2 1/2 Days to Go...& Still Undecided by BrownShirtsRock

But are you doing the same inspite of the fact that the economy could have gone into the shitter ever since a bunch of nuts decided that they want to come and kill your kin just b/c you are labeled American?

and inspite of the fact that we have to spend uberoodles to prop up a couple of 3rd world nations so they don't slide into an ooozing quagmire, and on top of that spending time and money being involved in 2 major conflicts.

If the president has anything to do with this juggling act while preventing us from sliding into deep depression. Yet without me having to ration my flour, eggs, and tin. That's pretty good.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 30, 2004 1:59 PM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

But are you doing the same inspite of the fact that the economy could have gone into the shitter ever since a bunch of nuts decided that they want to come and kill your kin just b/c you are labeled American?

and inspite of the fact that we have to spend uberoodles to prop up a couple of 3rd world nations so they don't slide into an ooozing quagmire, and on top of that spending time and money being involved in 2 major conflicts.

If the president has anything to do with this juggling act while preventing us from sliding into deep depression. Yet without me having to ration my flour, eggs, and tin. That's pretty good.

Jsonzzz,
Those folks decided to come kill us, and actually did kill 3000 of our neighbors while GW Bush was on duty. We can point the finger of blame anywherre you want, but it eventually lands on the guy on duty. It comes with the job. Bush has done some interesting twisting and dodging to avoid it, but it still lands at his feet.

Just as Pearl Harbor landed at the feet of FDR.

Now, since you've brought up the mass hemmorhaging of money we've been doing to fight this war on terror, let's consider this...

Bush keeps on cutting taxes and increasing spending. Our budget shortfall is at record levels and our national debt is at a whopping 7.3 TRILLION dollars. That debt has to come home to roost sooner or later.

Bush isn't managing to prop up the economy, he's borrowing to make up the shortfall. He's mortgaging your future to preserve his presidency. Every company he's owned has either flopped or been bought out by his Saudi Arabian buddies.

And that John Edwards thing, take a look at this.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/neighbor.asp

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 30, 2004 4:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

But are you doing the same inspite of the fact that the economy could have gone into the shitter ever since a bunch of nuts decided that they want to come and kill your kin just b/c you are labeled American?

and inspite of the fact that we have to spend uberoodles to prop up a couple of 3rd world nations so they don't slide into an ooozing quagmire, and on top of that spending time and money being involved in 2 major conflicts.

If the president has anything to do with this juggling act while preventing us from sliding into deep depression. Yet without me having to ration my flour, eggs, and tin. That's pretty good.

Jsonzzz,
Those folks decided to come kill us, and actually did kill 3000 of our neighbors while GW Bush was on duty. We can point the finger of blame anywherre you want, but it eventually lands on the guy on duty. It comes with the job. Bush has done some interesting twisting and dodging to avoid it, but it still lands at his feet.

Just as Pearl Harbor landed at the feet of FDR.

Are you saying that GW is related to these Muslim Fundamentalists Crazies somehow? If that's not what you are saying, I don't understand where you are going with that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

Now, since you've brought up the mass hemmorhaging of money we've been doing to fight this war on terror, let's consider this...

Bush keeps on cutting taxes and increasing spending. Our budget shortfall is at record levels and our national debt is at a whopping 7.3 TRILLION dollars. That debt has to come home to roost sooner or later.

Bush isn't managing to prop up the economy, he's borrowing to make up the shortfall. He's mortgaging your future to preserve his presidency. Every company he's owned has either flopped or been bought out by his Saudi Arabian buddies.

I don't know where you are going with either. Are you saying that we shouldn't borrow money to keep the economy floating? How the heck do Americans buy car, houses, or even shop down at the mart? We borrow a loan, get a mortgage, and swipe a credit card. We make a monthly payment plan and pay a little bit of interest. You could take an extremist approach and say that borrowing of any form is mortgaging my future away. But you've got to do something to keep the economy from tanking and doing the noisedive jive. We've managed a soft-landing now and to keep our economy afloat and even growing a little. But you would rather that we all be sitting in a soup kitchen line and our economy in a big smoldering ruins.

No thanks.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

And that John Edwards thing, take a look at this.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/neighbor.asp

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

I don't know what the John Edwards thing is all about, but the guy hasn't made a decision or paid for a damn thing in his entire life. His only set of experience is ripping good honest working people off and killing our tort system with overburdened false malpractice lawsuits. He is an A$$.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 30, 2004 5:48 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I don't know what the John Edwards thing is all about, but the guy hasn't made a decision or paid for a damn thing in his entire life. His only set of experience is ripping good honest working people off and killing our tort system with overburdened false malpractice lawsuits. He is an A$$.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

The problem with making absolute statements is that they are so easy to disprove. This smacks of hyperbole. Has John Edwards made at least one decision in his life? Well, he decided to accept the position of Vice President on the ticket. Has John Edwards paid for at least one thing in his life? Well, the fact that he came from a family of hourly wage earners, went to public school, and was the first in his family to attend college means that at some point he probably paid for something. You see where I'm going with this? If you tone down the rhetoric a bit your statements might be taken a bit more seriously.

On the issue of John Edward's legal career... I would be very surprised if you knew of even one case that he tried. Surprise me.

We have a system of checks and balances. There are two primary ways to make sure that corporations do not harm private citizens - one is oversight by regulatory agencies and the other is lawsuits filed by citizens against corporations. Many regulatory agencies today are being run by people who worked in the industries that are being regulated. Does that seem right to you? So the main recourse becomes lawsuits. This is the reason that corporations are so strenuously pushing tort reform. Having to pay for their mistakes and injuries that their products inflict on people cuts into the bottom line. If they severely curtail lawsuits against them then they make more money. Are there frivolous lawsuits? Definitely. Who gets to decide what is a frivolous lawsuit? The corporations?

As yourself what are the motives of the people that are championing tort reform? Where do they get the majority of their donations from? Who benefits the most from limiting the ability of people to hold corporations accountable for mistakes? It's a good system that needs to be reformed, not neutered.

*editted to add:
In the interest of not diverging too far off topic I'll just add a couple of points to this post. I purposefully used the word neuter to indicate that the ability to hold corporations accountable through the justice system would be hamstrung, not done away with. And that would be the end result if those who are funded by corporations are in charge of reforming the system that is designed to hold corporations accountable - similar to how the regulatory process was neutered.

In regards to Edwards cases... You surprised me Jasonzzz. I didn't expect you to know anything about Edwards previous cases and you did. The cases that you talk about are some of the ones that he is famous for. Here are some others in tabular format: http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html
In regards to the science behind the decisions, I would point you to an interesting article I found at the same site (although it's a very long read and written by a law professor) that touches on this very topic: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20040726.html
One important take away message is that these settlements were argued before juries. Each side brought experts. Juries believed one side over the other.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 30, 2004 7:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
... It's a good system that needs to be reformed, not neutered.

