Us presidential election 2004

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

George Bush Jnr.'s approval ratings continue to drop through the floor

CNN and Gallup say something weird. (sorry Schoeler)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/bush.poll/index.html

Quote[/b] ]

Bush approval stays near record low in poll

Monday, May 24, 2004 Posted: 3:30 PM EDT (1930 GMT)

(CNN) -- President Bush's approval rating remains virtually unchanged from the record low of his presidency two weeks ago, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.

Forty-seven percent of people polled May 21-23 said they approve of how Bush is handling the presidency -- up 1 percentage point from a poll taken May 7-9. (Full story)

Quote[/b] ]

Forty-nine percent said they disapprove, down 2 percentage points from the previous survey. With a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, the change was statistically insignificant.

Quote[/b] ]

While the survey reflects the challenge the president faces, it does not carry great news for Democrats. It shows Americans are as split as ever between Bush and presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry for the presidency.

Quote[/b] ]

Among all registered voters polled, there was the opposite effect: Kerry dropped 2 percentage points to 48 percent, while Bush went up 2 points to 46 percent -- again with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Quote[/b] ]

Among likely voters, Nader drew away 2 percent of Kerry supporters and 1 percent of Bush backers. Among registered voters, Nader drew 2 percent each from Kerry and Bush supporters.

Too close to call for now.

[Akira 0]

Another winner from Dubya:

Domestic Spending to Be Cut if Re-elected

Quote[/b] ]But the cuts are politically sensitive, targeting popular programs that Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. The Education Department; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeownership, job-training, medical research and science programs all face cuts in 2006.

Yeah those are highly expendable. After all. Need more money to bomb the shit out of people...

[bn880 5]

You can tell already US are heading into their days of glory. Go out with a big bang...

It will be interesting to see how many people vote for Bush, you know very well my opinion of such a person. And what happens afterwards no matter who is "elected" will be interesting.

[EiZei 0]

Al Gore's speech at moveon:

http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html/

Quite strong text consider his rather moderate stance in 2000.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Al Gore's speech at moveon:

http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html/

Quite strong text consider his rather moderate stance in 2000.

People always move towards the center when they're under a microscope or running for office. Do you honestly think that a stupid phrase like "compassionate conservative" would crop up at any other time than an election year?

[walker 0]

Hi all

The degree to which TBA and George Bush Jnr. have lost the trust of the American public and activley lie to the media is shown by the almost universal belief among Amercans that yesterdays anouncement by Attorney General John Ashcroft's announcement that al Qaeda planned to attack America in the next few months was treated as yet another cry of 'Wolf'

The anoucement by TBA was aimed at shifting peoples attention from the increasingly Bad News from the Mire of the Iraq War and the fact is they let slip as much in an interview with CNN is SHOCKING beyond words.

Quote[/b] ]DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Judy, as far as their motives go, the Bush team certainly is well aware of the fact that people are questioning their motives and that there's a perception that perhaps that there was a political motive out there.

As a matter of fact, they understand it is, people think, perhaps to change the subject on Iraq. I talked to an official about Iraq earlier, called the official and started asking questions about that. And sarcastically the official said, Why are you calling me about this? Don't you know that we changed the subject?

My use of bold

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/26/ip.00.html

The fact that TBA blythly admit they put out the Ashcroft Warning to the media to change the subject makes me want to scream from the house tops "YOU STUPID LIARS! Have you never heard the tale of the boy who cried wolf?"

Although bad enough in itself that the US voters have so lost their trust in the executive; the real problem with american public's perception that the republican administration are liars is that they will not heed the call to defence when the real wolf is in among the flock.

Quote[/b] ]Attorney General John Ashcroft's solemn announcement that al Qaeda planned to attack America in the next few months seemed to provoke as much skepticism as fear Wednesday, raising doubts as to whether any terror warnings will be taken seriously in the heat of an election campaign.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....SIS.TMP

The continued perception that Republicans are weak on defence is eroding peoples confidence and reducing moral among the millitary.

Quote[/b] ]In particular, the movie's second hour is carried by the wrenching story of Lila Lipscomb, a flag-waving, self-described "conservative Democrat" from Mr. Moore's hometown of Flint, Mich., whose son, Sgt. Michael Pedersen, was killed in Iraq. We watch Mrs. Lipscomb, who by her own account "always hated" antiwar protesters, come undone with grief and rage. As her extended family gathers around her in the living room, she clutches her son's last letter home and reads it aloud, her shaking voice and hand contrasting with his precise handwriting on lined notebook paper. A good son, Sergeant Pedersen thanks his mother for sending "the bible and books and candy," but not before writing of the president: "He got us out here for nothing whatsoever. I am so furious right now, Mama."

My use of bold

http://www.nytimes.com/2004....AVISTA1

George Bush Jnr. and his administration are clearly a lame duck on defence and a danger to the nation and must be removed to allow a true War President like J. F. Kerry to defend the nation.

Shocked Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]I think you should further research the important role France played in our revolution and the important role the U.S. played in both European Wars with respect to France before you continue to embarass yourself with ignorant statements.

Was not talking about that. There were bumps in the road (i.e. Nato, establishment of China ties to early, nukes, Libya bombing, France not being apart in the US blockade of Cuba, suez canal, and etc.).

