No, that's not true, Explorer. Bush would supply the lube.

You're a tough cookie explorer, here's one last link
http://www.americavotes.org/
Honestly though I don't why you would doubt both parties are knocking themselves out to get voters registered, and when one considers how divided the country is over Bush it doesn't strike me as a really difficult task. I'm predicting a 70% turnout in November, just look at the half million people who got to New York under there own steam. I agree I can't find exact numbers
of just how many folks have been signed up but keep in mind
it's against W's best interest to let those stats out. The bigger the turn out the worse it is for the republicans. You can't really look at those links on America Votes and think all those people are sitting on there hands. I've mentioned before that I've had three different people come to my door looking to register me.
BTW, San Diego will have a paper trail. Does anyone know how many precincts will not?

There once was a Hombre name of LayGuy
Liked to post with a gutfull ocheap Rye
His liberal courage
"Pour Me" won't discourage
From votin for Bush, unlike you - gay guy

Yall needs ta quit whinin and get behind yer country.
First yas complaind about VeitNam cause we didn't win
an now yall ain't happy that we kicked some towelhead butt
Ain't nuthin gonna make yall liberal wimps happy

Bammer my dear friend: Yes, I know that with all this political crap going on in this thread I've gotten a bit tense, and perhaps unfairly taken it out on you. So, I will turn the other cheek, so to speak, at your insults and insinuations about me being gay. To make amends, I am going to help you make the most of your trip to Rio, alluded to in another thread.

There are two ways to visit Rio, the regular way, and the deluxe. I am sure you deserve the deluxe. Here is all you need to do.

When you arrive in Rio, try to find a very nice hombre named Turk. He shouldn't be hard to find; he manages a tanning salon in Rio, just off of the Copacabana beach.

Anyway, Turk is what we call a monger of the first degree. He will accommodate your every need. When you meet him, first tell him you are looking to do a Bukkake and have heard that there are two "garotas," Christianne and Gilda, who are always game. Then tell him you want the "special treatment." If he looks puzzled, let Turk know about the relationships you have with your sisterfolk, and mamafolk, and tell him you are looking to duplicate this type of experience by having Gilda's brothers participate in the Bukkake. Yes, it may sound a bit forward, but believe me you shouldn't be shy with Turk. Say you are willing to go to their favela (I know this is not a word you hear in Alabama; "favela" means an upscale whore house) to take part in the event.

At this point, Turk may look very annoyed, and you may begin to wonder why. The reason is because you now need to tell him the secret words so that he knows everything is cool.

Now Bammer, don't tell anyone else I told you this, I normally do not divulge the secret words. But it is very important to say, after first asking about the Bukkake with Christianne, Gilda, and Gilda's brothers, and the trip to their favela, the following secret words: "I am GCL and I insist on a Bukkake with Christianne and Gilda so please send me to the favela." I guarantee you will have a good time. I look forward to your trip report.

Oh, and just to make sure this post is not considered inappropriate for this thread: Remember, y'all, vote for Kerry!

(Message edited by LAguy on August 31, 2004)

Tjuncle:

Thanks for the link, but its yet another organization that is promising massive voter registration drives, but no actual results. Note that if turnout of 70% of registered voters happens in November, Bush would both lose and I would die of shock, high 50s is a stretch.

Texans for Truth!

It looks like the slime campaign against Bush is about to begin.

>>>It looks like the slime campaign against Bush is about to begin.<<<

It's friggin' about time!!

Have done unto you what you have done unto others.

>>> Texans for Truth! <<<

The problem is that attacking Bush on his National Guard duty is not going to win the election. This is a non-issue to the general American populate. In fact, this type of attack plays right into Karl Rove’s gameplan. The more discussion that the Democrats give anything related to Vietnam the more damage they are doing. It keeps the topic in the news and that is very good for the Republicans.

The Kerry campaign and the pro-Kerry 527s need to realize that unless they start taking it to Bush on the ‘compassionate conservative’ representations then the campaign is over. You don’t attack the opposition on their known weaknesses (the national guard) you attack on their strengths. Bush brought 9/11 into this campaign, and Cheney comments the other day opened up everything to politics. Its time that the ads talking about the 9/11 commission report findings start popping up. Get Bush on the defensive about Iraq and then go for the jugular with jobs in middle American and we may see a Democrat in the Whitehouse in 2005. Keep talking about the Vietnam era and you might as well start chanting “four more years.”