I'm not at all sure where you got that I want to nuke the entire damn thing. It's pretty obvious I'm for some sort of reform.

And I don't know where you've been, but his medical malpractice lawsuits with newborn babies and cerebral palsy suspected from administering of pitosin was all over CSPAN when he was first picked. Even though there isn't a single shred of scientific evidence to show.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 30, 2004 10:52 PM

RICKKER

okay we're getting a little off topic here. Brownshirtsrock is wanting to be told who we think will be the better president. Just looking at the last four years of Bush's term should show anyone with any kind of attention span that Bush hasn't done a thing right since day 1. He was the least qualified man for the job. Every thing he said he would do, he didn't. in fact in most instances he did the opposite. 100,000 new jobs? 3 million! sent overseas. Peace? One retributive attack against a serious terrorist threat, and one war to get rich. Foreign relations? right! Bush personifies everything most nations dislike about America. Unwavering devotion to greed and arrogance above all others. This country is in serious need of an overhaul. We have got to change our "whats in it for me" and "I want whats mine" mentality and try to get back to being a better place a beacon of hope, return to the leadership that had generations striving to improve themselves and their neigbors. Kerry I doubt will fix our problems but I'm certain he will get us off this road to hell that will come if Bush is re-elected.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think Kerry will. Not that I agree with everything Kerry stands for (I'd get out of NAFTA for example) but he seems to have at least one foot in reality.

Reality-based thinking is not Bush's strong point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:01 AM

RUXTON

"One of these men is a malignant idiot and a lifelong bully, and the other has displayed at least occasional moments of genuine courage and conviction. One candidate is patently dysfunctional through and through, and the other is not. One candidate is an integral element in a single extended corporate family clearly bent on stealing as much of the world's resources as inhumanly possible. The other, while rich, has never displayed a compulsion to commit grand larceny on a planetary scale." -- Diane Harvey.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownShirtsRock:
Please tell me who you are voting for in the U.S. Presidential Election and why. Maybe seeing some of your opinions will help me decide.

I'm undecided. Do I get up and vote early or wait till afternoon? Or both...

When do I start intimidating Democrats and interfering with them getting to the poles?

So many choices.

For the record:

Bush- lower taxes, tort reform, educational accountablity, and a broad war against terror.

Kerry- higher taxes, national health care, terror is a criminal issue (like prostitution), and national Defense must meet a global (ie French) test.

Nader- No war, no crime, no pollution, no sense of reality (the perfect liberal and a much better choice then Kerry).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:18 AM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
When do I start intimidating Democrats and interfering with them getting to the poles?

Hopefully a few minutes before you are arrested for assault and violating voters' civil rights...

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 12:51 PM

@BROWNSHIRTSROCK
read:
http://www.johnkerry.com/
http://www.georgewbush.com/

Then decide.

@Hero
Your record needs some tweaking.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Bush- lower taxes, tort reform, educational accountablity, and a broad war against terror.

Lower taxes - for the rich,

the other vast majority of the US population

Education accountability - to hold the teacher accountable for the students failure. Where are the parents in this picture? There are more ways to help the child's education than helping them learn to read in the "early years" (ie education continues after that). What is he talking about research? Like the rest of the world hasn't been doing this for a *long* time. Why can't he admitt that there exists a vast pool of info waiting to be used?

War - paid for with what? Taxes are lower so the gov's income is to. Fighting terrorists can done with more than just the sword. Something that Bush doesn't understand.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Kerry- higher taxes, national health care, terror is a criminal issue (like prostitution), and national Defense must meet a global (ie French) test.

You should really goto Kerry's site. You're plain wrong.

Higher taxes - actually, putting taxes back where they were b/c of Bush's horror of a tax cut for only the richest. And then cutting the taxes for middle income. Various positive affects here.

Terror criminal - Actually, his plan only differs in GW's in that he isn't going to be a war monger.

Global test - Actually not French, UN. The US is up the creek without a paddle when it comes to this terrorism thing. Without rebuilding relationships with other nations (ie coming up with a reasonable plan and in general being reasonable) the fight is already lost and will meet US soil again and again....

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Nader- No war, no crime, no pollution, no sense of reality (the perfect liberal and a much better choice then Kerry).

I saw an interview with this man. I agree with you up to the ()'s.

He is no liberal. He's a loon and *much* worse than Kerry. Kerry is realistic, etc.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 1:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

With people like Hero who needs democracy???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
When do I start intimidating Democrats and interfering with them getting to the poles?

Hopefully a few minutes before you are arrested for assault and violating voters' civil rights...

Who said anything about assault? You Bush-haters are bad, bad fellows.

And I can pretty much guarrantee that I wont the one being arrested. Whats the use of being a "government official" if you can't abuse your power from time to time? Just this summer the ice cream man came driving his truck into my neighborhood. He played that stupid song over and over. Well he learned his lesson,and so will all the registered Democrats in my county...wait! OH GOD! OHIO DOESN'T REGISTER BY PARTY! Curses, foiled again.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
With people like Hero who needs democracy???

I resemble that remark.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@Hero
Your record needs some tweaking.

Lower taxes - for the rich, the other vast majority of the US population

Education accountability - to hold the teacher accountable for the students failure. There are more ways to help the child's education than helping them learn to read in the "early years" (ie education continues after that).

War - paid for with what? Taxes are lower so the gov's income is to. Fighting terrorists can done with more than just the sword. Something that Bush doesn't understand.

I was going for broad strokes, but since you want specifics:

"Tax cuts for the rich"- I made less then $26,000 last year, I got a tax cut. This year I will make substantially more, and still pay less taxes then I will if Kerry gets in.

"Educational Accoutability"- I live in an area where pilot school voucher programs and charter schools provide an alternative to failed public schools. My teacher friends are pissed at the extra work they have getting kids ready for tests, but their kids have seen improved scores in the last two years.

"War- another tax issue"- Tax revenues increased after the tax cut. The tax cut led to higher consumption and greater investment. That coupled with higher interest rates led to a larger pie from which the govt takes its cut and thus a net larger piece. Ah, the '80s, we learned so much.

A better argument then taxes is "where are the jobs?" Answer, I got mine. I have a high paying job that didn't exist three years ago. Answer, you'll get yours, jobs are a lagging indicator, but this year already has added over 1.5 million new jobs and the unemployment rate is 5.4% (down from over 6% during the Clinton legacy/terror recession of 2000-2002).

Come on, their even making steel in Cleveland again. Sure, not as much as before, but who can compete with Mexican steel prices these days?

