What are the fellow hombres' views and opinions?

Soon as I form an opinion I'll be sure to overstate it.

Bush will win by a slim margin, but not slim enough to allow "the stolen vote complaint".

I am disapointed in Bush over his spending. The deficit has less to do with tax cuts( which have stimulated the economy) than with profligate spending by Bush and his fellow republicrats. They are spending like drunken sailors.

Whoever is the Democratic nominee gets my vote and dollars. This election is the most important one in a real long time and I really hope the turnout is high.

I'm voting democrat too. Cat you're right this is a most important election.

Did you guys read today's news Bush may take more US. taxpayers money to Iraq?

Assuming Bush wins this year, I suspect that it will be a long time before another Republican wins the White House again. The main reason is that the shit will hit the fan the day after the election:

a) "Oh my God, the deficit is REALLY out of control"

b) "We must really cut spending".

c) "Hey, with the dollar so weak, no one is buying our notes. We'll have to raise interest rates to get foreigners to invest in America".

d) "Hey, now that interest rates are up, the interest on the national debt is so high that there is NO discretionary funding left!".

e) The Soviet Union lost 15,000 troops in Afganistan. The current US loss rate in Iraq, if maintained over the same time period, would more or less equal the USSR loss. I don't know if the Iraqis will sustain their effort against us, though, but if this continues into 2005, there will be significant anti-war sentiment.

Not to mention that increased interest rates will kill the stock market.

I have said before that my most important issue is the repealing of the Patriot Act as well as the sneaky, backhanded provisions to spy on US citizens' financial records that were pushed through a recent intelligence spending bill.

I originally supported Dean or Clark based on quotes from their websites that they would look at ways to repeal the Patriot Act.

Kerry on his website talks about "Ending the Era of John Ashcroft." Amen to that! I can support Kerry now as well, although he bores me to death when I hear him talk. I guess my preference now is Clark, Kerry, Dean. But I want someone who can beat Bush and supports repealing the Patriot Act. Those are the two most important qualifications for me.

Education, Medicare, the Economy are all WAY down the list for me. Well I guess the Economy is up there, but the Patriot Act and its derivatives HAVE to go.

I was horrified when Bush said in the State of the Union he wanted to renew it. Simply horrified.

Opposition to the Patriot Act is gaining ground all over the country. Thank goodness grass roots efforts in communities all across America are getting better organized to oppose this act.

From: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/01/20/7050972

"The burgeoning nationwide movement has prompted three state governments, and 236 communities in 37 states, to pass resolutions against the Patriot Act. If the backlash continues to grow, opponents of the Patriot Act believe, their momentum will force Congress and the White House to address some of the law's unpopular elements."

I guess I was somewhat relieved Bush didn't also condemn pornography in the State of the Union. He recently created Protection From Pornography Week through a presidential proclamation.

And then, of course, there was his intentional vagueness in his comments when addressing the UN General Assembly, rightfully condemning child pornography, human traffickers, child sex tourists, etc but seemingly lumping anyone who travels to a foreign country for sex (legal or not, for underage girls or not) as a child sex tourist.

Explorer,

Russia lost 15,000 troops in ten years. At current rates, over 10 years we would lose less than 5000.

Its 5000 too many, but nothing similar to Russia's experience in Afganistan.

Of course the insurgency could really take off and then all bets are off. I dont think thats going to happen though.

Lots of dems here... If you honestly think Dean is a good choice for pres, pass the lemonaide-- it must be good stuff. Kerry is the only solid dem with an outside chance of beating Bush. I am not a fan of Bush, but it's Kerry or bust for me if I'm voting Bush out.

Bush all the way.

DM, I think Dean is a complete fuckup and cannot win, which is why I'm real glad that Kerry and Edwards (which would make a nice ticket, by the way) are rising to the top. I'll take the vet from Massachusetts with the ultra-rich wife to finance the way for Pres, and the Southern guy as VP as a winning combo.

However, and this is the main point, a solid 33% of the country would vote for whoever is running against Bush without even bothering to find out who it is. This is one of the elections where you may not vote for someone because you like them, so much as you vote for them because you really despise the other candidate.

Welcome to the polarized society!

Bush "lost" the last presidential vote by over 500,000 votes.
Do you really think that he can get even more voters to vote for him!.

In case you have all forgotten here is Bush's track record:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after he sold all his stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments as Governor:

Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of his fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the Nations's surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In his first two years in office over 2.5 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest him (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. ( http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/ )

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

Bush presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of bush cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

His biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 28 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 28 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two and a half years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refused to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of his tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to his fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into his insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation he served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings he (or his VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.


With probably the biggest bakroll for re-election ever held by an incumbent president, Dubya can spend mightly to put more "spin" to confuse issues, buy more media and and more public relations people to gloss over his past administration deficiencies.

All we can do is fight back with the truth.

OG

Org,

I think Bush is a putz in general, but compared the alternatives, he looks decent. Can you honestly say that you would of preferred Gore in charge during one of the most difficult times in recent US history?

