John Kerry ....first wife a millionare
John Kerry.....second wife a billionare

What about Dan Rather and CBS..... and the Democratic National Committe defending forged documents....none of you liberals can address this without spinning into to something else that is based on emotions instead of facts.

Wasn't Dan Rather who said about Watergate it wasn't the story......it was th cover-up.

What is Dan Rather, Cbs and the Democratic National Committee covering up! Why don't they just mname the source that provided these false documents!

"John Kerry ....first wife a millionare
John Kerry.....second wife a billionare"

I should be so smart! Good for John!
George's wife seems to be a nice person.

But who cares?

I don't know yet, but I imagine Rather and CBS are pretty sure about what they're saying. We'll see.

I forgot to mention in my last rant that 1/2 million more American citizens voted for the other guy. But that's history.

Beachman says:

"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."

1) The 250 who testified against Kerry weren't there. They had nothing to provide us except their opinion of what he did after the war.

2) CBS News may have screwed up. That's life in the big city.

I really have better things to do than follow this story ,with my busy masterbation schedule and all but I was wondering if these docs have been proven to be a forgery ?

Beachman: Just because sean hannity says they are forgeries 1 million times does not make it so whether they are forged or not I know that bush and kerry had a different set of rules at that time than say my dad for instance.

Its a moot point so lets not argue over who got the most preferential treatment ,Its a waste of time.

both men can end this debate by releasing their records ,and neither will.

1 saw combat 1 didnt, if kerry shot himself , took shrapmil{sp} from his own grenade I dont know.

I think Bush was the smarter of the 2 Id rather be sniffing coke and flying planes than fighting.

also beechman if you named unknown sources when they didnt wanna be named do you think youd continue to get info from other sources?

The experts CBS hired are saying that CBS ignored their finding that the documents were not authenic. And CBS still went ahead with the story trying to pass the documents as fact.

This is not Sean Hannity saying the documents are forged....it is the very "experts CBS hired to look at the documents before the 60 Minutes program aired. This is exactly what you liberals do.....you screw up and then you try to spin it off as the conservatives make these things up. Example.....Larrydavid..."Just because sean hannity says they are forgeries 1 million times does not make it so" Jus read the Washington Post today if you don't believe they are forgeries!

There is a major cover-up going on and it will come out sooner or later on who the source was of this cover-up.....and I would bet Terry Mcculiffe the head of the Democractic Party had something to do with this!

do you have a link ?

here is a good article



I think many people are confused by the liberal/conservative label. Most people think that liberals/conservatives have to be 100% diametrically opposed to each other and they are mutually exclusive. This does not have to be the case. Ron Paul is an example of someone who can be both, an original liberal and an original conservative. I have included a graph and supplied definitions for terms in the graph. While many would argue that my definitions are inaccurate, from the standpoint of the free market and freedom they carry the essence of what liberal/conservative have stood for and what they have become today.

Original Liberal - Also know as classical liberal. Someone who values rights over traditional values. Someone who espouses personal rights and freedom over state rights. Advocates a free market, non-government interventionist approach. Sees government as a necessary evil, whose only function is to protect people’s rights and freedom. See Classical Liberalism for more info.

Original Conservative - Also known as classical conservative. Someone who values traditional values over rights. Someone who espouses traditional personal rights and freedom over state rights. Advocates a free market, non-government interventionist approach. Sees government as a necessary evil, the only function of which is to protect people’s rights and freedom. See Classical Conservatism for more info.

Liberal, Left Wing - Someone who leans toward state-socialism and the right of the state to interfere in people’s lives. Believes everyone should think, talk and act just like he does and is willing to use the power of the state to force people to comply.

Conservative, Right Wing - Someone who leans toward state-capitalism and the right of the state to interfere in people’s lives. Believes everyone should think, talk and act just like he does and is willing to use the power of the state to force people to comply.

Neo-Liberal - Someone who believes in state-socialism and state-capitalism, as long as it is the "liberal" type (i.e. he gets credit for it), the right of the state over the individual, the need for the state to intervene and control all aspects of a person’s life. He thinks your life and property belong to the state, and a person's only purpose is to serve the state.

Neo-Conservative - Someone who believes in state-capitalism and state-socialism, as long as it is the "conservative" type (i.e. he gets credit for it), the right of the state over the individual, the need for the state to intervene and control all aspects of a person’s life. He thinks your life and property belong to the state, and a person's only purpose is to serve the state.

