What Democrats Still Don't Get

[TexanBob]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Ingraham20041011.shtml

10-11-04

Laura Ingraham


Top Democrats advising the Kerry campaign are scratching their heads raw this week, trying to figure out why John Kerry--even with solid debate performances under his belt and continuing violence in Iraq-- is still having such a hard time convincing voters he would be a more effective commander-in-chief than George Bush. But the answer is actually fairly simple. Kerry--like all doves--is unpersuasive on national security issues because he doesn't realize certain basic truths that have guided American policy for decades. These are:

1. The world is a dangerous place, filled with deadly people. Not just people who are misunderstood. Not just people who are poor. Not just people who have different "values." After 3,000 of our fellow citizens were incinerated on September 11th by Islamist mass murderers, John Kerry can still tell the New York Times Magazine this week that "[w]e have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." How amazingly irresponsible and stunningly stupid. Deadly people with the means and commitment to inflict large casualties on U.S. citizens will never just be nuisances. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.

2. Most nations in the world look out for themselves. We cringe at the idea of a 'global test' because we know who's going to be grading the test. We know the anti-Americanism that exists around the world. We know the incompetence and corruption that dominates the UN. We know that leaders like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder are determined to take any opportunity to hinder the United States. We know that international media organizations, from the BBC to Al-Jazeera, are doing everything they can to whip up even more hostility toward this country. In short, we know that you would have a better chance at a fair hearing in an Olympic figure-skating competition than you would of getting a fair grade on a 'global test.'" George Bush knows this. The American people know this. American liberals don't.

3. America is not the world's problem--America is the world's solution. Tying down the United States--through international treaties like Kyoto or the International Criminal Court, or through imposing a "global test" on our ability to respond to problems-will not make the world safer. It will make the world less safe. Limiting U.S. power will not make the world better. It will lead to more pain, more death, more suffering. The United States is the only great nation in the world whose people are willing to make real sacrifices of blood and treasure for world peace. If we don't do it, no one will. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.

American liberals are making the same mistake in the war on terror that they made during the Cold War.

They trust anti-American voices around the world more than they trust the American people. During the second debate, John Kerry was still touting UN sanctions as a viable way to contain Saddam, despite everything we have already learned about the oil for food pay-offs to foreign interests (in both France and Russia). Liberals believe that our responsibilities can be shoved onto the backs of other countries that have made it abundantly clear have no intention of helping us. (Although even Kerry had to admit last week that France and Germany will not send troops to Iraq even if he wins on November 2.) They believe in a moral equivalence between the United States and its adversaries. They were wrong in the 1980's, and they are wrong today.

That is why Kerry cannot articulate a credible plan to win the war on terrorism. That is why Edwards looked and sounded so vague during his debate. Until American liberals overcome this fear of the American people--until they learn to trust us more than they trust their friends in Europe--they will flip, flop and flounder in their effort to take back the White House.

=====================================

Kerry can't even acknowledge that we should be at WAR against terorists. They are just a "nuisance". The 3,000 deaths we suffered on 9-11 just a minor inconvenience, ho hum. Too bad.

He wants us to go "mother may I" to France and the Euroweenies who we have had to save from themselves at least twice in the last 100 years, Kerry wants them to lead us, rather than America leading them. That's what all this codespeak about building coalitions and abiding by the U.N. is all about. Kerry wants us to be "world citizens" first and Americans last, just like he was while leading protests against America 35 years ago.

I don't like everything about George Bush but I can't imagine watching the corrupt U.N. lead America around by the nose the way it would under John Kerry.

[patteeu]

Wow. From the title of this thread, I expected your post to be a lot longer than it is. Is this the Reader's Digest version? I think a more accurate title would have been "3 of the many things democrats still don't get."

Other than that, I enjoyed the article and agree with your comments.

[TexanBob]

That's the extent of her column but, true, one could fill books about what liberals don't get. I suppose she simply wanted to point out why they can't sell the most liberal Senator in the country to fight a war against a real enemy (not just a "nuisance"). And his ideas about having the U.N. (read our soldiers led by France and Germany) continuing the fight are extremely naive once you realize that they (and Kofi Annan's family) were getting money under the table from Saddam - unless you think he intentionally wants to undermine America as he did with Vietnam.

[Rohirrim]

Why do the Bushies find it necessary to continuously misrepresent Kerry’s positions on the issues, or just downright lie about them, in order to make their point? The differences between the candidates are clear enough. Why not just argue them point for point without the lies and misrepresentations?

1. The world is a dangerous place, filled with deadly people. Not just people who are misunderstood. Not just people who are poor. Not just people who have different "values." After 3,000 of our fellow citizens were incinerated on September 11th by Islamist mass murderers, John Kerry can still tell the New York Times Magazine this week that "[w]e have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." How amazingly irresponsible and stunningly stupid. Deadly people with the means and commitment to inflict large casualties on U.S. citizens will never just be nuisances. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.

Here’s the entire quote:

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' he said.

''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling.

"But we're going to reduce it, organised crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

The Right has spent years scaring the bejeezus out of Americans about the War on Drugs. Is it over? Is that a war? Now they’re using the War on Terrorism to manipulate America and force through the Right Wing agenda. Put aside your fear for a moment. The Cold War was a “true” war because the Soviets had thousands of nukes and an army to back them up. Terrorism and assassination have been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The murder of Archduke Ferdinand was a terrorist act, as was the murder of Czar Nicholas. Terrorism WILL always be with us. The U.S. military is not going to solve it anymore than the DEA is going to win the “War” on illegal drugs.

Besides, the main point is this: 9/11 was successful because the Bush administration failed to do anything about terrorism for 9 months while ignoring numerous warnings to the contrary. Those failures are too well documented to go into here, but the Bush scare tactics continue to cloud those failures, which should be at the top of the discussion.

Here’s what Kerry also said about terrorism:

"The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don't want to use that terminology. The engagement of economies, the economic transformation, the transformation to modernity of a whole bunch of countries that have been avoiding the future. And that future's coming at us like it or not, in the context of terror, and in the context of failed states, and dysfunctional economies, and all that goes with that."

In other words, Kerry gets the big picture, Bush does not.

2. Most nations in the world look out for themselves. We cringe at the idea of a 'global test' because we know who's going to be grading the test. We know the anti-Americanism that exists around the world. We know the incompetence and corruption that dominates the UN. We know that leaders like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder are determined to take any opportunity to hinder the United States. We know that international media organizations, from the BBC to Al-Jazeera, are doing everything they can to whip up even more hostility toward this country. In short, we know that you would have a better chance at a fair hearing in an Olympic figure-skating competition than you would of getting a fair grade on a 'global test.'" George Bush knows this. The American people know this. American liberals don't.


Here’s what “global test” is actually about:

"What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?" asked Jim Lehrer, the PBS anchor who moderated the debate.

"The President always has the right, and always has had the right, for [a] preemptive strike," the Massachusetts Senator replied, according to the published transcript. "That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

"No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Notice the line “…that you did it…” in the past tense. That means you take the action first, and then AFTER THE FACT the world cannot question your credibility – as they so clearly can of Bush’s war in Iraq. The Bushies have twisted this one into some kind of “test” the President must take BEFORE taking action. What Kerry clearly said was this – AFTER THE FACT, was the action credible and legitimate to protect U.S. security? Iraq was not.

Notice that this “global test” hype from the Bushies came out the same week that the New York Times investigation and the CIA report came out documenting Bush’s lies and failures in Iraq. Every time the Bushies raise the “Fear” flag, look at what’s hiding beneath it.

3. America is not the world's problem--America is the world's solution. Tying down the United States--through international treaties like Kyoto or the International Criminal Court, or through imposing a "global test" on our ability to respond to problems-will not make the world safer. It will make the world less safe. Limiting U.S. power will not make the world better. It will lead to more pain, more death, more suffering. The United States is the only great nation in the world whose people are willing to make real sacrifices of blood and treasure for world peace. If we don't do it, no one will. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.


What Kerry’s ACTUAL position on the ICC is:

"My number one priority is to protect the servicemen and women who protect America from harm," Kerry told the Boston Globe in reply to a request to state his position. "Therefore, I don't believe the United States should join the International Criminal Court until our concerns are addressed and the Court develops a solid track record of fair prosecutions of the world's worst criminals."

And on Kyoto?

“The fact is that the Kyoto treaty was flawed," Kerry said in his second one-on-one debate with President George W Bush ahead of the Nov 2 election. "This president didn't try to fix it. He just declared it dead, ladies and gentlemen, and we walked away from the work of the 160 nations over 10 years. The president's done nothing to try to fix it. I will."

Kerry’s position is to stay engaged with the world, whether or not we agree with them. Bush’s position is to just walk away. The Right is just selling the same, old, tired idea that they have represented for a hundred years – isolationism/unilateralism. And that position is far more dangerous than engagement.

American liberals are making the same mistake in the war on terror that they made during the Cold War.

Which liberal would that be? JFK, who stared down the USSR over Cuban missiles? Or maybe it was Carter, who sent weapons and advisors into Afghanistan to fight the Soviets – a policy that Reagan continued and which led to the fall of the Soviets?


They trust anti-American voices around the world more than they trust the American people. During the second debate, John Kerry was still touting UN sanctions as a viable way to contain Saddam, despite everything we have already learned about the oil for food pay-offs to foreign interests (in both France and Russia). Liberals believe that our responsibilities can be shoved onto the backs of other countries that have made it abundantly clear have no intention of helping us. (Although even Kerry had to admit last week that France and Germany will not send troops to Iraq even if he wins on November 2.) They believe in a moral equivalence between the United States and its adversaries. They were wrong in the 1980's, and they are wrong today.


The Bushies still can’t face the facts even when they’re dripping all over them: THE SANCTIONS DID WORK! Don’t you get it? Every report, and every investigation says this about Saddam: HE WAS A “DIMINISHING THREAT.” Once again, the Bushies try to fool the American people with this “Oil for Food” crap. What they always forget to mention is that the U.S. has veto power on the Security Council. THE SANCTIONS ON SADDAM WOULD NEVER BE LIFTED UNLESS THE U.S. AGREED TO IT.

France and Germany may not send troops, but Morocco, Jordan and Egypt might.

That is why Kerry cannot articulate a credible plan to win the war on terrorism. That is why Edwards looked and sounded so vague during his debate. Until American liberals overcome this fear of the American people--until they learn to trust us more than they trust their friends in Europe--they will flip, flop and flounder in their effort to take back the White House.

This paragraph is just pure, nasty name calling. It’s what the Bushies refer to as political dialogue. It’s the kind of personal attacks they’ve used against anyone, and everyone, who disagrees with them.

Liberals? Who are liberals? I’ll tell you who some of them were: FDR& Truman (who won WWII), JFK (who fired one of the most crucial shots in the Cold War), Carter (see above) and (I hate to tell you Bushies this truth) Abraham Lincoln (and if you want to argue that one point for point, I’d be glad to). Liberals are why we have a 40 hour work week, Social Security, child labor laws, environmental protection laws, etc. etc. etc. and all those other things that the Right wants to dismantle.