Kerry's solution is to rewind us to the Clinton era. While most remember the time for its economic growth, I remember the last time the Democrats tried to fix health care. And Clinton's people viewed terror as a criminal issue as well. The 9/11 Report does not condemn Clinton, and niether do I, but what it does indicate is that the "criminal" approach failed to check Al Queda's growth and laid the seeds for 9/11. We cannot go back, we need to move ahead.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 3:22 PM

It's pretty straight forward.

We haven't been attacked since 9/11. Afghanistan, despite Jimmy Carter and John Kerry, have had their FIRST free election EVER. The first person to vote was a 19 year old woman. Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror. Terrorists are moving in and dying by the scores. Better than fighting them here. Kerry has proclaimed that G.W. Bush will invoke a draft, despite the FACT it was introduced by 2 Democrates and voted down by the Congress. Furthermore, drafted soldiers wouldn't be able to fight for well over 1.5 years. It takes the Ready Reserve a year to ramp up for deployment. Al Gore said G.W. "will steal your Social Security" to the elderly. It didn't happen...Kerry is saying it now. Why would Bush hurt the elderly? Is it in his interest to hurt his constituants? Kerry vote to RAISE taxes on Social Security benefits(!!!)

Look folks, The Kerry/Edwards camp has been laying down allot of crap. The politics of fear. Why? Because what do they have to offer?

I pay less taxes than under Clinton. I live 1 hour from NYC and work in mid-town. I feel safer with this Presidents actions and foreign policy. By checking John Kerry's voting record, I can't believe he'll be consistant. I'm not going to risk letting him pull out of Iraq, WHICH, he will do. "Wrong war, Wrong time" etc etc. Voted against the 87 Billion spending.

AND ALL DE DOES IS BITCH BITCH BITCH. What are his plans? Lord knows he goes on about his plans, we just DON'T KNOW what they are.

I'm voting for Bush. For my safety, my family, and for my friends and family in the military serving.

Edited to add:

I'm not a pro-lifer so much as a pro responsibility person. I like the fact that George Bush said "I want to change the heart of America. I won't outlaw abortion. They should be infrequent."
Fact: John Kerry voted AGAINTS the majortiy of Americans (85%)FOR partial Birth Abortion. For those of you who don't know what that is, in the last trimest, labor is induces, the child is born, alive, but not entirely removed from the womb. An incision is made in the skull and a tub is inserted. Brains are removed and death follows. Kerry makes the "Life of the mother argument" which is truly bogus in this case. When would THAT procedure save a womans life??? Why does he support it? Special interests....pure and simple.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:15 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
It's pretty straight forward.

We haven't been attacked since 9/11.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.

Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh, how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
It's pretty straight forward.

We haven't been attacked since 9/11.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.

Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh, how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

Make all the jokes you want.

Last I heard, bears aren't flying planes into buildings. Bears aren't supporting an Islamo-fascist agenda and killing free people everywhere.

I live in Jersey. We lost 700 neighbors. I have friends deployed abroad defending our nation and defending Western civilization. I lost friends in 9/11. I remember seeing the crater of ground zero. I remember seeing the film of the Americans jumping to their deaths from the towers. For days after I recall seeing the sign on the turnpike flasing "NYC is closed" We know of only a handful of terror plots which have been thrwarted, history will reveal the rest. The full resources of our government and armed forces are working to prevent another 9/11.

Mock me all you want, but you're not me and know nothing about my experiences. I'm disappointed that the best you can post to contradict my reasoning is a cartoon. Bravo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:46 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Mock me all you want, but you're not me and know nothing about my experiences. I'm disappointed that the best you can post to contradict my reasoning is a cartoon.

Who is mocking your experiences? I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your argument that the absence of a domestic terrorist attack somehow proves that the administration has been effective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:52 PM

BILLYUNO

Here's the one I like.

www.factcheck.org

If you happen to like the ads, or watch the debates, this is a great site for finding out just how truthful these are. Both sides are unbiasedly represented. Overall, I've found Kerry to be a bit more honest. Less misleading I should say. But you can read and judge for yourself.

Another thing that it shows is how the votes of each candidate on certain issued is not indicative of their views on that subject. Sometimes bills have clauses that Senators and Congressmen don't agree with, whether the other things in the bill are agreeable. So for example when the Bush campaign says that Kerry voted agains body armor, the body armor was only one third of one percent of the money spent in that bill. Many republicans were also against that particular bill. This is just a little of the kind of information you can find on this site.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:11 PM

SPACECOWGIRL

Amen Waddledoodle. I pretty much agree with everything you've said. Bush is FAR from perfect, but a future with Kerry seems scary to me.
I feel safer with Bush. And I agree about the abortion issue. The most adament pro-choicers don't even condone partial-birth.Kerry also is against holding those who kill a pregnant woman accountable for double murder.
And the government running health care? No thanks. There might be problems, but I can't believe that's the solution. I don't even like HMOs........ A large part of the problem is the excess of medical malpractice suits, which Kerry will never try to check.
I can't wait till this election is over tho. Around here things are getting ugly. Kerry sgns ripped up, Bush signs spray-painted, campaign quarters broken into. Bad behavior from both camps--the politicians & their supporters.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:11 PM

SPACECOWGIRL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Mock me all you want, but you're not me and know nothing about my experiences. I'm disappointed that the best you can post to contradict my reasoning is a cartoon.

Who is mocking your experiences? I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your argument that the absence of a domestic terrorist attack somehow proves that the administration has been effective.

The use of a cartoon to illustrate your point is the definition of mocking. Sorry, but it's hard to take that as a serious repudiation of my point. As to your logic:

1)We were attacked on 9/11.

2)UBL and his organization has proclaimed they want to destroy the United States.

If the above two are correct, please explain why we haven't had a domestic terror attack since 9/11? Has al-Quida given up operations? They didn't stop after the 1st WTC bombing, after the Kohbar Towers, The USS Cole, the African Embassy bombings...

They are active....BUT WE haven't we been hit? Is it POSSIBLE, no matter how remote in your world view, that the resources of the richest most powerful country on Earth may actually be thwarting terrorism on our shores?

Please eplain. But without any snarky/clever Simpsons or Family Guy references.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by billyuno:
Here's the one I like.

www.factcheck.org

If you happen to like the ads, or watch the debates, this is a great site for finding out just how truthful these are. Both sides are unbiasedly represented. Overall, I've found Kerry to be a bit more honest. Less misleading I should say. But you can read and judge for yourself.

