Jump to content
🛡️FORUMS ARE IN READ-ONLY MODE Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
ralphwiggum

Us presidential election 2004

Recommended Posts

Quote[/b] ]No offence, but this must be the most stupid thing I've seen posted here for months. It could not be more inaccurate.

Then give me the truth. Or did I just step on national pride?

Europeans are well aware of what is going on in Europe. Europeans travel far more than outside their countries than Americans do. The trans-european immigration/emigration is huge. People immigrate to and emigrate from Europe at a higher rate. Europe is known for its engagement in international projects and organizations. It's basically the exactly opposite of what you said.

Come on, you're Swedish, you should know better. What perecentage of the Swedes go on vacations all around the world every year? What percentage of Americans do the same?

And it reflects very well in the overall knowledge about the world of the nations (national geographic survey, take a look).

I don't know what else to say. Your statements on the issue make as much sense as saying "It's very hot at the north pole".

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]No, need, I served with KFOR in Kosovo, 2001.

And it didn't that make you question the fundamental values of being a human? How can you take your freedoms for granted?

On the contrary it reaffirmed my belief of the importance of having a state that respects those fundamental values.

Quote[/b] ]

UN created a set of laws called the human rights, they are based upon the philosophy of humanism, related and similar to individualism. Sweden did however not fully adapt these rules since they might conflict with reform socialism. Many important lines were cut out before entering the swedish laws.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Sweden has signed and ratified both the UN Human Rights Convention as well as the European Convention (http://www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se/).

One funny sidenote there - you're saying that governments should not decide what human rights/liberties are, but you think that the UN should? rock.gif How does that fit with your general description of individual liberty being something fundamental that it should not be regulated by the collective?

Quote[/b] ]Therefore it's legal to discriminate me because I was born a man: I can get rejected from jobs, education or social services just because of my sex. This is a result of the collective feminism movement of the governing parties, demanding my sacrifice for a greater cause.

It's called 'affirmative action' in your beloved USA. Personally I'm against it both in Sweden and in the US. I understand why people think that it's a good idea, but personally I think it is counter-productive.

Quote[/b] ]

In Canada I have the lawful right to sue the shit out of them if they try something like that. In Sweden I have no rights and I'm limited by the awareness and will of the majority. Still the canadian laws are lacking, in my opinion.

You can sue the shit out of them in Sweden as well. There have been well publicized cases of University admittance and as a result some laws were seriously rewritten. Direct quotas are now not allowed.

Quote[/b] ]How bad do you think USA could get with people like Bush or worse if there wasn't a constitution protecting people? Bush is probably not too happy about the constitution.

Constitution? Sweden has a constitution. Hell, even Iraq had a constitution. A perfect example of how much the constitution means are the Guatanamo bay prisoners. And there is a very nasty thing in the US and that is that supreme court justices have political affiliations. It's probably the only western country that in the best banana-republic style lacks separation between the legislative and judicial branches. Not to mention that in case of the lovely 'military tribunals', the executive branch is involved as well.

Those are much more fundamental concerns for a society than how much taxes you pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Canada I have the lawful right to sue the shit out of them if they try something like that. In Sweden I have no rights and I'm limited by the awareness and will of the majority.

Many people go to court over losing their jobs in Sweden too, I still fail to see how Americans/Canadians are more free than Swedish people. I think we have more freedom here to be honest, you don't need money to get the care you want or need for yourself or your loved ones. You don't need to make your own money/live off your parents when you continue studying after highschool.

EDIT: Oh yeah, what is a liberty? I have the liberty to antyhing the law allows me to do. There are no liberties beyond that, is the situation different in other places?

That is a very good point that I tried to make a while ago. A potential virtual freedom that you can't use is worthless. In Sweden the state gives everybody a fair chance of using their freedoms. In the US on the other hand where you have big social gaps, the bottom layer never get the chance.

You have a right to freedom of expression, sure. How much will that help you if you can't get a basic education and made aware of the bigger picture? You have the right to get elected for office, but what chance is there if you have no money, no education and no knowledge.

I'm an engineer. I come from a family of academics, engineers and teachers. For me getting a university degree was never a question.