You critisism of Bush's record of mostly BS. You infer correlation between two independent occurances. Where did you find it, at www.laroucheforpres.com?

A couple of comments:


"Attacked and took over two countries."
comment: Did not Afganistan have a direct link to 9-11? As a president, I fully support the use of force if he/she believes a country to be a clear threat to our national security. As for Iraq, I believe we are better off without Saddam, but was not in favor of the military action at this time. BTW, congress and the house voted in favor of the action.

"Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market." And all the other economic references....
comment: the bubble burst dung the Clinton watch-- not that either's policies instigated the freefall. Besides Greenspan raising fed rates during a downturn, I fail to see any correlation between politics and the stock market decline. Now that we've had several quarters of growth, are you going to say that it is due to Bush's policies?

"Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant"
comment: it's about time. I'm amazed the UN can wipe it's own ass.

Real issues regarding Bush's record could be 1) giving amnesty to wetbacks and 2) allowing US troops to die attempting to bring democracy to those incapable of such.

Batster:

Don't forget to pro-rate the combat losses from end of March, not the beginning of the year!

Explorer,

I was going on all deaths ( combat or accidental) since March of last year and extrapolating the current rate of 6-7 a week.

Orange,

Thats a pretty nifty list. Two things though that are really pushing it.

The UN made itself irrelevant years ago, and continues to do so. Look at Rawanda and Kosovo-Bosnia ( Where Clinton bombed without any UN approval)Bush only made it obvious to everyone what was already true.

The last recession officially began on Clintons watch and officially ended in November 2001. Just as the "Clinton Economy" officially began to expand in the last few years of Bush I presidency.

Having said that, I still think he is spenidng our tax money like a drunken sailor.

Batster

OrganGrinder's list of Bush screwups is impressive but omits the most disturbing one ...

In the State of the Union address Tuesday Dubya advocated "abstinence" in sexual matters.

Dammit, now he's gone too far!

Like a lot of Americans, we sometimes hate to admit the truth,It hurts!!. So we take the ostrich approach: stick out heads in the sand and hope it goes away!!


>>>>You critisism of Bush's record of mostly BS. You infer correlation between two independent occurences. Where did you find it, <<<<

These are facts. And on top of it, they are easily found and verified on the internet. Even in the subverted, liberal press like,.Oh say, CNN. Even Fox news reports same although they will say Bush records are sealed for "national security" Just google a few terms, and you too, will be enlightened.

>>>Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market." And all the other economic references....
comment: the bubble burst during the Clinton watch-- not that either's policies instigated the freefall. Besides Greenspan raising fed rates during a downturn, I fail to see any correlation between politics and the stock market decline. Now that we've had several quarters of growth, are you going to say that it is due to Bush's policies? <<<<<

The bubble may have deflated a little bit in the last year of the Clinton Administration, but the bubble burst when Bush took office.

There is a GREAT correlation between administration policies and the economy. During the Clinton Years, especially the final term, the policymakers, ie cabinet chiefs, White House Staff were all tech savvy, were, on the average, 10 years younger, and came from various educational ethnic and business backgrounds. Al "I invented the internet" was particularly tech savvy. The US stock market and following, the world stock market, picked up on this and, as a result, tech stocks boomed.

When Dubya took office, ALL his primary senior policy wanks came from old money, old political connections, and more importantly old business.ie steel, construction, oil. To any body who wasn't an idiot, this was a clear sign....dump your tech stocks. And they did, wholesale.

Unfortunatly, they didn't migrate to another area, like energy stocks, but the captital and money left the stock market all together. Many economists warned the administration to name the undersecretaries, people that had that tech understanding, and to send to the stock and tech market a strong signal. Instead, those positions were filled with political hacks, which sent just the opposite signal. Remember the stock market took the tumble after Bush came to office and before 9/11!!

During the Clinton Administration, the US had the longest and largest GNP, DNP and capital growth period in the history of the United States. Even if you took out the tech growth, it would still be outstanding.

Dubya has 3 quarters of so-so growth, a negative employment growth and a moribund stock market, and people (OK republicans) applaud. You can only go up if you've hit rock bottom, and we have only Dubya to thank for that.

All Greenspan did was ,at his request, give Dubya access to cheap money. He LOWERED the rates, almost immediatly, when the market stalled, killing not only the stock market, but the bond market as well.

>>>>>"Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant"
comment: it's about time. I'm amazed the UN can wipe it's own ass.<<<<<

So that is why Dubya came back to Kofi Annan and asked, oh so humbly, if they could see their way clear to help them with the Iraqi plebicite, and convince the Iraqi people that the US was only their for their own good.

If Bush doesn't want Iraq to be voted into an Islamic Republic (which I astutely warned about earlier, on another topic) He will have the UN to thank, not his "nation building" neo-cons. A better ass-wiping dubya will never get.

>>>The UN made itself irrelevant years ago, and continues to do so. Look at Rawanda and Kosovo-Bosnia ( Where Clinton bombed without any UN approval)Bush only made it obvious to everyone what was already true.<<<

Read above, and it was Somalia, not Rwanda. And the Clinton Administration did it with UN Security Council approval. Al least get your facts straight.