Liberal versus conservative is a false dichotomy. Both are not mutually exclusive of one another. The more one embraces either the free market or the state, the more conservatives/liberals converge on one another. The true issue that people should be focusing on is freedom versus slavery, personal rights versus state rights, the free market versus the state interventionist economy.

A person can hold traditional values, like religion, family, marriage, and still be liberal in enforcing those values. There will always be people, like F. A. Hayek, who actively endorse conservative moral values while promoting the free market and freedom. Are these people conservative liberals or liberal conservatives? Does it really matter as long as they endorse the free market and freedom? Hayek himself disdained both labels, conservative and liberal, and called himself an "Old Whig." See "Hayek and Conservatism" by David Dieteman.

Democrats (liberals) vs. Republicans (conservatives)

So how do the Democrats, the supposedly liberal party, compare to the Republican Party, the supposedly conservative party? Let's compare the presidential candidates, Kerry and Bush, who are the main representatives of their parties. This way, we can compare Kerry versus Bush, Democrat versus Republican, at the same time.

Both are pro war, pro big business, pro Israel .

Both think your life, and property, belong to them.

Both think the interests of a foreign nation override American interests.

Both are war criminals and have actively engaged in and endorsed crimes against humanity.

Both are willing to sacrifice American blood to further the interest of corporate America and a foreign nation.

Both believe in murder, genocide, rape, torture, destruction of private property, looting, and the police state.

Both are traitors, enemies of the free market, bane of freedom lovers, enslavers of humanity.

Both are liars, deceivers, charlatans, and con artists.

Both are servants of Leviathan, ready to squash anyone who stands in its way.

Let's be perfectly clear. There is only one major difference between Bush (Republicans) / Kerry (Democrats): Bush prefers to do all the murdering, destruction, and looting by himself, only looking for international support when his crimes fail; Kerry prefers to internationalize his crimes by getting others to join in the murdering, destruction, and looting from the start, but will not make that a requirement that would prevent any bloodletting rampage he desires.

Note that Kerry's policy is actually a return to the traditional warmongering policy of the first Bush and Clinton regimes. Kerry's is the actual "conservative" position. GWB's policy of unilateral preemption, or more properly naked war of aggression, is actually a departure from the traditional way, and is the "liberal" position. See how confusing trying to use the label conservative/liberal really is?

Liberal/Conservative and Democracy

Leviathan is a two headed monster, one head being Democratic (neo-liberal), and the other being Republican (neo-conservative). While one can change which party controls the state, whether a nominal liberal or conservative leads it, one cannot change the policies of the state. Voting is an exercise in futility; there is no "lesser evil," only a different brand of evil (neo-liberal or neo-conservative). The complete failure of democracy and voting has brought us to this sad state of affairs. Alexander Fraser Tytler had this to say about democracy in 1776 when America was just starting out: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." Tytler describes the life cycle of civilization as from Bondage to Spiritual Faith to Great Courage to Liberty to Abundance to Selfishness to Complacency to Apathy to Dependency and back into Bondage. (1776 - from The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic)

The solution to ending this madness is for people to realize that the state is an obsolete, unnecessary evil. We do not need better people, or a different party, a liberal or conservative, at the head of Leviathan; we need the rampaging beast defeated before it destroys us all. The free market, and free choice, is the answer. Only then will we have the freedom that all people desire.

Conclusion

Liberal/conservative are meaningless expressions. The neo-liberals and neo-conservatives who dominate both the Democratic and Republican parties endorse the exact same policies. If someone tries to tell you that they are a liberal or conservative, or that someone else is, you should evaluate where they stand on the free market and freedom versus the state and state interventionism. That will determine if they are a friend or enemy of the free market and freedom.

Any chance that you guys can talk about modern issues and not what happened 30 years ago? I have some issues about what President Bush and Sen. Kerry may or may not have done, along with the way they conducted themselves during the Vietnam era.

On to a recent issue. The assault weapons ban ended yesterday. Sen. Kerry came out and said that President Bush let the ban expire. In short "It's all Bush's fault"

However as a member of congress, Sen. Kerry could have put forward a bill extending the ban. Why did he not do so?

Does he not also share some of the blame?

