In the 2000 election, a swing of only 3 electoral votes would have prevented the coup of the last 3 years from ever having taken place. No matter how you slice it, had Ralph Nader not run in 2000, George Bush would not be President today.
And if my grandmother had balls, she'd have been my grandfather.
So what? Another person would be in the White House, doing things differently, but with the same over-all outcome: 50% of the world would think he's doing too much, 50% would think he's doing too little, the opposition party would be blaming him for everything under the sun, and evey two bit political philosopher would be sitting in the cheap seats wondering how the whole WORLD could be so blind as to not see what he sees.
In national elections, the candidate with the highest negatives loses. I have never seen an active candidate with the negatives Mr Bush has today prevail in the final election. The republicans will have a difficult time making people hate Mr Kerry as much as many people hate Mr Bush by election time.
Mr Bush has polarized the country and it will come at a heavy cost for the republicans in the upcoming election. Thats too bad, some of the things Mr Bush did were quite admirable.
its a primary and Bush isn't running against anybody yet. And what the fuck, I already can't stand Kerry! lol
Nader will run, but I don't think Perot will.
HL, I was nodding my head in agreement until that last sentence. Then I barfed.
... continuing to establish my moderate position.
1. Bush does have high negatives in the country. He has a very solid conservative base, but there are lots and lots of people that really don't like him.
2. A large majority of the country supports his actions in Afganistan (sp?). A majority of the country supports his invasion or Iraq. Are they admirable - I think so (for my reasoning, see Thomas Freedman of the NY times).
I will probably vote for Mr Kerry for two reasons. I think Mr Bush has mishandled economic policy. I think Mr Bush has used the intelligence capacities of the country for political purposes.
I understand the feeling lol
I'm not sure that Bush "mishandled" economic policy because I'm pretty convinced that no one .. and I mean NO ONE understands it. The best economists that ever LIVED didn't understand "economic policy." In fact, economists have a phrase called "market failure" for when every single "IF" in their theory does in fact come to pass .. and still ... for reasons no one knows ... the economy doesn't do what it's supposed to do. (stupid-assed economy!)
The economy WAS starting to slide under the last Clinton year, but that wasn't Clinton's fault either - millions of things happened and happen every day that effect the big picture and it's just always the guy standing watch that gets blamed for it. There wasn't a "Clinton Surplus" either. Not in the sense of actual money lying around that you could see - it was a surplus that was 'projected' based on current and predicted future revenue, which didn't happen due to those million things.
The largest retailer in America sells something like 72% imported goods. That cuts American jobs. But then again it's Americans that BUY the lower cost goods and MAKE WAl-Mart the #1 retailer in America. At what point does the goverment step in and what, exactly, are they supposed to do in order to force me to buy goods that YOU get paid to make even though they're more expensive to me?
I'm sure that Bush was in fact talking about Saddam as a matter of policy long before 9/11. Yeah? So? The next President will probably have to do the same thing with Iran and the one after THAT will have to do the same thing with Pakistan.
Bad reasoning/lying to the public: Take a look at the picture of the members of Congress standing on the Capitol steps holding hands and singing "God Bless America" after 9/11. Then circle the faces of the ones that voted year after year to reduce the funding of intelligence gathering resources. Yet somehow we keep voting THEM back into offce and blaming the current President for the hash WE MAKE out of the government.
He kicked the ass of someone that we did then have reason to believe was going to try to hurt us. I say good - now lets invade Iran while we have the people and resources already over there.
I kind of like what I know of John Kerry, but I'm not going to vote for him. And the reason is that he wants the government to do MORE for me than they currently do. And the thing I find MOST replusive is the theory that government can do ANYTHING well. Every time I go to the DMV or fill out a tax form, I see how poorly they do what they do.
And for the record, I WANT the rich to have even MORE tax breaks than they have now! Greddy bastards that they are, rich people use money as a tool to make even MORE money ... and maybe one of them will employ me in the process, because in all my life I've never gotten a job from a poor man.
He was WAY too busy exploiting his own people to try and actually harm US. And we had reason to know this. The only use that he had for US, was to gain credibility among the moslem extremists within his populace for being a minor thorn in our side.
Meanwhile, the Iraq war has helped to gut OUR economy for the next decade, destroyed OUR international credibility, encouraged MORE Al Queda recruiting among disaffected moslems - the consequences of which we won't appreciate fully for years, and has resulted in 530 deaths of brave Americans, and the maiming of thousands more, as well as the deaths of approximately 10,000 Iraqi civilians. It was a stupid war to engage in, and we should hold accountable the persons responsible for engaging in the stupidity - Bush and Cheney.
Hardly a right wing haven. UN Inspectors found a $4B program on atomics alone. Everybody knows about the chemicals. Biologicals are almost impossible to detect in a closed society.