What if my parents had been truck-drivers? Would I be an engineer now? And what quality of education would I have. In Sweden possibly. If I had an interest then it would have not been a problem. And I could have studied where I studied now - at the Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden's top technical university. So how about the US? First of all, it would have been much more unlikely that I went to a university alltogether. If I had a great interest in it, then sure, perhaps I could get a place at Kansas State or some other not very well respected college. MIT? Fat chance. My truck-driver parents would never afford sending me there and I'd only get a scholarship if I were a bloody genius.

Give people an fairly equal start in life and I'll agree with you on the individualism. Without it, individualism will only be oppression of the weak by the strong. And according to today's morals that's not very kosher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denoir, nice debating with you. Taking on a debate is not about converting the opponent or get the last word, it's about making an impression and I hope I did on at least some readers. I feel generous and I'm gonna let you have the last word in this liberal/individualism debate. biggrin_o.gif

My point is that individualism/liberalism, as one of several philosophies like humanism and even marxism, though I disagree with it, are built on logic and morale values. They are not dishes composed after will relative from time and place. You find logic and moral values in the UN human rights too.

I'm for public education, tax paid healthcare, everything you say makes a society great. I agree on a lot of bad things about the USA, it's socialism, nationalism, protectionism, conservatism forcing values on people or its lack of respect for foreign individuals. If you want to I can defend your standpoints (not all of it but most of it).

I do argue against the foundation, or lack of foundation in your standpoint. My point is that you don't know why you believe what you do, your view is very subjective. You dismiss the liberal philosophy as the vital component in your socialliberalism. Instead you take these values for granted.

That is what a well written constitution is supposed to protect, the values you take for granted. I doubt Iraq had any well written individual freedoms or even a neutral justice system to execute them.

And yes, Europeans are isolated in their nations. You are living in Europe, yet you do not relate to people in other European countries. You claim you have been living in a region that had peace for 200 years. The occupation of the brother land Norway doesn't count, nor did the death camps in Yugoslavia during the 90's. You talk about Sweden, not Europe. Do you feel true solidarity to the people of Europe or are you a swede seeing EU as a tool to compare to america in national or continent pride?

Have a nice remaining weekend!

Certa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]My point is that individualism/liberalism, as one of several philosophies like humanism and even marxism, though I disagree with it, are built on logic and morale values. They are not dishes composed after will relative from time and place. You find logic and moral values in the UN human rights too.

The basic principle of liberalism, marxism (a reaction to liberalsm) and the UN human rights (a derivative of liberalism in itself) are equality . The way to get there differs between liberalism and marxism, but the goal is the same. What differs has to do with "the exclusive negativ- " or the "exclusive positive consept of freedom. Said in other words it has to do with the individual restraining the collective or the collective restraining the individual.

Quote[/b] ]My point is that you don't know why you believe what you do, your view is very subjective.

Denoir can fend for himself.........however being a God damn commie bastard I'm therefore obliged to join my pinko comrades  tounge_o.gif

The knife cuts both ways I'm afraid. I'll explain for you:

You are so concerned about "individuality" as an "ideology" . Yet that doesn't exist, have never been formulated as an ideology and probably never will. You may believe that you know why you believe what you do - yet you obviously don't.

And, like the rest of us you are nothing but a subject and thus your viewpoints can never be anything but subjective.

1. First of all you show a compelling lack of knowledge about two critical elements of "liberalism" . Liberalism's basic principle is "equality" . There are two spheres important for liberalistic thinking, the political and the market sphere. In order to have equality in a society liberalism must work on plurality in both spheres. That means a citizen acting like a supreme consumer both in the political arena and in the market. Several providers will try to market their goods or their political conserns and the citizenconsumer will have the power to make his rational choices. Pluralism will ensure that when one or more of the providers grow too strong he or they will not be favoured by the consumer. Pluralism thus ensures balance in the market and in the political sphere.

2. There are flaws in liberalism though - and the most critical one is that various factors deny the consumer the ability to make the right choices. First and foremost his own "rationality" let's him down. The "economic man perspective" is a false pretention because humans are known to be not so rational after all. The consumer lacks full overview of all alternatives, he lack's information, he lacks the ability to make right priorities, he lack's time, he lack's resources, and finally he lacks intellectual abilities. This is even more so because ability and knowledge is unevenly distributed among a societies various consumers. Prices are controlled by cartells, you have some large corporations controlling markets, and access to the political market and knowledge in general are also distributed unevenly.