Kerry could have written a bill to extend the ban and introduced it, but not brought it forth for either debate or a vote. The party that controls a majority of the house and senate decides which bills get called for debate and to vote on. Since Republicans control both houses, it never would have been brought up for debate, much less a vote since they are already in the pocket of the gun lobby.

However, if the President called for such legislation, the congressional Republican leadership would have been compelled to act. But Bush has no interest in renewing the gun ban even though he said he supported it in 2000. Sounds like flip flop to me...



(Message edited by xenono on September 14, 2004)

(Message edited by xenono on September 14, 2004)

>>>However as a member of congress, Sen. Kerry could have put forward a bill extending the [assault weapon] ban. Why did he not do so?<<<

Getting a little desparate for anti-Kerry material?

No...I think that it is a good question. Xenono brings up a good point.

Just think how much ammo this could have given Sen. Kerry had he wrote such legislation, he could have stood up on a podium and held in his hand a piece of paper, and saying "Look at what I tried to do but Bush and the Republicans shot me down"

maybe that tells us something, its more important not to offend potential voters who are pro gun than to take a stand on something.

I'll agree with Roadglide on this rare occasion politically and say it's ridiculous to be focusing on this. Kudos to him for not following the playbook.

But to answer anyways, I don't agree with CBS running the story without properly checking the documents. But it comes as no surprise after most of the media irresponsibly focused so much on the Swift Boat charges without checking on those first either, many of which were conflicting and have been discredited. Of course Beachman ignores the scrutiny through which the New York Times, Washington Post, and the LA times have also given CBS. If not already forgotten, it will be by the next time one of these "liberal biased" publications runs a story that doesn't follow the Bush/Fox propaganda model.

And regardless of whether the memos are valid or not, there is absolutely no question that we are comparing a) a man who was engaged in combat and injured in the Vietnam War verses b) a man who got into the National Guard unusually easily at a late date despite a long waiting list, and has an unusual gap in his service record for which no documents and no person can prove that he fulfilled his service obligations.

But again, it's a perfect distraction for the GOP to talk about how memos might be fake than to talk about something such as how the Bush Administration tried to hide the Medicare Trustees Report from Congress and the public this year.

New data from the Department of Health and Human Services reveals today that the Bush administration has again withheld key information about the new Medicare bill. The new information shows that seniors will spend 37 percent of their Social Security check on Medicare expenses when the new drug benefit starts in 2006 and that this percentage will increase to nearly 50 percent by 2021...Since 2001, the Bush Administration has put out a Medicare Trustees report that includes how much of an individual's social security check will go to Medicare, but the 2004 report withheld the information this year. This is at least the second time that the Bush administration has withheld key information from Congress about the true cost of the Medicare drug bill -- The GAO has concluded that Bush officials lied to Congress about the effect of the new bill on Social Security...The General Accounting Office found that the Bush administration and Thomas Scully broke the law in covering up the true cost of the Medicare bill... - http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=36193

And it's a perfect distraction for the GOP to talk about how memos might be fake than to talk about something such as how today had the highest Iraqi death count since July with a police station car bombing that killed at least 47 and injured 114, raising serious doubts about whether the elections can take place as planned or if they'll be viewed as legitimate if they do
- Scores die in Iraq in wave of attacks

The distractions work, though, although 56% believe the US is on the wrong track, Bush holds the lead.

Larrydavid, while the article contains what I believe are some valid observations, most notably that liberal and conservative are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms and have limited usefulness as descriptors; most of the definitions, comparisons, and conclusions are crap, IMHO. That is such an odd article, combining both a detailed and thoughtful theory with oversimplified, overgeneralized, and inaccurate analysis.

The NRA holds sway over the very worst of the mindless sheep and for that reason both sides of Congress tend to run away from gun control legislation because it's near political suicide. No matter how reasonable or popularly supported the legistlation might be, such as the Assault Rifle ban which is supported by a majority of the population and most police officers, the NRA has the sheep convinced that all GC legislation is a precursor to federal agents knocking down your doors to take away your guns. I believe I've read, but have no stats at the moment, that gun rights supporters are the largest block of single issue voters.

LD, if I had to choose between Kerry taking a stand on gun control or him having a reasonable chance at fixing Bush's assault on our economy, health insurance, jobs, and national security(because we believe his policies have aided terrorist recruiting efforts), I'd much rather have Kerry choose the latter.

Beachman sez:

"The experts CBS hired are saying that CBS ignored their finding that the documents were not authenic. And CBS still went ahead with the story trying to pass the documents as fact.