Note to self:

Should of not of used throughout but the last 50 years or so.

I recently read an interesting book review on the subject in the May 3rd edition of Businessweek:

Quote[/b] ]An Alliance In Ruins

DANGEROUS DE-LIAISONS

What's Really Behind

the War Between

France and the U.S.

By Jean-Marie Colombani and Walter Wells

Melville House -- 163 pp -- $16.95

THE FRENCH BETRAYAL OF AMERICA

By Kenneth R. Timmerman

Crown Forum -- 309pp -- $25

Early last year, when the Iraq crisis looked to be wrenching apart old alliances, Secretary of State Colin Powell took a step back to talk about strained relations between the U.S. and France. The two countries, he said in a speech in late January, 2003, "have been in marriage counseling for 225 years. Guess what? The marriage is there. And it will be there." It's true that Washington and Paris have long been uneasy allies: Perceived slights on the part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt fed Free French leader Charles de Gaulle's prickly independence. That reached full expression when, as the President of France, de Gaulle summarily pulled his country out of NATO's integrated military command in 1966. Over the years, American and French officials have quarreled over trade, the Middle East, relations with the then-Soviet Union, and other issues. Yet there was never any doubt that the two countries were on the same side.

Advertisement

However, in the space of a few weeks in early 2003, things changed drastically. In a move that shocked the White House -- and even surprised much of the French political Establishment -- French President Jacques Chirac and his flamboyant then-Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin moved to derail the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council and in NATO. The unprecedented change of tactic resembled the kind of behavior that "you have when the marriage is irreparably over. There's nothing to preserve, and you want to win at all costs, because losing will cost dearly," in the words of Walter Wells, executive editor of the Paris-based International Herald Tribune.

In Dangerous De-Liaisons: What's Really Behind the War Between France and the U.S., Wells engages in a sophisticated back-and-forth dialogue with Jean-Marie Colombani, editor-in-chief of Le Monde. Wells is an urbane American who has lived in the French capital for more than two decades, and Colombani is a paragon of the Parisian intellectual elite. Their slender book contains many insights into the nature of American-French ties, although the two men too often agree -- it might have been more stimulating to pit Colombani against a real Washington Francophobe. The book also takes a hard look at the miscalculations made on both sides of the Atlantic as the U.S. became increasingly intent on military action in Iraq.

In the unrelenting and sensationally titled The French Betrayal of America by conservative investigative journalist Kenneth R. Timmerman, Iraq is the main focus. A specialist in military and strategic matters, Timmerman chronicles the extremely close, three-decades-long association between Saddam Hussein and his main booster in the West, Chirac. Books examining the fraught Franco-American relationship are already a growing cottage industry in France. These two are among the first to appear in the U.S., and while neither provides the definitive word on the subject, both are well worth reading.

It is not surprising that Iraq would eventually become such an apple of discord. The Gallic fascination with Saddam Hussein was already evident in 1975, when Chirac, then the youthful Prime Minister, went in person to Orly Airport to greet the Iraqi leader, who had just begun a bloodthirsty rise to power. Here was a chance for France to have its own special relationship with a major oil power, a tie that could serve as a counterweight to the long American embrace of Saudi Arabia. France in general and Chirac in particular would stop at nothing to please Saddam, whether selling Baghdad some of the most sophisticated weaponry in France's arsenal or supplying a state-of-the-art nuclear reactor, later destroyed by Israeli jets in a daring 1981 raid.

In the next decade and a half, Baghdad would spend a good $20 billion on French arms, becoming by far the largest single customer apart from the French military itself. "Nearly one thousand French defense contractors cashed in, from the giants -- Dassault, Aerospatiale, Thomson-CSF, Matra, and Giat -- on down to manufacturers of electronic circuit boards, fiberglass boats, parachutes, and camouflage nets," writes Timmerman. "The real question was not who belonged to the pro-Iraq lobby, but who would dare oppose it."

That multibillion-dollar arms bazaar also meant a rich stream of commissions and kickbacks, not only to Arab middlemen but to French officials. Timmerman suggests -- without quite providing a smoking gun -- that Iraqi money oiled and may have propped up Chirac's own political machine, the neo-Gaullist Rally for the Republic (RPR). True, the RPR was far from being squeaky-clean, but sensational allegations that lots of cold Iraqi cash flowed into its coffers remain just that: allegations. Moreover, at times, Timmerman's use of biased sources leads him to level absurd charges, such as the notion that Saddam drained the vast marshes of southern Iraq to make the terrain easier going for French oil companies, as a Kurdish leader maintains. Instead, the Iraqi dictator took the action in order to deny cover to southern rebels.

It may well be that France and the U.S. would have collided, even without the convenient excuse of Iraq. Over the past 20 years, economic policies have been increasingly diverging, as have the two countries' approaches to key social questions such as capital punishment. Moreover, Bush's ascent in January, 2001, heralded a new generation of U.S. politicians for whom Europe and the Atlantic Alliance seemed no longer to be a central focus.

For Colombani, the differences are even more profound, dating from the very origins of the two republics. He observes how Napoleon Bonaparte structured France as a centralized republic run by an elite. And Napoleon steadily concentrated more power in his person, as First Consul and then as self-proclaimed Emperor. In contrast, American founding father George Washington renounced such concentrated power, favoring a decentralized republic characterized by institutional checks and balances.

