Us presidential election 2004

[joltan 0]

You forgot that the neighbour also has to pay a good prize for the old crap you give him as a replacement for his stuff you destroyed.

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your neighbor's dog has killed off your neighbor's cats, and any other dogs that have come near it.  Your neighbor lets the dog walk around without a leash outside.  Then the dog goes next door and kills the cat there.  Every time you go near this dog, it growls.  Even though it's a few houses down from you, you're not comfortable with it in the neighborhood.  Then one day you see the dog making threatening advances at your little daughter, so you tell your neighbor to put the dog on a leash.  The neighbor doesn't.  You go to the neighborhood committee and ask them to help you in this, but some of the people on the committee have business dealings with this neighbor and don't want to insult him so nothing happens.  Finally after having seen this dog threaten and kill  for many years , you finally decide to take matters into your own hands.  You get a shotgun and shoot the dog.  Then you tell the neighbor, you'll buy him a new dog and help you choose a better one that will be friendlier to kids.

1. In this girl, You (the US) has a daughter that is threatened by the dog (irag). Who is that daughter in the analogy?

2. Killing peoples animals is a crime, no matter how you put it.

3. And to make the analogy correct, its more along this line:

"You get a shotgun and breach the door of his house. On the way in, you shoot a couple of his other dogs in the heat of it all. You also, by accident, shoot out the TV, the phone, the fusebox, the water heater and the AC unit. Then you shoot the dog. You then tell the neighbor, you'll buy him a new dog and help him choose a better one that will be friendlier to your kids. You then get your oldest son to move in and supervise the new dog under gun point. You also give him a couple of fuses for the ruined fusebox, an old gas driven boiler and a black and white TV without antenna to bring the house back to modern standards."

Thats a bit more along the line of the situation in Iraq I reckon.

Was I the only one who found that quite amusing? Well done Longinius!

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Quote[/b] ]

1. In this girl, You (the US) has a daughter that is threatened by the dog (irag). Who is that daughter in the analogy?

You can't figure that out?

Quote[/b] ]

2. Killing peoples animals is a crime, no matter how you put it.

No, actually it depends upon where you live and you are in most instances allowed to forcibly subdue an unruly and dangerous animal...hmm, sounds like Saddam, eh?

Quote[/b] ]

3. And to make the analogy correct, its more along this line:

blah blah blah....

Your correction would only be valid in the interim. I suppose if I had taken longer to flesh out the analogy I could have come up with more points of comparison.

Try this for a more accurate picture:

To help repair the damage done to the house, you temporarily replaced the colour TV (which had only 1 channel working on it anyway) with a smaller colour TV that had multiple channels available. The AC repairman finally did come by and repair the AC, and the electricity was restored, except that other stray wild dogs kept spraying the power lines causing them to go out. Your older brother moved in with the neighbor to help keep the other stray dogs from moving onto his property to take the place of the one you had killed until you've bought him a new one that he and his family get to choose.

Then you and your brother come under intense scrutiny from other nearby neighborhoods. The people there said, "that dog wasn't nearly as dangers as you prortrayed him to be! You had no right to kill it." Soon you are accused of lying about the behaviour of the dog and people begin to defend the other stray dogs....

Well I could go on, but I have things to do.

All of this makes me not want to vote for Clinton in November. Wait a sec...

That was sort of funny the first time someone said it. Aside from that highlighting the ethical lapses of the Dem's is perfectly valid if people want to make the Republicans appear as the sole source of evil in the world.

[Crazysheep 1]

Anyway, just to quote the story which nobody bothered on clicking the link to earlier...

link:

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

Quote[/b] ]

The Lewinsky factor

Several critics of the U.S. raids repeatedly stated that President Clinton launched the attacks to divert attention from his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

At the rally in Khartoum, the podium was decorated with pictures of Clinton and Lewinsky and bore the slogan, "Clinton: Screw Monica, not Sudan."

In Egypt, the Islamic Group issued a statement saying Clinton ordered the attack "to cover up the scandals of the White House and its humiliation."

Iraqi newspapers Saturday denounced the missile strikes, saying "a criminal and playboy president" ordered them to divert attention from the Lewinsky affair.

Linking to something that repeats the same rubbish with no substantial facts does not nothing to alter the fact that the attacks are on Sudan were in response to the embassy bombings...