Kerry can't even acknowledge that we should be at WAR against terorists. They are just a "nuisance". The 3,000 deaths we suffered on 9-11 just a minor inconvenience, ho hum. Too bad.

He wants us to go "mother may I" to France and the Euroweenies who we have had to save from themselves at least twice in the last 100 years, Kerry wants them to lead us, rather than America leading them. That's what all this codespeak about building coalitions and abiding by the U.N. is all about. Kerry wants us to be "world citizens" first and Americans last, just like he was while leading protests against America 35 years ago.

I don't like everything about George Bush but I can't imagine watching the corrupt U.N. lead America around by the nose the way it would under John Kerry.

And finally, we have the wrap-up from a well-schooled Bushie sheep preaching the message of fear.

Here’s the difference between Bush and Kerry: Kerry has the balls to face the truth AS IT IS, Bush can only hide behind his lies, and then create more lies when the first lies are uncovered. The Bushies are running a P.T. Barnum campaign based on the premise, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” The question the American people must answer is this: Are you a sucker, or aren’t you?

[bendog]

1. no kidding. And, that's why we shouldn't invade places that pose some danger to us on some lame notion of nation building.

2. There's always been a global test. We won the global test in korea and lost in vietnem. That's why we used to have the powell/weinberger doctrine.

3. Tell that to solidarity or havel ... or the Pope. In short, bs.

Kerry has faults, but the piece merely tries to defend an indefensible foreign policy with jingoism and deflections to somebody else.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Why do the Bushies find it necessary to continuously misrepresent Kerry’s positions on the issues, or just downright lie about them, in order to make their point? The differences between the candidates are clear enough. Why not just argue them point for point without the lies and misrepresentations?
Probably because trying to compare Bush's record to what Kerry want's to do isn't very productive for Bush supporters since Bush's record is dismal at best.

[Samiwindr]

What extreme conservatives don't get is that there is an entire world of people that are not white, wealthy, Christians that don't want an American representative democracy entwined with corrupting capitalistic practices.

I don't know who is worse, the conspiracy nutjobs on the left or right. You've seen the friggin debates. Do you really need a gaggle of Fox and CBS pundits to tell you what you really heard?

An entire night of debates gets distilled down to 'Global Test' and 'angry facial expressions'. "Believing all the lies that they're telling ya. Buying all the products that they're selling ya..." - Rage

I am also tired of each new administration declaring war on a word. We've never won any of the other 'wars', despite the cost for these 'wars' skyrocketing over the years. We declare war, we spend a bunch of money, we appoint a Czar, and then nothing gets accomplished. Many of you don't want to admit it, but life outside of those connected to the military via family or economy has gone on largely unchanged. The only real difference for me is that I have to take off my shoes at the airport and I have an unnatural fear everytime I get into a cab in a foreign country that I'll be kidnapped and beheaded for extreme muslim amusement.

There will be a civil war in Iraq shortly. There is no other way to resolve in inequitable power structure now that the Shia population has a voice. We will not see a US styled democracy in Iraq during our lifetime. I want my money back.

[azbronco]

Probably because trying to compare Bush's record to what Kerry want's to do isn't very productive for Bush supporters since Bush's record is dismal at best.

Actually, simply comparing kerry's record to Bush's requires a vote for Bush. I mean come on, suddenly after 20 do-nothing years in the senate(most liberal senator), he is now going to do something other than raise taxes? A tiger change his stripes?
I don't think so.

On top of that a veteran who turns on his band of brothers and accuses them all of war crimes.
I don't think so.

None of you kerry supporters talk about his senate record or the books he wrote, hmmm, wonder why?

[REB]

"What extreme conservatives don't get is that there is an entire world of people that are not white, wealthy, Christians that don't want an American representative democracy entwined with corrupting capitalistic practices."

That may be the Constitution party.... let's see


REB

1-2-3-BRONCOS!!!!!!!

[watermock]

"What extreme conservatives don't get is that there is an entire world of people that are not white, wealthy, Christians that don't want an American representative democracy entwined with corrupting capitalistic practices."

Wow. I guess extreme conservatives are white, wealthy and want a representative democracy.

You then come out with "entwined" out of the blue with ho foundation.

Your an idiot. I don't even know where to go with this comment. It's so idiotic it needs to go to the barn.

All you said was that your not white, your not a capitalist, and you don't care for a representative democracy. I have a nice cure for you assface. LEAVE.

[Pat Bowlen]

For God's sake, it's you're.

You're

You're
You're

[Rohirrim]

Actually, simply comparing kerry's record to Bush's requires a vote for Bush. I mean come on, suddenly after 20 do-nothing years in the senate(most liberal senator), he is now going to do something other than raise taxes? A tiger change his stripes?
I don't think so.

On top of that a veteran who turns on his band of brothers and accuses them all of war crimes.
I don't think so.

None of you kerry supporters talk about his senate record or the books he wrote, hmmm, wonder why?

If all you can do is quote Bush ads you see on TV, why not keep it to yourself. We've all seen the ads. We know enough also to see them for what they are: :bs:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Actually, simply comparing kerry's record to Bush's requires a vote for Bush. ?
OK, list all the great accomplishments that Bush has achieved while in office.

By the way, do you have another prediction on Oct. job numbers?
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=18373

[Hercules Rockefeller]

OK, list all the great accomplishments that Bush has achieved while in office.

By the way, do you have another prediction on Oct. job numbers?
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=18373

actually he was just repeating what financial analysts were saying that night on TV, since that was the number most expected.

Of course I did notice you fail to mention that Labor also revised upwards 1st quarter job gain by almost another 250k in that same job report.

[watermock]

"The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don't want to use that terminology. The engagement of economies, the economic transformation, the transformation to modernity of a whole bunch of countries that have been avoiding the future. And that future's coming at us like it or not, in the context of terror, and in the context of failed states, and dysfunctional economies, and all that goes with that."

I just love this. It's not a war, it's a battle of ideas. Kerry thinks we are going to win the battle on terrorism with a war of words. Then he waflfles. The rest is literally incoherent.

[Rohirrim]

I just love this. It's not a war, it's a battle of ideas. Kerry thinks we are going to win the battle on terrorism with a war of words. Then he waflfles. The rest is literally incoherent.

Like Thomas Friedman (an actual expert on the ME) has said time and time again, "A man with a job does not become a terrorist." It's called reality, Mock. Not one of Bush's strong points.

[enjolras]

It's much like Bush's absolutely insane rhetoric during the last debate "your either for something or against it.. that's it"

It's amazing that someone can support Bush who only sees the world in this simplistic black and white way. Kerry had just explained that it is not always about being for or against something, it's about doing what is right for the American people. He explained that while he is against partial birth abortion, the particular bill brought before Congress was a bad one as it made no provision for saving the life of a mother. Bush shot up out of his chair and proclaimed that this clearly means that Kerry is for partial birth abortions (your either for it or against it). Anyone with a basic grasp of logic looks at this exchange and wonders how Bush was ever elected in the first place.

After all, under the exact same logic Bush is FOR killing mothers. After all, he supports a law that makes it possible to kill a mother to save a child. Think about THAT for a second.

[Garcia Bronco]

What extreme conservatives don't get is that there is an entire world of people that are not white, wealthy, Christians that don't want an American representative democracy entwined with corrupting capitalistic practices.




Who cares what color somebody is....leave racism out of it.

[Samiwindr]

Who's being a racist?

The decision makers that run this country are white, male and wealthy - I dare you to prove otherwise. 99% of legislation is influenced by corporate lobbyists. Personally, I am quite happy with the current power structure as it has allowed me to live quite comfortably (though I could be much happier with the market). I'm just saying that we are being extremely myopic in thinking the rest of the world desires our standards. We're told from the day we enter kindergarten what a great benevolent nation we are and that the rest of the world would die to live in our country. If you travel the world, you'll find this just isn't true.

People should really get out a little more.

[Garcia Bronco]

Who's being a racist?

The decision makers that run this country are white, male and wealthy - I dare you to prove otherwise. 99% of legislation is influenced by corporate lobbyists. Personally, I am quite happy with the current power structure as it has allowed me to live quite comfortably (though I could be much happier with the market). I'm just saying that we are being extremely myopic in thinking the rest of the world desires our standards. We're told from the day we enter kindergarten what a great benevolent nation we are and that the rest of the world would die to live in our country. If you travel the world, you'll find this just isn't true.

People should really get out a little more.


99% huh? Hmmm...did you know that 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot? While I agree with the sentiment of your last post...saying that the decision makers are all white is myopic in and of itself. Americans run this country...the people... black, white, or whatever run this country. Certain groups in this country would have you believe otherwise(Democratic party, ACLU, Lawyers), but I assure you it's not true.

[Garcia Bronco]

99% huh? Hmmm...did you know that 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot? While I agree with the sentiment of your last post...saying that the decision makers are all white is myopic in and of itself. Americans run this country...the people... black, white, or whatever run this country. Certain groups in this country would have you believe otherwise(Democratic party, ACLU, Lawyers), but I assure you it's not true.


If people want to live in a country without a "representative democracy entwined with corrupting capitalistic practices"....fine....but don't go causing trouble for the rest of or just us.....cause we're going to stick a boot in your ass if you do.

[bendog]

Go back to #3 of the original post. The sentiment isn't that people are coming here to interfer with our rep democracy, but we are going there with no clue as to what they may want. Queen Noor tried to tell us this before the war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0502/p25s02-usmb.html

[Pat Bowlen]

Americans run this country...the people... black, white, or whatever run this country.
The only thing that runs this country is money.

[baja]

Why do the Bushies find it necessary to continuously misrepresent Kerry’s positions on the issues, or just downright lie about them, in order to make their point? The differences between the candidates are clear enough. Why not just argue them point for point without the lies and misrepresentations?



Here’s the entire quote:

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' he said.

''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling.

"But we're going to reduce it, organised crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

The Right has spent years scaring the bejeezus out of Americans about the War on Drugs. Is it over? Is that a war? Now they’re using the War on Terrorism to manipulate America and force through the Right Wing agenda. Put aside your fear for a moment. The Cold War was a “true” war because the Soviets had thousands of nukes and an army to back them up. Terrorism and assassination have been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The murder of Archduke Ferdinand was a terrorist act, as was the murder of Czar Nicholas. Terrorism WILL always be with us. The U.S. military is not going to solve it anymore than the DEA is going to win the “War” on illegal drugs.

Besides, the main point is this: 9/11 was successful because the Bush administration failed to do anything about terrorism for 9 months while ignoring numerous warnings to the contrary. Those failures are too well documented to go into here, but the Bush scare tactics continue to cloud those failures, which should be at the top of the discussion.

Here’s what Kerry also said about terrorism:

"The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don't want to use that terminology. The engagement of economies, the economic transformation, the transformation to modernity of a whole bunch of countries that have been avoiding the future. And that future's coming at us like it or not, in the context of terror, and in the context of failed states, and dysfunctional economies, and all that goes with that."

In other words, Kerry gets the big picture, Bush does not.