3. We also live in a post-industrial era which implies that we not always control our own production because we sell our working time, we do not own the means of production (land) unlike when the constitution of america was written. And freedom of the individual has negative effects because those who start off with more in life will gain more, unlike those who have little will effectively be restrained from doing so.

Quote[/b] ]That is what a well written constitution is supposed to protect, the values you take for granted. I doubt Iraq had any well written individual freedoms or even a neutral justice system to execute them.

You may believe what you want, but the fact is that there is no "truth" in written words. Nothing in this world is universal, and nothing is static. You obviously forget that even the constitution is under constant interpretation.

I consider myself to be a follower of liberalistic principles. However, we do not live in a perfect world, thus one has to find a delicate balance between the few and the many. I happen to like good compromises, which probably is one of the reasons for explaining relative wealth and stability in scandinavian societies. Take for instance the right to own land. It gives you priviliges but also obligations. You have the right to harvest from it's resources like hunting, fishing, foresting etc. However, you have to allow others to walk across your land (unless it's a kind of garden, farming area or something like that) they can camp but not make fire, they cannot harvest berries etc.

I like that kind of arrangements. I'm not a person longing for a situation where I guard my property with a gun in my hand!

To me that's the worst kind of refusal of personal freedom. It only ensures the richest in our society to buy land you cannot afford and you can never walk freely again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Denoir, nice debating with you. Taking on a debate is not about converting the opponent or get the last word, it's about making an impression and I hope I did on at least some readers. I feel generous and I'm gonna let you have the last word in this liberal/individualism debate.  biggrin_o.gif

biggrin_o.gif Give this man a medal! Seriously, these are some very lovely debating tricks. By this wonderful little segment he forces me either to:

1) Let his last post go unchallenged

2) Appear to be petty and wanting the last word for ego-reasons.

Really nice Certa, it really is, but I won't go down that road as the pattern has repeated itself once again. I make a number of arguments and you either completely ignore them and post something completely unrelated or you take an unconnected subset of the arguments and attack them. I hope that you won't stop this debate as it would be nice if we could actually agree on something, even if it is that we disagree.

Quote[/b] ]I do argue against the foundation, or lack of foundation in your standpoint. My point is that you don't know why you believe what you do, your view is very subjective. You dismiss the liberal philosophy as the vital component in your socialliberalism. Instead you take these values for granted.

First of all, this is completely irrelevant. I do not have to have an ideological foundation to stand on to support a model. Second, there is no such thing as an objective view when it comes to social theory. These 'freedoms' are completely arbitrary, it's a set of conventions that most of us agree on. They have changed over time and they will change again. And third, I take a lot of things for granted. I take water in the pipes for granted, I take electricity for granted, I take for granted that I will not be hit by a meteorite in the next 10 seconds etc In the same way as I expect to have running water, I expect to have freedom of speech. I do not house paranoid feelings towards my government. I do not think they are out to get me and I think we have a fairly good democratic system in place to protect the country from individuals that might think otherwise. And forth, my motivation for my beliefs have very little bearing on the discussion which is of how a desirable social structure looks like today and how it should look tomorrow.

Quote[/b] ]That is what a well written constitution is supposed to protect, the values you take for granted. I doubt Iraq had any well written individual freedoms or even a neutral justice system to execute them.

Your point being? USA has a well written constitution, as does Sweden and all the other western democracies. I take the values for granted because we have a good constitution and a government that respects it.

Quote[/b] ]

And yes, Europeans are isolated in their nations. You are living in Europe, yet you do not relate to people in other European countries. You claim you have been living in a region that had peace for 200 years. The occupation of the brother land Norway doesn't count, nor did the death camps in Yugoslavia during the 90's. You talk about Sweden, not Europe. Do you feel true solidarity to the people of Europe or are you a swede seeing EU as a tool to compare to america in national or continent pride?