The fact is, that Bush has made such a mess of the economy, we are WORSE off than we were four years ago. The US foreign policy is in such a shamble, we really do not know who our real allies are, as its hard to assure loyalty through payoffs and threats or intimidation.

So while we drown in debt for probably the next two decades, we bury hundreds or maybe thousands of our young soldiers, and we are, as a nation, more despised around the world than the Soviet Union ever was, and we are under more surveillance by more police agencies in more private areas of our life, that woul make Stalin joyous, what is on Dubya plate?? Why how about a nice dose of social conservatism. Let's tell others that gays are not worthy of the basic civil rights, tell everybody that sex is, not only not good for you, but only legal if your married. You cannot look at people having sex, even though it is a depiction of a very part of our being, Itz p0rn,and will rot your mind
And toe the line, not as we do, but as we say, after all we know what your doing.

For more years of this?. I feel I'm one of the lucky ones. I can get in my car, drive about 40 minutes and finally be in a free country.

og

I agree with OG & Xen & xplor; & Cat somewhat.

As to Gore, he would have been a far better President.

Kerry looks surprisingly good now. Eloquent, war vet & hero(injured & at least 2 men testified to being saved by him), fought cancer, plus MA is a rather well run state etc. He'll crush Bush like a cockroach in debates as he's a strong debater(like myself, ahem).

General Clarke, the man is a legend even from his Military school days. I would mind seeing him as Pres, but if not, anyone who has him as VP candidate has a very strong running mate, a super strong ticket. People think of the war and foreign policy, Clarke could be the antidote to colon powell and dick cheney.

Edwards, he's alright. Seems a bit young to me but he'll have that dumbfuck Dan Qualye for breakfast. I would say Edwards is like JFK tho.

Dr Dean. I wouldn't mind voting for him, a doctor. Not every politician have to be a lawyer. Besides he's been Governor of Vermont for years.

OG; Perhaps you should just drive 40 min one way and stay there.

Out of the two choices in the last election Gore or Bush, not a real brain trust going on with either of them, Bush was the best one of the two.

A lot of the issues that you talked about were water shed items that Clinton left us. Don't forget that his administration turned down Sudans offer of turning over Bin Laden to us. If he had 9-11 might not have happened.

Roadglide.

DM, you and many others make a false assumption - that if Gore was elected, everything that has happened on Bush's watch so far (9/11, Iraq, etc) would have also occured if Gore was in the White House. Why do you assume that?

I'm not saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore was president, but I have a problem with neo-con's when they say "well imagine what Gore would have done on 9/11" I feel that Osama has gotten almost 100% of what he set out to do, and I think a key part of his plan was knowing that the Bushies, who shoot first and ask questions later, or in reality just shoot and never ask questions at all, would react exactly how they have.

This is a minor hypothesis but it is incorrect to just assume that things in the world would have happened just the same if Gore was President. I believe that the attack on 9/11 could have happened regardless of who was in the White House, but I would not automatically assume so.

Cat: Given the fact that 1)the 9-11 attack was unprovoked 2) the planning of it more than likely had to pre-date Bush taking office and 3) in all of Osama's rhetoric he never insinuated it was focused on Bush, I must assume that it was independent of who took office. No way of proving or disproving of the assumption tho. I would harldy call Bush in Iraq a good "shoot first" example. I seem to recall some ardious UN security go arounds...

OG: 40 miles and your in a free country-- where- mexico? LOL. Canada? great economy up there.

"These are facts. And on top of it, they are easily found and verified on the internet."

Your too funny. Two facts alone do not infer causation-- deterministic theory went out of vogue in the late 19th century-- this is the 21st. If you use the net as your reasearch fodder-- best of luck to ya Do you not think I could dig up a huge list of "facts" pushed by right wingers on the net?


"The bubble may have deflated a little bit in the last year of the Clinton Administration, but the bubble burst when Bush took office."

Your ignorance is easily disproven. In a 9 month span at the end of the Clinton presidency, the Market dropped a whopping 50+% (March10- 5060-Jan 2, 2001- 2291. Meanwhile during Bush's tenure during your so-called Economic disaster, Jan2, 2001- 2291, today-- 2136.

"All Greenspan did was ,at his request, give Dubya access to cheap money. He LOWERED the rates, almost immediatly, when the market stalled, killing not only the stock market, but the bond market as well."

Go check your "facts" once again. The precipitous decline was in 2000, which was also the time Greenspan RAISED rates. The trend to lower rates occured durng the Bush term, which kept afloat the banking and real estate markets (thank god). I sincerely hope you have a good financial advisor as economics appears not to be your strong suit.

"gays not worthy of civil rights..."
hmmm Bush backs joint partnerships and executed several folks in texas for the deaths of gays. If your alluding to him being not in favor of gay marriage forced upon us by the judicial branch, I am very happy about this. Judges don't MAKE the law, two gays do not equal a husband/wife (i.e. marriage), and the vast majority of americans do not support this (gay marriage).