This is not Sean Hannity saying the documents are forged....it is the very "experts CBS hired to look at the documents before the 60 Minutes program aired. This is exactly what you liberals do.....you screw up and then you try to spin it off as the conservatives make these things up. Example.....Larrydavid..."Just because sean hannity says they are forgeries 1 million times does not make it so" Jus read the Washington Post today if you don't believe they are forgeries! "

I am definitely not voting for Dan Rather for President this year!

Who is CBS protecting....Dan Rather or someone with the Kerry campaign? This is amazing CBS is stonewalling the truth to this story. Even the liberal New York Times ratted out it's own reporter Blair when he wrote his lies that the Times printed. This cover-up is going to become huge.....and there can be no good from this story that is going to help Kerry!

I would suspect that Dan Rather is busy protecting his job at the moment.

Question for the Bush experts, given that 60% of the population of Iraq are Shiites, is Bush willing to allow democratic elections in Iraq that would give the Shiites power?

Explorer-

White people are the majority of the population in the United States.....do whitwe peolpe have all the power in the United States.

Question for you....

All of a sudden Health Care is a big deal for Kerry. In his 19 years in the Senate the is no record he has ever introduce a bill for health care. What more ....in 1992 Clinton made Health Care a major issue and in 8 years as President he did nothing major to change. Do you really think Kerry will be able to change anything major with health care if he is elected?

It is just the Democrats blowing smoke again. Trust me.....a great majority of people without Health Care have other priorities besides health care they are spending their money on. And if people would start taking responsibility for their own health we would put a big dent in Health Care cost.

Beachie sez:

"White people are the majority of the population in the United States.....do whitwe peolpe have all the power in the United States. "

I dunno, how many non-white Presidents have we had lately? Are you suggesting that Iraq will e in for a series of Shiite presidents under democratic elections?

Explorer...

If you read the Constitution.....the President does not yeild all the power....we have a Congress and a Supreme Court......and the group that may hold the most power in the United States are Federal Judges who are not elected..... but are appointed for life and basicaly have free reign in legislating from the bench with very little accountability.

CBS....Confused Broadcasting Station

Amazing.....CBS is still sticking to their story that the documents are authenic. And you liberals say the main stream media is not liberal.

yes beachman white people do wield all the power in america

Beachman, I suspect you go through life thinking that poor Blacks have all the power in America, and right after them are the women.

As for CBS, I can't speak for them, but it looks like someone outside their organization conned them.

so should i watch foxnews for credibility?

Yeah.... someone outside CBS conned them....how about the Democratic National Committe or a Kerry aide! Last week Terry MCculiffe the head of the Democratic Committe and Senator Tom Harkin (D) Iowa seem to be very familar with this story.

If these were reverse and if FOXNEWS would have pulled this stunt with forged documents about Kerry....you would see the Democratics demanding
not only the the newscaster resign....but that Congress should and FOX shouold lose their license.

Exployer.....

If it is proven that the Democratic National Party or a Kerry aide is the source of these forged documents what should happen?

Yeah.... someone outside CBS conned them....how about the Democratic National Committe or a Kerry aide! Last week Terry MCculiffe the head of the Democratic Committe and Senator Tom Harkin (D) Iowa seem to be very familar with this story.

If these were reverse and if FOXNEWS would have pulled this stunt with forged documents about Kerry....you would see the Democratics demanding
not only the the newscaster resign....but that Congress should hold hearings and FOX shouold lose their license.

Exployer.....

If it is proven that the Democratic National Party or a Kerry aide is the source of these forged documents what should happen?

Looks like Bush has been knowingly still a-foolin' the people with his rosy outlook on Iraq.

The National Intelligence Council presented President Bush this summer [July] with several pessimistic scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq, including the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005...In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined that — at best — stability in Iraq would be tenuous, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity...At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war...the document draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there... The estimate appears to differ from the public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq.
Intel Officials Have Bleak View for Iraq

but that comes as no surprise, even Congressional Republicans know when they speak honestly about it