Chirac, it seems, may be the heir to that Napoleonic tradition. This can be seen in everything from his imperious and condescending attitude toward Eastern and Central European nations that sided with Washington last year to a basic misunderstanding of the post-September 11 temperament of the U.S. and his miscalculation of President Bush's determination to go to war. As the head of a center-right coalition, Chirac had originally been judged to be somehow more instinctively pro-American than the outgoing Socialist government or his Socialist predecessor at the Elysée Palace, François Mitterrand. Nothing is further from the truth: Chirac effortlessly tapped into the deep vein of anti-Americanism that exists as much on the nationalist French right as on the left.

Will an eventual change of leadership in Paris and Washington, then, put things back on an even keel? Perhaps not. The crisis in Franco-American relations may reflect a deeper rift between America and Europe as a whole -- making it hard for the countries to work together on such matters as peace in the Middle East and free trade. Some, like Carnegie Endowment for International Peace senior associate Robert Kagan, suggest that the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War removed the one principle that kept the democratic West bound together. It is far from clear whether the "war against terrorism" can have a similar unifying effect. The recent Franco-American rift is not a good omen.

By John Rossant

[denoir 0]

Spock, the Franco-U.S. relationship has not been always "peachy" or "perfect" throughout history. Some of France actions during the U.N. thingy was.....:crazy: (i.e. running to Africa to get the Africans to vote no and etc.).

You mean as opposed to Powell calling around and running around to get people to vote "yes"?

Of course France lobbied for its position, just like America lobbied for its. And as it turns out it's too bad that America did not listen to the French position as we can clearly see that France & co accurately predicted the situation in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]I recently read an interesting book review on the subject in the May 3rd edition of Businessweek:

Those are actually two book reviews. If you feel like investing some time in reading source material rather than a review, I can recommend this paper on the subject:

Power and Weakness by Robert Kagan.

It's an interesting read but one should have two things in mind - it is written by one of the leading neocons so it has a ultranationalistic taste to it and it was written before the Iraq failure. I think the author makes some serious errors in his estimation of American "power" and European "weakness" (as we can see now in Iraq, when Bush is practically begging for international [read: European] involvement). He does however IMO capture some of the divergence between the US and Europe pretty well. I agree with him that the current Europe/US split is temporary but that it has its cause in an increasingly divergent view of the world.

While I think that America and Europe have some very fundamentally different views on the world, I think that they can work together very well together, especially in foreign policy. Europe with the diplomatic carrot and America with the military stick. The trick is to find a balance.

For instance before the invasion Iraq was very forthcoming and cooperative. This was obviously directly related to the troop build-up in the region. The threat of force was a very motivating factor for Saddam to take the inspections and diplomatic work more serious. A key issue is however to know when to stop. America went way to far with the stick (this of course becuse there was a wider agenda than Iraqi cooperation with the UN).

[walker 0]

Hi all

George Bush Jnr.'s postion in the poles continues to decline with Pensilvania now going to vote for J. F. Kerry as President

Quote[/b] ]HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — John Kerry has erased President Bush's lead in the swing state of Pennsylvania, according to a poll that found growing opposition to the war in Iraq.

Democrat Kerry is supported by 44% of the state's registered voters while 41% favor Republican Bush, making the race about even, according to the poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University. Independent Ralph Nader draws 6% and 7% are undecided.

http://www.usatoday.com/news....l_x.htm

Even former George Bush Jnr. stalwarts like the Cubans in Florida will be voting against an incumbant who is increasingly seen as looser and one unable to fullfill his campaign promises

Quote[/b] ]President George W. Bush may have to do without Republicans like Fernando Amandi. A Miami Cuban-American and retired corporate executive who voted for Bush in 2000, he has become disenchanted with the administration, particularly with its handling of policy toward Cuba and Latin America. Bush "talked a good game" against Fidel Castro, says Amandi, "but I didn't see much follow-through." Now Amandi is backing Sen. John Kerry, raising cash (more than $100,000 so far as a vice chair of Kerry's national finance committee) and offering advice on policy. Amandi says: "I've been impressed by [Kerry's] much more substantial vision."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040192/site/newsweek

George Bush Jnr. has also alienated the usualy Republican percentage of the millitary vote with the stupidity of the Iraq where many millitary people feel duped by a president who brought them into a needless war while the real threat of Al Qaeda is ignored. The fact that he then intends to slap those same millitary in the face with massive cuts in veterans benefits and that he is doing it in an such an underhand way is seen by many as the straw that broke the camels back.

Quote[/b] ]The administration has widely touted a $1.7 billion increase in discretionary funding for the Education Department in its 2005 budget, but the 2006 guidance would pare that back by $1.5 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html

That George Bush Jnr. then intends to Cut the homeland defence budget as well realy takes the biscuit.

Quote[/b] ]The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html

Many see that as the Republicans are weak on defence they need a real war President like J. F. Kerry.