Another thing that it shows is how the votes of each candidate on certain issued is not indicative of their views on that subject. Sometimes bills have clauses that Senators and Congressmen don't agree with, whether the other things in the bill are agreeable. So for example when the Bush campaign says that Kerry voted agains body armor, the body armor was only one third of one percent of the money spent in that bill. Many republicans were also against that particular bill. This is just a little of the kind of information you can find on this site.

Politcal ads are drivvle.

What about the Kerry Sentate record? Have you gone to the Congressional record? He's been all over the map. He was for gay marrage, now he's against it. He's for the 2nd Amendment, as long as it's for "hunting." He voted FOR the war calling Hussein the most dangerous threat, and now says "Wrong war, wrong time" He's a self proclaimed "Internationalist" who will "restore our relations with our allies" Sure, allies who were taking BILLIONS in bribes from the Oil-for-food scandle. Allies who voted with their pocketbooks when it came down to enforcing 17 UN resolutions. The Same UN who let 900,000 Rwandians die in 90 days due to indecisive debates. They actually pulled their troops and refused to call it genocide to avoid triggering the security council reponse. Would the Rwanda genocide passed John Kerry's "Global Test?"
Kerry has been going on about the Draft and Social Security, trying to scare everyone who will listen. How's that for truth.

Look...No offense, but I can't help but feel that John Kerry will say ANYTHING he has to to get elected. Period.

EDITED TO ADD:

The Kerry/Edwards Campaign has been polling all weekend to get a sense of how to respond to the Osama Tapes that aired Friday. Can you believe that??? I'm not talking about the Kerry on the tarmac moment, I'm talking about how the campaign should respond. That's the problem, they keep ripping news from the headlines, seizing on anything, like grasping at straws, just to get a few points. The CBS/NYT "missing explosives" story blew up (no pun intended) in the Kerry camps face. They yanked the commercials, they erased it from their web page, he stopped talking about it. His own Security Advisors had no comment and couldn't verify the UN's claim. It was doing more harm than "good." To think Sixty-Minutes was going to release the story THIS EVENING...and the facts we've learned since it was dropped by the NYT on Monday because it was being leaked by the Drudge report. Thank the Lord we had a week to find out how polticial this was on behalf of the UN (IAEA) and CBS/Sixty Minutes/NYT.

Bernie Goldberg was right!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 7:18 PM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Blast! Why is the lure of political topics so strong? I swore that I would avoid them.

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Look folks, The Kerry/Edwards camp has been laying down allot of crap. The politics of fear.

Yeah! You'd never catch George W. Bush or Dick Cheney playing on people's fears! Oh, wait a minute. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/20/cheney.wednesday.ap/index.ht
ml

"'The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us . . . biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans,' Cheney said."

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Last I heard, bears aren't flying planes into buildings. Bears aren't supporting an Islamo-fascist agenda and killing free people everywhere.

Then you're obviously not an informed citizen.

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Mock me all you want, but you're not me and know nothing about my experiences. I'm disappointed that the best you can post to contradict my reasoning is a cartoon. Bravo.

Just because something comes from a cartoon doesn't mean it doesn't have a valid point.

Quote:
Originally posted by spacecowgirl:
The most adament pro-choicers don't even condone partial-birth. [...] And the government running health care? No thanks.

It was my understanding that Kerry did not vote for the partial-birth ban because it didn't allow for a case where the mother's life may be in danger? And as for government-run health care, it was my understanding that Kerry was proposing ways to relieve the healthcare burden and "provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves." Of course, if the next spot on our "Jump To Conclusions" mat is "Socialist Healthcare Run By The Government" then I guess we can't go against the mat.

Also, I would also like to recommend FactCheck.org to everyone. It's a good site. Analyzes both sides from a factual standpoint and doesn't let politics intrude.

"You've just gotta go ahead and change the captain of your brainship, because he's drunk at the wheel."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 9:19 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

If you haven't studeied enough to feel qualified to vote on an issue or public office, please don't. Just leave that part of the ballot blank.

Of course, that would disclude 99.999% of the American public, members of Congress, and humanity in general from voting.

So vote based on your gut feeling, emotional response, or flip a coin, That's what most everyone else will be doing. What the heck, you might get lucky.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Mock me all you want, but you're not me and know nothing about my experiences. I'm disappointed that the best you can post to contradict my reasoning is a cartoon.

Who is mocking your experiences? I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your argument that the absence of a domestic terrorist attack somehow proves that the administration has been effective.

Talk about a poor argument. You use the tangible result of a policy to argue that the policy is ineffective.

Maybe your just anti-"bear patrol". Maybe your just a bear lover. The French don't want us patrolling for bears either. But the President is responsible for the saftey of Homer and Lisa and so he sends our brave cartoon young people into the "woods" to make the world safe from bears and tigers too.

The Simpson's might be legitimate social commentary, but I think your example is as full of holes as the argument you are opposing.

We might get attacked today or tomorrow in three weeks. Does such an attack signal a failure in policy? No. We are better able to detect and deter incoming attacks and we are better able to respond to such attacks should we fail to stop them AND we are aggressively pursuing avenues to stop new attacks from coming. That is the policy we are talking about. Its a war policy.

I suppose that the German Counter-offensive the Belgium in December of 1944 signaled a failure of FDR's war policy. Might as well pull are troops home and come up with a new approach. No. Thats how wars work. They attack us, we attack them. The policy must be judged by the ultimate outcome, not the wavering fortunes of the global battlefield.

Afganistan is no longer a safe haven for Al Queda. The Taliban (an Al Queda ally) has been deposed and free elections held in its place. Sure, the wars not over, but the Afgan front goes well.

In Iraq Saddam is gone. Sure the battle continues, but the war goes well and our enemies are reduced to scattered fugitives waging a desperate campaign to achieve their last best chance for victory (by influencing the American election). I doubt they can sustain the current pace of operations longer in a few more weeks. If Bush wins and Iraqi elections are held (even if imperfect) then the Iraqi resistance will begin to falter.

Worldwide we have neutralized 75% of Al Queda. Their camps are in ruins, their arms and money networks are disrupted. Their allies in France and the UN are being discredited. The war seems to be going well.

But I expect to be attacked again. The bear patrol will be there to try and stop it, but if they can't, then we might just have to fend for ourselves for a few hours until the full might of the United States of America can respond to help us recover, rebuild, mourn, and move on.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 4:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

QUOTE: You use the tangible result of a policy to argue that the policy is ineffective.

How do you know it was the result of a policy? Maybe it's dumb luck. Maybe Al Qaida LIKES Bush because he's such an effective recruiting tool. Maybe Putin is holding al Qaida at bay because HE like Bush because Bush is driving up oil prices and improving the Russian trade balance. It's like saying that NASA has been really good at keeping us from being hit by a meteor because we haven't been hit by one ever since they starting tracking them. That's what the cartoon is pointing out: specious reasoning.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 5:03 AM

My response is in ITALICS

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Look folks, The Kerry/Edwards camp has been laying down allot of crap. The politics of fear.