Although I agree that attacking Bush on his National Guard duty will not win the election, the reason to do it is to undo the damage the attacks on Kerry's Vietnam record did to his campaign. For many of those in the middle, when they see what Bush was up to during the war, this may neutralize any negative feelings towards Kerry that resulted from the swift boat ads (of course, in a purely rational world, the fact that those ads were found (by everyone but Fox) to contain verifiable lies should have been enough, but we live in far from a rational world). Unlike normal attack ads, the Texans for Truth ads are meant to revive Kerry's standing among those affected by the swift boat ads, or put another way, neutralize the damage caused by the swift boat ads. Whether they will accomplish this goal is, of course, subject to debate, but I personally think they might well.

Supporting this view, at least as to the motivation behind the new ads, it is hard to imagine that Texans for Truth would exist in the absence of the earlier attacks on Kerry's Vietnam record. Indeed, there was only minimal discussion of Bush's record in the National Guard in the 2000 election, because as a stand-alone issue, it doesn't go very far.

Having said this, clearly the Kerry campaign has to be more aggressive in attacking the Bush record and presenting an acceptable alternative. But they also need to even the playing field, or more, with respect to who was doing what during the Vietnam war. And hence the ads.

A lot of poll data suggests that the people that are voting Kerry are not voting FOR Kerry but voting AGAINST Bush. To be honest, I fall in this category as I suspect do many.

I believe that Kerry has run a very weak campaign, and it is testiment to anti Bush sentiment that the race is as close as it is. Kerry needs to state what he is going to do when is in office. Criticizing your opponent does not give a clear view on how he would do things differently.

Bringing up Bush's war record is irrelevant. I think that Kerry should stand toe to toe with Bush on the war on terror. The RNC wants to make this all about security and terror, and their thinking is flawed.

But Kerry should not criticize Bush but instead say what he is going to do.

Step up the search for Osama and Al Qaeda. Revamp intelligence. Use more technology to protect our borders. Etc. Focus on actions rather than criticisms. He better get going because the clock is ticking.

Ageed! I think a lot of people believe that Kerry is pretty weak all around, but at least he's not evil. I almost wish Gore had decided to run again, it would have made an interesting race.

Of course, I prefer Michael Moore's choice for presidential candidate. (You have to read Dude, Where's My Country? to find out who it is, but it's well worth it.)

What I got out of the RNC was the following message:

"Who cares if you don't agree with us on education, health care, and a whole host of other issues. If you vote for the other guys, you are going to die. If you vote for us, you get to live."

I find that message offensive and don't believe one party has a monopoly on protecting America. I hate fear mongering and that is exactly what the Republicans are doing. Cheney reiterated this position just yesterday.

Cheney says if you vote the wrong way, there will be another terrorist attack.

Ridge says there will be another terrorist attack, maybe before the next election.

Terrorist: one who inspires fear.

I think that the Republicans did a FANTASTIC job in New York linking the 9/11 to the war on terror to the war in Iraq. Of course, this logic is flawed, but Kerry has yet to present an alternate plan.

But it's time to take the gloves off. I live in S. Carolina which is one of the poorer states in the nation, and it also is one of the blackest. I think well over 50% black. And it is a given, that South Carolina is going to vote for Bush. That BLOWS me away.

If we did a poll or some market research, who do you think that the following demographics will vote for?

Skinheads?
White Supremecists?
Racists?
Rednecks?

Do you think that any self respecting white supremecist would be caught dead voting for Kerry? I am sure of one thing. They vote and probably as a block.

So why in the hell would any black support this? And over 50% of them, which Bush would need to take South Carolina.