Considering the fact that I'm routing for Kerry and not Bush, I'm not taking polical sides due to partisan politics. However, left wing rheatoric and mindless babble does nothing but ensure Bush remaining in office.

Speak to REAL issues and DEMs have a chance.

Deficit
Education
Veterans Bennies
Health insurance/medicare

If you focus on foreign policiy, defense, osama, gays, etc, etc you mine as well vote for bush cuz he'll win hands down.


-dm

DM,

Being open minded, as most on this board are, of course I invite you to argue and disprove any of the facts or commentary presented on this board. (and if you don't believe in using the internet, by all means, use your own sources) It's true it's easy to collate and present information in any way and in any form to prove a point yours or mine, but you have to admit that Dubya's presidential term has been one of the most contentious in the last century.

The fact that Dubya is realy a complete fool is not lost on most of the people on this board, even if they may agree with his Republican policies. After all Dubya was never really smart enough to set his own agenda. Rather he brought in some of the most extreme policy wonks, "neo-con" foreign policy advisors, and Republican right wing social conservatives. These people have set the agenda, and the sad thing was that they used one of the most tragic occurances in recent American history to justify their policies. The oft debated Patriot Act I and the stealth Patriot Act II were NOT developed in response to 9/11, rather they were on the FBI's wish list since since the 1980"s and were summarily dismissed by Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton as being to intrusive. You only needed a occurance like 9/11 and a weak president to set in motion the approval of these measures. Ashcroft was the first to dust these off and present them as a cure-all for our national security.

Would 9/11 have occured if Gore was president??. Baseless speculation, but he would have not left key positions in the FAA and the FBI open that late into his presidency, positions that were directly responsible for collating and disseminating information regardind air safety and airport security. He would have not been on vacation for the full month of August, prior to 9/11. And most assuredly he would not have imposed draconian security and "spy" measures upon this country.

Outside of being in a position to command information from every educational and political source, the internet is probably the greatest tool for collecting and disseminating information since the invention of the printing press. You can burn books, sunborn the educational process to teach only what you want people to hear, and you can "own" major media outlets that would restrict your access to news, but in its present form it is really hard to control the information on the internet. Why do you think right wing politicos have their shorts in a bunch to "filter" internet content. Even in China, it is a losing cause. Only those truly scared of the internet would denegrate its potential. This very board is proof of that.

The latest "spin" coming from the Bush media machine, is that all our economic troubles started with Clinton. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Presidential terms are always filled with up's and downs in the economy. Some are extrinsic, and cannot be helped. Some are the direct result of foreign and domestic policy. So the public and the business community may forgive a slight (but not like) and short-time economic downturn. But a significant problem, such as the huge negative employment statistics, the depressed stock and bond values, and a general bad business climate, is looked upon as a result of bad or flawed domestic economic policy.

"It's the economy, stupid" was the rallying cry when Clinton defeated Bush (who, incidentally, had positive poll figures greater that Bush II, at this point in the presidential campaign). The new democratic challenger need only to make a few changes: "Its the stupid economy", and retain that focus, and any attacks on the abhorant foreign policy, or the assault of privacy or civil rights would be "gravy".

In deed, the Democrats have so much ammunition, and so many targets, should they not concentrate and stay focused, they face a danger of having a diffuse attack, it may well handled by the Dubya spin crew.

If I want to ignore whats going on in the world, or make the world conform to your ideal of reality, I can always switch on Fox news, and apparently, there are some who watch too much television and truly, actually beleive in what they are watching or what is said, is factual.

Or if you are half way intelligent, you can use the internet to read commentaries by those in other countries, who may (or may not), have more objectivity. You can read well researched scholarly atrticles put out by non-biased educational institutions, or more importantly, you can go right to the Federal Register or one of the several thousand government sites, and read what was said or what was printed. (although memebers of Congress can redact, what is said, before it is published in the FR)
My point is, my opinion and research is based on the voluminous resources presented by the internet to anyone who has the education, the foresight and technical ability to do so.

For the rest, well there is always Fox news.

OG

For one whose research is based on "voluminous" resources, you sure are inaccurate. I picked several instances in each post, to which you have no reply except generalized banter.

You are correct in that the Internet may be a great reasearch tool (one of many), however one must discern between the diatribe and the junk (99%)-- something I don't see you be able to do. In fact, since you use the word "fact" so loosely, here is what my Internet reasearch turned up:

www.m-w.com
opinion: view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality; an obsolute

Let's see what I can pick out of this post...


"The fact that Dubya is realy a complete fool"
Opinion not fact.
Facts: graduates from yale and harvard, becomes president of the USA, and had a 60+ approval rating 3 years into his presendency (especially during a "contentious" period)
My opinion: Hardly a fool. Do I like and/or agree with him-- not really.

"Baseless speculation, but he would have not left key positions in the FAA and the FBI open that late into his presidency...blah blah. He would have not been on vacation for the full month of August, prior to 9/11...."