"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration — what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd,' that we just simply will be greeted with open arms...The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent...This is an extraordinary, ineffective administrative procedure. It is exasperating from anybody looking at this from any vantage point."
(and on Bush's insistence of there being an "alliance")
"[there should be no] grand illusions, kidding ourselves about who's carrying the burden here, big time — big time. It's the United States."
(and on Bush's progress in Iraq)
"It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous...[the shift in funds] does not add up in my opinion to a pretty picture, to a picture that shows that we're winning. But it does add up to this: an acknowledgment that we are in deep trouble."
- Chuck Hagel, Foreign Relations Committee, Republican-Nebraska
Senators Denounce U.S. on Iraq Rebuilding

Oh wait, stop the presses! Beachman wants to talk about the distraction from real issues. Marion Knox has come out now to say she didn't type the CBS memos (although Beachman-like Republicans will conveniently ignore she also states the information is correct and that she typed documents for Killian with similar complaints.)
CBS revisits Bush's Guard memos

Beachman said "Trust me.....a great majority of people without Health Care have other priorities besides health care they are spending their money on. And if people would start taking responsibility for their own health we would put a big dent in Health Care cost."

Ridiculous...forget the premium hikes and that the US has one of the worst records among industrialized nations in covering it's citizens, Beachman would have us believe his flimsy, unsupported theory that people don't have health care because they are spending on luxuries. (yeah, like FOOD, TRANSPORTATION, and RENT)

Beachman says:

"If it is proven that the Democratic National Party or a Kerry aide is the source of these forged documents what should happen?""

Oh, I dunno, there should be a criminal investigation.

So, what do you think about the mess in Iraq? How will Bush turn this around?

How many middle class people do you know that don't have health care.....but have 2 or 3 cell phones per family.....instead of basic cable, cable with all the premium channels with monthly bills $50-$100 a month.....daily starbucks coffe at $4 a shot the outrageuos amont of money the average family spends monthly on junk food and eating out.....etc, etc. etc. The average middle clas family has 2 or 3 car payments on cars on more expensive cars than they need and they pay much more a month on those cars. I am not talking about the people living in poverty I am talking about the middle class.

Neither party has the balls to address the real problem with health care.....that American's would rather all the luxuries that hollywood has convince society that are neccesities instead of doing with less of the luxuries and prioritizing how they spend their money.

Oh yeah....most of Europe has unemployment over 10% and their social programs are in much more jeoparty than our Social Security.

Question.....how many Hombres here don't have Health Insurance?

Beachie sez:

"Neither party has the balls to address the real problem with health care.....that American's would rather all the luxuries that hollywood has convince society that are neccesities instead of doing with less of the luxuries and prioritizing how they spend their money. "

Oh, I see, its the fault of the people, not Bush, that 45 million don't have health care. Have you considered that due to inaction by Bush, health care is becoming unavailable because many employers don't offer it, and unaffordable to private individuals?

The idea that the DNC would have created what, at least according to Beachman and others, are obvious forgeries is preposterous. The downsides to doing so (particularly if the forgeries are obvious) greatly outweigh any plus. Indeed, it would be much more in the interest of the Republicans to circulate obvious forgeries with the hope the public would believe they came from the Democrats. Sort of like when the Republicans paid "protesters" to create disturbances at Nixon and Agnew rallies, hoping (correctly as it turned out) that at least in the short run the Democrats would be blamed for the unruly behavior. Having said this I'm not suggesting the Republicans circulated the alleged forgeries, I am only saying it is more likely they did than the DNC, particularly given the issue of forgeries came up almost immediately after they were circulated. Probably the most likely candidate though, accepting for the sake of argument the premise that these are forgeries, is some renegade who wants Kerry to win stupidly produced these without any organizational support from anyone.

(Message edited by LAguy on September 16, 2004)

I think healthcare should be a not for profit industry

So, it turns out that Dick Cheney was going around the world criticizing US foreign policy back when he was running Halliburton; his main point was that santions against Iran were a bad thing:

<http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=viewweb&articleid=8498>

Oh, by the way, Halliburton was illegally running an operation in Iran at the time that was making $30 million a year, while our Vice President was in charge.

Beachman, any comments? Or, are you a fan of the Iranians like you support the Saudis?

Well, I finally met a live Bush supporter -- from Texas, of all places, but she wasn't packin' a gun so I figured it was OK to talk to her. I asked her what was up with Bush. She was rather defensive (imagine that!), but I explained that I just didn't get it and was wondering what she saw in Bush. She said she wasn't impressed with him until after Setp 11, then he just really sprang into action. She was very eager to change the topic, but I pressed as much as was social acceptable. Anyway, she thinks he's doing a really good job going after terrorists. When I asked about Iraq, she asked me if I didn't think he was a bad guy -- killing his own people and all. When I mentioned that he was doing that killing with our blessing with the weapons we provided, she wistfully said that sometimes we just can't be proud of our allies and it was too bad. Huh? I didn't have the chance to press the issue, so I let it go.