Here’s what “global test” is actually about:

"What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?" asked Jim Lehrer, the PBS anchor who moderated the debate.

"The President always has the right, and always has had the right, for [a] preemptive strike," the Massachusetts Senator replied, according to the published transcript. "That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

"No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Notice the line “…that you did it…” in the past tense. That means you take the action first, and then AFTER THE FACT the world cannot question your credibility – as they so clearly can of Bush’s war in Iraq. The Bushies have twisted this one into some kind of “test” the President must take BEFORE taking action. What Kerry clearly said was this – AFTER THE FACT, was the action credible and legitimate to protect U.S. security? Iraq was not.

Notice that this “global test” hype from the Bushies came out the same week that the New York Times investigation and the CIA report came out documenting Bush’s lies and failures in Iraq. Every time the Bushies raise the “Fear” flag, look at what’s hiding beneath it.




What Kerry’s ACTUAL position on the ICC is:

"My number one priority is to protect the servicemen and women who protect America from harm," Kerry told the Boston Globe in reply to a request to state his position. "Therefore, I don't believe the United States should join the International Criminal Court until our concerns are addressed and the Court develops a solid track record of fair prosecutions of the world's worst criminals."

And on Kyoto?

“The fact is that the Kyoto treaty was flawed," Kerry said in his second one-on-one debate with President George W Bush ahead of the Nov 2 election. "This president didn't try to fix it. He just declared it dead, ladies and gentlemen, and we walked away from the work of the 160 nations over 10 years. The president's done nothing to try to fix it. I will."

Kerry’s position is to stay engaged with the world, whether or not we agree with them. Bush’s position is to just walk away. The Right is just selling the same, old, tired idea that they have represented for a hundred years – isolationism/unilateralism. And that position is far more dangerous than engagement.



Which liberal would that be? JFK, who stared down the USSR over Cuban missiles? Or maybe it was Carter, who sent weapons and advisors into Afghanistan to fight the Soviets – a policy that Reagan continued and which led to the fall of the Soviets?





The Bushies still can’t face the facts even when they’re dripping all over them: THE SANCTIONS DID WORK! Don’t you get it? Every report, and every investigation says this about Saddam: HE WAS A “DIMINISHING THREAT.” Once again, the Bushies try to fool the American people with this “Oil for Food” crap. What they always forget to mention is that the U.S. has veto power on the Security Council. THE SANCTIONS ON SADDAM WOULD NEVER BE LIFTED UNLESS THE U.S. AGREED TO IT.

France and Germany may not send troops, but Morocco, Jordan and Egypt might.



This paragraph is just pure, nasty name calling. It’s what the Bushies refer to as political dialogue. It’s the kind of personal attacks they’ve used against anyone, and everyone, who disagrees with them.

Liberals? Who are liberals? I’ll tell you who some of them were: FDR& Truman (who won WWII), JFK (who fired one of the most crucial shots in the Cold War), Carter (see above) and (I hate to tell you Bushies this truth) Abraham Lincoln (and if you want to argue that one point for point, I’d be glad to). Liberals are why we have a 40 hour work week, Social Security, child labor laws, environmental protection laws, etc. etc. etc. and all those other things that the Right wants to dismantle.



And finally, we have the wrap-up from a well-schooled Bushie sheep preaching the message of fear.

Here’s the difference between Bush and Kerry: Kerry has the balls to face the truth AS IT IS, Bush can only hide behind his lies, and then create more lies when the first lies are uncovered. The Bushies are running a P.T. Barnum campaign based on the premise, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” The question the American people must answer is this: Are you a sucker, or aren’t you?

What a great post Ro and I thank you for taking the time to compose it.

Our country is run on FEAR and CONSUMPTION.

The dumbing down of America has been successful, your eloquent post will fall on deaf ears.

God help us all!

[Phantom]

Who's being a racist?

The decision makers that run this country are white, male and wealthy - I dare you to prove otherwise. 99% of legislation is influenced by corporate lobbyists. Personally, I am quite happy with the current power structure as it has allowed me to live quite comfortably (though I could be much happier with the market). I'm just saying that we are being extremely myopic in thinking the rest of the world desires our standards. We're told from the day we enter kindergarten what a great benevolent nation we are and that the rest of the world would die to live in our country. If you travel the world, you'll find this just isn't true.

People should really get out a little more.

Depends on what part of the world you are referring to ...
My wife was born and raised in Germany - her family still lives there - we visit them, they visit us. They wish their country was like America, they wish they could live in America - you better believe it. What you hear as the "Germans view on America" is simply not true. Germans understand what the Iraq war is about, but watching the news would have you believe otherwise. The voices of a few, is not representative of the hearts of the masses - believe that.

[Captain_Poncho]

What a great post Ro and I thank you for taking the time to compose it.

Our country is run on FEAR and CONSUMPTION.

The dumbing down of America has been successful, your eloquent post will fall on deaf ears.

God help us all!

Baja, buddy I love you, but that's just bananas to go for the standard "the nation is dumb!" stuff.

We're not dumb, and I think this debate proves it. We all know two big, opposing ideas are duking it out, and it's very important that we assess, as a nation, which we like to identify ourselves with more.

Worst case scenario stuff is just plain old not necessary.

[W*GS]

Our country is run on FEAR and CONSUMPTION.

Not quite.

The dumbing down of America has been successful, your eloquent post will fall on deaf ears.

Strangely, the people most likely to be unable to critically analyze politicians' statements are those who have been exclusively indoctrin- ('scuse me, "taught") in the government-run, Democrat-controlled, school system.

Why would liberals want our kids to be "dumbed down"?

[baja]

Baja, buddy I love you, but that's just bananas to go for the standard "the nation is dumb!" stuff.

We're not dumb, and I think this debate proves it. We all know two big, opposing ideas are duking it out, and it's very important that we assess, as a nation, which we like to identify ourselves with more.

Worst case scenario stuff is just plain old not necessary.

And I greatly respect you dear Capt'n. We have enjoyed wonderful and insightful humor over the years at the sadly now defunct DPO.

I know you are a very bright guy whose views I always give careful consideration.

My problem is I can not understand half of this nation can so completely give Bush a pass on Iraq. Is it fear, I just don't know how folks can be lied to in so obvious a fashion, to such a great degree and not demand accountability. I can only surmise it has to be due to fear or an unwillingness to think for themselves.

[bendog]

1. Fear. 2. Not a total lie: saddam was a threat, certainly before inspections, and most I think sort of suspect Israel is tied to this deal: whatever victory in the WOT is in BushII's mind, we don't get there without the pales and Israelis making two seperate states, as bad as Likud may be, it's hard to blame Israel with the Pales refusing any peace.

It WAS A LIE to say womd when the aim was nation building. But, in some ways BushII's sale job was as much oversimplification as outright lie. The problem was the admin itself was not honest with itself in the prospects for success, and the difficulities. So, we got the army's nutz in a vise over there.

3. Kerry is not much different from BushII. The best one can say is he will abandon the neoconservatives and get back to letting professionals run the place: like Snowcroft and Berger and Powell and Holbrooke, and put in a sensible energy policy based on conservation. That's not much to "change horses on" if you have a dim view of the democratic party.

[Captain_Poncho]

And I greatly respect you dear Capt'n. We have enjoyed wonderful and insightful humor over the years at the sadly now defunct DPO.

I know you are a very bright guy whose views I always give careful consideration.

My problem is I can not understand half of this nation can so completely give Bush a pass on Iraq. Is it fear, I just don't know how folks can be lied to in so obvious a fashion, to such a great degree and not demand accountability. I can only surmise it has to be due to fear or an unwillingness to think for themselves.

My two bits on Iraq for what it's worth: If Bush were truly so brazen as to have knowingly lied about the WMDs, he most certainly would have taken steps to make sure there were going to be some WMDs found. In other words, all of these accusations that Bush lied to get us into Iraq fall when the President doesn't actually find these weapons.

If you're going to tell a great big fat whopper of insane proportions, why in the world would you go ahead with it, knowing that you'll be exposed as a liar? What would be the point of that? Someone who is going to tell such a lie, will also "find" some of what he said would be there. I do not see the benefit to the President of not finding WMDs.

Some have said that it's all a ploy to get his "buddies" rich. To what end? Why in the heck would you risk the presidency to help your friends turn a quick profit? It's not like he isn't already rolling in cash. Why would he risk so much in such a transparent ploy, for such a dubious payoff? It simply doesn't make sense to me.

[baja]

My two bits on Iraq for what it's worth: If Bush were truly so brazen as to have knowingly lied about the WMDs, he most certainly would have taken steps to make sure there were going to be some WMDs found. In other words, all of these accusations that Bush lied to get us into Iraq fall when the President doesn't actually find these weapons.

If you're going to tell a great big fat whopper of insane proportions, why in the world would you go ahead with it, knowing that you'll be exposed as a liar? What would be the point of that? Someone who is going to tell such a lie, will also "find" some of what he said would be there. I do not see the benefit to the President of not finding WMDs.

Some have said that it's all a ploy to get his "buddies" rich. To what end? Why in the heck would you risk the presidency to help your friends turn a quick profit? It's not like he isn't already rolling in cash. Why would he risk so much in such a transparent ploy, for such a dubious payoff? It simply doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe he knew the fear filled people would elect him anyway.

I never thought it was simply about money. I believe Bush is sincere in his motives. I just think he does not have have a full understanding of the situation. I am concerned about the God directed mandates of his. I cringe at his go it alone cowboy attitude.

[baja]

Gotta go for a swim Capt'n good to see you here :) :)

[enjolras]

I don't think that Bush lied about WMD's, but I don't think he WANTED to hear the truth either. That much has been made clear by the aides and intelligence operatives that have left the administration. He created an environment in which the truth COULDN'T be heard. So on the one hand he wasn't lying, but he certainly wasn't doing a good job of getting the facts right. The whole thing was self-fulfilling in a way. He heard what he wanted to hear and only that.

This, of course is not a desirable quality in a commander in chief, a president, or anyone who has to make even the most basic of decisions.

[Captain_Poncho]

Gotta go for a swim Capt'n good to see you here :) :)

Good to talk to you, baja.

As per usual.

[Pat Bowlen]

The voices of a few, is not representative of the hearts of the masses - believe that.
Well, that kinda shoots a hole through your 'My wife's family likes America and is pro-war therefor Germany likes America and is pro-war' theory, doesn't it?

[Samiwindr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom
The voices of a few, is not representative of the hearts of the masses - believe that.

Did your wife's German family bother telling you that Schroeder basically declined joining the coalition to save his job? He was in the midst of a tight election race and the war was HUGELY unpopular in Germany. If Bush would have waited 3 months to invade, Germany most likely would have joined us.

German's aren't jealous over all of America, just the home and property of David Hasselhoff. Which proves once again...

[azbronco]

If all you can do is quote Bush ads you see on TV, why not keep it to yourself. We've all seen the ads. We know enough also to see them for what they are: :bs:

So Ro you are completely comfortable with a person acting in a particular fashion for over 20 years(raising taxes, underfunding the military and intellegence, etc) , and just because thay say they will change you just know they will?
Wow! I think you should stop by some 12 step meetings. The people there would marvel at your faith in them too.