Comment: Opinion not fact. Even though you started off well by saying baseless speculations, you went on to make your own baseless speculations.


"If I want to ignore whats going on in the world, or make the world conform to your ideal of reality,"

comment: Opinion. Ideal or idea? I guess you meant the latter, so genious just what is my version of reality?

"Or if you are half way intelligent, you can use the internet to read commentaries by those in other countries, who may (or may not), have more objectivity. You can read well researched scholarly atrticles put out by non-biased educational institutions, or more importantly, you can go right to the Federal Register or one of the several thousand government sites, and read what was said or what was printed"

comment: Bravo. Since you appear to be partial towards Clinton and leading democrats, here are some quotes from the unbiased sources you mentioned that I'm sure your aware of:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"In other words, I lead with my heart and not my head. That's the only chance we have against George Bush." - Dean 2004


and so on an so on--you get the point.

Howard DEAN is my top pick. Endorsed by Al Gore and Bill Bradley, two prominent democrats. Dean is not short sighted like this current admin. He has been criticized for being 'angry' sometimes but the man has reasons to be angry, with all the shit in politics and the sometimes less than intelligent Americans he has to deal with and all that time 'wasted' in campaigning.

John KERRY a very good second.

I'd like to hear why Maximus would support Bush all the way. Since he supported Tom Mcclintock for CA Gov, I guess he's a hardcore republican.

(Typo on my previous post: " I wouldN'T say Edwards is like JFK, & I wouldN'T mind seeing Clarke as Pres., but VP good too.")

Dick,

I would love to see Kerry win. Edwards would probably make a good VP in order to get southern votes as well. Dean is a loose cannon who is showing his colors. If you don't trust Bush's secrecy, how can you trust a someone who his his professional and personal records sealed?

General Gump, I mean Clarke, is a smart guy, but he comes up short in political savy and experience. If the only thing going (i.e. reason to vote) for him is his military experience, he's done. He has about as much charisma as Lieberman (who is otherwise a good canidate).

If you live near NH, I encourage you to go and visit with the canidates. It is quite revealing an exciting.

Orange,

Sometime when I have the time I will refute several points in your long laundry list of complaints. Unlike you, I will document the sources for the information. I think maybe your hate of Bush clouds some issues. Are you by any chance a member of moveon.org?

As far as driving to a free country, are you referring to Mexico? I have lived here for nearly 6 years( Guadalajara, Mexico City and now TJ). My work keeps me here and it is economically to my advantage. I also like the food, the culture, and the Mexican Women. But believe me it is not a very free country. Since you seem to hate Bush so bad, if he wins reelection, maybe you should move on down here, or maybe go to France, and escape the Neocon tyranny.

batsterthetroublemaker

Don Marcos, Batster

DM You have not refuted any portion of the list above.
Instead you point to MY opinions, not to my list.

Quoting from politicians, Democrat or Republican has never been my ideal of informed fact, nor did I ever say that they were part of appropriate fact finding, but you did, and that is your error.

You have not refuted any of my suppositions with any real evidence or, as you say "facts", just quotes from politicians. If you want me to quote Bush is support or in opposition to an argument. I can. But it wouldn't be pretty.

It is no secret and easily verifiable that Dubya was a "legacy" admission to both Harvard and Yale not on his academic credentials or his scholarship. Dubya was a straight C- student, at best and almost flunked several classes.

The fact that an American President has a positive approval rating during a time of war and uncertainty is not really an indicator of his popularity. Americans generally tend to support the administration during times of war. That Dubya had a approval rating of only 60 percent, which is low, as his father, during the Gulf war, had an approval rating of over 80 and had approval rating during his presidency almost equivalent to Dubya's yet he was not re-elected.

Lawmakers as well as the voter can be easily misled to further a political agenda. Many politicians, both democratic and republican felt that at the most their were misled by the President or the least, not handled well.

By the way the Democrats, Republicans or any lawmakers who does not sit on the an intelligence review board or commitee in the House or Senate is not privy to intelligence reports that are not "vetted" by the National Security advisor.

This means that intelligence reports quoted by Kerry, Gore or Hilary Clinton or any republican or any democrat contain only information, or more importantly, MISINFORMATION that has been screened and fowarded by the National Security Advisor or the White House staff to the Senate and House of representatives.

Notice also that while everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein was a menace, not one advocated a unilateral war.

The fact that Dubya got on national TV and claimed there were WMD in Iraq, despite cautions from the Intelligence community that the information was inconclusive. This makes Dubya, if knowing there were no real evidence or had no conclusive evidence of WMD, a flat out liar, or, not knowing if this information was true, but announcing it anyway, a fool!

Batster,
While the my list in a previous post, in a few cases generalizations of events that involved Dubya, and may have happened with him in the Presidency or someone else, they are nonetheless, true. if you want to refute them, do so, but not with other comments from politico's, democrat or republican, like DM does. I think you'll find, much to your surprise, or chagrin, that it is corroborative truth.