Really, I'm only talking about Sweden? It's funny how you missed the segment that talked specifically about Europe. I use Sweden in examples first of all since it provides a good counter-example to the US and second because you're Swedish (although you seem to be unhappy about that). The "200 years of peace" was an answer to why I take my freedom for granted, not about how I feel about the people of Europe. I seriously doubt that there is any set of nations in any region in the world that has a closer relationship than Europeans. We have been killing each other off for thousands of years. We know each other better than we know ourselves. While I do think that a strong EU would be a good counter-weight to America, that is not the point of the EU. The point is to unite our countries on the basis of a common culture and a set of common beliefs. Social liberalism is in its core. I stronlgy believe that a united Europe is greater than the sum of its parts.

So, you don't like Sweden or Europe for some reason that you really havn't expressed in clear terms. That's your prerogative and fortunately both the Swedish and Canadian systems are liberal enough to let you choose where to live. You have however failed to in both qualitative and quantitative terms describe what exactly it is that you like/dislike. Apart form some very skewed, vague, odd and ultimately incorrect perceptions of Europeans and how they feel about each other, you have really not produced anything remotely consistent to support your argument. Actually, to be fair, I still havn't got the faintest idea of what your argument is and what position you advocate. It seems to be something vague about individualism and its relative meaning in Europe and America. However, when I explicitly ask you to point out a difference, you bring up affermitive actions that are actually common for both systems.

Anyway, that's not to say that I havn't enjoyed this debate. I'm always fond of hearing an alternative point of view, no matter how inconsistent it is or how far away from my own views it is. It's always good to know what kind of different opinions people in the world have, regardless if they are Bush fanatics, leftie liberals or exiled Swedes  wink_o.gif

Trevlig helg pĺ dig ocksĺ smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush will win.   smile_o.gif

He has plenty of supporters.

Well, the polls suggest Kerry has the upper hand at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush will win.   smile_o.gif

He has plenty of supporters.

Hi IceFire

So US voter will vote for somone like George Bush Jnr. who will increase your Tax by 70%?

That is the cost of your defecit if you were to pay it back over 20 years. Bush has used the most expensive form of tax: loans with interest. To then put off the repayments with more loans to cover him till after the election is just plain stupid.

Only somone as thick as two short planks thinks they dont have to pay more when they take out a loan; and a loan to cover a loan is just moronic.

The expected 70% increase in tax does not include the bill for the misguided Iraq War. Why people put up with Tax and Spend Republicanism is beyond me.

It is worth noteing the Republicans have had control of Senate, Congress and Presidency during the time when the US went from a healthy budget surplus to the worst Defecit on record bar non. It is also worth noteing that only the US is suffering this downturn in its economy; the rest of the world is in a boom. Hence the plumeting value of the US dollar.

If it were not for the Chinese buying US dollars the value would be much lower but this dollar buying by China has US Federal Reserve officials and economists severely rattled. They have been asking the chinese to desist but the chinese just say "Hey its free market." The FED remember what George Sorros did to the UK economy on BLACK WEDNESDAY. Such an ownership of US dollars gives the Chinese a big lever in what will happen in the US economy.

And the US economy continues to stagnate with US Jobless rate running at 5.6% the cost to the US tax payer is a real burden not helped by the fact that

Quote[/b] ] All of the gain last month came from government hiring.
to try and offset the massive plunge in US unmemployment.
Quote[/b] ]"Overall, the labor recovery story is just not happening," said Ian Morris, chief U.S. economist for HSBC Bank PLC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34971-2004Mar5.html

And the way the Republicans have mishandled the economy has had massive efects on US Defence. The increased defence spend cannot be paid for witness the rash of key programs that have been canceled. Many of the new spending plans will never reach fruition as the defecit means the US wont be able to pay its Bills This leads to the worst kind of waste as the US orders a program then has to pay massive cancelation charges for prgrams it cannot aford but hey TBA's cronies in the psuedo defence industry will be happy because any they are beneficiaries of any cancelation charges.

Quote[/b] ]A sharp jump in military spending under President Bush has lifted defense budgets to levels not seen since the height of the Reagan buildup of the early 1980s, prompting warnings by lawmakers and defense analysts that the surge may no longer be sustainable in a time of deepening deficits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38812-2004Mar7.html

Someone needs to remind George Bush Jnr.

ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vote John Kerry! Not that loser Bush.

How likes him anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article on jobs creation:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4457535/

Maybe a bright spot for Bush:

Quote[/b] ]

While the national numbers get the headlines, it requires a look at the electoral map to estimate whether the jobs data gives Kerry real opportunities to exploit.

Nov. 2 is above all a battle for individual states and their electoral votes. And what’s striking about the state unemployment data is that the states with the highest unemployment are states that Democrat Al Gore carried in 2000, in other words, places where Kerry will likely win.

In the lower 48, the states with the highest unemployment are Michigan and Oregon, each with 7.2 percent unemployment in December, the latest month for which data is available, and Washington state, at 6.8 percent.

If the contest in November is as close as it now seems to be, the targets for Democrats will need to include states that Bush carried in 2000, where the jobs picture is at least a bit better, such as Arizona, Missouri, and Nevada.

Bush will still have to carry Ohio and Florida, IMO, to have a chance. Ohio has had a large job loss, mainly in manufacturing. Most of those workers are in unions who vote Democratic already, but there are some who vote Republican. Florida is a wildcard. Whichever side is the most energized has the best chance. I'm guessing the Dem's will be, but it's really hard to say this far out from the election.

Still too far away to even guess about who can win, especially with polling data from Nader's entry into the race just starting to seep in. I'm guessing Nader will take about 2-3% of the popular vote. How that will translate into the electoral college, I'm not sure. Bush only lost Oregon by .5% in 2000, and I think that was because Nader took 6% of the vote in Oregon. This year "Green" voters might be more careful, but you never know. Some voters stick to principle rather than voting for who can beat whom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brgnorway- "You may believe what you want, but the fact is that there is no "truth" in written words. Nothing in this world is universal, and nothing is static. You obviously forget that even the constitution is under constant interpretation."

Further to this i would like to add that contrary to Denoirs previous statement the UK is a western democracy that has survived for centuries without a written constitution (well written or otherwise). Of course there is now to be the question of an EU wide constitution/set of rights but that is still open to interpretation by the courts as i understand it.

On the election i hope the Bushites dont win but having said that im not exactly sure yet what having Kerry in the Whitehouse would represent (beyond a very likely improvement from my perspective). Ive heard he has certain protectionist tendancies and at this stage he still seems a little indecisive somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if John Kerry is protectionist, I don't think he could get away with it, not if he wants to be a true multi-nationalist, i.e. "get along" with our European allies. The WTO has ruled against protectionist policies, and tariffs would be too costly to a recovering economy to let them be imposed.

Many US citizens who are in the manufacturing sector think they need "protection" from low-cost labor in China, etc. I just don't think it's possible anymore, however. Not unless you want to isolate the economy and let it stagnate and suffer when Europe, et.al retaliate with tariffs.

So to sum up, regardless of how protectionist he'd like to be, I don't think it's a sustainable policy in the current world environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many US citizens who are in the manufacturing sector think they need "protection" from low-cost labor in China, etc.

Hi KaRRiLLioN

Why do you think the chinese bought US dollars in a falling Dollar market?

Read up what George Sorros did to the UK economy on Black Wednesday.

Then you will know why the US will never be able to tell the Chinese NO! The US will just have to lay there and take it up the khyber.

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walker, many countries buy up US currency when it's weak. It's just good policy, because they know it's value will eventually go up again.

There are also a lot of service positions that have gone to India, like the technical calls for many companies are answered in India, for example. This has been going on for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi KaRRiLLioN

Buying US Dollars at the bottom of the cycle is what you mean.

This is buying dollars in a Falling Market ie in full knowledge it has not reached its market price and will still drop after you buy it. It allows you to take a position on how the market will perform. This is what Sorros did.

You then are able to use it to cause prices to fluctuate as you wish thus taking profits at both rise and fall of a products value. Since you can control when the price rises or falls. The total profits are taken from US citizens and those who invest in US business. George Sorros Became a billionaire doing it.

The FED has not been complaining about it for nothing has it?