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Even if you don't believe he attacked the Sudan when he did in part because Monica Lewinsky was set to testify, it obviously radically changed the timbre of his administration and set a tone that made everything he did suspect.

Milosevic even took advantage of this and started purging Albanians because he didn't think Clinton would act in a timely manner.

It's rather obvious I would think.

[Crazysheep 1]

Even if you don't believe he attacked the Sudan when he did in part because Monica Lewinsky was set to testify, it obviously radically changed the timbre of his administration and set a tone that made everything he did suspect.

Milosevic even took advantage of this and started purging Albanians because he didn't think Clinton would act in a timely manner.

It's rather obvious I would think.

You're ignoring my point. He acted in a timely manner, when the embassy bombings happened. Are you saying he carried out the embassy bombings? Say yes or no.

And the Milosevic part is absolutely insane! For a start, there is NOTHING to suggest he wouldn't act in a timely manner. In fact the reverse is true, wouldn't the aggressive bombings in timely response to the embassy bombings have the reverse effect on Milosevic?

And don't be so Americo-centric, the response against Milosevic was started by Europe. Even without the USA they would have gone along with it.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

How can I ignore your point if you didn't really make one?

Are you asking who I think carried out the embassy bombings?  I'm not suggesting it was some plot carried out by Clinton if that's what you're implying. It's a typical low-intelligence tactic to try to attack an argument by saying I said something I didn't. Where did I state that I thought Clinton staged the embassy bombings? I never even said I disagreed with his response, except to say that it was timed in a manner to coincide with certain legal issues going on at the time to divert more attention from them when he could have responded much better than launching a couple of tomohawk missiles to no good effect.

And don't get so defensive about Kosovo.  I swear it seems that a person can't say anything about the US taking part in a military exercise without someone getting their panties in a wad about it.  Yes, I am perfectly aware that other countries took part in Kosovo.  Look at the timeline I posted earlier.  Learn to analyse.  Then think.  Run a google search crossreferencing Clinton+Lewinsky+Sudan, and try other combinations.  You'll find that there's a LOT of people who find the evidence quite compelling, both from the right and the left.

I drew conclusions from it that seemed very evident given what was going on at the time.  I'll not bother to spell it out again for anyone else since everyone, even I, has their own filters installed which gives different context and meaning to the events they see.  Don't dismiss it as poppycock without using a critical eye to the evidence.

I'm sure you will anyway though.

Ta.

[Crazysheep 1]

Quote[/b] ]How can I ignore your point if you didn't really make one?

Are you asking who I think carried out the embassy bombings? I'm not suggesting it was some plot carried out by Clinton if that's what you're implying. It's a typical low-intelligence tactic to try to attack an argument by saying I said something I didn't. Where did I state that I thought Clinton staged the embassy bombings? I never even said I disagreed with his response, except to say that it was timed in a manner to coincide with certain legal issues going on at the time to divert more attention from them when he could have responded much better than launching a couple of tomohawk missiles to no good effect.

You aren't thinking straight...it was timed after the embassy bombings. If it was just to divert attention from the Lewinsky thing (which it failed at btw) then Clinton WOULD have had to plan the embassy bombings.....

Quote[/b] ]And don't get so defensive about Kosovo. I swear it seems that a person can't say anything about the US taking part in a military exercise without someone getting their panties in a wad about it. Yes, I am perfectly aware that other countries took part in Kosovo. Look at the timeline I posted earlier. Learn to analyse. Then think. Run a google search crossreferencing Clinton+Lewinsky+Sudan, and try other combinations. You'll find that there's a LOT of people who find the evidence quite compelling, both from the right and the left.

So? There are plenty of people who believe Bush orchestrated 911. Does this make it true? (and what does Sudan have to do with Kosovo? Have you conceded defeat on that one point?)

Quote[/b] ]I drew conclusions from it that seemed very evident given what was going on at the time. I'll not bother to spell it out again for anyone else since everyone, even I, has their own filters installed which gives different context and meaning to the events they see. Don't dismiss it as poppycock without using a critical eye to the evidence.

I'm sure you will anyway though.

Ta.

I cross referenced the stuff and it was no evidence. It was all conservative newspapers repeating everything you've said.....how does this make it true? All it says was that Clinton was desperate to cover up his affair and that was the reason. It doesn't give me any more info than you have.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Quote[/b] ]

So? There are plenty of people who believe Bush orchestrated 911. Does this make it true? (and what does Sudan have to do with Kosovo? Have you conceded defeat on that one point?)