Hey BT:

Not to disagree with your basic premise, but it may interest you to know that the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Socialist Movement (better known as Nazis) is holding a rally at Valley Forge on Sept 25. Besides the usual white-supremacy, anti-semitism, foaming-at-the-mouth, etc, they plan to protest against the "american dictator" G.W. Bush! Of course, they are protesting because El Busho is the head of the hated "ZOG" (Zionist Occupation Government, as they call the Feds), but at least their heart (so to speak) is in the right place...

I dont' think they'll be voting for Kerry, but all kidding aside, the right-wing crazy vote is not as monolothically pro-Bush as you'd think.

BS


P.S. Before anyone miscontrues me, NO I am not pro-nazi. Although I definitely do believe in "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Even for white-supremecist idiots...

(Message edited by badseed on September 10, 2004)

BT: The problem is while African Americans accounted for approximately 47 percent of the voters in the 2004 South Carolina Democratic primary, they only accounted for about 22 percent of the 2000 general election vote (according to the results of a quick google search). With just over 20 percent of the general election vote, they are not going to come close to reversing the strong white vote for Bush in that state.

(Message edited by LAguy on September 10, 2004)

BT: The main problem I see is that voter turnout is only about 50% Young people and poor people as a whole, don't vote. Can you imagine if we had 100% voter turnout. Bush wouldn't stand a chance.

yeah 50% is pretty weak, even in a fake Democracy.

Too funny:

<http://www.fakeconstitution.50megs.com/>

Liberal Media....

Can you say Dan Rather AKA CBS !!!!!

Can you say Ben Barnes?

Even his own daughter calls him a self serving liar that what do anything for the Democratic party.


Now even the expert CBS and Dan Rather used to authenicate the documents says he was misled by CBS and Dan Rather.

Looks like the Dems are getting desperate!


If this stories were reverse and it was the Republicans forging documents and and using someone like Ben Barnes there would be an outrage. And you guys still think that the majority of the media is not liberal?

By the way.....

Down here in Florida since the Hurricanes have been bearing down on us.... John Kerry has not been seen or heard from.....I guess he has conceded Florida to Bush.

There is no liberal bias in the media , Unless you are looking to find specific instances.

Talk radio is dominated by the right here in NY and thankfully we got air america now ,a pleasant alternative but they are just serving as the mouth piece for the kerry campaign as hannity and rush do for bush.

Franken is funny however and mike malloy is great, there is a huge bias in the media and its a pro buisness/elite interest bias, and the media serves both buisness parties well. dems and republicans. But to say that the media is liberal is crazy.

I posted a link to a movie a while back and its very interesting

We are told everyday that this is one of the most important elections in history and it makes me laugh , there is no major difference between kerry or bush, no matter who wins we all lose, unless you happen to be a multi-millionaire / billionaire.

I really doubt any of our lives will be affected seriously either way ,but I guess its fun to pick a side ,as if it were a sporting event. I will be voting libertarian or green or socialist and keep my fingers crossed for kerry because edwards is cuter than cheyney

Larrydavid, I agree with your view on the media, but I disagree that there are not major differences between the candidates.

One area I think we should be particularly concerned about is the Bush Administrations' effect on the Judiciary. I'm a bit burned out for now to go into this in depth, but following is a brief Reuters article I think people should read.

Study: Bush Judges Most Conservative on Rights

An average president puts in about a third of the federal judiciary in two terms, so this really is a watershed year in terms of what happens...but in civil rights and civil liberties cases -- abortion, gay rights, freedom of speech, right to privacy, race relations, for example -- Bush judges made liberal decisions only 26.5 percent of the time. That was well below 37.9 percent for appointees of Richard Nixon, 32.3 percent for Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) and 32.2 percent for George H.W. Bush, all fellow Republican presidents..."George W. Bush is the most conservative president that we have data for," Karp said. "In civil rights and liberties cases, his judges were 25 percent more conservative than those of other Republicans."

Note "freedom of speech" and "right to privacy", I think that should be a concern to all of us.

Freedom of a speech is a bigger issue throughly studied, debated, and cherished in the entertainment industry, hence the charge against the Right by Howard Stern, Bruce Springstein, Michael Moore, and many other entertainers. This is also why conservative media tried so hard (and with a good deal of success) to portray entertainers without a conservative sheep mentality as "out-of-touch elite millionaire liberals with immoral Hollywood vales" (Bush the divider).