The other thing it allows is for the Chinese to effectivly counter any trade demands from the US. They can continue to undercut the US on trade and they will be able to demand most favoured nation status from the US as they will be economicly acendant. The US Trade deficit with China is now running at $120 billion a year.

For the record last time I checked China owns 316 billion US dollars. If they switched that to Euros the effect on the US economy would be more catastophic than the great depresion for the US economy. It would also leave the Chinese and Europe as the Economic Superpowers and allow China to become acendant over Japan in the far east.

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the german folks:

Muss man gelesen haben! Eine Klasse für sich  biggrin_o.gifSpiegel Artikel zu Freepers

For all the ones who dont understand german:

In the US there is an organisation with a long tradition in opposing the democrats in their efforts to win ellections. The idea is to manipulate, disturb, fake and distract. One of their latest attacks was on the german magazine DER SPIEGEL. The idea was to turn around the trend in a poll on GWB. Since the poll up to then showed relatively bad symphathy for Bushs actions the Freepers decideded to direct all their readers to the german poll site and voila, after a day more than 30.000 votes. And the result, well it appeared as if more than 60% of the germans consider Bush to be an excellent president!   biggrin_o.gif

A picture of their site : FreeRepublic.com

0,1020,336540,00.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/08/elect04.prez.poll/index.html

Quote[/b] ]The poll, released Monday, found that among likely voters, Kerry was the choice of 52 percent and Bush 44 percent in a two-way matchup, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

In a three-way race with Independent candidate Ralph Nader, Kerry had 50 percent, Bush 44 percent and Nader 2 percent.

Among registered voters, Kerry's lead over Bush narrowed from 8 percentage points to 5 points in a two-way race and from 6 points to 2 points in a three-way race.

Quote[/b] ]The president's job approval rating in the poll was 49 percent, with 48 percent saying they disapproved of his performance.

That is a slight dip from February, when Bush's approval numbers were in the low 50s. The 50 percent threshold is considered important for an incumbent seeking re-election.

Despite Kerry's lead and Bush's approval numbers, 52 percent of those polled thought Bush will win in November, compared to 42 percent who thought Kerry will prevail.

The president also held leads over Kerry when potential voters were asked who would do a better job handling terrorism, Iraq and world affairs.

Asked which candidate was more likely to change his mind for political reasons, 49 percent said Kerry and only 37 percent said Bush.

But Kerry held leads over Bush when voters were asked who would better handle health care, the budget deficit, Social Security and the economy.

And a bare majority of voters -- 51 percent -- said the economy was more important to their vote than terrorism. Forty-two percent said terrorism.

An equal slice of voters -- 57 percent -- each said they thought Kerry and Bush have the personality and leadership qualities a president should have.

When asked whether each candidate agreed with them on the issues, 48 percent said Bush agreed with them and 46 percent said the same for Kerry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the german folks:

Muss man gelesen haben! Eine Klasse für sich biggrin_o.gifSpiegel Artikel zu Freepers

For all the ones who dont understand german:

In the US there is an organisation with a long tradition in opposing the democrats in their efforts to win ellections. The idea is to manipulate, disturb, fake and distract. One of their latest attacks was on the german magazine DER SPIEGEL. The idea was to turn around the trend in a poll on GWB. Since the poll up to then showed relatively bad symphathy for Bushs actions the Freepers decideded to direct all their readers to the german poll site and voila, after a day more than 30.000 votes. And the result, well it appeared as if more than 60% of the germans consider Bush to be an excellent president! biggrin_o.gif

Yes, read it today on the telepolis forums, someone mentioned the article. Read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091915/posts

Quote[/b] ]

Bush Needs Your Help! Why don't you participate in this little opinion poll by Germany's left-left-wing SPIEGEL ONLINE?

For three years George W. Bush has been the most powerful man in America - and the world. How would you rate his time in office up to this point (in school grades)?

1 = Bush did a great job as President . . . 6 = Bush did a miserable job as President

You need to click "ABSTIMMEN" after selecting a number.

As of 5 March, 2004, 1 pm (Berlin time), Bush's results are rather miserable. Only 3.3 per cent for "1" and 1.47 per cent for "2".