Kind Regards Walker

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Walker, please, it's getting a bit obnoxious. I know you mean well, but you're making assertions that clearly show how little you understand about American politics. Republicans are considered by a majority of Americans to be stronger on defence than Democrats (not a political statement, just one of an objective reality). As for your indication that Pennsylvania will vote for Kerry, those polling numbers are well within the margins of error, meaning that it is a tie. Tie, in case you were wondering, means that an advantage is held by neither side. The same for the Cuban story- one rich expatriate switching sides is hardly indicative of a major shift of the entire voting block. If you want to contribute news updates, please do, but your propaganda-release addendums are annoying, and consistently innacurate and/or misleading. In my estimation that makes you no better than conservatives on the opposite side of the fence who manipulate facts to further their own agenda. I know I've tried this before with you, but I figure it's worth another shot.

[walker 0]

@ May 28 2004,00:09)]Republicans are considered by a majority of Americans to be stronger on defence than Democrats (not a political statement, just one of an objective reality)

Hi Tex

Your so called objective reality is an incorrect perception that I intend to correct; like the one that they are better at the economy it is demonstrably untrue and not based in any reality; objective or othwise.

The plane fact is Republicans Tax and spend policies are damaging the US economy. Saying Deficit spending is not tax displays the same kind of stupidity as the man who maxes out his credit card and says he has not spent any money. Bills have to be paid. Bills to the countries credit card (deficits) are paid for with taxes of course the magic tooth fairy might pay them for you

Have a look at your proposed 2006 US budget and watch the bill rise like that for the next 30 years to pay of the Republicans credit card tax bill.

The plane fact is Republicans are weak on defense

* otherwise 9/11 would not have happened on a Republican Presidents watch

* otherwise the US would not be fighting the wrong enemy in the war on terror

* otherwise the massive costs of Republicans credit card tax bill would not be due to cut veterans funding, homeland defence and the funding for the stream of defence projects that have been axed would not have gone toward a bill for a war; that has cost the US TAX payer fast aproaching 200 billion dollars and rising.

I am fully aware that fiscal proberty and strength in defense are the mythical inheritance of republicans.

My statements on the other hand are based in verifiable fact the contrary statements are based in myth as blatantly false as the one that says the world is flat.

I state quite categorically they are myths.

Sir I like a good honest intellectual debate but I am and will always remain a practical anarchist engaged in the politics of the real world. You Sir are not one of those I seek to persuade. I would willingly join you in your intelectual endevour to enlighten people with reasoned argument if it were not for the one thing that the election aproaches and intend to give those who argue TBAs cause no chance to perpetuate their myths. I Sir intend to fight.

You correctly assessed the target for persuasion of my posts is not you or any like you. That it upsets your sensibilities to see me stoop so low as to use the weapons of the republicans should not however surprise you.

This is a politics thread where political combat is joined and philosophical blood is spilt. Expect no niceties of debating etiquette in a political knife fight and consider in politics it is the one who leaves the other side of the debates in a steaming pile of their own dialectic giblets who has won.

Always consider Sir who it is I seek to persuade and that the goal I seek is the complete annihilation of the TBA as working political entity and that I do this because along with TBA 2 they killed tens of thousands of people including many of my and your fellow countrymen in a needless war and that in order to do that they perpetrated a lie on us all and on me personally that got me to agree to that needless war that killed those people. People who do such a thing gain my implacable political enmity.

Sir that I follow my own agenda and am as brutal as I can be are only to be expected; this is after all politics thread and TBA and TBA2 are my political enemy.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]You mean as opposed to Powell calling around and running around to get people to vote "yes"?

Of course France lobbied for its position, just like America lobbied for its. And as it turns out it's too bad that America did not listen to the French position as we can clearly see that France & co accurately predicted the situation in Iraq.

I thought France was a very close ally? They did not have to actively lobby for no votes. That why certain people are/still boycotting french products and etc. because the french government was actively (more than the other countries that did not support it) going against are government's interest (and security(no flames, please)) by running off to Africa to get the no votes and etc. Only france was targeted for a boycott not the others because their government was seen has the "leader" and they were doing the actually "work".  /off-topic and imho

[billybob2002 0]

Walker,

How many terrorist attacks go down under Clinton's watch (domestic and overseas)?  What are democrats then?  

[walker 0]

Walker,

How many terrorist attacks go down under Clinton's watch (domestic and aboard)?  What are democrats then?  

Hi billybob2002

Would you care to enumerate how many succesfull attacks there were by foreign terrorists on the US homeland while the excelent Clinton administration was in power compared of course to 9/11

Then contrast and compare the number of US citizens killed by foreign terrorists on US soil in George Bush Jnr's misrule as compared to those killed in President Clinton's period in office.

After that compare how many bodybags came home in useless wars.

I believe that should knock the republican defence myth on the head.

Kind Regards Walker

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your so called objective reality is an incorrect perception that I intend to correct;

How do you intend to do that? All I said was that in America, people generally perceive Republicans as being stronger on defense issues. How do you intend to correct something that is a simple fact? Like I said, you are completely out of step with what the American people think- that's not a bad thing in and of itself, but coupled with grandiose declarations of what Americans think and are going to do is just plain silliness.

Quote[/b] ]like the one that they are better at the economy it is demonstrably untrue and not based in any reality

I never said that. If you'll remember, I said that Bush's economic policies were the least vulnerable of his platforms. Also, considering the 'alternatives' Kerry has been putting forward, I'd say that everything I've said in that regard holds up 100% under scrutiny from an economic standpoint.