Iraq could have done what SA did to show it abandoned it's Nuclear Program. They didn't and paid the consequences. The Iraqi people and the Iraqi army would not fight for Sadam. The resistance we are seeing today, while awful, is low level stuff.
The 22 islamic nations have to break out of their cultural trap or they will explode even worse for our grandchildren. The place is a demographic powderkeg -- a huge birthrate, no jobs, no investment, no innovation, no (fill in the blanks), All the countries together haven't filed as many patents in the last 20 years collectively as Italy did last year. Most students in advanced programs in Saudi Arabia get degrees in religion.
The major reason for Arabr problems are bad government (water monopolies actually) and a shitty social structure held back by a religious base that makes our religious right look good by comparison.
The place needs to pull itself into this century. It is going to take blood, sweat, outside help, and a lot of work. People are going to die and cultures are going to be destroyed. Kraq is as good a place as any to start. Lets hope it's them and not us.
-- Modified on 2/10/2004 12:18:02 PM
-- Modified on 2/10/2004 12:18:43 PM
Saddam!
Over 2,000,000 in the Iran v Iraq war alone.
It would seem the Arab world would applaud our efforts, but then again, that would take a modicum of common sense.
NOT an Imminent threat to the U.S.
Look, nobody is saying that Saddam was a good guy. Just that he was not OUR problem, to the degree that other threats ARE our problem, such as Al Queda, & North Korea who DOES have nukes, etc.
But we WEAKENED our response to Al Queda by splitting our forces in the Middle East, and let Osama re-constitute his organization by taking the heat off of him. Now he is a GREATER threat to us than he would be had we NOT gone into Iraq.
Not someone brainwashed by an Nazi imbecile bitch like Anne Coulter.
We can continue to disagree on economic policy. The discussion probably doesn't belong on the boards here -- it gets arcane.
It interests me that you "kind of like what you know about John Kerry" (where you would vote for him or not). In an upcoming election, the real republican concern is the number who despise Mr Bush, will pick a democratic contender based on electability (rather than platform), and will bother to vote to "send a message". Them's big negatives. If they decide to "throw the f***king rascals out" at the same time, there can be a big change in congress.
In the upcoming months, the republicans will try to position Mr Kerry as an anti-family queer lover who wants to destroy the institution of marriage (see what is happening in massachusetts). None of this is true and Kerry had nothing to do with the Mass Supreme Court ruling -- however the claims will energize the religious right. Don't forget, if they win then we will be the people they go after next. First the queers, then the "whores" & their "sick dirty customers", then dirty television and internet sites. It will be safe to take your wife and kids to Disneyland (and nothing else). Don't count on any BJs from the wife either -- it's morally wrong.
Maybe you will consider voting for Mr Kerry on the basis of your enlightened self interest? ... Harry
... is a government that doesn't try to solve all of the social ills by raising taxes and redistributing the wealth based on need (real or constituent-based). Not that I don't think those ills are worth correcting, necessarily, but that the government has been and will continue to the just about THE least efficient means to get that done.
As Darwinian as it may seem, I want a government that does what it can to keep the borders safe, keep in violent felons on death row and rebuild the bridges and highways. Period. That's all they ever COULD be good for.
People need health care? well, they don't have a RIGHT to it and they certainly don't have a right to tax ME to get it.
It's all part of the social contract of a civilized society. In a state of nature, it is true that nobody has a right to health care. You ALSO have no right to actually hold onto your personal possessions if someone else is physically stronger than you and able to wrest them from you. But, we as a society have determined that such a scenario is total chaos. So we have put a civilized structure called a government, who's purpose it is to protect certain rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. And, in order to support that structure, some type of funding is involved. And the government gets that funding through taxes.
And we basically have a representative form of government, by which the will of the people is (in theory, at least) translated into the law of the land.
And right now, the will of the people is clearly that some type of right to health care exists - and it was passed by BUSH and the Republicans in the current administration in the face of this overwhelming public opinion. So it is a legal right of the society. Just like your right to retain possession of your own wealth, EXCLUDING the government's legally rightful share (as levied in your tax bill) which is ALSO legally proscribed.
Sorry for the civics lesson, but in fact, you need to understand that ALL of your rights are just as much a function of this social contract as the others. And in a Democracy, it's pretty much the will of the majority, as translated into the law of the land, that determines what your rights actually are.
-- Modified on 2/10/2004 4:18:43 PM
The Health care Q is a interesting one
we talk like its a right
we act like its a privilege (sp?)
Until we decide either way- problems
personally, I think the real standard of living is higher in Europe where it is a right and taxes are higher.
I think its like Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst system of govt in the world, - except for all the others"
Nationalised healthcare sucks- but its better than what we have in America!
-- Modified on 2/10/2004 3:36:50 PM
I couldn't agree more. Very well said, Megapig! Sedagive.
Tell us the true; Would you rather have "Big Al" as President?
