickly and cheaply).
But on the issue of Iraq possessing WMD, I don't think one can say Bush was mistaken unless one also says Kerry was mistaken, Al Gore was mistaken, Hillary Clinton was mistaken, the United Kingdom was mistaken, Russia was mistaken, Germany was mistaken, etc....
The disagreement wasn't about whether Iraq had the capacity for building weapons. The disagreement between the U.S. and other nations was whether a military solution was warranted or whether inspections would keep him in check.
I don't think there is evidence that he "manipulated" information. Did he "spin" it? Sure. I think the chances that Bush faked intelligence or suppressed contrary evidence so successfully that he not only fooled his domestic opposition but many foreign intelligence agencies also, to be highly, highly unlikely.
The Clinton Administration believed that Iraq still had the capacity to build WMD. As did non-US intelligence sources. If you want to criticize everybody for being wrong on the intelligence that's entirely fair. However, the practice seems to be to blame "Bush" alone. If you want to blame Bush for being too aggressive or for not giving inspections more of achance, that's fair also. But this whole "Bush lied about WMD" is a sham.
I could find several other things on which to criticize Bush. The "Bush Doctrine" for instance, may well be the stupidest foreign policy ever enacted. As Kerry pointed out, the U.S. always reserved the right to act alone and strike first if we felt it was necessary. There was no need to put it down in writing and piss people off.
I also think Bush has been spending too much money. However, I chalk that up to first-term campaigning. If he were to be elected to a second term (which I find highly unlikely) spending would come way down.
Originally posted by Barcelona:
ggw, have you ever criticized Bush on this board or admitted that he might have been mistaken? Even The Economist has been critical of Bush (even though they supported him at the beginning). You should at least admit that there is a chance that this people were so eager to go to war against Saddam that they might have manipulated information to make the case. You deny this? Don't you see a chance that this might have happened?
[/b]
Not that I believe on all these neoconservative conspiracies, I don't have enough information (although I am inclined to think that Bush is influenced by a group of far-right people). I think they might have manipulated information, I recall that issue over the leak regarding a CIA undercover official or somehthing like this, which was related to some flawed information about some nuclear stuff being shipped to somewhere in Africa (Nigeria, Niger? don't remember the country). Anyway, I believe that more than 1,000 American troops have been killed in Irak and up to 10,000 or 15,000 Irakis by some estimates have been killed in a war where all the arguments to go to war have proved to be wrong. I believe all these deaths due to wrong beliefs of WMD or wrong links with Al-Qaida require some resignations, to me Bush should resign because he took the risk to go to war and not only those arguments were wrong, but he has made the world more dangerous than it was before September 11 (although someone could argue that the world is safer now, I don't have data to back up my argument that we live in a more unsecure world than before September 11), I just think there should be an investigation to see if the Bush administration manipulated information, I think that the analysis done by that 9/11 commission was not enough, there should be responsabilities.
By the way, the thing I like the least about this Republican Party? this "Compassionate conservatism" that they claim, I hate this term, I think Bush can be anything but compassionate. And the reference in the last debate that Bush felt that people pray for him, that made me think that this guy is just crazy.
-
Sinclair Broadcasting stock is still getting pounded... The company is carrying a huge debt in order to buy all those TV stations, and making marginal profit to support that debt. And now it's going to get hit with a stockholders lawsuit regarding insider trading. and yes i've become addicted to dailykos.com
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
and yes i've become addicted to dailykos.com
dailykosmo.com ?
-
kos, atrios, pandagon, tpm - they're all great!
Originally posted by marquee smith:
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
and yes i've become addicted to dailykos.com
dailykosmo.com ? [/b]
-
From the W. Post:
Sinclair Fires Critic of Plan to Broadcast Anti-Kerry Film
By Howard Kurtz, Page C01
The Washington bureau chief of Sinclair Broadcast Group was fired yesterday after accusing the media company of "indefensible" conduct for planning to air a movie attacking Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam record in the coming days.