Quote[/b] ]The plane fact is Republicans Tax and spend policies are damaging the US economy. Saying Deficit spending is not tax displays the same kind of stupidity as the man who maxes out his credit card and says he has not spent any money. Bills have to be paid. Bills to the countries credit card (deficits) are paid for with taxes of course the magic tooth fairy might pay them for you  

Out of curiosity, which of Kerry's platforms indicates fiscal responsibility? His multi-billion dollar health care plan? His continued financial support of the Iraq War? His boosting of Homeland Security funding? His ignoring the looming Social Security crisis? Or possibly his middle class tax cuts? Hmm? And as for deficit spending, it is not in and of itself a bad thing- taken to the extremes that Bush has, yes it is harmful, but hardly to the extent of derailing our economy. I'd be more concerned about the contradiction between Bush's ideology and his actions.

Quote[/b] ]Have a look at your proposed 2006 US budget and watch the bill rise like that for the next 30 years to pay of the Republicans credit card tax bill.

Yes, the proposed 2006 budget, proposed by people who don't even know if they'll be in office then. Numbers forecasted that far in advance are sheer fantasy.

Quote[/b] ]The plane fact is Republicans are weak on defense

* otherwise 9/11 would not have happened on a Republican Presidents watch

* otherwise the US would not be fighting the wrong enemy in the war on terror

* otherwise the massive costs of Republicans credit card tax bill would not be due cut veterans funding, homeland defence and the funding for the stream of defence projects that have been axed would not have gone toward a bill for a war; that has cost the US TAX payer fast aproaching 200 billion dollars and rising.

*Pardon? I thought we cleared this up- even Richard Clarke didn't go as far as to lay that charge on Bush's doorstep.

*A majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq War as well, including Kerry.

*I'm sorry, that's complete incoherence. Justify your numbers and explain how exactly cuts in government programs are costing us money.

Quote[/b] ]I am fully aware that fiscal property and strength in defense are the mythical inheritance of republicans.

Then why argue? That's all I stated. Your inability to seperate what is from what you think ought to be is the most worrying aspect of your posts.

Quote[/b] ]My statements on the other hand are based in verifiable fact the contrary statements are based in myth as blatantly false as the one that says the world is flat.

Parse that sentence!

Quote[/b] ]I state quite categorically they are myths.

Every single thing I've said holds up, despite your best efforts to the contrary. Rewind to the earlier pages of this thread if you need more evidence of this.

Quote[/b] ]Sir I like a good honest intellectual debate but I am and will always remain a practical anarchist engaged in the politics of the real world you Sir are not one of those I seek to persuade. I would willingly join you in your intelectual endevour to enlighten people with reasoned argument if it were not for the one thing that the election aproaches and intend to give those who argue TBAs cause no chance to perpetuate their myths. I Sir intend to fight.

Please don't call me sir- I'm at least 5 years younger than you. As for the practical applications of what you're doing, I'd like to remind you of one thing: you are posting on an internet forum. Take that as you will- generally the only people who lend a stranger's post credence are those who already agree. The only way to change opinions here is with debate in good faith and on intellectually honest terms. The equivalent of propaganda leaflets only serves to polarize people and lower the level of exchange to one so visceral that people are unlikely to change their opinions, even when confronted with what has so consistently been shown to be The Truth â„¢.

Quote[/b] ]You correctly assessed the target for persuasion of my posts is not you or any like you. That it upsets your sensibilities to see me stoop so low as to use the weapons of the republicans should not however surprise you.

This is a politics thread where political combat is joined and philosophical blood is spilt. Expect no niceties of debating etiquette in a political knife fight and consider in politics it is the one who leaves the other side of the debates in a steaming pile of their own dialectic giblets who has won.

Your prose is scintillating. However, the idea that you would simultaneously trust the electorate to make such vital decisions of import, while at the same time not trusting them to sort reality from propaganda, seems self-defeating on an epic level.

Quote[/b] ]Always consider Sir who it is I seek to persuade and that the goal I seek is the complete annihilation of the TBA as working political entity and that I do this because along with TBA 2 they killed tens of thousands of people including many of my and your fellow countrymen in a needless war and that in order to do that they perpetrated a lie on us all and on me personally that got me to agree to that needless war that killed those people. People who do such a thing gain my implacable political enmity.

Sir that I follow my own agenda and am as brutal as I can be are only to be expected; this is after all politics thread and TBA and TBA2 are my political enemy.

"Whomever fights monsters should take care not to become a monster himself. And when you gaze for long into the Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi billybob2002

Would you care to enumerate how many succesfull attacks there were by foreign terrorists on the US homeland while the excelent Clinton administration was in power compared of cours to 9/11

Then contrast and compare the number of US citizens killed by foreign terrorists on US soil in George Bush Jnr's misrule as compared to those killed in President Clinton's period in office.

After that compare how many bodybags came home in useless wars.

I believe that should knock the republican defence myth on the head.

Kind Regards Walker

I see you skipped the total number of terrorist attacks that happened under Clinton. The WTC bombing (could of been worse but still happened), Africa bombings, Cole bombing, and OK city bombing (domestic but still terrorism) were under Clinton's watch while Laden was out and about.

Please do not turn this in to a how many people died under a president's watch game. Nobody wins.