Yeah! You'd never catch George W. Bush or Dick Cheney playing on people's fears! Oh, wait a minute. . .

Okay. Lets clear this up please. Proclaiming that the DRAFT is coming back if Bush wins is nonsense. 2 Democrates sponsered the legislation and it was shot down. NO DRAFT IS COMING. That's a fact. Kerry/Edwards IS STILL stoking the imagination of uninformed 18 year olds that they are going to war via a draft.

Social Security. Kerry/Edwards are saying that a 2nd Bush term would mean they lose their Social Security check. Al Gore said THE VERY SAME THING in 2000. Didn't happen. The President said he won't do it...but Kerry/Edwards are still saying "You'll lose benefits" because they want Florida votes.

As far as the Dick Cheney comment:

"'The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us . . . biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans,' Cheney said."

So YOU'RE SAYING THAT the above scenario can't happen? Because Dick Cheney stated a possible terror scenario, a desirable scenario for the terrorists, it's a load of "Fear mongering" and we should ignore it as POLITICAL. HOWEVER, being afraid of a NON-EXISTANT DRAFT (since it was voted DOWN) and NON-EXISTANT CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY (goes against Bush policy) are REALLY SCARY charges and AREN'T POLITICAL AT ALL.

The Terrorists would love to do exactly what the Vice President outlined. Just because he reminded folks about it doesn't mean he "made it up."

Last I heard, bears aren't flying planes into buildings. Bears aren't supporting an Islamo-fascist agenda and killing free people everywhere.

Then you're obviously not an informed citizen.

Wow. That was a great point. You really proved me wrong. "I'm not an informed citizen" Wow, how can I recover? Please lord help me, I'm at a loss for words, the Mother of All points has been made. Oh, the sting of your retort...can I ever leave my bed again? See, I can be snarky to. Back to the point - Please illuminate how I'm misinformed on making a statement of fact about the terrorists. Is your point that Islamo-fascists AREN'T killing people? The Wahabists are all about kittens and sunshine and flying kites?

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Mock me all you want, but you're not me and know nothing about my experiences. I'm disappointed that the best you can post to contradict my reasoning is a cartoon. Bravo.

Just because something comes from a cartoon doesn't mean it doesn't have a valid point.

True. But if the point of this thread is to discuss politics, the weakest way to do that is to simply say someone is wrong. That analogy did exactly that. My point was we weren't hit by terrorists since 9/11 because of Bush administration policy. The counter point was "Just because you say it's the Bush Administration that kept us safe, that doesn't make it so" I'm able to offer evidnece to support my point. The Taliban regime was, despite the wailing of the left, michael moore and political wonks and the media, taken down in weeks. It wasn't Vietnam. They just held an election, first ever. THAT WAS THE POLICY AND GOAL OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, AND IT CAME TO PASS. The realignment of internal resources, The Patriot Act, increased funding to Intelligence, despite Senator Kerry's attempt to cut 7 billion AFTER the first World Trade Center bombing, the entire resources of the Unites States military on the march....all of these changes were to increase Amrica's survival, decrease the chance of another 9/11, these are the stated goals of the Bush Administration. So you're telling me that all of the above have nothing to do with the fact we havn't been attacked again on our shores? The millions of Americans who are enacting the Administrations policy are wasting their time because Al Qaida SIMPLY doesn't feel like attacking us?

Quote:
Originally posted by spacecowgirl:
The most adament pro-choicers don't even condone partial-birth. [...] And the government running health care? No thanks.

It was my understanding that Kerry did not vote for the partial-birth ban because it didn't allow for a case where the mother's life may be in danger?

That notion is sugar coating. The GOP has a provision for "Life of the mother" and "incest" in the pro-life plank of the party. There is NEVER a need for the brutal method known as partial birth abortion, and for the ultra rare moment that it might be needed, that's something that the doctor and patient will decide at the time. It's not some right that needs to be mandated. The Democrates state "Health of the mother" which can mean physical health, emotional health, it pretty much means whenever. "My boyfriend left me and I don't know if I can handle this kid right now" would meet the "Health of the mother" bar. There is a reason why 85% of the country, accross party lines, don't think this procedure should be allowed. Can you please explain when a child needs to be aborted using the "Partial Birth Abortion" procedure in the last trimester, when the baby is fully formed? You know, the procedure where the child is born alive and the doctor makes an incision in the back of it's head and sucks it's brains out. The fear in the Kerry camp was that it would anger the rabid pro-abortion crowd who they depend on for contributions and support. You can say the same for Republicans and the Pro-Life crowd, but in the case of the President, I'm sure it's not for politcs as much as faith.

And as for government-run health care, it was my understanding that Kerry was proposing ways to relieve the healthcare burden and "provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves." Of course, if the next spot on our "Jump To Conclusions" mat is "Socialist Healthcare Run By The Government" then I guess we can't go against the mat.

Look, I understand that some believe Government run healthcare is the way to go. We can agree that things need to change. You also need to mention TORT REFORM in the same breath. That's one reason costs are high. I think people should be able to sue, but not the way the trial lawyers are screwing us.
I can tell from first hand experience that it doesn't work. Comparing us to Canada doesn't work. We have 20 times the population and are fighting a global war. They can't afford to keep their navy affloat. That's not a jerky statment, that's a fact. They don't have the money to send it's Navy on operations.
My first hand experience is in Germany. I have German relatives in that system, and it's awful. They pay 50-60% in taxes and it was discovered a few years ago that it's collapsing. They are trying to move away from it...to privatize. They can't fund it anymore. They just started a co-pay system. How about that...you pay HALF your pay to the government for Health care and they want you to kick in 10 Euros "to help out" I think we need to overhaul Healthcare too, but the Feds should have nothing directly to do with it.

Also, I would also like to recommend FactCheck.org to everyone. It's a good site. Analyzes both sides from a factual standpoint and doesn't let politics intrude.

I recommend that folks read more than one web page to decide how to vote. Do the leg work, call the local parties, go to the library, actually do some research. A web page is a filter that's still in the hands of one person or small group.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 5:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
QUOTE: You use the tangible result of a policy to argue that the policy is ineffective.

How do you know it was the result of a policy? Maybe it's dumb luck. Maybe Al Qaida LIKES Bush because he's such an effective recruiting tool. Maybe Putin is holding al Qaida at bay because HE like Bush because Bush is driving up oil prices and improving the Russian trade balance. It's like saying that NASA has been really good at keeping us from being hit by a meteor because we haven't been hit by one ever since they starting tracking them. That's what the cartoon is pointing out: specious reasoning.