Bush is an absolute catastrophe for this nation, both presently and for decades into the future. I'd rather have just about any one who was neither a criminal nor mentally retarded occupying the post. A monkey could RANDOMLY make better decisions than the current President does. Bush's actions in office have been wantonly BAD for this nation.
A broken condom would be preferable to Shrub as POTUS!
TET
In my dream there was the choice of either Jeb or George for President. I woke up screaming! Thank God it was only a dream.
Maybe put blame where it actaully lies.
Here you have a Vice-President who served under a President with the largest economic expansion EVER in American History. So how many times does he bring this up during the campaign ?? Almost never because he's too busy listening to people whisper in his ears on what not to say.
Ralph Nader is an independent thinker who has lots of great ideas, but almost nobody wants to hear them. How would he have handled 9/11 ?? I don't know, but I'll tell you this: it couldn't have futzed it up any worse than Bush has.
So put blame where it belongs.
Placebo
http://www.naderexplore04.org/
And if Gore was president we would have the United Nations protecting us. We were attacked 3 or 4 times when Gore and Clinton were running the country and never stood up to our enemies. Now we do and I like what I see. Go Bush I'll give you 4 more years and than your brother and sister and even your mother. 9/11 has not gone away and if we forget it we will not have to worry about interest rates and jobs. This problem needs to be addressed with strong actions and not weak words.
And the same could but said for Ross in '92 with the first Bush and we get BJs in the oval office. Now I don't know if that is a good thing or bad thing, that it was public was bad. If I was married to Hillary, I'd probably seek other comfort as well. Hell Bill is probably a poster on these boards...LOL.
Please tell me how/why Bush is an absolute catastrophe for this nation? Those are very strong words. Do you think it would be any better/worse than Gore?
Things run in cycles, up and down. Bill had a long up turn, Bush had to endure a shorter down turn, not to mention some pretty bad things not many presidents have to deal with in there term.
For me let freedom ring and lower my taxes, and you won't get much of either with both current parties.
Try the Libertarian Party, I vote them when ever I see them on the ballot.
The Iraq War, combined with ill-conceived tax cuts for the rich (of which I'm one of the beneficiaries) has caused the largest Federal Deficit in HISTORY. This will create a drag on our economy for at least the next decade. You CAN'T spend the way Bush did without taxes. What Bush has done is RE-DISTRIBUTE the tax to the future generation - This is basic Econ 101. He has screwed your children and mine. His fiscal policy is WORSE than Jimmy Carter's. That is why this minor "recovery" has no job growth to show for it.
On Foreign Policy, Bush's actions have done more to ENCOURAGE Al Queda recruiting for the future among disaffected Moslems than any possible alternative could have. The ramifications of this are also not going to be seen until years into the future. At the same time, he has poked our allies in the eye, and given them reason NOT to cooperate with us in the future in this war on terrorism. Both for the reason of distancing themselves from us in the eyes of the terrorists, and out of simple desire to retain their dignity and autonomy. We actually might have stopped 9/11 BEFORE it happened if we had paid attention to the FRENCH police intelligence related to Zaccarias Moussaoui prior to 9/11. Do you think that the French will provide this level of cooperation in the future, given the appreciation that we have shown them? Now, with both the more well recruited and highly motivated Al Queda, and the lessenning of cooperation from nations that used to be our allies, we are FAR LESS able to defend ourselves from the next outlaw Nation that has a REAL nuclear threat (read North Korea, Chechnya, or Pakistan in the event that the moslem opposition takes over) who actually hates us and DOES choose to work with terrorists to deliver this nuclear threat within the U.S. It very well might happen. And if it does, THAT disaster will have been directly the responsibility of the policies of Bush and Cheney. Whether it happens in the next 4 years, or any time in the next decade before we are able to heal the wounds in our international diplomacy that Bush / Cheney have inflicted.
All that, and your civil liberties are being gutted as we speak as well.
-- Modified on 2/10/2004 11:10:44 AM
The views expressed here are starting to sound like a broken record......we get it. Point taken. If we disagree, it`s our right. I happen to be one of those that does. Please stop rehashing what has already been conveyed. It`s boring.
Ampallang, you personally are more than welcome to not read my posts. I doubt I could persuade someone as close-minded as yourself in any case. On the other hand, I replied to another poster who SPECIFICALLY called on me to describe WHY the Bush Presidency is a catastropy, since he personally did not see it that way. And I complied. And I will continue to state that fact as long as there exists ANYONE who appears willing to listen to my point of view.
You right-wingers are all alike in the sense that when you cannot answer a dissenting opinion with persuasive logic to the contrary, you try to shut down the debate. As I said, if you are bored, you are free to ignore my replies. But if you are actually just THREATENED by them, well then that is great to know, but they WILL keep on coming.