-
<img src="http://www.bikerfox.com/foxphotos2/images/0163.jpg" alt=" - " />
"Bear down like you're trying to shit..." (http://www.vibrators-faq.com/safety/stuck-ass.html)
-
<img src="http://www.youforgotpoland.com/ipoland.jpg" alt=" - " />
You Forgot Poland (http://www.youforgotpoland.com)
-
So lets see the Sinclair stock continues to slide, which appears to be hurting thier own since a signficant amount is owned by company official.
The NY State Comptroller and manager of the Pension fund has sent a letter to Sinclair. Turning the heat up a bit.
Sinclair has fired back claiming that everything was based on misrepresentation blah blah blah...
http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/press/release_20041019_87.shtml (http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/press/release_20041019_87.shtml)
But I find this a bit rich coming from them. :roll:
Mr. Smith further stated, "We cannot in a free America yield to the
misguided attempts by a small but vocal minority to influence behavior and
trample on the First Amendment rights of those with whom they might not
agree.
-
nothing new...just entertaining to read (if you believe a certain way):
JOCK POLITICS
Who is the most popular person at your school? Is it the smartest person at your
school ?? the President of the Math Club or the Vice President of the Science
Club or is it the quarterback or the captain of the football team?
In watching the third and final debate between the presidential candidates, I
want to encourage you to take a hard look, or in this case, a hard listen at
what is actually being said. In the past two debates, one has laid out fact
after fact to explain, as best he can, the issue at hand. Albeit, some of these
facts were embellished, even misquoted in the heat of a campaign, as it??s been
pointed out by non-partisan fact checking pundits, but 90% of his explanations
actually refer back to DATA that he puts forth into the conversation.
In rebuttal, the other candidate will answer most of the time with a ??that??s
just wrong? or ??that won??t work, it just won??t? or a bag full of one liner
clichés written by a campaign manager with no further facts to back up his
opinion. This is what I refer to as a ??pep rally candidate? ?? and I hope I??ve
just coined that term.
This is a candidate who will scare you, inspire you, rally you, make you laugh,
put down his opponent in no uncertain terms, and in the end have passed on to
you absolutely nothing of substance ?? no new data, no new information to
REASSURE you that what he just said was in fact a fact. This is a simple "go
team", wave your flag campaign and guess what ?? it??ll win this election if you
don??t start listening.
Think back to the last pep rally you were at. Your coach or the captain of the
football team came out and gave a speech to the student body. Did they tell you
how they were going to defeat the other team on Friday night? Did they go into
detail about how your offensive linemen out weigh the other offensive linemen by
25 pounds, and that your running back can run the mile 2.7 seconds faster than
the other teams? Or did they just stand there, and tell you how great you were,
how proud you should be to go to the school you??re at, what a great bunch of
young men your team has and that ??they??re working hard every day? to bring home
a win, and they??re going to bring home that win - you can count on it? How did
you feel after that speech while everyone was standing on their feet applauding?
Were you inspired? Did you trust that they were going to bring home that win
Friday night?
Do we as a country elect people of presidential standards or are we captivated
by this grand illusion? There??s a political party out there that knows how to
campaign like nobody??s business. If you??ve got a question, then they have a flat
out yes or no answer for you; that??s how they see things ?? yes or no ?? black and
white, and again, it works for them because people understand that language. But
I??m asking you to listen a little harder, ask the NEXT question, and see if
their answer still fits.
You??ll find out in years to come the world isn??t made up of yes and no, black
and white. Campaigns are made to simplify the issues down to bullet points so
voters can take it all in. Don??t let them simplify you; the world and the issues
in this campaign are far more complex than some candidates would have you
believe. These issues deserve better than a ??yes or no?; ??you agree with me or
you don??t?; ??it??s us versus them?; and ??we??re going to win it on Friday night?.
Just listen.