[Pat Bowlen]

Baja, buddy I love you, but that's just bananas to go for the standard "the nation is dumb!" stuff.

We're not dumb, and I think this debate proves it. We all know two big, opposing ideas are duking it out, and it's very important that we assess, as a nation, which we like to identify ourselves with more.

Worst case scenario stuff is just plain old not necessary.
This is a ridiculous argument. You're trying to use the fact that the nation is divided over war and parties to prove that the nation is intelligent and informed. That line of thinking doesn't hold much water, especially when you factor in how pitiful our voter turnout is. If America really was aware of the issues and caring about ideas and policy, why does less than half the country show up to vote?

Maybe it's incorrect to say that America is "dumb", but I think it's a pretty safe bet to claim that the majority of people in this country don't know about or care about the right current events or issues. There are millions of people out there who know more about the cast of Survivor than they do the cast of the Presidential Administration. I'd say that's pretty goddamn dumb.

[Samiwindr]

If you think about it, there is no real incentive to vote for most Americans. Repubs cater to the rich. Dems cater to the poor. Both screw the middle class with careless abandon. This will not change regardless of who we put in office. And who are we putting in office? Definitely not two guys chosen by the people. We are always stuck with the Incumbent, the Incumbent's lackey, and whatever silver spoon guy the opposition can decides can best be controlled by party interests. You can bet that Cheney's fighting tooth and nail for this election because by default he'll be the next candidate should Bush get a second term. A one term presidency is basically viewed as a failure by default these days.

Basically you can have anything you want from the menu, as long as its chee-burger, chips (cheeps!), and Pepsi.

In Brazil people are fined for not voting. It is not just a right, but a duty. It would be sad if we had to resort to such a coercive measure just to get our populace to vote, but something definitely has to be done.

Maybe we only show the last episode of 24 or Beverly Hills Zip Code Show at the Polling place. You don't get to find out if Ross kills Joey with a steak knife unless you vote...

[watermock]

It's much like Bush's absolutely insane rhetoric during the last debate "your either for something or against it.. that's it"

This is exactly the point. Your not "kinda for or against" anything. You are for it or against it. The idea of terrorism as an "neusance" should end.

It's amazing that someone can support Bush who only sees the world in this simplistic black and white way.

Science demands that things are in black and white, or rather in Truth or False. It is or it isn't you dimwit. 2x2 doesn't equal 5. That fact is that the world is in truth and delusion. That is the whole point. I am sick and tired of idiots telling me the world operates in gray.

Kerry had just explained that it is not always about being for or against something, it's about doing what is right for the American people. He explained that while he is against partial birth abortion, the particular bill brought before Congress was a bad one as it made no provision for saving the life of a mother. Bush shot up out of his chair and proclaimed that this clearly means that Kerry is for partial birth abortions (your either for it or against it). Anyone with a basic grasp of logic looks at this exchange and wonders how Bush was ever elected in the first place.

It's not always about being or against something? Your talking about a living breathing, almost ambient living human being having his head chopped off. Jesus Christ. Kerry, a Catholic, who still has the balls to cake communion, defends pure murder. Partial Birth Abortions are Murder. It's a stone cold FACT. Your talking about a fetus in the third trimester, that might even be able to be nursed in intensive care. If that isn't murder, I don't know what is.

After all, under the exact same logic Bush is FOR killing mothers. After all, he supports a law that makes it possible to kill a mother to save a child. Think about THAT for a second.

Listen to this. TOTAL ASSUMPTION. You should be ashamed of yourself. There is no "exact logic for killing mothers" ****head.

The life of the mother allways preceeds the life of the unborn. Your not even on a related topic. You make me sick to my stomach. You don't know crap. Most deaths involve women hemoraging and losing blood than a risk to the child. Almost all maternal deaths occur after birth due to hemorage. My sister in law alsmost died.

You don't know more than a retard shown to the toilet.

[Play2win]

This is what gets me, I don't care if Bush knew about the WMDs or not. It is his responsibility as president to be accountable for everything he says, especially speech material.

There is no difference between him lying and him not getting the facts right. He is still being slanderous and defamatory to the American public. He needs to be acountable for his own actions, not like he is used to and have someone else acountable Bush's own actions.

To me Bush strikes me as a person who was given the silver spoon from birth and could get away with murder (or atleast hard drug use). He hasn't changed a bit and is still the same spoiled brat he always has been. Except now he is a presidential spoiled brat, go figure.

[baja]

This is what gets me, I don't care if Bush knew about the WMDs or not. It is his responsibility as president to be accountable for everything he says, especially speech material.

There is no difference between him lying and him not getting the facts right. He is still being slanderous and defamatory to the American public. He needs to be acountable for his own actions, not like he is used to and have someone else acountable Bush's own actions.

To me Bush strikes me as a person who was given the silver spoon from birth and could get away with murder (or atleast hard drug use). He hasn't changed a bit and is still the same spoiled brat he always has been. Except now he is a presidential spoiled brat, go figure.

Not only that that he still insists, 1000's of deaths and 200 billion of your kids dough later, that it was the right thing to do now sighting reason #5, "Thatl Saddam was trying to bribe his way out of sanctions. Now there's a surprize

[watermock]

This is what gets me, I don't care if Bush knew about the WMDs or not. It is his responsibility as president to be accountable for everything he says, especially speech material.

You don't care about the WMD You care about his speech material.

There is no difference between him lying and him not getting the facts right.

OK. You said it not me. That is funny.

He is still being slanderous and defamatory to the American public.

You bring nothing to the table. He has never been slanderous nor has he defamed the American public, you just asserted it without even foundation yet alone anything to even argue against. Your a total idiot.

He needs to be acountable for his own actions, not like he is used to and have someone else acountable Bush's own actions.

You didn't even manage to name a single action or make an argument.

To me Bush strikes me as a person who was given the silver spoon from birth and could get away with murder (or atleast hard drug use).

I don't think you can accuse Bush of murder. And as far as the silver spoon goes, your kidding me right?


He hasn't changed a bit and is still the same spoiled brat he always has been. Except now he is a presidential spoiled brat, go figure.

First you didn't explain changed from what. This stupid prick seems to think John Kerry is the people's choice.

[enjolras]

Science demands that things are in black and white, or rather in Truth or False. It is or it isn't you dimwit. 2x2 doesn't equal 5. That fact is that the world is in truth and delusion. That is the whole point. I am sick and tired of idiots telling me the world operates in gray.

Alright you ignorant moron. I'm sorry your lack of education has severely limited your ability to read and function. Your support of Bush makes incredible sense in that context.

Lets jump to the meat.

It's not always about being or against something? Your talking about a living breathing, almost ambient living human being having his head chopped off. Jesus Christ. Kerry, a Catholic, who still has the balls to cake communion, defends pure murder. Partial Birth Abortions are Murder. It's a stone cold FACT. Your talking about a fetus in the third trimester, that might even be able to be nursed in intensive care. If that isn't murder, I don't know what is.

If you'd open your damn ears he said that he is AGAINST PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION YOU ABSOLUTELY STUPID DAMN MORON. His vote against that bill stemmed from the very reasonable view, however, that when you have to make a choice between killing a baby or killing the mother that you sometimes have to make exceptions. The life of that unborn child is no more valuable than the mothers.

At the same time, he makes the very well reasoned argument that you sometimes have to set personal conviction aside and do what is best for the country, not what is best for yourself. It's called reason and common sense.. but the "all about me" right can't seem to understand that.

Listen to this. TOTAL ASSUMPTION. You should be ashamed of yourself. There is no "exact logic for killing mothers" ****head.

The life of the mother allways preceeds the life of the unborn. Your not even on a related topic. You make me sick to my stomach. You don't know crap. Most deaths involve women hemoraging and losing blood than a risk to the child. Almost all maternal deaths occur after birth due to hemorage. My sister in law alsmost died.

You don't know more than a retard shown to the toilet.

"The life of the mother allways preceeds the life of the unborn" Ok ignorant twit.. lets go over this REALLY slowly. You seem to be suggesting (although you can never tell with you) that when it comes to a choice between the life of a mother and the life of an unborn child, that you have to defer to the life of the mother. THIS IS EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE BILL IN QUESTION WOULD MAKE LAW. How hard is it to understand that. kerry voted against it for precisely this reason. He didn't vote for partial birth abortion, he voted against the fact that it would sometimes make it ILLEGAL TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER BY ABORTING THE CHILD. It's not hard to understand.. jesus.

And yes, the logic is identical. Bush says Kerry is FOR partial birth abortion because he voted against a bill to outlaw it (Kerry's vote against the bill implies support of partial birth abortion). Bush supported that bill. Thus, since the bill would make it ILLEGAL to save the life of a mother through partial birth abortion Bush MUST (according this his own damn logic) support killing mothers.

Am I saying that Bush REALLY wants to kill mothers? Nope, I'm just point out how incredibly flawed his own logic is. It's clear to me that you have no ability to comprehend basic logic so I doubt this will ever be clear to you... but it doesn't make it any less right.

[patteeu]

If you think about it, there is no real incentive to vote for most Americans. Repubs cater to the rich. Dems cater to the poor. Both screw the middle class with careless abandon. This will not change regardless of who we put in office. And who are we putting in office? Definitely not two guys chosen by the people. We are always stuck with the Incumbent, the Incumbent's lackey, and whatever silver spoon guy the opposition can decides can best be controlled by party interests. You can bet that Cheney's fighting tooth and nail for this election because by default he'll be the next candidate should Bush get a second term. A one term presidency is basically viewed as a failure by default these days.

Basically you can have anything you want from the menu, as long as its chee-burger, chips (cheeps!), and Pepsi.

In Brazil people are fined for not voting. It is not just a right, but a duty. It would be sad if we had to resort to such a coercive measure just to get our populace to vote, but something definitely has to be done.

Maybe we only show the last episode of 24 or Beverly Hills Zip Code Show at the Polling place. You don't get to find out if Ross kills Joey with a steak knife unless you vote...


Four people go to dinner at a fancy restaurant. Each reviews the menu and picks the entree that fits their personal preference. Then it comes time to pick a wine. 3 of the 4 know nothing about wine. The 4th guy is a professional wine taster. Should the 3 defer to the one due to his superior knowledge of the subject or should they randomly vote for a wine hoping that luck will lead them to a good choice? (*edit* assuming other factors such as cost are not relevant, of course. */edit*)

This is an example that Jude Wanniski uses in his book, The Way The World Works, to illustrate his argument that people who don't vote are often doing so for the benefit of the electorate as a whole. If you don't know which guy will do the better job, what's wrong with letting others who have followed more closely, and are more in tune with the issues of the day, make the decision.

[bendog]

As I understand Sami's pt, its not that people are demurring from their lack of knowledge about issues, but they demurr because they don't see that there's much difference in either choice offered. So, using your example, 3 diners view the wine offereings of all being roughly the same, and let the one who offers an opinion pick the wine. That doesn't necessarily mean the better wine is chosen, or even mean that one wine was better.