As a former member of the intelligence community, and having been involved in several "ops" (on the technical and analysis side not in the field), I know how politicians tend second guess intelligence reports and know first hand just how much information is put into a briefing.
The fact that no known ranking intelligence chiefs lost their job or standing, indicated the was a lot of CYA memo's floating from the CIA, NSA, NIMA, etc to the White House.

In essence, they probably told the White House outright that there there were no verifiable WMD, and the White House chose to ignore it. But they have the memo's to prove what they said and when they said it, and who they said it to. The fact that they all have their jobs speaks loudly of the silence in the White House who at first accused the intellignce community of passing bad information, but later relented.

You are right, I am biased against Bush. He has made an embarassment of the hard-working intelligence community by insinuating that HE did not get the timely correct intelligence about the WMD, and he lied to the people of the United States, the Congress and to the world.

But this lie wasn't about getting a blowjob in the oval office, this lie cost hundreds of american lives, billions of dollars, and the US moral standing with the rest of the world.

The spin was in, and as the intelligence chiefs and analysts, being good citizens as well as Americans, didn't go down the road and accuses the President of ignoring their warnings, instead they took the critisism from the White House and the media, and went on their way.

Harry Truman once had a famous sign on his desk that read "THE BUCK STOPS HERE" This was an aknowledgement that while you take may the kudo's for a job maybe done by your administration or your staff, you are ultimatley responsible for the state your country is in, if its failing, then so are you. With almost 3 million jobs lost, two wars, a slow economy and a massive debt passed on to possibly the next two generations, Dubya should have a sign on his desk saying "PASS THE BUCK"

That says everthing.

OG

Don Marco,

I live in California. If I live in NH I wouldn't need you to tell me to check out the candidates.

I see them on TV. It is listening to them speak that I feel Dean is the best candidate. I didnt even like Dean at first. Many Americans like yourself are either too dumb to understand him or too lazy to find out more about the candidates.

Kerry is very good too.

Edwards, he's a lightweight with not much substance. If you think he is really good then you don't know that much. He's sounding a little better now but a few weeks ago he was just a doing all that typical politician "I'll fight for you" stuff.

As to you saying Dubya is smart cause he went to Yale etc... duh... his dad was the head of CIA first in China then in US. Of course his none too bright son gets into Yale, the school for CIA folks since the days of Allen Dulles.

Once again I agree with Orgngrdr.

Hermann Goering, Nazi Leader back in the 1940s already said it. Why should an average young man want to leave his home and go to war when the best he can hope for is come home in one piece? Naturally people dont want war whether it is in USA or England or Russia. But if the leaders of the country want to go to war and want to drag people along all they have to do is to tell the people they are under attack(WMD, USA in imminent danger) and denounce peacemakers as unpatriotic(patriot act etc). Works every time.

That's what Bush did, used 1940s Nazi tactics to make US go to war.

-Dick

Dick,

The west coast air musta got to your brain as well.

"Many Americans like yourself are either too dumb to understand him or too lazy to find out more about the candidates. "

comment: considering a prime characterisitic of a canidate going anywhere is conveying a cohesive message, then we don't need to worry about accomplishing much besides wasting the 40mil folks donated. You stated I'm too dumb to understand him-- why don't you enlighten us all and provide his stance on several major issues and compare/contrast them with other dem canidates? Be quick, as I'm sure he'll change hs stance as documented in several recent Newsweek articles.


"Edwards, he's a lightweight with not much substance. If you think he is really good then you don't know that much."

comment: I guess you now how to write, now go learn to READ. What I said was that he would make a good choice for VP in order to help out with votes in the South. They upcoming primaries will decide how much pull he has down there, not me on the east coat and you out in la la land.

"denounce peacemakers as unpatriotic(patriot act etc)"

comment: you sound like the same genetic pool as orange-- same horse or father? I challenge you to provide one documented reference from a major news source that demonstrates the Patriot Act denouncing a "peacemaker". Have you read the Patriot Act? (if Yes-- sure you have...). Do you know how many times Article 215 hs been invoked? None. Do you now it requires a Judges sign-off and requires a legitimate terrorist threat? Rather than passing on the same dull BS as your friend Orange, use some of his volumious libraries for some home study. The fact is, there have been no civil rights abuses (due to the Patriot act) of americans with no ties to terrorist organizations. The threat the Patriot Act poses is legitimate due to possible FUTURE abuses, not present and past my friend.

Dick, I forgot to include my response to your only other comment:

Dick: "As to you saying Dubya is smart cause he went to Yale etc... duh..."

Comment: It all goes back to our reading skills... where did I say he was "smart?" What I said was he was "hardly a fool." A fool squanders--not take advantage of opportunities afforded (i.e. yale, harvard, etc, etc).

Orange,

I just had time to go back and read the entire thread, I get easily bored with the anti-bush diatribe.

Get your facts straight! For someone who comes from the intelligence community, you dont seem to be very open minded. Go back and read my post. I said RWANDA. Not Somalia.