Other issues...

With the delicate balance on the Supreme Court, I expect a Bush re-election would likely lead to the overturn of Roe vs Wade...which I think will have a detrimental effect with women turning to underground and unsafe abortion practices.

Then there's the stem cell issue. I'm sure you know where that would go under Bush.

The deficit will also catch up to us. No matter who gets elected, taxes will likely have to be raised. But don't expect Bush to roll back any of the breaks that have gone to his wealthy base. Surprisingly, Bush already mentioned but backed off discussing a national sales tax. (He realized it wasn't a good topic in an election year) Bush will definitely support a tax increase that will have shifted significantly towards everyone (sales tax) or the lower and middle class (payroll tax). Of course, he would use his trump card of 9/11 to justify EVERYONE pay a greater share to defend our nation. (leaving those that are not wealthy with less disposable income...how's that for stimulating the economy?)

Back to the entertainers...many of them are knowingly doing potential damage to their careers and pocketbook by exercising their right to free speech regarding the threat they see at the prospect of 4 more years of Bush. Conservative media has so many sheep foaming at the mouth by painting opposition as unpatriotic and traitorous to our country. I have a great deal of respect for these entertainers who are willing to face the Conservative Media Juggernaut and some of their more fanatical "Freedom fry"-eating rabid supporters who will scream at them to leave the country if they don't support their Republican President. (They see it as okay to bash Clinton or other Democratic Presidents, though)

On the topic of Conservative Media dividing tactics, perhaps the most unbelievably effective one is the portrayal of highly educated non-conservatives as simple products of a "liberal" education system. Forget the fact that these 25% of so of the American people have worked hard to advance their mental capabilities and have on average a far greater capacity for analysis and debate, they go to liberal schools and don't share your patriotism...according to Conservative Media.

And yes...I do have a college degree...two in fact...a BA and a MS. Of course, conservatives would likely accuse me of being shamefully wealthy and speaking French as well as say that the point of this post was to call the other 75% of Americans stupid.

Conservative Media has brought propaganda to new heights. Unfortunately, far too many people with disproportionate voting power buy into this in smaller towns and rural communities across the US.

Anyone care to defend Dan Rather, CBS and Ben Barnes......oh I forgot....they are Democrats....they like Micheal Moore don't ever have to be responsible for telling the truth. They are responsible news journalists and produce "truthful" documents....that are never forged.... like "memos" from 30 years ago and newspapers headlines that never existed..... except in a "fictional movie"..... that the liberal media tried to advertise as the Truth.

So..... now John Kerry is honoring the troops in Iraq that have died for fighting the war against Terror. I thought the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists........!!!

Did you catch Clinton on the Leno show before his surgery.......even he agrees Kery is a flip flopper.

Dan Rather and CBS must be much more comfortable for you to talk about than our floral welcome in Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed with escalating resentment, over a thousand US soldiers killed with many more injured, lack of a significant connection between Hussein and al Qaeda, increased recruitment by al Qaeda, damaged credibility and respect across Europe and the rest of the world, nuclear development in North Korea and Iran (and their confidence that the US military is stretched too thin to do anything about it), net jobs lost, record deficits, rising health care premiums, expiration of the assault weapons ban, or anything else that your "fair and balanced" (sarcasm emphasized) news sources tell you to ignore.

By the way, the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Los Angelos times all reported on the questionable authenticity of the documents...but of course in typical CM sheep fashion, since CBS reported it..."liberal media bias...blah...blah...blah"

Congratulations, you receive the Fox News "Puppet of the Day" award.

Does Bush support the a national security director or not? Is he a war president or a peace president? What were the justifications for going to war? I can't keep up with all of these flip-flops...oh I forget...he is a Republican.

New York Times interview (2004-08-27), Bush said "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." This is the same guy who gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of town. Would you call that flip-flopping, Beachman?

Or, do you believe that Saddam was a freely elected president?