However, I disagree with Sami that there's no difference. there's not much, to be sure, but there are differences. Stem cell. Judges. small, but there.

[Captain_Poncho]

This is a ridiculous argument. You're trying to use the fact that the nation is divided over war and parties to prove that the nation is intelligent and informed.

Actually, I wasn't. Sorry it wasn't clearer. My point was that the nation being divided means there is some serious analysis going on over our role in the world, the war, etc. And that's a good thing. Given, there's a huge amount of blather to sort through, but the fact that the points are being argued in-depth doesn't suggest to me that the nation is dumb.

That line of thinking doesn't hold much water, especially when you factor in how pitiful our voter turnout is. If America really was aware of the issues and caring about ideas and policy, why does less than half the country show up to vote?

I wouldn't suggest the entire nation is up to a high standard, but I'd certainly refrain from lumping us as a nation into the "dumb" category. Quite frankly, a lot of people of voting age aren't informed enough on the issues to cast a responsible vote. It isn't just a kick in the ass to go vote - it's a big deal, and I'd rather that those (mostly kids) who pay more attention to their high scores on Grand Theft Auto than the issues not vote at all. I'd surmise a low voter turnout simply reflects that there are a veritable ton of self-focussed 18-year-olds out there who don't quite get that the election impacts them.

Maybe it's incorrect to say that America is "dumb", but I think it's a pretty safe bet to claim that the majority of people in this country don't know about or care about the right current events or issues. There are millions of people out there who know more about the cast of Survivor than they do the cast of the Presidential Administration. I'd say that's pretty goddamn dumb.

First of all, that's just plain old well-written. Funny as hell.

But I'd really back away from putting "the majority" in that statement.

[Phantom]

Well, that kinda shoots a hole through your 'My wife's family likes America and is pro-war therefor Germany likes America and is pro-war' theory, doesn't it?

Not at all - the voices of the few are the agenda driven media. Let me clarify ... my reponse is questioning the statement that 'We're told from the day we enter kindergarten what a great benevolent nation we are and that the rest of the world would die to live in our country. If you travel the world, you'll find this just isn't true.'

The German people I know, would trade German citizenship for American citizenship. Now consider countries like Bulgaria and Romania - who wish they could be German citizens. Ya, most people around the world wish they could be Americans, have American values, and persue American dreams.

[Phantom]

Quote:


Did your wife's German family bother telling you that Schroeder basically declined joining the coalition to save his job? He was in the midst of a tight election race and the war was HUGELY unpopular in Germany. If Bush would have waited 3 months to invade, Germany most likely would have joined us.

German's aren't jealous over all of America, just the home and property of David Hasselhoff. Which proves once again...

You're correct - we discussed Schroeder - Germans are anti war becuase of the current state of their economy, not because they are anti-American or pro-Iraq. Germany is still reeling from losing WWII, financially and mentally. Three months later - no, absolutly not, the Germans would not have joined the coalition. This is a country that is anti-war, not anti-America. Schroeder endorsed the monitary transition to the Euro which has sunk him along with their economy.

They are jealous of my home and property - let alone David Hasselhoff.

[Samiwindr]

Germany as a whole may now be suffering side effects from WWII, but this wasn't the case until the reunification. West Germany was experiencing GDP growth within a percent or two of the US until they merged with a devastated East Germany. There are certainly issues with less than stellar growth and lagging recovery, but this has nothing to do with the Euro - which has continued to gain value against the Dollar. Germany's problems stem from ridiculous employment laws and the continued support for rebuilding East Germany. My company avoids new hires in Germany whenever possible because it's almost impossible to fire them later and Germany sets fair wages on a federal basis.

Most Europeans I work with consider the US a nice place to shop. It's kind of like those visits to New York - nice place, but wouldn't want to live there.

What are American values anyway? Or American culture for that matter?

[Samiwindr]

Originally Posted by Pat Bowlen
Maybe it's incorrect to say that America is "dumb", but I think it's a pretty safe bet to claim that the majority of people in this country don't know about or care about the right current events or issues. There are millions of people out there who know more about the cast of Survivor than they do the cast of the Presidential Administration. I'd say that's pretty goddamn dumb.

No kidding. People are more caught up in three decade old military records than the actual issues. Both candidates as well as the party sites have their platforms and plans fully outlined online. No one bothers reading them, preferring to believe whatever drivel gets spewed out by pundits and 527's every night. If you choose to be spoon fed, your relinquishing your right to choose the contents of the meal.

[Phantom]

Germany as a whole may now be suffering side effects from WWII, but this wasn't the case until the reunification. West Germany was experiencing GDP growth within a percent or two of the US until they merged with a devastated East Germany. There are certainly issues with less than stellar growth and lagging recovery, but this has nothing to do with the Euro - which has continued to gain value against the Dollar. Germany's problems stem from ridiculous employment laws and the continued support for rebuilding East Germany. My company avoids new hires in Germany whenever possible because it's almost impossible to fire them later and Germany sets fair wages on a federal basis.

Most Europeans I work with consider the US a nice place to shop. It's kind of like those visits to New York - nice place, but wouldn't want to live there.

What are American values anyway? Or American culture for that matter?

Switching to the Euro, greatly hurt the economy. The cost of living increased. If a Euro is worth four Marks - a gallon of milk was four Marks, but now costs 2 Euros. Consumer spending has decreased, businesses are closing as a result. You are correct about funding East Germany. Most West Germans wish the wall was still up. The average working German pays 50% of their income in taxes. For some it is more profitable to not work and collect socialistic welfare and free heath care. Since losing the war, Germany is forced to grant asylum to anyone who seeks it. These people come to Germany and live off the German tax payers - forever.

Yes, these people would love to live in America.

American culture is where modest employment equates to a home, two cars, 2.5 kids and a dog. In Germany modest employment equates to a small apartment, a bike and a fish.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is a ridiculous argument. You're trying to use the fact that the nation is divided over war and parties to prove that the nation is intelligent and informed. That line of thinking doesn't hold much water, especially when you factor in how pitiful our voter turnout is. If America really was aware of the issues and caring about ideas and policy, why does less than half the country show up to vote?

Maybe it's incorrect to say that America is "dumb", but I think it's a pretty safe bet to claim that the majority of people in this country don't know about or care about the right current events or issues. There are millions of people out there who know more about the cast of Survivor than they do the cast of the Presidential Administration. I'd say that's pretty goddamn dumb.

:thumbsup:

Pat Bowlen with another score.

No wonder he's President/Chief Executive. ;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why do the Bushies find it necessary to continuously misrepresent Kerry’s positions on the issues, or just downright lie about them, in order to make their point? The differences between the candidates are clear enough. Why not just argue them point for point without the lies and misrepresentations?


Because they have to keep to focus away from the dauphin's actual record.

They know they can't point to any positive achievements by the Smirk & Sneer misadministration.

They know that if enough people see the reality of the Smirk & Sneer record then they are sunk.

Their only recourse is to keep lying about Kerry.

[patteeu]

As I understand Sami's pt, its not that people are demurring from their lack of knowledge about issues, but they demurr because they don't see that there's much difference in either choice offered. So, using your example, 3 diners view the wine offereings of all being roughly the same, and let the one who offers an opinion pick the wine. That doesn't necessarily mean the better wine is chosen, or even mean that one wine was better.

However, I disagree with Sami that there's no difference. there's not much, to be sure, but there are differences. Stem cell. Judges. small, but there.

That's effectively the same thing. If people aren't voting because they don't perceive a difference between the options then one of two things is true:

1) They are wrong and there is a difference, in which case my example about people standing back and letting more informed voters make the decision is applicable, or

2) They are right and they will be equally happy/unhappy regardless of the outcome. In this case, why should they be forced to vote. Others may have a preference and a greater degree of happiness across the electorate will be achieved if only those with a preference cast a ballot.

[bendog]

No, your pt is that if 4 people choose a wine, and 2 or 3 demurr because they admit they don't know about wine, the voters who do know about wine will choose a better wine.

You presuppose that those people who don't percieve a difference in the parties are admitting they are ignorant about the better of the candidates. I assert that you are the one, who in reality, is sufferring a misperception.

There are a few distinctions. I'd agree that that WJC was more inclined to aim tax cuts at the working poor that the 2%, but that doesn't effect the middle much, and its not really possible to know what Kerry would, or could, do if elected.

[patteeu]

No, your pt is that if 4 people choose a wine, and 2 or 3 demurr because they admit they don't know about wine, the voters who do know about wine will choose a better wine.

You presuppose that those people who don't percieve a difference in the parties are admitting they are ignorant about the better of the candidates. I assert that you are the one, who in reality, is sufferring a misperception.

There are a few distinctions. I'd agree that that WJC was more inclined to aim tax cuts at the working poor that the 2%, but that doesn't effect the middle much, and its not really possible to know what Kerry would, or could, do if elected.

I didn't presuppose anything. I covered all the bases. If a person doesn't perceive a difference between the candidates then it doesn't matter whether it's because of ignorance or because there really is no difference (from their perspective). Either way, the benefit to the electorate as a whole is increased when the person decides not to vote. Note that I'm not saying that that particular person is always benefitted from the choice to not vote.

What was my misperception?

BTW, I don't recall WJC coming through with any tax cuts (for the poor or otherwise). Am I wrong about this?

[bendog]

No the benefit to the electorate is not helped if the people NOT VOTING have the correct perception that neither party offers any benefit to them worth their vote.

If the voters who percieve no substantive difference are in fact the correct ones in their perception, then those who are voting are voting on illusions. And, imo, that is largely the case. There may be some distinctions between the gop and dems, but each is aimed at it's own core group of supporters, each of whom is a minority of the population as a whole.

For example,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=696&e=3&u=/afp/20041020/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_homeless
These folks are right. Neither party is courting their votes.

similarly, your "debate" with Ames is illustrative. Ames has the big picture that Cheney and Halliburton were trading with a person whom, if Cheney is now being truthful, he knew to be a mortal enemy of our country. Whether Halliburton bought Saddam's oil is irrelevant. And, btw, the US was buying Iraqi oil during the oii for food years under WJC.

[patteeu]

No the benefit to the electorate is not helped if the people NOT VOTING have the correct perception that neither party offers any benefit to them worth their vote.

If the voters who percieve no substantive difference are in fact the correct ones in their perception, then those who are voting are voting on illusions. And, imo, that is largely the case. There may be some distinctions between the gop and dems, but each is aimed at it's own core group of supporters, each of whom is a minority of the population as a whole.

For example,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=696&e=3&u=/afp/20041020/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_homeless
These folks are right. Neither party is courting their votes.

Can we agree that there are differences between the candidates? If we can't at least do that then we don't really have much to discuss here.

Assuming we agree that there are differences, it's still possible that to some voters those differences don't have relevance. To those voters, there isn't any signficant difference between the candidate. To others, though, the differences might be signficant. For example, if the only real difference between candidate A and candidate B is that A wants tax brackets of 10, 20, and 30% while B wants brackets of 5, 20, and 35%. For those in the 20% bracket the election doesn't matter. But for those in the top and bottom brackets, there is a signficant difference. If the people in the middle don't have an opinion on what the top and bottom rates should be, then how do they help the electorate by voting. The answer is that they don't, they just add a random factor because they are voting randomly. (Please note that I'm ignoring the possibility that those in the middle bracket might actually have an opinion on which of the two tax schemes for the top and bottom brackets is better. We are dealing with middle bracket voters who don't perceive a difference between the candidates here).