Read my previous post as to the explaination of policy.

In my experience there is no such thing as luck ~ Ben Kenobi

The recruiting tool nonsense didn't take long to appear. From Gov. Ed Rendell's lips to your ears.

So Kerry is a better choice since it will reduce terror recruiting. ??????? By what percentage? 10% 50% 95% How is that? Because the terrorists like John Kerry's Hair? They want healthcare? Why does it matter what who will do for recruiting, as long as that who is KILLING THE TERRORISTS.

While my postion above as to why the the Bush Administration policy is working in the war on terror is laid out, you're claiming it's NOT at all responsible for the 3 years of no terror attacks on our shores because of Luck. "Maybe it's dumb luck" you said. So you'd feel THE SAME if NO CHANGES WERE MADE since 9/11 because we're lucky? If policy was the same now as it was on Sept. 10th, 2001, we would STILL NOT have had any further attacks? Correct? Was it luck that took down the Taliban? Okay, let me get this straight. The millions deployed at home and abroad can lay down their arms since we have some sort of "dumb luck" to protect us.
Specious reasoning is that nothing the Adminstration is doing is having an effect. Despite Afghanistan, a terror harbor, was taken down. Despite our troops in Iraq killing terrorists, SINCE THE FIST DAYS OF THE WAR, who had passports from all over the world. Fact.
As to your NASA/Meteor analogy, it's off for the same reasons the Simpsons analogy is off. Maybe if the meteor WAS ALIVE and steering itself. If that same piece of space rock hated us because of our ties to Israel, hated us because we're Christian, hated us since we're wrestling away their Wahabist/Islamo Fascist control on their own people. The bear and meteor are random...they aren't trying to wipe us out due to ideology. Bears kill out of defense, Meteors kill out of physics, TERRORSTS kill out of HATE.

Seriously...is that the best you've got?

Meteors, Simpsons and Bears, oh my!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 7:11 AM

TOMANTA

Ok, I have to chime in on the no terrorist attack thing.

There was an eight year gap between the bombing in 93 and the attacks on 9/11. By the reasoning that we haven't been attacked, therefore Bush is protecting us... Clinton protected us for most of his terms, as well.

It is ENTIRELY possible that there hasn't been a domestic attack because the Bin Laden has not tried. Attacks take time to plan.

What Bush HAS done, however, is take his eye off the ball. How long have we been at the "75%" [How do we know that number is even accurate?] of AQ captured/killed? How many OTHER terrorist organizations have we dismantled?

How many NEW terrorists were created by the invasion of Iraq?

"FOX! Where the shit hits the fans." - Tim Minear

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
QUOTE: You use the tangible result of a policy to argue that the policy is ineffective.

How do you know it was the result of a policy? Maybe it's dumb luck. Maybe Al Qaida LIKES Bush because he's such an effective recruiting tool. Maybe Putin is holding al Qaida at bay because HE like Bush because Bush is driving up oil prices and improving the Russian trade balance. It's like saying that NASA has been really good at keeping us from being hit by a meteor because we haven't been hit by one ever since they starting tracking them. That's what the cartoon is pointing out: specious reasoning.

Your NASA example is flawed. A closer analogy is we get hit by a meteor, we know more are out there and headed this way. NASA adopts a meteor policy. No more hits. NASA policy or dumb luck? In your world we cannot effect the world around us, our actions have no consequence.

Terrorists attacked us throughout the nineties. After 9/11 we change our approach. Now they can only hit us with videos. Thats good policy. Now if only Bush would do something about reality TV.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 8:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

QUOTE: A closer analogy is we get hit by a meteor, we know more are out there and headed this way. NASA adopts a meteor policy. No more hits. NASA policy or dumb luck?

Actually, we HAVE been hit by large meteors many times, even within this century. NASA HAS adopted a meteor policy (they track them) and we haven't been hit since.

Did you know that there was a perfect correlation between the number of babies born in the USA in the '50s, and the amount of imported bananas? Ergo- bananas cause babies! The point is that just because events are sequenced in time does not necessarily mean they're causally related. It's a good place to start looking for a connection, but it doesn't mean there is one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 9:35 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownShirtsRock:
Please tell me who you are voting for in the U.S. Presidential Election and why. Maybe seeing some of your opinions will help me decide.

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

-- Henry David Thoreau

Knowledge is sorrow; they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.
-- Byron

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 9:46 AM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Okay. Lets clear this up please. Proclaiming that the DRAFT is coming back if Bush wins is nonsense. 2 Democrates sponsered the legislation and it was shot down. NO DRAFT IS COMING. That's a fact. Kerry/Edwards IS STILL stoking the imagination of uninformed 18 year olds that they are going to war via a draft.

Bush says there won't be a draft if he's re-elected. But, then again, he said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and working ties with al Qaeda, too. Take that for what you will.

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
So YOU'RE SAYING THAT the above scenario can't happen? Because Dick Cheney stated a possible terror scenario, a desirable scenario for the terrorists, it's a load of "Fear mongering" and we should ignore it as POLITICAL.

No, I'm saying that fear is an effective tactic to keep people in line, and Cheney likes to play the fear card. You don't think the rallies he says these things in are politically-oriented?

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Wow. That was a great point. You really proved me wrong. "I'm not an informed citizen" Wow, how can I recover? Please lord help me, I'm at a loss for words, the Mother of All points has been made. Oh, the sting of your retort...can I ever leave my bed again? See, I can be snarky to. Back to the point - Please illuminate how I'm misinformed on making a statement of fact about the terrorists. Is your point that Islamo-fascists AREN'T killing people? The Wahabists are all about kittens and sunshine and flying kites?

. . .I was talking about bears.

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Look, I understand that some believe Government run healthcare is the way to go.

My point was just that, whatever Kerry's policies on healthcare may be, they seem like a far cry from "government run healthcare." Maybe I'm just a dirty, misinformed Communist, though.

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
I recommend that folks read more than one web page to decide how to vote. Do the leg work, call the local parties, go to the library, actually do some research. A web page is a filter that's still in the hands of one person or small group.

Because, obviously, if I recommend a website, it's absolutely, positively the only website I've ever visited or get my information from. In fact, I'm not even posting on this message board. It's all in your imagination! I'm too busy being brainwashed by a non-partisan fact checking resource!

PS: SignyM, when you said, "Ergo, bananas cause babies!" I imagined it in Eddie Izzard's voice. So fifty points to you for reminding me of one of my favorite comedians.

"You've just gotta go ahead and change the captain of your brainship, because he's drunk at the wheel."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

"Educational Accoutability"- I live in an area where pilot school voucher programs and charter schools provide an alternative to failed public schools. My teacher friends are pissed at the extra work they have getting kids ready for tests, but their kids have seen improved scores in the last two years.