Concede defeat on Sudan and Kosovo? What evidence have you provided to counter it except your own conjecture?

Here's a deal, you read Bush's mind and tell me exactly whether he was lying or if he was using innacurrate intel. Then I'll use my super powers to read Clinton's mind to find out his full inentions in his operations after the Lewinsky ordeal.

The point - you can't. Everyone is drawing conclusions on the actions of Bush, and those who hate him are drawing much stronger conclusions than those who don't. I voted for Clinton in '92, but began to have doubts about his actions, and especially questioned his actions after Lewinsky.

The primary reason for this discourse is to illustrate that both parties have their fallacies, and to see anyone spooge forth nonsense about the purity of one party over the other requires their propoganda to be challenged. Also, to state that the lies of a President about sex do not have an effect on the lives of others in the international arena is foolish. Lies by someone in such a powerful position can mean deadly consequences regardless of the reason of the lies.

[Viper 0]

LMAO. I've been following this discussion today and I just feel that I need to make a comment. KaRRiLLioN, I have never seen anybody advocate such a biased opinion while at the same time with a straight face trying to pass it off as objectivity

Politicians are politicians and to become prez, you have to walk on the bodies of your opponents. You have to take bribes from special interests and you have to live up to your promises to those that will finance your next term. If you don't, you won't become president. So sure, it requires a special breed of men, with lesser moral scruples than your average person. That doesn't however mean that they are equally crooked.

Your theories about Clinton are just conspiracy theories. There are no facts to back it up. With Bush the situation is however quite different. He promised us WMD and there were no WMD. His administration lied or they are incompetent. Take your pick. Ultimately we went to war under false pretenses. I couldn't care less what the reason for it was. Either way Bush is not fit to run this country.

I'll vote Kerry  

ps. Good to see that there is still life in good 'ole OT

[Harnu 0]

So when I become president, I can run the country into a gash of deficit, and then upon re-election campaigning, say my opponent is trying to fix what I screwed up by raising taxes...

Brilliant!

[Certa 0]

Viper: In, my oppinion, 98% of the world is picking a side and a choice they think is right or wrong. 2% picks something else, and it doesn't fit into the model. Karrillion is one of them.

[drewb99 0]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040311_2738.html

Quote[/b] ]Bush Ads Go Negative; Kerry Refutes Claim

Bush Unveils First Negative Ads; Kerry Refutes Claim That He Seeks $900 Billion Tax Hike

WASHINGTON March 11 — President Bush unleashed the first negative ads of the general election campaign Thursday, accusing Democratic rival John Kerry of seeking to raise taxes by $900 billion and wanting to "delay defending America."

"John Kerry: Wrong on taxes. Wrong on defense," says an announcer in a new 30-second ad that will begin airing in battleground states.

eh, bound to happen...

I saw the full ad on ABC this morning, made me want to throw my shoe at the TV

[Tex -USMC- 0]

One thing I found odd about the ad was that the Bushies make the claim that Kerry wanted to raise taxes by $900 billion- the rationale for this claim, as I later found out, was because Kerry's health care initiative is going to cost about that much. Now, the part that struck me as odd was why Bush, of all people, assumed that Kerry had to raise taxes to pay for the program? After all, Bush managed to cut taxes, and start a costly war, while going on one of the largest government spending sprees since the Reagan years. Just seems a bit intellectually dishonest, that's all.

[ralphwiggum 6]

duh! it's called mud slinging, coupled with fooling people.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

duh! it's called mud slinging, coupled with fooling people.

Whatever it is, it drives me absolutely insane. I propose a quadrennial politician hunting season: it's open for two weeks in the November of every fourth year, with a bag limit of 10 state and local officials, 2 national officials, and 1 politically appointed beauracrat. Coastal states with high bottomfeeder populations have the option of eschewing the bag limit in favor of a catch and release policy. Make the hunting licenses $1000 a piece and use the proceeds to shore up Social Security.

I do believe I just solved two of our country's biggest problems

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]You can't figure that out?

No, so please enlighten me.

Quote[/b] ]No, actually it depends upon where you live and you are in most instances allowed to forcibly subdue an unruly and dangerous animal...hmm, sounds like Saddam, eh?

Walking into someones home with a shotgun and shooting their dog is illegal in most civlised countries. killing a dog in self defence is a completely different however.