By Pepper Berry of Bobot Adrenaline
http://www.bobotadrenaline.com (http://www.bobotadrenaline.com)
-
The Florida Voting Machine (http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Videos/BoomChicagoVotingMachine)
-
<img src="http://www.i-am-bored.com/images/buspee.jpg" alt=" - " />
www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=6071 (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=6071)
-
The could be a little house cleaning go on over at The White House (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00000795.htm)
-
Presidents say the darnest things
Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
Read quick it might get scrub (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html)
-
Is flawd in this race?
-
Christ what a putz...
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Presidents say the darnest things
Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
Read quick it might get scrub (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html)
-
He's just trying to put a positive spin on the damage that Michael Moore's film did to his campaign. Do you really think that he though it was pilot error?
Originally posted by hitman:
Christ what a putz...
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Presidents say the darnest things
Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
Read quick it might get scrub (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html)
[/b]
-
Kerry is the true putz. He once referred to Red Sox slugger "Manny Ortiz".
-
I thought it was Kerry's wife who was the putz for implying that teaching is not a "real job" but then catching herself and stating that she really meant to say that staying home and raising kids wasn't a "real job."
-
I still cannot get over the fact that the registered republican voters preferred Bush over McCain as the candidate in 2K.
MCCAIN FOR PREZ !
FREE GILLIGAN !
-
Armchair pundits are go!
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
I thought it was Kerry's wife who was the putz for implying that teaching is not a "real job" but then catching herself and stating that she really meant to say that staying home and raising kids wasn't a "real job."
It's funny..did I even bring that up? No. But since you did...Kerry's wife is a spitfire but has no brain to back it up. So shit just flies out of her mouth. Do I agree with her, sort of. Because in my experience, especially during the days that Laura was a media teacher they weren't as responsible for teaching anything but the Dewey decimal system. Things are much different now.
I took her comment as just ignorant and I in turn ignored it. Just like I ignore the comments Bush and Cheney make that if Kerry is elected, more terrorist attacks will take place.
-
I think Teresa Heinz Kerry is the only person I actually like in the entire campaign. She's a bit looney tunes but at least she's interesting.
-
<img src="http://www.drudgereport.com/hkbb.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by econo:
I think Teresa Heinz Kerry is the only person I actually like in the entire campaign. She's a bit looney tunes but at least she's interesting.
At least a little more interesting than the robot Bush has for a wife.
-
Yesterday, I saw Farenheit 9/11 in La Paz, Bolivia. I thought it was an excellent movie, not aware about the inaccuracies it may have, but still, I thought it was a very good movie, pretty accurate sounds to me. One thing that surprised me was the amount of Americans watching the movie. Not too many americans live in La Paz, so I assume a large percentage of them are somehow working in or for the US embassy down here. Good thing!
-
Sinclair "News" post mortem...
Haven't seen the show yet, it's on tape. but it must have been quite the program seeing as the right wingnut are now calling for the boycott of Sinclair. some are saying that it was so "pro" Kerry that Sinclair should be offering another hour to Bush.
It amazes me how upset Bush supporters get when he's show as exactly as he is. A not so bright spoiled rich kid. Such a shame the "liberal" media digs beyond the surface of a story...
-
Here's a picture Bags will like. :D But maybe considered pornographic by GGW or what will be on his dartboard tonight. ;)
http://homepage.mac.com/payote/clinton.jpg (http://homepage.mac.com/payote/clinton.jpg)
-
I thought this Steve Earle quote was sorta funny...
But it's much easier for me to support John Kerry than Bill Clinton. Clinton is the only Republican I ever voted for twice."
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Here's a picture Bags will like. :)
-
Well there is a first time for everything I just cast a TRL vote for the new Eminen vid for "Mosh" with a not so subtle anti Bush and get out the vote message.