The UN did not do shit to stop the genocide in RWANDA. There they were proven once again to be inefective and useless. I did not say a thing about SOMALIA. But thanks for bringing that up. Did you bring it up because you are sensitive about it? It was one of Clintons greatest achievemnets don't you think?

Yes I meant Rwanda, not Somalia. And look at the brilliant job that the UN has done in Kosovo-Bosnia. Nothing good happened there until Clinton bombed the Serbs WITHOUT UN SECURITY COUNCIL PERMISSION. And I actually support him in that. He did a good thing. I just think its hilarious that Clinton did not need UN permision to bomb Serbia, Sudan, Afganistan, but Bush does.

Of course what about Clintons exit strategy from Bosnia. I believe that Clinton said we would be out in a year. What is it now, 9 years later?

And lets not even talk about the knock up job the UN was doing in Iraq. They did not give a rats ass about Iraq. But they sure did like administering the Food for Oil program.

The UN has proven itself irrelevant. Why should anyone take the UN seriously when they have countries like Lybia, Iran, Iraq, etc, co chairing commisions on Human Rights and Weapons of Mass destruction. You can worship the UN all you want. But it has made itself irrelevant.

As far as refuting some of your long list of allegations etc, don't worry. I wont refute any of them using info from political organizations and political hacks. It can come from nuetral sources. I just need to find the time to do so.

Batsterthebombthrower

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of their business and military cronies are not neo-conservatives, they are OLD Christian right-wingers. They are puppets of the Christian-right-business-military extremists whose main objective is no less than the control of the whole planet.

<img>

I just want Bush supporters to say why they are supporting Bush again.

As to Don Marco, I really don't have time for debating with you.

(Message edited by dickjohnson on January 24, 2004)

DJ,

I didn't think you would actually respond to inaccuracies you last posted.

I'm not a Bush supporter, so I'll pass on that question.

Orange,

To start with, you didn't cite the source of individual claims. Instead of cutting and pasting other web-sites webpages here without siting the source (i.e. plagorism), dust off your library rather than regurgitate propiganda wholesale. Just in case you read up on the original author (Kelley Kramer) of the list, please enlighten everyone with information sources for each item before labeling them fact. Or is that why your not in the "intelligence" business anymore? As such, it amounts to nothing more than a list of claims-- most of which are absurd.


I'll start sifting through your (I'm mean Kelley's) list of nonsense. Two corrections per day tho, so you can sufficiently digest the data.

Item 1)
"Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history."

The FACT is that the annual debt has increased consistently on an annual basis with the exception of the years 1919-1930 (counting only the 20th and 21st centuries). Nearly every year, regardless of the whom is in office, sets a new record... During the Clinton years (so called paying down debt years) the national debt rose 44% during his two terms. So far, during the Bush presidency it has risen 21% (consistent with historical trends)

source: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov


Item 2) "Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market."

Comment: Since you said I never responded to your (oh, I mean Kelley's) claims, I guess you missed my previous post:
In a 9 month span at the end of the Clinton presidency, the Market dropped a whopping 50+% (March10- 5060-Jan 2, 2001- 2291). Meanwhile during Bush's tenure (Jan2, 2001- 2291, today-- 2136) it is recovered any ground lost for a break even. Just curious, but have you noticed equities in 2003? If I may recommend, add the Journal to your library.






(Message edited by donmarco on January 24, 2004)

DM, I never said you are a Bush supporter. Now that's your inaccuracy DM.

Let's all get back on track and be more positive.

DJ,

Perhaps we have our wires crossed. I didn't claim you insinuated I was... You posed the question to all and I simply reiterated that I'm not.

My gripe about previous posts is that I want to see Bush voted out. I firmly believe that if the opposition (of which we are are cross-section) puts out less than credible claims, we don't stand a chance. It has to be based on numbers not just anti-bushism. I live in a very liberal part of America (Boston/Cambridge) and see people detracting daily due to all ultra-left babble. If this happens in liberal land, I hate to think what is happening in mid-america and the south.

I do agree with most everyone here on the fact that this is a very important election. Although, at the time, I felt the first clinton-bush election was more important. This one is perhaps more important due to all the uncertainty facing the world. Is Dean a bad guy-- of course not. Does he have the depth, experience, and steady hand to lead us out of turbulent times-- IMHO, not even close. Do I think he has broad appeal to the majority of Americans (not just liberal democrats)-- NO. Kerry is the only one I feel that can attract enough support to beat Bush. FYI, a CNN poll gives Kerry a 3 point lead over Bush this morning (+/-3). Good sign-- lets hope the message and support doesn't fade in the coming months.

To all else, make sure you get out and VOTE. I hate to think how many talk the talk, but don't actually vote.


(Message edited by donmarco on January 25, 2004)

I further reemphasize my hope - a Kerry/Edwards ticket would be the best result. Now, lets assume that dickhead Sharpton sticks around because, in reality, he's not really campaigning so he's not spending lots of money. Kucinich is harmless, so who's left that needs to step aside?