[walker 0]

Hi billybob2002

You brought up the comparisons not I. If you do not like me forcing you to look at the reality of the comparisons you have only your self to blame.

It is a basic tennet of debate to know the full answer to the questions you put before you put them.

It is a more basic tennet of debate that if the other side has the better argument you accept they are right.

Republicans are weak on defence and your own arguments prove it. Your nation and mine are stuck in a mire of a war looking the wrong way while Bin Laden and his supporters are left to pursue their plans without let and hinderance from an adminstration that fights the wrong enemy. We cannot allow our nations to be so undefended.

This is our wives, children and famlies that are at risk. Defense is far too important a subject to allow it to be decided on myth it must be decided on what people have done.

We need people in power with a true understanding of geopolitics and the threat to our nations George Bush Jnr. has been proven by the facts to not be up to the job. The only solution in a two party state democracy then is to vote for J. F. Kerrry for US president.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

@ May 28 2004,02:12)]

Quote[/b] ]Your so called objective reality is an incorrect perception that I intend to correct;

How do you intend to do that? All I said was that in America, people generally perceive Republicans as being stronger on defense issues.

and as a I stated the perception is a myth. Should I allow a myth that is detrimental to continue ethicly such a thing is indefensable the fact that you do so; well simply how can you? On what ethical grounds do perpetuate a detrimental myth?

@ May 28 2004,02:12)] How do you intend to correct something that is a simple fact? Like I said, you are completely out of step with what the American people think- that's not a bad thing in and of itself, but coupled with grandiose declarations of what Americans think and are going to do is just plain silliness.

Ignorance and the perpetuation of such myths as you seem to be arguing is incredibly dangerous; witness how the bad leadership of this administration has killed tens of thousands not to metion it is of course against the very spirit of your nations constitution.

This statement would lead me to believe you are in favour censoring the very minds of your country men and women.

@ May 28 2004,02:12)]

Quote[/b] ] like the one that they are better at the economy it is demonstrably untrue and not based in any reality

I never said that. If you'll remember, I said that Bush's economic policies were the least vulnerable of his platforms. Also, considering the 'alternatives' Kerry has been putting forward, I'd say that everything I've said in that regard holds up 100% under scrutiny from an economic standpoint.

It is simple:

Republicans in power: economy goes crash, unemployment rises, wages slump.

Democrats in power: economy booms, jobs boom, wages boom.

Only someone who believes republican myths and tooth fairy economics thinks otherwise.

@ May 28 2004,02:12)]

Quote[/b] ]The plane fact is Republicans Tax and spend policies are damaging the US economy. Saying Deficit spending is not tax displays the same kind of stupidity as the man who maxes out his credit card and says he has not spent any money. Bills have to be paid. Bills to the countries credit card (deficits) are paid for with taxes of course the magic tooth fairy might pay them for you  

Out of curiosity, which of Kerry's platforms indicates fiscal responsibility? His multi-billion dollar health care plan? His continued financial support of the Iraq War? His boosting of Homeland Security funding? His ignoring the looming Social Security crisis? Or possibly his middle class tax cuts? Hmm? And as for deficit spending, it is not in and of itself a bad thing- taken to the extremes that Bush has, yes it is harmful, but hardly to the extent of derailing our economy. I'd be more concerned about the contradiction between Bush's ideology and his actions..

Look ahead big road sign. Big Bill to be payed!

@ May 28 2004,02:12)]

Quote[/b] ]Have a look at your proposed 2006 US budget and watch the bill rise like that for the next 30 years to pay of the Republicans credit card tax bill.

Yes, the proposed 2006 budget, proposed by people who don't even know if they'll be in office then. Numbers forecasted that far in advance are sheer fantasy.

.

You your self, just a paragraph before this, did the same in bringing up your suposed budget of J. F. Kerry.

@ May 28 2004,02:12)]

Quote[/b] ]The plane fact is Republicans are weak on defense

* otherwise 9/11 would not have happened on a Republican Presidents watch

* otherwise the US would not be fighting the wrong enemy in the war on terror

* otherwise the massive costs of Republicans credit card tax bill would not be due cut veterans funding, homeland defence and the funding for the stream of defence projects that have been axed would not have gone toward a bill for a war; that has cost the US TAX payer fast aproaching 200 billion dollars and rising.

*Pardon? I thought we cleared this up- even Richard Clarke didn't go as far as to lay that charge on Bush's doorstep.

*A majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq War as well, including Kerry.

*I'm sorry, that's complete incoherence. Justify your numbers and explain how exactly cuts in government programs are costing us money..

*1 It is perfectly clear TBA were asleep on watch no if buts or may bes unless your saying 9/11 was all a dream and support the myth that Clinton was still president.

*2 Yes like me they feel TBA and TBA2 betrayed them either through lies or criminal neglegence, it matters not which on such an important subject, and like me those democrats and an army of Republicans even ones in the congress and senate are as mad as hell about it.

*3 A cost is a cost is a cost whether it is in forgone tax rebates to cover cost of the defecit or the loss of the public good your tax would normaly be spent on. It still costs you. You still have to pay no amount of tooth fairy fantasy economics will make the bill go away.

@ May 28 2004,02:12)]

Quote[/b] ]I am fully aware that fiscal proberty and strength in defense are the mythical inheritance of republicans.