So, I get the impression that Bush supporters simply don't think it through. Furthermore, they're not open to alternate suggestions. I really wanted to question her on the Kyoto Accord and the astronomical deficit, but never had the chance. I suspect she'd have brushed them off as not that important in light of our current "situation" (not recognizing that we're creating a much worse situation for our future).

<sigh>

Come on Exployer.... your source.....The American Prospect......hoe liberal can you get. Btw ....aren't they a subsidary of CBS?

I am no fan of the Saudis...

American policy with the Saudis has been the same...... way before either Bush or his father was in office......it goes back to Carter or before.

Again....Clinton had 8 years to change policy with the way we do business with the Saudis and changed nothing!

Beachie:

Do you dispute that Cheney made the speech, or are you simply trying to change the subject?

Wombat88: That's what you get for chasing ho's in Texas.

Beachie says:

"American policy with the Saudis has been the same...... way before either Bush or his father was in office......it goes back to Carter or before. "

I dunno, was Clinton's business bailed out multiple times by Saudi money before he was elected President? Did he serve in the National Guard with a guy who is a Saudi paymaster?

Heads up!

"STATEMENT FROM REP JOHN P. MURTHA [D-PA]:
I have learned through conversations with officials at the Pentagon that at the beginning of November, 2004, the Bush Administration plans to call up large numbers of the military guard and reserves, to include plans that they previously put off to call up the Individual Ready Reserve.

I have said publicly and privately that our forces are inadequate to support our current worldwide tempo of operations. On November 21, 2003, a bipartisan group of 135 members of the House of Representatives wrote to the President urging an increase in the active duty army troop levels and expressed concern that our Armed Forces are over-extended and that we are relying too heavily on the Guard and Reserve.

We didn't get a reply until February 2004, and now as the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, it seems that the Administration will resort to calling up additional guard and reservists, again with inadequate notice. "

Dude; You are starting to sound like chicken little "The sky is falling, the sky is falling"

The sky IS falling.

I am very concerned about the really bad news that will hit us right after the election:

Iraq: the real number of troops we will need there.

The budget deficit: draconian cuts in Federal spending

The economy: increased interest rates, the housing market takes a hit, suddenly no one has any cash.

I was listening to a rather smart anti-Bush on TV a couple of days ago. When faced with the prospect that Bush might actually win, he admitted that in a way he hoped that Bush would win. He explained that it would be the first time in his life that Bush would be responsible for cleaning up the mess he'd made.

Unfortunately though, I suspect it would take more than four years to undo the damage ... four decades more likely.

I have a friend that is extremely involved in the Kerry for President effort. He has recently disengaged out of pure frustration. And to be honest, I am very frustrated also.

The reason is that Kerry has gotten as far as he has by being anti Bush but he needs to start being pro Kerry. He needs to stop criticizing Bush and start promising what he will do if elected. But he has not.

The reason is that no one in his organization can agree on what needs to be done. The in fighting is horrible. This makes Kerry look weak and indecisive, and frankly I have to agree with that. If the guy cant run his campaign, then how well can he run the government? Bush's team is far more united and cohesive even though they are a lot weaker on the issues.

I am still voting for Kerry but Kerry's inability to lead his own organization may be his own undoing.

KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) warned on Saturday that deadly guerrilla violence in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) could worsen in the coming weeks as the two countries move toward national elections.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=4&u=/nm/20040918/pl_nm/security_bush_dc

The excuse presidency. Why doesn't he just admit things are spinning out of control and he doesn't have a clue how to fix it? Instead, he blames this all on the elections as though the minute the elections are over, everything will be just fine.

Here's my rather controversial take on the US stealing Iraq's oil?

The US government has taken control of Iraq's oil supply, and issued contracts with US oil companies for them to exploit that oil. Any monies accruing from oil sales go directly to US government bank accounts and are used to pay US contractors to rebuild Iraq.

In my opinion, this is simply theft, the use of force to change ownership.

This is the same as some mugger in TJ stealing your money, and then deciding how your money is spent.