You still haven't answer the question, where are the parents?

So what, the teachers have to work harder. Everyone bitches about have more on there plate.

So what, the students test better. Does this mean that they understand things better? No. All it means is that they test better, especially when it comes to the atrocity that is standardized testing. Good test scores do *not* mean good students nor understanding.

If the parents were around and actually did the job that they should, the teacher could teach instead of doing what the parents should be doing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

"War- another tax issue"-
[snip]
A better argument then taxes is "where are the jobs?" Answer, I got mine. I have a high paying job that didn't exist three years ago. Answer, you'll get yours, jobs are a lagging indicator, but this year already has added over 1.5 million new jobs and the unemployment rate is 5.4% (down from over 6% during the Clinton legacy/terror recession of 2000-2002).

I was watching C-SPAN one day and saw a nobel winner in economics giving a talk. He stated that even if GW did absolutely nothing that it would be a miracle if there wasn't 1.5 million jobs created. So, victory Bush, I think not.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

And Clinton's people viewed terror as a criminal issue as well. The 9/11 Report does not condemn Clinton, and niether do I, but what it does indicate is that the "criminal" approach failed to check Al Queda's growth and laid the seeds for 9/11. We cannot go back, we need to move ahead.

Where as Bush in the months leading up to 9/11 wouldn't read a report that the intellegence people were trying desperately to get him to read, entitled something like, "Al Qaeda planning imminent attack". Woo hoo, forward Bush goes.

On another note, I said something a couple days ago that my wife found funny and so I think that at least some of you will too.

If the bible has taught us one thing, it's not to listen to flaming Bush's.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

"Educational Accoutability"- I live in an area where pilot school voucher programs and charter schools provide an alternative to failed public schools. My teacher friends are pissed at the extra work they have getting kids ready for tests, but their kids have seen improved scores in the last two years.

You still haven't answer the question, where are the parents?

So what, the teachers have to work harder. Everyone bitches about have more on there plate.

So what, the students test better. Does this mean that they understand things better? No. All it means is that they test better, especially when it comes to the atrocity that is standardized testing. Good test scores do *not* mean good students nor understanding.

If the parents were around and actually did the job that they should, the teacher could teach instead of doing what the parents should be doing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

"War- another tax issue"-
[snip]
A better argument then taxes is "where are the jobs?" Answer, I got mine. I have a high paying job that didn't exist three years ago. Answer, you'll get yours, jobs are a lagging indicator, but this year already has added over 1.5 million new jobs and the unemployment rate is 5.4% (down from over 6% during the Clinton legacy/terror recession of 2000-2002).

I was watching C-SPAN one day and saw a nobel winner in economics giving a talk. He stated that even if GW did absolutely nothing that it would be a miracle if there wasn't 1.5 million jobs created. So, victory Bush, I think not.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

And Clinton's people viewed terror as a criminal issue as well. The 9/11 Report does not condemn Clinton, and niether do I, but what it does indicate is that the "criminal" approach failed to check Al Queda's growth and laid the seeds for 9/11. We cannot go back, we need to move ahead.

Where as Bush in the months leading up to 9/11 wouldn't read a report that the intellegence people were trying desperately to get him to read, entitled something like, "Al Qaeda planning imminent attack". Woo hoo, forward Bush goes.

which is another report out of 100 that he has to read every single day. This particular one was prioritized down because of a lack of detail in specific place, time, method of deployment, etc. What would you have the guy do? or anyone do for that matter? It is exactly this type of dumbass second guessing that led to the completely stupid terrorism alerts that we've had in the last several years. "Today the terror alert was raised to a maroon *extra cautious*. There is a *credible* threat that terrorist is planning something somewhere - we know not what - and will attack soon but at a unknown timeframe. Dear Citizens, be *extra cautious* and have a good day".

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

On another note, I said something a couple days ago that my wife found funny and so I think that at least some of you will too.

If the bible has taught us one thing, it's not to listen to flaming Bush's.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:

I live in Jersey. We lost 700 neighbors. I have friends deployed abroad defending our nation and defending Western civilization.

I truly am sorry that you lost some friends in 9/11. It is something that no-one should undergo. I also admitt that I nor many people can understand what you went (and/or are) through.

But even still, things need to be brough into perspective. You must try to see through the red and at least attempt to make some logical descision. Even if that path leads to the same end.

The perspective I mentioned is this. Gwynne Dyer, a journalist, came to speak at my university. He mentioned that he counted the number of people that were killed world wide in terrorist attacks in the past 3 years.

There are approx. 1000 days with under 1000 deaths, terrorist related which makes approx. 1 per day. I we include 9/11 american deaths, approx. 3000 this raises the daily total to 4 per day.

I'm sorry, but I can't call something with such a low death toll a priority. There are other things in this world that need doing. ie AIDS, Cancer, Hunger, etc

Speaking generally now.
And by the way, western civilization needs not your protection. We haven't run around the world and killed indiscriminately for the past few decades. History *has* shown that.

Take care of yourself and stop trying to represent us. The terrorists might think that we support you and then we'll get attacked too. And stop pissing around in other peoples countries. It's really irritating and has cost a lot of life that didn't need to be wasted.

Basically, stop, take a breath, and

think. *Then* take your next step.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 3:14 PM

First off, stop quoting entire posts if you are only replying to one part of it. Proper neteqette dictates that you only quote the part that you are replying to. This is for those that don't have fast inet connections.

And, I might mention, that it will save Haken some through-put making this site faster in the long run (lots of views makes a little extra a lot by many page views).

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

which is another report out of 100 that he has to read every single day. This particular one was prioritized down because of a lack of detail in specific place, time, method of deployment, etc. What would you have the guy do? or anyone do for that matter? It is exactly this type of dumbass second guessing that led to the completely stupid terrorism alerts that we've had in the last several years. "Today the terror alert was raised to a maroon *extra cautious*. There is a *credible* threat that terrorist is planning something somewhere - we know not what - and will attack soon but at a unknown timeframe. Dear Citizens, be *extra cautious* and have a good day".

Secondly, I expect GW to read all these reports (or at least the summaries). This sort of thing is not to be toyed with.

And how would he know about any non-specific stuff that would be in the report if he didn't read it.

I would also think that he clearly had the time to read it as he had lots of time to go on vacation.

And this type of thing *never* leads to second guessing, etc. If he was an intellegent man he wouldn've read it, and made proper preperations as he saw fit (note: this doesn't nessassarily mean notifying the public).

After all, a stitch in time saves nine.