Justifications for going to war. Ask John Kerry.....he voted to authorize it! Then he voted it against funding it....that is after he voted to fund it. Even now....he still says after what he knows now....he would have voted for the war. Wait a minute....did I say now.....maybe that was last week he said that.....what is he saying this week. May be Clinton can tell us.....That has to hurt.....Kerry must be steaming.....Clinton dishing him on flip flopping on Leno.

Oh....nuclear development in North Korea....Clinton gift wrapped that for North Korea. And Russia gift wrapped that for Iran......But I think the Russians may be second guessing that now!

You make it sound like al Qaeda is the only terrorist group in the world. With your thinking we would have only fought Japan in World War II since they were the only ones that attacked us. When in fact....Germany was a much bigger threat because of V- rockets and Germanys devolpment of the atomic bomb....that is why we concentrated on defeating Germany first.

Oh yeah....what did Bosnia ever do to us.....why did we kill thousands of Bosnians bombing them?

Beachman: "Polly want a cracker."

The Kerry position on Iraq is fairly straight-forward: he gave Bush the authority to threaten war on Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to allow inspectors everywhere. Instead, Bush went right to war, without negotiations.

If the Congressional authorization had not passed, Bush would not have had the ability to threaten war as part of negotiations.

I suspect a 12 year old could understand this.

12 years of UN resolutions.....I guess that is not negotiations. Kerry still says he would have invaded....even what he knows now. When it comes to to subject of allowing in inspecters everywhere.....Saddam NEVER allowed it....he always kicked them out.

The end of the Gulf War spelled out the neogotiations for the inspecters. Clinton allowed Saddam to play the game with the inspecters for years and looked the other way while France, Germany and Russia allowed Saddam to rearm with the oil for food program.


There is nothing straight-foward about Kerry's postion on Iraq.

As you can see the name calling has begun because you cannot logically defend Kerry and his campaign.

Explorer, I agree with your post with one exception: I don't think it requires a 12-year old to understand your point, a 9-year old could understand it. OTOH, I concede it would have to be a nine-year-old with an IQ of at least 100.

Funny you bringing up logic when you don't understand the opposing arguments. You pit Conservative Media/Bush Administration arguments against CM/BA spin of Democratic/Kerry arguments and believe you have a logical grasp of both sides.

On another note, here's an interesting article I found which everyone should enjoy at least in part, the left for its analysis and the right for its conclusion. It's also somewhat relevant in that it discusses the demographics of travelers.

Why Americans love George W Bush - Asia Times Online

Excerpt:
Bush supporters are the sort of American one never meets. Through the media as well as through personal contact, Asians and Europeans meet the United States in the person of its coastal elite: academics, journalists, clerics, entertainers, and the technological avant garde. The sort of American traveler one meets in Hong Kong, Singapore or Bangkok probably will vote for John Kerry in November. Fewer than one in six Americans owns a passport, and those are found disproportionately on the US coasts, colored Democratic blue on the electoral maps. The elite enjoys the frisson of cultural difference and will travel thousands of miles to patronize quaint foreign cultures. By contrast, provincials from the inland states (colored Republican red on the electoral maps) take their holidays in Las Vegas or Disney World. For them the gambling-casino replicas of the Eiffel Tower or the Venetian canals are just like the real thing but without the inconvenience of strange tongues and customs...Bush voters really do look worse (obesity is an inland disease in the US), dress worse, and are less likely to have attended a university than Kerry voters. But Bush voters are the sort of people who believe in their heart of hearts that America was founded to protect the likes of them - unlikely the clever and attractive people who can fend quite well for themselves. That is the source of their patriotism

"While working relentlessly to portray Democratic Sen. John Kerry as a ``flip-flopper,'' President Bush has his own history of changing his position, from reversals on steel tariffs and ``nation-building'' to reasons for invading Iraq."

For the complete article: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040912%2F0413023767.htm

I must admit though I don't see what all this fuss about flip-flopping is about. I would rather have someone as President who changed his position as new information became available, rather than seeing everything as black and white and stubbornly holding to positions that are proven false.

This is indeed a tough election; Bush is an idiot, one of the worst presidents of the last 100 years, but Kerry ain't so hot as a candidate, and his team seems eager to prove that Dukakis COULD have won in 1988 with a little luck.