As of 5 March, 2004, 10pm (Berlin time), Bush's results are EXCELLENT. 41.23 per cent for "1" (= Bush did a great job as President). Many thanks!! YOU GUYS ARE DOING JUST GREAT!! The Bush haters at SPIEGEL ONLINE will have a heart attack tomorrow morning... Keep up the good work!!

And many thanks to Ray Drake who alerted me to the SPIEGEL ONLINE poll!

Note: In Germany students are given numbers as grades with 1 being the best and 6 being the worst, they correspond to American grades as follows: 1 = A 2 = B 3 = C 4 = D 5 = E 6 = F

Poor, very poor. Left-left-wing magazine? Der Spiegel? ROFLMAO! How do some Americans define "middle"? Marching in black and brown uniforms? rock.gifcrazy_o.gif

Common sense absent? Btw, the SA did similar things to prevent centre and left-wing parties win elections in the early 30ies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poor, very poor. Left-left-wing magazine? Der Spiegel? ROFLMAO! How do some Americans define "middle"? Marching in black and brown uniforms? rock.gifcrazy_o.gif

Common sense absent? Btw, the SA did similar things to prevent centre and left-wing parties win elections in the early 30ies...

Actually, nazis were not really so right-wing as many people think, but enough with the offtopic. wink_o.gif

I have seen plenty of (somewhat sane) conservatives calling "freepies" idiots and a**holes, its like a treehouse full of 9-year-old-kids who have a "no poo head liburals allowd hre"-sign on the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Powell against debating Iraqi WMD flap in presidential campaign

Quote[/b] ]US Secretary of State Colin Powell made an unexpected foray into the US presidential campaign late Monday, insisting that the issue of whether the Bush administration has misled the nation about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction be excluded from political debate.
Quote[/b] ]A veteran of the Vietnam War, Powell made clear he believed belaboring the issue of unfound Iraqi weapons would have a negative effect on the country.

Aha. So a president taking a country to war, killing tenthousands of people has no problems to use images of 9/11 for his campaign although he promised not to do so but now has a problem when people point on a war started by him and his TBA. A war started on false and faked reasons by the way. A war opposed by the majority of mankind. A war illegal as hell.

How can this MAJOR issue be excluded from election campaign ? I mean is there anything more interesting than that, when it comes to the US people´s future ? The harm done to your country is that big that every US citizen has to face the consequences when he sets his foot abroad.

If there is a thing that has to be part of the campaign it has to be the biggest betrayal done to your citizens in the last 30 years. US citizens die for this, so do thousands of Iraqui people.

It´s unbelieveable that Powell the number 1 promoter of TBA shiznit at the UN still dares to open his mouth.

"Negative effect on the country..." I believe that the TBA is the most negative effect on a country I can think of right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

That outburst by Colin Powell is yet nother sign of an increasingly bolshevic Republican party as it continues to attack the US constitutions freedom of speech.

This continued censorship in the US is threatening US democracy. The latest trick The Bush Administration have in mind is to stop individual US voters from contributing to funds for Adverts against The Bush Administration.

Aparently in the increasingly censored US only rich people are alowed to speak on TV and then only if they speak for The Bush Administration.

With the massive degree of censored minds in in the US mass media (predominantly owned by Rupert Murdoch) The Bush Administration has now decided to use the Justice Department to lock up people who run adverts against The Bush Administration

Quote[/b] ]Reining In Anti-Bush Groups

But Key FEC Member May Oppose Immediate Changes in Rules

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31690-2004Mar4.html

Quote[/b] ]RNC Tells TV Stations Not to Run Anti-Bush Ads

But this was done with a suposedly legal letter about a law that has little prospect of getting in to Law and against adverts that would in any case not be covered by such a law.
Quote[/b] ]GOP committee says MoveOn.org's spots are illegally financed.

 WASHINGTON - The Republican National Committee is warning television stations across the country not to run ads from the MoveOn.org Voter Fund that criticize President Bush, charging that the left-leaning political group is paying for them with money raised in violation of the new campaign-finance law.

 "As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public, and to your licensing agency, to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity," said the RNC's chief counsel, Jill Holtzman Vogel, in a letter sent to about 250 stations Friday.

 "Now that you have been apprised of the law, to prevent further violations of federal law, we urge you to remove these advertisements from your station's broadcast rotation."