Linkage
The video to Eminem's scathing anti-Bush/pro-Vote video is up now at this site. You can also see it at these sites:
Windows Media Player
http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/interscope/eminem/encore/video/mosh-rev/000_mosh-rev.asx (http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/interscope/eminem/encore/video/mosh-rev/000_mosh-rev.asx)
Real Player
http://boss.streamos.com/real/interscope/eminem/encore/video/mosh-rev/000_mosh-rev.ram (http://boss.streamos.com/real/interscope/eminem/encore/video/mosh-rev/000_mosh-rev.ram)
Quicktime
http://movies10.archive.org/3/movies/Mosh2/GNN_Mosh_bb2.mov (http://movies10.archive.org/3/movies/Mosh2/GNN_Mosh_bb2.mov)
or
http://boss.streamos.com/qtime/interscope/eminem/encore/video/mosh-rev/300_mosh-rev.mov (http://boss.streamos.com/qtime/interscope/eminem/encore/video/mosh-rev/300_mosh-rev.mov)
-
where the hell is Edwards? what happened to him? I'm sick and tired of seeing all of the media blitz with Cheney, but nothing of Edwards. The only thing I've see of Edwards in the past two weeks is a blurb about his wife on Tough Crowd tonight on Comedy Central. Damnit!
-
Originally posted by hitman:
where the hell is Edwards? what happened to him? I'm sick and tired of seeing all of the media blitz with Cheney, but nothing of Edwards.
He's rounding up the NASCAR voters:
<img src="http://www.wonkette.com/images/when%20nascar%20moms%20attack.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by hitman:
where the hell is Edwards? what happened to him?
He's still fixing his hair.
-
not only is bush fixin' his hair but he is show us his IQ!
Bush's One Finger Salute to the Nation (http://www.videovotevigil.org/)
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
not only is bush fixin' his hair but he is show us his IQ!
POLITICAL POINTS
Secret Weapon for Bush?
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: October 24, 2004
To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.
That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush's SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120's, about 10 points lower than Al Gore's.
Mr. Kerry's SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates' military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.
Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.
Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.
Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in "Doonesbury," that Mr. Bush's I.Q. was 91, the lowest of any modern American president. But that report from the non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax.
You might expect Kerry campaign officials, who have worried that their candidate's intellectual image turns off voters, to quickly rush out a commercial trumpeting these new results, but for some reason they seem to be resisting the temptation.
Upon hearing of their candidate's score, Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the senator, said merely: "The true test is not where you start out in life, but what you do with those God-given talents. John Kerry's 40 years of public service puts him in the top percentile on that measure."
From The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html)
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Steve Sailer
That's it! I've been trying to peg you for months now through all of these political discussions. You remind me of Steve Sailer!
And I guess I shouldn't be surprised, having just visited isteve.com that many of your recent links and articles are on there....
And yes, I threw up in my mouth a little when I visited the site.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
That's it! I've been trying to peg you for months now through all of these political discussions. You remind me of Steve Sailer!
After perusing Mr. Sailer's site, I have come to suspect that you don't intend that comparison as a compliment.
-
Political Bohemian Rhapsody (http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6019)
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
After perusing Mr. Sailer's site, I have come to suspect that you don't intend that comparison as a compliment.
While I may disagree with your politics GGW, I do find you one of the most well informed on the board. Sometimes I think you might be misinformed (as I'm sure you do of me), but at least you think, research, and have plenty of knowledge and facts to back it up your opinions.
I think the same of Steve Sailer - he's no idiot. Racist at times and clearly way to the right, but he does his homework and uses facts to back up his points. I disagree with just about everything he says, but at least it's presented in a scholarly manner, as opposed to the Religious Right, which I think tends to hide in rhetoric.
A backhanded comment perhaps, or perhaps a backhanded compliment, I'm not sure. Probably both. It's not like I compared you to Ralph Reed, you know?