And by the way, you can't compare the past to the present in this case. It's apples and oranges. The only commonality is that, GW was being irresponsible back then when he didn't read the report, and GW's appointed Homeland Security Dept. is being irresponsible now with the mentioned levels, etc.

Basically, one must dig and obtain intellegence *before* making a descion. This is clearly an idea that GW (or anyone in his Admin.) hasn't been aquainted with *coughiraqcough*. GW didn't do it then, and hasn't done it... hmm, well, ever.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:

I live in Jersey. We lost 700 neighbors. I have friends deployed abroad defending our nation and defending Western civilization.

I truly am sorry that you lost some friends in 9/11. It is something that no-one should undergo. I also admitt that I nor many people can understand what you went (and/or are) through.

But even still, things need to be brough into perspective. You must try to see through the red and at least attempt to make some logical descision. Even if that path leads to the same end.

The perspective I mentioned is this. Gwynne Dyer, a journalist, came to speak at my university. He mentioned that he counted the number of people that were killed world wide in terrorist attacks in the past 3 years.

There are approx. 1000 days with under 1000 deaths, terrorist related which makes approx. 1 per day. I we include 9/11 american deaths, approx. 3000 this raises the daily total to 4 per day.

I'm sorry, but I can't call something with such a low death toll a priority. There are other things in this world that need doing. ie AIDS, Cancer, Hunger, etc

Speaking generally now.
And by the way, western civilization needs not your protection. We haven't run around the world and killed indiscriminately for the past few decades. History *has* shown that.

Take care of yourself and stop trying to represent us. The terrorists might think that we support you and then we'll get attacked too. And stop pissing around in other peoples countries. It's really irritating and has cost a lot of life that didn't need to be wasted.

Basically, stop, take a breath, and think. *Then* take your next step.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Well, since I refuse to spread the 3000 American deaths over the world wide daily total like any other statistic, those Americans lives mean more to me than you. That's fine. You most certainly are in the minority on that point. Even John Kerry isn't as nutty as you are on that issue. To sum up, and I need to be clear:

"The war on AIDs, hngaer and cancer are more important than the war on terror"

Is that an accurate statement? If so, you're advocating we subvert our freedom to terrorists. We would have to, otherwise they would threaten terror evertime we expressed a desire that wasn't approved by them.

"I'm sorry, but I can't call something with such a low death toll a priority. There are other things in this world that need doing. ie AIDS, Cancer, Hunger, etc"

Then the spectre of terrorism is an acceptable way of life to you. What if your family was killed in a terror attack? Would that make it more meaningful to you? What if you're family died in 9/11? Just one parent? Is that still acceptable? Are you able to simply wave that off as a statistic? Is it still statistically acceptable? You honestly wouldn't/don't want the terrorists destroyed so they couldn't kill others? What's an unacceptable level of loss? 10,000? 100,000? When does it meet your criteria. As far as solving hunger, AIDs and other issues that face the world, who do you think is going to do that? Who do you think has the resources? Syria? Iran? No, the United States. Certainly there are other civilized countries working on these problems, but many of their talented minds come here, to live free and work. Furthermore, I DEFY YOU to find a more generous country in the world than the United States. We feed the world. Have you ever travelled abroad? Ever see the prices people pay for food? Do you know that other countries come nowhere NEAR our capacity to feed. The Bush admin pledged BILLIONS of dollars, where the Clinton Admin pledged NOTHING to cure AIDS in Africa. I defy you to find a kinder people on the planet than Americans. Why is that? Because Americans are made of all colors of people from all walks of life from all around the globe, all with one common goal, to live free. To live without the spectre of terrorism or Islamo-fascism. They are brown, yellow, all the colors of the rainbow, but here they are my brothers and sisters, all Americans. They feel the same outrage that I do. The outrage you have reduced to a statistic.

Wahabists want to kill us. It's that simple. Saddam Hussein rewarded families of Homicide Bombers with $25,000. Is that reasonable? Is that sane? Can you fit that into your perspective?

What countries should we stop "pissing around" in? Afghanistan? Iraq? Is the first election in Afghanistans history meanless? Would you rather Saddam still be in power? Are the mass graves meaningless? The videos of limbs chopped off meaningless? The rape rooms used by Saddams sons? Perhaps we shouldn't have pissed around in France in WW2. Or Germany? We WERE attacked by the Japanses, not the Germans. How dare we "piss around" in Europe when we had no business being there.

What do mean by "The terrorists might think that we support you and then we'll get attacked too." Aren't we all Americans? No one is trying to represent you. UBL did threaten the States that vote for Bush. He said they are targets. I hope you are safe in a "Red" state.

This is a political discussion thread. You can go and yank my Bush/Cheney 2004 sign if you want to, it won't kill my principles nor my reasons for voting for these fine men. So I'll say whatever I want since that's my right.

As to this comment:

"Basically, stop, take a breath, and

think. *Then* take your next step."

I suggest you do the same. However, I won't rude about it.

Signing out, so have fun tomorrow! Don't forget to vote for Nader since he says he'd pull us out of all our "pissing adventures" around the globe, Kerry claims he won't.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 3:40 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

If you must vote on a single issue, let me just offer my opinion that those who say Iraq is another Vietnam are incorrect.

Unfortunately, I think Iraq is our Sicily, and Papa Bush was our Pericles.

Too bad. It was such a nice republic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 3:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Then the spectre of terrorism is an acceptable way of life to you. What if your family was killed in a terror attack? Would that make it more meaningful to you? What if you're family died in 9/11? Just one parent? Is that still acceptable? Are you able to simply wave that off as a statistic? Is it still statistically acceptable? You honestly wouldn't/don't want the terrorists destroyed so they couldn't kill others? What's an unacceptable level of loss? 10,000? 100,000? When does it meet your criteria. As far as solving hunger, AIDs and other issues that face the world, who do you think is going to do that? Who do you think has the resources? Syria? Iran? No, the United States.

All deaths are horrible to those left behind. It doesn't matter if your daughter, uncle, mom, or brother shit themselves to death or were caught in crossfire somewhere. No matter how it happens, it leaves a bleeding hole in your life. And if you've seen a five-year-old crying over the grave of their parent as if they would never stop, or the little girl with the bracelet on her thin wrist... a bracelet given to her by a mom who loved her... refusing to collapse, making the vultures wait a few more hours for their meal, then you would realize that we ALL feel that way... every person around the world feels that way.

I don't think American deaths are more important than any other. They may be more important to US, but that's about it. I don't require that the rest of the world share my are for my fellow countrymen, and to do that is the ultimate hubris.

HOWEVER, I understand that you're saying that death due to terrorism is more significant than death due to starvation because it represents a different process. I'm not sure I automatically agree with that, but it's certainly something to think about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 4:54 PM