Then why argue? That's all I stated. Your inability to seperate what is from what you think ought to be is the most worrying aspect of your posts..

As I said one must kill such detrimental myths they benefit only those who wish to perpetuate ignorance.

@ May 28 2004,02:12)]

Quote[/b] ]My statements on the other hand are based in verifiable fact the contrary statements are based in myth as blatantly false as the one that says the world is flat.

Parse that sentence! .

Simple My statements about US economic success under Clinton are historical fact as are the US's economic failure under both of the Bush Presidents go look at the figures.

Republicans being good for the economy is a myth. We had the same myth about the Conservatives in the UK it was just as false. Thank god the electorate have stoped believing it after 18 years of Thatcherism ran our economy into the ground we have under Labour one of the strongest economies in the world. I want to get rid of the myth as the ignorance blightes peoples lives when bad republican economics destroy the US economy.

@ May 28 2004,02:12)]

Quote[/b] ]I state quite categorically they are myths.

Every single thing I've said holds up, despite your best efforts to the contrary. Rewind to the earlier pages of this thread if you need more evidence of this.

Quote[/b] ]Sir I like a good honest intellectual debate but I am and will always remain a practical anarchist engaged in the politics of the real world you Sir are not one of those I seek to persuade. I would willingly join you in your intelectual endevour to enlighten people with reasoned argument if it were not for the one thing that the election aproaches and intend to give those who argue TBAs cause no chance to perpetuate their myths. I Sir intend to fight.

Please don't call me sir- I'm at least 5 years younger than you. As for the practical applications of what you're doing, I'd like to remind you of one thing: you are posting on an internet forum. Take that as you will- generally the only people who lend a stranger's post credence are those who already agree. The only way to change opinions here is with debate in good faith and on intellectually honest terms. The equivalent of propaganda leaflets only serves to polarize people and lower the level of exchange to one so visceral that people are unlikely to change their opinions, even when confronted with what has so consistently been shown to be The Truth â„¢.

.

Tex the debate is allready polarised that is the nature of democracy

@ May 28 2004,02:12)]

Quote[/b] ]You correctly assessed the target for persuasion of my posts is not you or any like you. That it upsets your sensibilities to see me stoop so low as to use the weapons of the republicans should not however surprise you.

This is a politics thread where political combat is joined and philosophical blood is spilt. Expect no niceties of debating etiquette in a political knife fight and consider in politics it is the one who leaves the other side of the debates in a steaming pile of their own dialectic giblets who has won.

Your prose is scintillating. However, the idea that you would simultaneously trust the electorate to make such vital decisions of import, while at the same time not trusting them to sort reality from propaganda, seems self-defeating on an epic level..

I trust people to read what they will and to enlighten themselves and see through proporganda if they see through what I write they will see it based in truth, and they will also see through the Republican myths on defence and economics so I win both ways. That is why the perpetuation of ignorance is inherently wrong. Like I said I happy either way  

@ May 28 2004,02:12)]

Quote[/b] ]Always consider Sir who it is I seek to persuade and that the goal I seek is the complete annihilation of the TBA as working political entity and that I do this because along with TBA 2 they killed tens of thousands of people including many of my and your fellow countrymen in a needless war and that in order to do that they perpetrated a lie on us all and on me personally that got me to agree to that needless war that killed those people. People who do such a thing gain my implacable political enmity.

Sir that I follow my own agenda and am as brutal as I can be are only to be expected; this is after all politics thread and TBA and TBA2 are my political enemy.

"Whomever fights monsters should take care not to become a monster himself. And when you gaze for long into the Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

A truth Sir a deep and meaningful truth.

Kind Regards and much respect walker

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]You mean as opposed to Powell calling around and running around to get people to vote "yes"?

Of course France lobbied for its position, just like America lobbied for its. And as it turns out it's too bad that America did not listen to the French position as we can clearly see that France & co accurately predicted the situation in Iraq.

I thought France was a very close ally? They did not have to actively lobby for no votes.

And neither did America to actively lobby for yes votes. Alliances and friendships are supposed to go in both directions. How much did America listen to its "close ally" France? Who started a smear campaign against their "friend"?

Quote[/b] ]That why certain people are/still boycotting french products and etc. because the french government was actively (more than the other countries that did not support it) going against are government's interest (and security(no flames, please)) by running off to Africa to get the no votes and etc.

The French position was in the interest of the people of France, the interest of world peace and stability and not to mention in the interest of the "war on terror". Do you find it so objectionable that a demcratically chosen leader (unlike Buhs, LOL) does what the people that elected him want? Not to mention that their warnings over the consequences of the war have all come true.

Today the age of "freedom fries" is over. TBA is now sweeping under the rug the Francophobia that they helped instigate (as they want and need France & co to help out in Iraq). The only remaining France-bashers are the ill-educated part of the hard right who still see the pre-war propaganda picture that was painted by Bush and his merry men.

Quote[/b] ]Only france was targeted for a boycott not the others because their government was seen has the "leader" and they were doing the actually "work".

France was targeted because it was much more convenient than saying that 80% of the world were against the US Iraq 'solution'. It was a shameless populistic act. It was so easy to portray them as Saddam loving cowards as opposed to the freedom loving brave Americans.