Well, Lieberman will most likely pack it in after New Hampshire, unless he finishes in the top 2. Clark? Well, not too sure about him, but I know he won't fuck anything up. He's the alternate to Edwards for the VP role. So, that leaves us with madman Dean. I just hope that when he goes away, he goes away quietly and gives full support to Kerry or whoever the candidate will be. No sour grapes, he's done a great job in mobilizing the liberals but he has absolutely zero chance of winning the general election, and people are starting to realize this.

This is good stuff.

Check out http://www.deangoesnuts.com

My personal favorites are Dean 300, Pretty Fly for a Dean Guy, and Welcome To Dean's Jungle.

And speaking of people going crazy, here are two classics from Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft.

I think the developers video is the most disturbing I have ever seen before in my life. The Dance Monkey Boy is just plain funny!

http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg

http://www.ntk.net/media/dancemonkeyboy.avi

Deangoesnuts.com is hilarious! I love it lol! I wonder what would happen if some DJ were to play it at a club or rave, there'll be cheers and protests lol.

MA where Kerry is from is another state with more intelliegent people unlike those sparsely populated 'rural' states-which Bush may win. I'll admit I supported MA Gov. Dukakis(against Bush Sr.) and at that time I think Kerry was lietenant Gov.

As to Lieberman, what is his "Joementum" bullshit? Game over man lol.

Kerry is kicking everyone's ass in NH. Although Dean's supporter's are still loyal and the those who made their decisions in the last few days are equally split among Kerry and Dean.

That's two ass kickings He may find down south a bit harder to ring up the votes...

"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling" -- President Bush speech transcript

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040123-2.html

Here is another link: http://www.dubyaspeak.com/

So, who should I vote for this year?

"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling" -- President Bush

I totally agree. Just look at yourself, Georgie.

Gotta agree with DM that the Kerry caravan may come to a grinding halt when the primaries switch to mostly southern states next week.
Kerry may turn out to be mostly a regional (NE US?) candidate that most Americans cannot identify with.
My personal take is that Massachusetts has an extraordinary population of smart people given all their colleges (UMass, Boston College, Boston Univ, Brandeis, MIT, Harvard etc) however ordinary folks tend to think of smart liberals as nerds, whackos, out-of-step with reality, elitist, etc.
And Massachusetts string of past prominent politicians is only fodder type proof that any politician from that state is ... ahem, an asshole.
Case(s) in point = former governor and trounced presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, openly gay rep Barney Frank, only black elected ever former US senator Brooke, former senator Paul Tsongas, Tip O'Neill, Ted Kennedy etc.
That is the guilt-by-association image that Kerry is confronted with. And Kerry's past opposition to the popular first Iraq war doesn't help.
Peoples in Arizona, South Carolina, Oklahoma and elsewhere ... don't expect them to follow suit and just give their delegate votes to liberal Kerry (whose senate voting record has almost always exactly mirrored that of fellow Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy).
North Carolina's Sen John Edwards (with JF Kennedy type youthful good looks!) and resume rich former 4star general Wesley Clark figure to do well southern & rural America.
Delegates are obligated to vote in accordance with primary election voting results on the first 2 ballots but then are released to do whatever they want.
The United States (neither Republican or Democratic party) has not had a "brokered" convention in nearly 50 years. That is, the winning candidate won his party's nomination on the first ballot every time.
It is possible that no Democratic candidate will be able to muster the necessary 51% of delegate votes on the first ballot and that could lead to chaos. Democrat power brokers would then meet in a smoked filled room and make some deals to get candidates with small delegate counts to throw their support to the nominee in exchange for favors (political appointments) after the Nov election should the Dems win the White House.
There hasn't been much discussion yet about this scenario but I'm predicting it to happen (you heard it here first!).
Included in any brokered convention do NOT discount the influence of the Clintons, BOTH Bill and Hillary.
What do you think?

Iowa is certainly not the Northeast, and they tend to be quite moderate. I don't think that Kerry is really that liberal, especially compared to some of the guys you mentioned.

"The illiteracy level of our children are apalling"-Bush.

"So Mr President, what about the problem of obesity?"

Bush:"I believe obesity is a problem in America. We must fight obesity. Sex with animals is just wrong."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040130/ap_on_el_ge/voting_machines_4

John Kerry, Howard Dean take second, third place respectively in NH Republican Primary as write-ins.

US Senator John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who won the Democratic primary, came in second to Bush in the Republican contest, winning 3,009 votes. Kerry's name was written in on almost 5 percent of all GOP ballots.

Kerry wasn't the only Democrat who appealed to Republicans. In third place on the Republican side of the ledger was former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who won 1,888 votes, more than 3 percent of the GOP total. Retired General Wesley Clark secured 1,467 Republican votes, while almost 2,000 additional Republican primary votes were cast for North Carolina Senator John Edwards, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

In all, 8,279 primary voters wrote in the names of Democratic challengers to Bush on their Republican ballots.

That's a significant number. In the 2000 general election, Bush beat Democrat Al Gore in New Hampshire by just 7,212 votes. Had Gore won New Hampshire, he would have become president, regardless of how the disputed Florida recount was resolved.

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?pid=1221