Beachman, I can see why you are confused:

"12 years of UN resolutions.....I guess that is not negotiations. Kerry still says he would have invaded...."

The negotiations were held in the early 1990's. After that, the next issue came in 2002 when Bush began making serious noises about invading Iraq due to non-compliance with the sanctions. This was the point when Kerry and other senators were required to vote for or against giving Bush the power to wage war against Iraq. At the time, Bush said that he planned to use the power granted to him by Congress to negotiate, and that war would be a last resort. Of course, once the Senate passed the resolution, Bush began war preparations immediately, and never seriously negotiated with Saddam, instead calling for "regime change".

Of course, you knew all that already, and you, for whatever reason, are just making noise in the hopes that we will overlook actual facts.

Beachman ,that whole I voted for it before I voted against it situation was about funding the reconstruction with loans ,or grants, he voted for loans and against grants, but when it is explained like that you lose all the comedic value and the flip-flop catch phrases.

Of course kerry would have invaded ,the owners of this country wanted a war ,a deficit, and they want "stability" in the area , the only problem is their defenition of stability is a stable environment for western companies to do buisness , that is the reason we overthrew goverments all over asia and latin america and the reason we support israel , we have no interest in true democracy ,even here if we did the public would be more knowledgable and more involved in the democratic process.

Dart , there are subtle differences ,but not many and though kerry talks the talk ,I doubt he will walk the walk . I hope he wins but I truly believe It doesnt matter.

LD:

Did you feel the same way in 2000? Did you vote for Nader?

Isn't a bit odd that while those on the right characterize Kerry based on his voting record as the most liberal member of the Senate (more liberal than Ted Kennedy) those on the far left persist in saying it really doesn't matter who wins because his views are essentially the same as Bush's? Someone must be wrong here.

Explorer:

I actually didnt have any Idea what I was doing in 2000. I was gladly keeping myself as Ignorant as posible with regard to politics. I voted for gore thinking he represented the middle class.

I dont know what turned my attention away from sports and towards politics.

Beachman !!!

What is your professional opinion about the Bush White House requiring the military in Iraq to begin operations against Fallajuh and Najaf, and then pull back, and then start up again, and then pull back. I get seasick just trying to follow the action.

Is it a good thing for the civilians to tell the military to start, stop and retreat in Iraq like that?

NY Times, 2004-09-14 On Tuesday the Republican National Committee will begin running an advertisement that hits the same theme. It ends with a voice-over intoning: "Big government in charge. Not you. Not your doctor."

Huh? Is anyone under the illusion that you or your doctor is in charge of your health care now? Big business is in charge of your health care. Are they more concerned about your health, or the health of their bottom line. Sheesh!

Oh yeah, thanks for making it easier for terrorists to by weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Bush. I guess the gun lobby is more important to you than police organizations and the general public.

I like Kerry's health plan. 27 million more Americans covered at a cost of $650 billion over 10 years paid for entirely by rescinding the Bush tax cuts on those that make over $200K per year.

Bush's plan is to cover 2 million more Americans at a cost of $90 billion. Source of money unknown.

Who needs a source of money when you can just add to the deficit?

Liberal CBS and Dan Rather are sticking to their fraudlent story even though their own "experts" admit CBS is ignored their concerns. It also turns out none of their "experts" are certified....unless you consider an ex-typewriter repairman an expert.

You liberals are amazing....you put down the 250+ swiftboat vets who serve their country and have a right to tell thier side of their story. But you have nothing say about a huge news media source like CBS who ignore all warnings that these were forged douments and they still used these documents as a centerpiece for a story on 60 Minutes to do the dirty work for John Kerry and the Democratic National Committe.

There is no doubt whatsoever that George evaded the Vietnam draft by having Daddy pull strings.

There is no doubt whatsoever that George got his baseball team deal because Daddy pulled strings.

There is no doubt whatsoever that George got elected Governor of Texas by having Daddy pull strings.

There is no doubt whatsoever that George is President because of Daddy. Do you really think he could do it on his own?

There is no doubt whatsoever that we are in more danger because of the Iraq war.

There is no doubt whatsoever that George is a fucking moron.