 But MoveOn.org's lawyer, Joseph Sandler, said in a statement that the ads were funded legally, calling the RNC's letter "a complete misrepresentation of the law."

 "The federal campaign laws have permitted precisely this use of money for advertising for the past 25 years," he said.

 And MoveOn.org, which was planning to spend $1.9 million on an ad buy that started Thursday, said Friday that it would spend another $1 million.

The accusation that the funds were "Soft Money" has been completely refuted by the voter organisation.

Quote[/b] ]   The RNC charges that because the ads are designed to help defeat President Bush, the group cannot pay for them with unlimited "soft money" contributions but only with contributions raised in amounts less than $5,000.

 Although MoveOn.org is a so-called "Section 527" organization that is legally allowed to raise soft money in unlimited amounts from donors, the new campaign-finance law prohibits the group from using those funds to pay for ads that directly attack Bush, Vogel said.

 And in a bit of political one-upmanship, the letter quotes the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, as saying that the objective of the new law "is to eliminate altogether the capacity of soft money to play the role that it does in our politics."

 But MoveOn.org says it has raised $10 million for advertising from 160,000 donors, in amounts averaging $50-$60. It is running two ads in 67 TV markets in what its Web site describes as 17 "battleground" states.

Like the outburst by Colin Powell it is typical of The Bush Administration to lie and cheat to get its way.

Quote[/b] ]  "It's not surprising that [RNC Chairman] Ed Gillespie continues to make false claims about the legality of our campaign in order to silence us," Wes Boyd, president of the voter fund, said in a statement. "Our lawyers continue to assure us that our advertising, and the small contributions from tens of thousands of our members that pay for it, conform in every way to existing campaign-finance laws."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/030804C.shtml

For The Bush Administration lying and cheating the US citizens has become the norm:

*  wheather it be on Republican Tax and Spend policies based on tax expensive defecit spending

*  on the the issue of the false war on Iraq

*  the utter failure to deal with the increased threat of global terrorism

*  the fixed last US election

*  or this latest censorship of US voters

WAKE UP AMERICA THE ENEMY IS IN YOUR HOUSE!

Worried for a future Police State of America Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

It is interesting to note that it is the Republican Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's 1998 leadership political action committee, Spirit of America, and his Senate reelection campaign committee, that has actualy been fined by the FEC for real ilegality in a US ellection.

Quote[/b] ]The use of the mailing list rental income in the 2000 reelection campaign first got Ashcroft and his committees in trouble with the FEC three years ago. Last December, the two Ashcroft committees agreed to pay a $37,000 fine levied by the FEC, based on at least four violations of federal campaign laws.

How the US electorate puts up with The Bush Administration's Lying and Cheating frankly amazes me

Quote[/b] ]During the two-year FEC inquiry, Ashcroft committee lawyers described the then-senator as owner of the PAC mailing list, which would have exempted the fund transfers from any limitations. However, the FEC last year rejected that assertion because Ashcroft did not disclose his ownership or the rental income in his 1998 and 1999 Senate financial disclosures. He has also not listed the mailing list as an asset in his required filings as attorney general.

The fact that the Atourney General may now face Criminal Charges is totaly Shocking

Quote[/b] ]National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI), which filed the original FEC complaint against Ashcroft and his committees, urged Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine to investigate "potential civil and criminal violations of federal law" by the two committees and Ashcroft while he has been attorney general.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36775-2004Mar6.html

It apears corruption is a way of life for members of The Bush Administration.

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, good thing that Democrats have never lied to us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/50000/video/_50772_clinton_vi.ram

And that no-one has ever had to die for those lies.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/22/air.strikes.follow/

And that Democrats have never had anything to do with crooked campaign contribution schemes.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/hsia.indict/

Edit: I believe that the Iraq intelligence pointed to a danger, and while the administration may have hyped it up a bit (name a politician that doesn't), I don't think it was outright lying.  Look at Iran and North Korea.  These are countries that developed capacity for nuclear weapons right under our noses with nary a peep from intelligence about it.  Why?  Because these are tightly closed countries, as Iraq was, and extremely hard to get good human intelligence from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×