[OxPecker 0]

Anyone know where I can buy "Bush is an assclown!" bumperstickers?

I've seen them around, but not where to buy them.

[walker 0]

Hi all

How will George Bush jnr. fill the Republican's Tax Gap?

The plain fact is the books dont add up. With their Liberal Republican Tax and Spend policies the budget is so far out of balance they have to take loans out on loans to try and balance their budget.

The truth is that Republicans want to Tax americans to the hilt after the elections. How else are they going to pay back the loans?

George Bush jnr. Needs to remeber It is the Economy Stupid

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

So we now have proof.

The Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. was far more interested in starting an unecasary war against Iraq than capturing the perpetrateurs of 9/11.

Here is the conversation that took place the day after 9/11:

Quote[/b] ]On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, according to a newly published memoir, President Bush wandered alone around the Situation Room in a White House emptied by the previous day's calamitous events.

Spotting Richard A. Clarke, his counterterrorism coordinator, Bush pulled him and a small group of aides into the dark paneled room.

"Go back over everything, everything," Bush said, according to Clarke's account. "See if Saddam did this."

"But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this," Clarke replied.

"I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

Reminded that the CIA, FBI and White House staffs had sought and found no such link before, Clarke said, Bush spoke "testily." As he left the room, Bush said a third time, "Look into Iraq, Saddam."

For Clarke, then in his 10th year as a top White House official, that day marked the transition from neglect to folly in the Bush administration's stewardship of war with Islamic extremists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13607-2004Mar21.html

The Unpresident Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. is traitor to his nation. The electric Chair is too good for him he needs a good kick up the arse!

Angrily Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Impeach him !

Be patriot !

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/top_ten/

Quote[/b] ]10. "Keep doing what I'm doing -- I'm winning, right?"

9. "Constitution is amended stating presidents must be 35 or older, a natural-born citizen and named 'Dennis'."

8. "Act like a boob so people will perceive me as more Presidential."

7. "You want crazy campaign promises? Fine! If I'm elected everybody gets a million bucks."

6. "Enter and win next 'American Idol'."

5. "Announce your running mate will be a plate of fudge -- people love fudge."

4. "Just wait till I unleash my new campaign slogan: 'Kucizzle in the Hizzle!'"

3. "According to the order of presidential succession, if George W. Bush were to resign today, along with Dick Cheney and about 300 other people, the presidency passes to a congressman from Ohio."

2. "Get the governors of every state to rig the election."

1. "I'm praying for a sex scandal."

[Tex -USMC- 0]

David Letterman is the anti-funny. There, I said it.

[walker 0]

Hi all

That great plank of The Vietnam Wardoger George Bush Jnr.'s election campaign that he was a war president has snapped.

People just dont believe him on Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Much has changed in public opinion on the Iraq war over the last year: today Americans are less convinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat, or that it harbored weapons of mass destruction, than they were in the spring of 2003. And President Bush, who had rallied much of the nation to his side and to the war effort as the fighting began, has seen his own poll numbers drop dramatically since then – both overall and in his handling of Iraq

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories....1.shtml

The latest CBS poll shows that

Quote[/b] ]A majority of Americans now believe the Bush Administration exaggerated the intelligence it received about weapons of mass destruction to build support for the war.

And this a poll before the Clarke Efect or the Madrid Bombings

I hope my friends and family in the US are taking more precausions and as we are in the UK. If you see an unatended bag: Ask who's it is. If no one claims it report it to the authorities and or police. Remember the bombings seem to be monthly now. As we are all in more danger of terrorism than ever before we need to stay alert.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]That great plank of The Vietnam Wardoger George Bush Jnr.'s election campaign that he was a war president has snapped.

Not really.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2093

Quote[/b] ]

After two weeks and tens of millions of dollars spent on negative advertising by both campaigns, little has changed in the basic landscape of a tight presidential race, the poll found. Bush was backed by 46 percent of voters, Kerry by 43 percent and independent Ralph Nader by 5 percent, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

Voters said they trust Bush to do a better job of protecting the country, 58 percent to 35 percent. They trust Kerry to do better at creating jobs, 53 percent to 37 percent. In campaign appearances, Kerry has emphasized job losses under the current administration, while Bush has stressed his leadership on national security.

Bush has a big lead over Kerry, 60 percent to 32 percent, on which candidate is the strongest leader, and almost as big a lead on which one is likely to stand up for what he believes.

Note: Poll taken between March 19-21.