You are operating under the misconception that the difference between the candidates is of the same quality from the perspective of all voters. This is not the case.


similarly, your "debate" with Ames is illustrative. Ames has the big picture that Cheney and Halliburton were trading with a person whom, if Cheney is now being truthful, he knew to be a mortal enemy of our country. Whether Halliburton bought Saddam's oil is irrelevant. And, btw, the US was buying Iraqi oil during the oii for food years under WJC.

The whole point of the oil-for-food program was to allow Iraq to legally sell oil to raise money for the benefit of their citizenry (while continuing to keep the vice on Saddam's military). Of course we were buying Iraqi oil (either directly or indirectly), but so what? Ames said Cheney's Halliburton was buying oil, they weren't. What they were doing was helping to recapitalize the Iraqi oil fields which was contemplated by the LEGAL oil for food program. To draw any kind of outrage out of this is to identify yourself as either someone who is confused between legal activity and illegal activity or as someone who didn't really understand that we authorized the oil-for-food program with full awareness that Saddam was our enemy. There was no reason for Cheney's Haliburton to refrain from legal trade with Saddam under the US-approved oil-for-food program. Sanctions don't work when they are implemented by a single nation or by a single CEO.

You and Ames can come back when you have evidence that Cheney was involved in the corruption associated with the oil-for-food-scandal or when you have evidence that Cheney broke US laws. Until then, you are just attempting to push misleading propaganda just like Ames does.

Summary:

1) Cheney's Haliburton DID NOT buy Iraqi oil as Ames originally claimed.

2) Cheney's Haliburton DID legally support the recapitalization of Iraqi oil fields which was allowed under the US approved oil-for-food program.

3) The US DID legally buy oil from Iraq (either directly or indirectly) under the US approved oil-for-food program.

4) Cheney HAS NOT been implicated in any illegality or corruption related to Iraqi oil, Iraqi oil fields, or the Iraqi oil-for-food program.

[azbronco]

Is there an emoticon for a Slam Dunk?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cheney, Halliburton helped Saddam fleece Oil for Food program

When the Iraqi Survey Group released its long awaited report last week that said Iraq eliminated its weapons programs in the 1990s, President George W. Bush quickly changed his stance on reasons he authorized an invasion of Iraq. While he campaigned for a second term in office, Bush justified the war by saying that that Saddam Hussein was manipulating the United Nation's oil-for-food program, siphoning off billions of dollars from the venture that he intended to use to fund a weapons program.

The report on Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, prepared by Charles Duelfer, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of the Iraqi Survey Group, said Saddam Hussein used revenue from the oil-for-food program and "created a web of front companies and used shadowy deals with foreign governments, corporations, and officials to amass $11 billion in illicit revenue in the decade before the US-led invasion last year," reports The New York Times.

"Through secret government-to-government trade agreements, Saddam Hussein's government earned more than $7.5 billion," the report says. "At the same time, by demanding kickbacks from foreign companies that received oil or that supplied consumer goods, Iraq received at least $2 billion more to spend on weapons or on Saddam's extravagant palaces."

The oil-for-food program was supervised by the U.N. and ran from 1996 until the war started in Iraq last year. It was designed to alleviate the effects sanctions had on Iraqi citizens by allowing limited quantities of oil to be sold to buy food and medicine.

But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Vice President Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil. Since the oil-for-food program began, Iraq has sold $40 billion worth of oil. U.S. and European officials have long argued that the increase in Iraq's oil production also expanded Saddam's ability to use some of that money for weapons, luxury goods and palaces. Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq was skimming off as much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program thanks to companies like Halliburton and former executives such as Cheney.

U.N. documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had controversial dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney's tenure at the company and played a part in helping Saddam Hussein illegally pocket billions of dollars under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. The Clinton administration blocked one deal Halliburton was trying to push through sale because it was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to U.N. documents. That deal, between Halliburton subsidiary Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. and Iraq, included agreements by the firm to sell nearly $1 million in spare parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore oil terminal, Khor al Amaya. Still, Halliburton used one of foreign
subsidiaries to sell Iraq the equipment it needed so the country could pump more oil, according to a report in the Washington Post in June 2001.

The Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show. Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts -- later blocked by the United States -- according to the Post, to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led military forces destroyed in the Gulf War years earlier.

http://progressivetrail.org/article...11Leopold.shtml

[bendog]

You miss the pt because you choose to. Ames is correct in the assertion that when Cheney is in govt (poppy and BushII) saddam is a threat worth creating 400 US orphans, yet when not in govt Saddam's biz contact. One or both have to be a lie.

And again you miss the pt on oil for food. The Dems are as complicit as the gop.

Is there a difference in the parties? Well, in this election we have two men who are multi millionaries not from merit, both of whom went to Yale where they were admitted when the son of a poor white couple with the same grades wouldn't have been admitted, both belong to skull and bones or whatever the hell its calles, and both say they'll pursue the same policies with Iran, Iraq, Israel and .... pretty much NK. BushII criticizes Kerry's vote to cut defense programs, but the programs cut were what Cheney wanted cut, by and large, and those before Cheney's watch were pretty wasteful and unnecessary as it turned out.

There are some fiscal differences - perhaps. Kerry would hike taxes on the 2% or maybe 5% to lessen the deficit/monetary creation and thus inflation and interest rates, but I doubt he can pass that in the House. Kerry would nominate Judges like Breyer and Ginsburg who tend to be OK with federal regulation of biz/property rights, and against federal regulation of personal/civil rights, while BushII is the opposite. Kerry, like Gore, presumably would try to provide tax credits for energy conservation, rather than the opposite, but again - the House.

Many people don't percieve the difference worth voting for. Unlike you, I'm not presuming these people are wrong. They may well be right. What would happen if we all stayed home except for the Naderites? Might be refreshing to see the two parties swallow that result.

But, in the end, I'll vote for Kerry simply on one issue - for policy. BushII has made such a hash of it, that even if Kerry is for the status quo, which he is or you havn't been paying attention to the last 20 years or so he's been a senator, imo we need as much a fresh start with our allies as we can get, and because WJC was pretty much liked by them, perhaps they'll give Kerry some goodwill. But, in reality, I think people in the ME and Africa and Asia will still view the US as an evil because our for policy is wrong in terms of econ development, aids, Israel, pollution, etc. We are not ALL in the wrong, but both parties are bought and paid for by the people who make money off of issues like that.

[Nocturnal]

I mean come on, suddenly after 20 do-nothing years in the senate(most liberal senator),
ok, I had to reply to this.

Another one of the Bushies lies. The group that did the report that said he had the most liberal record was THIS YEAR not for his career. The only reason they have him that way for the year is because of the votes he went out of his way for during the campaign trail. This is just like the Bushies saying he has voted to raise taxes 87 times when some of those would include lowering taxes in other areas, and he has voted against raising taxes over 600 times.

They had him as the 12th liberalist senator over their careers.

[bendog]

and LIeBral today ain't what it was when I was a kid (-:

I miss the RFK's and HHH's.

[patteeu]

You miss the pt because you choose to.

I didn't miss the point. I don't know what point you are trying to discuss, but my dispute with Ames was about his characterizations of Cheney's Haliburton activities wrt Iraq and the oil for food program. He was wrong. You were wrong when you sided with him. And I am right. Reread the thread if you are lost.

Ames is correct in the assertion that when Cheney is in govt (poppy and BushII) saddam is a threat worth creating 400 US orphans, yet when not in govt Saddam's biz contact. One or both have to be a lie.

No they don't. Prior to the 9/11 wakeup call, Saddam was a threat that was being dealt with through a sanction regime and suppression of his military activities in the no-fly zones. In an attempt to make the sanctions more civilian friendly, the UN (including the US) authorized the oil-for-food program. In order to produce oil to sell under the oil for food program, Iraq needed to purchase and install equipment. It is no surprise that Haliburton was one of the companies that provided that equipment. They are one of the few companies in that business. All of this activity was contemplated when the oil-for-food program was authorized. It is either intentional deception or simple ignorance for you and Ames to try to make this seem like it was scandalous. It was legal, it was expected, and as far as I'm aware, there is no credible information that Haliburton was involved in the kickback schemes that tainted the program.

If either of you have proof otherwise, produce it.

After 9/11, the thinking about what constitutes a threat changed. You may disagree, but the administration made the determination that containment and slow motion regime change were no longer acceptable. Instead, they decided that taking down Saddam's government made more sense. It was a change in strategy. That is why one does not have to be a lie. They are both consistent with the scenario I've described.

[patteeu]

Is there a difference in the parties? Well, in this election we have two men who are multi millionaries not from merit, both of whom went to Yale where they were admitted when the son of a poor white couple with the same grades wouldn't have been admitted, both belong to skull and bones or whatever the hell its calles, and both say they'll pursue the same policies with Iran, Iraq, Israel and .... pretty much NK. BushII criticizes Kerry's vote to cut defense programs, but the programs cut were what Cheney wanted cut, by and large, and those before Cheney's watch were pretty wasteful and unnecessary as it turned out.

There are some fiscal differences - perhaps. Kerry would hike taxes on the 2% or maybe 5% to lessen the deficit/monetary creation and thus inflation and interest rates, but I doubt he can pass that in the House. Kerry would nominate Judges like Breyer and Ginsburg who tend to be OK with federal regulation of biz/property rights, and against federal regulation of personal/civil rights, while BushII is the opposite. Kerry, like Gore, presumably would try to provide tax credits for energy conservation, rather than the opposite, but again - the House.

Many people don't percieve the difference worth voting for. Unlike you, I'm not presuming these people are wrong. They may well be right. What would happen if we all stayed home except for the Naderites? Might be refreshing to see the two parties swallow that result.

As I said before, I'm not presuming anything.

Unlike you, I'm not presuming that Kerry eats babies.

I don't care whether these people are wrong or right when it comes to a perception that there isn't a difference between the candidates. If they don't want to vote, I'm in favor of them not voting. And I think it makes for a better result when people like that don't vote. If you think they are the same, I encourage you to not vote. In fact, I encourage you to not vote for any reason whatsoever.

But, in the end, I'll vote for Kerry simply on one issue - for policy. BushII has made such a hash of it, that even if Kerry is for the status quo, which he is or you havn't been paying attention to the last 20 years or so he's been a senator, imo we need as much a fresh start with our allies as we can get, and because WJC was pretty much liked by them, perhaps they'll give Kerry some goodwill. But, in reality, I think people in the ME and Africa and Asia will still view the US as an evil because our for policy is wrong in terms of econ development, aids, Israel, pollution, etc. We are not ALL in the wrong, but both parties are bought and paid for by the people who make money off of issues like that.