I for one think it is a great thing that we have taken out this sort repressive regime. I'm sure most of the non-wackos living in Iraq feel the same way. From a tactical point of view, we knew we could wipe the floor with them in little time at all. Yes it will take time and resources but give it that time to see what sort of world this will become with a calmer middle east. Yes it was a mistake not to go all the way it in the first one. Now that this one is over we control the area. Yes people die on both side, and that is a bad thing but there is a certain cost to have the freedom we enjoy and take for granted (take this board and even this site as examples).
Don't you think other regimes in the local area have taken notice? Sure there will be those that don't like that we are there and will do stupid things to get 72 virgins in the after- life. I like that fact that we are not pussy footing around these other countries. Should we have attacked Japan first in '41, helped France to invade Germany in '38? No in countless examples we take the first shot sometimes harder than others. In Heine site yes, we could have saved 60 some odd million lives and think of the money spent on WW2. By taking the fight to others first we will save more lives, time and money and others will take notice and will change or fall as well.
The economy, well if a few wackos had not crashed some planes into some buildings in NY and DC, The US Govt would not have had to spend as much money as it has and lets not totally blame Bush for all this spending. There are lots of people on both sides of the isle loving the fact that those coffers are wide open. Gore would have had to do the same thing, cause we in America would not have put up with more of attacks.
This economy is moving along in the right direction, yes there was a down turn, yes jobs were hard to find, but that is improving as well look at the number last week. People are doing nothing more than playing it safe to make sure this is real and more and more will come around. I myself have been swamped with work cause the company is playing it safe and demands more from people still around, that is nothing new.
It is also time for a lot of Americas to take a look around and see what is going on. I live in a heavy textile area, and sure it would be nice for those people to keep making there living doing the jobs their parents did, but this is a global economy and you know as well as I do, the bottom line rules. If companies can fine it cheaper they are going with the cheapest. That is Econ 101.
I feel you are right about encouraging Al Queda, the more they come out, the more they get killed. Its easier to find them when you piss them off and they come looking for you. It is only a matter of time before all of them are whipped off the face of this earth. Yes more will die in that process but again freedom has a price.
As for some of our allies there are many who have played a key role but many more who are containing to play a key role. We just don't hear about all the help we are getting, news sales on conflict and rhetoric seldom truth. Yes there is France and Germany who don't see eye to eye with us on this, but with the millions and maybe billions they had tied up in Iraq, could you not blame them? They would not have their dignity and autonomy if it were not for America standing up and taking the fight to Germany in WW2 and WW1 and protecting both Germany and France later on from the USSR. Sorry UK but you could not have done it alone.
I see so many parallels with the end of WW2 and present day Iraq these were lessons learned after WW1. Sooner or later Hussein would have gotten his hands on more WMD and would have used them. I have always believed, there was a call made to him prior to the first Gulf War, that if he used the WMD that he had at the time on our forces or other areas around him, we would have gone nuclear.
Yes I do believe France and Germany will continue to share intelligence information about things not only related to terrorism's but in other security concerns as well, because it is in everyones best interest to share such data. Lets remember we are talking governments here not individual people.
There have been no other actual attacks since 9/11 on US soil, this is directly related to the strong stance Bush had taken on the issue, because we in America would not put up with no less. I'll not lay any blame on others in other points in time that also could have taken hard but necessary steps to have stopped 9/11. We will never know the full story.
Do you really think any country would be stupid enough to launch a nuke into the US? Dare I say that might be the best thing any sitting president could hope for cause it would give that person total immunity to whipping out not only the country found to do it but every single other country like N. Korea and Iran off the face of this EARTH for good even if they were not involved what so ever and in the long term those people suffering in those coutries (that lived) would thank us.
I will agree that civil liberties are being gutted as we speak, but Bush, Gore, Hillary, Bill, Jessie, Al, Kerry, Regan, Dole, etc...or anyone else would have had to do the same thing. That bill passed all of congress and I did not see to many from either side holding it up.
One last point (I know too late...lol), how many times from people on both sides, especially during an election year, do we have to listen to crap about the poor, education and other social issues? They have been saying it for years and years and years, but the problem is still there and no matter how much money is throw at the issues those same problems will always be there. People chose their life for the most part. Some rise up and others are content to have things the way it is. No matter what kind of BS comes from people running for office the only way those people will change is when those people are ready to change if ever. You can have all the government programs in the world, hell we already do, and people think we should do more but if the people needing the help don't want to change, why should we expect them to? It is their life and they can live it how ever they chose.
Ok one more thing sorry.....
I'll say this from another poster, having Kerry win, may not be such a bad idea after all to keep Hillary out, good call on that one.....lol.
This is actually a valid political analysis.
The really scary thing is that, for the first time since 1964, a majority of Americans voted for unapologetic socialism. They merely split their votes between an admitted socialist and a closeted one.
So run, Ralph, run!