-
Why I can't get enough of Dailykos.com
Busted with hands in the Photoshop Jar (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/bush.ad.ap/index.html)
-
halloween costumes (http://www.thestranger.com/current/special.html)
-
chimbly can now report to you live from the battleground state of wisconsin. (chimbly will now stop referring to herself in the third person.)
if i lived here, i'd be looking for last minute trips outta town. about 2/3 of the tv commercials are political. every mailbox is stuffed with issue ads-- one for every issue. every door has been knocked on twice, and nobody answers their phone any more.
people also have moved from political debate to a sort of war like atmosphere-- that whole "you're with us or you're against us" is happening from both sides-- nobody really wants to talk issues anymore.
you'd have to live under a rock to not plan on voting.
off to knock on more doors of people who've heard it before...
-
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
nobody really wants to talk issues anymore.
People were talking issues at some point?
-
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
chimbly can now report to you live from the battleground state of wisconsin. (chimbly will now stop referring to herself in the third person.)
one of my best friends lives in madison, and he's done some phone bank work for kerry and was at the rally with springsteen yesterday. he reports that his phone bank experience was pretty terrible, as he was calling rural areas, and nearly everyone he called was a bush supporter - which made for an unpleasant day for him. he also reports that at the springsteen rally, everyone there (kerry, feingold, tammy baldwin, teresa and bruce), except for springsteen, was a terrible speaker.
-
"When George Bush heard that the Boss was ay my rally, he thought they were talking about Dick Cheney."
Wow, Senator Kerry, you're a really funny guy.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
"When George Bush heard that the Boss was ay my rally, he thought they were talking about Dick Cheney."
Wow, Senator Kerry, you're a really funny guy.
I don't know, I think that's HYSTERICAL.
-
How about this one:
What's the opposite of Christopher Reeve?
Christopher Walken
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
"When George Bush heard that the Boss was ay my rally, he thought they were talking about Dick Cheney."
Wow, Senator Kerry, you're a really funny guy.
I don't know, I think that's HYSTERICAL. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
What's the opposite of Christopher Reeve?
Christopher Walken
I'm embarrassed by how much I just laughed at that....
-
<img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage42/3.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
one of my best friends lives in madison, and he's done some phone bank work for kerry and was at the rally with springsteen yesterday. he reports that his phone bank experience was pretty terrible, as he was calling rural areas, and nearly everyone he called was a bush supporter - which made for an unpleasant day for him. he also reports that at the springsteen rally, everyone there (kerry, feingold, tammy baldwin, teresa and bruce), except for springsteen, was a terrible speaker.
why waste your time calling rural areas? all we need to do is turn out folks in the cities-- that will deliver enough D votes to make a difference. no need convincing at this point-- we just need to move the base.
and some beer. moving some beer would help.
-
<img src="http://www.ilovebacon.com/102604/rock.jpg" alt=" - " />
I wonder how the teachers will vote..? Will Ozzy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3948329.stm) finally realize his dream and join the royal navy?
-
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
why waste your time calling rural areas?
i doubt that that was his intention when he signed up to volunteer for the campaign.
-
Let's play the caption game...
<img src="http://www.wonkette.com/images/or%20you%20could%20say%20shes%20going%20as%20kerry.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Random Citizen:
Let's play the caption game...
<img src="http://www.wonkette.com/images/or%20you%20could%20say%20shes%20going%20as%20kerry.jpg" alt=" - " />
Cheney, in a rare moment of self-reflection during the final days of the campaign, faced a physical manifestation of the inner child he had so long suppressed.
-
Vice President Cheney takes a mini-Snickers bar out of the hands of Jimmy Thompson, age 9, saying, "Jimmy needs lay off the sweets so when he's drafted next month, he won't suffer sugar withdrawals." :p
-
<img src="http://www.wonkette.com/images/or%20you%20could%20say%20shes%20going%20as%20kerry.jpg" alt=" - " />
Campaigning in Wisconsin on Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney shows supporters what their children will look like under a Kerry-Edwards administration