I agree that Kerry is for the status quo. He is for the status quo of a multi-decade drift toward increased socialism and increased deference to global institutions. I'm against THAT status quo.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

ok, I had to reply to this.

Another one of the Bushies lies. The group that did the report that said he had the most liberal record was THIS YEAR not for his career. The only reason they have him that way for the year is because of the votes he went out of his way for during the campaign trail. This is just like the Bushies saying he has voted to raise taxes 87 times when some of those would include lowering taxes in other areas, and he has voted against raising taxes over 600 times.

They had him as the 12th liberalist senator over their careers.

:thumbsup:

Isn't debunking right-wing propaganda and disinformation fun? ;D

[bendog]

After 9/11, the thinking about what constitutes a threat changed. You may disagree, but the administration made the determination that containment and slow motion regime change were no longer acceptable. Instead, they decided that taking down Saddam's government made more sense. It was a change in strategy. That is why one does not have to be a lie. They are both consistent with the scenario I've described.
--
BushII said mushroom cloud, and that was a lie, and you fail to recognize that even BushII has said he inherited a policy of "regieme change" in Iraq, and WJC did as well. The ONLY difference between Poppy/WJC and JR is whehter it is worth the cost of invasion, in deaths, dollars and allies.

But I'm done with this discussion, because I don't care to debate "issues" with you. Rather, my only comment to you has been the fact that you see "issues" of distinction between these two guys does not necessarily make your view 'right.' Nor is mine necessarily 'right.' Nor is the view of those not voting necessarly 'right.' However your premise that those not voting make the end result of the election to actually select the 'best' candidate is logically a non sequitur

[Nocturnal]

:thumbsup:

Isn't debunking right-wing propaganda and disinformation fun? ;D

Indeed it is. They just make it to damn easy. :~ohyah!:

[Captain_Poncho]

Indeed it is. They just make it to damn easy. :~ohyah!:

You two make such a cute couple.

[patteeu]

BushII said mushroom cloud, and that was a lie, and you fail to recognize that even BushII has said he inherited a policy of "regieme change" in Iraq, and WJC did as well. The ONLY difference between Poppy/WJC and JR is whehter it is worth the cost of invasion, in deaths, dollars and allies.

Wrong on so many levels.

BushII said mushroom cloud, and that was a lie,

Bush didn't lie about mushroom clouds. You are the one lying.

you fail to recognize that even BushII has said he inherited a policy of "regieme change" in Iraq

Wrong again. In fact, I explicitely pointed out that "[a]fter 9/11, ... the administration made the determination that containment and slow motion regime change were no longer acceptable."

and WJC did as well

Wrong yet again. WJC didn't inherit a policy of regime change in Iraq, he changed the policy to that of regime change. Get your facts straight. No wonder you agree with Ames. You are two peas in a pod when it comes to playing loose with the facts.

But I'm done with this discussion, because I don't care to debate "issues" with you.

You are more than done, my friend. Whatever your main point is, it is obscured by all the inaccuracy in your posts.

[patteeu]

Rather, my only comment to you has been the fact that you see "issues" of distinction between these two guys does not necessarily make your view 'right.' Nor is mine necessarily 'right.' Nor is the view of those not voting necessarly 'right.' However your premise that those not voting make the end result of the election to actually select the 'best' candidate is logically a non sequitur

You are ridiculous if you don't yield the point that there ARE differences between Bush and Kerry. You've admitted as much in your posts. The varying perception of the importance of these differences is a different story. I've consistently taken the position that peoples' perceptions of the differences will vary from those who think they are insignificant to those who think they are huge. I've never implied that one perception is right and another is wrong. Either you are a very careless reader or you are lying again.

You say my premise is a non sequitur but then you provide no support for your comment. Why is it a nonsequitur? Just because you say so?

Tell me how our electorate is benefitted if a voter who has absolutely no preference decides to vote anyway? How is our electorate benefitted if a voter who realizes that they have no idea about the positions of the two candidates decides to vote anyway because she thinks it's her civic duty?

[bendog]

You are ridiculous if you don't yield the point that there ARE differences between Bush and Kerry. You've admitted as much in your posts. The varying perception of the importance of these differences is a different story. I've consistently taken the position that peoples' perceptions of the differences will vary from those who think they are insignificant to those who think they are huge. I've never implied that one perception is right and another is wrong. Either you are a very careless reader or you are lying again.

You say my premise is a non sequitur but then you provide no support for your comment. Why is it a nonsequitur? Just because you say so?

Tell me how our electorate is benefitted if a voter who has absolutely no preference decides to vote anyway? How is our electorate benefitted if a voter who realizes that they have no idea about the positions of the two candidates decides to vote anyway because she thinks it's her civic duty?


Be careful of calling people liars.

Your original post on the matter:

Four people go to dinner at a fancy restaurant. Each reviews the menu and picks the entree that fits their personal preference. Then it comes time to pick a wine. 3 of the 4 know nothing about wine. The 4th guy is a professional wine taster. Should the 3 defer to the one due to his superior knowledge of the subject or should they randomly vote for a wine hoping that luck will lead them to a good choice? (*edit* assuming other factors such as cost are not relevant, of course. */edit*)
---
And then you post:
I've consistently taken the position that peoples' perceptions of the differences will vary from those who think they are insignificant to those who think they are huge. I've never implied that one perception is right and another is wrong.
--
I'll not call you a liar, or a name, out of respect for TJ, not for you. Your post deserves none.

Consider if as a Christian I found the following issue to be of paramount importance in this election.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&ncid=721&e=5&u=/chitribts/20041021/ts_chicagotrib/childhoodendedwhenaidsstruck

If one finds no difference worth a vote, who are you to call that 'Perception' "knows nothing about the wine?"

You presume too much about others.

[patteeu]

Be careful of calling people liars.

Your original post on the matter:

Four people go to dinner at a fancy restaurant. Each reviews the menu and picks the entree that fits their personal preference. Then it comes time to pick a wine. 3 of the 4 know nothing about wine. The 4th guy is a professional wine taster. Should the 3 defer to the one due to his superior knowledge of the subject or should they randomly vote for a wine hoping that luck will lead them to a good choice? (*edit* assuming other factors such as cost are not relevant, of course. */edit*)
---
And then you post:
I've consistently taken the position that peoples' perceptions of the differences will vary from those who think they are insignificant to those who think they are huge. I've never implied that one perception is right and another is wrong.
--

First of all, I didn't call you a liar about this. I also allowed for the possibility that you are a careless reader. I think, in this case, the latter is more likely.

The quote you post as my "original post on the matter" was a response to Samiwindr. The point of that post was that someone who doesn't have a preference can be benefitted by not voting. In that particular example, the non-voter is, by definition, someone who is less informed (i.e. ignorant). But that isn't the only way a person can end up not having a preference. A person can be either right or wrong about their perception that there isn't a difference. It doesn't matter. I made that point in my next post on the matter which was also the first post I made to YOU on this thread:

That's effectively the same thing. If people aren't voting because they don't perceive a difference between the options then one of two things is true:

1) They are wrong and there is a difference, in which case my example about people standing back and letting more informed voters make the decision is applicable, or

2) They are right and they will be equally happy/unhappy regardless of the outcome. In this case, why should they be forced to vote. Others may have a preference and a greater degree of happiness across the electorate will be achieved if only those with a preference cast a ballot.

Notice that I'm accepting your argument that not all people who don't perceive a difference do so out of ignorance. I don't suggest anywhere that there is anything morally right or wrong about any of these positions. And I clearly state that they can be either right or wrong in their perception and it just doesn't matter wrt to the point I'm trying to make.

The part about Bush and the mushroom cloud is over the top though.

I'll not call you a liar, or a name, out of respect for TJ, not for you. Your post deserves none.

Consider if as a Christian I found the following issue to be of paramount importance in this election.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&ncid=721&e=5&u=/chitribts/20041021/ts_chicagotrib/childhoodendedwhenaidsstruck

If one finds no difference worth a vote, who are you to call that 'Perception' "knows nothing about the wine?"

You presume too much about others.

Very big of you.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What's your point and what do you think I presume?

P.S. It was also big of you to edit the "reactionary, half-educated, pseudo-nazis, like yourself" comment out of your original post. ;)

[Nocturnal]

Why are you quoting Michael Moore in your sig patteeu. Don't you say he is a liar like the other cons?

[patteeu]

Why are you quoting Michael Moore in your sig patteeu. Don't you say he is a liar like the other cons?

Yes, I think he is a propagandist and his statements can't be trusted at face value. Do you think he was lying or telling the truth about John Kerry?

[Nocturnal]

I don't agree with him. No one is always correct.

[patteeu]

I don't agree with him. No one is always correct.

Would you vote for Kerry if he was, in fact, the most liberal Senator in the Senate as Moore claims?

[Nocturnal]

Yes, but truth be told he isn't even the most liberal on the ballot.

[patteeu]

Yes, but truth be told he isn't even the most liberal on the ballot.

Who is the most liberal on the ballot?

[Nocturnal]

Nader

[patteeu]

Thanks. After I posted, I figured out who you were probably talking about.

Who would you say is the most liberal Senator right now if it isn't Kerry?

[errand]

Like Thomas Friedman (an actual expert on the ME) has said time and time again, "A man with a job does not become a terrorist."


...really, so poverty is the cause of terrorism? OK, so can you explain how the numero uno terrorist Osama bin Laden, came to become one when he is afterall a multi-millionaire?

[errand]

Who's being a racist?

The decision makers that run this country are white, male and wealthy - I dare you to prove otherwise.

We're told from the day we enter kindergarten what a great benevolent nation we are and that the rest of the world would die to live in our country. If you travel the world, you'll find this just isn't true.

.

Bush has as his Secretary of State Colin Powell, and as his National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.....can you name any Dem who appointed a black to a higher position in our nation's leadership? You do realize that these two are very influential in our nation's foriegn policy...or will you insult their accomplishments and abilities to execute their responsibilites and claim they are some kind of "token" or "puppet"?

As for our nation being a benevolent one, name one nation that we do not feed, clothe, send medical supplies to, loan money to, or protect?

And while perhaps the entire world may not want to live in our great nation, millions do...and hundreds of thousands have died trying to get here. And if your so down on the US, then tell us, where else would you rather live?

[errand]

My problem is I can not understand half of this nation can so completely give Bush a pass on Iraq. Is it fear, I just don't know how folks can be lied to in so obvious a fashion, to such a great degree and not demand accountability. I can only surmise it has to be due to fear or an unwillingness to think for themselves.

We aren't giving Bush a pass on Iraq...we see it as part of the war on terror....you obviously do not. To you Iraq is about oil...or lining Haliburton's coffers, or getting even with Saddam for trying to kill Bush, Sr.

The rest of us see it as one of the many battles we must engage to destroy terrorism. Amazing, we have all kinds of terrorists flooding into Iraq, and yet Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror? Al-Queada has or has had cells in over 60 nations on every continent, but they were never ever in Iraq?And would you prefer that they flood into the streets of Anytown, USA?

So you cannot understand why someone would vote for Bush...unless of course he were a stupid man right? Vote for Bush, your a mindless robot...vote for Kerry and your functioning properly?