And this relates to the coming election big time. Bush's method of operation has been based on extremly simplistic populistic demagoguery. The big question is if the American public has got its head out of its ass to realize that brainless flag waving does little practical work for you. That "Yeeeha, let's kick some dictator ass" does not constitute a realistic foreign policy. That just posturing with flags, outdoing yourself in telling how "patriotic" you are and how "right" your cause is means shit in the real world.

If people still buy the trivial picture that Bush is painting then he will win. Form over substance. And populsim more or less always works until the point when people realize that they were screwed and that there was little behind the fancy words. Before that point people love to hear how cool their country is (and by association they too are). And this is especially easy in America where there is a widespread fetish of "patriotic imagery".

"It is our patriotic duty to support the brave men and women that fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq. It is a just cause and we will prevail. We were attacked and now we are taking the fight to the terrorists. America is the shining beacon of freedom and we will fight for it."

Sounds a lot nicer than suggesting that through a long and slow international diplomatic process some tangible results can be achieved, right?

Kerry is a big loser in that respect. He's too intellectual for the broad public to accept. If he wins it will because people are fed up with Bush and he is the only other alternative. I think he might be a good president, but he is a lousy candidate. For instance he presented a plan for national security policy. He made a list of four points and called it "the four imperatives". Bush would have probably called it the "four points for freedom liberty and justice" or something similar. Works much better with a crowd.

[Akira 0]

Republicans, by nature, are not weak on defense. Military spending always goes up under a Republican president.

Republican policy is a strong offense makes a good defense. In past years a policy of detente was the norm, but as the USSR, the only nuclear power at the time posing a threat, broke up this policy seems to have changed to direct confrontation. This is obviously a policy decision by what we lovingly refer to as "neocons," but has a basis in previous conflicts.

Take for example, Afghanistan circa-1980. While obviously having no nuclear arms, the power invading did. So in order to screw the USSR, we support under the table. Grenada comes around, and under the guise of helping psuedo-medical students, we out right invade with Marines. GW1, looking for a new enemy, we give a wishy washy reply to Iraq's question of Kuwaiti oil "theft," then blow them to hell when they invade.

All under Republican leadership.

During the following Democratic leadership, no countries are invaded. Foreign military operations are mostly under UN auspices. Clinton shows he is not soft on defense when he lobs cruise missiles into Afghanistan aimed at none other then Bin Laden.

Dubya's famous quote about lobbing million dollar cruise missiles to hit a 10 dollar tent is a direct reference to this. Instead he launches a billion dollar invasion with UN approval.

And still hits nothing.

So what does this rant mean (other than I need to cut back on the wine)? Neither party is soft on defense. Their methods of going about it are just different. Democrats, generally, get international approval. Republicans just send bigades.

Quote[/b] ]That why certain people are/still boycotting french products and etc. because the french government was actively (more than the other countries that did not support it) going against are government's interest (and security(no flames, please)) by running off to Africa to get the no votes and etc.

"Certain" people are also idiots (freedom fries anyone?). But you are right about one thing. France was against this governments interests, not the interests of America or the World. (Nothing worse than eating my earlier words )

[walker 0]

Hi Akira

I see it like this.

Republicans by nature fantsise they are good on defence it is a myth.

Spending a shed load of money on defence is like talking a good fight.

Personaly I prefer real soldiers.

It is actions not words that count in a fight. It is whether you win your wars.

Errr Vietnam lost. Errr Falujha retreat. Errr Najaff retreat. Errr Iraq mire.

Large amount of cash dont mean you win the war.

Waisting loads of money on weapon systems that dont work and are not fited to fight the kind of wars you are in does not make you good at defence; it just makes you a dumb schmuck.

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Waisting loads of money on weapon systems that dont work and are not fited to fight the kind of wars you are in does not make you good at defence; it just makes you a dumb schmuck.

Unless the weapons used, were weapons bought and designed for a completely different type of war. Since, after all, the weapons were designed to counter the USSR's perceived "quantity over quality" policy.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Kerry is a big loser in that respect. He's too intellectual for the broad public to accept. If he wins it will because people are fed up with Bush and he is the only other alternative. I think he might be a good president, but he is a lousy candidate. For instance he presented a plan for national security policy. He made a list of four points and called it "the four imperatives". Bush would have probably called it the "four points for freedom liberty and justice" or something similar. Works much better with a crowd.

The Daily Show summed it up the other night while making fun of one of Kerry's campaign ads. The ad says "After graduating from Yale, John Kerry volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam"- cut to John Stewart: "Uh, Mr. Kerry, I've got some bad news: Americans don't do nuance. You might think you're taking a veiled jab at President Bush, but all the average Joe-Sixpack is thinking is "Wait... that dick went to Yale?!"

[Schoeler 0]

I think we should export joe and jane sixpack to Europe. You Euros don't have enough hicks, rednecks or hillbillies. We've given you everything else that represents the worst our culture has to offer, why not send over gene pool pollution and ignorance too?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I think we should export joe and jane sixpack to Europe.  You Euros don't have enough hicks, rednecks or hillbillies.  We've given you everything else that represents the worst our culture has to offer, why not send over gene pool pollution and ignorance too?

And NASCAR. We should send them NASCAR too. And maybe a couple Dale Earnardt bumper stickers.