Well, we mindless robots for the life of us cannot understand how you could believe that a man, who has spent his entire life downgrading this nation and giving praise to other nations should be our president. Your choice for president has when given the opportunity tried to destroy the US military, and move this nation towards a socialist agenda.

you do realize this man is enshrined in a communist hall of fame? that his anti-war activities have been credited for not only prolonging the war, but also the torture and imprisonment of our US troops...and his anti-war activities were credited by more than one Vietnamese general as the main reason for America's defeat.

Look at his health care plan...he claims he's going to provide healthcare for EVERY child....so will you be OK with Bill Gate's kids getting government subsidized healthcare? Afterall, your against Bill Gate's keeping more of his own money (tax cuts)...so wouldn't you be against his kids getting a free ride? I think Bill Gates can afford to pay for his own healthcare...evidently John Kerry does not.

And what about those greedy corporations you despise? they will no longer have to provide health care for their employees....because the government will provide it for them....and if the corporations are not paying for healthcare...where do you think that money is going to go? Into their coffers right? We know this because you libs have already stated that corporations only pocket their tax rebates and do not reinvest that money into their businesses. and it would stand to reason that if they'd pocket whatever moneies they got back via tax cuts, then they would surely pocket whatever break they'd get by not having to provide healthcare for their employees.

And he proposes to pay for this by rolling back the tax cuts on Americans who earned $200,000 or more. Well, he's already pointed out that Bush's tax cuts gave the rich (those that evidently earned more than $200K annually) a mere $89 million dollars back.....are you seriously going to believe that $89 million a year will pay for EVERY kid in America's health care?

This doesn't even bring up the fact that if an item is part of the budget, it can be reduced and cut....and that limitations will be placed on it. You will lose your choices as to which doctors you can see, what drugs you can take, and what types of services are performed. And you don't think that there aren't people out there who will take their kids to the doctor at the slightest sign of a fever, cough, or sniffle? This will also lead to fewer doctors as most kids coming out of college will opt for more non-government regulated professions. Less profit = less incentive to do the job, or make the products.

Take this flu vaccine for example....you libs blame Bush for the shortage, when the real truth is that Clinton's policy of the government buying all vaccine's eliminated 5 or 6 companies that use to manufacture flu vaccine...because the deal put a cap on what those companies could earn from the vaccine. Again less profits = less desire to manufacture the product

Sure it lowered the price of the shot...but it also reduced the number of companies producing the vaccine...why make the vaccine if there is no profit in making it? Now there are few companies that produce the vaccine...and a shortage has hit. Did it ever occur to you that if those price caps were repealed, and people could profit from making the vaccine, this shortage wouldn't be?

[Nocturnal]

Thanks. After I posted, I figured out who you were probably talking about.

Who would you say is the most liberal Senator right now if it isn't Kerry?

Probably Kennedy

[patteeu]

Probably Kennedy

Well it depends on how you want to spin it.

If you compare lifetime ADA ratings, Kerry has a 92 compared to Kennedy's 90. In other words, over their respective Senate lifetimes, Kerry has been more liberal than Kennedy.

But if you decide to only count Kennedy's votes during the time Kerry has been in the Senate, Kennedy ends up with a 93 rating (slightly more liberal than Kerry).

Regardless, it's safe to say that Kerry has been among the most liberal US Senators during his career. Whether he is the MOST liberal depends on how you choose to measure it.

http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesenmassachusetts.html

[Cito Pelon]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Ingraham20041011.shtml

10-11-04

Laura Ingraham


Top Democrats advising the Kerry campaign are scratching their heads raw this week, trying to figure out why John Kerry--even with solid debate performances under his belt and continuing violence in Iraq-- is still having such a hard time convincing voters he would be a more effective commander-in-chief than George Bush. But the answer is actually fairly simple. Kerry--like all doves--is unpersuasive on national security issues because he doesn't realize certain basic truths that have guided American policy for decades. These are:

1. The world is a dangerous place, filled with deadly people. Not just people who are misunderstood. Not just people who are poor. Not just people who have different "values." After 3,000 of our fellow citizens were incinerated on September 11th by Islamist mass murderers, John Kerry can still tell the New York Times Magazine this week that "[w]e have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." How amazingly irresponsible and stunningly stupid. Deadly people with the means and commitment to inflict large casualties on U.S. citizens will never just be nuisances. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.

2. Most nations in the world look out for themselves. We cringe at the idea of a 'global test' because we know who's going to be grading the test. We know the anti-Americanism that exists around the world. We know the incompetence and corruption that dominates the UN. We know that leaders like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder are determined to take any opportunity to hinder the United States. We know that international media organizations, from the BBC to Al-Jazeera, are doing everything they can to whip up even more hostility toward this country. In short, we know that you would have a better chance at a fair hearing in an Olympic figure-skating competition than you would of getting a fair grade on a 'global test.'" George Bush knows this. The American people know this. American liberals don't.

3. America is not the world's problem--America is the world's solution. Tying down the United States--through international treaties like Kyoto or the International Criminal Court, or through imposing a "global test" on our ability to respond to problems-will not make the world safer. It will make the world less safe. Limiting U.S. power will not make the world better. It will lead to more pain, more death, more suffering. The United States is the only great nation in the world whose people are willing to make real sacrifices of blood and treasure for world peace. If we don't do it, no one will. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.

American liberals are making the same mistake in the war on terror that they made during the Cold War.

They trust anti-American voices around the world more than they trust the American people. During the second debate, John Kerry was still touting UN sanctions as a viable way to contain Saddam, despite everything we have already learned about the oil for food pay-offs to foreign interests (in both France and Russia). Liberals believe that our responsibilities can be shoved onto the backs of other countries that have made it abundantly clear have no intention of helping us. (Although even Kerry had to admit last week that France and Germany will not send troops to Iraq even if he wins on November 2.) They believe in a moral equivalence between the United States and its adversaries. They were wrong in the 1980's, and they are wrong today.

That is why Kerry cannot articulate a credible plan to win the war on terrorism. That is why Edwards looked and sounded so vague during his debate. Until American liberals overcome this fear of the American people--until they learn to trust us more than they trust their friends in Europe--they will flip, flop and flounder in their effort to take back the White House.

=====================================

Kerry can't even acknowledge that we should be at WAR against terorists. They are just a "nuisance". The 3,000 deaths we suffered on 9-11 just a minor inconvenience, ho hum. Too bad.

He wants us to go "mother may I" to France and the Euroweenies who we have had to save from themselves at least twice in the last 100 years, Kerry wants them to lead us, rather than America leading them. That's what all this codespeak about building coalitions and abiding by the U.N. is all about. Kerry wants us to be "world citizens" first and Americans last, just like he was while leading protests against America 35 years ago.

I don't like everything about George Bush but I can't imagine watching the corrupt U.N. lead America around by the nose the way it would under John Kerry.


You make it sound like eliminating terrorism is simply a problem of going out and kicking their asses wherever they may be. The world doesn't work that way, never has. That's not a winning formula. It's not that simple.

For example, if your neighborhood, your town, your state, is like mine, there's about 10% of the people that cause 90% of the violence. If I decide one day to go out and eliminate them before they eliminate me, by the next day I'm the biggest problem in the neighborhood, town, or state.

You have to work within the framework of law and decency, 'cause you're not gonna win with vigilanteism. It doesn't work.

And what's this "make real sacrifices of blood and treasure for world peace. If we don't do it, no one will. President Bush knows this?" Bush isn't making any sacrifices of blood or treasure.

With all due respect, who's getting led by the nose?

[Cito Pelon]

We aren't giving Bush a pass on Iraq...we see it as part of the war on terror....you obviously do not. To you Iraq is about oil...or lining Haliburton's coffers, or getting even with Saddam for trying to kill Bush, Sr.

The rest of us see it as one of the many battles we must engage to destroy terrorism. Amazing, we have all kinds of terrorists flooding into Iraq, and yet Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror? Al-Queada has or has had cells in over 60 nations on every continent, but they were never ever in Iraq?And would you prefer that they flood into the streets of Anytown, USA?

So you cannot understand why someone would vote for Bush...unless of course he were a stupid man right? Vote for Bush, your a mindless robot...vote for Kerry and your functioning properly?


Well, we mindless robots for the life of us cannot understand how you could believe that a man, who has spent his entire life downgrading this nation and giving praise to other nations should be our president. Your choice for president has when given the opportunity tried to destroy the US military, and move this nation towards a socialist agenda.

you do realize this man is enshrined in a communist hall of fame? that his anti-war activities have been credited for not only prolonging the war, but also the torture and imprisonment of our US troops...and his anti-war activities were credited by more than one Vietnamese general as the main reason for America's defeat.

Look at his health care plan...he claims he's going to provide healthcare for EVERY child....so will you be OK with Bill Gate's kids getting government subsidized healthcare? Afterall, your against Bill Gate's keeping more of his own money (tax cuts)...so wouldn't you be against his kids getting a free ride? I think Bill Gates can afford to pay for his own healthcare...evidently John Kerry does not.

And what about those greedy corporations you despise? they will no longer have to provide health care for their employees....because the government will provide it for them....and if the corporations are not paying for healthcare...where do you think that money is going to go? Into their coffers right? We know this because you libs have already stated that corporations only pocket their tax rebates and do not reinvest that money into their businesses. and it would stand to reason that if they'd pocket whatever moneies they got back via tax cuts, then they would surely pocket whatever break they'd get by not having to provide healthcare for their employees.

And he proposes to pay for this by rolling back the tax cuts on Americans who earned $200,000 or more. Well, he's already pointed out that Bush's tax cuts gave the rich (those that evidently earned more than $200K annually) a mere $89 million dollars back.....are you seriously going to believe that $89 million a year will pay for EVERY kid in America's health care?

This doesn't even bring up the fact that if an item is part of the budget, it can be reduced and cut....and that limitations will be placed on it. You will lose your choices as to which doctors you can see, what drugs you can take, and what types of services are performed. And you don't think that there aren't people out there who will take their kids to the doctor at the slightest sign of a fever, cough, or sniffle? This will also lead to fewer doctors as most kids coming out of college will opt for more non-government regulated professions. Less profit = less incentive to do the job, or make the products.

Take this flu vaccine for example....you libs blame Bush for the shortage, when the real truth is that Clinton's policy of the government buying all vaccine's eliminated 5 or 6 companies that use to manufacture flu vaccine...because the deal put a cap on what those companies could earn from the vaccine. Again less profits = less desire to manufacture the product

Sure it lowered the price of the shot...but it also reduced the number of companies producing the vaccine...why make the vaccine if there is no profit in making it? Now there are few companies that produce the vaccine...and a shortage has hit. Did it ever occur to you that if those price caps were repealed, and people could profit from making the vaccine, this shortage wouldn't be?

With all due respect, you can't panick at the start of the game. You're scared. You panick at the first strike. You admire a leader that panicks at the first strike. 9/11 was a bump in the road, not a train wreck, but Bush panicked and you panicked, and now people with level heads are trying to implement good sense, and you're still running around tearing your hair out screaming "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

Pull yourself together.